tv [untitled] June 4, 2011 7:30am-8:00am PDT
because there was some that have been fourth with the department about whether or not the general liability insurance was provided. i did see proof of the auto insurance. i know there was some question about timing, but it appears it was provided at some point. with no. 4, complying to the orders of a police officer which is similar for the same as #six, i am wondering if that is the same as #five, which is mandatory training requirement, because four, five, and six have to do with mandatory cpr training. my suggestion is to streamline this, to say there is one specification for not wearing a uniform and another specification for not going to the training, and i would not sustain the insurance
specification. that is where i am at this moment. >> it seems like there is some replication there. good >> dr. marshall, you have gone through all three complaints. as the sound accurate? >> -- does that sound accurate? >> there was a question of liability insurance, and the department did not have that on file very good -- on file, so there was a question of where it was supposed to be filed. the place referred to a previous agreement for order, so there was a discussion about how things had changed, and there
was something that had been in place before but was not in place now. the department did not have general liability. i have asked him to provide the information to the department. gooi never saw it, so if it is provided, i did not see it. >> it was never included in our investigatory file. we would have marked that as an exhibit, and there seemed to be zero little bit of new information from the lieutenant when he testified he may have received from the interview, so he seemed unclear about whether or not he had received that information, but he was clear that he would have put it in his investigation.
in regards to the suggestion regarding specification, when the department files the specification, it usually comes in as a general packet of information, and those dates are listed, so rather than file 30 or 25, we make a general when specification that includes those states that occurred in that particular month, because there were so many uniform violations that there probably could have been additional specifications. >> this case was to me about compliance, and this was a commission case, not the intermediary. i feel that, particularly when it came to insurance
requirements, there were usually enough to remedy, so i did not include that in the package. that is still an issue to me, so i would not take that off the table myself. >> i noticed that in the form he actually references the city attorney, and there was a discussion about approach rule. i do not think that -- about a prior rule. i do not think that was cleared up. there was some confusion, and the lieutenant acknowledged he was not clear about when he received certain things, so i am not as convinced on abothat. when >> commissioners, any other input? >> i think in general, what strikes me about this case is a
philosophical reluctance to abide by the procedures and regulations and rules set by the commission for patrol special ists, and if i understand what you are saying, officer burns, that seems to be the crux of it, and it plays out in these various ways of not filling out various forms, not providing them in a timely fashion, not providing the evidence even if you have it, just that there is a struggle, up because philosophically, you do not buy into the structure, and so -- please. >> i have evidence by state law that says the city attorney's
office is down by a duty to indemnify themselves, who -- bound by a duty to indemnify themselves because they are considered city employees. good i think it was in 2006 in which it was ruled that candido was a city employee. i am asking for a clearer guidance -- asking for is clear guidance. i must warn member of the san francisco police department. but i was sworn in in 1976 and reinstated in 1989. i have never been on sworn -- unsworn. the commission decided i was not a police officer but a private citizen.
under what authority? that is what i am asking. it is not that i will not comply. it is legal guidance so when i go back to my membership i can explain, this is the law. each commission just came up off the top of their head. for example, the requirement to have insurance for to enter $50,000. the police commission -- $250,000. the police commissioners said $1 million. there is a great gap. this is the state of california telling its security companies they must have this much money. the police commission is telling control specialists say they want $1 million. i have to tell the membership what legal status of this is required under your good >> -- i
have to tell the members about what legal status of this is required. >> it sounds like this is a larger case, and you are bringing this to us, but your violations -- that is your way to and during this test case to way to bring this has case to us, and what the commission has to do is decide whether or not there was violations, and where that might lead might be to a superior court or another venue on this, but personally, going back to my fellow commissioners, i would have to say i would sustain an vote in favor of sustaining specifications commonly -- specifications, because there were intentional violations of the rules and procedures, and you have explained why you have
not complied, so thank you for doing that, but on the other hand, i would vote of the violations did exist by your commission -- admission. >> i want to clarify what the city attorney's office. both of which involve not wearing uniforms, one in 2009 and one in 2010. should those three separate hamas is it up to the department to decide -- should those the separate and? is it up to the department to decide? -- should those be separate? the latest i have lists the specifications. good >> i believe specification
one -- >> there are three documents. if you would like, i can call it out. let's start with the first document, which has one specification requiring the correct uniform. that is september 4, 5, 6, 7, a common 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 and he did not wear the appropriate uniform. now do i have a vote? >> yes. >> second. >> roll call please. >> the motion is sustained. [calling votes]
>> i want to make sure i get the answer. if there is not one, i will just votes. >> i have one question about specifications. this specification is for violations in 2009. they brought this charge against him, and based on continuing violations, they brought an additional charges against him. >> that is correct. there was a separate memorandum regarding observations of the patrol officer being out of uniform, so that is a separate complaint of the same violation. >>7
commissioner kingsly: aye. >> let's move to the second complaint with reference to specification #one, again, and uniform violations, and this time it is laid out from february 3, 2010, and here in rates from september 5, 2009 until january of 2010. he was seen out of uniform 37 times. do i have a motion? roll call please. [calling fovotes]
>> it is unanimous. with reference to specification #two, and this deals with not having the appropriate proof of insurance according to the allegations made by the lieutenant. do i have a motion regarding this specification? can we vote please? >> to sustain this allegation and -- [calling votes] commissioner chan: no. >> that matter is sustained, 4- 1. but let's move on to our third document, alw c10-233,.
speculation one is in reference to the mandatory training cent on march 27, 2010 and -- sent out on march 27, 2010. this involves first aid and cpr. do i have a motion? >> i would like to make a motion. >> only conditioners can make a motion. you can talk in public comment. >> sustained superior -- sustained. -- seonded. [calling votes. commissioner chan: no. >> that motion passes. >> with reference to number two,
which is failure to convert to your cpr training -- to follow cpr training. do i have a motion? >> second. [calling votes] commissioner chan: no -- excuse me, yes. >> that has passed unanimously. with reference to specifications #three. this involves the patrol officer not appearing to the interview of the police department and that he failed to show up for a scheduled interview on september 7, 2010. do i have a motion? >> yes. >> [calling votes]
commissioner chan: no. >> the past, 4-1. now we are voting -- we passed a guilt verdict. now it is time to decide what the appropriate penalty would be. >> [inaudible] and >> are with second your request, an -- i would second your request, but i think the city attorney says we cannot. >> we have done it before. >> we have done deliberations. >> i thought there was a deliberative process. >> [unintelligible]
we could do reparations also. >> the only exceptions i know of our personnel, and in litigation, -- ending the litigation, security. reconfirm there is no basis to go into closed session -- marie confirmed there is no basis to go into closed session. >> one option is weekend go on tonight or weekend delayed -- we can go on tonight or we can play a week and consult with the city attorney and see if there is a basis for a closed session, and i am open for either. >> is controlled special officer burns currently working this week? >> yes. >> that is a problem. >> i would be happy to look into it.
i did not realize there would be any dispute, because i was pretty much assured -- >> officer of ernst, would you like to go too close session who -- officer burns, would you like us to go too close session? >>. -- yes. >> with this, i think we will make a motion. the department has agreed, and i think we will discuss this in closed session. do i have agreement from my fellow commissioners gunman who >> i asked if there is grounds to reverse the decision -- do i have agreement from my fellow commissioners democrats as much as i would be happy to do closed session -- from my fellow commissioners? >> as much as i would be happy to do closed session, i am concerned about the public who
are not here to say whether they agree to go into closed session or not. i am fine either deliberate thing in public or waiting a week and seeing if the city attorney wants to see if there is a basis for going into closed session. >> we have sustained numerous allegations against the patrol special officer who has said he is not going to comply, and he is currently working his and beat. >> i understand that concern acutely, but i understand the nature of the allegations are very significant, very important, but they go to the control specialist cause belief of whether he needs to comply to our rules have -- control specialist hospital leaf of whether he needs to comply to our rules or not.
-- control specialist belt's belief of whether he needs to comply to our rules or not. it gives me a little bit of -- if it is another week, it is not that bad. if others have concerns, i do not mind waiting a week. i would like to hear what the other commissioners think about whether we would prefer to go now or wait another week. >> i think i know what it is, but i am not going to say. >> the department is recommending it be revoked. i really think the commission and this department is left with no other option. you have someone who is stating
he is not going to comply with the interim rules, and i think the poses a severe problem for the department and the safety of the public, and i think that is where we stand at this point, that it needs to be revoked. >> we are going to go too close session, and each party can make a statement. would you like to make one? >> it comes back to my being sworn in, and i was never appointed. i am not testifying in court on the incident in which i captured a murder suspect -- i am now testifying in court on the incident in which i captured a murder suspect. there has never been a complaint in the 22 years that i have been a lot of officer, so as to being a danger to the public, my job
is to protect and serve. that is what i swore when i came on board. >> i thought we have the prerogative to go into closed session. my understanding was that we did not have to, but i thought we could. but is what we have done before. i do not necessarily want to wait a week for clarification. i would prefer to do this in closed session, but i need a proper understanding, because if my understanding is not correct, maybe we should not, so i will leave it to the other commissioners. >> based on the state attorney's a vicdvice and, i think we shoud keep it open session. i would personally like a closed session, and given the advice, i think it is prudent to keep in
in open session. i am fine with 3 it tonight. >> i agree. i think we ought to move on tonight in open session. >> i agree. >> we are now going to deliberate regarding the penalty phase of this matter. >> i agree that we have no choice other than to terminate the appointment. he has a fundamental way different view of our ability -- a fundamentally different view of our ability to regulate. either he is disregarding our rules or he is not a member of our party, but he is not following rules. we cannot have one who goes out, so our role but we terminate the appointment. -- i wouldçt rule that we terminate the appointment. >> i second that.
>> on the motion to remove -- [calling fvotes] vice president marshall: based on any officers, and now that he is willing to comply, aye. > >> it passed unanimously. >> this matter has been closed. >> officer burns, adore license has been revoked. your ability to -- your license has been revoked. you are not to report to duty tonight to give whatever property you have that belongs to the department should be turned in and immediately. >> i do not have it with me.
i can bring it in tomorrow. and i have appeal rights also? >> you do, but your ability to work has been revoked. you should talk about the surrender of your badge and your radio. >> that is my personal radio. >> whatever other information you have in reference to the handling of your beat. sorry about that. >> i have complied with everything in about the uniform -- everything but the uniform. as far as not complying, i do not know. >> the matter is closed.
programs, because it is very important your officers know cpr. >> i agree. >> any other public comments? >> the vote on whether to hold the no. 7 in closed session. >> we are now going to closed session. >> clear the room, ladies and gentlema secretary: ok, we are back from a closed session. president mazzucco: the next
item, please. secretary: item 8, whether or not to disclose. president mazzucco: do i have a motion? commissioner: i move that we do not disclose. president mazzucco: next item. secretary: item 9, adjournment. president mazzucco: >> hello. 9 judge terri l. jackson. the court is now recruiting prospective civil grand jurors.
our goal is to develop a pool of candidates that is inclusive of all segments of our city's population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call