March 5, 2014

MARCH 5, 2014 REGULAR MEETING

The Police Commission of the City and County of San Francisco met in Room

400, City Hall, #1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, at 5:35 p.m.

PRESENT: Commissioners Mazzucco, Turman, Marshall, Chan, Loftus

ABSENT: Commissioner DeJesus

Motion by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Chan.

Approved 4-0.

Michael Petrellis spoke in regards to indictments of officers and spoke of being

arrested for taking a picture in a bathroom and concerns in regards to how long it took

to indict the officers. He further went on in regards to an OCC complaint and lack of

disclosure by the Department on its website.

Mary Bailey asked for hardcore law enforcement.

Ace Washington spoke in regards to officers being indicted and concerns

regarding Northern Station.

Clyde spoke in regards to rape kits not tested and spoke in regards to corruption

by officers.

Ms. Paulette Brown spoke in regards to the murder of her son, Aubrey

Abrakasa, Jr., and how his case is still not solved. She went on to show the names of

individuals responsible for shooting her son.

Chief Suhr announced the tip line for the public, 575-4444, to help with Ms.

Brown’s son’s case. The Chief then went on to talk about five officers that were indicted

last Friday. The Chief went on to talk about recent events including a murder-suicide,

the combined charities program, the promotional ceremony, the retirement of Deputy

Chief Loftus and the appointment of Deputy Chief Sainez and Commander Moser. He

went on to congratulate Commissioner Loftus for receiving the James Irvine Foundation

Leadership Award.

Director Hicks spoke in regards to meeting with the UC Davis Police

Accountability Office who is establishing a Police Accountability Board in light of the

incident in 2011 where Occupy protestors were pepper sprayed.

Commissioner Mazzucco reported that he attended the Promotional Ceremony

last Thursday and attending the retirement party of Deputy Chief Loftus last Friday. He

went on to commend Chief Loftus.

Commissioner Chan spoke of how she will miss both Deputy Chiefs Loftus and

Biel. She went on to recognize and commend Commissioner Kingsley on her work on

the Commission. The Commissioner also spoke of walking the Chinese Lunar Parade

with the Command Staff and spoke of the Mental Health Association giving an award to

Commander Corriea on Friday to recognize his work with the CIT training.

Commissioner Loftus spoke of the Children’s Advocacy Center and thanked the

Chief for his support. The Commissioner went on to commend Deputy Chief Loftus.

Commissioner Turman commended Deputy Chief Loftus and acknowledged

Commissioner Kingsley for her work on the Commission. Commissioner Turman also

commended the John Irvine Foundation for awarding Commissioner Loftus for her work

with children.

Commissioner Mazzucco talked about the recent indictment of officers and

asked the public to respect the process and how the Commission cannot comment on

the issue of these indictments.

Inspector Monroe announced that next week the Commission will meet at City

Hall and no meeting on the 19th , and in the Tenderloin on the 26th .

PUBLIC COMMENT

Michael Petrellis spoke in regards to the officers indicted and asked for

accountability.

Ms. Ashley Worsham, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Department.

PSO John Barry is not present.

Motion by Commissioner Mazzucco to remove John Barry as Patrol Special

Officer.

AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Turman, Marshall, Chan, Loftus

The hearing of Assistant Patrol Special Officer John Barry, Star No. 2537, was

called it having been set for this date. Assistant Patrol Special Officer Barry was

charged, in a properly verified complaint by Chief Gregory P. Suhr, Chief of Police of the

San Francisco Police Department, with violating the Rules and Procedures, as follows:

SPECIFICATION NO. 1

Failure to Provide Proof of Commercial Liability Insurance, Auto Liability Insurance and

Proof of a Valid Guard/Firearm Card (a violation of Rule 3.03(I)(2) and (3) and 3.04(H) of

the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);

SPECIFICATION NO. 2

Failure to Provide the Program Administrator with the Current Names, Addresses and

Telephone numbers of Assistant Patrol Specials and Failure to Provide a Complete List of

Clients and Complete List of Fees Charged (a violation of Rules 4.14 and 4.15 of the

Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);

SPECIFICATION NO. 3

Failure to Properly Report for Duty in Person to the Platoon Commander of the District

he is Designated to, (a violation of Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special

Officers and their Assistants);

SPECIFICATION NO. 4

Failure to Attend Mandatory Bi-Annual Range Qualification, (a violation of Rule 3.05(A)

of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);

SPECIFICATION NO. 5

Failure to Attend Mandatory Classroom Instruction from October 8, 2013 to October 10,

2013, (a violation of Rule 3.05(B) of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their

Assistants).

Ms. Ashley Worsham, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the San Francisco

Police Department.

Assistant Patrol Special Officer John Barry and/or his representative were not

present. Assistant Patrol Special Officer John Barry was sent, via Certified Mail on

February 24, 2014, a notice to appear before the Police Commission for a hearing on

charges filed against him set for Wednesday, March 5, 2014.

The Commission took the matter under submission and the following resolution

was adopted:

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2014, Chief Gregory P. Suhr, Chief of Police of the San

Francisco Police Department, made and served charges against Assistant Patrol Special

Officer John Barry, as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

(1) At all times herein mentioned John Barry, Star Number 2537, (hereinafter

referred to as the "accused") was and is a Patrol Special Officer. The accused owns beat

53 within the Park District.

(2) A Patrol Special Officer is defined as "A private person, appointed by the

Commission, who contracts to perform security duties of a private nature for private

persons or businesses within the geographical boundaries set forth by the Police

Commission. A Patrol Special Officer is the owner of a beat."

(3) Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials are not members of the uniform

ranks of the Police Department and they are not employees of the City and County of

San Francisco. A Patrol Special Officer is responsible for knowing and obeying the rules

and procedures of the Patrol Special Officers and Assistant Patrol Special Officers (See

the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants,

Adopted by the San Francisco Police Commission, December 10, 2008).

(4) Encompassed in those rules is the directive that Patrol Specials and their

Assistants shall obey all written orders of the Department that are not clearly

inapplicable to their respective assignments. (See Rule3.12(A) of the Interim Rules and

Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants.)

SPECIFICATION NO. 1

Failure to Provide Proof of Commercial Liability Insurance, Auto Liability Insurance and

Proof of a Valid Guard/Firearm Card (a violation of Rule 3.03(I)(2) and (3) and 3.04(H) of

the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).

(5) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (4) are incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

(6) On July 9, 2013, Patrol Special Liaison Officer Carla Brown #1247 prepared a

written memorandum indicating PSO Barry has not complied with the Interim Rules and

Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants.

(7) On May 15, 2013, Officer Brown sent a certified letter to PSO Barry requesting

that he provide documentation of his Commercial Liability Insurance, Automobile

Liability Insurance and proof of a valid Guard/Firearm card. PSO Barry works for

another Patrol Special Officer as an Assistant Patrol Special Officer and is therefore

required to obtain a guard card and firearms card. PSO Barry signed for the letter on

May 28, 2013.

(8) In addition to the above requested information, PSO Barry was also instructed

to provide a list of his current clients and the fees charged for those clients.

(9) On June 12, 2013, Officer Carla Brown sent a second certified letter requesting

the same information. PSO Barry signed for the letter on June 15, 2013.

(10) On July 29, 2013, PSO Barry telephoned Officer Brown and stated that due to an

injury he has not worked since early June. Throughout the conversation, PSO Barry was

evasive with Officer Brown; however, he did agree to respond to her officer on August

1, 2013 to sign for the paperwork related to his PSO responsibilities.

(11) On August 1, 2013, at 2014 hours, PSO Barry left a voice message for Officer

Brown stating that he would not be coming in for the scheduled appointment.

(12) On August 7, 2013, Officer Brown emailed and telephoned PSO Barry to remind

him of their scheduled interview for August 16, 2013 at 0900 hours.

(13) On August 15, 2013 at 2014 hours, PSO Barry telephoned Officer Brown and left

a voicemail message stating that he was not feeling well and would need to reschedule

his interview.

(14) On August 16, 2013, Officer Brown emailed and telephoned PSO Barry with a

new interview appointment scheduled for August 21, 2013 at 0900 hours.

(15) On August 21, 2013 at 0110 hours, PSO Barry emailed Officer Brown stating that

he would not be attending the scheduled meeting with her.

(16) Despite numerous attempts, PSO Barry has refused to comply with Officer

Brown’s requests for documentation and appear at scheduled interviews. PSO Barry

was sent at least two certified letters that he signed for. Those certified letters

requested that PSO Barry produce necessary and mandatory documents of which PSO

Barry has refused to produce. Additionally, PSO Barry failed to show up for three

scheduled meetings.

(17) PSO Barry, by intentionally refusing to provide Officer Brown with

documentation of his commercial liability, automobile liability insurance, and proof of

his valid guard/firearm card has violated Rules 3.03 and 3.04 of the Interim Rules and

Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants. Any reasonable Patrol

Special Officer must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of

his appointment. Rule 3.03(I)(1)-(3) and Rule 3.04(H) of the Interim Rules and

Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:

SPECIFICATION NO. 2

Failure to Provide the Program Administrator with the Current Names, Addresses and

Telephone numbers of Assistant Patrol Specials and Failure to Provide a Complete List of

Clients and Complete List of Fees Charged (a violation of Rules 4.14 and 4.15 of the

Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).

(18) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (17) are incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

(19) During the course of her investigation, Officer Brown repeatedly asked PSO

Barry for a current list of his clients and the fees charged to each client. PSO Barry

refused to provide any of the requested documentation to Officer Brown regarding his

list of client’s and the fees charged.

(20) The Accused, by failing to provide the Patrol Special Liaison Officer with a

current list of clients and fees charged, violated Rule 4.14 and Rule 4.15 of the Interim

Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants. Any reasonable

Patrol Special Officer must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or

revocation of his appointment. Rules 4.14 and 4.15 of the Interim Rules and Procedures

for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, state:

SPECIFICATION NO. 3

Failure to Properly Report for Duty in Person to the Platoon Commander of the District

he is Designated to, (a violation of Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special

Officers and their Assistants).

(21) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (22) are incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

(22) During the course of the investigation, the Patrol Special Program Liaison

discovered that PSO Barry had not signed in to the PSO Log at Park Station during the

entire 2013 year. Beat 53 is located in the Park District and PSO Barry is required to sign

in each time he begins his shift. There is no record that PSO Barry has ever signed in at

Park Station.

(23) In addition to the requirement that PSO Barry sign in at Park Station, PSO Barry

listed on his informational sheet that he also worked for Patrol Special Officer Reyes.

PSO Reyes beat(s) are located in the Bayview District which would require that he sign in

at Bayview Station. A review of the Bayview Station sign-in log revealed that PSO Barry

had not signed in at that station since February 2012.

(24) The Accused, by failing to sign in at Park Station, the district in which his beat is

located and by failing to sign in at Bayview Station, the district where he works for PSO

Reyes, engaged in conduct which reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of

Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their

Assistants. Any reasonable Patrol Special Officer must know that such conduct is cause

for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules for

Patrol Specials and their Assistants states:

"4.25. PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING ON AND OFF DUTY. Each day they work

their beat(s), all Patrol Specials and Assistants shall report on and off duty in person to

SPECIFICATION NO. 4

Failure to Attend Mandatory Bi-Annual Range Qualification, (a violation of Rule 3.05(A)

of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).

(25) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (24) are incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

(26) On September 12, 2013, Range Master Sergeant Wallace Gin #1742 prepared a

written memorandum regarding the Patrol Special Officers who failed to appear for the

mandatory bi-annual handgun qualification. The training was conducted on September

12, 2013 at 0800 hours at the Lake Merced Range. The accused failed to appear for this

mandatory range qualification in September 2013.

(27) The Accused, by failing to appear at his mandatory bi-annual range qualification

in September 2013, engaged in conduct which reflects discredit upon the Department in

violation of Rule 3.05(A) of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers

and Their Assistants. Any reasonable Patrol Special Officer must know that such

conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 3.05(A) of the

Interim Rules for Patrol Specials and their Assistants states:

SPECIFICATION NO. 5

Failure to Attend Mandatory Classroom Instruction from October 8, 2013 to October 10,

2013, (a violation of Rule 3.05(B) of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their

Assistants).

The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (27) are incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein.

(28) Mandatory classroom instruction for the Patrol Special Officers was scheduled

for October 8, 2013 through October 10, 2013. The accused failed to appear at this

mandatory training. Patrol Special Liaison Officer Carla Brown #1247 attempted to

contact the accused several times regarding his failure to appear and met with negative

results each time.

(29) On November 4, 2013, Officer Brown sent the accused an interview notification

for November 13, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the accused called and cancelled his

interview. On November 14, 2013, Officer Brown sent the accused a second notice for

an interview scheduled for November 26, 2013. The accused failed to appear at the

scheduled interview and never called to cancel the interview.

(30) The Accused, by failing to appear for his mandatory annual classroom

instruction scheduled for October 8, 2013 thru October 10, 2013, engaged in conduct

which reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 3.05(B) of the Interim

Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants. Any reasonable

Patrol Special Officer must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or

revocation of his appointment. Rule 3.05(B) of the Interim Rules for Patrol Specials and

their Assistants states:

PENALTIES:

(31) If the Specifications are sustained after trial by the Police Commission, the

Department may recommend that the Commission revoke the Accused’s appointment.

WHEREAS, a hearing on said charges were held before the Police Commission

pursuant to section 8.343 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco on

March 5, 2014 where the matter was submitted to the Police Commission for decision;

and

WHEREAS, the Commission decided to terminate Patrol Special Officer John

Barry, pursuant to these charges, his power and authority to be a Patrol Special Officer

in the City and County of San Francisco.

RESOLVED, that consistent with the Commission’s duty to protect the health,

safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco and

the public in general, and in order to promote efficiency and discipline in the Patrol

Special Officer Program, the Police Commission orders that the appointment of Patrol

Special Officer John Barry as Patrol Special Officer be revoked effective immediately.

AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Turman, Marshall, Chan, Loftus

If this decision is subject to review under Code of Civil Procedure Section

1094.5, then the time and within which judicial review must be sought is governed by

California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.6.

None

Motion by Commissioner Chan, second by Commissioner Marshall. Approved 5-

0.

(Present: Commissioners Mazzucco, Turman, Marshall, Chan, Loftus, Chief Suhr,

Deputy Chief Shinn, Captain Pedrini, Deputy City Attorney Mahoney, Inspector Monroe,

Risa Tom, Attorney Worsham, Attorney Sullivan, member involved)

(Present: Commissioners Mazzucco, Turman, Marshall, Chan, Loftus, Chief Suhr,

Deputy Chief Shinn, Captain Pedrini, Deputy City Attorney Mahoney, Inspector Monroe,

Risa Tom)

Motion by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Chan for non

disclosure. Approved 5-0.

Motion by Commissioner Marshall , second by Commissioner Chan. Approved

5-0.

Thereafter, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.

__________________________________________

Inspector John Monroe

Secretary

San Francisco Police Commission

1345/rct