occ. submission by the department. commissioner kingsley: thank you for that information, ms. p orter. what is a realistic date? the last week in january? would that work? >> commissioner kingsley, i thought we would present reports this evening, so i did, in fact, prepare a report i submitted to the police commission last week for this week's agenda, but i was a advised that it had been put over to next week, and, again, as the chief said, these are rather rudimentary budgets, but the way i prepared the report, and i will be doing some

revisions to it, i indicated what our target was, because the department had provided their target, which was 5% for each year, as well as a 1% staff reduction per year for five years, so 5% staff reduction, and in that report, i did point out what little discretionary money the occ had, which means that any cuts had to come from personnel, because there is nothing else to cut other than personnel, and the positions are filled, so it would require layoffs, and as the deputy city attorney porter indicated, it has been in the past that before they submitted their budgets to the controller, the

police commission has a look, and i cannot remember off of the top of my head, but i think the latest that we have submitted has been in february. probably the latest, mid february. president mazzucco: so what we should do is submit this earlier. i agree with commissioner kingsley. we could move forward with the occ presentation. >> did you speak up, please? -- could you speak up, please? president mazzucco: this would give us time. commissioners, the second week in february for the police department, and in the next weeks for the occ? >> is there a date?

>> i think the departments would know that. >> as long as the second week of figurines is before it is submitted. -- the second week of february is before it is submitted. >> i am happy to look and that and see. individuals may be can get that information. president mazzucco: in the event that we have to expedite back -- back, -- that, it is human resources, not buildings, so we have to look at that. commissioners, anything further? great. any public comment? any public comment?

that is what i said, public comment. secretary lt. falvey: public comment on items 4 a, b, c, and d. >> i would just like to comment on items for future commission meetings. we have items related to donations, the amount of police in golden gate park, and also a resolution to upgrade the maritime police force. making a boat not bulletproof but explosion proof. i have not gotten any accountability relative to the

grant that was given to them 15 years ago or accountability of where the money went, and two, i did my own inventory on what was bought. they have half of that still in their supply, and half of those are not new. there is no accountability. coming back to the maritime situation, i am out on the bay almost every day. i watched the coast guard and the homeland security and the sfpd just crews back and forth. it seems that we have an oversupply. i am not saying they do not do anything, but now we want to spend money to make them explosion proof. i do not know if that is needed, and we still have a budget in this city which is going to be

three times the deficit of last year, and i think that this should be taken into consideration with this commission that costs should be controlled. even in the police department. we still have an exploding pension situation, things that are not necessary, and i am going to get a copy of the police chairman mirkarimi that mr. hennessy never gave me relative for the cost of tasers that we have yet to what that that will come up again this year, so i just want to bring up to this commission that there are a lot of costs that should be talked about and not just rubberstamp and saying it is ok -- not just rubber-stamped.

where is the money? i think you for your time. president mazzucco: thank you. anymore public comment on line items -- anymor more public, and online items 4 a, b, c, 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