commissioner turman: that makes sense, thank you. >> you are welcome. vice president marshall: director hicks, i am moved by a couple of datapoint. 102 last pending cases is a measure of your ability to clear cases, rather than getting more or less complaints. it looks as though there is another significant drop in the number of complaints we have gotten, year to date. 30 last year, and 90 two years ago. is that correct? >> it is correct the pending cases are attributable to investigators moving the cases, as well as the complaint filed continuing to drop. what happens is when investigators have an extremely high caseload, it is harder to close cases. or when crisis -- when cases are closed, they may be closed with not as thorough an investigation as they needed to get. vice president marshall: what assists me -- indulge me as the new commissioner. what assists me in addressing my concern, or my happiness -- if there are less complaints coming in, if the community knows that can go to occ -- it appears you are out in the community, and people are aware,

to explain. >> commissioner turman: yes. at the i think two commission meetings ago we discussed -- sorry, the last commission meeting, we discussed firearms review board procedure, and we are currently looking at the dgo's that accompany that particular procedure, as well as we've had some discussion about the commissioners' role in it as well. and in understanding and trying to ferret out exactly the problems we think it would be helpful to have a presentation, not just to the commission but for the public to hear about exactly how that process works. sort of a tutorial on when that process is initiated, and for what reasons, and how the end result. so we'd like to schedule that. we're hopeful we can do it on -- i think october 17, that that time slot is available. and from there, it is not -- >> october 17, commissioner, will be in the district, the community meeting. >> october 10 and october 24, how are we on those days? >> good on those days. >> okay. >> commissioner turman: we want to give the department time enough t

commissioner turman: i just have a point of clarification. as i read your motion, inspector, it is titled "a motion to dismiss," because you believe the department has not presented a preponderant of the evidence. is that correct? the department has not submitted enough evidence. >> if you read through all the hearing transcripts, if you read through the closing arguments and my rebuttal, after mr. heckler was fired because the chief said his written closing argument did not commit -- did not meet department standards, dr. marshall, gave a second opportunity which i believe was an unfair advantage, because i had already submitted my written closing argument. we were entitled to another five pages. hopefully, you guys have read through all of that. to go over in the search warrant -- this is an illegal search warrant to begin with. this is a student journalist that was best friends with a homicide victim. he was at the scene. he witnessed this person getting killed. he invoked the shield law in talking to me and my partner. two tenants of the

commissioner turman. >> commissioner turman: i also want to join commissioner chan and thank the chief for the information. i read it with great interest this weekend. it certainly was a thorough gathering of information. and i'm looking forward to also talking about the process in which to engage the public. i would like to say that what was interesting to me, is i spent most of saturday reading the fact, and found some very interesting details that i'd like to talk more fully about. so i'm glad that we're going to have a meeting of the commissioners, as well as engage the public. but i have to tell you that on sunday, i went to macy's and a woman came up to me and said i see you on television all the time and i like the fact that you always listen to people, and that you hear what they have to say. so i'm looking forward -- and her expressing those words to me made me think about them. i want to express the opportunity to have that discussion with the public. and although anecdotal information is important, and i want to gather as much of that as possible. i also would ask the public

commissioner turman: mr. lee, could you please stand up? i have a few words i would like to address to you, based upon some of the things you have said. i will not let you or anyone leave this commission meeting with a belief that there is no room for hard work or ambition in this department, and that that is not something this commission does not embrace or encourage. what we can never embrace, we can never encourage, is a failure to follow the rules. i understand you see this differently, but hear me. we believe that every situation that you encounter as an officer, there is a solution. if you are given an order that you do not feel you are comfortable with complying with, or that you disagree with, there is a dgl, rule 11. read it. you are responsible for knowing it. do not interrupt me. two, if you feel that you do not understand the overtime rules, please, there is a dgo on that. your 25 year record is respected, and it is honored. but respect and honor is only respected and honored and when you do the right thing, when you follow the

commissioner turman: [inaudible] >> i don't think we have assigned to anybody yet. it will probably be my turn. >> i think that date was just finalized. >> i have a question that is related. we have more than one commissioner attending as long as it doesn't. >> we looked at the rules apply not mistaken. maybe we should wait for ms. porter, but my understanding that it is just one commissioner. it is just the makeup of the discharge review board. my plan is to rotate through of the commission and i have not done and for a while so i thought i would take the next one. commissioner loftus: i just have a question here. i certainly understand if there is a pending investigation, he but the oldest case you have this 14 months old and you're waiting for a declination letter. are these all within department policy as well as the initial findings? >> it is preliminary. we need to find out what they say and they appear to be -- >> as the d.a.'s office suggested that justice delayed was justice denied? is there anything we can do? she stole a. is anything we can do with the di

commissioner turman: join the congratulations and i think staff for the diligent work as well. there were reports, one about a retired officer. i did not hear the substance. >> what commander milotello talked about is what officers do who are assigned to muni, and what lt. joe mcfadden trained investigators on was the work of the crime scene investigation unit. commissioner turman: you also mentioned a training bulletin on mentioned a training bulletin on entering sro apartments and

commissioner turman: yes. commissioner loftus: yes. vice president marshall: yes. my understanding is we have a couple of motions to decide first. >> one of the first motions is the motions filed -- vice president marshall: i will give you five minutes to talk about the motion. just say what the motions are, and then i will talk about how we are going to proceed. >> the first motion is part of the record. the second is the motion to review and correct the hearing transcript. the third is the motion to dismiss the final specification. vice president marshall: let us go into closed session and rule on those, and then come back on the motion to dismiss. >> the first is the motion to include sergeant devlin's interviews as part of the record. they are attorneys -- their attorneys of record -- mr. taylor, who was representing me at the time, had agreed that the internal affairs interviews would be exhibits in this case. that is part of the hearing transcript that you guys had, and it is part of the motion i filed. all the investigative interviews are relevant in this ca

commissioner turman. >> commissioner turman: let me clarify this so that everyone understands. this meeting has never been advertised as, never agendized as the chief or anyone else presenting a report. there is no report to present. this is about the implementation of a revolution by the police commission, about the process of studying tasers that we are trying to put into effect. no one is trying to exclude the public. there is no shadowy process going on here. we are not moving forward with tasers or anything else without public input. we have received research and information, most of which have been previously presented at this commission meeting. and to the extent anyone feels like information is being kept from them, believe me, i am not in that business, and i don't sit up here for that purpose. we're here to engage -- we're here to set a process by which this commission voted on, prior to me even being on this commission, to study this issue. and because of that resolution exists, and because that resolution calls for interaction and engagement and meeting with the pub