i appreciate your objection. you should make a record. >> if it were the 19th, 20th, and 21st, that would be great. i apologize. i did get it wrong. it is three weeks out, and not a month. if there is any way possible to have these hearings as quickly as possible, given the concerns you have raised, that is our strong preference, and we will clear our calendars to make that happen. >> and the witnesses. in other words, you can commit to your witnesses be -- being available on whatever dates we pick? >> we would do our utmost to make that happen. >> i wonder whether this is something we can do, or whether

there are hearing rooms available. >> i understand that in a pinch that we could get, potentially, room 263, on some dates. we can set tentative schedules and hope to work out a room. i would like to hear from the mayor. >> we are available on all three of the date selected by the commission. our concern is that we would be able to submit the request for cross examination, so we can then get our witnesses together, and get them to the hearing, those that need to appear. our witnesses have a patchwork of availability.

i am sure we can find three or four that can come. there are rules on which declarations are going to be accepted, which not. i want to make sure the scheduling is part of a larger process of exchanging declarations, and making subpoena requests to the commission, so we can get independent witnesses into the hearing. >> a scenario that may be palatable to moving this along is we have the first or the next installment of the hearing, as

stated, on the 19th, that evening, at 5:00. there is an ethics commission monthly meeting the following monday. >> i am not here on the 25th. i would clear the deck for almost anything else, but i chair a federal commission. >> we have the other hearing on the 29th, which is 10 days after the 19th. i will try to isolate a couple of nights between those two, if it is humanly possible. >> arthur dates -- are there events where there is evening availability? between the 19th and the 29th of june?

>> this is june 19 and 29? >> this is between the 25th and 26. >> i expect to be away the 27th. >> so, the 28. >> i could meet on the 20th and 21st. >> any problems with the 20th or 21st? >> i can make myself available. >> 20th, 21st, and 28 in the evening. any objection? >> we have all day in the 29th

available. any objection from the parties to any of the dates we have discussed? >> i think that with the need to send out subpoenas and make rulings on the decorations, and how witnesses to get here, we will need to know -- we will probably only find those things out on the 19th. it would be hard to get a witness in on the 20th or 21st, if we are only getting a ruling on the 19th. we do not have a problem with getting these hearings close together. the problem might be having so many days in a row immediately. >> mr. wagner? -- waggoner? >> as to any rulings on admissibility or testimony, we are certainly fine with how we

have had the chairman decisions on those matters. >> even the admissibility of evidence? >> yes. thank you. >> why don't i solicit the mayor's view on that? >> i think on a lot of these evidentiary questions, there may be differences of opinion within the commission. i think we probably need to have some of the decisions made at a hearing. there are always issues that are somewhat easy, but it is hard to sort out the easy ones. >> ok. i think if there is a dispute among the parties, i do not even think it is worth bringing it up at the commission. i think we would need a stipulation on that sort of delegation.

ok. here is what i propose. i propose that we have mr. st. croix look at the states and see if we can get hearing rooms. -- these dates and see if we can get hearing rooms. we will do our utmost to get witnesses. i know you have a bigger burden, because you are first. we expect live testimony from a number of witnesses. we do not expect to get declarations from many people. perhaps plan accordingly, and be prepared to have those witnesses testified early on. now let us work backward from the 19th as to deadline for submission. are the party is prepared to submit declarations on june 5?

that is one week from today. >> on back witnesses, i think we will need two weeks to get all the declarations in. another issue is that there has not been any discovery. sorry about that. there has not been any discovery in the case. the sheriff still has documents we do not have, like telephone records. we are doing our utmost to get those. we are doing our best to get them as quickly as we can. we are at a disadvantage compared to the sheriff, with regard to crucial information that can resolve some of these credibility disputes. i understand the commission desire to move very quickly.

i think we really need two weeks to get the declarations in, and to get some of the things we have been unable to get from the sheriff. >> experts, you think you can get earlier? >> we would normally expect to get our declarations -- we do not want our experts to offer with the facts not in. we could do our declarations shortly after that. >> do you have a view, mr. kopp? >> we would be prepared to submit a witness declarations in one week, on june 5. we would submit all our declarations on june 5.

>> yes. >> obviously, you did some investigation before hand, perhaps continuing. from whom could you get a declaration by that date? >> it is not a matter of who. it is a matter of how many, and just trying to get in touch with people. i have a couple of witnesses who are not available i think we could get a lot of them, but we could not get all of them. it is a matter of how many and schedules. >> what about june 8? would that be doable? that is kind of a compromise. >> yes. commissioner: of the witness declarations by june 8. any objection to the witnesses?

can we get it by the 13th? is that doable? >> and we also have the request for cross-examination be do at that time? commissioner: ok, on the 19th the we will discuss it. i think the mayor should be prepared to call witnesses. i am not sure we would get to that, but i think you should be prepared to call the witnesses on the 19th. >> how many?

chair hur: how about two? if we get beyond that, we will do our best. thank you. with respect to experts, went to the party's proposed having -- having an expert declaration ready to go? >> well, we have your experts. we could propose to get a declaration, certainly before the 19th. possibly as soon as the 13th. chair hur: with the 15th work? you are going to get -- yes, how about the 15th? >> i think that will work.

chair hur: ok, just to recap, so we are all clear. june 8 will be the deadline for submitting of facts from which a party tends to rely. june 13 will be the date for objections to fact witness declarations, and those should identify specific paragraphs to which the parties are objecting. that is also going to be the date for identifying which witnesses the party would like to cross-examine. june 19 -- excuse me, june 15 will be the date when we receive export declarations -- expert declarations. can we receive objections on the 18th? that really does not give us much time, so --

>> i wonder what the experts, perhaps the commission can reserve the rulings or later, because i know there may be a lot of questions about relevance that goes to a lot of the legal issues, so it might make sense to reserve a ruling on the experts. chair hur: we can reserve ruling, but we would want to get the objections. is the 18th doable? >> i anticipate that we are going to have the majority of the objections, so, i would like more time than the weekend of the 16th and 17th. as a matter of fact, if there would be a way for the commission to hold off on the admissibility of the expert witness testimony until sometime after the 19th, that maybe the best way to go. perhaps we could go --

chair hur: how about you guys make objections by the 20th, and then we will rule on it sometime after, whenever we can meet, hopefully before the 29th? is that acceptable? >> yes. chair hur: the same about the experts, that it be paragraphs specific. i'm going to assume that experts are going to be cross-examined, but if either party feels the need to have a separate disclosure and your intent to cross-examine an expert, let me know. do you want to have that separate? >> yes. they may not want cross at all. chair hur: ok, on the 20th,

please also indicate whether you want to cross-examine the other parties expert. mr. keith had mentioned discovery. what about taking the evidence on june 19? >> we do not think we need anything. we think this case should have been prepared for presentation prior to filing a written charges of official misconduct. i actually did some historical research to date to find out that in the mazzola case, it was prepared prior to mayor moscone bringing those charges. that is apparently what should have been done, but i do not

think they need to countenance that preparation. we have already got a significant burden in front of us to prepare for the 19th. we do not need to complicate that i have a discovery, in our case. chair hur: mr. keith? >> well, i think this goes back to an issue we raised at the last hearing, which is the duty of a representative to cooperate, and these materials would have normally been provided to us. they would have been given to us by the employee, and if the employee did not want to cooperate, they would resign. this is typically the way these things go, and this one has not gone that way. we have been going to the court. from our standpoint, most significantly are the telephone records described in the criminal action. our hearing is not until june 5,

so we are on a very tight timeline. what i would like to do is get discovery of this telephone records. chair hur: a stick, hold on, before he speaks. -- ok, long on. you are willing to go to the evidentiary hearing based on the -- >> quote-unquote, they used the term "discovered." it should be a package of information that they have. they should not have to search their records. it is there. we but like to get that. various witnesses. it is impeach material that we do not have. chair hur: so you are talking about the materials the prosecutor turned over to the sheriff during the criminal action? >> yes. chair hur: ok, and this is going

to be heard by the superior court on the six? both issues >> no, only the telephone records will be heard by the superior court. chair hur: have you -- >> i am sorry. we have also move for enforcement of a subpoena for the materials obtained in discovery. -- we have also moved. chair hur: and that is for the fifth as well? >> yes. chair hur: ok. mr. kopp, i am sorry. you started to speak. >> we have release the records to the mayor. these all go to the allegations of witness persuasion. we have offered to disclose more than phone records in an effort to narrow the focus of this enquiry. we have not had a response yet, but, no, we do not believe that is because charges of official misconduct were filed that the

sheriff has to hand over every phone call he has ever made within eight to w o -- within a two-week period, and we're also not aware of a defendant in a criminal action to disclose this to the mayor in this type of a proceeding, and i note that the mayor has not gone and served subpoenas on the d.a. for this material, so, i mean, i do not think that the sheriff was under any duty to turn this information over, and as i said before, i think they should have been ready to prove the charges when the charges were filed, so i do not think there needs to be any additional discovery. chair hur: my view on this is if the court, the superior court is going to judicata this issue on june 5, at the parties can make the court aware of our proceeding.

-- going to adjudicate this issue on june 5. that this commission not make a ruling relating to matters that are about to be adjudicated by the state court. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners and the parties to that view. >> i concur. >> there will be discovery in this proceeding going along side with the proceedings are happening in superior court, so i do not think there is a barrier to the commission said and we are going to have discovering rules, each side submitted a discovery request, and i also note that some time a superior court order, the court may issue an order on june 5. they may continue the matter. they may order the parties to meet and confer further. there may be an appeal on the other side, which went and deprive us of evidence at all, given the time table. these are my concerns with just

going along the superior court track, even if we sort of quote- unquote go along. it deprives us. chair hur: i welcome the views of the commissioners. commissioner: i agree that the superior court is already holding -- handling this matter. i do not think we should rule on it. chair hur: any dissenting views to that? yes, i agree. i think we should let the superior court action play its course, and as far as the mayor's ability to use the subpoena power to get documents, i do not know that we would have the ability to do this at any event.

that is where we are now. there were a number of legal issues that the parties agreed, and i, for one, very much appreciate the raising of those issues. i think deferring the final decision and perhaps further discussion on issues like whether the plea is sufficient in and of itself or other legal issues that we ask you to brief, that we should defer those until after we hear the evidence. is the commission in agreement with that? [commissioners say, "yes."]

ok, bennie think that the party is they we should address tonight? -- anyone think that the parties have something we should address tonight? >> -- chair hur: i think you can make that request. i would not live in your ability to make such a request after the court rules on the issue. >> i am sorry. i may have misspoken. i may have misunderstood something. i meant for the commission to issue subpoenas to witnesses that it wishes -- chair hur: ohy, i am sorry. yes.

so you are going to identify the witnesses and an object by the 13th. i welcome views from commissioners. my concern is that we likely would want to issue a subpoena 10 days in advance. which means we would be issuing subpoenas or witnesses whom we may not need. at least one thing i am done in the past in civil matters is that you issue the subpoena. the subpoena is for on call. the parties and the commission agreed that witnesses will just be on 24 hours'' advance notice on what the available dates are, and we do not have to have is

this a date with in that time period. >> i just note that when the commission issues a subpoena, it does it under its own authority. we do not have a problem coming to this commission multiple times to ask for a subpoena. i just want to make sure that we know what their rule is. chair hur: maybe i should defer. well, let me get views from the commissioners, if there are any thoughts on that. commissioner: i thought your 10- day suggestion, it may be a little difficult to do it, because they may not identified who the witnesses -- identify the witnesses. to an extent that a witness is coming is a city employee, that there is not a need to get a subpoena? >> yes. we will do our very best with scheduling. chair hur: ok, so we are only

talking about the witnesses that either party does not have control over. jason schmidt. >> yes. chair hur: bob this is a question for mr. st. croix or mr. emblidge. if a witness does not appear, because we might have been issue if we issued the subpoena too late. >> i do not know if there is any standard that governs us, but we generally leave lead time in when we do them, so we have never had an issue with that. they are usually about two weeks

in advance. >> my understanding is every single time. a reasonable time requirement. chair hur: maybe i should ask you this. mr. keith, the witnesses you intend to call, do you expect any of them to be hostile in a sense that there is likely to be a challenge to a subpoena based on timeliness? >> ms. lopez, with her being in venezuela, i do not see us being

able to subpoena her. ms. haines, and the other witnesses, we can telephoned them, of course, but i think from our perspective, we would like to be able to subpoena them to make sure they can show up, and that would be madison, williams. >> -- chair hur: ok, so it sounds like from your list, lopez and haynes -- ok, why do we not do this. why do we not do this by the 13th? and are the parties, and i will ask the commissioners, too, are the parties an agreement that the chair can actually -- does the chair need to sign a subpoena? the commission? >> no. chair hur: