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. 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? >>