but it could come in for a purpose of contextualizing the conversation between that woman and miss haynes and what she said -- why she said what she said. chairperson hur: mr. keith's? -- keith? >> this cannot be shown for the truth of the matter. i have doubts about what kind of context it is because the next speaker was miss madison. i do not think it serves any purpose. chairperson hur: this is a

conversation that is going to be, it is clearly at issue between miss haynes and miss madison and i would be inclined to allow it. that objection is overruled. the third objection >. >> i concede this cannot show miss lopez had been not -- had not been able to contact the sheriff. but i think when the sentence is red, the only fair import is that it explains why peralta haynes called ross mirkarimi. she says i called him because and then goes on with the portion they are objecting to. we do not seek to admit it for

that purpose. >> we do not object to the statement because that explains why she made the call. we object to additional information about what she had been doing. that is hearsay and inadmissible. i do not think there is any other evidence that would allow for that to come in. chairperson hur: i would solicit the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> we have allowed the other evidence to come in under the same caveat so we should allow

this as well from the sarah sighed. -- sheriff's side. chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. sheriff's declaration. give this a moment here. -- us a moment here. commissioner renne: i take it the subpoena has been issued for ms. haynes? chairperson hur: it sounds like she is saying she is not available until july. we should discuss scheduling as well as soon as we're done with this. we should address when she is going to be able to testify.

the objections to the sheriff's declaration. is there anything else to consider? mr. kopp, will you be addressing this? >> perhaps i missed something that i did not see objections to his specific a state -- specific statements. >> the sheriff had filed his declaration late so we filed our deck -- objections.

chairperson hur: the first objection. >> i do not think this is an opinion. it is a statement of fact. i feel he can offer in this testimony. >> the charges were dismissed as part of a global plea-bargain. that is different from charge is being dropped. -- charges being dropped. i think what happens at the sentencing speaks for itself and this in jackson and needed ambiguity. 0-- injects unneeded ambiguity. chairperson hur: that objection

is overruled. the second objection. >> in terms of the mayor not telling sheriff mirkarimi why he suspended him, we think it is relevant. there was not a legally valid reason for the suspension but it was an improper reason. that could go to the mayor's bias. >> our objection on this was relevant. there is not a due process claim about whether there is an interest in getting paid or anything like that. this is not relevant. the communications with the mayor and the nature of them, and even if it may go to the bias, did the sheriff thing to the mayor was unfair? clearly he does. i do not think it undermines regarding the validity of the charges.

the charges rise and fall on the facts not on what was going on in the mayor's head. >> what is the purpose of the mayor's declaration? >> it was requested. chairperson hur: the mayor basically said -- as seems there is some relevance and the basis of the decision. i think the share should be committed to examine the mayor on whether what that was the basis, and not being told the charges, i think that is

potentially relevant to that state of mind. >> we dispute the facts of what happened in the conversation between the mayor and the sheriff. putting that aside, we submitted a declaration because we were requested to by the commission and we thought the commission wanted to know what the mayors reasons or for bringing the charges. his reasons are not important but he has some personal knowledge of a standard of -- public official and the standards. why the particular things that motivated him, i do not think those are relevant. chairperson hur: first of all, and i have been wrong before, my understanding was he was on your witness list and we thought that

based on the statements provided for what the witnesses would say he would be relevant. >> we put him on our list after the commission indicated they wanted to hear from him. certainly our feeling was they indicated they wanted to hear from the mayor. we are going to put him on our best. it was as simple as that. this issue of whether the mayor told the sheriff why, i still do not see how that it's to the issue of bias. chairperson hur: therefore says based on his conduct that he conducted official misconduct and is not fit to hold office. in paragraph 6, he decided that

any actions necessary -- he seems to have put at issue his reasoning for why he issued the charges. >> i do not think the mayor submitting a declaration about the reasons that motivated him to file the charges put at issue his motivation on the issue of what happened with regard to official misconduct. what i think it does is says this is the judgment of the mayor about why this conduct is serious. i think there is a difference what is motivating the mayor verses' his judgment that conduct is serious. we're trying to provide the commission what he wanted and this is what the mayor had to get. it is putting aside for the moment what the ultimate

relevance issues are. commissioner renne: have i missed something? are we on paragraph 19 of the declaration? if somebody asked a question of the mayor or the sheriff, one or the other, did the mayor tell you why he was suspending new? -- you? there would be no objection, the answer would be yes or no. i do not understand why we're spending any time on it. it is clearly a statement of fact which a witness could be asked about in any court of law and there would be no objection. >> certainly the mayor has personal knowledge. but on the issue of relevance and what happened in terms of

the back-and-forth between the two of them before the sheriff was suspended, our argument is that is not relevant. commissioner renne: it is not objectionable statement. chairperson hur: we have been excluding things based on relevance. commissioner renne: those are things that go to the substance. if the witness were here and the attorney asked him the question, did the mayor tell you why he was suspending new, and somebody objected, i would shake my head and say he can answer yes or no. nothing to do with relevance. >> i think i understand. chairperson hur: i think i know where mr. renne falls on this

objection. i think it should be overruled. is there a dissenting view from the commission as to whether that line should be permitted? >> at the very least it could come in as background evidence. i do not see any problem with it. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. paragraph 20, line one. >> this is also relevant to that same issue whether or not the mayor has some kind of bias in his decision. it is also relevant to the issue of whether or not there is an adequate investigation done by the mayor before the charges of misconduct were filed. as i believe has been made clear throughout these proceedings,

the investigation was not only not concluded, it was not begun at the time the charges were filed. for those reasons we believe the mayor's failure to talk to the share for his wife about what happened is highly relevant. >> i hate to retread ground but the mayor made this decision when he found out the sheriff is a convict and is on probation for three years of his term. that is when the mayor made this decision. the ida he needs to conduct a further investigation after that, before he can file charges. chairperson hur: ok. please, we are nearing the end of this proceeding. the public has been respectful thus far and we would like that to continue.

none of the extracurricular conversation. >> having made that point, i see the argument we just made regarding the last objection, i would also assume the condition -- the commission arpino's that and they can make their ruling. chairperson hur: my view it is not relevant of anything. i do not see a situation in which that would happen. i do not see the relevance or the value of that. i would strike and permit the remainder. is there a dissenting view to that? the objection is sustained.

para graaff 21. -- paragraph 21. >> i do not see this as his opinion that he has ability, it is really just a phrase that is uttered routinely. i do not see this as his expert opinion that he has the ability to serve as a law-enforcement officer. >> is that the limitation? chairperson hur: sounds like there is a stipulation. the objection is overruled. ok. have we handled all of the witness declarations from the sheriff? >> i believe so. >> yes. chairperson hur: let's talk about the schedule.

we currently have available the 28th of june in the evening and the 29th of june. based on my conversations with council during the break, it sounds like they agree that testimony should begin not today but on the 28. do i have that corrected? -- correct? on the 28, the mayor is going to call the sheriff. do i have that right? >> we will definitely have a witness. i do not know whether it is corn to be the sheriff. -- going to be the sheriff. i want to make sure we do not have a witness who can only come on the 28.

i do not know about that. we will certainly have a witness. it will be the sheriff if no one else. chairperson hur: before we get to that, let's identify which witnesses we currently know we will see. that would be the sheriff, the mayor, ms. haynes. is there anybody else who know with certainty we were -- will hear live? >> i don't think so. chairperson hur: what witness, -- >> both of our experts are available on the 29th.

chairperson hur: is acceptable to defense counsel? >> i have thought so but an issue just came up. i need a moment. that is fine although i should state our objection to the sheriff testifying before the mayor's witnesses. chairperson hur: my understanding is that the mayor tent -- intends to call the sheriff. you want to make an objection to that. >> he should be ready and available. chairperson hur: great. i understand that the mayor based on our previous conversations is available on the 29th?

>> that is correct. chairperson hur: we had discussed the possibility of experts testifying out of order, having been testifying on the 29th. it sounds like they agree that will be ok. do i have that correct? >> there may be no need to take them out of order. chairperson hur: but you still want haynes. >> i do not know about the other witness. we are still deciding. i do not know about the availability of their expert witness. >> i do not have an answer on the former sheriff. i need an indication as to whether they intend to cross-

examine them. >> we agreed to do that on thursday. chairperson hur: i think we need to hear from any experts we have on the 29th. i thought that is what we had discussed and i thought we were also going to get an indication they were available. yours are. >> i can find out in short order. again, i still have not had a chance to digest or read the

expert witness declarations submitted. depending on if we have objections, we may not require them to appear. chairperson hur: on the 28, we will deal with objections to any experts, for their objections to miss madison, in an potentially the testimony of the sheriff. on the 28. an exhibit for, the video. i assume it is no problem for the sheriff to testify on the 29 to for some reason we run out of time.

>> getting our experts on the 29th without knowing whether or not they have to be here is difficult. i guess we will know on the 22nd whether the sheriff wants to cross-examine the experts but we would need to know whether the commission wants to hear from them. i know they start to have availability problems in july. chairperson hur: why don't we plan to have them here. that is what i thought was going to happen. you did not want to cross them and they would need to appear if the commission wanted to question them but that otherwise we would be able to make that decision on the 28 when we see all the papers. >> chief williamson has to travel from san diego. we will make the travel plans as if he is going to be here.

he will have to come on the 28 for that. chairperson hur: he is only available on the 28. >> he asked to travel on the 28. >> my concern is first of all he is a chief of police. being away from his position for two days if he is not going to testify is burdensome for him and for the city to pay for that travel if his testimony is not going to be needed. i was wondering if there could be a way in the advance of the 28th to know whether, we know that sheriff mirkarimi will indicate whether he has interests in cross-examining. i wonder if commissioners could indicate their interest so it is no need for him to appear we will not have to be a burden to the city.

chairperson hur: i am not aware by a procedure we could accomplish that. one thing that comes to mind is we could designate a commissioner and to make that decision. but beyond that, unless we had a meeting to address that, i cannot think of a way to make that happen consistent with our obligations. i welcome other legal advice. >> each of us could look at the declarations and make a decision. i could call you and say, i do not care to cross-examine. individually, we are not conferring with each other. we are simply saying what our

desire is. can we do that? >> is the indication to council would be that anyone commissioner expresses a desire to testify, then i would be open to receiving calls from any commissioner who has that intention and i could communicate that by the 22nd to counsel. the commissioners should not confirm them themselves. >> you cannot discuss this a monster cells carry -- amongst yourselves. you can decide if any of you want it, then you're going to do it, or from the jury. >> solely for my purposes, if this is related to both of the expert witnesses, i would be

able to do it by the night of the 22nd. but not sooner than that. >> it would be helpful for both of our witnesses to know that travel is not an issue. she lives in the bay area. >> but it might be for planning purposes. >> why don't we let you know? we are all in agreement that that is consistent with our sunshine and brown act obligations. >> i do have a problem with pulling the commission. the decision by commissioners expressed an interest to me. if i could pass that on the

council for both sides, i think that works. >> if anyone commissioner one a year from an expert, that expert would be asked to appear. if we let you know that by the 25th, is that sufficient? by the 22nd, we will know whether he will be bringing them anyway i do not think it makes sense to hear from the witnesses before then. >> please do it as you see fit. i am also wondering. maybe we should also do it this way. just so all of the experts are on notice of what is going happen. just a suggestion. chairperson hur: yes. i think that is right.

>> i just want add, once he has one, it does not matter when the others respond. he can just advise us that that expert will appear. that way we would not have to rush to review the material. chairperson hur: why don't we make a deadline so commissioners need to respond by 5:00 on the 22nd -- on the 25th. the 22nd is when you all will tell each other. that is fine. >> we could also hear from the commission by then. >> i can do it. chairperson hur: 5:00 p.m. on the 20 secondary the commissioners will say whether or not want to hear from an expert.