respective a the lists. we have made rulings today that affect a number of the exhibits. do you want to resubmit exhibit lists tomorrow in light of our rulings today? >> may be just the same exhibit list with a notation of what the ruling was would make sense. for the record of what we have. >> we would like that have until wednesday. we are in the process of filing the exhibit list based in part on the response of the receipt of declarations from mr. mertens and miss madison. chairperson hur: who would be the sponsoring witness? >> they are voluminous. i cannot tell you off the top of my head. chairperson hur: ok. can you describe the nature of these exhibits?

what are they? >> some of them are transcripts of interviews with ms. madison and mr. mertens. police interviews with those individuals. also a transcript of an interview with miss williams. also, other documents we would like to submit relative to the sheriff's declaration. documents relative to nearly all of the declarations. there are many of them and i do not have all of them memorized and ready to go immediately writ i think i could have them by wednesday. chairperson hur: i thought that you all were exchanging the exhibit lists today. i will give you to the close of business tomorrow to its trains them with whatever notations you want. the parties need to exchange so that the -- so that you all can

submit whatever objections you may have to documents and get them to us so that we them by the 28. i expected and that thing the commission agreed with me that we expected to see all documents that you intended to introduce in the case with your declarations. if you are talking about rebuttal exhibits or exhibits that you would use to impeach a witness, to me, i do not think these need to be on exhibit lists. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. it sounds like that is the type of evidence you are talking about. >> to some extent, that is true. there may be some exhibits that we would wish to submit for impeachment purposes without necessarily calling the witness. chairperson hur: you want to

introduce an exhibit to impeach a witness who is not here to testify? to be cross-examined? >> i am not saying we definitely want to do that but i am holding that out as a possibility. given the strict rules of evidence do not apply, we would also have exhibits in mind that we would like to submit in the interest of time. it may not make sense to cross- examine a witness for said. on the other hand, there may be exhibits, transcripts of interviews that maybe probative for your deliberations. >> at that point, you could give them as the other exhibits and testimony that you have admitted or will admit. give them the weight that you think they deserve. chairperson hur: that is not

what i had in mind for how exhibits would work. i know we have a number of litigators on this and we all have our views. i would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners. >> what i anticipated is that each side would supply the other with a list of exhibits they intend to put in. if there are any foundation objections, those would be flaws. hopefully, there will not be or there will be very few. the question is whether or not the document is admissible without any testimony. again, you may have agreement on that. if you do not, then those documents can be identified and presented to us and we can rule on them whenever you want to put them in.

if you alerted us, at the beginning, for those where there is no challenge to the foundation of the document and the only challenge goes to whether or not they are admissible, for whatever reason, there might be an objection. if those are all going to be used in connection with the presentation of a witness, that is one way to do it. the other way is by saying, offering them the case. that is my understanding. chairperson hur: thank you. any other use? >> i did expect -- i know the rules of evidence are being very relaxed, but i did expect the sponsor and witnessed for the exhibits unless there was a stipulation of some sort. when you say transcripts of interviews, what are you referring to? >> miss madison and mr. mertens

and ms. williams were all interviewed by police. there are transcripts of those interviews. similarly to the transcripts -- well, it is not similar at all. earlier admitted the court transcripts from ms. flores' testimony gary >> we reserve on that but that is foreign testimony, correct? >> yes. you do not have to admit them. we do intend to submit them. then you can make a decision whether or not you want to admit them as admissible. >> under your scenario, would we get them in time to allow us to have the witness in person to reconcile the documentary offer

for the previous interview transcript with live testimony? if it came in late in the process, that could make it difficult. if we knew it was coming early on, it might signal that we wanted certain witnesses available. or we might feel that it did not trigger that and it was reconciled without them. >> i am not sure the question that you ask, but i can say that i will get the closing party and the commission, our exhibit list by the close of business tomorrow. chairperson hur: that would be great. if we could have objections by the end of friday. is that possible? >> i am a little confused and

seeking clarification. in the scheduling conversations we had had with commissioner hur, we discussed all together submitting a exhibits and a procedure whereby by today, both sides would submit the exhibits that did not come in through a declaration. that is what we have been prepared to submit. we only have four submissions. we have given to our evidence for declarations. it is unclear to me now if there is a whole new process where we are starting with objections to everybody's documents. are we just talking about this subset of documents or is the door wide open again? >> my understanding was that any documents -- any documentary evidence not submitted with the declaration that you intended to lose -- that you intended to use

would be included on the exhibit list. i am proposing that we extend the deadline until tomorrow because it sounds like there were some technical difficulties and there are some telephone records that needed redacting. perhaps that can all be done and we can have these lists in a complete form by the end of the day tomorrow. that is my point. by friday, i would like to see -- or monday, if that is too soon for it. the process i thought we were discussing if you would meet and confer, stipulate to those documents which there was no objection. if there were objections, there would be submitted so we would be able to rule on them. >> is the commission going to entertain objections to a -- two documents attached to declarations you have are the reviewed? or is that topic close now?

>> if we have sustained an objection to a paragraph that includes an exhibit, that document is out. >> would there be a second chance to object to other exhibits in the same declaration that has party -- that had already been considered? chairperson hur: i was not anticipating that. i think we are all talking about the same thing. please let me know if we are not. >> i am not, in any way, criticizing. it is just difficult to get clarity later if i do not have it today. >> we will endeavor to is to a press release that summarizes all of our decisions today. >> there is one documentary submission that we gave notice of and that is that we will be ultimately submitting some of sheriff mirkarimi under the

party admission rule. i want to wait until he testifies because our submission after he testifies would be smaller than it would be before he testifies. that is, if he is going to testify. there is no need to submit public statements that reflect those facts. what i would like to do is wait until after he has testified to submit those admissions. chairperson hur: i would like to allow a mr.kopp and mr. wagner to address that. chairperson hur: that is fine -- >> that is fine with us. chairperson hur: ok. that is fine by me. >> this chair will be called by you and your case and chief. is it agreeable, mr. kopp, that you or whenever council is

handling it, are you going to wait and put him on when you put your case on? >> we will do it at the same time. chairperson hur: in that case, we would allow some leeway on the redirect. >> the objections to the exhibits will be submitted by the end of the day tomorrow are due when? chairperson hur: the objections should be due by monday. the 25th. again, the point is to give you guys a chance to stipulate where stipulation is opprobrious so that we do not have to deal with an objection every single exhibit. is that acceptable to the commission? anything else that we need to deal with?

>> not on our part. thank you. >> nothing for us. >> i do not think so. chairperson hur: commissioners, do we need a motion to adopt the interim decisions that we made throughout the evening? >> it is a custom. you do not need it but you usually do it. chairperson hur: is there a motion to adopt the evidentiary and scheduling decisions that the commission has made drug the course of the evening? >> so moved. chairperson hur: all in favor. opposed. there being none, the meeting is adjourned.

>> this is a continuation of the special meeting of the san francisco ethics commission, in the matter of the conduct

charges against sheriff mercury me. we begin by taking the role. of commission members being present, we will begin. we have a lot to cover today. i think we should jump right into it. please come to the podium. i understand ms. lopez has submitted a declaration, that the sheriff has submitted it. is she willing to come to san francisco to testify? when can she be available? >> when the commission needs her to be available. there is the matter of how she is going to get here. >> what is the matter of how she is going to get here?

>> it costs money. i am not trying to be flip. who is going to play -- going to pay the airplane ticket? >> you would like the city to pay? >> i would. >> what do the costs in tailbacks -- entail? is this a round trip? >> do i address you as your honor? >> commissioner is fine. >> if there could be advanced notice, the airplane ticket would be cheaper. with two weeks' advance notice, a regular coach ticket round trip from caracas, you are looking at roughly $1,500. it is an approximate figure. my request would be that if she were to come and testify, a tuesday evening or thursday evening, she would fly in

wednesday. she would testify that day and then return home after her testimony. >> the total of the cost is the air fare from here and back? >> i think so. >> can i hear from mr. keith or ms. kaiser on this? does the mayor have a position on the costs of bringing ms. lopez to san francisco? >> she is a defense witness. normally, we would expect a defense witness to pay for it. we would consider their request. i will take it to the mayor. this is the first i have heard of it. i am happy to take it to the mayor. >> i am sorry. i have a couple more questions. if there is not an agreement for ms. lopez to appear live, is she willing to appear by video testimony? >> it is interesting. i have thought about it.

i do not think skype would work. my preference is that she would come here to testify. i have never seen the president of skype testimony. i have a difficult time in my experience. it drops. sometimes it works. sometimes it does not. ms. lopez was also listed by the mayor's office as a witness. >> the sheriff has submitted a declaration in support of the defense. she is here to be cross- examined by the mayor. any witness who does not appear for testimony, the declaration is going to receive little to no weight. given the status of her declaration, her testimony,

whether live or by skype, is likely something that would give the declaration she submitted more weight, because she will have been subjected to cross- examination. >> i believe my client is credible, telling the truth. that is why i am saying i want her to get to be here. >> are you saying you will not make her available by skype? >> i am saying i want to use all my efforts to get her personally here, so you can view her. you can see how credible she is. you can watch her demeanor as she testifies. i am saying my wish, commissioner, is that we get her here, but i figure out some way that she can be present. in a fallback position, perhaps -- i am reluctant to say yes, that she is willing to skype.

it seems to me maybe that would almost forfeit the effort to try to get her to be here. my preference is, and ms. lopez 's preference, is that she appeared before you to give testimony. my plan does not have resources. -- my client does not have resources. her husband does not have a job. i know this is an unusual situation. that is why i am asking -- >> she is outside of the subpoena power of this body. >> i know. >> i am not aware of any authority the commission has to compel the mayor or any other city agency to pay for this trip. if they do not do it voluntarily, our options are video or no live testimony.

>> i appreciate that, commissioners. i am saying to you that i hope that the mayor's office will pay approximately $1,500, so she can be brought here for them to cross-examine her, and you can see her testimony. if the amounts that are unwilling to do it, i will try to figure out some other way. maybe i will have a raffle. maybe i will have a collection. if that does not work, the fallback position would be skype. what i am trying to get across is that i am trying to have it be that ms. lopez gets to appear before you. >> i appreciate that. i agree that her being live would be preferable. it would allow us to evaluate the testimony better than skype. i have done skype examinations. it is better than nothing. you have to work out the details

in advance. >> maybe i can speak with the mayor's representatives, and at the break we can figure something out. i think that is what they would want as well. >> thank you. before we let you go, and there may be some other questions -- are you telling me that she could be available on july 18 or 19, either live or by skype? >> yes, commissioner. >> any other questions while we have heard? if you would not mind sticking around a few minutes? >> absolutely. mr. kopp, this is a witness from home you submitted a declaration

on the sheriff's behalf. i do not know exactly how this would work, to share in the cost of the ticket to bring ms. lopez here. >> not at the present moment. if the mayor were to reinstate his pay, pending the outcome of these proceedings, would be able to get that done. there is the willingness. there is just not the resources. >> i understand. any questions for mr., regarding this issue? -- for mr. kopp, regarding this issue?

mr. keith, when you think you will have an answer on this issue? >> i can talk to the mayor tomorrow. i may not have an answer by tomorrow, but certainly, some time shortly after, i could have an answer. >> much appreciated. thank you, sir. we also should deal with the declaration that ms. lopez submitted, and whether or not the mayor has objections to that declaration. i am not going to require that you make them orally, or that we address them now, given that she would not be testifying until the middle of july. do you have objections to her declaration? >> we do, commissioner, in terms of when we could have them put together, i expect the second week of july. i will not have much time next week to do it.

there is one basic objection that i wanted to call the attention of counsel, which is t of the declaration is not valid, because it does not state it is worn under penalty of perjury, which is required for any declaration executed outside the state of california, to make it a valid both. -- valid oath. if they can cure it, i wanted to give them notice of that right away. >> ok. why don't we have the objection to the lopez declaration by july 9? it is not particularly long. >> i could do it by the 10th.

>> by july 10. if the sheriff would like to submit a response, we can do that by -- a week? july 17? >> i am not a huge fan of capering you folks. presumably, i would be able to make my arguments orally. we have those states down. july 10, for any objections, july 17 for any response.

the next issue, as it relates to ms. lopez, is the video. i understand that you did not submit a brief in response to the mayor's brief. >> correct. what is your position, with respect to the video? >> i would stand on the objections i believe we made previously, that it is here say, not subject to an exception. i know commissioner randy was interested in why you might decide this differently than the superior court. i will reiterate that i do not think the superior court ruling on this issue provides any sort of collateral. i think there is no probity between parties. i think you folks are a completely different body, and you can decide this issue for yourselves.

we believe the superior court wrongly decides the issue. i submit. >> having reviewed the brief, and having reviewed the video, i think the video is admissible. i think that, under the case law, it does qualify as an excited utterance. i think it also could be admissible to indicate physical injury and describe it. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on the admissibility of the lopez video. commissioner liu? commissioner liu: i agree we are not bound by the superior court. but i also agree that, in reviewing the video and the case authority cited in the brief, that it does meet the cr