the possibility of official misconduct that does not warrant permanent removal. >> how do you reconcile that with the provision that he read? >> this is how i reconcilable. the charter says, with all due respect, that if you sustain the charges, claro, the removal has to happen. you have already determined that it appears that you're going to reject a least some if not most of the counts. if you are rejecting some of the accounts, by the clear language of the charter, you are not going to sustain all of the charges. therefore, if you're not going to sustain all the charges, then there can't the removal. by the clear language of the

charter, it doesn't give the option to pick one charges and not another one. if you are not prepared to accept that very narrow reading, it seems to me that the commissioners point where you can make your recommendation as nuanced as you would like for it to be, you can recommend the three charges be sustained in three be rejected. it does not warrant removal. or none of them more and removal. but yes, one of them may be official misconduct or wrongful conduct. in other words, i would submit that your recommendation can be as nuancedñilp has your discussn has been and you have spent several hours discussing what this provision means. as i argued earlier, that

ambiguity should be read most favorable to the sheriff. and in that regard, i believe that giving the support of supervisors more options at not less is consistent with due process, consistent with respecting the intent of the charter provisions and also with your discussion. reading the charter in the most narrow way the have to say yes of were down and yeses removal, that is not consistent with the rest of the charter provision that clearly says there can be official misconduct that does not warrant removal. >> what is your position on the written document? >> again, i was actually appearing before the board of supervisors a couple weeks ago

notifying that they would be discussing their procedure that they already have the draft procedure in place, presumably, that was drafted. we got very short notice of and had three minutes to address during the public comment peroid. -- period. we objected -- >> what is your position on whether we should recreate a written document summarizing our findings or whether we should transmit the record as his? obviously, we will do that, too. what is your view of we need a written summary? >> the more information that the board has to make a decision the better. so that a written summary is going to be more helpful to the

board that have them pore through 15 pages or images of documents. knowing your rationale and having that very clearly stated in a written document, how the board would very much appreciated and we would respectfully request that as well. >> commissioners? views on the written document? >> what you said it was sort of a draft for a pull of the board, her the commission. four of us seemed to agree that there was a violation of the official misconduct. going to the charging document, looking at it and wondering

which one of the charges for which one of the charges are we so stating. -- are we sustaining? some of which included the impeding witnesses and things of that nature that we think have found there was not sufficient evidence. it seems to me that we have to have, in fairness to the share of and in fairness to the board, some clear statement of the charge that we say we are sustaining. going through the charges, 1-6.

there are a number of them, certainly towns to have a 3. we have said we did not think that there was sufficient 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.