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. >> does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos?

no? >> not for the purpose -- not from what we have heard tonight. >> why do we need to hear from phil bronstein? >> he spoke with ivory madison regarding the underlying facts of this case. his testimony is relevant to ivory madison's credibility, and relevant to what i remember some actively said regarding the underlying facts of the case. she told something different to mr. bronstein.

i guess it is hard to compare. are you expecting to receive testimony that is different from what you expected her to testify about? >> we have not been able to talk to mr. bernstein directly. >> how do you know it is going to be inconsistent? >> because he has told others that the only thing that he talked to ivory madison about was whether madison could get phone numbers of three individuals. we believe the testimony between the two would conflict. moreover, mr. bernstein was a former editor of the san francisco chronicle. it goes to the political nature of this case.

on a factual basis alone, the fact stand for themselves. to ignore the politics of this case, to ignore the political reality, to ignore the facts they were key players in this case, and to not allow their testimony would be a great injustice. if i may go back to former mayor art agnos -- i would respectfully request to at least permit us to call him as a rebuttal witness, in the event that, based on mayor lee's testimony. >> i think we can reserve that decision, but i would not preclude that. do the commissioners have views on mr. bronstein?

i am sensitive and cognizant that the sheriff is trying to put on a defense, and i do not want to hamper the defense of the case. but i am really having a hard time, in light of what i heard, seeing how phil bronstein is going to have anything probative. this should not be about politics, which i agree with. i am having a hard time seeing this. >> regardless of what we say, when the live testimony of the mayor or anyone else, you think, would be rebutted by anyone on

your witness list, i, for one, would say certainly you have a right to call them, it goes to rebut it. what we are asking now is, in your affirmative case, the case you are making affirmatively, not attacking the mayor's case, but the affirmative case as to why we should not recommend to the board of supervisors that it go the way the mayor's decide -- those are the witnesses i want to know about tonight, as to whether or not they are going to be called. you clearly have the right to call somebody in rebuttal, if you elicit testimony that is inconsistent with what you know they are going to say. >> and that is probative to the charges.

do any of the commissioners think we should take a declaration? >> not what i have heard. >> not based on what we have heard. lenny de lyon? >> she has worked with elia -- hea hae has worked with eliana z as a daycare provider for their son. lenny had many interactions with lopez. lenny testified as to her demeanor, her state of mind, and

i will leave it at that. >> commissioners? >> it seems to me that based on the breadth we allow for the mayor, with respect to perceptions of key witnesses around the time of the incident, we should at least take a declaration. >> i agree. >> any objections? >> we decided we did not need to hear from mr. keene, because

you guys are going to work out a stipulation. is that still the case? >> i would add the testimony by a declaration is relevant and would be valuable in your deliberations, because jan dempsey, as a retired undersheriff, can testify that sheriff mirkarimi, prior to taking the oath of office, was not performing the duties of sheriff, despite what the city attorney has alleged in their briefing. >> obviously, you are not quick to object to them bringing in a deputy. >> understood. thank you. >> i will try to speak more into the microphone. i have been talking a lot. that is part of the problem.

mr. keene, you have any need, in light of the discussion we had? >> no, thank you. i do not think there is any need to discuss these people. why do we need to hear from nancy miller? >> ms. miller is expected to testify by declaration as to her knowledge of sheriff mirkarimi's presence at a lafco event. >> why is that relevant? >> the mayor has alleged that on that date the sheriff was in gauged in encouraging others to

destroy evidence. -- engaged in encouraging others to destroy evidence. >> is she going to be able to identify specific times? >> yes. >> commissioners, ms. miller? >> in anticipation of that offer, i cannot see how that would cover the whole time frame. an earlier point about letting the defense put on the defense they want -- i would not object to receiving that for whatever weight.

>> i agree. mr. mirkarimi i think we can skip. ms. [unintelligible] >> would only call her potentially as a rebuttal witness to miss florez or ms. lemon. >> i see your point with florez. lemon is an expert. why does nyevez rebut lemon? >> my understanding is that ms. lemon would testify that there must have been some other conduct at issue, or some other instances that would qualify as

official misconduct regarding how the sheriff has interacted or interact with other people in his life. she lived with the sheriff for many years and could provide evidence to the contrary. >> ms. lemmon is not going to be providing testimony about other acts of misconduct. she is going to be providing testimony about the nature of domestic violence, and specifically the facts elicited in this case, and how they do or do not relate to what is known about the most violent. we do think ms. neves should not be a rebuttal to the expert. we would have no objection to her putting in a declaration.

that should be part of what ms. lemon of pines about. why would you see it here and not there, for example? >> consistent with commissioner renne's point earlier, we withdraw her as a witness, and just reserve the right to call her as a rebuttal witness, if that becomes necessary. >> thank you. >> the same applies to libya -- lydia stiglitz. we would only call her as a rebuttal witness, possibly. >> she would waive the privilege to testify?

you are with drawing her as an affirmative witness, right? she could provide testimony as to lopez on a relevant date.

>> i think we should allow it for the same reasons we are allowing de leon. >> i agree with that. anny dissenting views? callie williams? there was an objection to her providing any testimony. has that view changed? >> in light of the conversations and everything else that evening, that has not changed. >> ok. >> you do not intend to call calllie williams? >> no. >> andrea wright?

>> that is sheriff mirkarimi's probation officer, and we would only call her as a rebuttal witness. >> thank you, mr. waggoner. just to recap, art agnos, the commission decided we would not need the declaration. same with phil bronstein. jan dempsey, we expect the parties to reach a stipulation on. john keene, withdrawn. evelyn nyevez withdrawn. lydia stiglitz withdrawn. andrea wright withdrawn. they are subject to potentially

being called as rebuttal witnesses, if their testimony would rebut. >> nancy miller is a yes? >> everyone else is in. >> did i get that correctly? >> on the nose. >> everybody else is a yes. anything else with respect to your witnesses? >> no, thank you. >> i would next like to address scheduling. as the commissioners have said at the outset, we want this to proceed as quickly as we reasonably can proceed. we are trying to open up our schedule so it works, looking at this in an efficient and fair manner.

we do have a room and availability on june 19 to begin the evidentiary proceedings. is counsel available on that date in the evening? we had a start time, but i want to double check with the commissioners. what time are the commissioners available on that day? >> i believe i had initially indicated that i was not available until the sixth. i could be available at our usual starting time of 5:30. >> are the other commissioners available? let us hear from the parties.

>> respectfully, at the outset, june 19 is a full month away from this evening. as commissioner hur mentioned, we anticipate proceedings beginning within five days of the charges of misconduct. >> it could start as soon as five days after. >> no less than five days. >> thank you for the correction. in any event, no sooner than five days. and there is no end date. as commissioner hur mentioned earlier, the import of your comments was that these proceedings and this process should be carried out with the greatest expediency. among other reasons, the mayor suspended the sheriff without pay. this is all dragging.

this whole process requires a tremendous amount of time and effort. we would respectfully request this manner being heard much sooner than the 19th. i understand the director's identification of a time a hearing room is available. but we would be willing to go to any room in city hall to have this manner heard. rather than having it heard one hearing on the 19th, another on the 29th, and the next is july 20, we could easily take up three to five or more separate hearings. i would respectfully request, for the benefit of all parties, that rather than having a date here and a date a month later, and another date a month after that, taking this possibly through the rest of the year, that we pick one week.

everybody get out their calendars and identify three to five days back-to-back in which this whole matter can be heard and dispensed with in an expedient time frame. >> in response, unfortunately, we cannot hold this meeting anywhere in city hall. we are required to hold it in a room equipped for tv. that is not within our control. there are only so many rooms that have that capability. we are limited by that. i would love to have consecutive dates. i do not think there is availability, where we are all available on consecutive dates, that is going to be sooner than june 19. if there is, i would certainly welcome that possibility. how early can you start, or would you like to start?

>> we can start immediately. meaning this week. and next week, or the week after. certainly, there is no need for us to wait until three months later. >> three weeks. three weeks from today. >> from the sheriff's point of view, he was suspended months ago. this case has been going on since january. at what point is enough enough? there is no statutory deadline in the torture that says these proceedings have to be wrapped up by a certain date? >> you have answered my question. thank you. i do not think that we could -- i think that the 19th is unfortunately the earliest we are going to be able to do this. commissioner st. croix has

looked at the schedule of the commissioners. we have full-time jobs. we are just not going to be able to do that. in addition, we need to see these declarations. your side has made objections, and has agreed that, to the extent these declarations do not have relevant evidence, you want us to approve them. i think you are right, but that has to happen before. three weeks, frankly -- three weeks is very soon after now, if you are contemplating a proceeding, taking evidence. i appreciate your objection. you should make a record. >> if it were the 19th, 20th, and 21st, that would be great. a