evidence. and the others, as i say, they are sort of mingling. many of the factual statements we have rejected. whereas i was suggesting that i believe that the conviction and the circumstances that led up to ahead is what is the official misconduct? >> is that count four? >> count one, domestic violence. count four, except for the fact

that they incorporate 1-46, it has a lot of statements about which we have said there was not sufficient foundation. >> when we sustain a count, we are just making a finding that each of the elements -- >> we are recommending the charges be sustained. the counts are the charges, are they? >> just because a complaint incorporates that reference, it doesn't mean that the decision on the charge has to incorporate every paragraph. uni are used to jury instructions that tell us exactly what the elements are.

but you raise a good point. even in count one, i am not sure that we found or we are inclined to find that he engaged in domestic violence. obviously we agree he committed an act of violence. i don't have in front of me the elements of domestic violence. there certainly are portions of this where even before that agree there is his conduct may not agree with every allegation in count one. so what are you suggesting? >> i guess what i am suggesting is that the written document if

we prepare one should be a clear articulation of what the charges were that we found supported the sustained the mayor's action in suspending. >> in your view, what is that? having heard what your fellow commissioners have said, what should the documents say? ñilpwhich of these were sustain? is there sufficient evidence to sustain? parts of what and for? >> yes. >> anything else?

>> i am positive on one. for is a clear factual statement. but combating domestic violence against his wife and imports a very complicated area of expert analysis. i wonder if it complicates things at bat, or if it is what we really mean?

we're just staring at it over here. i am not saying that it might not be, i am just not sure that i am in a position to say that that happened whereas no. 4 i can. >> i don't think in light of what has been provided, it cannot be essential. >> not to say that it doesn't exist or is very real. it can be more useful for us to apply on what we know. in to the extent that it happened within the context, that is beyond my ability. >> perhaps it is also count five

instead of count one? count five captures the discussion we had about conduct that falls below the standard of decency required. >> except for the reference to paragraph 19-31. >> correct. >> are we saying that account for is the basis for the five? the wrongful behavior consisting of the crime and the facts related adjust to that are what we determined falls below the standard?

>> yes, thank you. >> this discussiona2d has suggd that something in writing is going to be helpful. is there something else? a big the question is what form that should take. i think something as simple as here are the facts that we found, the counts of official misconduct, here is the law will apply. here is the application of the lot to the facts. i am kind of thinking out loud that however this document comes

out, i am wondering whether we will need a special meeting for the commission to adopt it. we have devoted a lot of time to this. i know this means more time. given the complexity, it seems hard to see us try to get out without an approved in a written document. i don't think this is going to cause that much of the late because the record has to be prepared. the board is in recess currently anyway. perhaps we can schedule something in early september to adopt whatever findings have said that with the rest of the package to the board. >> i don't know if this is what you wanted, but i am out of the country from september 2 through

14. >> we have the meeting on the 27. i dunno if it is too late to notice for that if it was a window that we could do this. >> you have thoughts on this? >> we could still use the meeting date on the twenty seventh if you wanted to. >> august 27? i will be out of the country on business. >> i would recommend that you make a finding tonight as a basis for that. but we are going to have to work out a follow-up time. the alternative is the you can empower him to the drafting on

behalf of the commission had a trust that he will put together a correct document. ñilp>> i was going to ask if we could delegate this to the chair? it is a lot to ask. for somebody to do without a commissioner of the work. and i don't need to be here if we have takent( a vote. i don't mind missing the revolution of the document. lpif that is not necessary. >> by the same token, i don't need to be here either. >> if you are going to delegate some drafting to me, i will need the transcript. there will need to be sometime

before that can be prepared. the in my other life of running a law firm, i have that position monday, tuesday, wednesday, and friday. i don't have much time for drafting next week. >> i think tonight we need to vote on the findings of that the bulk and get rolling since the board of supervisors has to get the entire transcript and all of the records anyway. they can schedule their hearing whenever that is going to be. the idea of what this document should look like, am i right? something that outlined what it

might consist of. and you can give him some guidelines on that and when you have the opportunity to begin drafting, you can proceed. if that makes sense to you. and as a commission, we can approve the document without delaying the proceedings at whatever meeting is set up for us to do so. >> i have no objection to that. we can schedule it, and i think we should prepare some sort of summary document. i will work with them to put it together by the commission at large. any objection to that procedure? ok. i think unless there is anything

else, are we prepared to make the motion for our recommendation to the board? is there a motion to sustain the charges relating to the physical abuse for the reasons that we discussed here today? secondly, to adopt all of the interim ruling is that had been made throughout the proceedings and to authorize the preparation of a summary document of the findings made by the commission to be subsequently ratified by the commission as a whole? >> so moved. >> all in favor? i oppose the first portion but

agree with the second and third portions. the motion is adopted. anything else from the parties? >> commissioners, when is the next meeting going to be? >> we will need to figure it out and we will be in touch with you. >> i am a little unclear as to, are you reject all of the counts and creating a new account of official misconduct? i am a little unclear as to exactly what action the commission is taking. >> i wonder if the question suggests our motion should be in terms of count for at 5 so that what we adopt tracks something going forward.

>> the problem is that 4 and 5 contain allegations that we did not -- >> allegations and ? -- allegations in the paragraph? is that what we mean? so that it attracttracks the fol basis that we have? >> i think the motion was clear enough. at the whole purpose of the written document is to summarize what the findings are. we clearly made a finding of official misconduct based on the physical violence that occurred.

i suppose we could make it more specific if the commissioners would like to. >> i wonder if there could be some criticism that avw crime f falsely imprisoning is different from physical violence. and while they might have something in common, we would be vulnerable to not having acted on one of the charges that was brought before us. i am not a criminal lawyer. >> would you like him remake the motion? >> i am not sure what the amendment you were suggesting is. >> what i am thinking is what we

said to sustain the charge of physical abuse by adopting 0.49 and 54 subject to specific references. we adopt the substantive content as the charges that we are defining as official misconduct. >> i obviously did not vote with a majority on this, but if i were in the majority, i would be concerned that it would be too narrow given the breadth of the discussion ensued. the charter only says we need to make a recommendation as to whether official misconduct be

sustained or not. i am wondering whether you're going to be limiting the authority of the drafting if we let it specifically to those paragraphs. >> i think it depends on what card the cow or allegations played. i never quite understood why we have amended charge in particular, and the first place. why didn't we just figure out what troubles us and what we thought was official misconduct. i defer to the council. if we have to stand on those counts, i think we should stand firmly on the ones we are adopting. otherwise it will apply these of accounts and we did something else and if they don't converge, our process will be unhelpful to the supervisors.

>> what i am hearing is that you have voted 4-1 to sustain the charges of official misconduct based on the conduct of december 31 and the subsequent conviction. as reflected in counts four and five. if i am correct, you might want to amend the motion to incorporate the language so that it is clear that you are stating it both on the actions that occurred, the conviction that resulted from those actions, and you believe that those are related to counts 4 and 5. >> any objection to that? would someone like to make the motion? >> i move that we adopt the

recommendation. >> the second. >> i think we also meet at the adoption of the interim ruling is and the empowering of the written summary. maybe i will take a shot to tie up altogether. is there a motion to sustain the charges as to the conduct that occurred on december 31, 2011 and the subsequent conviction has reflected in counts four and five of the amended charges of official misconduct second to adopt the interim rulings of the commission made throughout the course of these proceedings, and third, to empower a written summary to be subsequently

reviewed and ratified by the commission. >> all in favor? i am opposed to the first part but agree as to the second and third parts. any other objections or concerns from the parties? >> i would only add that i don't think the charter authorizes the commission to create new language of official misconduct. what the language that you just adopted says lisa state official misconduct for the incident as reflected in 4 and 5. it does not say we sustain 4 and 5. the charter says you sustain the

charges are not, it doesn't authorize the commission to draft the language or charges that are reflected in other charges. i would state that for the record. thank you. >> i think it was clear enough. >> the motion was clear enough that we were adopting the heart of counts 4 and 5. >> with that, the meeting is adjourned.

i'm derek, i'm hyungry, and ready to eat. these vendors offer a variety of the streets near you. these mobile restaurants are serving up original, creative and unusual combinations. you can grab something simple like a grilled cheese sandwich or something unique like curry. we areher here in the average eight -- upper haight.

you will be competing in the quick buy food challenge. an appetizer and if you are the winner you will get the title of the quitck bite "chompion." i am here with matt cohen, from off the grid. >> we assembled trucks and put them into a really unique heurban settings. >> what inspired you to start off the grid? >> i was helping people lodge mobile food trucks. the work asking for what can we get -- part together? we started our first location and then from there we expanded

locations. >> why do think food trucks have grown? >> i have gotten popular because the high cost of starting a brick and mortar or strong, the rise of social media, trucks can be easily located, and food trucks to offer a unique outdoor experience that is not easily replaced by any of their setting any worlwhere else in san franc. san francisco eaters are interested in cuisine. there adventuress. the fact theyuse grea use great ingredients and make gourmet food makes unpopular. >> i have been dying to have

these. >> i have had that roach coach experience. it is great they're making food they can trust. >> have you decided? >> we are in the thick of the competition? >> my game was thrown off because they pulled out of my first appetizer choice. >> how we going to crush clear? >> it will be easy. probably everyone has tried, something bacon tell us delicious. >> -- people tell us is delicious. >> hopefully you think the same thing. >> hopefully i am going to win. we're in the financial district. there is a food truck right

there. every day changes. it is easy and fun to go down. these are going to be really good. >> how are you going to dominate? >> i think he does not know what he is doing. >> i was thinking of doing [unintelligible] we are underrepresented. >> i was singing of starting an irish pub. that was my idea. >> one our biggest is the corned beef and cabbage. we are asking people what they're thinking in getting some feedback. >> for a lot of people i am sure this combination looks very wrong. it might not sound right on paper but when you taste it to or have it in your mouth, it is a variety. this is one of the best ways in

creating community. people gather around and talk about it and get to know different cultures. that brings people together and i hope more off the grid style and people can mingle and interact and remove all our differences and work on our similarities. this creates opportunity. >> the time has come and i am very hungry. what have you got? >> i got this from on the go, a sandwich, and a caramel cupcake. i went with home cooking. what de think? >> i will have another bite. >> sounds good.

>> that was fantastic. let's start with you. >> i had the fried mac and cheese, and twinkies. i wanted to get something kind of classic with a twist on it. >> it was crispy. >> i will admit. >> want to try fieried mac and cheese? >> was that the best twinkie? >> would you say you had the winning male? >> definitely. >> no. >> you are the