lopez, ms. madison, ms. haines, mr. mertins, and mr. hennessey. i think the last few people are people who i could see potentially coming in by declaration if they must testify. here is how i would like to proceed with this. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on first, whether there are folks i have mentioned who we think there is no need to hear testimony from. secondly, if there are people who why it -- who i committed

to and i would like -- who i omitted. when the parties address this, i would like to hear from any witness you think we need testimony and who is not on the list that we discussed, i want to know what charge that testimony would relate to. let me open it up to my fellow commissioners. anybody on the list who you think is -- we do not need to hear testimony from or it is an open question that we should reserve until later. commissioner renne: when you went through this list and said the witnesses who you thought would possibly -- we possibly should receive testimony, were you referring to live testimony or by declarations subject to cross-examination or both?

chairperson hay commissioner hur: the individuals i would like to hear from is the sheriff, the mayor, and ms. lopez, if she's available to testify. others i think could come in by a declaration. if a declaration is submitted, i think we probably need to open up that witness to cross- examination by the other side. it is not necessarily the case in my mind that a witness who submits a declaration would not appear. i think they likely would appear if there was any controversy as to their testimony. commissioner renne: i wonder if i could ask a question of the

city attorney and the sheriff's council if they know the answer. when the charges were filed and there was a preliminary hearing, wasn't there live testimony and wasn't there a transcript prepared? >> are you referring to the criminal charges? commissioner renne: yes. >> i believe there was not a preliminary hearing. there was a whole set of various proceedings in criminal court. i do not think they included a preliminary hearing. i may be incorrect on that point. >> i may be able to shed some light on this. it was not a felony proceeding. there was no hearing where witnesses would have to show probable cause. there was some pretrial hearings but i think there was limited live testimony at those hearings.

>> he is correct. >> do you know who did present live testimony at those hearings? >> i know that ms. christofor--a flores and ms. lopez may have testified extremely briefly. generally speaking, i do not think there was any testimony. on the merits during these proceedings in the criminal action. commissioner renne: thank you. commissioner hur: other views of the commissioners on this issue?

chairperson hur: perhaps we shiould -- should invite the parties to address this. we welcome other side -- either side to come up first. >> thank you, chairman. from our standpoint, we do not want to have so many witnesses and by stipulation, we may be able to eliminate a few of them on background matters and we have been working toward doing that. our other proposal would be to speed along the proceedings by proceeding by declaration. rather than having a ruling from the commission that we do not want to hear from this witness,

perhaps what we would like to see it would be that witness simply testified by declaration and there be an opportunity to cross-examine but perhaps a time limit on cross-examination so we could move things along and stay focused. there was one witness i think that we would want to have that probably would need to come for live testimony, that would be ms. williams. she was another one of the people who ms. lopez spoke with on the fourth and observed her demeanor on that date. chairperson hur: you agree that the other people we need to hear from live for the sheriff, -- are the sheriff, the mayor, and ms. lopez? >> mr. merton and --

sheriff hennessey. we would like to get that testimony before the commission. we do not want to lose the opportunity to get chief still's testimony. to talk about how a three-year term of probation will affect the share of's ability to perform his duties and how it might create a conflict for him. chairperson hur: i appreciate your concern. with respect to witnesses appearing by a declaration and we should address that but i want to focus on live witnesses right now. you were saying that the people you think we need to see live r. michael hennessey, the mayor, ms. lopez, mr. merton, and ms. williams. during have that correct? >> i do not think the -- we need

to hear from a share tennessee. >> i thought you did. >> i was filling out the list. he probably would not be on the list. we do have our subject matter experts. chairperson hur: what is ms. williams going to offer to us that is relevant to any of the charges? >> we expect ms. madison's credibility to be attacked. ileana lopez told a consistent story. the fact that ms. williams is telling both of these witnesses a similar story career breaks m -- corroborates ms. lopez's

story. areas important that her testimony be heard on that matter. -- is important that her testimony be heard on that matter. chairperson hur: what is she going to say that is related to the dissuasion allegation? >> she received either e-mail or text messages telling her to not go to the police, what i told you earlier was confidential which is different from the conversation she had with ms. lopez at 1:00 p.m. >> what is the connection between the statements and the allegations against sheriff mirkarimi? >> that he encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade ms. williams. chairperson hur: please. we welcome the public here and many of you waited to get in.

it will have your opportunity to speak. please allow us to go through our proceedings. i would appreciate it. you have a witness that is going to make that connection? between suggesting that the sheriff' encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade other witnesses? >> it would be the inference that would be drawn from the fact that ms. lopez so dramatically change to position between speaking with ms. williams at 1:00 p.m. on january 4 and 7:00 p.m. that night. when she spoke with ms. williams at 1:00 p.m., she was expressing a fear for safety. she told ms. williams she was glad that ms. williams would be able to hear her if she screamed. in that -- when the evening rolled around, ms. lopez's expression toward ms. williams had changed completely. during the intervening time,

there were numerous communications between the sheriff and ms. lopez. mr. merton testified to getting a message from buzz lopez to dissuade him -- ms. lopez to dissuade him from testifying and he heard sheriff mirkarimi in the background. that the sheriff was aware of these dissuasion efforts and participated in them. chairperson hur: in -- is there any more in respect to ms. williams' testimony? thank you. we will invite mr. wagner or mr. kopp to address this issue and deal with a declaration issued. >> we would concur with what chairperson hur state. th- -- stated. that -- i don't thnk that --

think that live testimony would serve any other purpose. i want to respond to something that mr. keith just said. this red herring of witness dissuasion has consumed an incredible amount of time and effort and energy and it does not -- should have no place here. what mr. keith just told you is not true. mr. mertons was interviewed by the police and was asked, did it sound like the sheriff was feeding his wife lines to tell you, to try to dissuade you? the response was no. it sounded like he was on another phone call together. this has been a complete waste of time and an effort to

publicly tar the sheriff with something that is not just on provable, it is false. -- unprovable, it is false. chairperson hur: cat i invite you back up? -- can i invite you back up? the list you provided was longer than the list i provided. i apologize if it was not clear. who we need live are -- i put together a list of 3 witnesses we would need. the mayor, the sheriff, and miss lopez. -- ms. lopez. council has added mr. mertons and ms. williams. who i want to address, lynette

haines, and ivory madison who was also on your list. do we need to hear from ms. haines live? >> i am not sure can answer that question. it depends. we're hopeful that ms. hens will provide a declaration. we know that she has been concerned about some of the efforts that the mayor has gone to to try to interview her, subpoena her records, etc. i am hopeful we will obtain a declaration to provide you. depending on what the commission thinks of such a declaration, you will be in the best position to evaluate whether or not you need to hear from her life. chairperson hur: ok. ms. madison? >> we will not offer testimony by miss madison. we will make the decision after

we see the declaration if we want to request she appear for cross-examination. we do not think she is a necessary live witness. chairperson hur: you do not intend to call anyone who is not on the list except for the sheriff? >> we believe the central live witnesses are the sheriff and the mayor. everyone else is subject to whatever information is provided in their declaration. as far as the mayor's witnesses go, we may perceive declarations and agree we do not need a cross examiner. we can argue our case based on what is in the declaration. i am not trying to evade your question. i am telling you i cannot necessarily answer it before i see the contents of their proposed testimony. >chairperson hur: when you list that many people in your list as affirmative witnesses, it does create some confusion but i get it now. is ms. lopez going to testify?

>> we hope to have her testify. she is in her native country. her father has cancer. that is an open-ended question. even if she remains there, we're hopeful if we can make arrangements for her to testify remotely via skype or facetime or some other form of communication. we would like to have her testimony whether it is live or by video. there are family considerations are going to come first. chairperson hur: ok. any other questions? one other question for you.

what is your position on the relevance of kelly williams? >> probably no relevance. chairperson hur: how is she different from ms. madison, if at all? >> i do not know if ms. mattison has will and testament. the sheriff has stated that he grabbed his wife's arm in a domestic argument. that is i think the substance of what ms. madison and ms. williams will tell you that ms. lopez told them. i am not convinced they have anything that you would need to hear. chairperson hur: thank you. >> before you leave. in view of what you just said,

have you asked the city attorney, if we stipulate to those facts that you just said, will the city attorney agree that there is no need to put on witnesses who presumably are primarily going to testify to what ms. lopez told them happened? >> not in so many words. but just to give you a sense of what is happening. i believe it was last monday or tuesday. mr. keith and ms. kaiser sent us a fairly -- a fairly long stipulation. we look to the that over and gave them our response. end of last week. that fact was included. i did not say, if we -- the commission does not need to hear from ms. madison or ms. williams. we have not fleshed out to that

extent yet. i'm not going to leave. >> i am sure you will be back appear again. -- up here again. >> we should take up the issue of witnesses by declaration. i appreciate that declarations are less burdensome for the fact finders that live testimony. that said, i am still concerned -- i do not want a situation where because it is just declaration, the parties can submit whatever they want regardless of whether it is relevant. i would like, even if you intend -- even if your view is that some of these people should come in by a declaration, i would like to know who on the list you would like to come in by declaration and why they are relevant to our proceedings. >> one of the benefits of this process of the back and forth regarding witness list and the

briefing is we came to the realization that with a volunteer commission, we cannot have a three-week, eight hour a day hearing. it is impossible. from our standpoint what we're proposing is essentially to do everybody by declaration. even those witnesses who we put in should be left because we expected there to be cross- examination. if they do not want to cross- examine ivory madison, we will put in her declaration. we will put in declarations for one and subject her to a bright of cross-examination. -- a right of cross-examination. chairperson hur: do you object to that? are you comfortable with the procedure of direct examination going in by a declaration and cross-examination live? >> i am comfortable with the procedure, yes. i'm not comfortable with the idea that they're giving 25

declarations and we will have relevant -- to 22 of those. i do not think that is unfair not just to the commission but to us. i think that all the subject matter -- i will stick to the fact witnesses if you like me to. there are things -- many witnesses that we do not think will offer information that is relevant. then we have to submit something in writing why we think testimony is not relevant? chairperson hur: i will give you the chance to address that. is there any objection by which examination comes in by declaration and cross examination is done live? that is something we had initially talked about last time. >> i have no objection. it would streamline the proceedings given our limited

capacity as a volunteer commission. i know that everyone wants this -- we do not want this to drag out. i do have the same concern about narrowing the witnesses so that it is not everybody under the sun. so that we are not poring through 50 declarations trying to figure out the relevance. commissioner studley: i am wondering if there are places where we would have questions about the declaration but the sheriff does not have cross- examination from their perspective. i wonder what we would do under those circumstances, how we would -- because we have the ability to ask questions as well when this live testimony, whether we could get clarification on the declaration

if the share of's council did not seek to win. -- weigh in. chairperson hur: i think that is a good point. i think that could be addressed. we could subpoena the witness if we thought we needed to examine them and the parties not indicate they would appear live. >> i have no idea if that will happen. i do not want us to be left without the ability to clarify simply because the sheriff did not want to pursue that particular offer of proof. thanks. chairperson hur: are the party is in agreement that anyone who appears by declaration but does not appear for cross-examination that their testimony would be

disregarded? >> yes. >> no. we're not. if the commission is going to take care say outside -- hearsay outside the california evidence code, the wiser course is to accept declarations and give them what -- whatever weight you think they're worth. i can also envision -- they're trying to bring in evidence subject to the hearsay rule. we could bring in hearsay evidence to undermine that evidence. the better course is if there is a witness who submits a declaration and does not appear for cross for whatever reason, you accept it and give it whatever weight you think it is -- it deserves. chairperson hur: which may not be very much.

>> it may not. as i mentioned, we do not know what is happening with ms. lopez. if we cannot work out something where she can testify for molly, we might want to have a declaration. chairperson hur: thank you. any further comments from the commissioners about the procedure, whereby we would examine or have live witness testimony? >> did i a understand you to say it is your intention to submit a declaration on behalf of putting aside those who might come left? everyone else on your list, you intend to submit declarations? >> we would submit a declaration for the mayor, for every current city employee, and every independent witness that is not -- a witness who was not affiliated with the city who would agree to do it. i will -- we will do our best

and work with them to accomplish that. there is one witness who is hostile to us. ms. haines. we would probably want to subpoena her for live testimony. chairperson hur: let's go through your witness list, then. i want to hear why we need to hear at all from some of these people. why do we need -- what is inspector becker's testimony going to be and what charge in your charging document is this related to? >> both inspector becker and -- were the domestic violence unit investigators said they serve the collection of evidence. they did personally observe ileana lopez and testified to

her demeanor. they interviewed ms. -- >> why do we need to hear -- if we are going to hear from ms. mattison and ms. lopez and mr. merton, why do we have to hear from inspectors becker and danielle? >> we would attempt to limit their testimony to the demeanor of ms. lopez and the summary of what they did. >> how is her demeanor going to help us decide whether or not this contract has occurred? >> it pertains to the dissuasion count and to what happened between her and the sheriff. the sheriff has maintained there was a single grabbing of her arm in order to protect his son from his wife. and we disagree. we do not think the facts match

that. the facts were different as ms. lopez told ms. madison and ms. williams, it was a much more serious conflict between her and the sheriff. every piece of evidence that bears on her demeanor and mental state and the credibility of her statements at different times is relevant to the determination about what happened between the sheriff and ms. lopez. chairperson hur: why would we need the inspectors? >> we may not. chairperson hur: if you have to choose one of them, who would it be? >> without looking a great deal, we can go with one of them. we can select the one that has the most information about the conduct of the investigation and the observations of ms. lopez and others. chairperson hur: at least one of

these witnesses should be removed from the list? >> could become a yes. -- could be, yes. chairperson hur: it is important for the commission to reach resolution on this. for each witness, i will some -- solicit views of the commissioners and so we can do with them one at a time. views on the commissioners on inspectors becker and danielle? commissioner renne: i shared your observations and wonder why we need either one of them. it is up to the city. chairperson hur: you're not convinced that we need -- the commissioner renne: