"private family matter" in its reference to what was happening to you at that time. what are your feelings about that now. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> naturally, i completely regret that i said that, and i made a mistake. i made a terrible mistake in saying that. it was not in the context of what i had meant, and went the statement that was given to me, i should have rejected the statement. >> thank you, sheriff. i am going to move on. only a few more questions. sheriff, between the time that you were inaugurated, for those couple of months that you were acting sheriff, what did you accomplish as sheriff?

>> objection, relevance and beyond the scope. >> what did you accomplish as sheriff? >> i will hear argument. >> part of the mayor's allegations is that the sheriff cannot possibly be sheriff because he is not capable of performing the duties of the office. however, given what the sheriff was able to accomplish while sheriff, that is certainly relevant to that argument into those allegations. >> the argument regarding performance of sheriff does not go to whether he can perform the basic duties or make any certain accomplishments. the argument regarding the duties of share of it goes to the relationship of the duties of sheriff. the basis for our charges is not that he is ineffective or that the sky will fall if he is reinstituted. the basis of the charges is that

he fell below the standard of conduct, and his conduct was also in relation to the duties of the office. >> if i sustain this objection, you're going to maintain the position of whether or not he can perform the duties -- and his effectiveness on the job going forward is not relevant to this investigation. that is what it sounded like you just said. >> commissioners, i do not want to engage in line-drawing on this issue. i know what our position is going to be, but i will give them an opportunity to put in the evidence that they feel they are making it. >> so you are withdrawing your objection? >> yes. >> do you have the question in mind, sir? >> again, please. >> at the time that you served the city and county of san francisco as sheriff this year, what did you accomplish?

>> a great deal. it is, i think, a long answer, but i will do my best to synthesize. i was inheriting a department that had been well-led by my predecessor, sheriff mike hennessey, who had been the longest-serving elected in the history and county of san francisco, 32 years. there had not been an open election for a share of, so there was a great period of transition. part of that transition was my making staff changes and promotions of both deputy sheriffs and civilian staff. making constant rounds to all of our properties, both within san francisco and in san mateo county. being able to change policies so that i would have a more

inclusive administration of lower ranks that had been previously included in budgetary decisions and policy-making decisions. preparing the sheriff's department for what was now becoming the first full year of state prisoners realignment, as propelled by assembly bill 109, and had begun a number of projects that would really elevate our ability of having in custody and post-custody rehabilitation programs, building on the success of the mike hennessey administration in ways that had never been experienced before in san francisco. for example, i had two very incisive and in-depth meetings with mimi silver of delayed see street. we had prepared for the beginnings of starting the first ever reentry potter in the san

francisco county jail, where there would be a lateral or reentry program so that we would speak effectively against the highest incidence of residences -- recidivism that usually occurs in the six months after being released from jail, so our relationship would be piloted in showing what a pod will look like for people would be supervised by delancy st. administration. i was very much looking forward to that pilot project taking off. the second would be with sage, an organization which i did authorize where there would be monies allocated to sage and starting a caseworker program on a part-time, so that women who are then exiting the county jail system would then be welcomed by a sage case worker so that

they would not necessarily go back into the sex worker prostitute industry, and therefore they were being exploited or harmed in any particular way that the sheriff's department within involve itself in assisting them so that it would not return to that lifestyle. the third was i was in longstanding conversations with adult probation chief and the city and state about involving a dedicated reentry pod. we were negotiating the reentry pod and what population of offender it would be four and a negotiating whether it would be women only or men. and that is where i had left the discussion. we were preparing the beginnings of the budget, which the previous-year budget before i took office was approximately $171 million, but this is the first year where the city is

beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel of previous five-year budget deficits, where i was going to advocate vociferously for better realignment programs that would be more effective in reentry. i also sent several letters, both to the police chief and to the mayor and to the city comptroller, about the deputy sheriffs elevating their role in the larger construct of public safety. i believe that we could have saved the city and county money by seeing the division transfer of what is known as the station transfer unit that is now under the governance of the police department to the sheriff's department, because the deputy sheriffs are paid approximately 23% less than the sfpuc officers, and it is a routine action -- sfpd officers, and it is a routine action, and they know they can be alleviated from that by freeing up a police officers so that the sheriff's

department would pick that up as well. i also -- >> sorry to interrupt the witness, but i think we have quite a narrative here, and i would rather proceed with question and answer. >> please. again, i am directing the sheriff so they can -- and that they can tell who is making noises, we have to remove you from the proceedings. thank you. i agree that it is better by question and answer, so the objection is late though, so i will overrule it. but for our benefit, it would be helpful if we can proceed a little more by question and answer on this. >> thank you, commissioner. >> as i prefaced, i will do my best to synthesize, but it is a long -- i believe i was saying about presenting the idea to the mayor, police department, and to the controller in ways of saving

money, but also talking about the role of the deputy sheriffs and their credentials of being peace officers and the city's limits of having a deficit of sfpd officers. there was an opportunity to augment where staff was short period that can be from the routine duties of monitoring inmates at san francisco general, for example, or the courts, where the police would be alleviated from having to do that. because overtime is something the city is quite challenged by. and the math would be well-saved by the sheriff's department. and i went as far as to talk about what is unpopular, ways that we can help with community policing, where i think it is poorly practiced in san francisco, something that, as a supervisor, i spoke about quite vociferously that i think that

our department could have held assisted with, and so on. there's quite a bit more that occurred in his first two and a half months. >> thank you. you mentioned that you sent letters to the police chief and others. you mentioned that you had conversations with the probation in chief. were you able to work effectively with those individuals? what's the objection, calls for speculation. >> overruled. >> yes, and i would say, in terms of the messages they sent me, that only supported and affirmed, i think, the fluid relationship that we had, even while i was engaged in the process at the hall of justice. >> thank you. sheriff mirkarimi, do you think

you can continue to be sure of the city and county of san francisco? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. based on your previous representation of your argument you're going to make. >> yes, i do believe that i can, and i believe that i can quite effectively. i realize the of a battle that has now been laid in front of me -- the uphill battle that has now been laid in front of me. and probably to the eyes of everybody, it would seem almost next to impossible from somebody in my position to try it to rise to that standard. but i campaigned, and i always believed as a supervisor and even before that as a nine-year member of the district attorney's office, as a graduate class president the san francisco police academy, that what makes san francisco special is that our forward-thinking approach when it comes to public safety and criminal-justice, and was very outspoken that in my

administration, part of that acknowledges the idea of what a power of redemption may look like. never in my wildest dreams did i think i would become an example of what that redemptive process could look like, but at least -- but i believe as share of, somebody has gone through this process that has been well and high-profile throughout the country and abroad, and that certainly sets the challenges before me this somebody who is now seen both sides of the aisle, i think helps in a way that people will just open up their minds, can serve as an asset, and what it means to speaking to some of the strengths and weaknesses of the criminal justice system. and the people that come to the county jail system and the people that are in charge of working the county jail system in the city and county of san francisco all have one goal in mind, and that goal is that we hope that those people cannot return back to the county jail system that are incarcerated. i think that if we are, i think,

put to the side of dehumanizing people that are inside that jail system and that we're cognizant of the fact that our objective is to do everything we can so that we do not see a repeat offenders, then i think i, as the sheriff, who has had a career in law enforcement, who has fought hard in this city as a supervisor who took a district with one of the highest homicide rates for 20 years and brought it down with the cooperation of both city and law enforcement and community, that helps prepare me to continue to be, i think, one of the best sheriff's i can possibly be, as i was voted to be for the people of san francisco. >> thank you, sheriff. thank you, commissioners. we have nothing further. >> i will give some limited recross, but within the scope of redirect.

and not more time than he took. >> sheriff, when you were describing one of the ways that you think you can be a good share of, you mentioned that you have gone through this process. do you recall that? >> yes. >> and when you talk about having gone through this process, are you referring to the criminal justice process? >> and the whole experience, yes. >> ok. well, that criminal justice process involved, initially, a charge, correct, on january 13? >> yes. >> ok. >> and then, you were sentenced -- you were convicted and sentenced in march of this year. >> objection, we have been over this. >> ok. >> you mentioned, having gone through this process, the

criminal justice process with regard to what you did on december 31 is not over. are you done with the process with regard to what happened on december 31? >> objection. >> overruled. >> are you referring to probation? >> you are still on probation. >> yes. >> so you're not done with probation. >> no. >> you are still in your mandatory 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling. >> oh, yes. >> and the process of redemption does not happen overnight, does it? >> no. >> and you are aware that the official misconduct provision of the charter does not have a lifetime ban on employment. it is a five-year ban. you are aware of that, are you not? >> i am sorry, i am not. >> ok. sheriff, he mentioned in the

list of some of the things that you had been doing in the two months that you were sheriff, being involved in reentry and preparing for realignment. do you recall that? >> yes, i do. let's ok, and that is an area where you need to collaborate with other criminal justice agencies. >> yes. >> you have to collaborate with the district attorney. >> yes. >> public defender. >> yes. >> two adult probation. >> yes. >> with the courts. >> yes. >> and you are negotiating important issues with these other law enforcement agencies. >> and contracts, potentially. >> which agency will take certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> which agency is best positioned to undertake certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> these are all things that you are -- that reentry at realignment require you to work with your peer agencies as an

equal. >> yes. >> ok. you're subject to the jurisdiction of the san francisco adult probation department. >> objection, has been answered. >> sustained. >> now, sheriff, during one of your answers, you mentioned that there was an uphill battle laid in front of me. those were your words, and uphill battle late in front of me. >> yes. >> ok. sheriff, who put that battle in front of you? who is responsible for that? >> objection, calls speculation. what's overruled. >> me. >> nothing further. >> thank you. >> i believe the commissioners may have questions for the sheriff, so let me open it up

for my fellow commissioners, for anyone who may have a question. commissioner liu? >> thank you, good afternoon. mr. keith read into the record a statement he made in a criminal court, in the criminal proceeding where you apologized to ms. mattison and her family. what exactly were you apologizing for -- to ms. mattison and her family. what exactly were you apologizing for? >> there was nothing specific laid out in the apology, does the tone and tenor of everything that occurred. >> tone and tenor of what? >> the whole experience. >> what experience were you apologizing for? >> it was a general apology. >> were you apologizing for any actions you had taken? >> i had not taken any actions against ms. madison. >>.

apologizing for actions by your representatives? >> no. >> i guess i am is unclear why you made a public apology to her and her family. >> well, it was suggested that i do, and i agree with it. >> de know the basis was for the suggestion that you apologize? >> no, that was provided by the district attorney, and i agreed to it. >> i see. ok. the only other question i have is, how did you come to grab your wife's arm on december 31? i do not want to belabor the point, but i do not think we have heard from you exactly the context of what happens. >> when my wife and i were returning, because i had turned the car around from us going to lunch at about 11:45 a.m., 11:50 a.m. because we had been quarreling, we were both in a very heated discussion.

>> while you were driving? >> yes, yes -- i mean, no physical or anything but a source of heated. i was driving. my wife was in the passenger seat. my son was in the back seat. it is a minivan. he was in his back child booster seat. i parked the car. we got home, parked the car. we were quarreling. both me and my wife for upset. my son was crying. and i was, stupidly, wrongly thinking that i can, you know, respond to this in a way that might calm things down and i reached out to my wife while i was in the driver's seat while she was unharnessing our son. she was half in and half out of the minivan. he was upset. she was upset. and i put my hand underneath her right arm, and that is how it

got bruised. >> ok, i see. last night, you testified that you violated your wife's personal liberty. other than the act of grabbing her arm, is there any other way in which you violated her personal liberty? >> i believe they are referring to what i pledge to, the false imprisonment, 236 refers to me turning the vana around against her wishes when we were on our way to lunch. i was concerned about us quarreling out in public, in a place that did not take reservations, and i just thought that we would take a detour back and either have lunch somewhere else or at home. because our son is needed to eat. and so, we went home and he had lunch at home. >> ok, thank you. >> yes. >> any other questions from the

commissioners? commissioner renne? >> good morning, sheriff. you have seen the tape that is exhibit four, have you not? >> with my wife and the neighbor? yes. >> and is there anything inaccurate that your wife described in describing the events of december 31 that you would say was inaccurate? >> maybe. there are some vague statements that were made on that tape, and i would not know if they would say they are inaccurate but definitely vague. one statement in particular is that -- i am trying to recall because it has been awhile since i have seen the tape, that she refers to -- it was said that i

was a powerful man. i never said that ever. referring back to the questioning earlier, bought by -- by both counsel, i was referring to the powers of the state as it pertained to custody questions. because of the nature of our argument about potential custody and taking our son away for a long period of time. >> but insofar as her making a reference of your having used the term powerful or having something being powerful, that was, in fact, part of the conversation? >> yes, it was. the comment was never -- it is just not my style. but i never said "i am a powerful man." never did i say that.

>> in that tape, your wife also made some statements about the, sort of, a condition about your marital relationship, that is that it is the trouble or there had been talk of divorce, things of that nature. were those inaccurate statements? >> no. >> now, have you read the declaration of ivory madison? >> yes, but since it has been changed, i have to keep up with seeing what the final product is, yes. >> and did you note that there were references to statements that your wife made to ms. madison about the events of december 31? >> yes. >> and were any of the statements that were attributed to your wife by ms. madison, where they inaccurate descriptions of what had happened on the december 31?

>> i believe that there was some embellishing. >> such as? >> well, the "powerful" statement, number one. as it relates to what ms. madison reported, there was no argument inside the house. there was no where my wife left the house, talking about the police. that never occurred at all. >> so it is your testimony that although you continued to argue and have a heated discussion when he returned, turned around and returned back home, once he got out of the automobile, there were no longer any heated discussion? >> that is correct. absolutely correct. >> commissioner hayon?

>> good morning, sheriff. in the text messages that we looked at earlier this morning, there was characterization of the domestic violence advocates with beverly upton in particular where the protests that took place following news of the incident on in december 31 where you characterized those efforts as a political witch hunt. is that correct? >> it was in response to the message i received previously from linnette peralta haynes, and i had repeated the term that was in her previous message, yes. >> i guess my question would be then, in terms of domestic violence advocates and the kind

of protests that certainly have been prevalent in the city of san francisco and with our very progressive record on how we deal with domestic violence in this city, do you consider all of those of vehement protests or anger about domestic violence a political witch hunt in every case? >> no, but in this particular case what i was informed of is that people who were part of that protest were also well- connected to my opponent's campaign for sheriff, and at the time of limited information, that is what people were speculating. >> and if others were speculating, so did you agree with this speculation? was that your conclusion as well? i mean, does the fact that they may have been connected to political opponents in the race automatically make it a political witch hunt? >> not at all, no, but at that particular time we're taking in

information and processing it as we go along. >> ok, thank you. >> commissioner studley? >> you mentioned that at your meeting with the "big guardian," i believe it was, that mr. jeff gillenkirk was at the meeting, correct? >> yes. >> and i understand that you invited him. >> yes. >> what role did he play -- for what reason did you include him in that meeting? >> he had called me and reached out and noticed, i think, that we do not have, really, any media strategy at all and offered any kind of advice, and we did not really know each other at all, but i invited him if he wanted to come join us. he said hardly anything at that

meeting. >> what is his professional background? >> public relations, i believe, or media relations. >> after that meeting, did he work with you on media relations or public relations strategy? >> very little, very little. we have no money to pay, so it is volunteer call here and there. >> did you have a media strategy or public relations plan, in formal plan about what you would do as a media matter? >> they had suggestions, but we really had no plan per se. pretty ad hoc. >> what were those suggestions? >> write letters to the editor, write an opinion piece. i was constantly being asked to do media interviews and, frankly,ui