and testimony, are you anticipating something like what would be submitted prior to a civil superior court trial? is that the level of detail? >> i do not think it has to be that details. the witnesses, if they want to give us more detail, great. we would like to see them. it is just a summary of what their anticipated testimony would be, that would be ok. we just need to know what are the critical facts these witnesses will provide for you all so that we can determine how to meet that evidence. chair hur: other questions from the commissioners? thank you.

mr. keith, i think we probably have some follow-up for you, as well. following mr. renne's line, do you have any objection of providing the information that was outlined? >> no. chair hur: how soon could you do that? >> we could write a one or two- line summary. there are some witnesses that we are still finalizing, those individuals will be, but once we get them, we would be happy to provide those. we have not been asked. commissioner renne: 1 or 2 descendants is, what does that mean? it has to be detailed enough so they understand the thrust of the testimony. >> oh, it will be. >> -- chair hur: how soon?

>> as for the back witnesses, we could supply that with in one week. chair hur: and as for the police procedure witnesses? >> i would say about two weeks. one point that i would like to -- chair hur: as far as the legal issues, when could you have those briefed? same time >> let me think for a moment. yes, we could brief the legal issues, i would say, and the

ones that we referenced before we could read immediately, meeting the standard of proof and the procedures for the hearing. the other issues, we are capable of briefing them, all of the issues on the bullet list, but i question about them coming before the commission, and there are how the facts interact with the law. there is an allegation that before the sheriff was an office, he told his wife he was very powerful. it is our contention that he was referring to the power a share. that occurred before he was in office, and if that has been alleged, the argument goes that it is not quite so simple to say that anything you do before january 8 cannot be construed as before office, so i think that these issues are better dealt with based on the factual record and the abstract, but we can deal with them essentially based on the allegations and the charges if the commission wishes

to, but the point that i want to make is that the commission has a responsibility under the charter to collect a full record, and making preliminary legal rulings about what things make the with the scope of official misconduct is going to prevent the commission from hearing facts that should be part ofboard of supervisors, sok it would be an interesting and educational exercise to brief these in advance, but i would caution against saying certain things are off limits. >> i appreciate your position, but you could brief those issues identified by the commission, what ever issues were raised in your brief, and the two within a week? >> the other issues being?

>> he identified two issues. he identified the issue of what the procedure should be for conducting investigations in this manner. you were here, right? >> i understand the issue to be the standard of proof and what type of evidence would be brought forward in these proceedings. good he is raising the issue about whether the city attorney can conduct an investigation of city employee of six. >> -- employee ethics. >> his question is whether it would govern what should occur. >> not just live hearing procedures but in advance of the hearing. >> the other issue he mentioned

is whether the commission needs to unanimously recommend, whether it has to be unanimous. >> we consider that to be part of the procedure. >> the you have a position on that? >> our position is it is to make a recommendation. there is no limitation on whether it could be a majority, so we do not think it needs to be unanimous. >> other questions? >> he raised issue of possibly bringing in evidence of historical facts, and the way i

heard it was similarly situated in law enforcement officers who pled guilty for misdemeanors or who had misdemeanors. you have a position on that? >> i think if it is going to come through and they say that officers can still commit a misdemeanor and still be effective police officers, we would not object to it. i think it is fine. i do not know if he may be referring to individuals, his presence of charges was improperly motivated, and we thing this region we think this

evidence is inadmissible for that purpose. >> thank you. >> other questions? >> there is one manner regarding timing. as mentioned in our memo, if cooperation is not forthcoming with the sheriff, the mayor is going to amend the charges, to charge him with breach of of present duty to cooperate. good >> you are saying you have charged him and suspended him and charged him with misconduct that is a violation and if you will not talk to you that is a violation of his duties? >> absolutely. if a share of -- is the sheriff had committed misconduct and mirkarimi wanted to talk to him

and provide truthful information and that deputies refuse, that deputy would be fired. every employee has a duty to cooperate with an investigation and to account for their conduct. >> other than mr. mirkarimi's testimony, is there other discovery, other reasons that could affect the timing we have discussed that would elongate the procedure in your mind? >> if share of mirkarimi were to provide us with the documents and we requested -- >> aside from cooperation, what

else do you feel you need in order to have this herd and a timely basis from a >> we need to get a videotape from bohol of justice. -- from the hall of justice. >> the sheriff has no involvement in that. >> we serve them with a motion. >> everybody will have a chance to give public comment, but for now, we would really like to hear from the attorneys. good >> the other item that is pending is a motion for an order to compel him to testify. that is set for hearing on may 1. we have outstanding subpoena of its four telephone records set for may 4 year ago -- set for

may 4. hopefully the testimony will be soon after. >> any other questions? >> what are the documents you are seeking to get from the sheriff's? >> the documents he obtained from the police department and the district attorney, which would include the same telephone records we are trying to obtain from may are also keen appear good it would include a videotape of the statements and whatever other materials regarding conversations with witnesses that were disclosed. >> anything else? thank you, sir.

i have a couple more follow-up questions for you based on what he just said. with requests to interview the sheriff, and you have already said you are objecting to that. >> let me clarify, and we are going to make sure you have the applicable law on this later this evening or sometime tomorrow, and we did e-mail or letter about this. >> he was traveling all day, so that is probably why we did not get it. >> if we are going to submit it by e-mail maybe there will be a way to make sure it gets to everyone, but that is a topic for another day. we want clarification about whether or not they can do what

they are trying to do. our reading says the ethics commission starts the investigation when they get a complaint. share of mirkarimi -- share of mirkarimi -- sheriff mirkarimi wants to cooperate. good we have requested a written opinion from you as to whether or not he has a duty to cooperate with the commission. if you tell him he does common he will cooperate. i am not sure i answered your question, but the fact of they have come forward and threatened that if you do not cooperate, we are going to amend and official misconduct and add failure to cooperate to those charges, to me that is beyond the pale.

good and we have a legitimate question and needs to be straightened out, and we are not going to be bullied into doing things their way because they say thatbe done. >> any other questions? say that is the way it needs to perhaps he responded on the documents, and there appear to

be documents as a result of the proceedings. i have misspoken. thank you for raising five. i think they want documents prepared in the course of criminal proceedings. we have the letter. we can provide it to you so you can see exactly what they are asking, and all we want is clarification on this issue. if you think he is going to cooperate, we will do it. >> is that the issue in the memo and this morning? >> there is a letter, but we requested a written opinion under the charter that says people can ask for written

opinion on these issues. >> you received this letter this morning? >> i could give you the code section, but i think it is better to have it distributed. >> everything this commission does has to be done in open session, so when you say you want an opinion from us, it is not like you issued the judge and asked the judge to give you an opinion. we have to then schedule a meeting so we can decide how we want to respond to it, and i know you do not want to delay proceedings. and that is probably my number one goal, to try and set this up so we can get fairness to both sides but in an expeditious fashion. >> i concur. >> any other questions to? thank you. goohaving heard both sides, i tk

my inclination would be to have the party's brief the legal issues, because i think we can get that more expeditiously. i think it will help us potentially narrow the issues, but more importantly ensure that we have the appropriate procedure in place to have died during -- to have a hearing. my concern with the tell a factual testimony in the brief is while i think it may be helpful, i do have some concerns the timing may be not worth the

added benefit, so i think that is where i am sitting right now. it seems the party are in agreement, and we could provide summary of testimony relatively soon, which would be advantageous to both sides, so i think we should strongly consider requiring them to do so. thoughts by other commissioners on what this should look like? >> it makes more sense for the commission to take public comment before reaching any decision, since is an agenda item. good >> my thought was that we would deliberate a public comment to the extent we need

final determinations, we would do so after. >> i did not want the commission to make a decision before taking public comment. >> you are saying to increase the legal issues and would not a factual issues that have been outlined? but the legal questions that have been identified by the parties. >> they are prepared to do that quickly? >> it sounds like the mayor will be able to do that within a week. any other response from the sheriff will come a week after, and then it will include any other arguments to the sheriff may have. i think at that point we will likely build in some apply time, but it sounds like the entire

briefing can be done quickly. >> i do not have any objection to the increasing legal issues, but i think going forward in combination should be the mayor presenting his summary of the factual issues that it intends to prove, which i think could probably be supplied within two weeks. >> i think he said one week. good >> he said two weeks for some of law enforcement, so i was giving him the outside, that he would provide a factual summary of what he would intend to prove, in support of legal arguments they are making in their brief and that maybe two

weeks after you get that, you would provide the city attorney a summary of the evidence you intend to prove in opposition to the mayor's action so that after we have made our determination on the legal questions, we would be in a position to move forward very quickly with a hearing to the extent that we decide we needed based upon the information provided by the two sides. >> i agree with that. but i agree as well, and at that point we would make a decision about testimony and how much is needed and which witnesses we

would want to see. at that point i think we definitely need to figure it out, once we see the list of witnesses we think they need to resolve credibility issues. >> i still would like to reserve that question, but i think we would need to decide. in addition to having the exchange of testimony, i think any stipulated facts should be agreed upon shortly thereafter, because then you will have seen with the other side intends to rely upon, and there could be some facts that could be stipulated, and i think you would want to know that as soon as possible. >> i looked at the written

charges of official misconduct, and when you get to hear ross no. 8, -- when you get to paragraph number eight through about 15, most of then look like they would not be excluded by either side, that they seem to be factual historical statements, and i would think that kind of thing we could get out of the way, and when a dispute arises over some of the allegations and whether the evidence supports allegations. >> the timing would be what? two weeks from now we would hear from the city? >> yes. >> i am just asking about the timing on that, so that based

upon what has been said, two weeks from now we would first hear from him, and the mayor's representatives on what they intend to prove, and that would be followed by a hearing in response, which would be at a later date. is that correct? >> yes, so they would submit in writing a witness list with a summary of each likely testimony, and we would get a copy of that, and then his team would respond and provide their list of witnesses and testimony. one of the legal and procedural issues that concerns me, and it may slow down the process, is

the issue that was raised in the letter. ga you feel you need to brief that in more detail beyond the letter? i have not seen it, so i can make no comments. the reason i ask is because if you are comfortable with the mayor providing a letter of response to that, perhaps we would have some ability to resolve that issue faster. >> that would be preferable, and

i believe we set forward the applicable law sufficiently pure your -- sufficiently pure good -- sufficiently. i just want to make sure mr. keith can understand our position, because we want to have an opportunity for him to respond, but i think we set it forth now adequately in the letter, because when you investigate, a complaint has to be brought to the commission, and the commission decides whether it will be brought to the commission. i thing we set forth the legal issues sufficiently pure good i

want to make sure council can respond. >> what i understand is that it was a request for a legal opinion that was more inquisitive than stating a position, but we are happy to state our position on whether the procedures need to happen before the city attorney can investigate possible misconduct. good >> you have any thoughts procedure wireless -- procedurewise. what is the commission's role? >> the opinion comes from the commissioners. they can act on their behalf and make a judgment accordingly.

>> would the staff to provide a memo of some sort? >> no, that is counsel. gooi did try to identify the provision that says in a person can request an opinion and the commission is required to issue that opinion within a certain amount of time. i think it is 21 days, but that can be extended period of -- that can be extended.

>> if a response were to be submitted under this by the mayor, and you are saying we would need our counsel to advise us? we would come to our viewers, but when the council be responsible? >> no, you would be the entity responsible. >> we are responsible for making a decision? >> right. the council is responsible to guide you as you make a decision. but cracks even for an issue -- >> ve