officers, including any violation of a specific conflict of interest. i did not see this as one standard for the sheriff, one standard for the mayor, one standard for the board of supervisors. this is one standard for all public officials. to me, it makes mr. henderson's testimony all the more irrelevant. >> the argument from us would be that each public official is under a duty to perform the duties of office to the best of their ability. they are expected to do that. you have to look at their ability to perform the duties is affected. the standard is the same, we expect all of our officials to be able to perform the duties of office. what does the sheriff have to perform?

commissioner studley: cannula explained a limitation that potentially affects -- can you a explain the limitation that potentially affects his duties to carry out his office? >> i will defer to my colleague on that. she came prepared to speak to these sorts of issues. commissioner studley: thank you. >> commissioners, first of all, i would like to back up to the legal points you were just making. about their only been one standard of conduct. these sorts of conduct codes of professional conduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, it is formulated in many ways. the supreme court has always upheld these against vagueness challenges by saying that it is not a one size fits all conduct.

it is specific to the office that the person holds. under this established law, interpreting these sorts of conduct clauses in terms of the biggest challenges, which is being raised here. -- vagueness challenge. chairperson hur: i understand your position on that. if, for example, four attorneys or doctors or any other profession, a standard of care and a rule requiring that they not fall below the conduct for lawyers or doctors or accountants, they are held to that standard. my point is aside from this challenge, this appears to refer to a standard for public officials. public official being the relevant body of individuals.

not that you can extrapolate from the fact that yes, these standards, when applied specifically to a profession, can be used, but that this is referring to the specific profession. >> the mayor would disagree with that. there is a different standard of conduct imposed on a chief law enforcement officers that is not the same standard of conduct that is imposed on an elected dogcatcher. mr. mirkarimi did not run for a job that was devoid of these extra responsibilities. he is both elected and a chief law-enforcement officer and a chief jailer and a department head who will have to deal with many other department heads. not every elected public

official has that constellation of duties. we do have experts coming prepared to explain what it is that is inherent in a sheriff's job that sets forth the standards of conduct for that particular position. chairperson hur: thank you. questions from the commissioners? >> i am going to try my question again. what is the offer of proof you are making about what stands in the wake of his ability to carry out the duties of the office going forward? is it time and? or is it something else? i am trying to focus this on what you are saying, what is the

limitation that to -- under which you believe he would suffer that would impinge on carrying out the duties of office? it relates to several different witnesses entering number of expert witnesses. >> i am not prepared to give you a complete list today. for example, the sheriff has to work in harmony and have credibility with other department heads in the criminal justice system. this sheriff would be on probation and negotiating policy decisions and important determinations about great entry with the chief of the adult probation department, whose staff member would be supervising the sheriff. it creates incredible conflicts of interest.

it creates difficulties for other city officials and figuring out how to proceed, whether they can have confidence in this sheriff, whether he will continue to obey the professional standards that he has already once broken. conflict of interest is one problem. another problem is the morale of the office. being an example of how best to in prison people is gone to be very difficult once you have been convicted of unlawful leak imprisoning one's own spouse. a lot of this -- on lawfully -- unlawfully in prison in one's own spouse. there are many duties of the sheriff's office that are affected by his particular conduct and by the sentence that was imposed on him. these are not un connected

items. for example, there are a number of cases in california lot of about the effect of being convicted of possession of marijuana on one's ability to practice one's profession. invariably, for law enforcement officers, correctional officers, these people are being terminated and the courts are upholding the termination because there is a relationship between that criminal act and their duties. at the same time, a real-estate broker, the court says there is not a clear connection between that profession and that crime. we are trying to show that the acts here that are being alleged or in relation to the standards of conduct for a chief law-enforcement official. commissioner hayon: i appreciate

your explanation. i do think perception is very important. in a law-enforcement officer. i think the question would be, which witness would be most appropriate to lay that groundwork? there are several witnesses on these lists, expert witnesses, or this particular individual, and that we do not need to hear from all of them, but perhaps hearing from one who can talk about, you know, the value of -- or the conflict inherent in someone who has been convicted to something who is also a law enforcement officer. it would be valuable to hear how bad is problematic, but i do not

think we need a whole list of people to talk about that. who is most appropriate? we also have a former sheriff on the witness list. perhaps he is someone who could address some of that, i do not know. there are too many people to fill that category, so maybe we could just come up with one individual who answers those questions. >> i would like to explain why the different individuals are on the list. that might help to deliberate about what will be the most important. chairperson hur: why don't you answer that question first? if you had to choose one of these witnesses, who would testify about itthe effect the actions would have on his ability to perform his duties going forward, but with that witness be? >> as we understand it, and as we have presented, it is a two-

pronged question. we need to present the factual basis of what the sheriff does. and then we would have to present expert testimony on how does duties are affected. we are happy to follow your direction in terms of when a win them down. it is hard to say -- winnowing them down. it is hard to say. that we can locate that in one particular person. the intent was to offer mr. henderson, to offer the acting sheriff to talk about the current responsibilities. in particular, to talk about the particular relationship between the sheriff's department's and probation. we think that is probative. if you wish for us to narrow down the approach to the

question and not to focus on cooperation with other city agencies, or not focus on the efforts of the probation department, and why those are polluted, or why it is that inside the sheriff's department, there are conflicts with the duties, we are happy to limit that. but there is not one person who can testify to all of those things. we do believe they are all relevant and all important and worth hearing. even if the commission finds it to be overkill, we do not know what the board of supervisors is ultimately going to conclude when they reviewed the record. we would ask that the commission air on the side of over inclusiveness for that reason. even if you do not want to hear testimony, even if you want to bypass this witness, we would

like the opportunity to get this important testimony into the record. we do think it is relevant, we do think there are decision makers would like to consider it. chairperson hur: other questions? i must say that i am -- i think all of these witnesses who were talking about the alleged impairment to perform the duties going forward are not relevant to what we are tasked to do. it is a narrow fact-finding investigation as to whether conduct that has already occurred is official misconduct. giving testimony about the relationship among various agencies, getting testimony about the duties and whether he can perform them, i do not see the relevance. but it appears there is disagreement among the commissioners about that. if there is, i think we should

discuss it. it would greatly affect the scope of the testimony. >> as i read the briefs, i believe the mayor was proposing to introduce this evidence because of the argument being made that to the misconduct, if it occurred, was not in relation, or was not connected, with his duties as sheriff. and what the mayor argues is that there should be some relationship, and cites a number of california casement -- cases of law enforcement personnel who were terminated because of

speeding violations and the court talked about the fact that law-enforcement official has a special set of duties that a violation of the law which might not affect a non-law enforcement officer. that is what i understand this testimony is in for comment to say, to about the argument being made by the share of -- sheriff that these acts are not related to his duties. therefore, he does not fall under the grounds of being suspended or put out of office because of "official misconduct." i do think i agree with the

statement that it seems to be you ought to be able to put that in the under a single declaration, or two zero at most -- or two at most. the fact that somebody is on probation, or that somebody may have pleaded guilty to false imprisonment, somehow disables them or her from operating as a sheriff. >> there is no question that we carry the burden of proof on that point. we want the opportunity to bring the testimony. we want the opportunity to give you the materials to reach an formed conclusion about whether the allegations are right or wrong. just saying they are right does not make it so. the other problem that we have

is a problem that you discussed earlier. o board and the problem of -- avoiding the problem of hearsay. if we only have one witness, we will not be able to have a witness who satisfies the evidence code. and who meets the high standard of presentation that he would like to see. that is part of the reason why we have been a very thorough. we think we are trying to give you a thorough, solid, sound a record on which to base your decision. that has been the impetus for creating these lists. it is not an attempt to snow you. chairperson hur: we appreciate that. we would not suggest that you are trying to drown us in paper or anything like this, but this procedure does contemplate a

hearing taking place as soon as five days after the official charges. one of the reasons why -- the elected official is suspended without pay during the time that the ethics commission and the board adjudicate the matter. i find it -- to me, i find it hard to believe that we need to have witnesses talk about every single element of how the sheriff can or cannot do his work, when this is something we should be able to do within five days of the charges. commissioner studley: i found the comments about the issue that this might go to to be convincing. i also see this as very different from the testimony of ms. flores, which runs the risk

of taking us into very 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 i think it might illuminate the difference, if there turned