6:04] supervisor kim: think you for joining us, coming back from the recess of yesterday's meeting. i would like to entertain a recess until 6:00 today. we will do that without objection. we are in recess until 6:00 today. >> welcome to the recent meeting of the budget committee. we are coming back from recess and are going to go back into

recess, so we have a motion to go into recess and come back at 9:00. >> good morning. welcome back to the recess meeting. i am carmen chu, joined by supervisors avalos, kim, wiener, and cohen. our clerk is mr. young. we have come back from recess on the budget deliberations. we have called obhboth items. as a reminder, we combined the enterprise department budgets. and the aso. a couple of actions to take. right before, i want to say that

i want to thank people for the work they've done for the budget analyst. mr. victor young and cheryl adams. i want to say thank you for supporting us in this process. the controller's office. i appreciate the work you do. i don't think we could do it without you. kate, congratulations on your first budget. thank you for making the budget what it is. a place that we can come to an agreement. for having conversations with

us. to katie tang -- she is a wonderful person, smart as a whip. really helps to get this smooth as possible. it is her who made this a good process. supervisor wiener: i want to congratulate the chair for another great year. this process is always difficult and challenging. you did a great job as always. commissioner chu: coleaguesllea, we need a cut on the budget for the adult probation department,

$4,000 -- and $2015 in 2013, and this reduces temporary salaries and the purchase of two vehicles. do we have the motion? >> so moved. >> we have a recieved from the mayor's budget office, a set of technical adjustments. we just need to accept that. we have the administrative positions. to amend the aso for the temporary positions and labor mou's. do we have that motion?

we do that without objection. do we have a motion to amend this -- to approve or send forward the annual appropriation as ammended to the full board on the 10th. and authorizing for technical adjustments as necessary? >> so moved. >> okay. we do that without objection. supervisor kim: i want to say a few words. i want to thank the budget committee members. president chiu is here and he played a role -- and i want to acknowledge that a lot of people came to a position of compromise

and i am happy to see we are putting forward with a budget that will put a lolt -- of things people hoped to see. a 2% in august and restoring cuts we have seen the last five or six years. so many people were involve with this process. i want to thank my office, april and -- i want to in particular acknowledge [unintelligible] who spent the day on an excel spreadsheet. thanks to the community partners for doing advocacy today. and paring down the list. our most vulnerable

populations -- >supervisor avalos: i want to express my thanks to [unintelligible] , supervisor kim's legislative age. -- aid. we would not have had this together the way we did. without his great help. thank you for your work. and my legislative aid, who has been very helpful for me. sorting out the decisions of the budget. thank you for your great work with our priorities for district

11. we did a lot of work with them on these solutions. i want to thank carmen chu for her work and patience. thank you. >> colleagues, we have taken all the actions. mr. young, do we have actions before us? >> that completes the agenda. supervisor chiu: i want to add my thanks. a long couple of months. thanks to the community. thanks to all the members of the budget committee. putting this together was not easy. we felt we got some things. we didn't get everything we

wanted but this is a sign of a good compromise. i appreciate this unanimous budget. we will move on. >> we have no other items. >> i want to confirm the vote item one and two. it is recommended as ammended. >> unanimously, yes. given that -- we are adjourned. [applause]

>> good morning and welcome to the continued special meeting with the ethics commission. we are dealing with the misconduct charges of the sheriff. we apologize for the slight delay. it's not particularly set up well for witness testimony. so we had to adjust the seating. when we broke last night the sheriff was giving his testimony. sheriff, if you wouldn't mind taking the witness stand. please, be seated. >> thank you. ok. before we begin questioning,

let's take the role. >> commissioner dudley, lou, renney? >> here. >> all members of the commission are present. witness is seated. council is ready. sheriff, i remind you that you are still under oath. >> please proceed. >> thank you. >> good morning, sheriff. >> good morning. >> sheriff, you were called being directed by chair of the commission last night not to discuss your testimony with anyone between the time you left the stand last night and this morning. do you recall that direction? >> yes. >> who have you spoken with since last night? >> my attorneys. >> what did you say to them? >> objection. >> objection sustained. >> ok. >> did you speak with anyone about your testimony? >> objection, relevant. >> i'll allow that. >> no.

>> this morning did you stop for coffee? >> yes. >> who was there? >> objection, relevant. >> sustained. >> sheriff, i want to go back to your relationship with lynette. what is your relationship with lynette? >> professional and social. >> when did that relationship begin between you and ms. peralta haynes? >> i would say a few years ago when she was a legislative aide here at the board of supervisors and maybe before then. >> and when did she join your campaign for sheriff? >> about five weeks before the election. >> and can you describe your

wife's relationship with lynette peralta haynes? 2011. >> i would say friendly, social. >> did you introduce them? >> i believe they just met themselves but since ms. peralta haynes worked on our campaign, that must have been one of the ways that they met. they could have met even before. >> have you referred to ms. peralta haynes in the past as a domestic violence advocate? >> me personally? >> yes. >> no. >> is your relationship with ms. paulettea haynes in the professional capacity as a political consultant or a domestic violence advocate? >> it's always been on a political/social level.

>> sheriff, exhibit 82, which is an exhibit that's in the record is at&t phone records. that exhibit shows the 11:18 a.m. on january 4, your wife and lynette peralta haynes had a telephone call that lasted over 39 minutes. tell us everything you know about how your wife and lynette peralta haynes came to have that conversation on january 24. >> i'm sorry. i cannot tell you, because i didn't have a conversation with them about that conversation. >> so you have no idea how your wife and lynette peralta haynes

ended up having a phone call on the morning of january 24? >> well, i would suspect we are four days from me being inaugurated as the 3r5th sheriff of the city of san francisco. that was also two days before where a rather sizeable dinner was being planned in honor of the people and volunteers who worked on our campaign. and there was a great amount of detail in transitioning from my office as supervisor to the fourth floor here in the sheriff's department. so there was a great deal going on. any one of those topics or themes could have been part of their conversation. a great deal was going on in my family and the people close to my family. >> commission, i'm going to make a conditional motion to strike the lack of foundation and i'm going to see whether

this is speculation on the part of the sheriff. >> conditional motion to strike is overruled. >> i'm going to make a motion to strike as lacking foundation. >> i think you invited the answer. i'm going to overrule it. >> sheriff, you've discussed some of the things that were happening that week as potential reasons for your wife's call with lynette peralta haynes on the morning of january 24. >> as i just shared. >> ok. do you in fact know why that call occurred on the morning of january 24? >> no. i cannot speak for my wife or ms. peralta haynes. >> between december 31, and january 24, did you ever mention lynette peralta haynes to your wife?

>> i'm sure i had. >> and in what context did you mention ms. lynette peralta haynes to your wife between that time? >> as a principle partner in our post campaign infrastructure in preparing for the gnawing raul and the dinner that i just mentioned. >> did you ever mention to your wife during that timely net peralta haynes' background in domestic violence? >> no. >> what contact did you have with lynette peralta haynes between december 31 and january 24? >> very minimal. some text messages and some phone calls. strictly related to the transition of our office from supervisor to sheriff. >> did any of your

communications with ms. peralta haynes between the 31 and the morning of january 4 mention any issues surrounding a conflict between you and your wife? >> no. >> that was completely absent? >> yes. >> now sheriff, last night we were looking at a text message you sent to your wife. >> yes. >> left you a v.m. but didn't hear back. what happened? and your testimony was that you were following up on a voicemail message that you had left, correct? >> in response to my wife, yes. >> and so you did leave a voicemail message that morning for your wife? >> yes. >> and that voicemail message that you left for your wife was

in response for what? >> as i said last night in the testimony, it was very vague. and as i said, i was speculating it was routine, probably having to do with our son. >> so is it your testimony that your wife had left you a message early in the morning on january 4? >> objection. asked and answered. >> i'll allow it. it is similar ground he went over, so i hope -- >> i'm just trying to get up to speed here. >> overruled. >> i believe i was returning her call. >> ok. and when had she left that message for you? >> i do not have the record in front. so i cannot tell you. >> was it a message that she left for you on january 4? >> if she had, it would have been in the morning, yes. >> i'm going to ask the commission and the sheriff to turn to exhibit 83.

do we have a set of binders for the witness? >> so sheriff would you please turn to exhibit 83. it should be the last tab in the volume that you have which is volume two of the mayor's exhibit. and just to explain to the commission, this is an exhibit of the mayor that is evidence. it is a compilation of information that in the mayor's

possession regarding communications on january 4 among -- i should say between sheriff and ms. lopez, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes, and likewise communications between ms. lopez and the sheriff, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes. it's a conferencelation taken from the telephone records from at&t as well as those text messages that the mayor's office has. so that is exhibit 83. >> so the names have been substituted for phone numbers? >> that is correct. so sheriff, i'm going to ask you to turn to page two of exhibit 83.

now sheriff, can you see on the top line of that exhibit? >> yes. >> does that reflect the text message that you sent to your wife at 12:03 p.m. on january 4? >> on page three, i have here. page 3 of 17. >> sheriff, you should be on exhibit 83, not 82, sorry. >> yes. >> ok. are you on page two of exhibit

83? >> yes. >> you see that top line reflects that 12:03 p.m. text message? >> yes. >> and that's referencesing a voicemail that you left for your wife? >> yes. >> ok. looking at page one of exhibit 83, >> yes. >> you have communications on january 4 that occurred before 12:03 in the afternoon. these are in chronological order. do you see those? >> i do. >> now as we go up the page, starting from the bottom, the previous -- the next call prior to the 12:03 text message that we see here that you sent. that we see here from you to the 9:33 a.m. phone call that

lasted 36 seconds. do you see that? >> i do. >> ok. does that square with your memory of when you left the voicemail message for your wife? >> i do not know if that was voicemail or direct contact. >> ok. do you have any reason to doubt -- were you making calls to your wife on the morning of january 4 from any other phone besides your cell phone? >> no, i don't believe so. but maybe one from city hall -- but i doubt it. i think it was all cell phone, because i was en route to san bruno. >> ok. do you recall being en route to san bruno when you left the voicemail message for your wife?

>> again, i -- i'm not sure. >> ok. now sheriff, as we look at page one of exhibit 33, -- >> i'm sorry 33? >> i apologize exhibit 83. page one of exhibit 83, are there any calls from your wife to you? shown on that exhibit? >> not that i see, no.

>> so as you're looking at these, there was no call from your wife january 4. >> yes. >> and if there was no call from your wife to you there would be no voicemail message from your wife to you on january 4. >> unless i received a message through my office. here at city hall. because i was here in my office, too. on the -- >> did you steve message from your wife through your office on the morning of january 4? >> quite likely i could have. >> did you or didn't you? >> objection. asked and answered. >> overruled. >> quite likely. >> did you or didn't you? >> objection. asked and answered. >> sheriff do you remember whether you received a call or not? >> yornl if the call came either through my office,

because i was going back and fourth from second to fourth floor quite a bit, and a lot was happening that day. >> so you don't have a specific recollection of receiving this message? >> from my wife? >> yes. >> i received probably many messages in some respect throughout day and days, but that the specific time, no, i do not. >> i think you have what you need. >> ok. >> sheriff was that 9:33 call from your wife, was the subject matter of that call about her calling lynette peralta haynes? >> no, not at all. >> so sheriff, if we're looking at exhibit 83 and we look at that 9:33 a.m. call from you to

your wife that lasted 36 seconds, the next entry that we see at 10:55 a.m. is a text from your wife to lynette peralta haynes. do you know what that text message was about? >> no. i don't. i don't have any text messages. between my wife and linette peralta haynes. not here. >> did you talk to your wife later and find out what that text message was about? >> later? >> at any time. >> well, not until the end of today of the day when i was informed later