remove an elected official for official misconduct is purely discretionary. you agree with that? >> i believe that it is a duty through the charter. san francisco charter. >> you have the discretion to decide whether you are going to attempt to move someone or not? >> yes. >> is it your position that every public official who is convicted of a criminal offense is guilty of official misconduct? >> i think it is a case by case basis. >> merely being convicted of a crime does not constitute official misconduct? >> i believe in this case, it does. >> that is not my question. my question is, does the fact that an elected official is convicted of a crime, does that

constitute official misconduct? >> i believe i have answered that. it is a case by case basis. >> there are some credit card -- criminal convictions he would not seem to be official misconduct? >> possibly. >> like what? >> i do not know because i have never been confronted with this before. >> well, what a conviction for driving under the influence be official misconduct? >> that requires speculation. >> overruled. >> potentially. >> you are aware that there are many members of the san francisco at sheriff's department that have suffered criminal convictions? >> objection. foundation. >> i do not know. >> would that affect your opinion about whether or not criminal convictions mean that is official misconduct? >> objection.

misstates prior testimony. >> misstates prior testimony objection is overruled. >> maybe. >> ok, are you aware that -- strike that. you are aware that he hired people to work within the sheriff's department and a criminal records? >> i believe so. >> as a matter of fact, his third in command was a gentleman who had been at to state prison. >> no, i was not. >> in the you believe in san francisco, the determination of what is official misconduct may be governed by a different standard than other jurisdictions? >> i only know of the charter that i am confronted with and the decision i made.

>> before you made the decision to file written charges of official misconduct against sheriff mirkarimi, did you consult with people about that decision? >> i did consult with people. i consulted with our city attorney. >> i do not want to ask you about any conversations that would be protected by the attorney-client privilege? can you tell me the other people? >> we object on the basis of the deliberative process. this particular line of questioning. >> i will hear argument on it. >> the deliberative process privilege exists in order to protect the decision making process of higher policy-making officials who need the freedom to consult with the people who

they deem relevant and you also need to offer to people who wish to come to them, the opportunity to do so without having their names disclosed in court. there is a case directly on point, california supreme court case, it is about whether or not the governor has to disclose the names of the people he was meeting with in this calendar. the california supreme court says no. for these reasons. >> my response would be that the mayor himself has put that in issue in a declaration in which he stated at line 7 on page two, i consulted with others. there was no need for him to put that in if it were not relevant. i would consider that to be a waiver. i would like to ask better or not he has had conversations with any of the board of supervisors about whether or not he should file these charges. i think that would be highly

relevant evidence about whether there was an attempt to somehow influence the very body that is going to make the ultimate decision. >> what if we allow you to ask that question? >> then i will ask it. >> will you withdraw your prior one? >> i will. >> before you decided to file written charges of misconduct, did you talk to any members of the board of supervisors about whether or not you should do so? >> i did not. >> ok. you wrote in your declaration that the reason why you waited to file these charges against the sheriff until the criminal process had concluded was because you did not want to interfere with his ability as a criminal defendant to defend himself. correct? >> yes. >> you are also claiming that

when sheriff mirkarimi's lawyer on the criminal case served a subpoena for documents, he did something improper. can you explain that? >> with respect to the firearms issue. >> i am asking about the assertion by you and your attorney that to win sheriff mirkarimi's criminal council served a subpoena for documents, that was harassment of the witness in a criminal case. >> objection. he is questioning the mayor about attorney arguments any is also questioning on the topic which there was a relevance objection that was sustained. jsñ>> your objection is relevan? >> i think my objection is consistency. the main objection -- airline >> just give me the objection and the basis.

>> i did that. i will not add to that. >> it is sustained. >> before you file these written charges of official misconduct, did you think it would benefit you politically to have a different person in the office of sheriff of san francisco? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> i have respected the election process for that office. i formed no opinion about the candidates that ran for that office. or their abilities. if that is what your question is. >> my question is, did you think it would benefit to you and your political backers politically to have a different person in the office of the sheriff of san francisco? >> i had not really thought

about it. >> ok. you did not support sheriff mirkarimi, correct? >> relevance. >> overruled. >> i do not believe i supported anyone. >> one of the arguments you have made in these proceedings is that sheriff mirkarimi cannot stay in office as sheriff because he will not be able to have the effective working partnerships with other city agencies and the heads of those agencies, right? >> yes. >> that misstates prior testimony. >> overruled. >> in elective politics, people did elected that often have disagreements with other elected officials?

>> that is correct. >> some time she might have a bitter rival that you wind up figuring out a way to work with, right? >> possibly. >> in fact, when you ran for election, one of your opponents was current city attorney, right? >> yes. >> during that campaign, his campaign accused your campaign of the various violations of campaign financing laws, right? >> yes. >> here he is representing you in these proceedings. evidently, he was amended whatever fences' needed to be amended, right? -- mended, right? >> perhaps. >> he is doing a good job for you. don't you consider the possibility of whatever the differences are, those could be

amended -- mended? >> at this time, i do not believe so. >> what do you base that on? >> i read the declaration of an expert in this field. his profession -- professional opinion about law-enforcement and the relationships they must have an order to effectively carry out that work. >> did you also read the declaration provided by the former sheriff? >> yes. >> you saw were he said he believes that sheriff mirkarimi could carry out his duties if allowed to remain? do you think that he has more expertise about what it takes to be the sheriff of san francisco then michael hennessey? >> objection, relevance.

improper testimony by counsel. this is beyond the scope of both the mayor's declaration as well as the disclosure of what they were going to ask mr. lee about in their disclosure of witnesses. >> i am not sure exactly the basis of the objection. >> that was beyond the scope. >> beyond the scope, i am inclined to overrule beyond the scope. the sheriff could call the mayor into taking -- to not require the mayor to appear twice. i think we should allow it. i think the mayor brought it up in one of his answers. i will overrule the objection. >> could i ask if we did have the question read back? >> would you like to ask it

again? >> do you think that he has more expertise about what it takes to be the sheriff of san francisco than the ex-sheriff mike tennessee? -- tennessee. >> i think they have equal weight. >> why is that? >> because they both have extensive background in law enforcement. >> he has never held elective office, correct? >> objection, foundation. >> i do not know. >> he has never been a sheriff, correct? >> objection, foundation. this is also -- he is being asked about expert matters an

expert testimony. >> again, if we want to further argument on an objection, we will ask for it. we do not want to take up more of the mayor's time than we need to. i am going to overrule that objection. >> what is the question? >> do you know whether or not he was ever a share of any county? -- sheriff of any county? >> i do not know. >> you think those two expert witnesses carry the same weight? >> asked and answered. >> i was trying to finish. do you think those to experts carry the same weight about the qualifications and ability to perform as the sheriff of san

francisco? right? >> yes. >> you needed to consider some legal issues before you decided to file these written charges of misconduct? right? >> yes. >> the provision allowing for removal proceedings has been used sparingly in the history of the city, correct? >> that is correct. >> did you run across a case -- >> objection. attorney-client privilege. >> are you familiar with that case that i just mentioned? >> somewhat. >> ok. before you decided to file the written charges, did you read the case? >> parts of it.

>> did you read the part of that case that said for there to be of violation -- finding of official misconduct, there must be a violent -- a violation of an act committed while in office? remember that? >> objection. foundation. do you have a copy of the document for the witness? >> i think the witness should be able to see the document. >> yes, i have read it.

>> did you consider that point of lot to be important in your decision as to whether or not you should file a written charges against sheriff mirkarimi? >> objection, requires a legal conclusion. >> overruled. >> yes. >> it was important because the incident between the sheriff and his wife occurred before he took the oath of office and became the sheriff, correct? >> objection, requires a legal conclusion. lacks foundation. >> i do not even follow the question. ask another question. >> sure. before you file these written charges, you wanted to make sure you had a sound legal basis for doing so, right? >> yes. >> one of the questions you wanted to determine was if

somebody did something before they took the oath of office, whether or not they could still be removed, right? >> objection. attorney-client privilege. assumes facts not in evidence. >> overruled. >> yes. >> union the incident between the sheriff and his wife happened before he became -- you knew the incident between the sheriff and his wife happened before he became the sheriff? >> objection. >> do you understand the question? >> it could be interpreted in different ways. >> i am going to sustain the objection. why don't you ask another

question? >> i am talking about the incident on december 31. when i refer to that incident, do you understand what i am referring to? >> i understand that incident occurred before he took the oath of office. >> you have asserted in your written charges that sheriff mirkarimi's conduct fell below the standards of decency that is expected of public officials, correct? >> yes. >> we expect certain things of our elected officials, right?

>> that is generally true, yes. >> when the charter speaks of official misconduct, it does not expect -- it does not say, we expect a different -- a standard for the sheriff, a different one for the mayor, a separate one for the assessor. it just speaks in general terms about official misconduct for an elected official, right? >> objection, argumentative. >> requires a legal conclusion. >> legal conclusion is sustained. >> do believe there is a separate standard? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> should be the same standard. >> ok. one of the things that is expected of elected officials is for them to be honest and forthright when dealing with their constituents, and with other elected officials. >> i am very sorry to interrupt you.

that question will be pending. i instructed that we need to adjourn proceedings for now. we will resume when it is permissible. the meeting is adjourned. we will notify the parties and the press when we can resume.

>> objection, foundation. >> overruled. >> there were declarations from the police department that indicated there was less than full compliance with the orders of the court. >> you did not make noted that in your original written charges, right? >> objection, foundation. consumes -- assumes that the mayor wrote those charges. >> sustained. >> you originally called for written charges to be -- you

read those before you file them, right? ok. you know what was in the original written charges, right? there was nothing in the original written charges about the share of doing anything improper with relation to his firearms into police custody, right? >> i do not recall. >> you do not believe that to be a sufficient basis to remove the sheriff from public office, right? >> objection. >> overruled. >> are you speaking to that being the sole charge? >> do you believe that a sufficient to remove an elected official from office? irrelevant, objection. >> overruled. >> i do not.

>> you have confined yourself to the incident between the sheriff and his wife on december 31, as well as allegations that the sheriff may have been involved in attempts to dissuade witnesses, right? >> objection. you have a document you would like to put in front -- >> i would like to ask the witness a question. >> ok, what is the basis of the objection? >> i think he is misrepresenting the document. i think it would help the witness to see the document rather than being quist from memory. -- quizzed from memory. >> i think the question was unclear. i would ask that you rephrase

it. >> let me ask you about your claim that the sheriff engaged in a witness dissuasion. in your original written charges of misconduct, the only thing that you claim was that he may have been involved in a witness dissuasion, correct? >> i cannot remember the exact wording. i understand the issue, yes. >> in the amended charges, you stated he did participate in witness dissuasion. what caused you to make about definitive assertion? >> objection, attorney-client privilege. in and assumed facts that are not in evidence. >>