opinion would be. >> it sounds like it would relate to the standard of care. >> it would relate to the share of's department -- sheriff's department. everyone is in agreement. if you have one, the mayor is entitled to have one. whether there are specific objections, we can do with that once we know what the opinions are. i for one think we will need a subject matter standard of care expert. the mayor and you should be entitled to have one.

does the mayor have any objection to mr. hennessy? in light of what we just discussed? >> we would ask that all experts opinions be disclosed by declaration the same way as other witnesses so we can fully prepare for each others' cases. just to clarify, it is not that i have no ideai am not coming wf opinions to disclose. i have some idea what they will say, based on a preliminary conversations. on this short time line, we are not able to do this sort of expert disclosure you would see in civil litigation. >> mr. wagner asked specifically to speak to chief smith.

do i have that title right? sheriff smith. the chair has just indicated the view, which i share, about each side having a standard of care expert. if you have a specific objection to sheriff smith, as opposed to a general one, say that now. i do not want the mayor to choose among three and then learn later there were reasons she would not be appropriate that might not apply to the other two. >> thank you. to make sure i have these clear, we are talking about chief landsdowne and sheriff

smith. >> that was your request with you stood up. >> i stood up to make an objection to share of smith, a general objection. as to some -- as to specifically, there is nothing the city attorney has said which goes to which charge specifically. i make that point, which i hope we will come back to, since there are no specific counts in the charges. there is per representative after paragraph. there are no specific charges. we do not know what specifically, sure of smith, what her testimony will cover. -- sheriff smith, what her testimony would cover. >> would that apply equally to

others? >> yes, it would. >> the you have specific objections to share of smith, at -- to share of the smith, distinct from your broad -- to sheriff smith, distinct from your broad objection. >> i do not. >> thank you. >> the next item we need to address is timing. it appears we have rooms available for testimony on june 19, from 6:00 p.m. on, and june 29, from 8 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. i do not know if we have any additional information about other available dates. >> friday, july 20, from 1230 too 630 -- from 12:30 to 6:30.

were you going to go over the witness list? >> the sheriff said there were only two witnesses he would want in his defense. can the parties -- are those states -- are you available? >> he seems troubled. i have the same question as mr. st. croix. >> mr. kopp, am i correct that your witness list is defensive, and we have addressed all the witnesses you think need to be called? >> i do not think we need to go to our witness list at this time. >> i just want to clarify, because of how to prepare for

the hearing, whether the sheriff is essentially dropping all of their back witnesses. i do not understand it right now. >> they have said they are going to craft a declaration of for mr. hennessy, who is also acting as the expert. there was also ms. lopez. >> we hope to offer her testimony live or remotely. we hope to get a declaration from her. >> ms. -- >> we hope to at least submit a

declaration. ideally, we will have her testify live. >> does that answer your question? is there anybody else, mr. kopp, you intend to offer? >> we are not going to foreclose getting declarations from the other witnesses on our list. it is going to depend on the declarations from the mayor. >> my understanding is you are not offering testimony. many of those people were redundant. the decisions we made about people who were excluded are going to apply equally to your list. >> i think we should go over them. i did not understand that to be the commission.

>> ok. >> do you intend to call art agnos? >> i would request a few minute recess before we go into our witness list. >> ok. we will take five minutes. >> thank you.

>> we are back in session, if people can please take their seats.

mr. wagner, you were going to address the sheriff's witnesses. i am a little surprised. when mr. kopp stood up, he clearly said he only needed two witnesses, the mayor and the sheriff. the other witnesses were there as defensive measures. that is the color through which i am reviewing other discussion. >> if i may, let me clarify that i think you misunderstood.

the distinction is between live witness testimony and decorations. that is what the comments were referring to. we believe it is our position, in terms of live witness testimony, the only essential witnesses are the sheriff and the mayor. all other testimony could be submitted. that is what he intended to convey. >> please proceed. >> as to the former mayor -- >> we need to hear from the former mayor. >> mayor agnos is expected to testify because it would impeach mayor lee's. specifically, he will testify to conversations he had with mayor

lee immediately prior to the suspension of the sheriff. >> and this will relate to why the mayor suspended the shares fax -- the sheriff'? >> the testimony will impeach the mayor's credibility. >> meaning there is another reason the sites the stated charges? commissioners, views on testimony from mr. agnos? would you like to -- >> my understanding is that he told me early -- mayor lee not

to suspend sheriff mirkarimi, and the mayor decided otherwise. i do not see how that is relevant. one of the arguments that has been raised is that this is essentially epochal prosecution. one of the reasons we have identified some any expert witnesses to talk about practice issues and professional standards issues is to defeat that kind of claim, to show that on the merits the conduct can meet that standard. what i am gathering from the relevance is that that is a line the sheriff is going to pursue. we do not think that has ever been an appropriate set of arguments. the mayor is not on trial for his decision to suspend the sheriff.

>> comments or questions from either party? >> mr. wagner, is that correct, how mr. keith characterized what the former mayor would testify to? >> i believe i have already stated the testimony would impeach the credibility, vis-a- vis the conversations he had with nearly -- with mayor lee. >> what would he say? what is this other reason? >> excuse me. mayor agnos told mayor lee to talk to eliana lopez directly,

and asked whether he had spoken to any other mayor about his intention to suspend the sheriff. he indicated he had not. at minimum, that is extremely relevant to the suspension of the sheriff, in terms of his motivations, his lack of reviewing any evidence, or even contacting eliana lopez in this case before he suspended the sheriff. i will add as a former mayor we could have called mayor agnos just as the city attorney has called retired sheriff's, as a witness of what constitutes misconduct and when a mayor should suspend another official. >> mr. wagner, assuming that the

mayor testifies, what you say mayor agnos is going to testify -- there is no need for him to come in and say anything. it does not attack credibility. it just says the same thing. is that right? you told him he did not consult with anybody, and he says yes. nothing the mayor is saying goes to a pre -- goes to impeach credibility. >> without having heard the mayor's case in chief, i can state at the outset that every witness that the sheriff would call would be to rebut the case of the mayor, but i think that goes without saying.

i think the question here is the relevance of the testimony. i am presuming that mayor lee is not going to take the stand and say he refused to talk to any other mayor about the suspension. >> you could ask him on cross- examination. >> that is correct. >> i do not see that the motivation has any part in what we are about, here. it is for the very reason that the people passed this initiative to give us the job of determining whether official conduct -- misconduct took place. we can say yes or no, but the motivation behind it -- maybe some of you see something else.

>> i see your point, although i am additionally persuaded that we do not need mayor agnos. i have not heard anything about a different reason why the suspension would happen. >> respectfully, the city attorney attacked the sheriff' for saying or suggesting that all of this is political. it is not the city attorney's role to determine what the defense of the sheriff is, and a proper defense, or which witnesses the sheriff should be able to call. that is not the city attorney's colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of

san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all -- mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit -- he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said -- i respectfully disagree.