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 -- >> 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