d? seeing none, next item. secretary lt. falvey: item number five, a discussion and possible action to recommend that the board of supervisors adopt resolution authorizing the chief of police to retroactively accept and expend $73,000. this is an action item. president mazzucco: this does patrol the bay. it is homeland security issues. there is a lot you are doing out there with the coast guard, so briefly. >> i would just touch briefly on what we turn in annually, as we have done for the past couple of years, to ask for this grant, specifically, and listed in there are some of the duties that we do take upon us, including a seven-day-week patrol.

we are responsible for boating safety enforcement, including search and rescue and recovery of drowned bodies. regulating the boating activities and inspecting of the boats in the marinas. accidents. the supervision of organized water events, and there are more recent events permits issued here than anywhere else. we do underwater inspection of international movement cargo ships. we operate with another division on doing underwater hazards devise mitigation, underwater evidence recovery, part of the u.s. coast guard operation and infrastructure patrols, escorts of high-interest vessels, including cruise ships that come into port in san francisco, mitigation, and we also operate

as a national -- natural disaster platform. we do where a lot of hats. we do perform many duties out there on the bay in addition to standard patrol. although there is seen to be an overlap with the others that operate in the county waters, we are specifically focused on enforcing a state and local laws, which are not the responsibility or focus of the federal government or the u.s. coast guard. president mazzucco: thank you, sargeant. i did not plan to have you talk about that, but i think it is good for us that people to hear. >> the america's cup trials and and the rays, which raised -- the america's cup trials and the

race, it is over sometime, and these guys do a great job. president mazzucco: anything before the commission votes on this? hearing none, all in favor? thanks very much, sargeant. your explanation was great. secretary lt. falvey: item 6, a discussion and possible action to accept, reject, or take other action on the proposed stipulated disposition of disciplinary charges filed against assistant patrol special officer ernest tachihara. president mazzucco: this is for commissioner kingsley, so i will turn over the gavel to commissioner kingsley. commissioner kingsley: good evening. would you kindly for the record

make your appearances? >> appearing on behalf of the san francisco police department. >> officer tachihara, star number -- commissioner kingsley: a number of commissioners wanted to see a stipulated agreement or see if it was possible, and we understood that there had been two attempts previously that did not work out, and i understand that something was written, but none of us have seen a document signed yet by assistant patrol special officer tachihara. >> we came to an agreement with officer tachihara, and i mailed

back to the officer and others. i spoke with a special patrol officer yesterday, and he had a question regarding the termination being held in abeyance, and so he indicated that he wanted to post those -- pose those questions to the commission. we are just waiting for the assistant patrol special officer tachihara's signed paper. commissioner kingsley: what we did not have was his signature. >> it was my understanding he had one question. commissioner kingsley: thank you. assisted latroy special officer -- assistant patrol special officer tachihara. >> this was in abeyance.

only one charged. number one, which i have admitted far, and i just think that that -- which i have admitted fault. for three years. as far as the other penalty, the suspension and the remainder held in abeyance, that is perfectly acceptable, and i just want to question whether that was -- commissioner kingsley: chief, did you have a comment? >> yes. the agreement that we struck is that your position, the things as alleged, would never happen again, so we believed if they did not happen in three years, that would be good enough. >> the reason i brought this up is that i was led to believe that anything that happens to me, if it is only in reference to the existing charges, then i

agree with it, and the other item is, and i bring in that now because i talked to the attorney, the suspension. it says forthwith, but she says if i brought it up to you, i would ask for a postponement until the 11th, if that is ok with you. commissioner kingsley: ok, we hear your request for that. can we hold that to decide for a moment? perhaps, miss, if you take the lead on this, if you could, for the record, articulate the terms of the stipulated agreement? thank you. >> at this time, the remaining specifications would be dismissed and in exchange for that, a 15 day

suspension would be imposed with three days served and 12 days held in advance for three years. revocation and termination of his appointment held in abeyance. at anand an order he abide by the interim rules for the patrol special officers and the system -- assistant special patrol -- patrol officers that was adopted. >> do you understand the terms of this stipulated agreement? you are self representing. >> i do. >> thank you. at this time, do the other commissioners have any questions for either party? >> we do have a signed agreement that represents the signature. >> thank you.

at this point, commissioners, what is before us is whether or not to agree and to approve the stipulated agreement and would entertain any questions that you have four comments. -- have or comments. >> all in favor? >> we need to have public comment first. we called for comment on december 7 but not this evening. >> call for public comment? >> public comment regarding the disciplinary matter?

public comment is now closed. >> before we take our vote on this, are we doing similar votes of each commissioner as we do in closed session? are we doing this as a resolution about -- vote on other matters? >> either we would be acceptable. >> either way is ok. >> before we do so we have to go through with officer tashihara if he understands the right he is about to wave. >> i have a couple of questions i would like to ask assistant patrol special officer ernest tachihara. your understanding of the dismissal, in particular specifications no. 2 and 3. i have concerns around the dismissal of those to

specifications. i am concerned of your understanding of the dismissal. that the way you will take it is that there was no wrongdoing and that it was the actions that you check that evening in terms of pursuing the person you are pursuing and following that person for several blocks in the wrong direction. and then stopping the vehicle and the actions that preceded in terms of turning on the light, having the people get out of the car, dropping the keys, the pat down, and so on. all those things i view, i am speaking myself as an individual commissioner, as violations of our special rules.

because no harm came to anybody that evening is a blessing all round. i am sure that you have pointed out and we have heard that you attribute that to your actions. i am concerned that if things had not gone well, it could have been two people that -- yourself and the driver of the other vehicle that created an extraordinary hazard. my concern here is that you will walk away with the stipulated agreement with the belief that the commission, the chief believed those actions were appropriate and justified. that is not my interpretation. i believe that those were

inappropriate actions. i want to hear where you are coming from in terms of the specifications in particular. i have concerns around how you are reading and interpreting the special world -- rule and how thehow they apply. you have had experience in washington, d.c. and you carry that experience with you and make judgments in part based on that. >> manna answer now? >-- may i answer now? commissioner kingsley: please. >> i am under no illusion that i am 110% right under the eyes of you and some of the other commissioners. i would take this position.

as far as i'm concerned, i feel that i was not in error. i was correct what i did. however, in reviewing the situation, what has happened, i could assure you that i was on the side of taking the high road, so speak. i will not in any way have any repeat of this under any circumstances. you can be assured i will not follow anybody. i will not make any attempt to help anybody, stop anybody for any reason. i will take literally that i am a citizen. i either get on my cell phone or my radio under all circumstances. i am not under the delusion that because of this i can go out there and do whatever i want to do. i do want to take clear to you that on that night, i feel i was doing the right thing and i did what i did and all the actions on everybody else's behalf is

based upon what i said in the report. having said that, i accept your point of view. i will take the high road. commissioner terman: so if i understand you correctly, you are entering into this agreement but you believe you did that night was correct. you will not do it again, is that what you are telling us? >> i believe my actions and the coachman gold of what was achieved was correct -- the ultimate goal was achieved was correct. there are other options available. i will seek to take the high road and not have any appearance or peak of this at all. -- repeat of this alt all. >> do we have a motion and second? commissioner kingsley: we are

moving to the second part of this. assistant patrol special officer ernest tachihara, it did understand -- indicate you understood the context -- contents of the agreement. have you had a chance to seek legal counsel? >> aye reference is -- i referenced it as no. i am seeking an attorney for another matter. i did have an opportunity to talk to -- and she explained. the chief was able to explain to me in clarity. i accept it. commissioner kingsley: would like to have the opportunity to in depend -- obtain independent legal counsel before entering into this agreement? again that is under -- if it is approved. if the agreement is approved by the commission. would you like to have some

additional time for independent legal counsel, aside from ms. worshim and the chief? >> i can accept what the chief says. commissioner terman: i have a concern here. you -- do you need to read this disposition and not rely on the chief and ms. worsham, do you need to read this and agree with that? >> it is my understanding that by accepting this agreement, number one, i am accepting guilt. two through six are dropped. over also, termination and

revocation of my position for three years if any of these offenses are committed again. is that correct? commissioner terman: correct. tell me what your understanding of the a term held in abeyance means? >> if this were to resurface in three years i could be tried for it and penalized and also the two things mentioned held in abeyance could be thrown on top. that is for these six items. commissioner terman: a want to make sure you understand, that is all. commissioner chan: one point of clarification. you had mentioned 10 days. the agreement says 15. three days served, 12 days held. just to clarify. >> yes. commissioner chan: that is it. >> the only question i have is who knows what happens and if there could be a new allegation.

commissioner terman: i know one thing. if any of this repeats itself, one thing will happen. you are terminated. do you understand that? >> if i am proven guilty and i am charged, i understand that. i do wish to say that by you pointing out that way, you are kind of being prejudicial in saying that. commissioner terman: if it happens, then you are terminated. do you understand that? >> 26 items, yes, i do. commissioner ckingsley: do you read this as being lechler? commissioner terman: i understand i want to make sure that officer tachihara understands.

president mazzucco: have been patient with where you have been doing and i think other commissioners have been also. your problem is you play in a gray area. and your problem is when you're asked a question about do you understand this, i do, and i know you do. you have had negotiations represented by counsel at one point and you have looked at this agreement. there has been a lot of work and effort and you have had time to digest it and it is relatively simple. you cannot give a straight answer. when you're asked a question, or you a police officer in washington, d.c., you draw the proverbial fog ball. yes i was and this is when i served, and this had better be

the truth. the car you have in that last answer that you do not have. for some strange reason your car mimics the car of the undercover car. same color, the same number of light -- antennas. you had better be careful. >> i gave you prove to which is my vehicle so you can make positive identification. i am not in violation. as far as why i am not -- i appear to be evasive, you have got to understand when the commission and the chief of police make these agreements with the attorney, i want to make sure at understand it and i do understand it except for that one point. you say you hold in abeyance, is it for anything i do or it is these six things. i did not understand that. i thought it was for anything

and everything i do for the rest of my life. having been made clear that, i accept it. there is no unclearness. i understand everything. president mazzucco: you have had a hearing. you have already had a hearing. this is why you were given a call. your due process rights. commissioner kingsley sadr hearing with you. evidence was presented. this entire trial was read. we can move on and go on what we think should be the disposition. are you clear about that? >> i am. everything is up to you. i have told the truth. i have not lied. i leave it up to you. if you -- whatever you want to do. president mazzucco: we have an option. we could reject the disposition and vote on the evidence presented to us.

>> that is why there is a motion on the floor to accept the disposition. that is our first step. that motion is on the floor at that time -- this time. i do -- >> [inaudible] i am fine with accepting this disposition. commissioner kingsley: i don't think -- commissioner terman: if he does not understand he needs to say he does not understand. we will know that. commissioner kingsley: i have a few concerns. i'm not voting in favor of the agreed stipulation. i know that some commissioners did want that. i thought that certainly if commissioners wanted to have the parties make an attempt to do that, they should.

what concerns me around this situation is the fact that i do not think it is terribly clear, the language, in terms of what is held in advance. if there would be a termination if something -- it is ambiguous in terms of what that would be. and the guilt or not guilty on exactly what charges. excuse me. just a minute. the other part of this that concerns me is the communication disconnect. i do not believe and after hearing what assistant patrol special officer ernest tachihara said tonight, i believe that a vote in favor of the stipulated agreement sends a message to him and a message he in turn is going to take out to his colleagues. these charges, two and three in particular as well as six

concern me. these charges were dismissed against him. that is the way the agreement raids. i find that problematic. >> this is the language we used. this is no different than any -- the question is, i understand the second concern about this language cannot be any clearer. this is what we put in all the agreements. the language is not going to change. i had concerns in the beginning. we could take a vote. commissioner chan: i want to say where based on this discussion where we are. it seems like there are -- there is not full acceptance of the stipulation. there is some acceptance.

i would entertain the idea of moving to discussion after we discuss the stipulation. we vote to sustain or not sustain certain charges so it is clear what the commission's decision is. just to let you know where i am. commissioner kingsley: all we ready for a call votes at this time -- are we ready for a call of votes at this time? call the roll. >> commission president thomas mazzucco? >> no,. . motion fails, 0-5. >> we have to move into the charging document.

>> starting with our president. have you read -- did we do this on december 7? we did this? we can go into specification by specification vote. assistant patrol special officer ernest tachihara, at this point the commission will go through each one of the specifications and vote and have discussion perhaps on each item as to whether or not there is fault or not. do you have any questions as to how we're going to proceed at this point? thank you. as to specification #onenumber , breaking of rules and procedures for special patrol officers with regard to a solid forward facing

red light. is there any discussion? is there a move? there is a motion to sustain. is there a second? there's a second. >> do you want to do all the motions at once? one at a time? on specification #one. modifying a duty vehicle by adding additional lighting. we have a motion by dr. marshall. a second by commissioner mazzucco. commissioner mazzucco? >> aye. >> dr. marshall. vice president marshal

rec specification #two. that he engaged in a pursuit in violation of the interim rules and procedures for patrol special officers and their assistants. do i have a motion on specification #2? >> second. >> on specification #two. how do about? president mazzucco: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner terman: aye. commissioner chkingsley: engaging in a