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: ok, good. so if the parties would agree to delegate authority to the chair to approve subpoenas being issued, then i think we can get that out very soon thereafter. is that acceptable? >> yes. >> yes. chair hur: ok, so by the 13th, you will tell us who you want to subpoena, and we will notice them. ok. anything else? >> no. chair hur: mr. keith?

>> mr. waggoner had made a request for a bill of particulars. we would file charges that look more like counts for him to deal with that, the amended set of charges, count one, count two, count three. we can do that shortly, is essentially, provide them with the notice that they are complaining that they do not have. chair hur: ok. when can you do that by? >> by the end of this week. chair hur: is that acceptable, mr. kopp? >> yes. chair hur: great. thank you. >> i would only say for the record that that does not cure the defect for not having spot -- filed specific charges at the outset, and we would like to make that for the record.

chair hur: your objection is noted. thank you. mr. m milledge -- mr. emblidge commissioners, anything else we need to address tonight? ok, then we will take public comment. public comment will be limited to two minutes. i will leave it to officers to identify where people should stand. ok, i have been told that everyone needs to line up on that side.

officer, i am going to leave it to you to manage that process. again, public comment due to the number of people who are commenting will be limited to two minutes. i am going to concerts -- instructed the staff to turn off the microphone at the end of two minutes. you will get a 30-second warning. that is the first ring. after the second ring, the

microphone is going to go off, and we will invite the next speaker of. as a preliminary matter, i want to thank everyone for their patients in letting us get to this point, and we welcome the first speaker. thank you. >> update. my name is -- [gavel] chair hur: i am sorry, ms. brown. let's reset for time. -- hard time. please proceed -- let's reset her time. please proceed. >> my name is -- brown. i am a mother. why are we spending money on this when we have all of our children being murdered on the streets. we have young men that are being murdered on the streets of san francisco, and still no justice,

still no money, no nothing. we can use this money to solve our cases. my son is still laying up there at the graveyard, with a cold case. i say this because i have been here before, concerning the fire chief. i am bringing this up. i have nothing against these people, but, i mean, ross was there when my child was murdered. i support him, because he has been there when our children have the industry. you get a fire chief at be her husband, and you have nothing about that. where are the standards? i've nothing against this man, michael. he murdered his father. he murdered his father. and he still was the assistant sheriff.

the assistant sheriff. where is the standard for that? and not on the that, in jail, he was not a model prisoner. but he came out of jail and became the assistant sheriff. so what do we do about this? we are getting the same stuff with our own children. i mean, where is the standard? what do we do? and when murder happens, i have something to say about it. i have nothing against this man, but he murdered his father. that is domestic violence. that is elder abuse. chair hur: thank you, ms. brown. [applause] >> good evening. my name is paul. i was a candidate for mayor in 2011. i was on the ballot. i came in dead last, but i was still on the ballot, and i stuck

all of the way through. i asked to see how the votes were counted. no one can see. it is done in secret. the count of the vote is rigged in this city. mayor lee is running an organized crime deal. i talked about it during the campaign. we had four, sunshine cases, being charged with misdemeanors, may 24, 2011, when the fraudulently past the park merced development project. they violated the brown act. they violated the public records act. i am a longtime friend of two, including ross mirkarimi. i supported chris in the election last year, and i support ross mirkarimi now. i have changed my position, and i will tell you why. because ross mirkarimi has a sense of integrity.

he may have an ego the size of the rock of gibraltar, but he has integrity, if he does not stand for organized crime, and the reason the sunshine case, you can google it, anyone can google's, this is so important that on march 13, it was referred to you as the ethics commission and the district attorney for enforcement, and two blocked the case. you blocked the case, and the case was filed one week later against the sheriff. you are out of order, and you are violating the civil rights of all of the people of park merced. [applause] >> good evening. my name is antonio. sheriff ross. i am a little disappointed in

that you did not allow -- they say that the neighbor, ivory madison, called, "the san francisco chronicle," said she called in to report that there is a crime, but she did not call the police, after four days, so what is the motivation of that? behind-the-scenes, orchestrating this conspiracy. based on the evidence, he got 38,000 plus a beds. ed lee got over 30,000 plus of votes.

-- plus votes. this is what they want to get rid of him, and this is wrong. dianne feinstein, she endorsed chris cunnie. gavin newsom. all of these people support chris cunnie. they do not support ross be gussied has a different political views. this ethics board, i would like to see the board of supervisors make better decisions. i was a victim of domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon. i have a police recording and all of the documentation, but the system did not help me. [bell] chair hur: thank you, sir.

>> excuse me. could you pass this? >> yes. >> i have ask you over and over. what about my referral to this ethics commission over st. croix and the comptroller's office? i just found out that my cases have been transferred to the center is a city attorney. -- the san jose city attorney. whichever one of you it was, you should recuse yourself from the mirkarimi hearing. you might transfer this case to san jose, where it belongs, because you were all implicated

by not being able to hold a fair hearing. in fact, today, larry bush, the proprietor of a website came out with an article on mine. www.citirejport. -- www.citireport.com, in which he notes that mr. mirkarimi's lawyers is submitted several exhibits, and the second one shows that mr. mirkarimi is being treated and held to a different standard than other city officials, but its ties historically to mayor ed lee. the city attorney, for his part, he took no action on several occasions of official misconduct, that may include the 25 that you have dismissed without any public hearings whatsoever.

there is no difference in this case with mr. mirkarimi, because it seems as if the mayor is played by his own rules, and you are facilitating him playing by -- [bell] [applause] >> my name is barbara. i was struck by an unknown source that took a survey showing 62% support mayor edwin lee. i question the integrity of the ongoing source and question the integrity of the survey. for example, who were members of the sampling, and who conducted the survey? we want to know the name and who took part in it -- part in the survey. for example, was it a small group, or was it spread out over

a mixture of san franciscans? no one is perfect, and that includes mayor lee. how many of you have as much as used a curse word to someone you are involved with, and the pain of the heart was so harmful because the kurds were used came from someone you loved? -- because the curse word used came from someone you loved? no physical pain was inflicted, just a curse word. you should not in person or by satellite have the wife of sheriff mirkarimi, the was voted by san franciscans at a higher percentage than mayor lee. i presume you reviewed the tape recording of the wife who was inflicted more with the pain of the heart, not a small bruise she sustained, that disappeared

before -- before he was inaugurated. i urge you to interview the loving wife, eliana lopez mirkarimi for are making a resolution on suspended sheriff mirkarimi. [applause] >> good evening, commissioners. good evening, commissioners and ladies and gentlemen of the audience. i am submitting this of my public, as. my name is pastor gavin, this is my case 11048 that i believe has been long overdue, and i have been denied justice, a delay and denial of justice by the

political family of san francisco in the memory of edgar, surely, dr. martin luther king, president lyndon johnson, former u.s. attorney robert fitzgerald kennedy, and on behalf of my mother and father, made the rest in peace, mr. and mrs. gavin. the city of san francisco, the ethics office, mr. st. croix, mr. herrera, also district attorney george gascon, and the mayor, they have violated my rights under the americans with disabilities act. they violated my rights, being a woman, being a black woman in the united states. i am appalled by this mr. justice. my case is much older than the case of ross mirkarimi. i should be here in the chambers with you against the