bulletin stacks >> i will get them for you. commissioner turman: thank you, chief. >> those department bulletins are issued by the chief of police. commissioner turman: i understood that. you certainly have seen them. >> yes, i have. commissioner turman: at the tail end of your report, you said something about the suit policy? >> pursuit. commissioner turman: that makes sense, thank you. >> you are welcome. vice president marshall: director hicks, i am moved by a couple of datapoint.

102 last pending cases is a measure of your ability to clear cases, rather than getting more or less complaints. it looks as though there is another significant drop in the number of complaints we have gotten, year to date. 30 last year, and 90 two years ago. is that correct? >> it is correct the pending cases are attributable to investigators moving the cases, as well as the complaint filed continuing to drop. what happens is when investigators have an extremely high caseload, it is harder to close cases. or when crisis -- when cases are closed, they may be closed with not as thorough an investigation as they needed to get. vice president marshall: what assists me -- indulge me as the

new commissioner. what assists me in addressing my concern, or my happiness -- if there are less complaints coming in, if the community knows that can go to occ -- it appears you are out in the community, and people are aware, and we are seeing a drop in compliance. my question would be what you attribute that to. gd>> i attribute it to several factors. one, we addressed in our annual report. nationally, complaints seem to be going down, but our seem to be going down at a greater pace than in some other

jurisdictions. the community policing is being implemented here in san francisco. that can be an attribute that causes people to file less complaints. officers could be better trained. that could be attributed. and we are, as you mentioned, doing outreach. the community knows that we exist. we did implement a customer satisfaction survey for our complainants. we have not assess the results of that yet, because we are waiting to get a graduate student to do that for us. we are working with the goldman

school of public policy. we put in a bid, but it was too late this year, and we did not get a graduate student. we hope to get one to assess whether the occ is doing everything it can to provide a corporate customer service to complainants. there are a lot of factors. i do not have an answer. there are certainly many factors where the department could be doing a much better job. commissioner loftus: that would be good news. what you say, chief? objection, leading question? if that is the conclusion, i think that is a great one. if there are things we can support the chief in doing -- he is doing a great job of working

with you on progressive discipline. that is definitely what we want. it looks as if there is almost a 50% drop of cases being sustained in the past year. what would that be caused by? >> something i've pointed out earlier was the failure to collect traffic stop data. the neglect of duty dropped off. officers are collecting traffic stop data. when we get complaints, we investigate. in some incidents, but it has always been the case, there simply is insufficient evidence that we have found against the officer or that we have found

for the officer. i am very hopeful that with reduced caseloads, our continued training, that we will be able to make a greater percentage of findings due to proper conduct, or unfounded. commissioner loftus: that is another win, given the ongoing concerns about data and issues of race that have come up. it was a commitment of this commission to make sure that officers are tracking that data. if there has been a commitment to changing that conduct, that is another success. i think i brought this up before. i am trying to get a handle on how much of an issue excessive force is in this department. i recall at one point being told that less than 10% of all complaints that are launched are excessive use of force, and 2%

are sustained. that piece of tape that is helpful. we sometimes hear there might be a greater problem out there. is that your data? >> you are correct with both of those figures. in terms of the total number of allegations, it is what unnecessary force allegations represent. commissioner loftus: i am going to double down on that question. is there any chance that you have a sense of how that compares to other cities, nationwide? because that seems low to me, but it might not be. >> commissioner, i do not have an answer. however, we will make sure that in our next annual report, we

will get that information for you. commissioner loftus: thank you. commissioner chan: i noticed the policy making recommendations have been updated. i want to ask about the use of pass keys. it looks like these identify the lawful circumstances in which an officer can gain entry to a hotel room. constitutional requirements must be met, and consent in writing is needed. is there a discussion in what the chief things about turning this into a department general order? when they pass key controversy

occurred, it was definitely something that caught my interest, something we might want to address as a body, perhaps at the time it is a flaring issue. >> i wrote the bulletin. the reminder was, citing the case law, where the protections to a personal residence are extended, whether by proxy or pass key, that would still be forced entry, or entry other than allowed by the resident. they were in concert with the department, and also got input from the public defender's office, because he ahead considered the policy. we arrived at this in a discussion. it seemed to be the perfect time

to make everything come together. we put out a bulletin. it was well received. commissioner chan: when was it issued? chief suhr: about six weeks ago. commissioner chan: i know this is a long process, but was there a discussion about turning this into a general order? chief suhr: i am happy to report it, but it is constitutional protection. it was a training failure, but it is standing constitutional law, which supersedes our general orders. commissioner chan: does it restate the law, or is there additional protection? obtaining consent in writing might be additional protection that would be a change to our general order. chief suhr: that is a different policy that in all consent

surges, permission in writing has to be obtained. commissioner chan: it would be useful to look at the bulletin and see whether it is something we want to recommend. thank you. that was the only question. president mazzucco: anything further for the director? thank you very much. item 2c, please. >> commission presidents reports. vice president marshall: the president has nothing to report, because he is not here. commissioner kingsley: i went to the central district station program from 5:00 to 8:00. i arrived a little after 7:00. it was at the academy of arts.

interesting venue. very hospitable. must have been a very efficient program, because they were already wrapping it up. i actually missed the highlights of it. but i understand the attendance was about 80. the folks were pleased with the turnout. that is all i have to report. commissioner chan: i also went to national night out. i went to the caravels station -- the taravel station , the park by the freeway. it is a community i do not go to very often, so it was great to go there. the turnout was really big. they have lots of food, a long line of families for the barbecue, and there was a jumping castle. there was a deejay. there was a basketball game.

it was really lively. it was exciting to see a whole community out there, and very diverse. african american and asian were the predominant attendees. it was great to see. the chief already touched on this. i have been getting a lot of media calls about the incorrect reporting of arrest rates for latinos and asians. i should print out a hard copy, in case you have not seen it. just to let you know, i have been getting calls from the asian press in particular. the question was about asians being categorized as other. latinos are being categorized as white. i am glad the chief came prepared and is going to set this as an agenda item for september 5. i think there will be strong interest from the media in hearing the report. i think that is it for me.

vice president marshall: let us move to item 2d. >> commission announcements of scheduling for future commission meetings. we had two announcements. next week, we will meet here on the 22nd. but on august 29, the commission will hold a special meeting in the central district. let me see if i can find the address. vice president marshall: say the date one more time. >> august 29. it will be held at the central district, at the gordon low elementary school. that is august 29, 6:00 p.m.

vice president marshall: any further announcements? commissioner loftus: i am sorry. i am probably doing this at the wrong time. but something we get, since the public is here and this is televised, in some of the department bulletins. i was excited to see the investigation of elder abuse, going into that crime and how the police department can investigate crimes against vulnerable victims. it was really well done. i had time doing elder abuse in the d.a.'s office. it is important. i like the way you noted these are vulnerable individuals, and gave officers tools to look for. my sense from the community is that our seniors are getting ripped off. i do not have the data supports. but it is at high rates. i am glad the department is responding, building cases that

will stand up in court. that is all i wanted to say. vice president marshall: anything else? commissioner chan: i have a question. i am being reminded by the policy recommendations about the ideas that we put off about driving and use of force. i am wondering if we have that on our calendar. it is 2 your department general orders that are almost ready. september 12? thank you. vice president marshall: i thing next week, we have another disciplinary case. is that correct? i just wanted to make sure. we will take public comment on the items 2 a, b, c, and d.

none? all right. if you want to say something tonight, you better. >> sorry for my tardiness. it has been a rough week. tough. i read all the papers today, all this stuff about under reporting the asian and latino crimes. i read the article of one4 the officers -- i do not want to get into it. my facebook page has like 400 >> . you know something? -- by 400 clicks. you know something? there is always somebody in the group that wants to start it up. there is somebody on the inside.

have some fun with it. you have a good day. vice president marshall: further public comment? hearing none, of public comment is closed. let us call, out of order, item number four. >> public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session, including public comment on the choice to hold the item in closed session. vice president marshall: any public comment? hearing none, item five. >> whether to hold a closed session, and whether to assert attorney-client privilege. vice president marshall: commissioners, my thought was to get the item in closed session out of the way. the attorneys can leave. you can leave.

then we will come back to pick item three. -- to take item three. without objection, we will vice president marshall: -- president mazzucco: we are back in open session. [roll is called] >> you have a quorum. i can 7, vote to elect -- itunes 7 -- item 7, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on the items held in closed session. president mazzucco: moved not to

disclose. please call item north 3. >> hearing on motions and disciplinary charges filed against inspector frank lee, file number kmoc10-032. possible discussion and action to sustain or not sustain disciplinary charges. possible discussion and action to decide penalty, if necessary. >> i am from the department. >> i am inspector frankly, representing myself. -- frank lee, representing myself. vice president marshall: this hearing is being held in open

session. is that ok with you? >> yes. vice president marshall: secondly, the commission have read all the transcripts in this case. >> commissioners? commissioner chan: yes, i did. commissioner kingsley: yes. commissioner turman: yes. commissioner loftus: yes. vice president marshall: yes. my understanding is we have a couple of motions to decide first. >> one of the first motions is the motions filed -- vice president marshall: i will give you five minutes to talk about the motion. just say what the motions are, and then i will talk about how

we are going to proceed. >> the first motion is part of the record. the second is the motion to review and correct the hearing transcript. the third is the motion to dismiss the final specification. vice president marshall: let us go into closed session and rule on those, and then come back on the motion to dismiss. >> the first is the motion to include sergeant devlin's interviews as part of the record. they are attorneys -- their attorneys of record -- mr. taylor, who was representing me at the time, had agreed that the internal affairs interviews would be exhibits in this case. that is part of the hearing transcript that you guys had, and it is part of the motion i

filed. all the investigative interviews are relevant in this case. the case rests on the credibility of the witnesses against me. the goal here is to find the truth. there should be transparency, and a complete record of the case file. also, i have been a police inspector since 1999. i took care of case files. i included every interview, every piece of paper. i did not pick and choose. i want you as the commissioners to have a complete record of the entire case. the second one is the motion to review and correct the hearing transcripts. on the february 29 hearing, i found 21 errors. i was able to file correction sheets on that. i want to make sure the commissioners do not make a decision that i know you, dr.

marshall, were the hearing officer, but the rest of the commissioners could be facing an important decision on the transcripts. i want to make sure that are accurate. i suggest the audio recordings be released, so i can compare them to the transcripts. my goal is for accuracy. the he is trying to fight me on this, but i think it is important. that is why i put it in the motion. i requested audio recordings, so they can be compared, or so i can send them to another transcriber to have them transcribed again. those are the emotions. -- the motions. >> with respect to both of these motions, i would point out that both of these matters were decided by commissioner marshall during the proceedings

in this case. the department's position is we think commissioner marshall got both decisions right and the commission should stick with the decisions on both of these issues. with respect to the issue of adding additional exhibits, transcripts of interviews, the department position has been that both sides have -- had ample opportunity to introduce items during the trial. many of them more. for whatever reason, inspector lee and his council chose not to mark all of the interviews he would now like to have admitted. given ample opportunity earlier, we think the time for doing that is now closed. if we were to allow their record to be reopened to admit more exhibits, that would be a poor precedent to set. there are other things the department would like to present as well that our council did not present during the trial, but we recognize we are foreclosed from that.

if that motion is granted, there might be other things the department would like to note as well. probably, we would have to take a break and have this matter come back another night, commissioners could read the material. with respect to editing the transcripts from the trial, our position is simply that we higher court reporters in order to make accurate transcripts. we are all bound by those. members of the commission or attorneys have had the experience of reading a transcript and thinking it was not exactly what they thought happened, but that is our process. we have a neutral third-party make the transcript, and for good reason. it would be an unfortunate precedent if we started editing the transcript, particularly if we allowed the parties to edit the transcripts of testimony by other witnesses. we do not have objections to the inspector presenting what he believes are the errors with regards to his own testimony.

the commission can take those are not, depending on how they look at those at its. that is not uncommon in a civil context. we think that is a fair compromise. i believe that is what commissioner marshall decided we ought to do in this case. thank you. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. vice president marshall: questions for either party? >> it looks like there is a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. are we hearing that also? vice president marshall: i want to do these first. if there is nothing else, we will go into closed session and rule on these, and we will call >> commissioners chan, kin gsley, and turman.

>> inspector frank lee, representing himself. >> the motion to request 13 additional investigative interviews is denied by a vote of 5-0. the second motion, to review and correct the hearing transcripts, is denied by a vote of 5-0. we just want to note that the commission has received the errata sheet. we will proceed to the next motion, the motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. you have five minutes, inspector lee. >> i submitted this motion to dismiss the charges, based on the fact that this case did not rise to the level of preponderance of evidence. that is one of the reasons why i submitted it.

basically, this case stems from the fact that i had to fight to get into the homicide unit, and i complained publicly to the police commission, and made several appearances before the police commission, and complained about the homicide interview process. chief fong, right before she retired, finally let me in. i became the first asian- american homicide inspector in the san francisco police department. i filed a petition with 406 signatures, supporting my efforts to get into the homicide detail, basically complaining that the interview process was unfair. from the moment i set foot in the homicide detail, there was no welcome mat. the lieutenants of the unit were resentful. they were upset that i had gotten into he