consequences of those acts are relevant to whether or not the actions were official misconduct. given the diversion of views by the commission previously, i think it would be helpful to admit the first sentence of paragraph 26, and paragraphs 27 -- i am sorry. i would admit, starting with the second sentence of paragraph 26 and the remainder of para rep 26 and 27. my proposal is that we sustain the objection to one through 18, and exhibits citing therein, the first sentence of part of 26, and her group 28. -- and paragraph 28.

i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ms. kaiser, please take a seat. we have given you an opportunity to speak. if any commissioner wishes to ask you a question, we will ask you. any questions for the parties from the commissioners, or comments? commissioner studley: i have a comment about why this seems challenging to me, and it relates to the last part of the definition of official

misconduct, which we have not yet parsed, and which i expect will be a challenging interpretation of what the voters intended. it is conduct that falls below the standard of decency, and good faith, and right action, required of all public officers. it is important to me, in relation to some of these statements and some of the information -- at this point, i am with you in not thinking about the consequences of the action. i am wondering whether there is something imbedded in the conduct requirement about the capacity to carry out the job going forward that we will -- we might want to have the basis for discussing later, when we review this interpretation. i am hesitant to be too narrow

in bringing in the facts we may need later when we talk about how to interpret the conduct that falls below the standard for faith and good action required of public officers. chairperson hur: in my attempt to be sensitive to that concern, i do not think one through 18 would help us in that regard. to me, those paragraphs are about what it means to be a chief, and i do not think that is relevant to our inquiry. i think we are talking about are paragraphs 25 through 28. commissioner studley: would 25 be under your -- chairperson hur: it would not. it seems fairly conclusive, in

general, and to me much more prejudicial than probative. but it does address an issue that you and mr. renne have identified. i can understand the concern, with respect to those paragraphs. commissioner studley: would you just restate what you would keep? chairperson hur: i would keep become the beginning with the second sentence of paragraph 26 through the remainder of that paragraph and all of 27. commissioner studley: i am fine with that. i am fine with that.

commissioner liu: i was struggling with paragraph 25. i thought it was speculative. i would be happy if we could keep in the portions you said. and the progress that are not objected to by the sheriff. -- paragraphs that are not objected to by the sheriff. chairperson hur: is there a motion? commissioner studley: so moved. commissioner liu: second. chairperson hur: all in favor of sustaining the objection to perhaps one through 18 and the first sentence of 26 and paragraph 28, all in favor?

opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. curve of 28 is excluded. her graphs 19 through 22 are admitted. -- paragraphs 19322 are admitted. -- paragraphs 19 through 22 are admitted. the next declaration is the declaration of richard danielle. >> i would like to make an objection, for the record, commissioner. you have gone paragraph by paragraph through a declaration, based on objections of which we had no notice, without any opportunity for us to comment. i have explanations for why, based on your objections, the testimony was admissible.

and i would have appreciated for my client's sake the ability to present those to the commission. i object to the procedure of entertaining objections that were not raised by the sheriff without giving the mayor and opportunity to speak. thank you. chairperson hur: you have nothing with respect to mr. danielle? >> i am making a record of my objection to commission procedure on the last declaration. chairperson hur: i was asking for your response to the objections to mr. richard danielle. in response, before mr. keith gets up, to your point, we are trying to provide both parties the opportunity to give their views on the evidence. i think we did that. the objection that was sustained was the one that was put in on the papers, which was the

irrelevance. i think you had adequate opportunity to respond to that. we provided you with that opportunity. i am sorry that you feel that way. we will certainly endeavor to provide both parties the opportunity they feel they need. we also are trying to conduct these proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. mr. keith? >> the objection to the declaration of inspector danielle, i will take the objections to the exhibit separately from the objections to the testimony. there were objections to paragraphs 27 through 32 of that testimony. 27 through 31 relate to the handing over of the sheriff's

firearms. it begins with the service of an emergency protective order on the sheriff at the time of his arrest, an agreement made by the sheriff and his attorney with the police inspectors to turn over weapons, and statements by the sheriff with regard to the number of weapons he had, which ended up not being true. the objection that is made is relevance. the reason this information is relevant is that it is relevant to whether sheriff mirkarimi met the standard of conduct expected by a public official, and specifically by a law- enforcement officer. the law enforcement officer is inspected -- is expected to be honest in all aspects related to an investigation. it includes a declaration by chief lansdowne. not being accurate or truthful

about the number and location of weapons in response to questions from inspectors falls below the standard of conduct, especially of the chief law-enforcement officer. the sheriff did not turn over the weapon to the san francisco police department. that is relevant because he chose to retain those weapons within his own department, thereby keeping the weapons within the control of his department, which is a violation of the emergency protective order, and puts his subordinates in a position of, unbeknownst to them, recovering those weapons, even though the breeches an agreement the sheriff made with the police that he would give them the weapons. the way this was resolved is that the court issued an order to the sheriff's department when it found out what happened. the transcript of the court

proceeding that was before the judge in the superior court -- when she found the weapons were with the sheriff's department, she said they needed to go to the police department. the issue of the number of weapons was not brought up. she transferred that to be -- she issued an order that those weapons be transferred to the police department. she recognized that this was not the correct thing to do. for all of these reasons, we view of this information as relevant to the commission. and one of the objections is to exhibit 7. that is the order issued by the court, to turn over their weapons to the police department. exhibit 4 is, of course, the video, and i think we should probably take that separately, because it is a different type of objection. chairperson hur: i agree with

your proposal, with respect to the video. any questions for mr. keefe, with respect to mr. danielle? commissioner liu: this issue with the weapons and turning over the firearms are not being truthful about turning over the firearms -- what the hell does that go to? what is it we have to resolve about that? which count is that relevant to, in terms of your amended charge? >> it is a duty of the office -- i am sorry. it is a duty of a chief law- enforcement officer to cooperate and be truthful in an investigation. that is part of the analysis, whether the conduct fell below standard of decency that was expected. that would be to the fifth and

sixth charges, which are standard of decency charges. one is to being a member of the board of supervisors. the other is to being a sheriff. one should not lied to police officers about the location and number of one's weapons. it is certainly more severe for a sheriff. chairperson hur: just to be clear, there is no factual allegation. >> there is. it is in effect on narrative. i can provide those to you. it is paragraph 26.

the act of dishonesty is not mentioned there. the issue of him retaining the guns in control of his own department is framed in the charges. chairperson hur: thank you, mr. keith. any other questions for mr. k ieth? >> i am sorry. i should add one other reason this is relevant is it is the behavior of the sheriff engaged in, and relevant to the expert

opinion regarding batterers and firearms. chairperson hur: i am sorry to interrupt you. is the sheriff's office in here, or law enforcement? can we bring law enforcement in here, please? sir, if you could please help keep order within the hearing room, we appreciate a little help. thank you very much. pardon the interruption. >> this is relevant to the opinion regarding batterers and firearms. the relevance is discussed in

paragraphs 82 through 84 of her declaration. chairperson hur: i would and by -- invite mr. kopp or mr. waggoner to respont. -- respond. >> i admire creative lawyering as much as anybody. i am almost at a loss. the original return charges gave no evidence about this. there is a real danger, without being flippant, of permiting this to morph as we go along. we could end up with a situation whereby the time we are all done, we get a new amendment, with new issues to deal with. i think these paragraphs in this exhibit are irrelevant.

they are of such little probative value that it is a waste of time to even be talking about it. that is the reason for our objection. i am happy to answer any questions. chairperson hur: setting aside the question between paragraph 26 and the london declaration, what about the argument that her graf 26 -- that paragraph 26 has to do with alleged failure to transfer firearms appropriately? why isn't the testimony relevant? >> i do not think that is relevant to any of the charges, here. i am not sure that i can elaborate any further on that. chairperson hur: any other

questions for mr. kopp? here is my view on this. i do not think that the alleged dishonest statements have been sufficiently alleged in the charges. i do think the charges to sufficiently alleged the failure to appropriately transfer the firearms. that said, in light of what i thought this hearing was going to be focused on, i think it is a close call as to whether we want to open the door to allegations about whether it should have gone to the police department or the sheriff's

department. without the allegations relating to dishonesty, it does not seem like even if we were to find that this happened that it would constitute official misconduct. all of that is to say i am inclined to sustain the objection to per crapo 27 -- two paragraphs -- to paragraphs 27 et cetra. -- et cetera. any other questions from the commissioner specs --

commissioners? is there a motion to sustain the objection to the paragraphs in exhibit 7? commissioner renne: so moved. chairperson hur: what did i say? 27 through 32. commissioner renne: so moved. chairperson hur: is there a second? is there a second? commissioner liu: i will second. chairperson hur: all in favor? opposed? the motion passes, 4-1. paragraphs 27 through 32, the objection is sustained.

they will be excluded. exhibit 7 will be excluded. we still have the issue of exhibit 4, the video. i would like to reserve discussion of the video until we get through some of the other decorations, if that is ok with the commission and the parties. any objection to that? ok. the next declaration is that of callie williams. mr. keith or ms. kaiser? >> chairman, if i might suggest, i think a lot of the admissibility arguments may turn on the arguments about the admissibility of the ivory williams decoration. the argument might be too abstract if we do not go first to ms. mattison.

chairperson hur: here is my concern. we received that declaration only recently, and i do not believe the sheriff's team has had an opportunity to submit written objections. in scheduling discussions i had with the parties, i did ask if the council could be prepared to orally discuss the objections, if any, to ms. mattison. are you prepared to do that? ok. why don't we -- >> i am. chairperson hur: thank you. [inaudible] chairperson hur: before we get

to -- i think it is a good suggestion. before we get to ms. madison and ms. williams, i have a couple of questions, in light of the rulings on the other witnesses. do i understand that you will not -- obviously, you will not have any need to cross-examine paul henderson. do you have any need to cross- examine wendy still? vicki hennessy? richard danielle? i guess we are waiting on exhibit 4. are you going to be challenging the chain of custody of the video, or anything like that? >> no. chairperson hur: no need to cross-examine? >> correct. chairperson hur: that is helpful. thank you. >> i thought i put this in an e- mail. it is possible not everybody got it. chairperson hur: you did?

i may have missed it. thank you. the other thing i wanted to ask was about christine florence -- florez. there was potentially a loophole in the order. we did not request objections to testimony. we did not receive any objections to the transcript. does that mean you are not checked into the -- objecting to the testimony submitted with respect to ms. flores? >> i may have misunderstood. i think i made clear our objections at the last hearing, that we would continue to maintain an objection to her testimony as being not relevant to the issues, given the fact that the sheriff has already submitted his declaration concerning misconduct. the only reason i can see that

ms. flores, her testimony might -- testimony might be relevant, would be if he denied that. i have not submitted any thing in writing yet. i do not recall the timing. the information to not come until after the bulk of the -- chairperson hur: i think we got them with the fact witnesses, as i recall, but maybe you can elaborate. >> there was, i guess -- the order only spoke to declarations, so it did not occur to us. we did put it in with our objections, but it did not cross our minds. i do not begrudge my opponents the opportunity to submit a written objection. i think it probably would make sense. chairperson hur: do you have a response to the oral objection with respect to ms. flores? >> yes.

again, i was not anticipating we would raise the subtraction, but i think i can outline the issue. we're certainly happy to provide further information. this is an important issue. in domestic violence-related cases, the evidence code permits the admission of other acts of domestic violence. the legislation has recognized that battering conduct happens repeatedly by a better. they have made a special determination that this type of evidence can be admitted to be considered about whether the domestic violence incident actually occurs. in addition, this evidence is relevant to nancy lyman's declaration because of the severity of the incidents as described.

those are the basic reasons we believe this is invincible. -- admissable. chairperson hur: what about the argument that the physical abuse is not being disputed in this case? >> i think it is. we will find out, perhaps -- when we do hear from the sheriff, we might find out more information than the sentence or two in the declaration. certainly, the account ms. lopez gave signified an incident which looked a lot more severe than an arm grab at the end. this is certainly relevant. chairperson hur: i think he might -- the commission might

benefit -- to the commissioners have questions for mr. keith? do any members of the commission have views on this floor aztecs -- ms. florez? commissioner renne: i have serious questions as to whether it is relevant and should be admitted. i am not convinced at this time that it is relevant to the issues we have to decide, in spite of the fact that you say may be in a trial of domestic violence it might come in. i am not sure, in view of what will be the sheriff's testimony, i think it is more prejudicial. the testimony, as i understand

it, was taken in camera, because the judge felt it was something that should not be a public record, at least at that point. maybe you can answer the question. was it ever released to the public? >> it was. the hearing occurred over two days, and it was a 402 hearing, which is fairly standard, when this type of evidence is permitted. the judge had initially had it closed. he opened it on the second day. the materials did become public. we have checked with ms. flores. she was comfortable with us submitting this. the judge did not necessarily -- the judge, i think, held an in camera hearing for her benefit more than anybody else. it was not the evidence was -- and the domestic violence issue has sensitivity. t