president mazzucco: vice-

president marshall you have a quorum. >> could you identify yourself for the record? >> appearing on behalf of the san francisco police department. take five minutes and you can reserve it you want. >> i do not think i will need to take the entire time. the department filed a penalty statement on june 25, 2012. it is our position that at officer commissioner turmatach'n should be revoked. tachihara is either confused about what his role is as a patrol officer. he has an unreasonable belief that he is in fact a peace

officer and i do not know if that stems from his work in washington, d.c. 45 years ago but i think that his conduct, i think the impression he gives to innocent members of the public, whether it be business owners, everyday citizens, he places people in this community in danger by his conduct and by his behavior. i think when you sign to bank documents under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact you are a peace officer and that is a lie, you have forfeited your right to work as an assistant officer in the city and county of san francisco. the fact that the commission has sustained three of the four specifications speaks to the evidence presented by the department in regards to officer tachihara's conduct and the conduct is a very serious and merits the revocation of his

appointment. he has left this department no other option but to terminate his employment. his conduct places everybody in danger for what he does and how he acts. in regards to the prior case, as you know, it actually took place in december of 2010. this case took place between september and october of 2010. however there was a a determination not to file charges until january 2012. the investigation was ongoing during that time. hence the reason this case is now being adjudicated after the fact. i think what is important to note for this commission is that the conduct alone warrant revocation of tachihara's

appointment as a patrol special officer. you do not get to lie on those applications and mislead people into thinking you are a peace officer when you are not a peace officer. the rules state you are not a peace officer and the penal code does not define u.s. has. his appointments should be revoked -- define you as such. his appointment should be revoked. >> he is disappointed in your findings but we have to do with the penalty issues. when you are faced with the recommendation for revocation, i think there is a distinction. she keeps saying he does not know he is not a peace officer but you do not have any evidence of that. one thing that may have been misunderstood is that when he

went, at the time he went to the city in uniform was not this transaction. when he went to do this transaction he was in civilian clothes. he was not passively or actively trying to misrepresent himself. he was always in the appropriate uniform with the right patches and everything else. his identification identifies himself as a patrol special. one of the things i mentioned before, this other issue is, is see misrepresenting himself? i want to remind you of an argument i made, for some reason although it seems to be a big deal he went to a gunshot, for some reason the lieutenant went to a gun shop but never went to the specialist

themselves. the rules talk about the weapons they are entitled to have. it does not say anything about on list or off list weapons. they can have a semi-automatic pistol. the evidence shows it is an anomaly in the law. it is actually unlawful for the weapon to be sold, not for him to own a weapon because that testimony is the department knows he uses the weapon. he qualifies at the range with these weapons. he is entitled to use them. the point she is making that would be evidence of official conduct, out of him misrepresenting himself by his confusion that he is not a peace officer. i do not think there is evidence of that. to revoke you would have to make a finding that he is completely incapable of not misidentifying

himself, that he is a danger. i do not think there is any evidence of that. i want to reiterate that i now and i believe that this might have been vice-president marshall's concern, and it is something we are entitled to talk about, it is a legitimate issue to talk about progressive discipline and did people learn from what they did before, reminding this panel that as she indicated, these allegations predate any of the other allegations. there really is no issue of, you have already been disciplined. you are supposed to be paying attention to the rules. i do not think there is evidence that he misunderstood the rules because he is following the interim rules and they do not talk about that. he is always in the appropriate

uniform. there is no evidence of him misrepresenting himself. i understand the votes you took on the obligation he has to disabuse other people of the notion that he may be a police officer but we do not have testimony of that. there was, clearly the mistake he made, but you have to end his career? is his conduct so egregious you need to be concerned he is going to go on the street and somehow violate the rules again or put the community in danger, to put a police department in danger, i do not think there is evidence of that. we would urge you to impose a penalty short of revocation. >> thank you. is there any deliberation?

>> i wanted to say for the purpose of our deliberation that the specification we sustained 1, 3, and 4 are serious enough in and of themselves to warrant termination and we do not need to include the other case he has in the decision that we make. certainly we know about it but it is not something that we need to include into our decision. i would move to terminate. >> second perio -- second. >> excuse me, a move to revoke as a patrol specialist. >> and i second it. president mazzucco: i will take a vote on the motion. >> i want to see if there is any

further discussion. >> i have nothing else to add. i am mindful of the things that mr. silver said and i appreciate his advocacy. i am, however, in full and total agreement with my fellow commissioner that the specifications 1, 3, and four are serious enough for us to consider whether or not we need to revoke mr. tachihara appointment. i am also mindful of that and i believe it is appropriate and the fact that the other incidents may be considered here.

i do not need to consider them but i think they are also illustrate of -- illustrative of another issue. the totality is troubling to me and i am appointed for a specific purpose. that purpose is to ensure public safety. i am concerned of the tubing incident -- two incidents that they form a public safety issue. i do not want to and anybody career but there are larger considerations to think about. >> i have to say, i also appreciate your arguments and i believe in progressive

discipline but i am aware of other incidents where they were not supposed to follow a car, pull people out of the car, and even if it proceeds it, he may not have done it in uniform but he has been in the store in uniform and you're on papers say they make an assumption he was a police officer. i believe that is accurate. he led them to believe that he was a police officer and he did not dissuade them from that and he signed documents that indicated he was a peace officer, by mistake or not, it is very serious. and i agree it is serious in and of itself. i appreciate what you said, i think the penalty is very

serious. commissioner loftus: i reviewed the prior incident because it was in the packet but i feel like i can say that given the timing and all of that was not a factor, it was not the largest factor in my determination. i think this is a case for revocation. what is really important is anyone who potentially carries a gun, anyone, you see the list of things it patrol special has, handcuffs, a baton, has to have unimpeachable, unassailable credibility. we talk about that. people feeling safe. i think we have an obligation to look at really what happens. what we have is a patrol special

who is not authorized as a peace officer. does not have that status. attempting to, based on the specifications, represent themselves by word or by deed as a peace officer to get a glock 15 rounds. if you looked at the guns, i agree with strong advocacy on behalf of mr. silver but the facts are not in your favor. it is very clear what guns that are able to have. it is like a .38 and .357 magnum. i think the risk to get a weapon at the regular public cannot get is serious enough to warrant termination.

>> if i might. to clarify the motion as i understood it. based upon the fact that the current -- vice president marshall: aye. commissioner dejesus: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner turman: aye. commissioner loftus: aye. president mazzucco: motion passes, 5-0. >> i need to talk to the city attorney but there are

instructions about the appointment. that is what we will do. we will ask the department to carry out the paperwork based on the vote this evening. >> [inaudible] >> we would expect the department to prepare findings based on our vote this evening pursuant to the timeline set forward in our rules, the closing council as well of the city attorney. is that right?

and i guess we schedule it for another day. how far in advance? >> it will come back to the commission probably in six weeks or so. >> does that mean if we revoke the appointment that he cannot work his beat? >> your decision is finalized. the revocation of the appointment. all we're talking about is written findings to explain the decision consistent with your discussion. but the decision is final as of now. >> on behalf of mr. tachihara, [inaudible]

>> your secretary will calendar the matter. >> ok. thank you. president mazzucco: the matter is concluded. i call line item number7. public comment on all matters pertaining to item nine. closed session, including public comment on a vote whether to hold item nine in closed session. ladies and gentlemen, going into closed session, any public comment? any public comment on this item? on number seven? yes, sir.

>> hello, commissioners. i wanted to make sure, sometimes these are routine and i wanted to make sure we are actually deciding this matter based upon not to the fact there is a criminal case decided on misconduct but whether we can reveal information regarding the settlements. inspection 67 says we can only have these matters in closed session when it would likely prejudiced the city. i want to make sure that will actually be happening tonight in closed session. if not, i would appreciate it if it were open. president mazzucco: further public comment? item number8.

>> whether to hold item nine in closed session, including whether to assert the attorney- client privilege with regard to item 9 a and b. >> before you take the vote, i want to see if the city attorney had a response to that question as it pertained to item 8? >> i do not have the actual ordinance but i believe all is necessary is for the commission to decide to assert the attorney-client privilege. i think it has to do with whether you identify the case in name itself in the agenda. sometimes when the city is considering litigation, for example, or it has not been served, you would not identify the name of the case or the parties that are involved in order to maintain a litigation position. i do not believe there is any

basis for not going into closed session based on the argument that was identified in the public comment. president mazzucco: we have a motion to move into closed session? >> so moved. president mazzucco: we will move into closed session.