these dates straight, so it looks like -- i pulled the calendar out. we're dark the 20th and 27th and we're on the 4th and 11th dark 18th and 25th and will assume the first week of january also. >> for the new year? >> yes, january 1. >> two more this year so we won't meet until the 8th again in the new year. i just wanted to make sure. >> time went by fast. you guys can come, i won't be here. >> any other comments in reference to items covered. >> hello commissioners. i'm still preparing an analysis on the information in a

different perspective maybe and in doing so i've researched the mission statements and the purposes of the police commission, the occ and sfpd 'cause they are three separate organizations. the commission oversees or whatnot the occ to their determination of their needs. i've seen budgets for the occ is 4 point something million a year and they are required to have one investigator for every 150 officers employed, so if they're shy three, one's on medical leave or whatever, that's -- i dunno if that

counts technically or not, but if they're short three that's in violation of the city charter. i don't know if special patrol is included in that or the park ranger, sheriff's office or the officers for the bid's or whatever they are, all those acronym, i don't know if theocc handles those officer complaints or not, but that is what charter dictates so as far as capital budgets for the occ, overhead, i'm sure rent and utilities and all that stuff is probably included somewhere at capital budget unless it's rented out. >> operating budget.

>> i'm sorry. >> in the occ's operating budget, but i'm not sure about the commission. i don't know where it's -- >> we don't have a budget. >> oh. >> we work for free. >> you do have staff, so you do have a budget. i did see one somewhere. >> we don't get maid. >> thank you. >> miss carpio. is it your position that we are in violation of the charter because there is a lack of funds to pay the -- >> it's not so much because there's a lack of funds, but a lack of investigators at the occ. it mandates one investigator per 150 officers. >> have you taken that to board of supervisors? >> no. i thought i'd bring it to you. >> because they're the ones with the money, you realize

that, right? >> well, when you put in a budget, it should include the step to increase it. it should be an actual -- you know, what you anticipate needed. >> you assume we don't don't do that. >> i'm not assuming, i'm just articulating what i heard. >> she's articulating her budget analyst, saying it impacted. >> i'm not accusing anybody. >> i'm just trying to elaborate on your point and ask you to communicate your concerns to the proper body because i would like very much to have those investigators for occ as well. >> well, you have that authority, actually. >> i have the authority to tell the board of supervisor to -- >> you absolutely do. per the charter -- >> thank you for the promotion, i'm going to try that.

>> the commission as a whole. /-frpbgts >> you said you, i thought you meant me. >> thank you. >> please call next line item. >> public comment on closed session on whether to hold item six in closed session. >> asking for public comment on closed session matters which are protected by constitution rights so if there's any public comment regarding that i imagine sergeant lee. >> inspector frankly, i'm the subject of the closed session. i wanted to take the police commission case c 01032 and for this hearing, police commission hearing, i requested it be open and the police commission hearing for this case was voted

open and i think this matter should be held in open session. >> i'm waving confidentiality. >> okay, you're asking this be in open session. >> i've always insisted on that from the very beginning. >> any other further comment? well, we're not going into closed session so please call the next line item, which is line item 6a. >> pursuant to government code in san francisco stray tiff code section 67.10b and penal code 832.7 personal exception to adopt or take other actions regarding proposed findings of facts in case number kmo c

10-032/ncd 154-09 inspector frank s lee action. >> thank you, before we move to this matter, there's a question for commissioner terman [inaudible]. >> can we -- if we have calendared a matter in closed session, can we move it to an open session? are we free to do that? >> it's an agenda problem, notice to the public. >> just the other way around, we can't go the other way. >> that's what we're asking.

>> commissioners, it's optional. it talks about agenda item four and five on whether to hold this in closed session so that part of the notice to the public and as a matter of course, personnel matters are calendared in closed session because of the presumption of confidentiality that the officer involved always has the /opg of waving that confidentiality, that's the officers choice so they have a right under law to have it in open session. in this case you may go ahead and have the hearing on the proposed findings in open session. the commission would still have the option, if it chooses to do its

deliberations in closed session on its part of the adoption of the findings. >> the reason i brought that up is because i was making sure the public had notice of this and in the agenda i think it just lists the case number, not the name of the officers, but of course the city attorney's office, if you think it's fine, it's fine. >> thank you. >> thank you. council would you please state your appearance for the record and inspector lee please come forward. >> [inaudible] for the department. >> inspector frank lee, i'm representing myself. >> i was not part of this decision on august 15 of 2012 so i'll turn the matter over to doctor marshall. this matter has been assigned to doctor marshall for dismin. for members of the public, you don't get to see this.

normally one commissioner handles that matter and the transcripts of that matter, the entire evidence, the presentations by council are made in front of the entire commission so the commission can make an informed vote. not one commissioner can make this decision, but the commissioners, can as a group. i was not present to think i was actually on vacation at that point so i'll excuse myself, there's no need for me to be present. for the commissioners that remain, all four voted back in august of 2012. >> do you have to recuse yourself from the findings. the discipline has been settled in this case. it was just specifically about the findings of facts. >> i wasn't present for that either. >> would you like to take a vote. >> vote to recuse.

>> is there a motion to -- >> so moved. >> moved by commission chan, seconded by commissioner kingsly. all in favor. >> i. >> if we don't adopt b. we're going to go through -- >> let's wait on that because we may want to deliberate on that. >> i was going to let him go home, but i won't. >> all right, with that, we have the matter before us of case number km 0c 10032mcd 1549 iad 2010047. inspector frank s lee. and i'll turn it over to commissioner marshall who

presided over this matter. >> i believe this matter has been before us and this is the discussion of possible action to proposed findings of facts. let's see where we are. i've got a couple documents today. i got one from -- clue us in where we are with this now. >> thank you commissioner marshall. the commission heard and decided this case on the merits and on august 15 of 2012 under commission rules when there have been specifications sustained, and in this case there were, specifications or charges sustained specific case and specification number five. and under rules for discipline cases the department cancel drafts proposed to findings for

the commission and there's a timetable for that in the rules. there's also a timetable in the rules for the officer to submit comments or proposed edits on those proposed findings. then the commission at a later date, needs to gather, which is on your calendar tonight to consider the proposed findings. the findings in the end are the commission's findings in support of the decision that you've already made. this is not an occasion to relitigate any of the case. >> correct. >> it is an occasion for the commission to decide upon a document that fairly states the s procedural history and the facts when the commission found the fact that specifications in your opinion one and five were

found and sustained. also as commission council on discipline cases, for you i have prepared a draft that revises, suggests some revisions to what you've received from department council based upon my understanding of commission's reasoning and department council was of course not privy to your closed session deliberations when you decided the case. so what you see in the draft you have from me is one where i've taken the proposed findings and added to that my understanding of what the commission's /spwepbts intent was in your deliberations in deciding this case. we did not receive any proposed edits or alternate proposed findings from inspector lee, as far as i know. and i had double checked that again

recently with lisa tom and inspector monroe and so we did not have anything further in writing to fold in here from him. as is also our usual practice this evening, we usually awe allow, both parties and department council to make a few minutes of comment if they want to on the subject of findings that are before you, but in the end it's the commission's findings and decision about what best states how they analyzed and decided the case. >> i just want to make sure we're looking at the right document. is this the document dated -- i'm looking at the date up here. it is the [inaudible]. >> yeah, you have -- >> that's the one -- >> you have proposed findings

from mr. alden that came in dated february 15 of this year. >> correct. >> and you have proposed findings that i submitted to you through the commission secretary and the date on top of there is november 11 of this year. >> okay. that's the final document that we're looking at. >> yes. >> that one, i got that one. >> both of those are before you. >> okay. they're both before me. commissioner, that we'll hear statements from both -- you want to begin? >> yes, commissioners, i guess i received attorney blitz document yesterday and i

contacted inspector monroe for a chance to review the document and write a written response and i'd like to defer this matter for two weeks so i can get a written response, but if not, i did prepare something to present to the commission. suspension has already been imposed, i don't think there's any harm in it, but you guys are the ones going to make the decision. >> miss stone. >> would you like your papers? >> first i'd like to thank the commission for having us on tonight. there is another matter involving the same facts pending in front of another commission that's pending for december 2 and they've expressed and interest in finding out the commission's findings in this case so they

can be better educated on this and your thoughts about how to specially compare the credibility of the witnesses. having this on tonight is great help in making sure we have something ready for them by december 2. i would point out two things in regards to the continuance. instead our current rules, as they have for some time, indicate that the department and officer have an opportunity to find in those findings after the trial is over and the commission has reached a decision and the findings are supposed to come in ten days after the department's and in

this case the findings were made quite a lock time ago. in addition to that the department's proposal in regards to findings has been in for quite some time. mr. lee has had ample opportunity to provide extend the time tonight. moreover, if we did do that, it would cause delay in the other matter. if you were interested in giving inspector lee more time, i think it would be appropriate for inspector lee to also ask that other matter to be continued for a similar period of time. perhaps the commission would want to have a /kol department council and inspector lee weren't present for the commissioners i did

notice one minor item on page 22, line 12, there's a reference there to department general order 2.01 rule ten and that's in discussion of specification five. i think that reference was probably intended to be a reference to djo 11.01, which was the dgo a ofn of specification five. >> say that again. >> page 22, line 12. i belief the reference dgo should have been 11.01. >> that is correct. i saw that as well. >> if you have any questions for me, if i can be of any assistance in any way, please let me know. >> my first thought, the procedure that you outlined

with regarding to response and submission of concerns about findings of fact, i find that to be accurate. i just want to ask miss blitz if what you describe was correct, if that's what i found and i got a document today outlined the procedures here so -- >> that's correct commissioner marshall. the commission has a document that's available online on commission website and it's section roman numeral 14, subsection c. there's a timeline and process for submitting proposed findingings from the department and from the officer as just summarized by department officer alden. >> my concern is that if it does go on and on and on, so

with the procedure outline, i can't see going any further than tonight. >> well, i would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt. i'm not an attorney. nobody from the police commission told me that you need to submit a response by a certain date. >> it's not our role to tell you how to defend your case and you had several council in this case. >> i've chosen now to not to be represented by council. >> you've chosen to represent yourself. >> and i have a right to do that. >> it's your job to do the representation of yourself, not ours, and to know those rules. >> following the procedural rules and, again, we go outside those rules, this could go back and forth and back and forth. as far as i'm concerned, it's the end of it tonight. >> okay, we can conclude it tonight. >> i'm kinda leaning towards

hearing this tonight, but since you are finding a request we should at least as a group decide on it. one thing i want to hear before we decide on this request is why you didn't file any findings or facts since you've had -- if i can finish. you've had the proposed findings since february. i understand that you received the latest version from the city attorney recently that you can put in what your recommended findings of fact are to consider. you've had time and i want to hear that before we decide. i >> i didn't know there was going to be a separate hearing for findings of fact so once i found out i said i'll respond to it. i have multiple copies of what i've prepared as a response. i can provide it to the commissioner right now and it's basically rebuttal of

specifications of number one and five, which were the allegations that were sustained against me. >> can we learn what other commission is meeting and considering issues that are relevant that they need to findings of fact in this case? >> i have no idea. you have to ask attorney alden. >> i'm fairly confident inspector lee is familiar because he implemented them. he made a various witnesses in this case lied and conspired against him because he's a member of a protected class. normally this isn't something that would come up in open session, so i can get into it a little bit. >> that's okay. now that we know what that other body is and that 's as a

result of a complaint that you brought and eeoc complaint that you brought, inspector lee, correct? >> yes. i have a -- >> you're the one that's invested in having that other commission hear that complaint -- >> he makes it sound like some other police commission hearing. there is a civil service commission hearing that'd deadlocked. they're having a final civil service commission. they're going to be holding it in closed session to make a determination whether there was discrimination or retaliation in this case. >> and that's at your request? they're convening, they're doing that because you filed a complaint with them, sir? >> yeah. i had filed internal department eeo complaints and that matter is still pending before the san francisco civil service commission and i believe they told me the date may be december 2, but they haven't totally confirmed it yet. >> so you did know that december 2 was a possible date

for this? >> can you repeat that? >> you did know that december 2 was a possible date for another commission hearing on your matter? >> it's a separate. it's an eeo related issue. >> that's what i said. separate commission. >> yes. >> i just want to propose a resolution to this. it looks like inspector lee that you did bring your feedback even though you had a short time to turn it around, my proposed resolution of this request is we just take some time to read what you've brought tonight and then we make a decision tonight. i would suggest that we /stke deny the request to continue this just to make sure we resolve that request unless you have anything additional regarding this request. >> to be clear on this, you do

have comments you can present us tonight? >> yes. >> okay. >> we can conclude this tonight if that's what you want to do. >> i move to deny the request to continue. >> let's continue. >> i move to deny the request to say no to the request. >> well, my issue on that, i don't know what that thing looks like. i have no idea what the document that inspector lee is going to put forth, he had one item. that's my concern. >> perhaps it be oral and we limit it, because if it's in writing then we have to take time to read and deliberate and so on and it become part of the record. if it's presented orally it's part of the written record and we can still consider it. >> we have the option of going into closed session. can we do that? >> in terms of continuance or

in terms of the findings? >> well, the continuance, i'd rather talk about it -- >> let's go to closed session. >> i don't want to belabor the point, but i didn't get to quite fully answer your question. if i could add one last item. you had asked about civil service commission, their interest and in particular one of the questions they passed to the department as well, if this commission, the police commission did not sustain counts two, three, four in the that means inspector leans claimings which he made in his defense on those three specifications that he or to be credible and of course we don't have any specific findings as to why the commission did not sustain two, three and four so some members of the civil service commission expressed and opinion that clearly it must be the case so the police --

commissioner marshall, i think we're getting -- >> the police commission is not in a dialogue with the civil service commission. we have separate responsibilities and whatever the civil service commission may or may not have asked the department is separate from what -- >> instead let's go to closed session to talk about it. >> you may have deliberations in closed session. >> i would ask that we do that. >> i don't want to say anything more about civil service commission, 'cause you've asked me not to. >> yes. >> there is a parallel issue, it has very important brady -- >> no, sir, it's an entirely -- if there were no proceedings in that other venn you i'd still be asking that question.

>> one last question before closed session. how many pages is what you prepared inspector? >> it's just two pages, but if you guys were to continuance, i'd prepare something -- >> right now you have two pages and how many copies ? >> i made more than seven so there's more than -- >> let's go into closed session please and talk about it. we'll move into closed session. clear the room, please.