distracting and while i would like to have as few of them as we need, i think -- i for one and others may disagree, may be more open to receiving these declarations, allowing the share of's rep -- sheriff's representative and not to delay in order to get a lot. it may be fair to move toward resolution. i would not delay for the purpose of securing these offers of these declarations. on balance, i would narrow

rather than exclude all together. there are some points that are important to understanding whether the fifth the definition in the first place. and my own effort would be to try to slim the list and schedule thing so we move forward and the city can pick the ones that are most valuable or execute them so that we can stay on track. chairperson hayon: hur: the majy think paul henderon should come in. michael hennessey was on the list so i do not think there is

a dispute about him. acting sheriff vicki hennessey. >> we can't compel a retired sheriff to give us the declaration. the point is to play at the duties of what a sheriff does and we can get that just as easily so we can drop michael hennessey. you can just use in vi -- vicki hennessey. >> we would want to submit a declaration from michael hennessey probably addressing different points. one would be the fact that many, many deputy sheriffs have suffered criminal convictions during his tenure and that was not -- does not seem to be

official misconduct. that is one point i do not think the mayor intends to introduce. the retired sheriff may be able to offer other pieces of fact information that would help the commission in reaching its decision. we have not obtained one but we think we can obtain one from him. >> you indicate in your witness list that you expect him to testify about communications which i could see coming in. would you rather have michael hennessey and the acting sheriff if their testimony would be overlapping and michael hennessey will speak to statements made by mr. mirkarimi? >> i think given the burden of preparing a declaration, i feel

is more appropriate to place them on someone who was working so we would use the key heresy -- hennessey. >> if we could keep the silence. it is a long night. the views on vicki hennessey. is there an objection? do we need your testimony? >> did you say it would or would not overlap with michael hennessey's testimony? >> my concern is could we get a declaration from a retired sheriff.

>> is your objective to choose one or the other? i am not sure what question is on the table. >> my question is whether we need the acting sheriff vicki hennessy. it sounds like michael hennessey was listed as an expert witness by the sheriff and we can address that later. if he is testifying, do we need what sounds like overlapping testimony from vicki hennessy. whether or not you can get a declaration. >> we did not list the retired sheriff as a witness who will testify to every responsibility. we witnessed him -- listed him as transitioning and the statement that the share of mirkarimi made to him. getting a declaration from a

retired city employee is not always easy. you wanted to proceed by written declaration. mr. hennessy -- you intend to submit to -- a testimony to some matters. how would you get him in if your intention was to submit decorations for all your witnesses? >> i clarified earlier that we can submit a declaration from the mayor and those witnesses were no longer with the city who are willing to do it. from our part, we would rather use a current city employee if they're going to be put to the burden of declaring a testimony. >> an important reason to have vicki hennessy-and in -- is from

just the expert view is the experts will be working with her to understand what they will be giving their opinion about. her testimony will serve as a foundation for a number of the experts. we can coordinate that with the acting sheriff in a way we cannot courtney with a retired sheriff. are you trying to have one or the other? would it be a problem if the city offers a declaration from the acting sheriff and the sheriff offers a declaration from the retired sheriff? >> i do not think it would necessarily be a problem.

the exercise is to narrow down redundant witnesses or witnesses who are irrelevant. what i am saying is i would be in favor of excluding vicki hennessy. her testimony as are to be redundant to what we're going to hear from michael hennessey. if the mayor needs to have michael hennessey come in, he probably will be here anyway in light of what we have heard from the sheriff. we can save time and effort by having one witness testify about these issues. if other commissioners disagree and you think we should not have a declaration from both, i can see that as well. >> do we have to decide that? >> renne now? we should decide whether or not someone is going to come in by a declaration or not.

otherwise -- >> i agree. we may find -- we're trying to narrow down the list of witnesses. that is fine. the fewer the better. we may find in the course of hearing witnesses, there is some additional information that we're going to need and we may want to call in a witness we did initially think we needed. that is all i am saying. can we make that decision for the dow ? >> if i may be heard. david wagner. as to vicki hennessy, vicki hennessy was a political appointee of mayor lee. to the issue of whether they are redundant, michael hennessey can provide testimony that relates to the charges. is not clear how the key

hennessey, her testimony is in any way relevant. on page four of the list of fact witnesses under vicki hennessy, she testified about the role of the sheriff. the role of the sheriff again as the conversation we had about paul henderson, that is not relevant to the actual charges and as to the actual charges, there are no actual counts. it is nine pages of a narrative save it. what would request the production of a bill of prison -- particulars as to what exactly the charges are so we can defend against them. and the mayor and city attorney can say what -- which charge the witness would allegedly testified to? on tiki hennessy, i am fine with the suggestion of

commissioner hayon. the prejudice of having vicki hennessy is not high. if she is going to testify on the matters that are listed here. i agree. i do not think it is relevant. i am in the minority on that. if the mayor wants us to submit a declaration, we shall allow it and we can evaluate further as we need. is there any objection? vice-chairperson studley: it would help. i think it might illuminate the difference, if there turned out to be any. >> next, the inspectors.

is that an end-or or is that an or. >> we do not need to call either of them. chairperson hur: next, mayor ed lee. ivory madison, abraham mertens, the sheriff, we have discussed him. chief wendy stills. why do we need to hear from her? >> to provide a factual basis about how it is the sheriff's department interacts with the probation department also particularly how the probation

department interacts with probationers. which is something -- not something that most -- it is through that that the conflicts inherent in the relationship will become crystalize. we need to put in a fact- finding of origin -- operation. also, i could point out. i am sure you noticed. on our witness list and expert witness list, she is testifying in different compassions -- a different capacities. chair person hur: view on wendy

will? commissioner renne: is it your intention to testify by declaration? >> if i could make the point that by doing this by declaration, we are shouldering the burden of the witness list. we're asking you to review the decorations -- and declarations. we will do what we need to do to get the finals -- it is easier to make a decision when to have seen it. the burden of doing that and including more witnesses will fall on our shoulders and we're willing to share that burden tomorrow to give you evidence from the record. >> for me, the concern is

regardless of the work that is required to get the declaration, most declarants will be cross- examined. i don't want to be falsely persuaded this will reduce the burden if byrdak have to hear from all this trouble live. >> my response would be at the point where you see the opening declaration, you can still put the witnesses -- the witness does not need to be subject to [unintelligible] this procedure can be repeated or may be done best on the basis

of the actual declarations see what the witness does offer and how it fits in. chairperson hur: what do you think about that procedure? >> in theory, it sounds fine. it does not address our concern that witnesses such as this chief wendy still are relevant to the inquiry. she is not going to add anything to your task of determining what the facts are, what share for mercury did and whether or not there was official misconduct. i think this was not -- if you allow them to put in a declaration, we will be objecting to its emissions in its entirety. dennis wholey boehner's and -- that is better than having them

on a question by question basis. >> our task should be to eliminate those witnesses who we truly feel are relevant and for whom a declaration is not likely or very unlikely to provide us with relevant information. to the extent we think it is a close call and there is to determine. we should evaluate the different-decoration. -- of the declaration. are their views as to where wendy steals -- stills falls data -- on the declaration? >> i think i understand the

mayor wanting to expand but that is the category i see it in. given the position that the charge -- must relate to the duties. chairperson hur: ok. the exclude witnesses are either inspector becker or inspector danielle.

quit expect a stipulation from parties. capt. kathy gorewood. christina flores i think we deferred. michelle genne and inspector tom kean. we will review and make declarations at that time. expert witnesses. who will address the experts for the mayor?

>> this is a lot of experts for this issue. i know you submitted this prayer to some of the briefing. does anybody become unnecessary in light of sloot recent briefing and your investigation or do you intend to call these experts? >> we would still intend to call these experts and i can do a brief explanation of why. chairperson hur: yes, please. >> there have been many others who have been disciplined but not terminated on the basis of criminal conduct.

mr. chinako is a consulting experts. he could speak to that issue. he could speak to how is this -- it is the sheriff should be treated under his own disciplinary section. chiel landstone is being offered as a law enforcement officer who teaches an ethics course at the professional association for law enforcement. and law enforcement and ethics for chiefs. this is germane and he has the expertise to give it. chairperson hur: we have heard

from mr. keith earlier. >> she is here on this list because she can offer important testimony about was this just about a pension on the arm? was this just about a decision to turn the band around and not return to the restaurateur's of the more significant. this premium not about a plea deal. they're about the actual conduct and what the context means in terms of the public official, the acts of the public official and the relationship between those facts and public official's petition. -- position. we need to be able to explain his conduct and ms. lemmon was being offered in the criminal case, would have gone and served at trial for that exact same purpose, to show that there

is more content than when share mirkarimi has a willing to admit. we think she is important for that reason. we have heard about -- what expertise where she offering? >> although she was the prosecutor in the case, and that case remains ongoing she is not coming to specs to this case. she is coming as the chief domestic violence prosecutor in the da's office to help you understand what that plea deal meant and what the sentence means and what it does not mean that they dropped the other charges. do have seen in the briefing some assertions -- the facts

have not been proven, there have been set aside. that is not exactly with the pre deal means. it goes to our stickout -- what the conduct was and the conclusion of the criminals proceedings. and as many volunteers to necessarily know, myself a since -- and i can speak to chief still. she is not coming as an expert. she ran california prison and she is speaking about the responsibilities and duties inherent in running a system that blocks people up and how share of mirkarimi --

[unintelligible] there is one more. varley eastampton -- beverly upton can speak to the communities and a nonprofit agencies that have worked on this issue. a murder catalyzed the community to work together,. chairperson hur: please, we are trying to get this done. if you could keep torre and -- quite, that would help all of us. >> we take the position that one of the share of's duties is to

work effectively with the community on an issue of vital importance. we believe his ability to do that is impaired by his domestic violence and ms. upton is being offered as an opinion witness to speak to that. commissioner studley: i have a question about expert no. 5. so to whether someone has played a part in the actual proceedings. cabriolet use as an expert on the issues that are being offered. you folks to do this all the time know better what the experts standard corporate really would be. >> i am not sure if that applies to chief still or specific as to

the prosecutor. chairperson hur: would you like to address the question? >> i would like to express our objection to these witnesses and get to that particular witness. those one of many who may have demonstrated their and interested participants here. maybe i should start about -- by going backwards. ms. upton was a vocal critic and if i am not mistaken, when we're here last month, she came up and gave public comments against sheriff mirkarimi. how anyone thinks this type of bias experts should be allowed in spray such as -- sbe was tbhe

-- the prosecutor on the criminal case. she will come appear and educate people about how dismissal of charges does not mean a thing. >> i understand your objection to whether the witness is useful and have read says spot -- not going to be useful. is there a legal basis to exclude her? does the fact that she was a prosecutor does not mean as she would have to -- domestic violence prosecutions and how these cases are resolved, how is that relevant that you have a discussion of where conners was. how the girl case was resolved as -- you can determine the facts and you can decide whether or not this was official misconduct.

there is a legal objection to the witness's testimony. >> would they be arguing to the plea deal or what it means to have certain charges being dropped? are you arguing any of that? >> what we intend to argue is that the misdemeanor charge upon which share for mirkarimi was convicted in and of itself does not constitute official misconduct. we do not intend to argue the effect of the dismissal on the other charges. we with respect -- the incident that was underlined what we intend to argue that grabbing his wife's arm during this argument also was not official misconduct and that is it. that is with this inquiry should be about. be about. chairperson hur: your briefing