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 other. i will resist the urge to do so, i'm not going to do counter

attacks against you. i'm not going to tell you it's fake news and that you are beholding to the board of supervisors because i hope you are not. i can only tell you what i am and what i am not. and so, with that, i will leave it. >> likewise. as the only commissioner here that hasn't been a former prosecutor or defender that i speak on behalf of all san franciscansanfranciscans and ths across the board. one of the things as i sit here and we're having this dialogue and conversation is we can agree to disagree at the end of the day. i think one thing about this commission and the time that we're here right now, is we have an opportunity as a total body to push forward these reforms. and i think that every single person on here has the qualifications to be here as commission elias alluded through. we all went through the same process. it was rigorous, tiring, but we had the conversations we needed to have and we did what it was we needed to do to sit upon this

dais. it seems like there's been things that have been put out there, folks have given some rhetoric on who they are and what it is they would like to see and i would like to see us continue to move forward. >> you know -- look, ib i've beei know i'vebeen here a long k in and i'm told the mayor's office changed its mind and they can't have duel representation. that's coming from city hall and i knew that coming in the last time that it the two of you would be nominated and that it was going to be the vote. i don't have clairvoyance. i have people who call me and tell me these things and it's disturbing to me. i've been on this commission way too long. that is distressing. i said it the last time and i'm saying it again, why don't we have a discussion about what

type of leadership we want. do we want duel representations from both sides? that's really the question we're trying to put out there. before you jam a nomination and a vote before we even have a discussion and when away want to see going forward and i'd like to know why the people who don't want joint representation, why not? i mean that's the way to have a colleenality to get along to move forward and to have the different perspective that everybody has and to look in those communities that we really adversity effected by police and that's what i would say. >> i think we'll have that discussion. the other thing is -- i don't have a problem, i'm fine voting for commissioner as president.

the arbitration background is, you know, probably helping you ash straight things and i don't have a problem with that. and i think maybe i'd like to hear -- i would agree to that as to -- you know, just in full transparency, there was an agreement that there was going to be duel representation up until about -- i think it was like, i can't speak to this exactly myself but about an hour before the meeting. it kind of made me sad because i do appreciate the mayor's office a lot. i think she's doing a great job and she's got great people. when you are in power you always

have to fear the people. if they had said, you know what, go screw yourselves. i want to have my votes. i don't care and i'm going to push through two of my people, that's fine. at the same time, you know, we can fill up the room. we can go back to those days where the commissioner room is over filling. to me that's tic tactically thea of being dishonest to people nor a tactical reason. i don't know. it doesn't leave a good feeling and it doesn't bode well for kickoff this next term. you know, i think -- well.

anybody is free to say what they want. i think that we should know that we should answer for our honesty and our truth. even though some of us are mayorals and some are for the people, we all answer the people at the end of the day. having one person telling you what to do, that's not independence. >> i'm going to ask you stop attacking us personally or else we can all say things that we know and have heard about you and you have told us yourself about whether or not you are beholden with the board. let's stop with the personal attacks. >> whoa, whoa, whoa. no, no, no. >> as i sit here and listen to you, look at the contradiction, it's the fact we're sitting here

together and said this is one body. as we schedule things on the agenda we do it together as a commission, however, now, we're pitting and saying that there's a group of folks from the board of supervisors and there's mayoral appointees. at the end of the day we had to go through the same to sit in this dais and in order to move things forward we have to work together. if we have a conversation that there's mayoral appoints and board of supervisor appointees and we're all one and it doesn't matter who the president is, it's contradicting, isn't it? >> no, because we don't take orders. >> again. we're better than this. >> i've sat here and listened to this for quite a while. like commissioner taylor, you know, i'm going to keep my calm about this but i too represent the community. i was born and raised in this city. i think that's only commissioner dejesus and i that can say that.

being born and raised in this city means -- means that you are raised diversity cities in the world, one of the most progressive cities in the world and you were raised to be open minded and to care about this city. and to represent the community. yes, i was an assistant district attorney. yes, i did work with the police officers. yes, i was in an assistant united states attorney. and i worked with police officers, federal agents and police officers from other agencies. yes, while in the u.s. attorney's office i too investigated police officers. i have always done what is right. yes, nothing bothers me more than when a police officer does something to ruin the reputation of this great police department. yes, i have been very active in helping change the rules. doing what we need to do to make this the best police department

in the greatest city. i think these personal attacks are offensive to me and i know that i'm not going to hold anybody to it but it's wrong. i mean, i think that you've categorized people, you've profiled people, and you've put people in little boxes. i have to tell you, i know this is emotional for some folks, and it's very bother some to me that tonight we seem to be divided. i just want to put that on the record. i truly care about this city and the people in this city and i represent the people in this city. for someone to say differently that's wrong. anybody else have anything to say? >> there is a motion. >> there is a motion.

>> motion was that i nominated commissioner bob robert hersch to be the president and taylor to be the vice president and there was a second from commissioner brookter. >> how are we going to move forward? i'm not going to vote with -- you are going to make us vote if you put two together you will make us -- if you keep those two together it will be awkward. maybe take them vingly. >individually.we can do the pree president. >> does that make sense? >> ok. we would need public comment before a vote. >> that's correct. >> any public comment about what has just been said? hearing none, public comment is now closed. >> you want to take them

separately? >> on the motion to vote for commissioner robert. >> how do you vote. >> dejoe us. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> taylor. >> yes. >> the ayes are 4 and the nos are 3 with commissioner in the dissent. >> with that i'm going to turn the gavel over to commissioner

hirsch. >> i wish you folks would have done this a little differently. i'll tell you, the reason i voted yes, is because i feel that you unfairly characterized the rest of us. are you leaving? it could have been done a little bit differently. i was asked how i was going to vote. >> we still have a quorum. >> all right. >> well there's something i wanted to say as a president and it's unfortunate this is the way it's going to pan out. i do hope this commission can

work collaboratively and my intent is not to take on the lion's share of responsibility. my intent is to delegate and make sure all seven commissioners have an equal role in the work because i don't have the time and i don't think it's healthy for a commission to be functioning through one or two people. and i also think transparency is important. so, i am going to ask, starting in march, probably quarterly, that each commissioner give a report as to what that commissioner is working on for the commission and what the status is of what it is we're doing. so the public knows what we're doing. in terms of priorities, i think there are three real priorities for the commission. they'll be other issues that come up but these are the over arching priorities. first is maintaining the safety of the city and helping the department to the extent we can in our role, in maintaining the safety.

the second is making sure that the communities have trust in the department and doing what we can to foster trust among the various communities. that's a real challenge for this police department and everyone. the third one is, i think, to focus on the reform effort, which we're moving forward on. that remains our biggest challenge over the next couple of years. with that, we'll go what's is the next item on the agenda? >> item 6. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items not on tonight's agenda but the jurisdiction of the commission. speaker shall address the remarks as a whole and not individual commissioners. under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police or d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personnel

should refrain however, from entering no any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. >> that was a bloodbath. the police department is strong. read between the lines. going forward here, i really put a lot into my credibility. i can talk about a tweet that really happened. i i don't believe he tweet you had back. i said she's a moron. i'm going to say who he is. now let's go forward with other issues. as we know, the new state law

says certain police do can be public. the police department and it was embarrassing. names, offenses going back years. they're not done. san francisco pd, batter up. it's going to be embarrassing. if we all know, i know two in san francisco. i'm not going to say who they are. one was in the tenderloin and that was gross misconduct what he did, ok. when we do these disciplinary cases here when something like that comes in front of you, why do we need to cover it up? he is accused of sexual misconduct and we're going to

make this action. because if you don't, it's all going to come up. it's all coming up. i'm totally agree with transparency. someone is going to get embarrassed. >> there is a group that is working on complying with the new state law and the time will come and it's going to take us a while to flush that out because the law is not easy to interpret and apply. when we do, we will comply with the law and we will make information public as we can. not everything we do will be made public and that's why we have closed sessions. next speaker, thank you. >> good evening. >> this is a sad day that this

has to happen. i'm disappointed just sitting here in the audience listening to this. it sounds like we're on the street and everyone is sounding like children and it is divided. just like our children are being killed out and it's divided of the no one is saying everything. it's sad. this is not what i want to say, i'm here to talk about my son. i'd like to use the overhead. it was murdered august 14th, 2006. still this day no justice and i've been asking for a while that we have a venue for our children so that i won't have to climb on polls and things to get justice for my child. again, we also have the former mayor saying i know who killed your son and the d.a. knows who killed her son and they can name

addresses and everything. this is what i'm left with. my son laying in a casket. he had a father and a mother. that's his father. this is what i'm left with. my son laying in a -- deceased. these are the perpetrators that killed my son. this young man right here. thomas hannahbil. these are the names this we got from my investigator on the fifth floor. this young man bragged about killing my child. and he is with his mother and father and sister and all of his family. and my son is laying in the ground. i've been asking for justice for my child. we're talking about justice.

i still need it. >> thank you. i know that you come here every week hoping that one day a witness will come forward anding willing to testify and that's our hope too. the tip line, as we say every week is (415)575-4444 and we're hoping one day someone will actually come forward and give testimony. thank you. any other speakers? any other public speakers? hearing none, public speaking session is closed. next line item. >> item #, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 9 below closed session including public comment on item 8. vote whether to hold item 9 in closed session. >> any public comment on our closed session? seeing there's none, public comments closed. next item. >> item 8, vote on whether to hold item 9 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10 action. >> can i have a motion to go into closed session.

>> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. none. hearing no opposition we'll go >> we are back on the record in open session and you still have a coram. >> thank you. we are ready. we need a vote, is that right to cost me item ten is his vote disclose any or all items held in closed session. >> can i have a motion on that law. >> move for nondisclosure. >> second. it passes unanimously. motion to adjourn. can i have a motion class. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favour. >> aye. >> thank you all.

my name is doctor ellen moffett, i am an assistant medical examiner for the city and county of san francisco. i perform autopsy, review medical records and write reports. also integrate other sorts of testing data to determine cause and manner of death. i have been here at this facility since i moved here in november, and previous to that at the old facility. i was worried when we moved here that because this building is so much larger that i wouldn't see people every day. i would miss my personal interactions with the other employees, but that hasn't been the case. this building is very nice.

we have lovely autopsy tables and i do get to go upstairs and down stairs several times a day to see everyone else i work with. we have a bond like any other group of employees that work for a specific agency in san francisco. we work closely on each case to determine the best cause of death, and we also interact with family members of the diseased. that brings us closer together also. >> i am an investigator two at the office of the chief until examiner in san francisco. as an investigator here i investigate all manners of death that come through our jurisdiction. i go to the field interview police officers, detectives, family members, physicians, anyone who might be involved with the death. additionally i take any property with the deceased individual and take care and custody of that. i maintain the chain and custody

for court purposes if that becomes an issue later and notify next of kin and make any additional follow up phone callsness with that particular death. i am dealing with people at the worst possible time in their lives delivering the worst news they could get. i work with the family to help them through the grieving process. >> i am ricky moore, a clerk at the san francisco medical examiner's office. i assist the pathology and toxicology and investigative team around work close with the families, loved ones and funeral establishment. >> i started at the old facility. the building was old, vintage. we had issues with plumbing and things like that. i had a tiny desk. i feet very happy to be here in the new digs where i actually

have room to do my work. >> i am sue pairing, the toxicologist supervisor. we test for alcohol, drugs and poisons and biological substances. i oversee all of the lab operations. the forensic operation here we perform the toxicology testing for the human performance and the case in the city of san francisco. we collect evidence at the scene. a woman was killed after a robbery homicide, and the dna collected from the zip ties she was bound with ended up being a cold hit to the suspect. that was the only investigative link collecting the scene to the suspect. it is nice to get the feedback. we do a lot of work and you don't hear the result. once in a while you heard it had

an impact on somebody. you can bring justice to what happened. we are able to take what we due to the next level. many of our counterparts in other states, cities or countries don't have the resources and don't have the beautiful building and the equipmentness to really advance what we are doing. >> sometimes we go to court. whoever is on call may be called out of the office to go to various portions of the city to investigate suspicious deaths. we do whatever we can to get our job done. >> when we think that a case has a natural cause of death and it turns out to be another natural cause of death. unexpected findings are fun. >> i have a prior background in law enforcement. i was a police officer for 8 years. i handled homicides and

suicides. i had been around death investigation type scenes. as a police officer we only handled minimal components then it was turned over to the coroner or the detective division. i am intrigued with those types of calls. i wondered why someone died. i have an extremely supportive family. older children say, mom, how was your day. i can give minor details and i have an amazing spouse always willing to listen to any and all details of my day. without that it would be really hard to deal with the negative components of this job. >> being i am a native of san francisco and grew up in the community. i come across that a lot where i may know a loved one coming from the back way or a loved one

seeking answers for their deceased. there are a lot of cases where i may feel affected by it. if from is a child involved or things like that. i try to not bring it home and not let it affect me. when i tell people i work at the medical examiners office. whawhat do you do? the autopsy? i deal with the a with the enou- with the administrative and the families. >> most of the time work here is very enjoyable. >> after i started working with dead people, i had just gotten married and one night i woke up in a cold sweat. i thought there was somebody dead? my bed. i rolled over and poked the body. sure enough, it was my husband who grumbled and went back to sleep.

this job does have lingering effects. in terms of why did you want to go into this? i loved science growing up but i didn't want to be a doctor and didn't want to be a pharmacist. the more i learned about forensics how interested i was of the perfect combination between applied science and criminal justice. if you are interested in finding out the facts and truth seeking to find out what happened, anybody interested in that has a place in this field. >> being a woman we just need to go for it and don't let anyone fail you, you can't be. >> with regard to this position in comparison to crime dramas out there, i would say there might be some minor correlations. let's face it, we aren't hollywood, we are real world.

yes we collect evidence. we want to preserve that. we are not scanning fingerprints in the field like a hollywood television show. >> families say thank you for what you do, for me that is extremely fulfilling. somebody has to do my job. if i can make a situation that is really negative for someone more positive, then i feel like i am doing the right thing for i am doing the right thing for

>> good morning, please welcome san francisco gay men's chorus, performing "singing for our love ." [♪] ♪ we are peaceful loving people ♪ ♪ and we are singing,, singing for our love ♪ ♪ we are young and old together ♪ ♪ and we are singing, singing for our love ♪ [♪]