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 -- >> even for an issue where the sheriff is asking for a formal opinion as to whether or not they need to comply with an ethics issue. i just want to make sure i understand. >> together we could provide you with no advice, but i could help provide data. to that end, would it be appropriate for me to ask a question on this issue? if i understand this issue, there is a city process going on

right now but involves discovery intended to be used in this proceeding. is that correct? >> i would say there are three different things going on to gather evidence. one is an investigation asking people to voluntarily cooperate. the other thing is the mayor is issuing subpoenas. that is another way we are getting evidence, and the third way is by requesting a elected officers and employees of the city to operate with our investigation, and that is where we are requesting cooperation of the sheriff's, and other the conduct code that imposes a duty on all employees and officers to cooperate with an investigation

of potential violations with the government conduct code, it is 3.240 of the campaign of governmental conduct code. >> is there a reason you are issuing them as mayor subpoenas? >> the mayor has independent authority to subpoena. >> may i ask a question? it took me awhile to find them, but you are moving under 3.699- 12 request for an issue winds of opinion, and it says any person may request the commission issue a written opinion with respect to that person's duty under the provisions of this charter or any ordinance related to campaign finance, conflict of

interest lobbying, or government ethics. that is what you are relying on and asking us to decide whether or not the syrup has a duty to cooperate under these circumstances -- whether or not the sheriff' has the duty to cooperate? >> that is correct. >> i think it would be helpful -- maybe i will try to summarize what we have discussed, and we will hear public comments, and then we can discuss some more. and within one week, that would

be april 30 region we would expect the mayor's brief on legal issues that were outlined in the commission staff memo and that were identified by counsel. at the same time, we would expect a response to the sheriff's letter brief but was sent today and that we will take a look at as well. within two weeks commo, that woe monday, may 9, the share of would respond -- the sheriff

would respond to the mayor's brief discussing legal issues but were identified in the commission staff memo, identified by counsel, and would include any legal bases to dismiss or demurrer to the charges. >> thank you. the first monday in may is actually may 7, not may 9. in addition, on may 9, the mayor would be in a position -- may 7. monday, may 7, the mayor would be in a position to identify the witnesses on which she intends to rely on the subject matter of

the testimony to be given. one week after that, may 14, the mayor would respond to the opposition breeief of the sheriff', and on may 21, the sheriff would serve on the mayor and the commission a list of witnesses and expect a testimony on the witnesses for which the sheriff's tense -- intends to

revive pyramid -- to rely. the commission is scheduled to meet on may 29. are you available on that day if we were to have argument on legal issues and further discuss when testimony would be heard? that is a scheduled meeting on tuesday, the 29th. >> the council for the mayor are available. >> may ask if that would be in the afternoon or around the same time as this meeting. >> it is currently scheduled for 5:30. >> the council would be available. i said that point i think the

commission would, having reviewed the evidence, the in a position to hopefully decide when and if further testimony would be required and in what form, but given what we have heard and the attorneys, that does seem like about the fastest we can go well providing each side with an opportunity to be heard. are there any objections to the parties and -- by the parties to the schedule if we were to adopt it? >> i just want to alert the commission that the council for the mayor may need to provide rebuttal witnesses in response, and we can let the commission know at the may 29 hearing. >> why don't you identify any rebuttal witnesses by may 25?

>> that would be the previous friday, yes. >> i addressed as to both of you. going along with the schedule that was suggested, would it be possible for you when you submit your witness list and summary of testimony, those witnesses you believe you could present by declaration as opposed to needing to live testimony or where you believe you might have stipulations you can use testimony in place of live testimony, and i would ask if he could do the same thing, which would assist us, and we can look at it and say, here is where you say this is witnesses we need live, and we can make your determination. >> i might propose we do that on the week of the 21st. i think we will be in a good

position to know which issues can be done by stipulation, so if we were to commit suggestions by friday the 25th, that probably would work well for us. >> is that all right with you? >> that will be fine. >> these are not public hearings. >> a couple other procedural issues about briefs and timing -- page lengths. to the parties have any objection to 25 pages opening brief, no more than 25 pages opening brief, no more than 25

pages response, and no more than 10 pages reply? >> we have no objections to that. >> maybe you can stand up here. do you have of you? >> if we are going to be briefing the issue of live hearing issues in addition to the legal issues, i think we will need more than 25 pages. i think closer to 35 pages in the opening brief. goo>> do you have a view? >> brevity is the soul of wit. >> while that is true with regard to wit, there are so many

separate issues, i would want both parties to have the room to explain the standard and their view on it, and i think we would be a disservice if that was too chunky. >> we are not going to object if they won 35 pages. if they want to extend it, i have no objection. perhaps we will not decided by the weight of the paper. >> i encourage both parties. 35, 35, 10. is acceptable? >> yes. >> service, if you would not mind, maybe we can address these

issues. i assume there is no problem with e-mail service. >> for us it is preferable if we can just served by e-mail, and i think it has worked really well in connection with written proceedings. >> i would suggest service by e- mail on each other. >> i agree. >> does that make sense? 5:00 p.m. service and deadlines? >> yes. goby the staff memo also outlind

a procedure and what would be discussed in oral argument after a briefing. is there any objection to parties being prepared at that time to discuss actual stipulations. i hope you would workout was over stipulations occur and that you would been prepared for any witnesses you intend to call? >> yes.

>> probably also helpful for you to be prepared if there are objections by witnesses. i think it would be helpful if you were prepared to argue on the 29th as well. is about acceptably? >> given the descriptions of the win the -- of the witness' testimony, i would want to reserve the ability to object later as well. >> i would think -- i am not sure we could consider excluding a witness entirely. i hope if you had an objection to a witness you would raise that. >> if we can discern the scope of the testimony and make the

decision based on what we are given, we will do that. >> any other questions for the attorneys while we have them up here? thank you. if nothing further, perhaps we should take public comments. before we start public comments, comments will be limited to two minutes before it -- for each person. there is a clock that counts down. there are two dings.

the second one indicates the time is up. i apologize in advance. i am not intending to be rude, but because of the number of people, i am going to instruct death-- that the microphone be d off after the two-minute so everyone can have an opportunity to make a public comment. public comment is not evidence, so you have every right to give your comment, but we will not be considering as evidence and adjudicating the public comment that is provided. we look forward to your comments. >> they have very interesting

post said about your collective performance on his side. you should read it. you will remember that the grand jury sided you in a sleeping watchdog report that you had dismissed 18 previous misconduct cases with no hearings, and then you heard a case and refer it to the mayor, who did nothing. i believe you have four referrals from of for you are sitting supervisors involving official misconduct. you have been cherry picking cases. it is interesting you mentioned c369313.

you will recall st. croix use that repeatedly against me, and for eight months of this body has refused to schedule a public hearing on the official misconduct cases referred to in my case. the article this morning and notes julie nadler saying it is important to remember this as a hearing on ethics, not on of law. i have not heard one comment from his body on ethical issues in the many years i have monitored your hearing. are you suddenly going to take a course in reasoning? thank you.

>> good evening, everyone. i am an activist in the city, and i am here completely to tell you item here in the interest of justice, not prejudice to any side at all. as far as misconduct is concerned, willie brown was a mayor and a grandfather of the age of 68, when he had a child still legitimately out of wedlock would not even a slap on the rivers. every newsom had an affair with a married woman. not a slap on the wrist. i was a victim of abuse in my first marriage when my husband punched me while i had an infant child.

pinging someone on the armed does not mean a thing, because if you look at me, i had a bruise, so that is not evidence of misconduct. as far as i am concerned, this is ridiculous, and you measure it sensibly that this is not an issue of misconduct. it should not be judged prematurely by the media, so they are crucifying him before he gets a chance to defend its self -- himself. this is not justice. this is a very serious matter. you should dismiss this completely, because it is out of bounds. thank you. [applause]

>> i am the director of the association, and there is a gross disparity in so-called and justice. . they dismiss 18 cases without even having a hearing to return to the jury called those a sleeping watch dog, then when a library commission president violated the sunshine ordinance as founded unanimously by the sunshine ordinance task force and a case came before you for enforcement, you issued a letter to the mayor recommending the president of that commission be sacked. what did the mayor do? nothing, nothing at all but was publicly visible. what happened? nothing happened. jule gomez was reelected as

president earlier this year, and they did not even have another nominee to vote for. i will read from your own letter on july 18, 2011. the commission violated -- was said to have violated section 6758 for willful failure to allow public comment at a library commission meeting. the ethics commission determine the library commission president gomez willfully violated the ordinance when she shouted down a member of the public. they also determine her actions fell below the standards appropriate for a public official, and at the bottom of the letter the commission voted to recommend you consider taking steps to remove ms. gomez from

her office in light of her actions. this is not equal justice. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i am a former san francisco police officer. i am an investigative reporter as well as a licensed private investigator. i am miffed at the fact of mirkarimi has been taken off his job without pay, because with to get a pepper spray, when he sprayed those sitting demonstrators, he is still getting paid. let me take it back to the san francisco fire chief, when she hit her husband who over the head not once but twice with a glass and was recorded on the 911 tape where the husband said i think my children are in

danger. what did major new some say? it is a family matter. hon the issue been on the other foot and had a man hit a woman over the head, he would have been booked, hands down. i think this is a political witch hunt. i think he is being targeted by the mayor's office of the waste of time. it is a waste of money, and it is ruining this man's life. he has not seen his wife since january. i saw a man stabbed in the face, and they got together after a month. this man has been separated from his family for four months. this is an injust