yet from the o.c.c. i see no diversity in terms of the number of complaints made based on racial qualifications or background. recently over the last two to three months, i looked at the 10 most wanted list of the city. if you look at the background, you'll see the racial background of the criminals at large today. this isn't to pinpoint anyone's racial background. the facts are well known. the public at large is that looking at the murder rate, that it is african-americans killing african-americans. only 3.5% of the city but 95% of the murder rate. i don't get it. i had an incident here at the o.c.c., filled out a complaint three times in 2010. having an altercation with officer woods who is an african-american. he harassed me. slandered me in front of a caucasian female police officer. i complained and i also did my own interviews. i've been an investigative reporter also for various newspapers for a number of years only the find out that officer woods has multiple complaint against him. he was investig

s perspective about what can be tweaked to work better in the process from the o.c.c. perspective and we're moving onto the department and this week with the p.o.a. so at this point it is an explore tri process to see what we can do to make the entire system work better so that we're never in the situation of being -- of looking at cases that are years and years old. and seeing if the discipline process can work better in terms of an employer-employee situation as well. commissioner dejesus: i think i would like to sit on this committee. i thought we were doing procedures that were limiting hours. so there is no time frame. i would like to sit on this. i'm not sure what exactly you are doing, because i thought the rules and procedures were going to put that forward. i thought the backlog was pretty much caught up with. as long as we get our procedures and follow procedures, that we're not going to have this kind of backlog. but thra there is something we cannot -- but there is something we cannot prevent, and that is when cases are taken to the appellate court. that's w

it is another item that the o.c.c. uses to put an added allegation on any of their investigations and sustain it because maybe it did occur and maybe it didn't. but the real important matter here is whether or not the officer is purposely forgetting or made a mistake or forgot the document the traffic stop. a lot of times when officers address the o.c.c. said i did put the information in the computer and the computer maybe didn't take it because i remember doing it so that is more o a matter for the police department to deal with instead of the o.c.c.. we could certainly cut some of their workload down by moving some of the issues over to the police department where they belong. thank you very much. >>> thank you mr. johnson. my further public comments? >> good evening. commissioners, thank you. chief, sir, congratulations. i'm looking forward to working with you for a long time. everything i have heard from all the officers in the station, nothing but praise. one of the things that you were addressing that seems to be

i filed a complaint with the o.c.c. against the san francisco police department. in the complaint i state that over an extended period of time, the san francisco police department has harassed me in an effort me to get me to leave the city of san francisco. i know that was the goal of the harassment because i was told to do so on two different occasions. and the reason why they want me to be gone is that i know the identity of one of the confidential informants in the jackson street gang racketeering case. the case was dismissed by the judge because prosecution refused to reveal the identity of the two confidential informants and felt they could not protect them. i know who one of them is, so that's the basis of the harassment. i know one of the commissioners here was at the department of justice when they tried the case, so i wonder if they're familiar with it. when this all began it was done by plain clothes police officers and i knew i was in over my head so i went to the san francisco police department for help and i was punished for that, really. so i was lef

i have consulted with the chief, with the o.c.c. with the new chief, you were not chief then but chief suhr gave a good recommendation. it is the last innovation which i'm suggesting. all of us have held a conference on the telephone. most of us at some time have had settlement discussions i think and tried to do it early. but we have never institutionalized early on when that case comes to us we are face-to-face with the parties and put it on the table with the two conflicting sides, to put both positions out there and then us acting as the middle person in an early stage to try to bring a resolution. i have sat here too many times. i think we all have. why didn't we do this settlement two years ago before waiting two years? what this requires is that one 15 calendar days a face-to-face meeting not just with the officer and his or her representative but with the chief very early on and listen to what the officer's side is, perhaps facts that didn't come up in the investigation or perhaps because the chief is confined to only 10 day'

i have read the 2003 report from o.c.c. to the board of supervisors, which talked about officers who showed up with weapons and threatened the investigating officers. officers who refused to show up. that is why i objected to mediation. one of the terms of mediation is if one of officers doesn't want to show up, your case is closed. that's the end of it. well, that would be a pretty stupid for me to do, to say yeah, if you don't want to come in, i will give up all my further rights. there are things that can be released about this without identifying specific officers. but the citizens of this city have absolutely no option but to simply blindly trust that the seven of you and the others that are sitting in those secret hearings are doing the right thing. i have seen enough of the disagreements between you guys over different things that you say out here in the open that i know there are disagreements. as a result, i don't know whether officers are being disciplined appropriately, just like this. what was the basis of the de

again, we want participation from the o.c.c., the p.o.a., because i know no matter what we do, there will be a push to move things along. let's schedule that for the 20th. commissioner hammer, your advice on that? >> i think it's fine. >> commissioner chan? commissioner hammer: i actually had something else. you were asking me a question. i wanted to add something about future meetings. are you fine with the 20th, commissioner kingsley? commissioner kingsley: absolutely. commissioner hammer: because she is was taking the lead on that. i would ask maybe next week during the chief's report that we sh have a brief update on the status as far as allegations surrounding videotapes, et cetera, et cetera. we have talk bd it all. president mazzucco: commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i second that, too. i wanted to ask if this group is ok with giving an award to some of the groups involved with dealing with the gang violence issues. these groups worked in close collaboration with the chief to deal with gang violence on a real basis. i think we should recognize that work. if it is ok with

. >> item number one, consent calendar, quarterly report by the department and the o.c.c. regarding policy proproposals. >> you have -- you have those in your packet. >> thank you for your hard work on this. >> this is a joint report from the department, sergeant mitchell as well as sandra marion. >> do i have a motion from the commissioners? >> move to adopt. >> second. >> public comment on this regarding the consent calendar? any public comment regarding the consent calendar? hearing none, the item is passed. line item number two, please. >> general peculiar comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole, and not to individual commissioners or department or o.c.c. personnel. under politician commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police or o.c.c. personnel, nor commissioners, are required to respond to questions present 3wid the public, but may provide a

also regarding the statement that it raised matters odds the jurisdiction of the o.c.c., one of the investigators told me that one of the cops that i named in the complaint had retired so therefore, they don't have jurisdiction over him. what the other investigator told me was someone else was behind the harassment. i need clarification please. and i would like to note on this report it says my complaint was withdrawn and i never withdrew it. >> thank you, sir. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> am i go go to get clarification on -- am i go go to get clarification on the findings here. >> you have the number and maybe you can contact chief investigator and director hicks will speak with him and will have an answer for you. >> commissioners, director of san francisco citizens for open government. you disregarded your agenda and went to item number five, two hours on that and closed session and forced all the members of the public that were here to talk about the other items and agenda out of the room. it was done so you could come back after your long closed session and then conduct all

. >> we are also going to have sandra from the o.c.c. speak about the delegation to memphis with the focus on the training curriculum. >> good evening. i was part of the contingent that went to memphis two times. i was thrilled to be able to do this. the second trip our working group had a great time to talk about their own c.i.t. training and all of the curriculum they developed throughout the country it. enabled to us meet with several of their own instructors. for example we met with structurors from the v.a. hospital that they do the traumatic brain injury components. this was really informative because they have a strong link with their v.a. hospital and they put us in contact so we are able to taylor the train to the special needs we have within our operations. the committee is a very enenthusiastic group. we have been meeting. today was a meeting where captain barrett came. we have representatives from ucsf, emergency services, from door clinic, department of public health, mental health association and then of course the training

the o.c.c. if the o.c.c. wants to increase its budget, it increases assessments it charges on banks. it doesn't come to congress for a budget. similarly, the federal reserve if it wants continue to crease its budget it just warms up the printing press. the cfpb, though, is capped at a percentage of the federal reserves operating budget and has no ability to set what that operating budget is. it sinks and swims with the fed. and i think that's actually a very good structure. because it keeps -- it says that we are going make sure the consumer protection is at least going to be x percent of bank regulation. now, compared with other federal regulatory agencies, cfpb is the only agency where there is a veto over its authority. was similar with pecaboo. within the last year the supreme court said the structure was unconstitutional. that was really not specifically on the veto but on some other aspects of the structure. it raises questions about the constitutionality of the veto. there is no other agency that's sub