welcome to this special meeting of the ethics commission. we will begin by taking the role. commissioner studley: here. commissioner liu: here. commissioner hayon: here. commissioner renne: here. chairperson hur: we are here to conduct the hearing by the proceedings instituted against the khmer by the sheriff, -- againste sheriff, evidently objections. because this is going to be one continuous hearing, we will not be taking public comment today. we will be taking public comment at the end of the evidence 3 portion of the hearing. -- the evidentiary portion of the hearing, based on which witnesses are called to the

hearing, which evidence is included. it could be over as early as june 29, although it depends in large part on how the evidence comes in and which witnesses are actually called to testify. the second issue i would like to raise is one that was raised at the last hearing. we appreciate the public attendance at this hearing. i think it is important that the public is here. we certainly welcome the public to be here. that said, we are trying to conduct a hearing that we are required to conduct under the charter. as a result, if we could keep comments and any noises from the crowd to a minimum, we would appreciate it. we have law enforcement here to help us in that regard, but i

hope there will not be an issue today. the first thing i would like to address are the sheriff's objections to the mayor's witness declarations. the mayor submitted a number of declarations. to me, i think we may be able to handle this most efficiently if we actually start with the declaration of the key hennessy -- vicci hennesy. i would invite the mayor to respond to the objections

propounded with respect to vicki hennessy. >> i am appearing for the mayor. i am sheri kaiser. honestly, i am a bit at a loss to address the objections to the declaration of share of -- sheriff hennesy. sy. the declaration is that the duties and powers of the sheriff, contained in this declaration, are relevant. i do not understand that objection. one of the elements we have to prove is that the misconduct occurred in relation to the duties of office. in order to do that, we need to provide evidence to you of what the duties of office consist of. the acting sheriff certainly has a foundation and the knowledge to tell you what the duties of

the office of sheriff are. i believe, unless you or sheriff mirkarimi has questions, this is limited to a declaration of how the office functions, and standards of professional conduct for the share of as the sheriff understands them to be a duty of her office. chairperson hur: questions from the commissioners for ms. kaiser? mr. kopp or mr. wagner, do you have a response? -- or mr. maggonerwaggoner, do u have a response? >> our response is founded upon the fact that we have a very different view of what the

duties of the sheriff are then the mayor appears to have. we take more of a literal list or strict constructionist approach -- literalist or strict constructionist approach. we believe the duties are spelled out in the charter, which is why we did not object to that portion. the rest of what acting sheriff hennessy has to tell you will be irrelevant to your determination of whether what he is charged with doing constitutes official misconduct and is related to the specific duties enumerated in the charter. much of the is an enlargement of those core duties. that is the basis for our objection. chairperson hur: any questions for mr. kopp from the commissioners?

thank you, mr. kopp. >> may i respond? chairperson hur: no. i understand the parties have a different view whether and to what degree the actions in this case relate to the sheriff's duties. given that there is a legal dispute about that, and that the declaration of sheriff vicki hennessy does purport to relate to the duties of the sheriff, that it should be admitted, and the sheriff should be given an opportunity to cross-examine if he so chooses. i welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners, with respect to the hennessy declaration. commissioner liu: i agree that the job duties of the sheriff are at issue, so it seems like both parties are agreeing that is an issue. whether we have competing and

differing facts about that, i think that is relevant, and that should come in. chairperson hur: any dissenting view as to the admissibility of the declaration? like we did last time, i think we should do is not take a vote on every one of these, but at the end, we will take a vote on all the decisions we are making. i would ask ms. eng or mr. emblage to help us keep track of the decisions we have made. >> it seems to me it probably would be better if we did, for example -- i think there is no objection from any members of the commission to the introduction of interim sheriff

vicki hennessy. we have an awful lot of these we are going to have tonight. some may get lost. i think if there is not any objection, or if we agree with your ruling, i would prefer that we indicate on the record that there was no objection. chairperson hur: any dissenting view to that? ok. i am happy to do that. is there a motion to admit the declaration and exhibits of sheriff vicki hennessy? all in favor? a post? the motion -- opposed? the motion passes unanimously. next, we should address the declaration of paul henderson. do you have anything to say?

>> once again, this declaration has been objected to in its entirety on relevance grounds. i suspect the issues are similar to the last declaration we just covered. again, there was no explanation of what the relevance was, exactly. mr. henderson's declaration goes to city operations, of which the sheriff is a part. it goes to city efforts to combat domestic violence, and how city agencies have collaborated in that effort to gather, -- together and with the community. it explains the sheriff has a duty and responsibility with regard to that city would work. -- citywide work. it concludes that domestic violence advocates who are

working directly with deputy chief of staff henderson, and are informing him directly of their efforts, are no longer willing to work with the sheriff' if ross mirkarimi is at the table, because of the incidents under consideration. i believe that is relevant to the duties of the sheriff's office. it may be that share of -- sheriff mirkarimi does not believe that collaborating with the community is part of the office, but this is evidence that it is, and it is relevant. even if the commission finds to the contrary, this evidence is relevant. as for the final three paragraphs, which art objected to a speculative, lacking

foundation, and purported to be an opinion, they are not speculative. they are a recitation of the fact mr. henderson has learned as the director of public safety issues for the mayor's office. they also recite the conclusions from a number of city reports that have been generated as official city documents about the ways in which combating domestic violence in san francisco can be successful, or can fail. chairperson hur: thank you, ms. kaiser. any questions for ms. kaiser from the commission? would someone from the sheriff's team like to respond? mr. kopp? >> thank you. to enlarge on our objection, this is part of the mayor's effort to expand the duties of the sheriff.

the reason is clear. it makes it easier for the mayor to prove his case. but the problem that we have, particularly with this declaration by mr. henderson, is he is telling you about these fundamental responsibilities that the sheriff has that are nowhere to be found in the charter. that is why we have objected there is not a foundation for this. mr. henderson wants to tell you the share of pass to convey to the public that domestic violence is a serious matter of public concern that is never acceptable. maybe he does, and maybe he does not. if a sheriff or to take office and not at any time in his or her tenure say domestic violence is a serious issue, i am pretty sure the sheriff would not be subject to renewal from office for violation of his official

duties. that is the problem with this declaration. it purports to add to the actual duties of the sheriff. i think in a clearly improper way. that is the basis for our objections. chairperson hur: thank you. my view on this declaration is that, while very informative, i do not think it is relevant to the task we have. he is not in a position to tell us what the duties are of the sheriff. i think, to the extent we need to know those duties, we can get them from the sheriff or from vicki hennessy. i am inclined to sustain the objection. with the objection

16 to 18, i agree with the relevance objection. i also agree with the foundational objection to paragraph 17 and 18. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners with respect to the declaration of paul henderson. >> i would move that we not admit the declaration. chairperson hur: is there a second? all in favor? opposed? there be none, the motion passes. the declaration of paul henderson will be excluded from evidence. the next declaration is the declaration of when the stills. -- wendy stills. ms. kaiser, would you like to

address that? >> i would like to offer to the commission, to the extent foundational objections are being offered, we can address those by having the witness testified and find out what the objection is. that is often the case in court, that it can be handled like that. that is a strategy for resolution on foundation issues. in terms of the declaration of the chief probation officer, she has testimony of direct relevance. she can offer testimony about sheriff mirkarimi and his probation, which is part of our showing of misconduct. the term is escaping me. i was going to "the actual words. in any event, she can provide

evidence of that. she also provides evidence of the relationship between that misconduct and the duties of the sheriff, not just any share of, but sheriff mirkarimi, who will be reporting to her as a probationer if he remains in office, and also sitting at the table with her to collaborate on fundamental policy matters, like realignment and other issues that affect multiple criminal justice agencies. the mayor and retains the position that the sheriff is not an island and does have duties to collaborate and cooperate with other city agencies. adult probation is one of them. it is a very important collaborative role. it is the mayor's view that the duties of the sheriff and the information about probation contained in the declaration are relevant and admissible. chairperson hur: thank you, ms.

kaiser. any questions from the commission? mr. kopp or mr. waggoner? >> i am trying to focus commission attention on what we think are the real issues, here. the real issues are not whether or not there is going to be in difficulty presented by having a sheriff on domestic violence probation. that does not relate to the inquiry. it was official misconduct. again, for many of the same reasons that we argued against the admission of mr. henderson's declaration, we do not think that this sheds any light on the issues you have to decide. for that reason, other than the of -- the portions we agree are relevant, para wraps 19 through 25, -- 22, and the specified

evidence, we do not think this should come into evidence. >> is it your position that the fact that the sheriff would be on probation during the time he is in office is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mayor acted properly in saying he could not carry out the duties of sheriff? >> i would have to answer by saying that i take issue with one of the premises of the question. the inquiry is not could he fulfill the duties of sheriff. i do not think that is what the commission needs to decide or should decide. i think the inquiry is was what he did official this conduct. -- misconduct. in politics, people may get elected that do not get along with other members of the city power structure. they may work well together, or

they may not. i see this question posed in the same light. >> my question is that even if you find somebody committe it it absolutely necessary that he or she is put out of office. there can be other forms of punishment. we know that has happened. so you have to focus on, don't you, the fact that one is an official misconduct, and if it is, does the fact that he committed this act in some way adversely affect his ability or her ability to carry out the duties of the office? is that not an issue? >> respectfully, i would answer that it is not. chairperson hur: any other questions for mr. kopp? thank you, mr. kopp.

my view on this still is that the objections to paragraph one through 18 should be sustained. there being no objection 19 through 22, or exhibits 36 through 41, i think that testimony should be admitted. i am cognizant of the concern that mr. renne and other members of the commission have voiced as to the relevance of the effect the sheriff's conduct may have on his ability to perform his job being relevant to the inquiry of whether his act relate to his duties. i think i have expressed the view that i do not think the 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 emergency protective order on the sheriff at the time of h