>> 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 injustice, and for you to even consider misconduct against him, you should consider misconduct charges against the mayor of. [applause] >> a couple of points. i think the procedures you have laid out our fair. i think they will be available by tomorrow, and we will consider incorporating them later if a workout in this proceeding. you may also want to address our

size for the breesiefs. i am a bit concerned about the reference to the police officer bill of rights. i am interested in early briefing to see if that creates a problem for a closed hearing or not. i would know this is a 15.1 05 hearing, so it is a hearing and recommendation on suspension and removal for official misconduct. it is not an ethics complaint or investigation, so i am not clear if it applies with respect to seeking formal advice. gooi think that only relates to ethics laws and not this charter

revision, so i think you need to look carefully at whether you can render that sort of a vice -- advice. i hope you will post all the documents on whethethe web, andt anyone can inspect it, and i would hope that both sides address not just the case of the incident in the early 1990 costs and whether the mayor needed to take action, because it certainly ties application to other city officers and conduct they may engage in now or in the future lahood. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. seraphim mirkarimi was

democratically elected. now the mayor is using a character assassination to try and illegally removed a democratically elected officials. this is known asse a coup d'eta. it is important we be aware of what is going on. you commissioners sit here and are victims of the same lies every day, so i realize your job is hard for you to pull your head out of what you see on tv every day and make an honest evaluation, but it is important that you try to do this and understand the historical period where you may be

witnessing a coup d'etat. thank you. >> on march 27, 2012, i spoke about equitable justice. i presented my case. mary was allegedly of thieves and a sitting board of supervisors. i do not need to tell you what she has done, but i will say she is a drug and alcohol it dependent. most important, she e-mailed him

in prison and quickly denied it. my focus this his wife. it is imperative she is summoned live to state her side of what took place between her and her husband inside their own home. there were no other witnesses, no other adults. this all happened prior. the fact is there were no other adults. the ethics commission and the board of supervisors cannot go forward and make any final decisions without input. any decisions are ruled unacceptable in a court of law, and if you do not someone who mrs. mirkarimi, it would be

characterized now as a miscarriage of justice. >> i am an activist in the city of san francisco and a founding member of the major nonprofit organization in the city. i have been active in the city for a long time, and i know the work we do in an organization in the city. one of the issues i want to raise is can the ethics commission be ethical? can you be fair knowing how you got to be on the board? and we work in this city and love this city and care about this city and care about issues concerning any illegal activities.

we want you to know we love this man, and this man has been in the trenches working on sixth street, downtown, on many issues. can you be fair? right now i doubt it. he raised the issue about previous misconduct. yes, willie brown, the fire chief, all these issues, and can he get the same treatment? what is with this man that everybody is going berserk about it. the other issue is an election. who is supporting honewho and te election? all these issues in our mind,

please be fair and take it into consideration. thank you. [applause] >> i am here in support of his family. i worked very hard to get this man elected as sheriff. for you guys to try to reverse that, because this is a witch hunt. the mayor's guy did not win. he needs to admit this guy did not win and let the people in the jails who are going to suffer the most from not being where he was supposed to be, so i hope you relate take this into consideration and to dobecause o

be honest, and you were put in here to be fair, and it should not matter who put you here. it is about fairness. [applause] >> my name is francisco, and i have known mr. ross mirkarimi for a long, long time. i have heard nothing about ethics in all of the deliberations and all of the questioning. the attorneys here, as is -- as if this is a perry mason-type operation. i cast my vote. so did many constituents, and what i am here to state categorically is