his wife elaina lopez," and mr.

mirkarimi grand miss lopez with such force he bruised hers arm aadd in that following sentence, "in that regard the commission did not find credible the version of the incident as iss lopez an the hearing before the commission. rather the commission found that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible." i think that that is helpful not only to the board, but based upon the public comments that whave received, which accepted the version and the testimony that was heard at the commission by the commission from the sheriff and miss lopez. there are many who have argued it was such a minor incident,

that it shouldn't be misconduct. and yet, i think, as commissioner studley remarked on the 16th, that was a very powerful video and was more credible and more believable than the very sanitized version that we received at the hearing. >> mr. hemblig? >> i got most of that, i think in that regard, the commission did not find credible the version of incident the sheriff miss lopez at the hearing. rather the commission and that is where i ended? >> finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. >> thank you.

>> i think my concern with a statement like that is its breadth. where sort of in one sentence making some broad statements about a lot of testimony. not sure that there w the sheriff and miss lopez said about the incident were not credible. and moreover, that is not really a finding of fact. what i think we have here are facts, things that we say happened, that we agreed happened. rather than weighing the credibility of one witness over the other. i think the vagueness of this is problematic to me. i would not for that. welcome to views of other commissioners.

>> i agree with commissioner renne. i actually think we had quite a bit of discussion about the video, and i think it is important to understanding our recommendation or at least the recommendation of the majority. i do think it's important to understand why we found what we found and why we found it to be official misconduct and that was a big part of the discussion. so if it's perhaps not appropriate in the findings of fact portion, perhaps we can insert that sentence in the would be more the majority view. appropriate there. >> i have no objection to

the second suggestion that i had goes to item no. 7. on the findings of fact which is march 12th, 2012 chair mirkarimi pled guilty to the crime of false imprisonment of his spouse. and again my comments may be that it should go in -- rather than "the findings of fact." in the "discussion zortion." and i would add, "a "and was sentenced to three years' probation, 12 months of domestic violence -- i forget the exact language, but we can get the exact language aa fine. it is this conviction and sentence that brings the misconduct within the time period when he was officially

the sheriff. and my concern here is that one of the issues raised bit sheriff by the sheriff and because i think's an issue that will have to be resolved. without the conviction lç'n occurring during his tenure, there might be some real difficulty in saying that official misconduct, but having pled gety to false imprisonment, that satisfies that the conduct occurred outside the time he held his office as sheriff.

and i guess i just want to again make it clear that we recognize that is an issue. and that is at least in my mind how that issue gets resolved. >> i think there is two points there. i think that the fact of the imprisonment, the sentence, the consequences or basicathe sente to me. i think that is consistent with what am getting a litare trying post-hoc justifications for the decisions made on august 16th. i don't know that we discussed on the 16th that the timing element is satisfied by the plea. maybe if we did, then i think it should be put into the majority, if that is what the majority wants. in the "facts" section, i don't

think that part should be included. any other commissioners on this? >> i was just looking the "findings of fact," that have been proposed, and so i guess that particular portion is not in the "findings of fact." but i would be fine in adding it to the major discussion.yyisq

[inaudible] -- -- we'll have to make a finding on it. >> do the parties disagree with na, i think the sentence was stipulated. mr. wagner., ou on that? >> i would object to adding any language that attempts to change what the commission decided on august the 16th that is not ultimately relevant to what the commission is tasked to do. >> i can appreciate that view, but my question is did you stipulate what the sentence was? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> that is not reflected -- we stipulated to several of these facts. but the way it reads here is that the commission unanimously finds that the mayor proved the

facts. well, if we stipulated to the facts already, then the mayor didn't need to prove them. >> okay. i have no objection to putting in the sentence in "finding of fact 7." >> excuse me, i need that sentence then. what i have is hree years' probation, domestic violence counseling and a fine. it is this conviction and sentence -- ." >> that part i don't agree should be put in the findings of fact? >> the sentence i just started? >> yes. >> and i think whatever the sentence is should be accurate as reflected in the stipulated portion of the amended charges. >> i agree. >> when it says, "the

commission," i can tell you where that language is located. i can tell you where the language is located. it's in paragraph 31, of the amended charges of official misconduct. and it's the second sentence. the court imposed sentence consistent with the march 12th, 2012 plea agreement and ordered sheriff mirkarimi to be placed on three years probation under supervision of the san francisco adult probation department and then sets forth -- you may want to shorten it, but that is the stipulated language from the amended charges. >> what was the last clause? >> i actually did not finish. "under the terms and conditions that he was to serve one day in county jail with credit for time served, perform 100 hours of community service pursuant to penal code section 1203.97

and to participate and successfully complete 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling pursuant to penal code second, 1203.97, pay a $400 domestic violence fine pursuant to the same section and enter parenting classs if deemed appropriate by the adult probation department. >> would it be appropriate is to to say that the court imposed a sentence as reflected in 31 of the amended charges? >> that is fine with me. >> that is fine with me, too. >> that is what i propose. to the extent that the majority wants to add language to the majority portion of this order, what did you have in mind and

is there actually agreement to include such language? and i do think the commissioners should consider the danger of adding justifications that were not addressed at the hearing. i do not -- >> i will withdraw them. >> okay. commissioner renne, you had a third amendment? >> no, that is all i have. thank you. >> commission renne, you are withdrawing the proposal with respect to the conviction, but what about with respect to the credibility issue? >> just the latter one that we were talking about. >> okay. >> because the chairman has raised the question that we may not have specifically discussed that matter on august 16th and i don't want to confuse the record. so it speaks for itself

>> okay. with respect to commissioner renne's first proposal on the credibility issue, i think that can go on page 6, line 6, right after the quote -- the end quote and right before, "in addition this conduct relates...." >> mr. hemblig, do you have that? >> can you read that language again? >> in that regard the commission did not find credible the version of the incident as described by the sheriff and miss lopez at the hearing. rathern commission finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. >> commissioners i am going to

make a general objection to including that. i don't think the commission made that with respect to credibility. if the commission did so, i would appreciate a cite to the transcript. >> i think the majority is right that we did discuss that extensively. it wasn't a basis for a finding of fact, but there was a uniform -- i think a uniform view in the majority's opinion that the video was more credible than the testimony. and i think they are entitled to provide the board with the view that they stated on the 16th as to how they view the evidence. so your objection is noted. if any other commissioner would like to respond, i open it up. any other proposed changes to

the draft order? okay. at this point one other thing that we should discuss in relation to this order is the presentation to the board of supervisors. i understand that the board wants someone from the commission to provide a short presentation as to the findings that the commission made and the procedure that the commission followed. i am proposing to the commissioners that mr. hemblig play that role. i think he is clearly a neutral in this. he has been here for all of it. he drafted large parts of this order and has in large part been

following and closely tied to what has been going on here. any other views from my fellow commissioners? yes, mr. wagner? >> i also have some suggested changes to the finding of fact and recommendations. i can address that first. >> sure. >> in general i object to the overall language of the draft findings. i think that the document is very one-sided and doesn't mention for example that the commission unanimously rejected many, if not all of the contested factual allegations made by the mayor. for example, as to misuse of guns as to dissuasion and to page 4

where it says the commission denied the sheriff's request for subpoenas as to collateral issues and describe those issues and the issue was whether or not the major commited perjury and that is why we requested those subpoenas. that is not reflected in the document and finally and most importantly, well, two other points. on page 5 in the "findings of fact," in paragraph 3, it refers to "acts of verbal and physical abuse." without saying what those were. i don't think that the commission actually made a determination other than the arm grab that there were any other acts of "verbal and physical abuse." similarly is, the sentence right after that, using the phase "with such

force." obviously if the arm was bruised, then that is implied. so i don't think that the commission had the discussion about whether or not to use that phrase. and finally on page 6, the first sentence of the recommendation reads, "the board should sustain the charges of official misconduct against sheriff ross mirkarimi based on, et cetera conduct on the incident on the 31st as reflected in counts 4 and 5." i take strong issue and object very strongly to the commission making this recommendation as stated here. because that is not what the commission decided. and commissioner renne pointed out on august 16th that the counts are the same as the charges. well, the commission did not unanimously or otherwise sustain any of the mayor's counts in their totality. rather the commission decided

that there was official misconduct going back to the incident on december 31 as reflected in counts 4 and 5. that is not the same thing as sustaining counts 4 and 5. the commission did not sustain or recommend to sustain count 4s and 5 and the commission did certainly not recommend to sustain the charges, which implies all of the charges. so i think at a minimum, this document should be clarified to reflect what the commission actually did and did not do. but it did not sustain the charges. certainly not as written by the mayor. and i think this document should reflect that the commission did not sustain any of the six counts and, in fact, only found that two of the counts, 4 and 5, there were elements of those counts, parts of those counts that a majority of the commission agreed with, but certainly not all of those counts. >> let me start with that particular point and we'll address each of those in turn. on your last point you are

complaining then about the statement on page 6, line 1 through 4. is that right? >> yes. did not say that the board should sustain the charges of official misconduct against sheriff ross 6ç0 on the seriousness of the incident that occurred december 31st, 2011, and the subsequent conviction as reflected in counts 4 and 5 of the amended charges of oehl misconduct. that is the part you are complaining about, right? >> yes, and specifically the first five words . >> well, on page 16 11 of the transcript, there is a motion that says, "is there a motion to sustain the charges as to the conduct that occurred on incidence 31st, 2011 and subsequent conviction as reflected if counts 4 and 5 of the amendment charges of official misconduct." so i think it's pretty clear that the order reflects the motion

that was made, seconded and approved by the commission. okay. your concern about the facts that are not included here. meaning the fact that we found there wasn't sufficient evidence on the guns or other conduct. i am certainly not suggesting that we didn't make those findings and i stand by them and i think we were absolutely right to find that the mayor did not sustain his burden on many of the facts. but a finding of fact is a place to put in what we actually found, not what we didn't find. so that is why we didn't include those in there. with respect to -- i mean with respect to your concern about how we crafted the language on the dl