tv [untitled] October 15, 2010 5:30am-6:00am PST
next meeting or at some meeting in the near future that we agendize the lincoln golf course lease. that course has been operating month-to-month, and there are some major issues out there. i think before the situation gets worse and i think we ought to look at how the lease is structured and if we want to continue at or look at some other options. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move to 15, new business and agenda setting. there is no public comment. item 16, communications, no
[pledge of allegiance] picommissioner mazzucco: presen. president marshall: present. commissioner chan: present. commissioner hammer: present. commissioner kingsley: present. commissioner slaughter: here. >> we have the chief of police and director. president marshall: this is a regular meeting of the sand francisco police commission.
let me say that before i go to the agenda that item #4 will not be held this evening. we like to do that when we have a full commission. if you are here for that, we will address that. with that, please call item no. one. >> a request by approval to be used exclusively to purchase tories for the christmas give away. -- toys for the christmas give away. president marshall: if you have no questions about it, i will take motion for approval. without objection? thank you. item number 2.
>> item 1b is a donation for the well-being and care of police horses for use by the mounted unit. president marshall: any questions on item 1b? without objection, so ordered. public comment -- thank you. public comment on item number one? hearing none. >> item number two is public comment. not to exceed three minutes on items within the subject matter jurisdiction but not appear on the agenda this evening. president marshall: general public comment. come forward, please.
>> i am the director of san francisco open government. i would like to talk about a couple of complaints, one of them regarding an interruption to comments that i was making at that meeting on two separate occasions. in the letter from -- there is an interesting phrase used, he said that i was allowed to continue. my understanding is now, the policy of the board, you can interrupt me. if you approve, i can continue. i would like to go back to an agenda item where we talked for over a minute and i was interrupted by the same commissioner. i have been interrupted by the same commissioner on five separate occasions.
at each of those, i was allowed to continue. i have to begin to question whether or not they are being made with an honest belief that there is some problem with what i am saying, and whether or not it is an attempt to obstruct the comment. members of the public get three minutes. my understanding of the constitution's is that those are not three minutes of impeded speech, three minutes of interrupted speech. they are three minutes of free speech. at what point do i begin to question whether or not being interrupted by the same member of the commission each and every time for the same reason which are ultimately found in the last case by the deputy city attorney whether i'd be allowed to continue, and not question whether or not my rights are being impeded.
commissioner mazzucco said, absolutely not, i would never do that. but he did. five times. each of those times, i was allowed to continue. i think that every member of the public who gets up here and has something to say, if you have a concern, i am not saying they can't raise that concern. but when it starts to happen almost every single time, that is something different. it is not right. and don't think that those of you that don't say anything are off the hook. what is the old expression? silence gives consent? even though it is proven over and over again that they are allowed to continue and they are
subsequently allowed to continue, that is the way things should be done. i don't think so. [chime] i have to wonder -- i have to wonder whether the board thinks so. >> i have come here before and i am always in constant communication with the sfpd, the fbi, and the devense d -- defense department. there is nothing being done about the mind control weapons. i talked about a special team set up to counter this threat. it is going into the eleventh month and there is nothing happening whatsoever. i don't know what is going on.
why is nobody combating this threat? they haven't called or question to me. i seem to have a lot of information about this case and these criminals. nobody has called or question to me. nobody is staying in touch with the fbi or the military. they are saying that there are no leads. it looks like they are reluctant in finding these leads. this is seriously said and sfpd officers are getting intact. there is nothing being done about it. that is my basic request. we need more officers, anything. please make a note of this. write it down or something. there needs to be more people, adding this threat all the time.
-- combatting this threat all the time. president marshall: lieutenant, will you please call item number three? >> reports to the commission. president marshall: beginning with the chief report. >> [inaudible] we continue to be at a 9% reduction year-to-date. it is a 10% reduction for property crimes, 4% reduction in violent crimes. we did have a slight uptick for the cycle representing a 7% increase, a total of 34 crimes.
that is primarily in the area of robberies, and a small uptick in the area of aggravated assault -- aggravated assault. for the total wheat, we were down 11%. we continue to be at a pace year to date. all the violent crimes are down, except for personal theft. this particular cycle shows that we are even, and that number will go up and down. we are at 37 against 38. it puts us down to the 1950 level of homicides per capita. it is a good number, especially
in light of the number that other major cities are reporting an increase in the homicide number. chief? nothing? president marshall: we move to the occ director's report. >> the occ has no recent developments to report this evening. thank you. president marshall: commission reports? i just want to say one thing. i got the e-mail from you, commissioner kinglsey inviting commissioner slaughter to follow up on the retreat. >> if they require more than one commissioners, [inaudible]
i think commissioner chan concurs with that. commissioner chan: i have been looking at my notes, and i concur. especially looking at addressing each of the issues like patrols specials, nightclubs, there are a number of issues we have talked about. we only have so many meetings until the end of the year. >> i think the intent is to follow up on everything we talked about that day and make sure that we stay on top of it. you might reach conclusions that you might want to bring back, commissioner kingsley. commissioner slaughter, if you
could learn what happened that day to go i will -- that day -- >> i will not take this as a hazing ritual. in all seriousness, i am happy to help out. president marshall: anything further? >> would it be appropriate to address one of the follow-up items to the retreat? would you like me to wait until we get done with the reports? president marshall: i assume that you can do it now. >> it will take less time to go forward at this point. one of the things that a number of us members of the commission were concerned about and frustrated with is the current
procedure and policy in terms of public comment. i would propose that in the spirit of one of our objectives which is to enhance or better our affiliation with the public, we place this on the agenda for two weeks from tonight. is that workable? or whenever you think is appropriate. president marshall: part of the issues -- i have already gone request for a bunch of things. my only caveat is that we are going to set up parameters about how we are going to do it. >> should we calendar that first? president marshall: we have
priorities and that kind of thing. if you put that in, if you want it in two weeks, we can try. we said these parameters and we don't begin to follow them. >> i thought that we were following it. i thought it was a priority. but not a priority in terms of substance. it is a procedural priority, not a substantive. to distinguish it from the matter is that commissioner chan has read off. commissioner hammer: i think it is a very brief issue. i think there is a consensus among us that it might be
useful for public comment to move up in our agenda. and we can be responsive and put something in the future agenda. i don't think it is a big discussion. it is a brief conversation about how to redo the agenda. president marshall: i remember. two weeks then. we will take public comment on item 3. >> members of the police commission, i want to make comments on a couple of things. we have a problem over your willingness to let me, and i don't think it should be any problem. commissioner kingsley's comments about the scheduling of public comment and so forth.
i have never made a statement or indicated in any way that i did not agree with the idea that you can set your agenda in any manner or form you want. what i have said is that if i see that the way you have set the agenda or the way you follow the agenda is contrary to public policy, harmful to public participation and public comment or in any way done in a way that is inappropriate, i have the right to address that. i have never said you can't set them up anyway you want. if you set them up in a way that the public is discouraged for participating, i have every right to get up and address that fact. so i will stipulate that you can set your agenda, and you will stipulate that if i have a problem with it, i can address
it. the second matter is about the director of occ's report from last week. i made a comment at that time, the director was allowed to respond and i was not given an opportunity to respond. i like to reiterate and show this chart on the overhead here, my figures still work. there were 52 complaint sustained, 15.7%. in 2010, there was one complaint sustained out of 294. that is not as was stated previously, it is .3%. again, if you look at it, 53 total complaints sustained in both years, 640 resolved comes out to the figure that the occ
director gave, 8%. that was my comment. maybe the reason people are not participating is because in 2010, of all of the resolve complaints, only one was sustained. so what are we supposed to get from that? 293 citizens decided to go through the process for no reason at all? or is it that the officers involved are so perfect that less than 1% or a total of 99.7% were found to be not at fault. [chime] president marshall: further public comment? item number 4 please. >> this has been moved to a future meeting when we have all of the commissioners.
president marshall: is anybody not going to be here next week? all right, 10-27. public comment on item number four? >> i am the director of san francisco open government. i have filed another complaint from the meeting for last week. when they came out of closed session, the commissioners went to the item that was on the agenda, this issue. the statement was made by the vice-president who was the presiding officer, we have had a discussion about this briefly. president marshall is not present this evening. we have agreed to put this matter over for one week. if you look at the public
record, the video recording, when was that discussion and agreement done? when did you hold this discussion that you stated that you had? when did you come to this agreement? was it or was it not out of the side of the public? was it during closed session or some other place? i know. but free speech is including silence. sometimes taking a moment to catch your breath and let it sink in can be very valuable. one of the things that i have to say, when i bring out things like this, there was initially an idea that if we interrupt him enough, if we discourage him, he will get up and go away. remember something that b.f. skinner said, any behavior
rewarded will be repeated. i want to ensure that free speech rights are respected. i have had friends that have died in iraq and afghanistan. i am a military veteran. i believe in the constitution. i believe each and everyone of you took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. i think some of these things occurred in the past two meetings. i was interrupted five times. this is not in any way, shape, manner, or form, a thing that you can characterize as be doing something wrong. i am doing what your agenda is as i can do, exercising my right under sunshine. president marshall: further
public comment? item number five. >> routine administrative business. scheduling of items for future commission meetings. president marshall: do we have any announcements? all right. let's move to scheduling of items for consideration. do we have a community meeting scheduled this month? >> none scheduled for the rest of the calendar year. president marshall: right, we said that. nextw eek -- next week, i assume that is the disciplinary meetings. how does the calendar look for next week? >> we have two cases.
president marshall: and they will be at the top of the calendar? alright. i don't want to get my wednesday's mixed up again. commissioners, and the thing -- anything? >> i have a question. in the past, the third meeting of the month was the meeting where you had a number of reports schedules, including quarterly reports from the occ, a number of other reports. a question to you would be to whether you want to consider having those reports on a different calendar than the third wednesday? because it would require many of
us to be here through your hearing and in case you want to pull them off of the consent calendar. president marshall: that is a very good point. what are those items? >> those are the quarterly reports, the quarterly update of the general orders, bulletins issued. and also the list of closed session disciplinary actions. those are the main matters that come forward in the quarterly reports. putting those on the consent calendar, it becomes a routine item.
unless the commissioner has something they want to sever for discussion, there is the point that staff would have to be here in order to be prepared for that. if we leave that until after the hearing -- president marshall: that was my thought. we can move it to another date. >> what about the second week of the month? the third is disciplinary and forth is community meetings. would that work? >> the second meeting of the month will not work for the quarterly reports unless we push it to the next month. in other words, rather than giving you the quarterly report for the third quarter, the second week of october, i could give it to you the second week of november.
>> it becomes a month older at that point. >> but we have to crunch the numbers. we need the time. >> i support director hicks. >> if there is no commissioner wishing for a separate matter of discussion, another option is to take them up at the beginning in the deal with it, moving on into the hearing. the becomes a familiar now. as the commission has observed, they are very well done. we did have this issue several years ago when we were establishing this protocol, we identified the third meeting of the month.
in our effort to dispose of disciplinary cases, we zeroed in on the third meeting of the month. president marshall: could we try next week and see? >> what i was going to inquire, do we have a case set for next week? ? we have two. >> are they locked in? there's no live hearing. >> the transcripts, the commissioners have had them. i believe the exhibits were all distributed. these are both up for decision. >> today is the twenty -- >> today is the