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. we're back now in open session with a quorum. >> commissioner marshall. >> let's hear one more time

from the council please. >> john from the department. >> inspector frank lee representing myself. >> let's start with the continuance -- no continuance this evening. we will finish the merit tonight. inspector lee, we have decided to take your responses to the police commissioners and fact finding facts in the case, we decided to do it. let's just put it like that. and we have looked at taking a look at them. we've taken a look at the changes suggested by department's council and we had a discussion about the findings of fact amongst

ourselves as commissioners and we have several proposed changes to miss blitz's document, which she will now read, that i think we have reached agreement on. i'm going to ask her to read those. >> thank you commissioner marshall. so referring to inspect or lee's information you're referring to the two page written document that he brought you this eveninging. >> that's correct. >> you reviewed them before making your determination here. the edits that the commission has agreed upon to the draft findings that are dated november 11, 2013, are as follows: on page 14 in footnote

48 there is a cross reference to footnote 47 and instead it should read it is a cross reference to footnote 46. on page 13 at paragraph number 38 after the phrase the commission finds that the following phrase will be inserted, "in sustaining this specification, it is derivative that, and then the remainder of the paragraph remains as

written. on page 16 at paragraph number 55 the same phrase will be inserted. after the existed phrase the commission finds that, the phrase will be inserted, "in sustained this specification, it is derivative that,". then on page 22 part of the paragraph numbered 62 at line 12, the reference to department general order 2.01 rule 10 is changed to department general order 11.01.

those are the edits as i understand them from the commission. >> for the record record -- yeah, so -- i believe that's what we discussed. did you hear any differently. >> i want to be clear, when we said we took the two pages, it's just that we read them. >> list as any work considered. >> with those amendments, i would move in /aeu adoption of the findings of fact as amended by the reading miss police just gave. >> second. >> want to take role?

>> vice president terman. >> i. >> commissioner chan. >> i. >> commissioner kingsly. >> i. >> commissioner marshall. >> i. >> motion passes unanimously. >> that concludes this matter. the findings are adopted. thank you very much. >> next item mr. secretary. >> that will be a closed session item mr. vice president, next, 6b. >> commissioners, as there are not really any matters and we have already engaged in some closed session activity, i would say that we put this one off until the next meeting. is that okay? >> yes. >> i'm fine with that, sir. >> vote -- the next item please. >> item seven, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all

discussion on item six held in code session . >> move on non disclosure. >> second. >> can we do that or need role call? all in favor? >> i. >> we don't need role call. >> closed. the next item please. >> item eight adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. >> we're adjourned. thank you.