i want to ask about the adjudication were cases were sustained. it looks like there are two failures in traffic stop data, and i am trying to remember the last time the department issued a bulletin. what can we do to prevent? >> it was recent admonition, and you will actually be seeing an officer failing to enter data. i take it very seriously, so if you see admonishment, that is the first offense on any of these. there will be an officer before the commission shortly for failure to enter data appear reuter >> it is good to know the progressive discipline policy with respect to this issue. you said it was recently issued? >> i will find out the date, but we have reminded the officers how critical it is. >> if i might add on, next week i will present the first quarter report. we are a little behind, but we are catching up. you will see the adjudication the chief has made for three months, and you have an opportunity to see the chief has given the indiscipline -- the discipline he has just discussed, and in some cases it is an admonishment for failu

that is what you would be concerned about, you wouldn't believe adjudicating it on the enforcement and, you can hear what the issues are prior to that. once you have determined it is a violation, you improve the enforcement. we are doing that work for you. we're doing the determination for you. that the ethics commission would provide the enforcement of the willful failure matters. at that point, there is no need to hear the entire merits of the case over again. because then if defeats the whole purpose of the process. and i think that we should move ahead with the knowledge and the way it is written in the law that the task force deals with the adjudication portion, making the order of the termination, and if it feels the need to send it off to an enforcement agency that would take action on the order, much in the way a court would issue an order and it would have to be enforced by whichever enforcement agency or body would do that. i like to see if we can proceed along those lines, the think that is where the crux of the issue is here that we have had ongoing issues with. >> certainl

he and senior colleagues have over the standards of the press when the adjudication is taking place of them. that seems to me to defy all known principles of justice. so in the moment that you accept that proposition that i have made, you then have got to accept that this body will have to externally to be imposed, because there is no other way to do it, and the press won't be able to do it themselves, and i believe they should calm down about the effects of the autonomy on politicians and ministers and have regards to all of the other institutions which parliament has set up and sustains. which are not remotely in the pockets of ministers or parliament and the most obvious one is the judiciary. i mean, it is entirely sustained by votes with a capital v of money from parliament, but wherein a free society, i don't dream to try to understand what happens in the constraints of the supreme court, but there are more statutes which have been established which include the united kingdom of statistics authority and the united kingdom authority statutes which have led to a more pluralistic

. -- going to adjudicate this issue on june 5. that this commission not make a ruling relating to matters that are about to be adjudicated by the state court. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners and the parties to that view. >> i concur. >> there will be discovery in this proceeding going along side with the proceedings are happening in superior court, so i do not think there is a barrier to the commission said and we are going to have discovering rules, each side submitted a discovery request, and i also note that some time a superior court order, the court may issue an order on june 5. they may continue the matter. they may order the parties to meet and confer further. there may be an appeal on the other side, which went and deprive us of evidence at all, given the time table. these are my concerns with just going along the superior court track, even if we sort of quote- unquote go along. it deprives us. chair hur: i welcome the views of the commissioners. commissioner: i agree that the superior court is already holdi

it is hard in a situation where you have adjudicator to or not a jury. the risk of some here say is not as high as it would be in case of a jury. i come out -- my view is we should allow some here say evidence. i do not think we should rely on the rules of evidence. i personally would caution the parties that we are not going to -- i would not be persuaded by if the only evidence on the matter was here say evidence. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> where do we draw the line if we're going to have some here say. are we going to decide on a case by case basis as it comes up? >> could you repeat the question? >> where do we draw the line on hearsay evidence that is to be admitted? do we decide on a case by case basis as it comes up? >> any other commissioners have views on that? >> having spent my life as a litigator and familiar with the hearsay rules, i find myself very close to the chairman pose a position. i would be a reluctant to make any decision which relies primarily upon here say and what -- hearsay and would caution the parties,

supervisor records, not go to the sunshine ordinance task force, where they are actively trying to adjudicate them selves on the run. but say they cannot get a record. they then called the city official, they call the mayor's office. if the mayor's office does not take any action on it 40 days, under sunshine ordinance, they can go directly to you or they could go to court to get satisfaction. >> you are not seeing 67.35d as the basis for the commission authority to hear non-violations for the task force? >> it is not for the task force. it is for any person acting on their own volition. if you look at a, b, c, you have to start with a. it talks about any person who has a complaint. that is what we are talking about here. we're not talking about the task force, we're talking about any person. and there are many different ways a person can exercise their rights under the sunshine ordinance to be able to get records. one way is through the process, as outlined 67.21. the other process is 67.35. >> ok, i see. >> ok. with all due respect, being the only lawyer on this side of this group, i have t

you have retired judges you can hire four between $500.1000 dollars an hour to adjudicate your case -- hire for between five under dollars and -- 5 hundred dollars -- $500 and $1000 an hour to adjudicator case. there is foreclosure. the supreme court said we need mandatory mediation before trial to try and do away with the logjam we have. mediation is a very useful and efficient way of handling some cases. many cases. it is part of the future of the practice of law. they can be the only part of the practice of law that we use to resolve disputes. >> 30 minutes to go. we are in good shape. i have not been aware of how the time works here. i am learning quickly, i think. in a way, the arbitration system exists in opposition to another fundamental element of our legal system, which is the jury system. we are interested in your views about the role of the jury system, both in civil and in criminal cases. >> well, i strongly believe in the jury system. i am a jury traveler. that is all i have done for 45 years. my personal experiences that i have seen the collective wisdom of a jury actual

opr adjudicates all allegations of misconduct vfling senior officials and law enforcement personnel and opr officials also review each report of investigation involving a tsa employee where the investigation was conducted by the office of inspector general. working with tsa's office of human capital, opr is developing a unified data database that will allow us to track all disciplinary matters through the agency to help us promote consistency and accountability. opr has also created greater consistency and transparency in the entire tsa disciplinary system by creating a table of offenses and penalties. the table which is available to all tsa employees provides ranges of penalties for each type of offense and guides the decisions of officials both at opr and in the field. as we strive to continue strengthening transportation security and improvinging the overall travel experience for all americans we always bear in mind that the success of our mission depends on the integrity of our workforce, the freedom to travel is fundamental to our american way of life and tsa is fully committed to

but the independent repository of data and information so they could have the ability to adjudicate if need be between different interpretations or conflicts on agency or rule promulgation. we're very concerned that the administration is a little bit slow on getting the ofr. they now have one together to get past. but i would like you to weigh in and be the adjudicating body where issues rise up and has it been effective or not? >> i'm happy to start it. i actually think it's turned out to be a good forum for the agencies to share concerns and differences as they arise and have a discussion and hear the views of other people from their unique perspectives. we're working on the next annual report that we'll try to lay out the systemic risk issues that we see facing the economy. every agency contributes to that. and those particular issues become, you know, very lively discussions for how to approach particular problems. i think ofr is hopefully starting to get going in a more meaningful way. i think it can be important to the work of the individual agencies with respect tod data collect

everything we do at tsa from hiring, promotion and training to inspections, investigations and adjudications is driven by our commitment to the highest ethical standards. administrator pistol has made clear that integrity, professionalism and hard work are the bedrock principles for the entire tsa workforce. when the tsa employee fails to live up to our high standards, he or she violates the public trust, tarnishes the excellent work of the rest of our workforce and damages tsa's reputation with the american people. for that reason, we hold all of our employees to the same high professional and ethical standards and we have zero tolerance for any kind of criminal activity in the workplace. tsa's office of human capital publishes the policies that govern employee conduct. all employees are required to know our standards and to re-review them on an annual basis. to further assist, tsa's online training center provides training for all new first-time tsa supervisors to give them the tools to identify, report and prevent misconduct. when allegations or instances of misconduct arise they're inves

effect, independent repository of data and information so that the fsoc could have the ability to adjudicate if need be between different interpretations or conflicts on agency promulgation or on rule promulgation. we're very concerned that the administration were a little slow on getting the ofr nominee. they now have one together to get passed. but i would like you to weigh in on fsoc's ability to -- maybe not so much with the mf global circumstance, but be that adjudicating body where issues rise up and has it been effective or not? and either one -- and i've got one follow-up as well. >> i actually think fsoc has turned out to be a very good forum for the agencies to share concerns and ideas. and differences as they arise and have a discussion and hear the views of other people from their unique perspectives. regulating different types of institutions but all connected within the financial markets. so i think we're working on our next annual report that we'll try to lay out the systemic risk issues that we see facing the economy. every agency contributes to that and those particular issu

al-qaeda in iraq kills some local civilians, and as the tribal leader in that area's trying to adjudicateto get the bodies back, al-qaeda in iraq holds on to them for well over the time period allotted for, in general -- at least in that area -- muslim practice. and they're rotting in the street. and then at some point after a period of time the family is called to retrieve the bodies, and they have been laced with improvised explosive devices. so as the family members are gathering the rotting corporations in the street -- corpses in the street in anbar province, they explode and kill more members of the family. and the purpose from the al-qaeda in iraq's perspective was to teach locals in this particular area a lesson that they were not to cooperate with the government, and they were not to cooperate with u.s. or other allied forces. and, but the reaction from local tribal sheikhs across anbar because of events like this was anger. i mean, demonstrable anger where you see by the fall of 2006 large scale revolt against this kind of brutality. i mean, brutality that goes well beyond, you

another thing that occurs to me is on the federal level, the immigration adjudication crisis which is a crisis by any measure, is eating the federal courts alive in those districts where there are many, you know, deportation cases and so on. so in the second circuit and in the 9th circuit, you know, the immigration cases are now i think something like 40% of the entire caseload of those courts. and the -- that system is so badly broken, that i know a number of federal judges who are just in despair. i've heard judges say, one at an aba program a couple annual meetings ago, saying that you know, he has trouble sleeping at night realizing that there is simply no way to administer fair and impartial and informed justice to immigrants because the lower courts in the immigration adjudication system don't even have to give reasons. so there's nothing for the federal judges to go on. it's a horrible problem and it's costing, you know, just millions of dollars that could better be spent on a more rational immigration policy. that's not our mandate but with other priorities and focused on the

i would like you to weigh in on the ability to be that adjudicating body where issues rise up, and hasn't been affected or not? >> i have a follow-up as well. they actually think it has turned out to be a very good forum for the agencies to share concerns and ideas and differences as they arise and have a discussion and hear the views of other people from their unique perspective regulating different types of institutions that are all connected. we're working on the next annual report that we will try to lay out the systemic risk issues we see facing the economy. every agency contributes to that. those particular issues become very lively discussions for how to approach particular problems. i think ofr is starting to get going in a meaningful way. i think it is working pretty well, and i think one of the benefits has been this has enabled us to develop much stronger relationships as well. having witnessed the predecessor >> in the 1990's in this administration, i think it's a real enhancement. it is more formal, and sometimes there is not as much flexibility, but i think it is a big enhan

. >> and we query whether the adjudicated body would do that. >> i agree. >> and i talk about the three limbs. >> and if we talk about the, because, let's deal with the part of that body or the body which is enforcement mechanisms, and what he is enforcing there is behaviors which are found to be in breach of the general law. i am not proposing any change in the substantive law here in terms of the defamation or the privacy and puts a side my thought of a separate talk, because mr. jay said it would not make a practical difference so we have talked about the provisional remedies, and what we have tried to do is to effectively make the current purpose of the ppc which is to provide fast track remedies in situations like this far more effective in the circumstances in which certainly i have come to the conclusion that the ppc cannot do it by voluntary behavior. so that is what you are doing. now, there is no way in the world that process is going to lead to control of the presses, complete nonsense. and who are -- say you've got a press commission, let's call it that, they have an office,

in 1967 the federal courts adjudicated the quality >>> it is not a flip-flop there is no political calculus in this it is not smart it is going to do it for a political point of view it does not make sense >>> the debate went from politicians to parishioners. same-sex marriage a focal point for christians and evangelicals in the african american community. anne mackovic with more >>> in most churches pastors failed certain things have to address for your congregation >>> the hot topic this with obama support of same-sex marriage >>> i did have a debate with myself, should i or should not i but i decided it was important for me to say something >>> at the risk of alienating conservative parishioners he made it part of his sermon. >>> it was important in my mind to be committed to equality and justice for all meaning everybody and that is what i shared with the congregation >>> those who wanted to speak on camera supported him. >>> fabulous >>> i was glad that he let it be known he approved of that to the congregation >>> there may be mixed thoughts on the sermon but what remains to be seen t

there are adjudicative guidelines out there. people are aware of what those adjudicative guidelines are. we are professional organization. we travel around the world. over the last six years we have gone 37,000 trips around the world. we have had no situation like this one before. again, i am confident this is not a cultural issue, this is not a systemic issues. these are just a -- we make decisions every single day. our employees makes really critical decisions that, again, the overwhelming majority of the time they make good decisions. on this particular trip we had some individuals who made very bad decisions. that is why it is very important for us to have a strong office of professional responsibility, to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are a minority, make bad choices and have misconduct, we are going to act appropriately. >> i guess the point i was trying to make is, as i read these guidelines, it specifically refers to engaging in any activity that is illegal in

the court has already adjudic e adjudicated somebody else as the killer in the case.n't be binding on a jury, but the jury would certainly have to wonder whether this schizophrenic who's confessed is, in fact, the killer. now, i want to -- i want to hedge on this a little bit and say we don't know what the new york city police department knows. there is a possibility that he supplied some detail that has been held back and that only the killer could know. did etan patz have a scar or some kind of a mark that hasn't been released publicly and that her dez has revealed that he knows about? i must say i heard that he's going to have the man examined by a sigh kai strift. it makes me wonder if, in fact, he's the killer. >> of course, there's a case of motive. no motive at all listed. >> no. and i find that to be very, very strange. somebody who snatches a 6-year-old kid and kills him, they tend to be -- they're child molesters, child predators. this is not a one-time thing. they tend to be repeat oh fenders. where's the history of doing this to other people ipeople. >> in

, so you have every right to give your comment, but we will not be considering as evidence and adjudicating the public comment that is provided. we look forward to your comments. >> they have very interesting post said about your collective performance on his side. you should read it. you will remember that the grand jury sided you in a sleeping watchdog report that you had dismissed 18 previous misconduct cases with no hearings, and then you heard a case and refer it to the mayor, who did nothing. i believe you have four referrals from of for you are sitting supervisors involving official misconduct. you have been cherry picking cases. it is interesting you mentioned c369313. you will recall st. croix use that repeatedly against me, and for eight months of this body has refused to schedule a public hearing on the official misconduct cases referred to in my case. the article this morning and notes julie nadler saying it is important to remember this as a hearing on ethics, not on of law. i have not heard one comment from his body on ethical issues in the many years i have monitored your hea

that helps the rest of the members to adjudicate. the performance of the over the last 10 years has been pathetic. at one stage, we had very astute candidates, but the san francisco transportation authority deliberately sought smart candidates did not enter the cac. but now in the dire straits that you are, nobody wants to come. some of the candidates -- we have no good representation in district 10. we have a woman there who hardly attends the meetings and doesn't perform at all. [tone] what i am saying let's not have a dog and pony show. we have hundreds of millions of dollars expended by the san francisco transportation authority. we need to give thecac members some training and orientation so those moneys are spent correctly so that when they come here, we have a proper presentation so everybody can understand what is happening at the meetings and you need to be daft not to hear what i'm saying. thank you very much. supervisor avalos: thank you. we will close public comment. colleagues, on this item, i would like to move her ford

. >> yes, we do believe that standing alone, the conduct that was adjudicated in the context of a manfilling the office of sheriff and being share philip and being a member of the board of supervisors, we think that is sufficient to state a cause of action for official misconduct and lead to his removal. it is that our case is not limited to that. we also do not agree with the position that is somehow without content that the argument that it is not a crime of moral turpitude relies on a ninth circuit case about whether it is possible to commit without moral turpitude. an offense that can be a crime of moral turpitude can lead to deep trichet -- to deportation in some cases. what is at issue is the behavior and that behavior and the case law is in moral turpitude. we have -- want to be able to present you with the actual conduct that is the basis of the charges. not an empty form. >> thank you. shercommissioner studley: i woud find it helpful to hear from the expert second witness. we will each be asked to determine something about the standard of decency, good faith, and right action

very difficult for us to grant the relief as requested because i am not comfortable in doing an adjudication of your application. i do not think -- i think there is merit to all the arguments that you're making, but it is not the proper forum for the relief that you are seeking. >> [inaudible] i just wanted to clarify a couple of things. i want to clarify that the taxi commission, and the mta are two separate bodies. the things that were done under the taxi commission, the rules, that commission has been abolished. the mta took over regulation of the taxi industry. because of that, we operate under the transportation code i wanted that to be clear. she made some statements regarding the practices of the taxi commission. it was appropriate for the taxi commission having hearings. those things are not under the mta. we are completely separate body. >> thank you for that. >> i do not think i would have a problem accepting jurisdiction and hearing the merits of the case. much like the analogy -- i guess the reason was not justified -- we could hear from both sides. i think mta has given us some

supporting, at least for the near term, that kind of adjudication in the rule of law, and encouraging developments coming from the bottom up. it is a bottom-up component of a strategy that was thought to be only top-down. they can't win or lose it by itself. there is a component that i think many people felt was missing for several years, and certainly when you look at stability, say from 1929 to 1978, where the successive doctor -- [inaudible name], [inaudible name] and the family of [inaudible name], when they combined top-down governance and security and development, in supporting economy from the tribes and subcommands, that fits in -- the operability but then more long lines of that. >> so, that is working to use the phrase that the green berets helped establish a presence? what else would you supplement that ever went as we move forward? if you were designing a poster dozen 14 saturday, when we are supposed to stop combat operations until the majority of troops out. >> i wouldn't stop combat operations. i think the footprint can decrease. i certainly could support operations to

there are adjudicative guidelines out there. people are aware of what those adjudicative guidelines are. we are professional organization. we travel around the world. over the last six years we have gone 37,000 trips around the world. we have had no situation like this one before. again, i am confident this is not a cultural issue, this is not a systemic issues. these are just a -- we make decisions every single day. our employees makes really critical decisions that, again, the overwhelming majority of the time they make good decisions. on this particular trip we had some individuals who made very bad decisions. that is why it is very important for us to have a strong office of professional responsibility, to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are a minority, make bad choices and have misconduct, we are going to act appropriately. >> i guess the point i was trying to make is, as i read these guidelines, it specifically refers to engaging in any activity that is illegal in

will fall doesn't come from the court or the charge, it comes from elders coming together and adjudicating an individual having a dispute with someone else, supporting at least for the near term that kind of fed adjudication and the formal rules of law and encouraging development to come from the bottom-up. so it's a bottom of the component to a strategy that historic plea was top-down. as it supplements the to beat it can't win or lose buying itself. there is a component that i think many people think was missing for several years and was certainly when you look at periods of stability in afghanistan from say 1929 to 1978 was a success if king, his father, another relative. when the it is published 50 years of stability, and the was pretty recently, had combined top-down governments of security development and support an autonomy from the bottom-up among the tribes, some crimes and plans, that strategy is more along the lines of that in the dynasty. >> host: so that's working to use the phrase of the green berets fine to the local forces in this publishing presence as long as you need. wh

supervisor records, not go to the sunshine ordinance task force, where they are actively trying to adjudicate them selves on the run. but say they cannot get a record. they then called the city official, they call the mayor's office. if the mayor's office does not take any action on it 40 days, under sunshine ordinance, they can go directly to you or they could go to court to get satisfaction. >> you are not seeing 67.35d

that you would hear that really requires a we hearing so the commission can fairly determine and adjudicate what happened and whether or not disclosure made sense, and i start with the fact that none of the notices that were received by the department were bilingual. they were all in english, and the evidence that they did not get to hear is the fact that although the notice but required certain action, the action was taken. the restaurant immediately contacted outside vendors, outside vendors that dealt with all of the issues that were raised. including machine repairs, including pest control. these were done immediately. the problem is the abatement hearing, which was not in chinese,th

but you're absolutely right, there are adjudicative guidelines out there.people are aware of what those adjudicative guidelines are. we are a professional organization. we travel around the world. over the last six years we have done 37,000 trips around the world, and we have had no situation like this one before, and again, i'm confident this is not a cultural issue to this is not a systemic issue with us. we make decisions every single day. our employees make some really critical decisions that, again, the overwhelming majority at the time they make good decisions on. this particular trip we had some individuals who made very bad decisions. and that's what it's very important for us to have a strong office of professional responsibility and to have a good relationship with the inspector general. because windows individuals, which are minority, make bad decisions, when he had misconduct, misbehavior, we're going to act appropriately. >> i guess the point i was trying to make is as i read these guidelines, it specifically refers to engaging in any activity

elected official is suspended without pay during the time that the ethics commission and the board adjudicate the matter. i find it -- to me, i find it hard to believe that we need to have witnesses talk about every single element of how the sheriff can or cannot do his work, when this is something we should be able to do within five days of the charges. commissioner studley: i found the comments about the issue that this might go to to be convincing. i also see this as very different from the testimony of ms. flores, which runs the risk of taking us into very distracting and while i would like to have as few of them as we need, i think -- i for one and others may disagree, may be more open to receiving these declarations, allowing the share of's rep -- sheriff's representative and not to delay in order to get a lot. it may be fair to move toward resolution. i would not delay for the purpose of securing these offers of these declarations. on balance, i would narrow rather than exclude all together. there are some points that are important to understanding whether the fifth the definition in t

as the cac member, i am going to state let's not put this type of adjudication in the hands of the planning department. whatever is stated here, the land use, i don't know who is in charge of the land use that knows about such things, we need to get the university students involved because that is going to impact them drastically. if it does not benefit them, they cannot afford to spend more money on transportation. they are already burdened with tuition. there is going to be a demolition of a large area in the park merced. we need the input from the commercial sector because they stand to benefit. basically, we need more input from the grassroots constituents who take public transportation. i take public transportation. when you take public transportation and want to take public transportation, very few people will come here because they don't have their time and they don't want to waste time. we have to make every effort to take concrete matters, to have outreach to the university students. [tone] to the people who lived around park merced and other residents impacted who will be linked t