1983, there was a fire at jon's grille. your guys came in. in those days, i think it was guys. they got the bar out, they got chief bill murray's picture off the wall. but mayor christopher's picture off the wall. we have been rebuilding ever since. but we are a little short on beautiful ladies. we are happy to have you on the wall. [applause] do you have something that you would like to -- >> lee and john, thank you for

inviting me here. for all of you, fire commissioners, city family. i guess when joanne came, everyone said, first female. she has shown that she has joined the great chiefs of our city. it did not take long at all for her leadership to come out, for her personality, a french ship, but also for that wonderful leadership. our great city sometimes, a lot of people focus on who is in room 200, but there are very special moments for many periods of the city where the city is defined by its great chiefs. today we celebrate one of those already. who is this movie star? that is a great thing.

i want to thank john's grill for putting up, under their 40- year tradition, someone that we believe very much in our city, who has really led a great leadership and our fire department and has been a great leader on many fronts, helping us so much on anything -- everything from the toy drives to community participation, to everything that reflects a modern fire department and all the men and women that served the department. really give them the pride for working for the great city. chief, congratulations for making it on the wall. lee, john, to have this tradition, welcome our great chief. [applause] >> since you are the last one that has been hung on the wall previously, you two work so closely together, could you say something? >> i am no where near as good

looking as joanne. kind of down the line there. joanne and i have been friends forever. i played football with city college with her brother dan who was the coach. talk about a great person to be able to follow. she has been so supportive. i have learned so much in my short time on how to be a good chief. she is modest, gracious, everything that you would want to have. i just hope someday people will think of me the way that i think of her. [applause] we have a surprise hear from senator mark leno, who i believe has not made an endorsement yet. would you like to make an announcement? >> speaking of better looking -- >> it is my pleasure to join mr. mayer and our chief on this

auspicious occasion. i think all the kind and generous words have been said. if you look on this wall, joanne, you can see the threshold to get on this wall is rather high. with some exceptions, we have got police chiefs, fire chiefs, mayors. i have been discriminated against because i am gay, jewish, but never for being estate center. i asked, how and why going to get on the wall? -- when am i going to get on the wall? he said soon. it is my pleasure to join in with the celebration and take a moment to recognize your unique accomplishments. chief hayes-white is the only chief to have served in all 42 different stations. i think that says something for

your hands-on leadership style, that you have not only earned your stripes, made your way up the ladder in the department, but also have brought to us a motherly touch that is uncommon. congratulations to you on this wonderful distinction. i would also like to thank john and john crow for supporting this tradition, which i aspired to at some point. >> thank you. [applause] >> you will be well-hung. you are jewish? all of you who would like to, we hope that you stay and eat and sleep and -- share wonderful

stories. thank you, everybody. >> thank you to lead to help steer values -- continue to buy a the city history. certainly, to mr. john and gus constant, owners of john's grill for four years. it is an honor to be here. to have my picture up there. . a lot of water under p.m. very under the bridge. the firefighter was behing me,

and taking good of us. i feel good about it. thank you. i think the world of chief s uhr. thank you to my co-workers. is all about teamwork. thank you very much.

i consider you part of my team. thank you so much. it is a wonderful surprise. a wonderful tribute. thank you for those songs. my younger brother dan is here. my younger sister is here. and my mom, who is 86 years old. 86 is just a number. i am sorry. of all the things i've participated in, this is the most exciting moments.

is part of the history, and my mom has dined here many times and has seen the pictures on the wall. thank you, mom. thank you very much. again i appreciate this. thank you. thank you to mayor lee and to john. for anyone here who does not know me and is here for our regular lunch, i am sorry for the interruption. [laughter]

clerk: we would like to call this meeting of the ethics commission and to order. we will take the role. [reading roll] i would like to also introduce the council for the ethics commission in this matter. scott, from a law firm, sitting in the front there, and before we begin, there is an announcement that he would like to make. >> yes.

in the spirit of full disclosure, i want to say that as the record will show, i was appointed as an ethics commissioner on february 8 of this year. prior to the time that i would be subject to the restrictions, insofar as campaign contributions. in late october, early november, with the opponents of it sheriff mirkarimi. and i made a contribution, as i recall, of about $100. i ensured the sheriff and the attorneys and the mayor's attorneys that the fact that i may have made that contribution, i will say that i have never met him either before or after that time, but the fact that i made that contribution, i approached

this hearing totally with an open mind with no preconceived notions one way or another as to the way this hearing should come out. clerk: thank you. mr. renne. a couple of procedural matters. public comment will occur at the end of the hearing and will be limited to two minutes per person. when we get there, i will provide these instructions again, but we would like people to line up four or five at a time, and then when the fifth speaker has finished giving public speaking, five more can line up. this is to assure an orderly process and to make sure that we comply with all building regulations. so the items on the agenda is the official misconduct proceedings that are now before us.

i would invite the attorneys for the mayor and the sheriff to please, -- please, . >> on behalf of the mayor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. all along with my co-counsel, i have the honor to represent sheriff mirkarimi. >> thank you. i understand that you circulated a memo. >> we did send it to them. >> we have it. given that we just received it, i am not sure that everyone had a chance to review it, and we just got it, but we will make it

available. the ethics commission staff has put forth a mellow, suggesting procedures that would govern the official misconduct hearing. i would like to ask my fellow commissioners whether it makes sense to first hear from the party is on their view before we look at how the procedures should be implemented. any objections to that? ok. so, mr. keith, perhaps we can hear your views on the procedural memo that the commission has put together and what was set forth therein. >> thank you, commissioner. the mayor's goal in these proceedings is to make sure they are fair proceedings in which

the commission is going to have an opportunity, and the public is going to have an opportunity to hear all the evidence which is relevant to a determination of official misconduct in this matter. and we have made our proposals in that spirit, and there was a memo in that spirit. one thing that has become clear over the past week with regard to the sheriff's public statement and the various media outlets is that the determinations that the commission is going to make here and the recommendation that they are going to move forward to the board of supervisors is going to involve the resolution of credibility disputes, going to involve hostile witnesses, is going to involve a lot of witnesses who do not work for the city and so cannot be compelled to sit down and draft out a new written declaration,

so i think, what our feeling is on the side of the mayor is that a live hearing is going to better serve the goals of the commission in determining the facts of what happened here. there is nothing like having a live witness subject to examination and cross- examination in order to weigh that person's credibility based on their demeanor, based on issues that may come to light in the course of other witness testimony, and so our proposal to the commission that we submitted in our memo, and i am happy to summarize here, is really directed towards a live hearing. there is a lot of commissions in the city and county of san francisco that conduct live hearings on matters like this, from the police commission, conducting hearings related to discipline, to the civil commission, which addresses matters under its jurisdiction. they hear live testimony and

have something like a mini trial, and we think that " better serve the goal of ascertaining the truth and make a factual record to forward to the board. >> do you have any subjection to submitting briefs to outline the big issues and to put forth your factual evidence so that we can determine where the actual disputes are before entertaining any live testimony? >> we would be able to summarize the facts in our case for the commission. i think it is unlikely that we would be able to get essentially sworn declarations from a lot of these witnesses, the we can certainly summarize what we expect their testimony could be if the commission things that would be helpful in making the determination of whether a live hearing would be helpful. >> i would presume that there are some witnesses related to the declarations. >> certainly.

any city employee could certainly execute a declaration. our concern is more with the folks who are not city employees, and we do not necessarily have that power over them. we can ask them to. they might, in fact, do it, but i have a feeling that the cross- examination of those witnesses would be so long and arduous, and the redirect of those witnesses would be so long and arduous that it would be more considerate of the witnesses' time to call them in and do it live. we can ask them to do that if that is the commission's decision, but we do not think it is fair to the witnesses or that it is the most helpful way for the commission to reach its decision. >> mr. keith, a few questions, and then i will open it up to my fellow commissioners, as well, and then we will hear from others and perhaps begin you.

the mayor has suspended the sheriff without pay. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and so, presumably, he did so on the basis of known facts. in other words, the complaint was not filed as a notice. this was -- >> he absolutely did, in what he did not have and what he still has are documents that would help to pertain to things like telephone records. for example, telephone records of the various communication on january 4 that the mayor alleges constitutes witness persuasion. the records will tell us which witness called which witness when, and it will help us map out the communications that happened on that day, if it gives rise to witness

persuasion, and so the mayor does not have evidence like that. what the mayor did have was statements from some people involved in the communications which certainly in his mind gave him probable cause to feel that the official misconduct had occurred. >> and of those people he spoke to or from whom he obtained evidence, those people would be able to submit declarations? >> some of them are independent witnesses. they are cooperating with us, but there is a difference between having a short interview and sitting down and running a declaration under penalty of perjury. i cannot say that those witnesses would be willing to cooperate with us. we certainly cannot compel them. >> so your view is that you had enough to put together probable cause charges based on the statements, but you are not sure you would be able to get them to submit sworn declarations to the same effect?

>> the process of drafting a sworn declaration, having the witness go through it, making sure everyone -- >> i am aware of that process. >> it is long and difficult, and not all witnesses may be willing to do it. >> other than the person you identified in your memo, is there anyone that you contemplate, anyone else you think you can get testimony from who you do not at this point anticipate getting a declaration from? >> share of mirkarimi would be one. >> anybody else? >> itiliana lopez would be another. >> we will talk about that. as far as ms. lopez goes, what is the basis for being able to

compel her testimony? >> well, the subject matter of her testimony would be relevant to a matter that is under consideration by the ethics commission, so we would think that a subpoena to her under the charter would be proper. >> anybody else? >> let me look at my witness list. there are three other witnesses, at least three other witnesses, who are independent witnesses who have cooperated with us that we would hope to show up, but we would likely want to subpoena them to make sure they appear before the commission. >> who are they? >> martin, madison, and williams. >> i am sorry, the first one was? >> abe martin.

>> other questions from the commissioner's order for mr. keith at this time? >> mr. keith, i have just one question, and that is how did you -- i read the memo very quickly, but how did you perceive this hearing appearing to proceed? something like a trial? each side would submit trial briefs outlining what you intended to prove, and then you put your evidence in and then submit closing breeds as you would in court, and we would act on that record that you put before us? is that what you had in mind? >> that is our best guide. i think in a sense that the

other administrative agencies proceed in a similar way, by reference to the police commission, for example. >> have you discussed this all with mr. -- >> no. >> ok. >> other questions from commissioners? commissioner liu? commissioner liu: mr. keith, there are several factual allegations, so is it your view that we would have to find these allegations to be true in order to sustain a charge of official misconduct >> the commission, number one, would make a recommendation. the charter does not specify whether there can be multiple recommendations or a majority and a dissent. it does not prohibit that. my assumption is that the commission would make findings of fact. where there are credibility disputes, it would make credibility findings, and then as to each charge, if any of the

charges is sustained, the official misconduct has occurred, and that is ultimately a decision for the board of supervisors to make, and we would envision the ethics commission making a finding as to each charge. commissioner liu: the allegations in the complaint or the charging document, would we have to resolve any credibility issues in your favor and fight the allegations to be true in order to recommend that a charge of official misconduct is sustained? is that what you are saying? >> yes, as to most if not all of the charges, there will be credibility disputes, and there will be factual disputes. for example, the effect of the probation on the sheriff's ability to perform the ability of sheriff. i do not expect the other side to agree that he has been rendered unable to perform those duties and that even if he is that that renders them unable to perform the duties of office, so i expect there to be disputes

even on issues that are i guess less driven by a i guess a swearing contest than other issues. commissioner liu: calling witnesses on that point as well, with the discharge of duties, what it in tails? >> that is correct. there may be some areas where we would be able to stipulate the other side as to facts, but i have a feeling that those stipulations would really be confined to a very dry, historical facts, and i doubt we would be able to stipulate to issues related to the ability to perform duties or fitness for office. commissioner liu: thank you. chair hur: commissioner hayon? commissioner hayon: as the only commissioner not an attorney, what with the alternative look like? would it be a matter of going through written documents as a group, reading them publicly?

what would that look like? >> well, i think what the executive director proposed in his memorandum was that each side would essentially submit in writing what they're friendly witnesses would be expected to say if they were here live. that works to some extent, but i think that a lot of the record that we may be looking at, telephone records, for example, it is not self-evident, necessarily, what is going on. just looking at page of telephone numbers, and those are the kinds of records that would use interpretation, where, say, it witness says i had two telephone calls with this individual, to try to -- we might want to have that record in front of us while we are having the witness answer questions so that we would try to ascertain which of the telephone records correspond to those calls. things like that are very

difficult to do when one is sitting alone for viewing a declaration. chair hur: commissioner studley? vice president studley: how would your procedure differ in terms of the briefing and the time that it would take? i am asking for an estimate. >> certainly. what our proposal would be is that the commission would take briefing immediately on three issues. the first issue being what the standard of proof is, which was one of the bullet points in the executive director's memo. the second issue would be essentially a proposal for rules and procedures that would govern this like hearing. what would this mini trial look like, and we do not need to

start from scratch with that. other commissions, for example, the police commission has things that allow for pre-hearing disclosure of evidence from one side to the other. so those would be matters one and two. the third issue that we would request an immediate briefing on, and this is one that is in my memo which has not come up yet, is the issue of whether share of mirkarimi is going to make a claim that he is entitled to have a hearing that is closed from the public. commissioner mirkarimi is a peace officer, and under one penal code and under one decision of the california supreme court, there is a potential argument that he could make that he is entitled to a closed hearing, is essentially as a peace officer and is being a personnel matter. we disagree, but we think it is incumbent to raise this