pleasure and in addition to having the responsibilities of chief of investigations, the deputy director is involved in helping me to determine policy, greater management and supervision for the office of citizen complaints, greater responsibility with regard to the budget. >> and with the -- for the purpose of giving you more freedom in that way and also to -- >> these are personnel matters. the last time this issue came up the city attorney was very concerned about discussion about it. it's a personal matter so we can't discuss it in front of the commission it. . it's out of our jurisdiction so -- >> okay, that's helpful.

thank you. that's it. those are my questions. >> commissioner kingsly. >> i just wanted to follow on the heels of the conversation regarding the deputy director only to say that i think structurally, it's a wise move in the department to have that filled and to have such a capable person in that position. good move. great. thank you. >> thank you very much, commissioner kingsly. one thing that i will say as a close to conversation is that i

contacted oversight commissions, it is common in oversight agencies to have a deputy director. thank you. >> bottom-line, it works better for you; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> please call line item 3c. >> commission reports discussion. >> i have nothing to report. commissioners, anything you'd like to report. please call line item 3d. >> announcements and items identified for consideration at future meetings. >> other than we'll be dark next wednesday, there'll be no meeting on the 20th or the 27th in observance of the thanksgiving holiday so our next commission meeting will be december 4 here at city hall. >> that sounds -- christmas is near. well, the holidays. with reference to

consideration, i know i keep asking about the status of the department general order regarding the social media and the first amendment activity of officers, a delicate balancing that came to be with the general order that we are looking at, and then recently it's come to a head in san jose where some officers were posting on facebook so i think we need to be more ahead of this. i know wc attorney is working on this and it's going through the works, but i've been a little patient and maybe i'm getting a little impatient. i think we need to do it in december before it become an issue for us. >> ask for a certain date or... >> i do, i put the second week of december. >> the 11th. >> thank you. >> commissioner chan.

>> i wanted to get a sense of what we're working on in december knowing that we only have a finite number of commission meetings left and what dates we're meeting in december 'cause i know we put a couple things towards december and i want to make sure they're on there. >> december 11, -- december 18, and then christmas shows up. >> so we only have two meetings in december? >> correct. >> okay. >> 4th and 11th. >> 4th and 11th, correct. >> i remember that we talked before about the awards issue and if we're going to deal with the procedures -- if there's a pending investigation and giving officers awards and we mentioned december. i don't remember if we set a specific date. >> december 4. >> i remember i was talking december, so if we want to

still do it december 4 or 11 and time that before the next awards ceremony. >> i agree. i think we should do december 4 and i've raised concerns about the whole /seurb shoe was the investigation complete. it turns out what we're learning is the police department's investigation was complete, everybody's just sitting around waiting for the investigation from the da's office. what i suggested before with an analyst who was doing an examination with the department is we don't need to wait for that. the department makes its own determine nation on whether cases on whether cases should be brought to da's office and i'd like to see them do that, so that we leave the officers out there in limbo and we leave the individuals who involve their families out there in limbo so that's one thing we need to talk about and get taken care of sooner and that's a part of that. >> well, respectfully we're going to talk about it on

december 4? that what i heard? >> yeah. >> that's done. >> so december 4. thank you. >> that's it. all right, anything further? hearing none. >> yes. >> commissioner kingsly. >> our scheduling resolution can help guide us in terms of what is fixed on our schedule from week to week, and i was looking at it as we came in to this meeting and see that moving into december, the december 4 date brings us around at that time of year again where we're looking at budgetary matters and we have scheduled for the december 4 meeting, addressing the capital budget, capital budget versus is operating budget so whether

or not there will be requests this year from police department for capital items. is that something that the department will be able to address on the 4th? okay. so we have that inspector? >> yes. >> okay. we just got the nod from the department. and this brings up a question. is -- i don't recall whether the occ, if that's happening. does that happen in tandem or whether that's separate, the capital, you know, items for the occ. do you do your requests at the same time of year and same process? for some reason it didn't come up in this whole scheme. >> the o cc doesn't have a capital budget so that's why it

didn't come up. >> so it's just a couple of cars essentially. i don't know, maybe that doesn't -- automobiles don't fall under capital. >> i don't know, commissioner kingsly, but... >> you don't have a separate budget, everything's in your operating budget? >> everything is in the operating budget. >> thank you for helping me. >> i suspected it as we were moving in that direction, but that makes sense. thank you director. >> thank you, commissioner terman. >> i would like to say we cover as a commission a great many items. i am, by and large, proud of the work we do here, but we don't do it alone. we do it with great support and help of the commission staff and sometimes we need to take time and recognize the commission staff for the little events that happen in their life. little ones, as well as large events and today i'd like to

wish a happy birthday to risa tom. i know today is her birthday and... >> happy birthday. are we going to sing? >> she is a tremendous resource to the commission and we could not do our work without you. i know it's hard to put up with john, but you're doing a good job. >> we won't ask you which year. >> this is not to despair the talent in commission secretaries, but risa's always here. if i may ask, just so i can get 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