Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 8, 2010 6:00am-6:30am PST

7:00 am
commissioners, director, chief gas gone, my name is sergeant rob hicks. i am the department patrol special liaison. as far as the report is concerned, if you would like, i can be a little defensive, but i can give a history. resigned patrol special officer chan was given six to nine months to sell his beat, and that dates back to november of last year. that would have been for beat 72. originally mr. chan purchased the beat for $7,500 and that was in july 16, 2003, and at the time the clients were currently making monthly payments of $630
7:01 am
when mr. cast teeo -- castillo purchased the beat from mr. chan, the current pantse payments are $5,950. however the sale purchase price was $20. so if you look at it in terms of a ratio, my understanding is that beats are generally approximately 10 times the amount of the monthly gross for what clients are currently paying. in this case, the amount is much lower. mr. castillo is the not the first person to negotiate with mr. chan in regard to this beat. there were other patrol specialists that negotiated with him. several patrol specialists relaid information. and i have court documents stating that mr. chan was not
7:02 am
honest with them. he also attempted to sell two other beats that were not his, and that would have been beats 44 and 47. i was told by mr. chan that he was negotiating with patrol officer special officer on the beat, then i had an e-mail that mr. chan was no longer noshte negotiating with him but thomas wang was another assistant. so there were four or five communications to me that the beat was in negotiation, however in the end, it was to be sold for $20, so i do question the sale of this beat. my concern, and i would say the department's concern, obviously, is was this a final sale or was there financial consideration in the future? >> suffice it to say, the
7:03 am
department does not authorize the sale of a beat for $20 to another 0 patrol specialist, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. chan? >> why did i sell this for $20? because i'm fed up. it is not about the money. it is about someone that is going to take my beat and serve my clients, you know. the department has limited -- only patrol specialists. the people i'm trying to sell this to are very dishonest. they want to cheat me and stuff like that. i got fed up. so, you know, a good friend of mine raised a deal, actually a veteran, served in the military, just like i did, a very good friend. and i trust him.
7:04 am
basically, i would sell this to him for zero dollars. i'm giving it to him. i think it is my right to give it to any person i want, right? this is america, right? so as a good friend, ray castillo, i'm giving it to him. i'm sick and tired of this business. >> so what i'm going to do, obviously we have an issue. i think we need to contact the city attorney -- i will contact the city attorney tomorrow to discuss this issue to look closer at this sale for $20. obviously, mr. chan, it doesn't make sense to sell a beat for $20 that's worth significantly more, and it causes people to believe that there may be annul tear i don't remember motive. -- there may be an ulterior motive. i would like a report from you. mr. chan, if you have a lawyer, have that lawyer present for the
7:05 am
conference call. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: when i'm looking at this, you have $6,000 a month in contracts and you are selling it for $20, so i'm a little concerned. the question i have is, do you still have those contracts? have those clients canceled? there is no income? >> i gave it to the beat. i don't collect it anymore. i could write zero dollars. commissioner dejesus: when you say you don't collect it anymore, did those contractors cancel? y told the new beat -- >> i told the new beat owner to collect it. commissioner dejesus: the new beat owner lives in a town i don't recognize. how far is that from san francisco?
7:06 am
>> hi, commissioners, my name is ray castillo. i came back from iraq recently. i served three tours in iraq. i'm a retired police officer from san francisco city college. commissioner dejesus: i did see that, and i was impressed with that. where do you live? >> i live in a town called series, and i moved down there because i was attacked by some criminals, and i said this is a great place to raise my children. commissioner dejesus: how far is that? >> approximately two hours. commissioner dejesus: and you are going to cover beats in san francisco? >> yes. i am currently taking classes at city college. i have a 3.8 average. hopefully some day i hope to become a defense attorney. that's my goal.
7:07 am
commissioner dejesus: commissioner hammer says don't do it! >> all of this was done in honest faith. i served my country. i came back. i lost my position as a police officer because i was going through some physical therapy. commissioner dejesus: so i hear you saying the contracts are frozen, there is no performance and no income? >> i have been going to a lot of the lower street meetings, contacting clients, making a lot of contact with a lot of different clients hoping that this issue would be resolved, and apparently it hasn't because they feel there is some kind of
7:08 am
misbehavior or something distrustful going on, and there isn't. he basically gave it to me because i confronted him and said, look, you are basically going to lose it anyway. you know, when i came back from iraq recently, you know, he opened his arms to me and said, you know what? i've been going through a lot of different issues that i'm not aware of with other people, and he basically sold it to me. >> so you would be starting from scratch. you have the possible contracts you can possibly renegotiate with? >> i have a whole bunch of contracts ready to go, i just can't do anything with them at this point. if you have any further questions about me. there is an issue that sergeant hicks did bring up to me, i have a few debts that i owe and acquired as a result of my being gone to iraq for long periods of time.
7:09 am
i am in the process of resolving those issues with contractors and stuff, but as you can well understand, i'm jobless right now, i'm going to school, i retired from the mill -- military with honors. 35 years i've served this country. i served 10 years with the police department with impeckable background, no issues whatsoever, and i have, you know, just trying to get myself back on my feet. when you trip and fall, you brush yourself off and get rolling again, you get back on that horse. commissioner dejesus: i see this is an opportunity for you. i get it. thank you. commissioner hammer: we'll come back in two weeks and i'll ask more questions then. but i have a couple questions. is the beat today being served or not? >> in essence it is being served. i'm out there, i'm out and about. commissioner hammer: are you working on the beat, sir?
7:10 am
>> yes. commissioner hammer: how many other patrol specialists are working the beat? >> none. well, there was one helping me, and he was working -- his name was ernest. commissioner hammer: right now you are working the beat? >> yes. commissioner hammer: i have one suggestion before we go on, i don't blame frankly sergeant hicks and thinking it looks fishy, it sounds hick -- fishy. it is not wrong for her to raise a warning flag. that's his job. i would suggest that you folks
7:11 am
submit declarations under oath on the key issues before the commission. that is, that there is no under the table deal, that there is no promise to sell it back. if you want to allay people's concerns at something that looks on its surface that something is going on, my recommendation is you put it under oath, you put yourself behind that word on all these questions, and this -- then when the commission looks at it, they can have that. >> during the course, if you operate a beat, if we do approve the sale, you are not allowed to get a commission or any portion of that to mr. chan. >> if the beats aring serviced now, who is being paid? >> we haven't received payment.
7:12 am
i am hoping this can be resolved today so we can continue speaking to the merchants. >> how long have you been working without getting paid? >> two or three weeks. >> i will submit this agenda for two or three weeks. >> lieutenant reilly? >> can we work the beat? can we dissolve it? vice president mazzucco: we'll move this to the 22nd. unfortunately, we're doing a lot of this on the fly. it is not your typical police department matter. what i'm going to do ises --
7:13 am
>> if you are still planning on having a conference call on friday, perhaps you might have an opportunity to by then have a suggestion. i don't mean it is necessarily our role to make make a judgment on the fly about whether it is proper or not. >> we're going to have' conference call on friday. make everybody available friday morning at 10:00 for a conference call. they will be initiated through by lieutenant reilly, and friday morning we will have pending for you whether or not you can operate the beat until the sale is complete, the final. >> can anybody work the beat at all? do you know? commissioner dejesus: you mean with compensation or without compensation? >> that's something that raises the question. i wasn't clear on it.
7:14 am
>> i think at this point we wait until friday. vice president mazzucco: in an abundance of caution, i will ask for a cease and desift until we have our conference on friday. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this matter? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is ann grogan, and i worked with professional organizations, and i'm a client, but not in this area. woy like to speak to the fact that in my conversation was this officer and getting to know him over the past couple months, it hasn't been intensive and i don't know the details of the application whatsoever, but i am speaking only of my conversations with him and my
7:15 am
knowledge about his service record, which i have examined, i believe he is qualified for the position and would be welcomed into the community by the miller chants who need -- by the merchants who need service there. i have been impressed by his responsibility to answer to the commission, that he's aware of the regulation, and that he's prepared to comply with them and work cooperatively to provide service to this community. in that sense i would support his application and i want to thank him for his long service to this country. i believe he would adequately provide a good role model to other younger officers and follow in the footsteps are mr.
7:16 am
chan. >> the city and the sfpd -- this is wasting taxpayer money. the sfpoa is doing this to screw people out of our hard-earned tax paying money. i worked on vega and howard street. i'm a taxpayer. i don't live here anymore, but i'm concerned. >> please move onto the next item. >> item 6. routine administrative business. commission announcement. commissioner hammer: announcement? >> no. >> 6 f b. >> scheduling ever items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. >> we have some items we set in
7:17 am
our priority list. what i would like to do is if we had several items we thought were first priorities or a priority. maybe if we can schedule one or two of those matters this evening for down the road in november and december, and -- and i agree with commissioner dejesus, we should do that off line. for this evening, it seems like we packed the agenda and we have a full agenda, but for our next meeting, let's start getting those matters on calendar. thank you. any comment? hearing none, thank you. let's move onto the next item. >> item 7 is public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session. pursuant to government code section 54957 (b) (1 prb) and san francisco administrative code section 67.10-b and penal
7:18 am
code 832.7. personnel exception: assignment of disciplinary charges filed in the following disciplinary cases to an individual commissioner for the taking of evidence on a date to be determined by the commissioner: case number ivf c10-219, case number ivf c10-220, case number aiw c10-106. pursuant to government code section 54957-b-1, and san francisco administrative code section 67.10-b and penal code
7:19 am
832.7. >> in all matters pertaining to closed session, i believe it is inappropriate for the police commission to move into closed session at this time. the agenda is arranged in such a way as to limit participation in such a way as to limit participation in a truly vital portion of the agenda. commission members know that a closed session will last for a significant -- >> that is actually an open session, item 11. >> i'm talking about the closed session itself. may i ask if there is any member of this commission that will stand up to the free speech rights of the citizens of this city or not.
7:20 am
i am talking about items which you won't tell us what they are about. i can talk about the fact that the way i feel you are scheduling it is inappropriate. >> could i suggest that our city attorney comment on the order of the agenda items and mr. hart's concerns. i think we have addressed this before. >> for all intents and purposes hide holding a vital piece of the meeting results in the likelihood that the public will be discouraged from participating. i believe this is done with intent to achieve that purpose. i was at the meeting on the 22nd. you were gone in closed session for four hours. when you returned i was the only person in the public who remained, and as a result, everything else on the agenda,
7:21 am
three other items were handled like that without any of that nasty public comment or without anybody being able to hear. it sort of reminds me of what went oth on in bell, california, where the city commission was meeting and giving themselves a bunch of raises and i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do it the same way, arrange it so the public is discouraged, do it when you want in the time manner you want in the frame you want and discourage public comment. i think you know you are doing it. i think the intent is to do it. commissioner hammer: thank you for the comment on this issue, sir. >> i understand why it is in closed session is california evidence quode 1043, but in 1045 when there are facts thought to be so remote as to be no benefit , it benefits the city to know about these corrupt officers. you can't cite 1043 if these are
7:22 am
miscreant officers. the public has a right to know who are these officers. you can cite 1043 all you want. it is known to be withholding brady information. and i've been trying to get it myself as well, and the city delays, delays, delays, because they don't want a trial date set because then i can reopen 1043 and do pitchess motion. she was properly served, and so was sfpd legal department, and i don't get a letter from them. i get the city attorney saying discovery is closed saying i had to do a letter request, document request, when it is already known that it is privileged information, why should i do a document request. a pitche stsm s motion should be addressed on face value. the city does whatever it can to
7:23 am
avoid a pitchess motion. these are access to complaints or discipline imposed relevancey. this is relevant to the public, and these things should be disclosed, especially if there are articles, especially about someone involved in a shooting. these are concerns a public safety concern. they commit a crime. because they are police, they are protected mple if i commit a crime, it is put all over the papers p this is ridiculous. this is not right. people can gain access to my criminal record, which i have had an article printed in the alameda times, they have set me up, called up people and the d.a.'s office, and stheeze an assistant d.a. there, it is oh, this is rack tearing. this is obstruction of justice. there should be sunshine placed on these things. we will follow 1045, how it says in any criminal proceedings the conclusion of any officer pursuant to section 83.25 of the
7:24 am
penal code facts thought to be so remote to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit, but these are practical benefits to the city. therefore, there should be no closed session. this is -- this is putting the people in the dark. that's not right. you want to hold closed session, you hold closed session all the time, so why can't you have these things talked about? corruption. >> further public comment? then we go into closed session. hearing nurnings public comment is closed. >> item 8 is a vote on whether to hold closed session. >> second. 3r >> all in favor? >> aye.
7:25 am
>> we are returning to open session. item 10 is a vote to disclose or not what was discussed in closed session. >> nondisclosure. >> second. >> public comment? >> i believe that this is a violation of the u.s. constitution because of the equal access administration of 1984 that bars discrimination against this activity on the grounds of religion or etc.. the court held that a school
7:26 am
district and isle of religious groups use of facilities violated the use of free speech. the opinion for the court held that permitting religious use to school grounds did not go against the establishment clause. this is very controversial but also the fact that when -- defendants of the transcript in the constitutional question. in this case, it says that they have equal right of access for judicial proceedings. this is technically a judicial proceeding. this is similar to the supreme court where there is a jury. this is not right that people are being held out. if i have to lobby to change the code or pro to the u.s. supreme court to change this, i will do
7:27 am
it. if these things are publicly announced in the papers, they are no longer protected because people already know what is going on. this is not right, the city is holding closed sessions. if the senate cannot hold closed sessions, how come the city is able to prov? this is not right and i'm a victim of a crime and there is a board discussing this. a police officer beat and choked me. i was unlawfully arrested and dumped at the hospital. this is not right and i have a right to know and i would like
7:28 am
to be told undermine victim of the crime rights, the notice of the public proceeding and the reasonable notice of all public proceedings upon request that the defendant and the prosecutor should be present and notice of all the world. -- and notice of parole. i am entitled to know. if the city will start mailing the information, and he is part of this and on the board of directors. i have a right to know, the city should stop defending him because they know he is a miscreant employee. that is all i have to say. >> is there any other public comment. hearing none, we will move on to item 11. >> present marshals not present
7:29 am
this evening. we've agreed to put this matter over for one week. do i have an agreement? i will move to continue line item 11 to next wednesday evening. >> without objection. >> any public comment? we move on to the next item. >> item number 12, adjournment. >> so moved. seconded. >> thank you.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on