we have precluded it in the mayor's case. i have nothing specific in mind but i think it's something both sides should be aware of. >> i see the point. i suspect that the mayor is going to hold us to our previous decisions with respect to other declarations and will object to portions of lopez we deemed irrelevant. that would be my expectation. i think we should wait and see what the lopez declaration looks like once question get the objection. i understand the concern. ok. paragraph 21, the objection is to page nine, lines 21 and 22.

i would overrule that objection. i think it does go to state of mind. state of mind. does the commission have any comment with respect to the objections to paragraph 21? ok, hearing none, paragraph 23, page 10, lines 4 through 6, i would sustain this objection -- i'm sorry, that was already stipulated. the dispute is the next one.

page 10 lines 6 through 7. i would sustain that objection. i think per rule 352, it's more highly prejudicial then probative. >> i completely agree. i think it's very presidential. >> any other comments from the commissioners with respect to the objection number b-2? maybe i will refer to it that way so we're all clear where we are. b-3, that is stipulation. b-4, page 10, line 17 and 18. i would overrule that objection. i think -- i think it should be

admitted for a nonhearsay purpose. any comments from the commissioners with respect to b-4 being overruled? ok. we're now to section 2-a there's a similar general hearsay objection. i would overrule that objection for the reasons we previously discussed. except for paragraph 34, lines 23. we it starts with he asked,

threw line 25, in law enforcement. >> i'm sorry, commissioner, what were those lines? >> page 13, line 23 through 25. it starts on line 23 with the last word. >> you know, i'm sorry, commissioner. i just noticed in fact we also had a relevance objection to this paragraph 33 and 34 that was not accurately reflected in the document that was prepared so of that an oversight. >> not accurately reflected or you didn't include it? >> no, it's right there on -- i made the objection when i

transmitted all of my objections to mr. keaton. so it was -- must have both missed it. >> ok. >> and this relevance objection is 33 and 34. actually, to be specific, it's on page 13, line 2. the sentence beginning with we, all the way to the end of that paragraph. and the entirety of 34. >> do you have a response? >> i think these paragraphs go to miss lopez's state of mind or her on the one hand thinking

about reporting this to the police and on the other hand having concerns. i think it's relevant for the same none hearsay purpose for the other paragraph. that's the explanation for paragraph 33. and if i can can go on to paragraph 34. >> please. >> for paragraph 34, this was offered under the same hearsay exception to explain why the person did what they did next and really it's just narrating a is conversation that was had between between miss madison and police inspector who answered the phone sofment again, it's not offered for the truth of what anybody said, just for here's how it happened, here's how the investigation started, which is a valid nonhearsay purpose. >> objection is relevance on 34 as well i understand it. >> the relevance would be to why miss madison is reporting this

incident. she's reporting it to the -- or why miss madison calls the police in the first place, which is to find out how they handled these reports and out of that came this is investigation. it tells you how everything got started rolling. it's hard to understand sequence of events if you cut out parts of it. >> i would be inclined to overrule the relevance objection to paragraph 33 and 34. any dissenting view from commissioners?

with respect to the hearsay objection, you're introducing -- whose state of mind are you concerned about? >> in paragraph 33, it is miss lopez. in paragraph 34, it's more to show that miss madison's purpose was finding out about the police but about what the pless do when they get a domestic violence call. but then that call turned into an investigation. i mean 34 is really offered more just to show how this information came to the police and the investigation started. it's just part of the chronology of what occurred. it's not offered so much for state of mind. >> based on that explanation, i would be inclined to overrule the objection, hearsay objection, just to 34. any dissenting views from my

fellow commissioners? >> no. >> ok. i think the next disputed portion of paragraph 37, b-3, page 15, lines 22 through 24. i actually don't think that this is admissible for the purpose that the mayor identified but it is hearsay that i think could be admitted for other purposes. and i think it is essentially that it is relevant.

so i would overrule the objection. to b-3. niss dissent -- any dissenting view from my fellow commissioners. the next disputed paragraph is under three, roam numeral iii, a-2. the sheriff objects to page 18, line 19 through page 19 line 1. i would sustain the objection. welcome any views from my fellow commissioners.

>> i request an opportunity to be heard on this particular objection. >> ok. >> so this is a paragraph that discusses the effects of the -- this criminal investigation on a reporting witness. one of the matters that chief lansdowne has testified to in his declaration are the responsibilities and standards that a chief law enforcement officer is supposed to uphold. that includes promoting witnesses reporting incidents and protecting them from retribution. and specifically -- specifically the chilling effect that treatment -- bad treatment of a witness and a particular case could have on reporting. particularly as to the domestic

violence. that's why this is being offered. >> how is that relevant to whether the sheriff committed official misconduct? >> that would be relevant to the decency clause. one would expect a public official would not engage in conduct or condone conduct that would be so innick cal to their office. the office is law enforcement. law enforcement needs witnesses to prosecute climb. if witnesses are not willing to come forward, they cannot prosecute crime . when witnesses, people out there see how this witness was treated, that affects the ability of law enforcement to prosecute crime. and furthermore, our argument is this is an incident in which the sheriff in fact committed a crime. he admitted to it and admitted to hurting his wife and let these attacks go on, on this witness and attempts to discredit her go on when he knew

that he had done a wrong, we would argue falls below the standard of decency. another issue for us is that relevant -- relevance is a baseline standard. to say that something is irrelevant to exclude it on that basis, cuts off any consideration of that issue later on. i would encourage the commission not to keep itself from considering an issue and making a recommendation to the board of supervisors on an issue where there is testimony about what chief law enforcement officers are supposed to do with regard to promoting witnesses, reporting crimes. >> here's -- i appreciate that concern. but one thing -- one other concern when it comes to what the board has to do is the board has to sit through what is going to be an incredibly large record. and don't think we serve the board by admitting evidence we

don't think is relevant because we are afraid or worried that we may exclude something that in our good judgment should not be part of the record. i appreciate the concern. i think we've all been making efforts to ensure that the record is complete and i think in close calls, we have admitted evidence for that very reason. but at the same time i don't want to take that admonition as license to just admit everything. i frankly do not see how the sheriff's alleged failure to prevent some public outcry towards miss madison is relevant to what we've been asked to do. don't see anything in your charges that relate to that

conduct. >> it's part of the course of conduct in going to the decency provision. >> where are the allegations he should have prevented the alleged press abuse to miss madison? >> well, again, the argument sent the press abused her. it's the abuse was happening and we would argue at the behest of those working on behalf of the sheriff. >> where is that? >> the sheriff didn't speak out against it. that specific -- that level of specificity is not in the charges. if i can take a moment, i will locate on the charges where this issue is addressed. >> ok. >> in a more general sense.

>> so the answer to the question, commissioners is while this particular aspect of the conduct is not spelled out effortlessly, it is embraced in our witness dissituation charge,

what happens to a witness after they report a crime is something that is relevant to the idea a sheriff should be protecting witnesses and safeguarding them. but more significantly on count five of our charge, charges rather. that these are acts of wrongful conduct that are going to be proven in conformity of proof at trial and they go to the standard of conduct and that's a standard of conduct that we outlined through chief lansdowne. i mean, i -- i was under the impression that we were -- that this fleeting document, we were under the impression this pleading document didn't have to be encyclopedic. so i think that's one of the difficulties that we're facing now. >> well, look, i mean this is not your typical civil proceeding where you can provide notice pleading, there's no consequence to the defendant until you prove your case. i mean, this is a case where you

brought official charges that led to the immediate suspension without pay of the sheriff. so i -- i at least and i think we all discussed this, expect a higher level of detail and full notice of what these charges really are so we can adjudicate them. this is not a -- i don't view this as a situation where based on discovery, you should be able to significantly supplement the charges. commissioner studley? >> you're not like -- not going to like this. but i'm less certain because this is a relatively tested initiative by the people what the pleading expectations are or whether we have more closer to a notice leading or de novo ability to determine what we think and to what degree is the

mayor's charge, limiting or controlling more and exactly the issue they're raising. i'm not sure -- we haven't discussed what that line is. and it may not be appropriate to do so here. but it does have consequences because the issue that we're talking about that it testimony goes to is one where i was interested in inquiring about exactly the witness mr. keith referred to. >> the witness chief lansdowne. >> but it led know have that very same question about whether we are -- how closely we must view to the, call it a charging document or statement of concerns if we -- and it's extreme if we found that there had been behavior that we felt fit within the initiative definition but hadn't been --

the definition -- the definition in the initiative but not in the charging documents, whether we would be precluded from considering it. that's a hypothetical we don't have to address right now but we're on that line of how closely or how specifically these issues need to have been identified or put another way, what room and responsibility we have to determine whether there's behavior that fit the definition or behaver that fit the definition and was raised by the mayor's charge. >> i think that's a fair point. the charges are, this is the bill of particulars so this is actually more detailed than the charging document and we provided the mayor with the opportunity to amend the charges to add more substantive allegations.

but i certainly understand we don't have a lot of precedent here with respect to level of detail for these charges. i think the caution is a good one. with respect to -- i'm sorry, we're on 382. let's take it a little more specifically perhaps. because i think -- >> can i ask a question here? if you were talking about paragraph 46, right, is that when you were talking about the standard of conduct and decency issue. were you addressing paragraph 45 or 46? >> i'm sorry, are we back on the charges or declaration? >> i'm sorry, declaration. >> let me see.

>> because i think you may have been addressing paragraphs 46. >> i'm sorry, i was. >> and so my -- my concern since we were on that line of thought, paragraph 36, your understand of witness disuation count. but my concern is paragraph 46 it s it doesn't seem to make the connection between any alleged act by the sheriff and public outcry against miss madison or the press, treatment of the press by miss madison. that's where i see a relevance issue in paragraph 46. >> if i may respond, miss madison knows the effect of what happened. she doesn't necessarily know what started the chain in motion or where it could have stopped. she only knows the impact. i would say that -- we would say

we believe that we can present evidence that this was a strategy. but significantly one of our charges is -- or one of the statements made by chief lansdowne in his declaration is it's not ever he caused this, certainly if he caused this, that would not meet the standard. even seeing it happen and not doing something about it when he knew he committed a crime is a problem. and is -- and falls below the law enforcement standard. so just the fact that he's not stopping it fall bees low the standard. the commissioners may or may not find that view persuasive. but it's a view chief lansdowne is qualified to give and to testify to and he can be cross-examined on. i would offer that. as for the notice issues that we were discussing a moment ago, we

certainly want the scher toif have notice of all of our arguments and now that you have our declarations, he has notice of all of them. we tried to work flexibly with the other side. try to deal with deadlines cooperatively and witnesses cooperatively. miss lopez just submitted a declaration and she's a sheriff's witness. it's late but we're not going to argue it shouldn't come in. this is an administrative body. we're all moving as quickly as we can. i would say having the declaration cures -- that's our position. what is stated in chief lansdowne's declaration is our position finance sheriff hennessey wants to answer that as their expert, he can answer that and be subject to cross on that as well. so we're not trying to hide the ball here. we're just trying to provide an effective charging document that gives sufficient notice.

>> ok. we actually ended up jumping, i think, if commissioner liu pointed out to 3-b2. originally has to do with paragraph 45 not 46. given we just discussed 46, i think we should address this objection. because my -- my view with respect to 46 are different than 45. so what is issue in 45 are lines 13 through 15. is that right?s0 i'm sorry -- >> 3 through 15.

>> i think given the concern that's have been expressed by my fellow commissioners, perhaps we should permit the statements starting on line 9 with but and ending with in 14 -- >> just for the commission's information, we stipulated to an objection beginning on line 15. >> right. stipulated 15 to 28 is out. >> yes, beginning with ross has

repeatedly. >> right. i would strike the remainder except for the portion that i just mentioned. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> so three through nine would come out and the part you identified from but on line nine to him on line 14 would come in? >> come in. and the following sentence would go out. >> right. any objections from my fellow commissioners? ok.

so that disposes of 3b2. do we feel like we have that clearly? let's go back to paragraph 45. this paragraph, my problem with this paragraph has actually little to do with the charging document. my concern here is this paragraph is about what didn't happen or what was never told to miss madison. i'm not sure why we need that. >> commissioners, this is -- this is, again, one of those things where when the testimony is coming in by declaration, you don't know quite what's going to come in. so what's happening here is the witness is responding to some of the media, some of the accounts the sheriff had given in media

interviews about what has occurred and basically stating what her response would be to questions, did that happen? did miss lopez tell you this or tell you that? it's just trying to anticipate a potential conflict that's coming from the other side. i think that's a function of doing this by way of declaration. >> i see your point. >> well, certainly, there's no foundation for the very last sentence there. and some of this i would agree with your concerns with it not being relevant because it talks about things that didn't happen, but it does appear to repeat some of the things that had been previously been admitted earlier in the declaration. other than that, i don't think i have further comment. we maintain our objection to the