would have to either get their declarations or listen to them live? >> if we did agree, the parties do disagree about what happened. >> it sounded like that was a possibility. >> beyond that, we would disagree. >> i don't see how these two inspectors are relevant. i would need to hear more as to how ms. lopez's demeanor would be probative of whether or not -- >> one of the other things the inspectors observed was ms. madison taking calls from ms.

lopez and over during that conversation. -- overhearing that conversation. hearing his madison's account of that call. that intense to show that dissuasion is occurring. >> ms. madison would testify to that? >> we expect her credibility to be attacked. >> iac. -- i see. >> the observations of the call coming in from ms. haines as the inspectors were coming to the house, ms. madison was getting off of the phone. that is an observation they made that tends to support the

credibility of the testimony. commissioner studley: i thought it was a reasonable balance to have one of these officers provide declaration. the fact that we have this many questions means there may be something and i would rather have us argue after what that we did not have before us. >> [inaudible] commissioner studley: i apologize. all of us are hearing the feedback. we're also trying to speak to the person -- i will repeat what i said. i think the earlier suggestion that you made that the city's

select one of the two officers and would get the declaration from one officer, given the number of questions we have about it, and the issues that might arise, it seems like a reasonable balance to me. i think it is a fair question that we may not needed, and there are plenty of other witnesses will not need, but this one might be [inaudible] we can give it whatever wait we think it deserves. >> i agree. i was kind of thinking that. these are inspectors that apparently have experience with many cases of domestic violence. >> [inaudible] >> is it possible to turn up the system? >> it is as loud as it can be?

>> what i just asked is whether it was possible to turn up the volume. chairperson hur: we will do our best, but try not to have any interruptions trade and allow this process to play out as efficiently as we can. commissioner hayon: i am in agreement. i think it would be worthwhile to have one of these inspectors speak to their experience. chairperson hur: any objection to that? ok, you are going to be able to remove one. >> i will pick wind. >> she is testifying only

background matters. even if we could not reach a stipulation, her declaration would be a very short. chairperson hur: what would it be relevant to? >> the sheriff performing duties of office. chairperson hur: do we have to have a discussion about this? >> i think we already offer to stipulate to every fact that this person would testify to. we might dispute that characterization of the official duties of the sheriff, but we could work out the language. >> isn't the sheriff's best person to testify to what he did during the time period? why do we need somebody to come in here? [applause] >> yes, and he will. from our standpoint, today, we

have had no ability to get the test -- get the sheriff to testify about the facts related to the case. chairperson hur: we are trying very hard to hold an orderly proceeding. i appreciate that there are vehement views of many people in the public. again, i encourage you to share those views during public comment, but this is not the time. >> because we do not have access to the sheriff, we have access to the other individuals at the meetings. we have access to the other individuals at the meetings. we would propose to use them. we do not know what the sheriff's testimony will be. chairperson hur: we expect you guys to reach stipulation on dempsey. we do not expect to see a declaration from the undersheriff.

christina flores. >> this was the prior the victim of domestic violence. [crowd murmuring] chairperson hur: i apologize, please proceed. >> that is ok, i am used to it. we would simply attach the transcripts of that. the testimony of prior intimate partners, persons accused of domestic violence, it is relevant to determining whether domestic violence occurred and to determine the kind of power relationships that occur in

domestic violence relationships. that would lead to things like this is -- like witnesses recanting their stories. we do not think she should be called live. >> this witness personifies the mayor's attempt to turn this into a circus. prior testimony under evans -- evidence code is relevant only were the instant incident is in dispute, and it is not. sheriff mirkarimi said he grabbed his wife during an argument and he bore repeat that statement under oath. -- grabbed his wife's arm during an argument and he will repeat that statement under oath. this witness was not fully cross-examined during the criminal trial. if you somehow decided that you wanted to hear from her, we will

need her life because there are plenty of questions she will be passed. i do not think that needs to happen. i do not think we need a mini- trial. i think that should be the last that we hear of ms. flores. chairperson hur: views of the commissioners? commissioner renne: i find myself, i guess, in a view that at this point i am not prepared to say if that testimony would be admissible. but i can only make that decision, i guess, if he introduces the transcript. it seems to me it should be limited to the transcript. at that point, i would be prepared to make a decision.

>> i have not heard anything about this witness that makes me think she would be relevant here. if the underlying actions are not disputed, you know, there are lots of witnesses for whom we time you're very important testimony from. to me -- >> and the underlying actions are disputed. the extent of the of this is far greater than what the sheriff has admitted to. and we dispute that. this is a witness who has testimony relevant to that. chairperson hur: ok, let me stop you there. other than -- i want to set aside the witness dissuasion. that is part of the charges. other than the grabbing of the arm, what other actions are you alleging that took place

that constitute official misconduct? >> i think it is relevant in assessing whether official misconduct occurred to assess the level of abuse. chairperson hur: what other abuse are you talking about? >> there was pushing and pulling of ms. lopez in the house. there was a threat to ms. lopez that the sheriff would use his power in a custody dispute if she tried to divorce him. there were attempts to control her, to control what she ate, to control the amount of money she got. chairperson hur: this is gone to come through which witness? -- this is going to come through which witness? >> this is going to come through a correspondence that ms. lopez sent to ms. madison. this is going to come through conversations she had would ms. williams. if miss lopez does appear and

tries to testify contrary to this, these will be admissible to prior inconsistent statements. chairperson hur: other views from the commissioners? >> i think it would be fine to take a look at the transcript and give it what weight we think. beyond that, we would have to take a look to see if there is any probative value, at any value as a rebuttal witness for any reason. right now, i cannot see a reason how it ties cin. >> i am concerned that if we allow the transcripts, and consider it as evidence, it seems difficult for me to figure out how he would not have a right to cross-examine that witness. and so, i think if we consider it at all, we need to have some

basis for why we think it is relevant. i am not sure we would able to base a decision just on the transcripts. >> one of the other witnesses we have is a recognized expert in domestic violence. her testimony would be that it is relevant whether there have been past instances of domestic abuse because abusers repeat. the relationships follow similar patterns. if there is past evidence, it tends to show that it is happening here. the time for a lot of these objections is more after these declarations are submitted, rather than before. going down the list now without seeing which testimony they are offering under oath. chairperson hur: i see your point to some extent. i guess my concern is i still do

not want to get 18 declarations. to me, several of these people are clearly irrelevant. for people on the line, i can understand. i disagree that we want to defer the decision. >> again, it is what we would prefer. otherwise, that is understandable. we are doing our best to essentially go through the list and take people out to can be taken out to see it who has a facts that can be stipulated to, and that is a work in progress. there may be a witness who has testimony that only takes a two- page declaration. we do not want to waste the time of the commission. it may be that the witness has a little bit of relevant testimony, and then we will be done with that. i do not want to foreclose the

chance of a witness that has a small amount of relevant information. commissioner studley: i am just wondering if we might be able to get a complete picture of this if we said this one aside because it is one of the more complicated ones. go through the rest of the proposed witnesses, see how many are in contention. we may be able to narrow the list substantially if it is a wait and bergen issue. -- weight abd burden issue. it would not take time to develop the initial offer, we might not need to get to its early in this round of decisions. once we have the sworn testimony of share of mirkarimi -- sheriff mirkarimi and mds, lopez, we

might not need that alternative source of information. [applause] id which the audience would let us proceed, like it or not, let us proceed quietly. this is hard enough. chairperson hur: any objections to that proposal? i think that makes sense. let's move on to cathy gordon. >> we may be able to stipulate to her. >> microphone. >> we may be able to stipulate to our participation. chairperson hur: why is it even relevant that she took the sheriff's firearms? >> it was pertinent to the degree to which he was cooperating. law enforcement officers are bound to cooperate.

this is an instance where, and this relates to whether his conduct fell below the standard expected of a chief law- enforcement officer. he will be fully forthcoming and fully respect the investigation conducted by another agency. sure if -- the sure if -- the sheriff agreed that he would turn over his fire arms. he turned over his guns to a subordinate in his own department so that you had a share of -- sheriff keeping his weapons. chairperson hur: let's take a short recess.

>> we are now back in session. i understand the sheriff's deputy is in the room and has an announcement. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. before we adjourned, we were discussing -- i believe he was

in the middle of his remarks. >> the other aspect of why the issue of what happens with the firearms is relic -- relevant. a law enforcement in executive is expected to cooperate in an investigation within another law-enforcement agency. an individual who is a bad ever having access to his own weapons. this is something -- a batterer having access to his own weapons. this is classic batterer behavior. that sheriff mirkarimi abused his wife. chairperson hur: whether he turned over this -- is firearms is relevant to whether he abused his wife?

>> they behaved in a certain way. we expect to present that this type of behavior trying to keep control of an individual, trying to keep control of his own firearms within his own agency, is classic behavior. that is why the testimony is relevant. chairperson hur: thank you, i think i understand your position. comments from the commissioners? not only do i find this testimony relevant, it seems -- it is such a minor witness, i cannot see why we need to hear from this person. why this person is probative to the matters we have at hand. but i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on this particular witness. >> i agree.

chairperson hur: any opposing views? ok. paul henderson, why do we need to hear from mr. henderson? >> he is responsible for coordinating different criminal justice agencies within the city. he would be able to hear about their role of the share of having to make decisions on discretionary budget matters and to work with other agencies within the city and how the existence of probation sentence of faxes ability to participate in those discussions. -- affect his ability to participate in those discussions. that is relevant to whether his conduct fell below the standard that is expected of chiefs of law enforcement agencies, which is to not put themselves in the

position of making decisions that will effect them in their personal position. sheriff mirkarimi is going to be on probation for three years. he is gone to be making a decision in matters -- a decision on matters that affect him. there are a lot of coordination matters where the sheriff has to make decisions on what is going to happen with offenders, whether they will be incarcerated, or subject to house arrest. these agencies have to work together. his ability to make these decisions is going to be compromised. paul henderson's testimony goes to what are the actual ways a sheriff has to interact with other agencies in the city. chairperson hur: that's a very well may be, what i do not

follow is how his ability to perform the job relates to whether he committed official misconduct. there may be an argument that he would be handicapped in his ability to perform his job because of the events that occurred, but i do not think that is the basis for us to find that he should be -- we should make a recommendation with respect to official misconduct. [applause] please. from my point of view, i do not think any evidence you intend to offer about whether he is going to be able to perform his job going forward is something that is not relevant to our task. i welcome your response. >> we disagree. the reason why the disagree is because there is a question of what kind of misconduct is related to the duties of the

office of sheriff. if he is going to engage in contact with his wife that had the ultimate consequence of affecting his ability to perform those duties that relate that demonstrate -- it also shows that he is engaging in behavior that a facts his adequacy as the chief law-enforcement officer. that falls below the standard of conduct under the second prong of the official misconduct task regarding the standards of decency and good conduct we expect our officials to engage in. chairperson hur: commissioners? commissioner liu: i do think

that if the sheriff is taking the position that the misconduct has to relate to something going forward with this official duties, this evidence potentially would be relevant. if i understand you are trying to demonstrate what the relationship or the nexus is between the alleged misconduct and his performance of duties going forward. i thought i understood the shares position to be that the mayor has to establish that connection. if that is the case, i do think this would be relevant, at this witness is supposed to testify about how the alleged misconduct or off-duty behavior could potentially affect someone in the the sheriff's position. i do see the relevance of there.

>> i think the problem is this is a very expansive reading of what the duties are of the share of of san francisco. i understand why the mayor wants to expand those duties so that they can bring in a parade of the expensive expert witnesses. the problem is the duties of the sheriff are limited. run the jail and execute lawful court orders. not much else. all this extra aspirational goals, while they may be very virtuous, are not core duties of the sheriff. for that reason, this witness, as well as all of the expert witnesses, are irrelevant. commissioner liu: is there no

stipulation for what the duties are? >> they are in the charter. commissioner liu: are you having a fund of disagreement with mr. keith about what the duties are? -- a fundamental disagreement with mr. keith about what the duties are? >> i suppose so. 6.102 -- i have to go back and check. i will give these to you in just a moment. only those, nothing more. commissioner liu: can you respond to that, please? >> certainly, the scope of the duties are disputed. there also contained under state law because the sheriff is also a state officer. with the recent realignment that has passed at the state level, there is a lot more discretion

locally with regard to offenders' sent back to this jurisdiction. there's a lot of policy decisions, budget decisions. it is our position that if the ability to perform those duties is affected, in addition to his core duties, all of those duties are important that he be able to perform well. the share of is an elected official is expected -- sheriff is an elected official. we differ very much on that point. >> i apologize. i do not understand whether he can perform his job going forward is relevant to whether he engaged in a wrongful behavior relating to the duties of his or her office including any failure or neglect of an

officer to perform -- meaning -- to perform. what am i missing? >> ok, the portion of the charter that you just cited is the first prong of the official misconduct. we consider this to be more relevant to the second prong of the misconduct. a person who is elected to an office takes actions that disable them from affectively performing the duties of that office, that is something that falls below the right kind that that is required. >> let's talk about the second prong. i have a disagreement with both parties as to what this is supposed to mean. this refers to the standard of decency, good faith, and right actions requir