Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Commission votes to deny motions to dismiss disciplinary charges in two personnel cases
Summary
The San Francisco Police Commission voted at its Bernal Heights meeting to deny motions to dismiss disciplinary charges in case numbers C06-186 and C06-187 and to adopt findings consistent with prior related denials; the vote was taken in public session but commissioners said personnel details cannot be disclosed due to legal limits.
The San Francisco Police Commission voted on the motion to deny the defense request to dismiss disciplinary charges in case numbers C06-186 and C06-187 and to adopt findings consistent with related denials.
The motion was moved by Commissioner Joe Marshall and seconded by Commissioner Mizuko; President Teresa Sparks called a roll-call vote and recorded Aye votes from Sparks, Marshall, David Campos, Yvonne Lee and Commissioner Mazuko/Mizuko, and declared the motion carried. Lieutenant Reilly announced the Commission would adopt findings consistent with previous denials in related cases.
President Sparks noted legal constraints on what the Commission could disclose about personnel cases, citing last year’s state supreme court decision: “Because of [the Supreme Court decision] called Copley versus City of San Diego, we cannot actually disclose any specifics about this case because they are personnel cases,” she said at the meeting.
The Commission took the action as presented by the City Attorney’s office; the motion and roll-call vote were recorded in the public minutes. Because the matters are personnel-related, commissioners and staff declined to discuss the factual specifics of the underlying allegations in open session.
The denial aligns these cases with related matters the Commission previously considered. No further public dates or next procedural steps for these specific cases were disclosed at the meeting because of the legal restrictions on discussing personnel proceedings.
The meeting then returned to the regular agenda.
