the media has largely been silent about this. Remember the Club Six Controversy?
among the findings
“The Civil Grand Jury observed that the Entertainment Commission does not follow recognized operational procedures, what in the private sector would be called “good business practices.” It has no institutional method in place for devising and stating its goals for the coming year, developing actions by which those goals can be met, measuring the success of those actions, correcting where gaps in accomplishment are identified, and following up on those corrections. ”
“For much of the Commission’s history, when permitted clubs have been irresponsible in their conduct, the Entertainment Commission has engaged in minimal effort to enforce a return to responsible conduct”
“The staff is too small to handle any responsibilities other than facilitating the permit process for clubs and places of entertainment. ”
“The Commission adopted a “good neighbor policy” on April 14,2004. A statement of the policy is given to all club owners who apply for a Place of Entertainment (POE) permit. However, it is unclear whether the Commission has enforcement authority if a club owner does not comply with the good neighbor policy. At least one member of the Police Department voiced his opinion to the Civil Grand Jury that the good neighbor policy is a sham, generally because the Commission has no teeth to enforce it. Certainly, the number of complaints about entertainment venues at the Commission’s twice-monthly hearings suggests that the good neighbor policy is of questionable effectiveness.”
definition of clusterfuck
“In its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury found that the Commission staff believed it could not take any action without first receiving police incident reports and they never were received. Further, it is the assertion of Commission staff that such a letter from a police captain cannot even be brought to the attention of the Commissioners unless, and until, the incident reports backing them up are received. Therefore, having received no incident reports, no further action was taken. The Captain states emphatically that no such request for incident reports was ever made to him by the Entertainment Commission. ”
“Finding A.7.a. The Commission’s record on mediating disputes between persons affected by entertainment events and the organizers of those events is not what it should be due at least in part to the communication difficulties between the Commission and the San Francisco Police Department.
> Recommendation A.7.a. The Entertainment Commission and the San Francisco Police Department must develop more effective means of communication.
> Finding A.7.b. The Commission does not follow its standard office procedures for processing incoming mail and faxes, transmitting them to tbe attention of the Commission, and, after action, appropriately filing them.
> Recommendation A.7.b.l. So that a letter of such importance will never again be mislaid for a month, the Entertainment Commission must develop office procedures so that letters and faxes that have been sent are actually received, accounted for, read, acted upon, and filed.
> Recommendation A.7.b.2. The staff of the Entertainment Commission must, as a matter of standard operating procedure, bring such important correspondence to the attention of the Entertainment Commissioners promptly without waiting for backup police reports.
> Recommendation A.7.b.3. The San Francisco Police Department must submit incident reports to the Entertainment Commission as a matter of course any time they request action by the Commission against venues with Place of Entertainment permits. The practice of automatic delivery of police incident reports related to permitted clubs to the Entertainment Commission is a practice that should be adopted widely in the San Francisco Police Department.
RESPONSE REQUIRED FROM: Entertainment Commission San Francisco Police Department (60 days)”
we could actually do that? oh my
“> Finding D.4.a. There is a widely held perception that the Entertainment Commission does not have legal enforcement powers despite Administrative Code’s sec. 90.4 (c) specific grant of the power to “suspend, revoke or withdraw entertainment-related permits.” Why this perception exists remains a mystery. It does however create a self-fullfilling prophecy: if you think you can’t do something, you won’t do it.
9 Recommendation D.4.a. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Entertainment Commission be given the authority to cite permitted nightclub owners who break the law. Granting the power to issue such citations to the Entertainment Commission however must not stop the San Francisco Police Department, with its greater manpower and resources, from also issuing such citations.
As for the larger question, as to whether the Entertainment Commission has “teeth” or not, the Commission’s suspension of Zebra Lounge on March 20,2007, and of Club Six on June 5,2007, may be the beginning of its greater use of its powers. It remains to be seen how much of the original vision reflected in the Administrative Code’s chapter 90, written in 2002, is realistic in 2007 and beyond.
> Finding D.4.b. The Civil Grand Jury is impressed with the recent suspension hearings of the Entertainment Commission for clubs with multiple violations of noise and health & safety laws.
> Recommendation D.4.b. The use of suspension and revocation powers given to the Entertainment Commission in Administrative Code, chapter 90, section 90.4(c) must be used to punish club owners with multiple violations, as well as serve as a deterrent for other potentially problematical entertainment venues.
RESPONSE REQUIRED PROM: Entertainment Commission
San Francisco Police Department (60 days)
and on and on it goes.