>> any of the questions for the sheriff? -- any other questions for the sheriff? commissioner hayon? >> in terms of the timeline of when your wife called you and spoke to you and acknowledged and explain to you that she had visited the neighbor and that there had been a videotape and that she had recounted the events of december 31 to miss madison, given your reaction december 31 and your anger and volatility, from what it sounds like, i have not heard anything at all about how you reacted upon hearing that news, that your wife had not only gone to the neighbor but had allowed a videotape of these events.

can you talk about that more? >> my wife did not go into detail about the videotape when i was first informed. i did not see the videotape until sometime later. i was, just as i said earlier, processing what was occurring. i was kind of in the state of shock when she was informing me about what was going on. when she called me and we met about a block away from city hall, i was simply trying to abort -- absorb what she was telling me, trying to make sense out of this. it was surreal. little attention was being discussed about a videotape at that time. what was on my wife's mind, was i felt like i needed to protect my wife because she was the one who was scared and panicked, as well as i was becoming that way.

but i was not fully being able to take time to comprehend everything that was going on. i was just listening. >> why do you think your wife was so scared and panicked? >> i think scared because she felt betrayed by the neighbor. that was the nature of what she was rushing to and telling me about, with his neighbor was doing. this is the first i am learning of all of this. i am trying to understand it myself because it sounds so amazing, so crazy. >> is it possible she was scared and panicked in anticipation of what your reaction might have been? >> no, i do not believe that because she was very clear about what she was scared about. that was what the neighbor and

whatever was occurring between she and the neighbor. my reaction, if you noticed, was very measured, as it related to even when she asked me to see if there was something i can do about it later that day. my reaction was not anything more than just really listening, trying to process the details being provided to me, and trying to then respond with what i thought were responsible decisions, that i was not going to interfere with the investigation and not interfere with the process that had internally been unleashed. and at the same time, my wife was looking to me for some response because she felt obviously concerned and troubled. all this confluence at the same time was where i was trying to make sense of how i can maintain the professional standards and

integrity of what i am hearing third party now that is occurring, and at the same time addressing the concerns of my wife. >> i have one nerve -- one more question. to follow up on commissioner studley's question about your media strategy or lack thereof. in crisis management, a basic is to acknowledge, apologize, and assure the public that what has transpired in terms of the crisis will never happen again. generally speaking, i think in most critical media situations where this has been followed, it tends to diffuse the situation

and end the situation quickly so there is not a long drawn-out media frenzy such as we have experienced in san francisco over this case. i am wondering whether or not anyone you consulted, your campaign manager or any media strategist with whom you spoke, advised you to do something like that immediately, get it out of the ways of the could move on and not have to get to this point as we are here today. >> the answer is at a higher price, there were a couple of media strategists we talked to that suggested we do something like this. again, it was very ad hoc at best. there was no media strategy and no media plan. in hindsight, i sure wish we did in many ways. i really admit that we failed in

being able to explain and present in the way you just suggested. it was an overwhelming and continue to be an overwhelming event to be branded by the paper of record and others. it became where in essence, i kind of shut down. i did. personally speaking, i was sad. i was humiliated and ashamed. high was losing my family -- i was losing my family. i still have not been able to see my wife since january 13. the separation of my son. my past had been completely tarnished and solid -- sullies, and my future now completely in question. my family not sure when i would be able to get back together and repair with a wife and son. all of these things coming together. in hindsight, i absolutely wish

that we were more on top of it in demonstrating the wherewithal to do something like what mayor newsom did when his scandal erupted and he had the resources to bring together the kind of resource he did or when others do so. >> let me add, i would have to say to issue an apology and be forthcoming about the events, there need not be any cost involved whatsoever. it is just a common-sense approach to being honest and forthcoming when you are in a crisis situation. you do not have to have a high- priced p.r. person to do that, as an aside. >> except in this regard, -- >> do you what his response? >> no, that is fine. >> any other questions? thank you, mr. sheriff.

>> there was a new matter raised i would like to follow-up on. it was raised by commissioner liu. i would like to do a brief follow-up on that issue. >> i will hear arguments. >> we would object to that. commissioners, the mayor has already went over twice the time estimate he gave us last night. i do not think there is anything left at this point we would object to, any further time being spent on the. >> i open this up to my fellow commissioners, a process issue that may come up again. i am inclined in light of the opportunity council had to examine not to allow further examination by counsel after the questions of the commissioners, but i am open to suggestions. >> what is the new matter you

say we have not already covered? >> the sheriff mentioned what he considered to be the factual basis for his false imprisonment plea. i wanted to ask him a follow-up question about that. that is not an issue we have gone into with either counsel. it was raised in response to a question by commissioner liu. >> commissioner studley. >> i guess i do have a feeling that when -- if commissioner questions open a new area, either counsel might be allowed to clarify. i do not think this is a question of total time. i think it is a question of whether it raises new territory. >> i would agree with commissioner studley. >> why don't we allow some

questioning, very limited? >> commissioner, i am sorry. sheriff, you mentioned in response to a question from commissioner liu that the false imprisonment you committed against your wife consisted of turning the van around. do you remember that remark? >> the term was restricting liberty. that is what i was thinking she was referring to. >> ok. but in any case, your answer was in your mind that was the factual basis for your plea to false imprisonment? >> well, i was answering a question about if there was another time of restricting the liberty. that was on december 31. >> sheriff, did the district attorney ever state to you that we are expecting your plea of false imprisonment because you turned a dam around? >> objection, relevance. >> i will allow it.

>> nothing further. >> mr. wagoner, anything? ? no, thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> i think at this point, we should take the lunch break. i would like to take a 45-minute break if that is acceptable to the parties. >> yes. >> yes, that is fine. >> i understand we need to clear this room entirely during that break. also would expect -- i also would expect we would get back at 1:00 and have testimony from that point. let's take a lunch break.

>> good afternoon. welcome to the afternoon session of our meeting. again, are want to reiterate, in light of the fact that we are in testimony, we really do need silence in the audience. no need to wait for my direction. if you see someone who makes an outburst, please remove them. next up, we have mayor ed lee. is mr. lee available? good afternoon. please take the witness stand. with the court reporter please swear the witness?

>> [inaudible] nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. >> please proceed. >> good afternoon. i represent sheriff mirkarimi in these proceedings. how did you become mayor, sir? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> i became mayor of san francisco in the capacity of being appointed in the year 2011 and then by election of the voters in november of 2011. >> prior to becoming the mayor, you were city administrator? >> yes. >> you attended law school, correct? did you practice as a lawyer for

some time? >> yes, i did. >> how long? >> 12 years. >> when was the first time you started considering the concept of official misconduct under the san francisco charter with relation to these proceedings? >> could you explain what you mean by consider? >> prior to sheriff mirkarimi being charged with criminal offenses, have you ever thought about the term of official misconduct as it consists -- exists in the san francisco charter? >> not specifically. >> do you have a written policy about what is and what is not official misconduct? >> no, i do not. >> it has been argued that the

mayor's decision to attempt to 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 before you decided to file the written charges, did you read