gosh yes. >> officer warner is deceased and she had a beat. if someone working on her feet since she is deceased? that is also a conflict. >> somebody might be working the be. it has been brought up with the prior and illustrator. somebody has made a phone call to the person managing the be, i have not received phone calls back from her. >> there are decisions we need to talk about. there seems to be a conflict in these rules, but it is not unreasonable the -- it is essential for the owner to know the client and monitor his assistants and to clarify what the role of the assistant is.

the only other question i have, [unintelligible] is he getting -- >> i believe so. there is one other thing, he is a se processedlling his beta to john fitzinger. he has not received any paperwork. despite the documents earlier this year, they indicate information, there are zero in triplicate form. >> it seems like something we need to address in terms of policy. what is the conflict between these rules and the policy and what do we expect from the officers in terms of how the

beets are going to be monitored? and if something happens where a beat elinor is incapacitated or deceased, how do we take control of that particular beat and put a time line on when that beat is sold or not have reverted back to the commission. the commission can retire it or put it up for sale and to make the decisions so that everybody understands the process. >> we have met with the city attorney regarding these matters. we're back to where we were when we had the initial report. he uncharted waters of patrol specialists are unique to our city. we're back to the tug-of-war on if we are part of the police force, they are not. but we regulate them.

the issues that arise about him if he does own the beat, when does he have to work at? can he even have a patrol special assistant? patrol special assistants are not in the charter. they are under the guidance of the commission. should we even have patrol special assistants anymore? is it reasonable to have them and we have seen a worker's comp claims. we are part of the police department, it is very ambiguous and problematic. we're back to square one when we have addressed these issues on numerous occasions. we have to look at this, if we even have to have control specialists. you can't expect him to work his beat seven nights a week. lead to major the assistance are not working constantly at the

patrol special is not working the beat. we have to make sure that their clients are comfortable with what they are doing. i apologize, but one of the issues i have seen, because of the lack of control, a lot of these things are falling apart. we understand as part of the rules and procedures that they check in when they start their shift. my question to you is, is that happening? >> i am getting daily or weekly logs from the station, i have requested of logs from other stations. the patrol specialists are working as directed. i have requested the control specialist, waiting to receive them.

i think maybe there is a better system of timely -- getting logs on a more timely basis. >> uniform inspections and vehicle inspections. we should discuss whether or not there are numerous empty seats. they can write back to the commission for us and we can solve them? do we leave them out there? we hear is being sold to certain people, we're not seeing documents. it is more of the same. it is getting too loose, and i apologize the congratulations of been assigned. the commission has to have another large discussion about tightening the rules again to make sure that the community is safe at patrol specials are getting the right to guidance. commissioner slaughter: i

commission -- i second everything you have said, and with respect to 4.11 and 4.12, i guess i don't quite see such a big conflict between the rules. one says that they have to be diligent, but 4.11 says the patrol specials cannot rely solely on assistance to conduct patrols services. 4.12 says, you can have an assistant to perform these services. of think there is a suggestion that means some sort of permanent way to get out from under the flat, an ambiguous sentence that they can't rely solely on assistance.

i think is consistent with the rule three. 03-- 3.rule 3.03f. it requires the officer provide a letter certifying that the physician has examined the applicant and found them to be free of fiscal, -- physical, mental, or emotional condition. it seems to me if they can't satisfy that provision, they can't be a patrol specialists. i don't think there is anything inconsistent among the rules. if we need to give -- and tighten them up, i agree. but rules say that you cannot go out and have only assistance serving these beats. and for good reason.

perhaps the need to be preamble's here that lay out reasons. there are analogies, it deals with medallion holders. they have to work their cabs. and for good reason. perhaps even more so in this situation, whether it's a question, you can sell a be, you can sell in medallion so easily. my personal view is that i don't see that big of a conflict between these rules. i do agree with everything everyone has said that any to take a hard luck at tightening of the rules and if we need assistance at all. i of the charter provides for patrol specials. he did not provide for assistant patrol specials, and i am not convinced, and no one has made

the case for me why they ought to be authorized by this commission. that is my view, i agree that we will need to look at it again. >> i think there is some ambiguity where it says that if the patrol special is off for more than four days, the assistant can work the beat. does that mean that he just works the beach at all? it is ha not only the assistant patrol specials, but the question is, do we want to discuss whether, in this particular situation, could beat officer is incapacitated and can't work it, and others work it? it is silent. we need to take into account people meeting vacations, people get sick.

i that there is ambiguity that we should look at. maybe some guidance from the department. >> would you mind taking the lead in working with and the attorney's office on this matter? we will put this matter on for some additional work up and there'll probably be a meeting with you. again, when he to iron out more of these issues. i do not want to see another worker's compensation claim come from a patrol assistant who one day says the have nothing to do with us and then the file a claim. that is not acceptable. any further questions? >> i am happy to meet with the city attorney and maybe in 30 or 45 days, bring it back. >> does the commission want to give any direction of limitations or changes to the rules? would you like us to work with

the department, i have a recommendation, and have come a frjr - -- commissioner dejesus with the patrol officer association, with a proposal to the commission for changes? >> i would like input from the commissioners, and perhaps i can get input as we go forward. or we can do it now, or we can do it when we come back. commission slaughter: i am happy staying put, and i think we have some the brown act issues if there were to be some sort of meetings, so i think it is better that we do it now, and you can work with the city attorney had come back after that. by view is that -- i will go from the general to the specific.

rules need to be a lot tighter. i think we need to give a hard look about what the justification is for having an assistant patrol specials at all. and we need to make a decision as a commission about whether there is a justification for having assistant patrol specials, and i think quite honestly, i love to have even a broader discussion about whether there should be patrol specials at all. you would have to have a charter amendment and a whole other set of issues that you will have to encounter that i know we want to tackle at this point. assuming that we're going to have some sort of patrol specials going forward, what will the rules be? let's make sure that we have these ambiguities that we have identified, and i am sure that we will find other ambiguities tied up. perhaps we will have to address

the issue of sales and bequeaths beats. we might want to -- the rules have a provisonion for qualifyig patrol specials. whether it be every year or two years or something like that? there is a long series of qualifications that a patrol special has to meet in order to be qualified. do we want to make sure that we don't do that once and expect them to be in the same spot 15 years later? on the more specific, i firmly believe that if we authorized specials, they must be required to work that the for some -- the betat for some period. do hours per month, but they

can't just sit at home and collect a check. there are lots of important reasons to do that. that was pretty stream of consciousness of the top of my head, but those are my thoughts as we are sitting here today. commissioner dejesus, i can't thank you enough for volunteering. >> the deadline of notifying the department on whether or not a person is no longer able to do their beat or if there is someone that is deceased. in terms of notification, some type of policy or procedure of how to handle the incapacitated or if someone is deceased, setting a time line on that action about whether they are going to sell a. -- sell it. if it's vacant, how do we handle it? >> we should look at the beach

out there that no one is working in a one of bones, and if we got rid of the position right now, we should rescind those completely and no longer have them? those are issues we need to talk about. >> anything further? >> i think the overall issues -- we need to stay on top of it, it is fair to the community and fair to the officers that they follow the rules that we have. everything. >> thank you. >> of like to thank the lieutenant. i threw a t in hector's last name, i told him i would get it right. i have been fabulous, thoughtful and practical trying to relate these does so that they make

sense to the whole process and still being fair to everybody involved. i am comfortable having them over see this as we figure it out. >> any public comment regarding this matter? thank you, sergeant. >> i do have a public comment. the rules are clear. they have clearly broken the rules as they have broken the rules repeatedly year in and year out. sgt jacino is a wonderful officer and he brings these issues to you, and dyou punt again. i was wrong when i said it was 63 weeks since the comptroller's report. it has now been 64 weeks,

telling you about the liability issues, it was in the best interest in the city and the commission to put them out of business despite the pre-civil war gold rush here a charter provision that apparently permits them to run rampant over the rights of individual citizens. it is never good to have self- policing, particularly when it is paid to play self policing what is done by secret police whether it is penn state or san francisco. especially when it is bought and paid for. and especially when it is practiced by people that make a frequent have that of breaking the law. whether it is on behalf of their clients or comply with your relatively mild regulations. they are clear. they are not that's correct.

they are easy to follow, they can't seem to do it. you keep enabling them to go on and on and it is not fair to all of the citizens. those of us victimized by their activities continue to be victimized. and make false arrests and two other illegal acts for money. 64 weeks and counting, dr. marshall, talk to your colleagues. you have been here longer than they have. you know how long the have been breaking the law. president mazzucco: next spekaer. -- speaker. >> it seems like i have been here at a number of meetings when the patrol specials were a topic of conversation. tightening the rules is wonderful, but unless there is an enforcement mechanism, it is rearranging chairs on the titanic.

in the private sector, we are talking about people in the private sector. they buy the contract, they have an off set of obligations that they are supposed to fulfill had a set of rules to follow. they do have a contract that says okay, the minimum you have to show up and locked in, you have the clock out before you go. and unless you have something on the line where their requirement is that they go to the station and check in at the beginning of the shift and go back to check out, you need to have some sort of penalty if they fail to do that. if you don't do it, we don't have to pay. if you don't have an enforcement mechanism, people will find their way are around the rules. there is a lot of stuff.

i would assume that the idea that if they can work for four days, it has to do with people going on vacation or somebody getting sick. at the same time, i think there is a lack of clarity as to who is to enforce these rules. apparently the patrol specials themselves are not enforcing the rules either on themselves or the people they're hiring to work of the beats. they are saying that we are not part of the department, so i assume that for whatever other justification, they give it to the department. and they say, you never told us you were checked in. they say, you can't ask me that. i don't work for you. it is like anything else in business. if you manage a person and they have a lot of different ways of getting out of doing what they

want to do, they get out of doing what they are supposed to do anything to do what they would rather do. you have to get those stores and closed so that the only place they can go as where you want them to go. tightening those up, i would ask you to ensure that you make some meaningful changes to allow for penalties, and that will also carry over to others. another person breaking the rules, it gives them, and their mind, the right to do also. we didn't know if i had insurance. >> this is the third time i have come before you, and this is all

about money and just last week -- i sw in a c -- saw in a crown vic, three security guards with rifles sitting outside of bank of america. there are no regulations on a private security guards. the beat owner is not getting that work, the private security company is. this is all about money. 13 months this has gone on, i

filed a claim against the city, and would like you guys to take a look at it. i am submitting it to you, and i want to become an assistant patrol special. this has gone on way too long. i hope that we can come to some resolution on this problem. >> about seven years ago, one of the beat owners hall was not working his beat, it is available to his clients and the checks in with the assistant every night, the assistant was

basically card block -- carte blanche and the beat owner was able to be contacted by his clients. the sergeant said he would check into it a week later. that was all right to work it is administratively. we have put together a list of papers i have given to everyone of you. we have had 21 liaison officers in 21 years. we had one for three weeks, another for two weeks. this sets up the patrol special program for failure. as soon as you have a liaison officer the start to know the ins and outs of the business,

they are transferred. paperwork is lost or misplaced, paperwork doesn't exist. they don't remember who they talked to. it is a recipe for failure. it is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. the other thing came up about post-certified backgrounds. i contacted a person that i know, i asked him what is the difference between a post- certified background at a regular background? he said, basically the same but not. post-certified backgrounds, as long as they appear to standards, which post -- as long as they have taken that course, backgrounds can be considered post-certified backgrounds. some of our guys were having

backgrounds done by a licensed to background investigator that has post-certified surface -- and certificates, and they were told they were rejected for that reason. the other thing i will bring up to you, i don't have time. and i forgot my glasses. i dropped off a couple of cds for everybody. i hope you will take a look at them. [chime] officers have various certificates. he's stretching back years and they run the gamut of just about every post class that was offered. we have said that we are not trained, not brought up the proper standing. if you look through these, a think you will realize there are

a lot of certificates. some of our guys could not provide them because they have moved into many times. one had a fire. >> i have to cut you off, i apologize. >> i will be happy to work with you anytime, anyplace as long as it is after 12:00 noon. >> any other public comment? at the item is now closed. >> item is a public comment, including on whether to hold item 18 closed session. >> these are personnel matters, they will be closed. please call the next line. >> the vote on whether to have the meeting in closed session. >> we will now move into clos

>> we are back in the open session. we have a quorom. we are on item number nine, city vote to discuss items discussed in closed session. president mazzucco: would you please call the next item? prior to calling that item, i like to ask the commission tonight to adjourn at in the honor of police officer duffy. he passed away last week. most oldtimers say that he was the closest thing to a saint that ever or the uniform of the san francisco police department. he died of a rare disease, and he was a firm believer in god, and he passed away.

he was date truly good man. he was a true member of the san francisco police department who served the city and an honorable fashion. i like to adjourn tonight in honor of michael duffy. >> so moved. president mazzucco: this meeting is adjourned. >> the meeting is adjourned, thank you. >> the court is now accepting applications for the civil grand jury. this investigative watchdog body is comprised of 19 public spirited citizens.