>> i am from the police department's permit section. all i can say is that i reject all of the accusations of intimidation or vendettas. it is false. what is true is what has been proven, and i believe that the findings accurately reflect the decision of this board. >> a lot of things in that letter were hard to follow, and it is hard to trace the issues brought up in terms of the findings. one thing that was said had to do with things in the finding posted-date and hour hearing. and do you know what they could be talking about? >> that is a general statement,

i don't know what is being alleged. president peterson: is there any public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you, commissioners. you just spoke. you can't speak under public comment. since you are up there, could you address the question back commissioner garcia asked the sergeant? >> there was a statement prepared at that had to do with a summary of findings that came out from the appeals court. i don't know the exact answer to your question. >> do you mean the board of appeals? >> the board of appeals, i beg your pardon.

>> she was here as his agent. >> i hate to suggest this, but i think it would probably serve due process while if we would allow him to brief us on the specifics of what is, in his opinion, erroneous about these findings. i don't think anyone is harmed unless i am missing something by putting off and having a look at

these findings at a later date. i think they accurately reflect -- a presentation was so fast, i was not able to follow every issue, and there's a couple i wouldn't mind knowing more about. >> isn't he here? >> i don't want to go through a verbal thing of arguing back and forth as much as i would want to see something in writing that would refer specifically to what is in the findings and where there is error. >> you cannot speak from the audience. i have no question, all i want is for a brief to be presented that i can look at, reid, and

compare to the findings. president peterson: commissioner garcia, there might be some issues that the appellant has with the items in the findings that are new, but it also must may be that the appellant is objecting to the evaluation of the evidence that the board would take if it were to adopt these findings. the appellant has had an opportunity to submit a briefing on these allegations in the original appeal process. it was based on the weight of the evidence submitted by both sides that these findings were prepared. that does not mean that the appellant could not provide you with additional information, but they have had that opportunity. >> reading the findings, i had a couple of questions. the appellant -- i did not get a

sense that the appellant wasn't contesting the police report. and another question on how they refused to allow -- there are things in here that are not exactly lighting up with my memory -- lining up with my memory. >> the question to you by commissioner garcia was that there was a statement that there is evidence or findings here that occured after the board hearings. do you want to address that question? >> i would rather do it in writing, but the police department physically came out to our office. the only thing they are allowed to do by law is look at the records and make copies. two cops came out, you have a

letter from my secretary, they called their sergeant, and he is the one who wrote -- and they were there, but that is in my response. he said, they're allowed to copy them. president peterson: do you have any objection to the proposal that you sense something in writing? >> that would be great. i am very bitter and angry, and it is nice to see somebody else besides the police department. this guy could not be used at anything, and he is the chief witness against me, and it is all personal.

>> you had these findings sent to you? you have a copy? >> yes, sir. >> " what letter. -- what letter? >> they said 3 minutes. they said it was a proper venue, we had three minutes. if you want something in writing, we will give you something in writing. commissioner garcia: we still have to vote. >> is there not an opportunity to submit -- to submit written response to the findings? >> there is an opportunity. we asked both sides to review them and let us know if there are any errors or corrections, or opinions they have about it. there is no limitation to a three-minute rebuttal.

we don't allow the parties to submit additional briefing to the board, but we try and correct any mistakes and get all the information from the parties before we provide them to you. if there are any problems, we can review them. >> in response to this particular set of findings, the received any comments? >> i did receive a comment, and he says that he did not agree with them. it was a telephone conversation. he did not agree with them, and that was just a general statement. there is no specific reference to any -- he did not believe the evidence supported these allegations or these findings.

commissioner garcia: i don't feel comfortable adopting findings without further briefing. if there are no comments, i would make a motion to continue this until such time that we can get additional briefing on what his objections are to walk us through the presentation. >> to the findings. commissioner garcia: exactly. president peterson: it seems that we may not have full people here until october 13. commissioner garcia: no one is prejudiced by putting it off that long, are they? president peterson: is that a motion to continue until october 13? >> commissioner garcia, i am not

interested in seeing the materials from the hearing itself. i am interested in a specific response to these findings only? is that correct? commissioner garcia: that is absolutely correct. what is normal for findings? no limit? >> is not typical to have written response. commissioner garcia: maybe i am the only one with a problem. >> it shouldn't be more than the findings themselves. four pages, do you want to set a four-page lament -- limit? commissioner garcia: i think the surgeon wants to address this. >> i don't know if i will be involved in this matter in october, and i don't know whether we would respond in writing to anything that is put

forward here. but i do know that i will be on vacation for all of october. thank you. >> madden director, -- madame director, we have the ability to review this either september 8 or september 22. >> we can move forward with four members, and commissioner fung, i wasn't sure if you were going to be here on the twenty second. >> we can take this up with four members if not sooner. >commissioner garcia: i don't se

any harm done if it is earlier or later, so let's go to november. november 3 would be great. >> to the motion is to of continue this to november 3 to get a briefing at, a maximum of four pages by both sides, and it concerns about the accuracy of the findings themselves, is that correct? >> it is accuracy of the findings based upon the facts that were already presented in the briefing in the oral argument to this board, not new fact that we have not heard? commissioner garcia: unless someone is responding to what he

considers to be new facts that are in the findings that have to do with a date that is after the hearing. >> i don't think we have done this before. so i am confused. >> all of the issues -- i don't know about the rest of the board, but i could not follow the findings as certain issues came up to check for accuracy. i am just not sure. when someone objects, we can check again against the findings. >> shall we have a brief due to weeks -- two weeks prior?

commissioner garcia: sure. >> that won't work for you since you are gone in october? mr. garcia, should we move it later into november? commissioner garcia: please. >> if we move it to november 17, we will have a missing commissioner. we can take that date any way are we can move it to december 8. commissioner garcia: let's go for december 8. >> let's not. i want to resolve this issue. let me state that these findings reflect my memory of the proceeding and what was discussed. commissioner garcia: did you

want to make an alternate motion? we might require another motion. >> is this the december 8 date? >> i wonder if we can engage in a little more deliberation if you don't mind, commissioners. it seems that in most cases, the losing party will object to our findings, and so it seems that the thing that sets this one apart is a couple of commissioners sense that the findings don't reflect their own recollection of what occurred at the hearing, is that right? am i understanding that? commissioner garcia: some of this is a little bit subjective. and a little more descriptive

than the typical finding, which is statements of law or of the code and how someone was in violation of the code, but without my going into any specifics, i have some problems with the language. part of the problem is, this hearing was april 14. it is not fresh in my memory, so when objections were raised again, i was not able to say, i remember that, she's wrong, i wasn't able to fully follow. i don't want to adopt findings when a couple of issues are hanging in my mind. >> i would support a motion to continue so that everyone feels comfortable. >> what might make sense is that if in addition to the findings, perhaps if we had the transcript

of the hearing in front of us. >> you can stream it online. >> into the transcripts are available on line also. >> at the closed captioning.