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. >> what is the information that you learned since the original filing of the charges and the amended charges that caused you to make that definitive assertion? >> i will argument. >> i would limit it to information he got from sources other than his lawyers. >> with that stipulation, the objection is overruled. >> could you restate the question with the limitation? >> without telling us anything

that you learned from your lawyers, can you explain what is the basis for your assertion that the share of engaged in a witness dissuasion -- sheriff engaged in witness dissuasion? >> the review further of the declarations or the statements that were reflective of the videotape, and the declarations of the particular witness, ivory madison. >> is it your assertion that sheriff mirkarimi somehow dissuaded ivory madison from speaking with the police? >> i believe he was part of the effort to not have people talk

to the police department. including his wife. >> ok, what do you base that belief on? >> the declarations -- not declarations, but the transliteration of the videotape. >> you are talking about the one-minute videotape that miss lopez made with miss madison? >> yes. >> are there any other facts that you base that assertion on? >> objection, attorney-private -- attorney-client privilege. >> excluding conversations with your counsel. >> without limitation, the objection is overruled -- with that limitation, the objection is overruled. >> the declarations of ivory madison.

>> now, you have stated in your declaration that one of the reasons that was significant to you that this was official misconduct because a law enforcement officer must follow the law and enforce it, but sheriff mirkarimi pled guilty and was convicted of a crime. is it your belief that any time and law-enforcement officer is convicted of a crime, that constitutes official misconduct from which they must be removed? >> i believe it is significant that being the sheriff of the city that engaged in an pleaded guilty to domestic violence is the wrongful behavior that constitutes official misconduct. >> ok, let me ask you. what if a deputy sheriff gets

convicted of a crime? must they be removed from office? >> if it is similarly situated in similar circumstances, that would probably be the conclusion. >> ok. if you discovered there were deputies would then the san francisco at sheriff's department -- would that change your opinion? >> not necessarily. >> you also say that because sheriff mirkarimi was sentenced to time served in county jail, and he is charged with overseeing prisoners in at the jail, that constitutes official misconduct, right?

>> in the context of all the actions, yes. >> you are aware that this was a book and release procedure, where the share of surrendered, posted bail, and was immediately released? >> i am not aware of any difference of his arrest and any other arrests. it is still an official at arrest. >> are you aware that a former sheriff of san francisco spent five days in jail on a criminal contempt conviction and was not removed? >> objection, relevance. >> sustained. >> was it your belief after you've reviewed these court records and there -- strike that, i am sorry. after use all that sheriff mirkarimi pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, false imprisonment, did you do any

additional investigation before you brought sheriff mirkarimi in to talk to you? >> yes. >> what did you do? >> i reviewed all of the court records that were available at the time from the court proceedings. >> did you speak -- seek to speak to any witnesses to that case? >> objection. deliberative process of privilege. in terms of to the mayor spoke with in regards to the case. >> you did ask that question earlier. you are asking -- >> did you seek to speak to any witnesses? i can narrow it. >> ok, i think, did you talk to any witnesses is ok. overruled. you may answer, mr. mayor. >> yes. >> which witnesses?

>> ivory madison. >> objection. >> did you talk to lopez. >> same objection. >> i do not have a response because i have not had a chance to research the deliberative process privilege. it appears to be, a lot and got -- a common law and not statutory. the mayor has discussed talking to sheriff mirkarimi and not anybody else. i think that is fair game. >> [unintelligible] where does it say that he did not speak to anybody else?

>> i think that is inferred from the lack of mention of him speaking with anybody else. >> do you have any insight into whether the deliberative process privilege would apply here. >> the deliberative process privilege has -- applied by the california supreme court t-- certainly, that would be a useful analogy. i am not aware of any reported cases where it has been applied in a situation where charges were filed against someone. i am not sure that as an important distinction. >> does it matter that the people the sheriff is asking about is not other officials? >> no. it was a request by the press to examine his appointment book.

the issue was, the governor should be free to meet with whoever he wants to meet in order to make a policy decision outside or inside the government. >> the as the privilege -- is the privilege attached to the witness who spoke to the executive? does miss lopez, she is not bound by that privilege? >> not that i am aware of. >> ok, do any of the commissioners have views on this? >> i would like to address the waiver argument. there is case authority for the proposition that unlike attorney-client privilege, that is not the case with deliberative process privilege. it is possible and desirable for

an official to be able to discuss what they did in terms of reaching a decision without having to disclose everything they did and everyone they spoke to. the case law has held that there is note waiver simply because you have disclosed something about the decision making process that you went through. the american is entitled to disclose what he has disclosed what -- the mayor has -- is entitled to disclose what he has closed without being compelled to disclose the identities of everyone he spoke to. the case authority for that is black forest products versus united states. -- blue forest products versus united states. it is a 2007 case. >> do you have anything else to say? >> its is hard to research this on the fly. >> i will sustain the objection.

>> he met with the sheriff and ask him to resign, correct? >> i did meet with the sheriff, yes. >> he came with a lawyer from the sheriff's department, right? >> i believe he did come with somebody, yes. >> you decided that you did not want to have that person present. you wanted to meet with him one on one, correct? >> relevant. >> overruled. >> i asked him if he would come in by himself to talk with him. >> when you spoke with them, did he offer to make his wife available to you so that you could speak with her before you made any decision on this matter? >> i do not recollect the exact

words. i believe he made some assertion in that measure. >> did you ever speak with ms. lopez? >> no. >> ok. when you brought the sheriff in, your mind was made up? you were going to give him a choice -- either resign or we will file the written charges? >> i have determined the direction pass i gave him an opportunity to meet with me and talk with me. i had an opportunity to tell him what we were going to do and to give him some time to think about it. >> one day, right? >> yes. >> is your testimony that when he came to meet with you, you had an open mind about what you were going to do? if he could persuade you that this kind that did not want him being removed from office, you might not have done that? >> i was open to listening to

him. but i was also clear that i wanted to indicate to him what i was considering doing. >> ok. as of the day before you file the written charges, you had not decided what you were going to do? >> objection. misstated testimony. >> the witness can clarify. you may answer. >> can you read back the question? >> you had two meetings, one was on one day and one was on the very next day, right? >> i had one meeting with the sheriff, and then i had another conversation with him on the telephone. >> were there not to meetings

that both took place in your office? >> objection, vague. >> sustained. >> isn't true that you met with him on twa successive days in both meetings were in your office? >> objection, vague. >> do you understand what he is asking? >> i do not recall having two meetings, a physical meeting with mr. mirkarimi at the time. >> your best memory is the first meeting was in person and the next time you talked to him was by telephone? >> that is correct. >> the second time, he told you he was not going to resign. >> that is correct. >> at that point, you had decided that you did not think sheriff mirkarimi was fit to be

employed by the city of san francisco, right? >> at that time, i had come to a final conclusion that he had conducted himself with official misconduct and he had engaged in wrongful behavior. >> ok. did you ever extend an offer through a third-party that if he would resign, you would find him another job in the city? >> objection, relevance. >> where are you going with this? >> credibility. if he did not think it was unfit to be sure of, why would he be fit for a city job? -- sheriff, why would he be fit for a city job? >> i will continue to object on the basis of relevance. many times there are problems that people try to resolve with

compromise. that does not mean they do not believe there is a natural problem. >> -- actual problems. >> i understand your objection. the mayor has put at issue the reasons why. it is pretty close to the line, but i do think given that bases, it could go to bias. it is overruled. >> i do not recall offering mr. mirkarimi any job. >> you did not authorize anyone to convey to sheriff mirkarimi that if he would step down, you would give him another job? >> absolutely not. >> i have no further questions. >> do you have any redirect? >> yes, i do, thank you.

good afternoon, mr. mayor. when you said that the sheriff beat his wife in a recent interview, did you make a distinction in your mind between a little domestic violence and a lot of domestic violence? >> no, i did not. >> do you believe there is such a thing as just a little domestic violence? >> i came to the conclusion that he did commit domestic violence. he admitted to it. that is the conclusion that i have. >> why did you not call eliana lopez? >> i did not believe that discussion with her had anything to do with the decision i was responsible to make with respect to official misconduct.

>> why not? why do not need any further information from her? >> i believed that the record that was established to the courts, the criminal actions that were confirmed, the plea of guilty were enough to define the wrongful behavior for official misconduct. >> is it fair to say that you relied on his guilty plea instead of calling his wife? " sustained. >> what was the main criterion in your decision? what was your main criterion when you reviewed the record any information that you had and decided that there was a reason to state a charge of official misconduct? >> the question i had was whether he actually did engage >> the question i had was whether he actually did engage