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

however, in adjudicating, we have to focus on the local business enterprise. we have to focus on how long and how many projects did they do for sfpuc and how well they did it. i am talking about one of the contractors, they have a pretty good racket. it is not a very difficult to adjudicate this case co, based n what elements you put forward to educated. if you just a dedicated -- if you educate -- adjudicate on a long-term experience, you may arrive at a different conclusion. thank you very much. president moran: any other public comment? commissioner torres: are there any liabilities we should be concerned about from the facts that were presented? >> i do have john white, are construction attorney, here to answer specific questions. the city attorney's office stands behind the staff recommendation, in the award of this contract follows the rules. there is not any concern about the change that was made to the scope of the project. there is a legitimate basis for that. you can always be sued, but we don't think there is anything improper about the staff recomm

but what does -- i mean, we're not here to adjudicate whether there's an attorney/client privilege and frankly given the public disclosure, seems like there's really -- that, that ship has passed and it was adjudicate brd we were involved. so i'm not really sure what paragraph 49, lines 20 through 21 line 8 go to. >> this goes to a specific instance of essentially harassing a witness who reported a crime that the sheriff knew what happened and this is just one instance of that harassment is that miss lopez's attorney sent her these threatening letters. >> i think you just said miss lopez -- >> that's correct, i did. >> i'm sorry if i missed it but how does that relate to the mayor's official misconduct? >> as if the sheriff did nothing to stop it and the sheriff funded miss lopez's attorney. >> please, we cannot have comments from the audience. >> to me, that is not relevant. i will sustain the objections and welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ok, hearing no objection. mr. murton. first objection is to paragraph 6 through 9. i had a hard time seeing the relevance here. i wou

it seems those that are disputed are the key fact we need to adjudicate. -- facts we need to adjudicate. what i would propose is that in the interim, while we have a few weeks before you put on your case, you let us know what paragraphs are in dispute, and which are not. that way, the commission could focus its resources on adjudicating the facts that truly are in dispute, and applying them to the charges that are issued. i am not saying that after you do that we will not let you propose findings, or let the mayor proposed findings. but that might help narrow the issues, now that you have seen the mayor's case. >> just so i am clear, we would go through the amended written charges and identify those portions in dispute. chairperson hur: exactly. >> that sounds easier than the alternative. i would be willing to try. chairperson hur: ms. kaiser, any thoughts? >> i agree that findings of fact will be necessary, if there is any likelihood the sheriff will pursue an administrative mandate. the court, if it is going to review this procedure, will need findings of fact to understand the basis

i will talk about the adjudication of cases that the occ sustained. in one case, we had a finding of conduct reflecting discredits. the chief concurred with that and gave the officer a written reprimand for harassing the complaint, who was a signature gatherers for a ballot petition. in another case, neglected duty, an officer fell to prepare a form -- failed to prepare a form that had to do with releasing an individual when sober. the officer was admonish bread and other neglect of duty case, the officer received a written reprimand and that was because the officer violated to general quarters when transporting a juvenile female passenger. the first general order required the officer to broadcast the in the mileage of the transport of a female passenger. because the passenger was a juvenile, it was a violation of a general order. the final adjudicated case in may was for neglect of duty and it was a failure to issue a certificate of release when a complaint was handcuffed and then released. that concludes my report. i will answer any questions. >> th

and adjudication of that will not take place for another couple of weeks. it is another denial under section 5 of 1050.53f. that said, we have enough that are managing the bars properly. i am glad you brought it up. we need to sit and have a real long sitdown with the operators of this establishment and come up with a real good game plan to make sure it is operating properly. do you have any questions for me? president newlin: make sure you communicate to us that they are receptive to your reasonable requests and i want to make sure that they are not a problem for you. >> great. i am sure i will be appearing in front of you at the next hearing. >> it is always good to see you. >> i have a question. they indicated the challenges to meet with your office. could you make sure you connect with them tonight and may be set an appointment, exchange business cards? thank you. president newlin: providing you have a nice meeting with each other, do you have any reservations? >> when we did go out in may of this year, even going back as far as 9-11-11, there were oper

. -- 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,

these remedies can only help adjudicated conduct. so much of what happens on the ground is adjudicated. if it doesn't get to a point of law. we need to have a multifaceted approach and we need more transparence ney police departments and that will go a long way to solving some of the problems that the communities have with trust and legitimacy. so i want to talk about the united states department of justice and their pattern of practice authority. the united states department of justice has the authority to sue and seek injunctive relief against police departments that are engaging in patterns of unconstitutional behavior of which racial profiling is one of many things that police departments could be doing and so one of these and doj has used this authority in washington, d.c., pittsburgh, los angeles and a lot of the reforms that have been gained through this were the forms that the department is seeking to gain an early warning tracking system. so if there is one thing that we know about police agencies is that when there's a prob

i don't understand why you can't adjudicate these claims through the u.k. if we're not signatory. it doesn't make any sense to me that all of this is riding upon u.s. -- the u.s. -- us being signatory to this treaty. >> well, senator, i just feel that we would be much more effective having a seat at the table and having that discussion. to go to the folks in the u.k. who are good partners certainly, and try to convince them to carry our water in talking to another country i think is difficult for them and they have to balance that with all of their priorities and i think one step removed makes us less effective. >> let me make sure i understand correctly. a company doesn't have the ability to try to make claims itself. it has to have a country representing them in the process, is that the way it works? >> well, we would certainly be active with our legal folks and with our operations on the ground, but our opportunity to be back-stopped by the federal government is important to us and i believe will make us more effective. >> but -- but -- but to answer the question clearly, you h

there is no reason why these crimes should be adjudicated by somebody's boss or the boss' boss. what you really want which is all of us in civilian life expect, we expect an impartial process of adjudication. we expect the prosecutor that doesn't know us, we expect the jury that doesn't know us and the judge who does not know us and the men and women who have volunteered to defend our nation are certainly entitled to that similar level of due process that we civilians enjoy. >> cenk: all right so i'm curious, i don't know if you have an answer to this, but is it your sense there is more rape as a percentage wise obviously in the military or the civilian world? >> we know it's a target-rich environment. because if you're a sexual predator and you're not caught you're going to continue to target people. i think what we're seeing is the result of just decades of lack of prosecution. i would suggest as well that the past history where we have former secretary rumsfeld giving a moral waiver and letting people into the military service who had criminal records that likely did not help

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

. >> 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

one of the public speakers pretty much said with respect to adjudicating this case, we would need more evidence. i am wrestling with the idea that it is a reasonable delay, the assistant general manager will probably be able to get by. if it is an unreasonable delay, we may want to attempt to tackle that issue because i am not seeing anything that indicates that something was done to manipulate the process to deny the appellant and opportunity to have a successful bid. >> i would echo that, as far as the information has come to us, the information that has been brought here, i understand the disappointment but i don't see any impropriety, and no reason to invalidate the bids. the question is not on that basis, but whether we think that there was an opportunity not taken to break the job into smaller pieces. the on one hand and to what we are being told, the nature of the facility mitigated against that. i understand this appointment. my own point of view is that i think the process was done correctly. i would be comfortable taking action, but in the absence of a motion and a second, th

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, the operator did not know exactly what that was. he showed up, and there is no dispute. he showed up without the documents, and when the inspectors said, "did you do this," he said, "yes, i did." they said, "where are the documents?" and he said, "they are not with me." no documents. that is the same as our determination. we will shut you down. the interesting thing is the inspector came back on march 14 to i

i don't need alexander to adjudicate on that one. >> reality is this. every one knows it was a prime minster that decided to oversee the bid. it's the prime minster who is clinging on to him now in the face of all the evidence. doesn't he realize it's no longer about the culture that affects his judgment it's about the prime minster judgment which is so badly flawed. the point is, it is to advise the ministerial to discover the fact. my judgment we should let the county culture secretary get on with it. let us just consider this, if there was an olympic medal and double standard and labour hypocrisy, the labour party would get it. >> i'm worried about the -- >> as we remember those who fell 30 years ago, argentina continues to dispute british sovereignty over those islands. argentina also continues to receive loans worth billions of pounds from the world bank. of which british taxpayers are a major shareholders will the prime minster join president obama in instructing his officials to vote against loans to argentina? >> no british taxpayer money is spe

that it is capable of investigating, adjudicating and taking action. and that it is -- it seemed genuinely to be a place where people can go if they've got a legitimate complaint. so how that is defined? i'm not sure about. i can see all sorts of half ways on this that might work. the absolutely key thing is that it's seen as and is genuinely independent of the media or the government. >> is it possible that it would work? it's up to a particular newspaper whether it's in or ou out. >> i think it's important to say that you were able to exclude yourself from it. i think in other works likely wouldn't have it. but the question is whether the significance that we're all right to the freedom of refresh means a totally different approach is necessary in the case of the press. and is necessary for others who are also independent for lawyers. and on what you're saying for the behaviors that are acceptable or unacceptable. for example, i don't think you can say, whatever people like me might want that you should say the press can't be partners in their suppor

this, expect a higher level of detail and full notice of what these charges really are so we can adjudicate them. this is not a -- i don't view this as a situation where based on discovery, you should be able to significantly supplement the charges. commissioner studley? >> you're not like -- not going to like this. but i'm less certain because this is a relatively tested initiative by the people what the pleading expectations are or whether we have more closer to a notice leading or de novo ability to determine what we think and to what degree is the mayor's charge, limiting or controlling more and exactly the issue they're raising. i'm not sure -- we haven't discussed what that line is. and it may not be appropriate to do so here. but it does have consequences because the issue that we're talking about that it testimony goes to is one where i was interested in inquiring about exactly the witness mr. keith referred to. >> the witness chief lansdowne. >> but it led know have that very same question about whether we are -- how closely we must view to the, call it a charging document or state

just almost purely in the realm of the subjective, there are time worn meths the news media has to adjudicate these matters. for instance in your attack, what is the motivation. >> there is a difference between attacking a rom know's record as fair game and attacking mitt romney's record in terms of political gain. >> thank you. you may attack him, that's fair gamement but not if it's for political gain. you may attack a politician's record if you are trying to make yourself look like a big man at your high school reunion. (laughter) fair game. you can attack a politician's record because you are unsure if that politician-- tear ducts are clogged and you want to see him weep, fair game. but you may not attack a politician if you are looking to just stop him from beating you in an election. (laughter) not fair game. and if you are attacking him after giving him a half hour head start in a jungle compound, that is the most dangerous game of all. (laughter) i never should have read hunger games. of course-- (applause) motivation is not the only parameter for attack. political fairness also manda

just almost purely in the realm of the subjective, there are time worn meths the news media has to adjudicate these matters. for instance in your attack, what is the motivation. >> there is a difference between attacking a rom know's record as fair game and attacking mitt romney's record in terms of political gain. >> thank you. you may attack him, that's fair gamement but not if it's for political gain. you may attack a politician's record if you are trying to make yourself look like a big man at your high school reunion. (laughter) fair game. you can attack a politician's record because you are unsure if that politician-- tear ducts are clogged and you want to see him weep, fair game. but you may not attack a politician if you are looking to just stop him from beating you in an election. (laughter) not fair game. and if you are attacking him after giving him a half hour head start in a jungle compound, that is the most dangerous game of all. (laughter) i never should have read hunger games. of course-- (applause) motivation is not the only parameter for attack. political fairness also manda