for putting it on its because of the substantive issue, and i don't think that's what the commissioner is asking for. she is asking for -- so i think procedurally, we should at least put this on the agenda to talk about that, not the substantive portion of the letter. >> for those who were there at the seat -- that evening, we had firm legal advice from our city attorney that we had done everything legally and procedurally correct. >> we can't talk about it right now so i want to put it on the agenda. >> i would just follow up on that point, we have talked about this before, and we keep talking about it every meeting. nobody here has a desire to go back and relive those glorious days that you had here.

i have heard about them, but i do think two points, one, it is a criticism of the well-founded because i think it is not -- it is probably sometime task force which is a city body or agency of some sort, my apologies for not knowing the exact -- how it is formed, and then to, you know, i think we are all, for the most part, equal commissioners, and the rules allow us to put things on, so according to our rules of order, the president and secretary can decide one time not to put it on, and then it has to be on within the second meeting after it's been requested. to me, i just don't -- i don't

think this should be a point of disagreement. we are here to have the nice conversations, the inspirational conversations, with tough conversations. i don't think this is a tough conversation, and i would just like to put it to rest so we don't have to keep talking about it. >> do i have a motion to put it on for the next meeting? >> we don't need a motion. >> a commissioner can request it. >> madame city attorney?

>> i have been watching a lot of legal research. [laughter] >> so i will read the whole part so everybody is aware of the rule of order. rule to .13, any agenda item submitted to the secretary for inclusion of the agenda on a regular or special meeting must be approved by the commission deputy assistant chief or the chief chief of police item submitted by d.b.a., must be approved by the d.p.a. director, all items must be submitted before the close of business on the thursday preceding a regular commission meeting. the secretary shall promptly inform the president of all such prohibited agenda items. if the president determines an interest of maintaining a meeting of a reasonable length for such item should not be included on the agenda for the meeting for which the item was submitted, such item maybe omitted, which shall be included on the agenda for the next regular meeting or of a special

meeting, except as provided by the brown act. the key shall not act upon our discuss any meat item at the meeting unless the description of the agent appears on an agenda for the meeting. if an item arises after the agenda has been distributed, the commission may add it to the agenda and consider the item in accordance with procedures set forth under the brown act. >> that was the d.p.a. and the chief. isn't there one for commissioners? >> i favor having that discussion. i didn't at first, but it has come up so many times, it is clearly an issue for some of the commissioners. it is an issue from some members of the public. i think we should put it on the agenda with a couple caveats. i would encourage every commissioner who was not present at that meeting to go back and -- i think it was november 3rd when the meeting happened. go back. is a six and a half hour tape. i would not suggest you look at all of that, but at one hour and

51 minutes, because i went back and i reviewed it recently, one hour and 51 minutes, that is when it became impossible for the commission to meet, and it is important for you to look at the initial stages of the meeting, then look at what happens between one hour and 50 minutes, and about two hours. the commission was basically locked up for over an hour and a small room behind room 200 downstairs. i suggest after that our, and i think it is somewhere around three hours plus, we reconvene, and there were two hours of testimony. i think a little more than two hours pick some from experts, mostly from the public who came in, five people at a time, they

gave their two minutes, and some of them sat down, some of them left. i think it is important for you to understand what that meeting was like so that when we go through the sunshine letter, and i will have a fair amount to say when we do that, you will at least know as best you can what actually happened at that time. i would support its. by the way, the rules that we have don't say that any time a commissioner wants to put something on the agenda, it gets on, and if it can't get on the next meeting, he gets on the following meeting. it says, if there's no room on the calendar back then it has to be calendared. but there are other reasons why matters won't come on the calendar. sometimes the commission is not ready to discuss a matter because they are not fully educated, or they don't have documents, where they haven't heard from experts. it may mean that matters -- this does not happen to be one of those examples, but there are times where it may take months to put something on a calendar because we are not ready to discuss it, and i would hope we don't have to wrestle over that, and i agree with commissioners that we ought to work as a collaborative body. if there are things in need to

be discussed -- i would support putting it on. >> commissioner taylor. >> i wanted to ask the city attorney's office if she doesn't mind, the first part of that provision. if you could reread that for us. it got lost. something must be approved by? it is just at the very beginning. >> absolutely. agenda items get any agenda submitted to the secretary for inclusion on the agenda as a regular or special meeting must be approved by a commissioner, deputy chief, assistant chief or the chief of police. item submitted by d.p.a. must be approved by the d.p.a. director. all items submitted before the close of business on the thursday preceding a regular commission meeting, the secretary shall probably inform the president president of submitted agenda items back if just president determines in the interest of maintaining and beating of a reasonable length, such item shall not be included on the agenda for the meeting for which the agenda -- item was

submitted. it maybe omitted but shall be included on the agenda of the next regular or of a special meeting. >> there is that old shall we learned about in law school. that is mandatory, it is not discretionary. >> but did you hear what the words say? if the president determines a calendar is too full, essentially. >> it goes over one meeting. >> but if that is not the reason why it is not being calendared, suppose it is not being calendared because we are waiting to get documents i will take another two months, it is not being delayed because of the length of the meeting calendar, is being delayed for some other reason. >> with that is a decision for the commissioner, we are not a monarchy here, we are coequal commissioners, and while the president has the ability to set committees, a few other things,

we all have the same voice and vote up here. that is why it is written like that because we get to decide whether or not something is ready. there is not a threshold that we must show to our wise leader in order to have an item on the agenda, and to discuss it. i think that is why it is written in language that is mandatory. if i want to bring something on and i realize, like you said, it is not ready, i just pull it off. but you can imagine that, right? if there is somebody -- satan eva leader takes over the commission and tries to prevent us from doing the good work we are doing here, which i'm certain will not happen, then that person could control everything, could stop the process of reform, stop all the good work that we have been doing, and that has been done on this commission before i joined. that is not how commissions are generally run, and that is not how the rules of order requires

to conduct our meetings. >> commissioner taylor? >> most of us are lawyers here, and most of us are able to read a legal document and provision, and we all know that even smart and legal minds can disagree on what a provision means. i think it would be helpful if perhaps, not today, but we could have the city attorney's office, or we could each do our own research on this, because on a plain reading of this, it says, if the calendar is too long. i would like more time to look at this and think about it, and do research of my own. if you are able to advise us, that would be welcome and helpful. with this alone does not answer the question, so i would like to be educated on what we are permitted and not permitted to do.

[laughter] >> thank you. there is no reading here. it is plain, black letter, i don't think we have to decide this tonight, i guess we do as far as putting it on the agenda, but it doesn't matter how much help we cry for from the city attorney. we still have to do our job. the letter, the word of the rules states that you are no more powerful than i, i am no more powerful than you, we are all coequal commissioners. i think that we should, you know, i have had talks with a number of you about that, about how we treat each other with respect, with dignity, because as to be has told me many times, that was not always the case on this commission, so in order to

have that in a positive way, we have to respect each other, but also respect the rules kick. >> commissioner taylor? and then i will end this. >> absolutely. i think that we all work very well together, and we do respect each other. i'm asking to be educated because i can read black letter law just as well as anyone else on this day us, and i have questions. if i have questions, i imagine i'm not the only person who has questions. i am asking to be educated, as a lawyer myself, as to what this means. but this shalt refers to is not clear to me in reading this. so that is my only request. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to get clarification. things are getting taken off because they aren't ready. if a commissioner asks to put an item on the agenda, who decides when it is not ready? it has been the president's decision to say, i don't think

it is ready, therefore i am taking it off even though another commissioner asked to put it on. >> i don't have an answer to that. i don't know. >> that raises my point. we have questions. >> we have been told by the city's attorney representative that we have the ability to vote as to whether an item goes on the calendar. am i right about that? >> that is correct. as a body, the commission can vote to place an item on the agenda. >> if i bring something up, and the president decides, let's call for a vote, and a majority does not want to put the item on the agenda, it doesn't go on the agenda? >> that is correct. >> i've never had us vote like that. >> yeah,. [laughter] >> where does it say that in the rules? >> can i make a suggestion? >> i can send you the caselaw if you would like on how the commission can make --

>> twelve years on this commission, we have never voted. >> we all have questions. >> can i make a suggestion? i think that from what i gather, people want to address this issue. and commissioner say it is not about revisiting tasers. it is about whether or not we should discuss the sentient ordinance task force, their decision, as opposed to the information we got. what i suggest, as we put this on until next week and we schedule after that. it looks like we have enough votes to put it on for discussion. >> again, i think that is what we should do. and it brings up a lot if you motion, you weren't here when this took place, you have to understand, some of the considerations are the stress of everything that brings us upon. >> if you want, we can schedule for next week, or we can put it over so commissioners have

further briefing and schedule for the following week. >> whatever, i just wanted on the agenda. >> like you said, i don't think that anybody is trying to get to the underlying vote. >> let's put it on for february 20th so we have some time. okay, we are good. february 20th. >> in the meantime, if i could have that further briefing about how agenda items are voted upon, that would be very helpful. >> absolutely. might -- may i suggest the bylaws be rewritten, given that there are so many questions. these are outdated. >> says who? >> since 2005 on the top. >> but what about it? do you feel that we should not have individual commissioner rights? >> i have no personal feelings. my suggestion is to revise the bilo to read as this commission would like them to read. >> please call for public comment on these items. >> we have public comment on

items 38 through 3d kick. >> any public comment? public comment is now closed. >> item four, discussion and possible action to propose the draft of penalty guidelines for the sworn members of the san francisco police department for purposes engaging in the meet and confer process with the police officers association as required by law for discussion and possible action. >> i will turn this over to commissioner hirsch who has been working on this. >> i will start off. this project was started a long time ago. president determine started it. when he left the commission, i took up the mantle. i worked with brian jones. we went through several -- >> sorry about that. >> we went through several other police departments disciplinary

matrixes, and sergeant jones started working based on the los angeles disciplinary set of guidelines. what we did is we try to create guidelines that would provide better notice, be better organized, and they are clear to both the department and the public, and to the d.p.a. what happens for a certain misconduct the department, for a landing and there are several capital for the conduct, and several of those levels of discipline that we adjust for what it really does is it acknowledges the serious offences. when there are serious offences, you can expect, as an officer, to be terminated or seriously disciplined. we think it is fair that there are less that officers are given the opportunity to know what they did wrong, and to correct

their behavior. that is part of that progressive discipline that is built in to bargaining agreement to this matrix as well if there is a felony conviction that an officer is able to perform his or her job functions, if there is theft, if there is a material misstatement in the scope of employment, if there is a serious use of force, illegal use of possession of drugs, serious sexual misconduct captives are all terminable offences, it is important for people to know that in the public, is important for the department members to know that they are also far less

significant offences, and we have a matrix which really has a guideline. my hope is that we will go through this and adopt it. it then goes to meet and confer, because the union has a right to sit down and negotiate over this matrix because it goes to the heart of the terms and conditions of employment for officers. that process will then have to take place before it finally comes back and is finalized. we do get to approve the final draft. i also hope that members of the department, the officers, will look at this before they ever are disciplined for a matter. most officers look at this only when they have a problem, that is when they find out what these rules are, and what the punishment is. i would hope that people take the time to look at this, so they understand what it is the department is trying to do, what behavior they are trying to prevent, and how penalties play out here i don't know if my commissioner has anything to say. >> i thank you summed it up pretty well. i think it would be helpful to open it up for discussion to give other commissioners their views. there were questions in respect to the time period in which the

commission can look back on the officer's records. i know the chief is very thick on progressive discipline, and that was one of the issues we had when we were redrafting the guidelines, because we wanted to make it fair, and to make it as transparent as possible. and so, i'm sure will be helpful ... [indiscernible] >> i appreciate you saying that. there was a disagreement initially by the department and to the d.p.a. as to how far back you could look at and offences in order to use it for progressive discipline. i was told yesterday that the d.p.a. and the department has reached a compromise agreement on that of seven years. >> that is correct. >> so the department and the d.p.a. is recommending seven years. there was a five and ten year split at the time.

>> thank you. >> director henderson, you are next up. what was that -- was that what you are about to say? >> no. i was going to talk about the transparency stuff in context, just in terms of people who are following this issue to explain why this is a big deal in terms of the transparency. one of the things we have done in the past from the d.p.a. is we have seven different categories describing the disciplinary action the department had for. it was really hard to capture what specific behavior we were talking about. internally, you had to do a little bit more work beyond just what was being disciplined to try and figure out what this behavior was, and now this new matrix, which includes over 100 different descriptions about behavior. it will be really helpful. not just internally, but even speaking internally, enter agency from the d.p.a., with the do police department, it will be helpful. but certainly more so for the

broader public to understand better about what we do, how we do it, and how it specifically triangulate his to specific instances, in specific behaviors. i think that is a really big thing, no one has talked about that context or that part of it so i wanted to make sure that wasn't lost as we were talking about why this matrix is a bigger deal in improving transparency. >> thank you. >> i will let them go first. >> i just want to get some clarification. i think i know what this is about, but i want to make sure i understand it fully pick my understanding is when we charge an officer, whether it is also the d.t.a., we have to put what the actual recommendation is for punishment, like five days, 20 days, termination, we have to put what we think, and they can't get any more than that. we are bound by whatever the charging documents say, that is

my understanding. >> so, this is a guideline to determine, you know, what we will put on these charging documents, the first one, on page 6, says the unintentional discharge of a firearm on or off duty with or without injury determined to be out of policy, it lists all eight. the person has a discretion within all eight. goes through a and tee. it means admonishment to, all the way through termination. i guess, i'm looking at this, and it tells me individual charging officers can select whether they think the first offences a reprimand or 1-10 days or termination. it is wide. it is wide-ranging. i don't think it is consistent. i am concerned. i have seen documents that have appalled me on what the recommendation is, and i also, this swings the pendulum all the way the other way that each individual charging officer, depending on what they think, between eight different

punishments. i thank you for doing this, i just need clarification how this is working in person. >> the thinking is this. there are no two cases that are identical. and the range is enormous. if you can imagine, in an unintentional discharge of a firearm, an officer can trip on the pavement, and a gun goes off that is one extreme. the other extreme is something much more egregious, where let's say the officer is intoxicated, and takes out his gun and is playing with it, and fires a shot and hurts somebody. >> that would be intentional. >> no, it wasn't intentional, he didn't mean for it to go off, and you can have -- what i am saying is there is a broad range. some of these categories have very narrow ranges of discipline some have a broad range, we tried to go through scenarios depending on how wide that door

is. >> i have seen unintentional his where they take it off and they put it on their dresser, and it goes off just by pushing it down. that is, it kind of happens. pulling it out and it discharges by accident at the locker room, or things like that. i am saying, there are age variations. it makes me nervous. >> thank you. i think one of the other reasons is because the model is a progressive discipline and model. the chief is very big on that. it goes to my point which is on section three. reviews of misconduct. >> page 2 of 18. >> i'm sorry, i don't have your copy. >> is page 2 at the bottom where it talks about, it starts at the paragraph, and offences.

>> okay. is that bachelor? thank you. it talks about the progressive discipline, and how -- is that better? thank you. >> it talks about the progressive discipline and when it can be a second or third offence when it is the same general major -- general nature of the first misconduct. it does not tell us what the officer is facing, because what does a general nature of the misconduct mean? does that mean if the offences is the use of force a one-time, of them next time he doesn't have his 40 -- body worn camera? are those categories that would be considered by the chief or the other charging agency when determining what discipline would it be? because according to this language, one could argue that it is not the same general nature of the offence, and therefore it would be subject to progressive discipline. i know that the chief and the model is to follow that idea. i think that language is a little problematic and confusing

, and may need to be clarified. and then the other portion of the language that i think i had to raise, and i think is also a little ambiguous is on page 4. the last item is for factors in aggravation. when it talks about the misconduct, reasonably and negatively impacting the department charged at reputation, credibility, mission, or reasonably diminished public confidence in the department. i know the chief is very big on policing with respect and respecting the community, and so the assertion of the word reasonably is very -- it seems very subjective, because reasonable to whom? if it is reasonable to one person, you may not be reasonable to another, and i think that language is problematic because it, i would want it in line with what the chief has said that the mission

of the police department is, to police with respect and dignity. so those were my two points with respect to the disciplinary matrix that we worked on. >> thank you. >> i know you guys have done a ton of work on this, so thank you. for those of us who didn't work on this, this is an area i have not thought about. for me, the process generally when we are looking at policies, we are looking at fast tracking, did you find this style -- when i say style, i am referring to the wide variations in the ranges to be consistent with other departments, or best practices, i don't know if there are best practices for these.

how did you determine that this is the best way to go? >> this is consistent with what we have seen around other departments, and it is consistent with other industries also. it is actually not unusual to find this outside of law enforcement where there are grids,. this is more detailed then you find most labor agreements. they are much more ambiguous. >> the trouble is, language is on precise. by eliminating the word reasonable, for example, i don't thank you will help us interpret west this -- what this means. the real control the commission has, as we hire and fire the chief. we make recommendations to the mayor. the chief has to comply with the intent of the commission in adopting this. and the chief knows that, and every chief from now on will know that, and the chiefs in the past have known that.

they are at the will of the city if we see something that we don't like, if we think people are being under charged, and it is an issue, that i think we have an obligation to raise it with the chief and the chief judge office. [please stand by]

it strikes me that my background perhaps is for me, but i don't see anything about sexual contact with a minor and i don't know where that fits in this scheme. but that would be incredibly serious offense that would be on the same level as the other more serious offense. >> the commission of a felony is automatic termination. so if you're describing a felony and there is a conviction, then it's automatic termination. >> not all sexual contact with minor is felony. i don't want to arm chair quarterback, but it was raised for me. >> i don't know who would be retained under those circumstances. >> i forgot to add one more thing.

with rudeness, harassment, on page 17. supposed to add 11.07 which adds discrimination as well. our dgo regarding discrimination, which we're working on, 11.07, should have been added because that's part of the bias policing subcategory and we had talked about that, but that wasn't added in the final that i'm seeing now. it was also supposed to be added to -- never mind. i see it was added where it was supposed to. >> chief scott? >> thank you.

in response to commissioner taylor's comments and question on those type of specific acts of misconduct, one of the things that is very difficult in discipline is to try to list all the possible scenarios. almost every imaginable scenario falls within some general order. and i think when we got together with dpa and the commissioner, my intent or understanding was to create a model that worked with the general orders. because even the one you mentioned falls within a general order. whatever it is, sex with a minor, driving under the influence and put it in the general order. that way, you have a document that is consistent. if we tried to list all the different scenarios, it never ends. every time you think you've seen

it all, somebody does something else. that was the intent here. in terms of models that i've seen in other departments, generally, they tie to general orders rather than specific acts of misconduct. >> and again, that is why i apologized before i started. this is informed by my own background as prosecutor, but it was question for me, for that particular offense, you know, on the matrix i'm looking at now, it's not clear where that would fall. >> dgo -- >> page 10 -- >> okay. >> i mean, you know -- yes. i understand the question, but they usually line up with the general orders, because general orders are broad. all the time we're able to fit the act with a specific general order. >> commissioner hirsch. >> one reason that there is a

preference for being general rather than specific is that to the extent that you're specific and it doesn't actually touch on the circumstances, you have an argument on the other side why it doesn't apply. and so if you list 18 items very specifically, but you leave out four, if someone is charged with one of those four offense, they don't get included within the 18 items, so there is a danger in being specific because there is no end to that. it's like the chief said, you can never stop. and when you do stop, you've closed the category. under rules of construction, the specific dominate. if there is something left out, you're stuck. >> commissioner elias. >> yes, i wanted to make sure again the final edit was on page 15, under alcohol and drugs, the decision was that we keep

everything sort of linear. so that was an error that should have been corrected and make it uniform throughout. because in the previous draft there was that choppy, where it would only do certain disciplines rather than the category from a through t. so that should be corrected. >> i'd like this make a recommendation. that is that we funnel any suggested changes to commissioner elias between now and our next meeting. [laughter]. >> and two meetings from now and you come back with those changes and we'll then discuss it and hopefully adopt it as amended. >> second. >> i think it sounds like a plan. i want to thank commissioner elias and commissioner hirsch for doing this. it's been a long time since we updated this. a lot of good work went into this. the commissioner said, there is

no two cases alike. yes? okay. well we didn't vote yet. we won't. and there is no two cases alike and these are guidelines. guidelines for us in the federal system, the sentencing guidelines, they're not mandatory, they're discretionary, which recognizes no two cases are alike. suffice to say if one of our officers had sex with a minor, they would be terminated. i'll turn back to commissioner hirsch about how to proceed from here. >> why don't we calendar this for two meetings from now? assuming that calendar is not too crowded. and then we'll funnel all of the comments and have a revised version. >> perfect. everybody agreeable with that? okay. any public comment regarding what we've just discussed?

hearing none, public comment is closed. call the next line item. >> election of commission officers action. >> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, it's time for the election commission officers. i just want to say that the past year i've been the president a couple of times, the vice president a couple of times. and since our president, who i still think is our president until tonight, it was determined when he passed in may of last year, i was his vice president and i've served as the vice president combined, kind of a president, in his absence. and so i just want to say that, as the commissioner said, there is no additional authority or power. we're all one. we have one vote. there is other work that is involved in terms of speaking at academy graduations, retirement ceremonies, medal of valor ceremonies. many different events that

require a lot more -- many more appearances. and it's been an honor to do this. it's been an honor to be the president. honor to be the vice president. it's been an honor to fill the shoes of my good friend that we lost last may in julius turman. you have friendships and relationships with people because of this commission. and it's time tonight for a change. and so with that being said, i would like to nominate commissioner hirsch to be president and commissioner taylor to be vice president. >> i don't know if you can do that. parliamentary rules, i don't know if you can be the chair and do the nomination. i think you have to hand the chair over to somebody else. my name is on the list. i've been sitting here waiting to do that. so you might want to check, but

my understanding is you can't make the motion and the nomination while you're the chair. >> madame city attorney? >> parliamentary procedure. >> that's what they do. >> it's my understanding we no longer have a parliamentarian on the commission. >> i mean -- >> that's just general procedure that the president doesn't make motions in any body from the board of supervisors to multiple board of directors i sit on. i don't know. maybe -- >> you can't -- because we just -- i've within sitting here waiting to make a comment and you can't do that. we are governed by the rules of parliamentary procedure. you do agree with that? >> the city attorney's office does not comment or give legal opinions about that. so that is initially why the advice was to select and appoint a parliamentarian. i don't think that role was

filled. so i don't have a legal answer for you. >> it says is in the book, we're governed by parliamentary procedure. all the commissions are. so you can't make that motion. >> well, i guess -- >> i'm next in line. >> feel free to speak. i made the motion, i guess i would need a second. do i have a second? besides, i can make the motion. >> i think -- >> i have a second from commissioner. >> okay, you know, that's improper and i've asked the city attorney to look into that. everyone else is governed by parliamentary procedure and i don't think the chair can do that. the last meeting when we brought the election issue up i was concerned and angry. i spoke out at that time because i learned four members of the executive board, the mayor's office had decided who was going to be the president and vice president, hirsch and taylor and that's what i was concerned -- upset because of the back room

politicking, the decisions made without having a discussion among all members of the commission and excluding the board of supervisor members of this commission. i think -- i think that's just bad, unprofessional and inappropriate. coming into this meeting up to two hours ago, i understand that the mayor's office agreed to have representation from a member of the board of supervisors and member of the executive board of her office. i don't know what happened in the two hours, but the mayor pooled that support and now demands these four members exclude the members from the board of supervisors from the leadership of this commission. that's the reason you just did that tactic and nominated these people, which is in violation of parliamentary procedure. i think we need to discuss how we want to go forward and whether we should have representation from both boards. people for the public who don't know, when you're appointed by the board of supervisor, you go through a rigorous application

process. you have public hearings, vettings. what they look for are people who can represent the disenfranchised of the community, people with heavy police presence, people who have some type of relationship with the community that is most affected by police actions. and from commissioners, they're both public defenders, they work with the downtrodden and they have a voice in that community. now, the mayor's office, you're appointed and you also look -- you also are confirmed by the board hearing, but what we have here, we don't have -- what you have are people in the prosecutors' side of things. i think the public, especially in the last couple of years, has distrusted this commission because they don't have a voice. especially the public that is most affected. i think commissioner elias, coming from a background of the public defender and working in

and with these communities, i think she would be an excellent representation from the member of the board of supervisors. i don't have a problem with having commissioner hirsch, but i think we should have the second leadership position to reflect this befored supervisors and i think commissioner elias would bring that here and bring trust to both sides of the community. you would have the basic, you know, politician side and then you have your side that actually gives a voice to the community that most needs it. as we saw here tonight, the president and the vice president are powerful positions. i mean, they literally set the vision of this commission. they control the agenda on this commission. we've seen that here tonight. they set who the committee members will be, whether there will be committee members. what has really bothered me, they decide which organizations can be part of the various working groups. and sometimes organizations that

i think are very important that should have a voice have not been able to sit on some of these working groups. when you have a member from the board of supervisors, member from the executive board, it brings ideas, it flags community members that should be a part of this moving forward. i think what is going on tonight is to practice exclusion. i don't know why. i think it's a bad way to start the year. it brings a lot of bad blood and is going to be difficult to work with a commission that has a power grab and just to assume and control the agenda, the committees, the working groups and to really stifle the voice of the board of supervisors' members. i think it's really wrong. before we make any decisions we should talk about how we want to structure this board and why do we want to share this leadership and not give a voice to the people who deserve a voice in community, in our different communities. i think that's a way to continue to establish trust with them, rather than the way we're going

forward. so i would nominate commission elias as vice president and i was wondering if i have a second. >> second. >> first, we have to go for the vote on the first nomination. >> that wasn't an actual nomination. >> so, this is kind of an odd situation to be in, what everybody is saying, and i had the media call me up today, is that the mayoral got marching orders -- not independent commissioners, but merely agents of the mayor. i like the mayor, quite a bit. i think she's doing a fabulous job so far. i hope to see that continue. but you know, at some point as commissioners we have to, you know, step out from behind the apron, stand up and do our jobs. and when we're taking orders from our boss, you no longer are

a commissioner, you're just a vote. there is roles that we fill that are different. the police app the prosecutors and the poa well represented. the community well represented. well, you know, three is not a bad number. department the best it can be. to restore the honor, the glory of this department. if we left it up to the old way, you know, it would be in the

news again. the department of justice would be here. we're moving forward. to me, this feels like a step back. and i understand that the desire to get on the good side of the poa and i have nothing against the poa. but you know, i don't answer to anybody. i don't answer to any of the supervisors. any of them call me up anytime, and i'll sit down with them, but nobody tells me how to vote because i vote for the people. i vote for san franciscans. i vote for security, safety, honor, safety with respect. and i don't know. this is -- it's troubling to me to think that we're going to take a step backwards here. and really, let's be honest, what is the vice presidentsy on this commission?

i heard one supervisor refer to it as -- well, it's probably not proper to say it up here. but mainly it's a ceremonial role. there is no powers vested within our rules of order. but to me, we're going to sit here and we're going to work together for years. it's either going to feel like years, or it's going it feel like you know, we're getting together and working and hashing things out. so you know, the politics that have gone on behind the scenes, smoke-filled rooms and all that good stuff, we're out here. you know, it's okay to stand up. it's okay to speak for the people. it's okay to speak from your own voice. to live in truth and honesty. but it's also okay to say, hey, i want to work together with my fellow commissioners and if that means the ceremonial role goes to commissioner elias who has,

you know, dedicated her life to representing people who most of us look past. i'm not a public defender, but ms. elias is. and you know, if you want to talk about the people that brought about change in places, it hasn't been the prosecutors in this town. i hate to say it. but everybody knows it. recently i'll say it's gotten better. but it's the public defenders that are in the trenches, in the streets, every day fighting for freedom, justice and the american way. and for that reason, i do think we should have an equal vote, an equal voice. and you know, i've talked about this with commissioner mazzucco. you know, i really do want us to have a good working relationship. and i feel like this type of --

you know, it's divisive, it's not healthy. it makes us look, at least some of us, look like we're not a commissioner, but we're a vote. and so i'll pass with that. i may come back though. >> commissioner hirsch? >> i'm stunned. i'm kind of amazed at comments just made. you just said that the mayoral appointees are basic politicians side of appointees and prosecutors. hang on, it's my turn. two of us have never been prosecutors and are not prosecutors. i just heard we're acts of the mayor and we take orders from the mayor. nobody has told me how to vote

on this issue. you got to be kidding me. i don't know anything the mayor did today or yesterday -- let me finish. i had a conversation with one of her aids. i was open. i don't care who the vice president is. i don't want to be president, but i said i'd be willing to do it. it's clear there is a real chip on the shoulders by the three appointees by the board of supervisors and i don't look at you folks as if you're different than the folks appointed by the mayor. i don't like being called an agent of the mayor. you speak for the people and i speak for the mayor. you got to be kidding me. this is the conversation you want to have on electing a vice president? this is what the issue is, who is going to be vice president which you said is a figurehead position i guess. i don't really understand what it is you folks are really getting at.

what you think is going to happen. but i think this commission needs to work together in a collective way, a collaborative way. this is a horrible way. >> so you don't oppose dual representation? >> i don't. and nobody has told me to oppose it. in fact, if you wanted to be president, i'd be willing to talk to you about that. that's not the point. i'm not opposed to virtually anybody being an officer, but i don't like the suggestion that the public that somehow somebody is telling me how to vote and you three are independent. that's phoney. >> well. that's how we've been -- >> commissioner elias -- >> let's call the roll. >> allow me to clarify, i'm no longer a public defender. i was proudly a public defender for 11 years and joined the labor commissioner's office a year ago. as an attorney for the labor commissioner, i fight for workers' rights and we get wages

back and make workers whole. i'm sure you've read the great things the labor commissioner has been doing in the bay area, several cases. so that is who i represent and what i do now. but before that, i was a public defender and i was a very proud one. and i want to make that very clear. that i have dedicated my life to public service. with respect to the board of supervisors and the mayoral candidates, i think that the issue is when john -- when commissioner hamasaki and i applied to be in this position, we did it because we were people with different perspectives. the reality is that prosecutors work with police officers every day and work closely with them and rely on them to build their cases and to become victorious in court. public defenders, defense attorneys have a different view. not to say dwoent like cops or against cops, in fact, when i came here and i had

conversations with the police department and with some sgt.s and captains, they gave me that stereotype, i don't like police because i'm a defense attorney and i'm not going to be fair. all we want from you is to be fair. i said, you'll get that with me. it doesn't matter what i did, what i do for a living, you'll get somebody who is fair. that's what is bothering us in terms of having dual representation on this board. we want things to be fair. it's not that it's a power grab or whatever you want to call it, we just want things to be fair. that's what the police officers have asked of me and that's what i promised them i would give them, i would be fair in making decisions in discipline. i would be fair in making decisions in procedural things. and i think i have proven how fair i can be, even though there is a bias against me because i was a public defender for a long

time. the board of supervisors that report to the people, they put a lot of people and time into selecting the two candidates, commissioner hamasaki and myself. we stayed there 7-and-a-half hours to be interviewed by them and they asked us questions. not only were we there for 7-and-a-half hours while they vetted us in front of the public, but we had to meet with them and let them know who we were. they asked us a million in one questions to make sure we were the right people for this position, because they wanted people that were going to move reform. and take what the department of justice recommendations were and move them forward. and so when we say it was 7-and-a-half hours we were here and vetted, it was way more than that. and they were able to ask us any question they wanted to, which they did. and ultimately we unanimously came out of the board of supervisors as the two best candidates. so i think that is another reason why we feel that it

should be dual representation. and i think that most importantly shlg that people want transparency. please stand by. please stand

>> i am the only one i think on this desk who has investigated police officers as i did. a lot of this discussion i will promptly forget because i respect and like my fellow commissioners and i will take it for the hyperbole it is. as a commission, we are a better body than we're showing tonight. and i also want to mention that despite all the talk of, you know, commuteing and representing community, the only person on this desk who actually represents the community is commissioner brooketer. that's his job. i think we're all kind of coundd up about this. we should have a measured and reason discussion about what is best rather than attacking each