ordinance, they he violated the law at least six different ways before they finally said, oh, well this paper is exempt from disclosure. the good thing about it is what they told me, which turned out to be dishonest, they also told a deputy city attorney when i petitioned the supervisor records for release of the information. i think it's disgraceful that police officers, in a legal division, will not follow the law. the simple fact that you want to hunker down and ignore the fact you have an obligation under state and local law is unacceptable. >> thank you. next speaker. >> so i was talking with the chief off line because i wanted to make it as transparent as possible to the public since there is public concern about what's been done between the last time we had a taser report and now, so i

defer to the chief on this. >> so the 90 day -- the resolution passed prior to me becoming chief was that there be a 90 day working group, if you will, between the occ, the commission, and the police department, to gather all the other less lethal options in addition to taser, and to try and arrive at a policy by which less lethal option could be adopted, or considered. so the data that we're speaking of is a compilation done by commander ali of all the other less lethal options that other police departments use in addition to the taser which is open source information, and then a draft policy that's a compilation of other police department's taser policies with the addition of there was a doctor that spoke here from ucsf that suggest that certain cautions be included. that is also

incorporated into the draft policy. the third piece of information is a schedule of dates that i would be available for public meetings that are not the -- the only public meetings that can happen. those are just the ones that i -- and i may be able to make additional meetings but those are the ones. so that's the depth and breadth of the information that's here. right now, i only unfortunately have hard copies of it but i'm happy to make it available to the public through the police commission, if you would just give us a little bit of time. i can, without the list of other options, again, those are available on line, they're all commercial vendors. so the information that we would make available to the public would be the dates, the draft policy, with the appendices, and a list of the items, abtdz then anybody's welcome to research those on line. >> vice president

marshall: thanline. -- >> president mazzucco: thank you for clarifying that. public comment. >> yes. less lethal weapon is very clear to us, who have been tasered before, as i was, is deescalation. >> president mazzucco: nis general public comment on items that were not covered. i apologize. so we can't talk -- >> okay. i just want to commend briefly on the fact that -- a lot of -- command about the chp officer who tragically died this week. and i find it disgraceful. you might be surprised to hear me say that. but the loss life is always tragic and we mourn along with you. >> president mazzucco: thank you. for public comment, items not included. >> again, i didn't get to say what i wanted to

say, but everyone knows who i am. i'm back again. august 14 of this year was my son's anniversary of his death. i've been fighting for the last five and a half years. and this is something i'm going to be doing for the rest of my life. i don't know what else to do. i still have no justice. i still have no closure. all i want is a little bit. something needs to be done. it's not just about my son anymore. a lot of young men are dying every day. i just had another one die on -- down the street from my house shot three, four five times in the chest. imagine us seeing that and hearing that every day on the news that we've got to get inand watch the news every day and be scared for our children to walk out the house and go to school. i'm afraid every day. i will fight for my son in life, and i'm fighting for him in death. at this point, i'm not

caring about my own life. i'm not going to commit suicide, no. but i would -- if that day, i would have ran in front of those bullets to save my son because my son should have been burying me, not me burying him. it's sad that we've got to continue to do this and i've got to continue for coming down here. i'm not blaming anyone who killed my son. the mayor said he know who killed my son. da and the police know who killed my son. it's in the papers. this is not out of my own mouth. this is being said by the mayor, the former mayor. so if you know who killed my son, why is that a slap in the face to me. i feel like it's a slap in the face to me but you tell me you know but you're not working with me. i walk around with these pictures every day. where amount i going to put them, in my living room on top of the fireplace. we have no venue for my

son or any other young person that's been murdered out here, whether it be a young person, adult, child, it doesn't matter. how long are we going to have to do this. this is a medical condition. i have post -- distress every day, when i've go the to turn around and watch my back or watch my children's back. anything's going on and i am tired of it. i'm tired of crying. i have my days that i cry and just weep out. now i've go the to use that and go to 850 brient, two to three times a week and sit on the stairs, under the hot sun, rain around cold weather to bring justice to our children that are dying. i'm mainly talking about my child. i'm talking about me. how long am i going to suffer. how long -- and i'm not blaming anybody but how long do we have to suffer as parents that our children are being murdered. don't say take care of your own because when you do that, when we take care of our own and

you kill there's a rippling effect and people continue to die every day. >> president mazzucco: thank you. next speaker. >> my name's -- bowler. so we live in a gun culture. i don't go to movies. but i know -- and i don't have a television. but i know that gun violence, it goes on all the time in front of our faces. it's embedded in our culture. and i say that partly because of the prior speaker. i wanted to comment on something that i saw in

the paper recently, which had to do with muni having -- i don't think it's the police. i think it's people that they hire to check to see if you've paid your fare. and i read that the intention is to have them carry guns. the idea of people carrying guns on muni with the risk that they might be used in crowded -- on a crowded bus, with people in the way of the bullets, is unacceptable. i don't know if this is the appropriate place to say that, but i would -- if it the police are on the bus with guns, that

would also not be an acceptable practice, in my mind. i was on a bus once when some undercover police began acting out, doing -- forcing somebody off the bus. i don't think that's a good idea either, because the person witnessing it does not know that these are undercover police. what they see is an act of violence being committed for unknown reasons. and that is not an acceptable part of social living, to my mind either. so thank you for listening. >> president mazzucco: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, again. german miller with

the -- foundation. it occurred to me that last night, i asked a question to a captain of the bayview precinct, captain sullivan. asked him a question and i didn't get an answer to it. i was just sitting here thinking, i was wondering how ready these answers would be from precincts across the city. and the question that i asked him was i said, well, hey, how many cit officers are working here in this precinct. and, you know, we got -- you know, he addressed a couple other questions, and i will grant that it was a public setting so he may have just glossed over it. but i recognize that when we have come here and heard reports about the progress, or lack thereof, of cit in san francisco, there hasn't been much

specification. there's been well we've had these classes and x amount of officers, you know, ali's name comes up as a model but that's what we get. we don't get solid information as to if we live in this neighborhood who can we look for that has allegedly gone through this training, who can we look for when something is happening, who can we look for on the street and how would you address the situation, who can the community look to when we're trying to assess the physical reality of cit and the impact to our neighborhoods. is this information broken down by which precinct these officers are working out of, and is that information public, and can that be presented to the public because i think that's very vital information for the public to have. thank you. >> president mazzucco: thank you. any further public comment on items not on the agenda?

>> you're about to go into closed session, and for me, i'm wonder when do those records become available, and when will i be able to get a copy of those? i just feel like -- the other thing that i'm concerned about is these officers, they got this little black stripe, and it seems like they're covering their badge numbers. i'm just concerned about that. i went to a protest, and it seemed like they got sunglasses on, these hats, and then they got their badge numbers covered up. it just feels like they're just hiding out. i mean they're packed, and they got a big group of people, and they're hiding out from the public. >> president mazzucco: thank you. any further public comment? it's now closed. in response to your questions the officers are wearing the black stripe over their badge

in mourning for the california highway proffer who we honor in our meeting. it's customary for all law enforcement agencies to do that. they're not trying to hide their badge number. what becomes public record we're about to go into closed session regarding california supreme court ruling, the officers personnel matters are confidential. however we do in fact provide statistics on a pretty frequent basis about what the results of our case is, and what the dispositions are. again that's why we do it because the officers have, like any employee of any company there is privacy rights. if we can call line item no. 4. >> line item 4, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 6 below, closed session, including public comment on vote whether to hold item 6 in closed session. >> that's what i just discussed, these are

private matters protected and privileged to public comment. do i have a motion? i move that we move into -- >> commissioners, ray hartz, director of san francisco open government. as i spoke previously regarding this very issue at the very first commission, session which i attended in which you adjourned in the middle of a agenda item, went into closed session for four hours and as a result denied a number of members of the public opportunity to comment on the item because you came back after the four hours, finished up the agenda and said is there any other public comment and i was the only person sitting in the room. i'll be honest with you, given that i also talked earlier about the problems i've had with your legal division, chief, regarding not following the sunshine ordinance, the california public records act, i think for me, i will speak solely. i have a hard time

believing, when you claim an exemption, whether you're being honest with the public about the basis for the exemption. to be very honest with you, once you're lied to by certain people, once people tell you something that you know is not true, and that you know they know is not true, you begin to question everything they tell you. and when they then expect you to simply take them at their word, when you know in some cases their word is no good, that's not unreasonable in my mind. i stood up at this commission a few years ago. and i wanted to talk about that adjournment, and the subsequent denial of public comment, and i was told point blank, you can't talk about that, you can only talk about agenda item a, b and c. and i said in response and that is a violation

of my constitutional rights. and then i was forced to drag you, this commission, to the sunshine ordinance task force, which said i was right. and yet there has not been a word, an acknowledgement or apology or anything else. very frankly, what i said about the police department's legal division not feeling any compulsion to follow the california public record act or bract holds true for this commission. i have witnessed myself. as a citizen who sees know your rights under sunshine on your agenda and then is under the extra burden of having to take you to court -- to a hearing before the sunshine ordinance task force, which the person who did it won't even bother to attend, is i think really egregious. we will follow the rules if it suits our purpose and if it doesn't we'll simply ignore them. then when people question our honesty, we

will act like oh,, he's just a crum pi old man that has nothing to do than come here and make it hard on the police department. believe it or not just because you say something negative doesn't mean you're trying to hurt somebody, it may be that you're trying to help. >> president mazzucco: any further public comment on whether or not these matters should be in closed session for personal matters. please come forward. >> german miller of the -- foundation. it's very interesting, public comment period right now because i don't know that i recall ever having a public comment period about closed session but i'm very grateful for it. >> have it every week. >> you have that every week? >> yes, sir. >> excuse me. i had not noticed that procedure of yours. this one in it particular, i want to say that on principle, i am definitely opposed to this matter being discussed in closed

session. i'm very cognizant of the applicable laws of the applicable supreme court decision as was referenced. i understand the legal basis. however, myself and many others that i'm in communication with, have never accepted the philosophical and ethical rationale of those laws. it seems to me that in evaluating -- performance evaluation of the chief of police is a prime example of the public's business. i think the public has a right to know how the review process of the command staff or the police department is proceeding, and what the critiques and rebuttals may be approximate likewise, and this is quite more serious, another issue that is to be addressed in closed session is the review of findings and decision to

return officer to duty following an officer-involved shooting. as you all are well aware we've come before this body many times with serious critiques and questions about officer involved shootings and one of the things we've brought up is that we find it to be an inherent hazard to the community when officers who have been involved in officer involved shootings are returned to the community to patrol armed while questions linger about their responsibility in these acts. to have such an activity returning officer to duty take place, with the review of such to take place in a closed session is against the public good, flat out. and i'd like to thank you for this opportunity to present that view and i assure you it is not mine alone and wie are constantly working to open this process up for the safety and protection of the public. >> any further public comment on this? hearing none, public comment is closed. do i have a motion?

all line item 5. >> whether to hold item 6 in closed session. action. >> do i have a motion. >> exwr so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. >> thank you. all the commissioner are present. we're on line item 7, whether to schoas discussion held in closed session. do i have a motion? >> move not to close. >> second? >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> line item 8, which is adjournment. >> line item 8, adjournment is zl as i stated at the beginning of the police commission agenda weed like to close and adjourn in memory of california highway

patrol kenyon youngstrom, age 37, who will be buried tomorrow who died in the line of duty last week serving the state of california. we send our sympathy to his family and his cohorts, and retired san francisco plaintiffs inspector art fobs who died last week after serving the police department for more than 40 years and my father's former partner. may he stop at the pancake in the sky before going to -- that was his daily routine. we'll miss you, and officer kenyon youngstrom, thank you for your service. we have a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> we're adjourned.

>> i would like to all to order the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission and we'll begin by taking the roll. commissioner liu. here. >> commissioner hayon? >> here. >> commissioner renee. >> here. >> commissioner studley has an excused absence today. our first order of business is consideration of the draft findings and legal justifications for the commission's decision on august 16th, 2012. we have posted and circulated a written document that summarizes what was done on the 16th. thanks to commissioner liu for playing a significant part in putting this document together. before we begin, one issue i think should be made clear,

there seems to have about some confusion about whether or not the commission would provide some recommendation as to what the effect of the recommendation of official misconduct should be. having reviewed the transcript and certainly my personal understanding of what we decided on the 16th was that there was no need to provide any explanation for suggestion of what the affect of a recommendation of official misconduct would be. because the charter clearly states that if there is a finding of official misconduct, then the person found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. so it seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the sheriff committed official misconduct. so i just want that to be clear

in terms of why our order doesn't address what the affect of the findings shall be, because the charter really provides no option. commissioner hayon? >> while that may be the case, i do understand that the charter spells out what punishment should be based on our recommendation or finding. sheriff mirkarimi guilty on those two counts. i do feel there has been a tremendous amount of confusion about this in the public and even in the media to some degree. and even if our recommendation really has no bearing, in the case of what the punishment should be, i feel that the commission should at least go on the record as to how -- what we feel the punishment should be and the board can

certainly ignore that particular recommendation, or use it to bolster whatever arguments take place when the board has its hearing. but i for one feel that the commission should have and still should consider a vote on what the punishment should be. and if it's not inappropriate, i myself would like to make a motion to that effect. i don't know how the other commissioners feel about this. just for the record, i realize that the legality, it doesn't -- it's not necessary in view of what the charter recommends. but i do think that we should be on the record. >> i guess my concern with that is that we would be recommending action to the board that they cannot take. i mean, their options are to either find that the sheriff

committed official misconduct, or find that he has not committed official misconduct and if they find the former, the charter is clear that he needs to be removed from office. if they find the latter, it's clear that he is not to be removed from office and he is to be reinstated. so i think a recommendation to the board of something that they can't do would not be productive. i don't know if any other commissioners -- >> let me just say that as you are probably aware the lm women passed a recommendation or at least a stance recently, and they have no bearing on the official proceedings whatsoever. but they wanted to go on the record as to what they feel should be done. >> let me say chairman hur, i tend to disagree with your

reading of what power the ethics commission would have. as i think i said very early on and although i am sort of alone in my broad reading of the definition of "official misconduct," it appears to give the mayor discretionary power, not the section that deals with felonies, makes it mandatory. the section that just talks about official misconduct says, "the mayor may suspend or punish." so as i said earlier, i thought our analysis is a two-step analysis and that is first, do we make a finding of official misconduct? and secondly, was the suspension by the mayor appropriate? and the reason why i feel strongly about that is in a way

addresses what your concern was when you say with my broad reading of the statute, it gives the mayor unlimited power. i said it doesn't give him unlimited power if at the hearing it became clear to us that the mayor was acting solely out of a political motive or some bad motive other than that so that the official misconduct that he found we might feel was not sufficient or did not justify suspension. now i agree with the fact that in this case i would say i would not recommend that the mayor abuse his discretion based on the facts in this case, everything i have heard. but i do not subscribe to the view that if we make a finding of official misconduct. that is the end of our