it's laid out why you dissented. but the question that might be asked by the board, i have perfect confidence that will you make a fair presentation of what took place. >> other views of commissioners? >> i echo commissioner renne's view. i think would make a fine presentation and i this you have presented both sides very fairly. >> i have full confidence in you, commissioner hur. look, you have done really a magnificent job of creating the process and running these hearings. and i don't think that any one of us really has the intimate knowledge of the page by page

transcript of all of the questions of all of the issues that have come up more than you. and yes, you casted the dissenting vote. i am not sure what the hearing will be like before the board of supervisors, but i don't know, but i would think that those of us who can be in attendance, should there be questions. i don't have any lack of ability in your confidence. you may not want to is a whole other issue. you may not want to. [ laughter ] >> no comment. do the parties have any objection if it were to be me? >> thank you, commissioners for considering the issue. i completely agree with commissioner hayon and believe that commission hur has done a

magnificent job with these proceedings and would do an outstanding job before the board. >> it doesn't leave very much room to say much. >> the mayor has no objection. >> okay. i'm willing to do it. it is awkward, given that i was in the dissenting view, but i will do my best. so before we vote on the order and how it's presented, can we please take public comment? on this issue. >> good afternoon, chair hur, and commissions. i am patrick chong here's a private citizen and hearing

that debate about who should make the presentation was shocking. the ethics commissioner has an ethnic responsibility as an independent watchdog to make the presentation yourself and not put it onto somebody else. i draw your attention to larry bush' city report.com article at citireport.com. the great dissent, hur says no. in its drive to reach the desired conclusion the ethics commission summary rewrites rather than reports even misstating with the claims that the commission voted to find mickami guilty of misconduct on two of the six charges and that of course, mr. bush wrote is not what happened. the

commission dropped four immediately on the grounds that they were unproven and debated how to handle the two remaining charges. they did not sustain the mayor's charges. you all know that. and only one of you had the ethical wherewithal to vote no as did commissioner hur. commissioner hur stated, "if we do not find a nexus to the relationship of the duties, then we are opening this provision up to abuse and manipulation down the road in a way that we, we the voters, commissioner hur are really not going to like. you stated mr. hur you do not think it's is your job to

determine mr. mirkarimi's level of efficacy going forward. you implored your fellow commissions to make a narrow and principal view of that clause that will enable those using it going forward to apply it in a consistent way. your report as written is not what you said on august 16th it would be. you have completely changed this draft summary into something that you did not set out to do, but you did it any way. much like you have done an injustice to this whole process. thank you. >> hi, my name is sue grisom

and if you are concerned about perceptions of inpropriety, i get comments saying give sheriff ross mirkarimi my regards. he got a raw deal. i went to a lower haight merchants association fair on monday and every merchant commented on how much they love ross mirkarimi and his family and everyone of them said they believe he is getting a raw deal. there is a widespread perception of inproprietary in this case. i believe it should be delayed until after the election. this has been a political campaign and there has been a

lot of misconduct to go around. i believe that the domestic violence advocates themselves are engaging in illegal conduct when they come and testify here. they are 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization and to give them tax exempt status they should not be advocating for or against any candidate for public office and they have had the gall to come here and say ross mirkarimi should not be sheriff and i believe is misconduct on their part. i think you should therefore seriously consider delaying deliver your report to the board of supervisors until after the election.

thank you. >> my name is barbara tangari and i want to speak to the culture of the latina female. there is a cultural thing here and what you saw in the video, she was very emotional at that point. and you didn't take it as well, this is actual fact and blah blah. she is latina and i understand, because i happen to be half latina, born in honduras and i understand it very well. i hope i am not saying anything that i shouldn't say. what i have heard since day 1, and i have been in this the room, this and the other room, and had a close-up eye view and hearing to the entire

proceedings. i have concluded that the charges are less than a misdemeanor. and i think that the board of supervisors, there are about four of them, that are going up for re-election. and avalos, campos, mar and chiu and without being pressured i think that the hearing at the board of supervisors should be delayed until after the election. people like malia cohen could possibly vote in favor of mirkarimi, but i would say, because she is not running for re-election. so i should say it should be delayed until after that. so i want to thank

you chair. i have admired the way you have conducted the hearings. i think you have done a pretty fair job. i would just like to see a little bit more fairness on the culture of the wife and i wish ross mirkarimi all the best. i hope he gets his job back, the benefits and the back pay and the family coming together. i met the little boy sunday. beautiful. it's a beautiful family. it's not as bad as you think it is and kind of lighten up a little bit. let's have this go after the vote, the election. thank you. >> hi. my name is paula canney and i'm not speaking as anything other than me.

and i am actually speaking to say i realize how much time each of you has put into this and how difficult it must be. so let me talk a little bet. i have been a criminal defense lawyer for 32 years. that is a long time to do anything. and i was a deputy district attorney in ventura county in this pilot project of domestic violence prosecution, the first one in the state in 1981. i'm not for domestic violence. even though i am a criminal defense lawyer, i am for love. i am for passion. i am for forgiveness. i am for the best society that we can possibly have. so i'm saying to you, that i know each of you had this hard decision to make. some of you can't even look at me as i speak, because of the situation that you have been called to do. in domestic violence cases it's really hard to get a conviction

in san francisco county. and so the plea bargain that ross took is the plea bargain that allows police officers to keep their jobs. it's not a crime of moral terpitude, and this is that standard thing. it's the plea bargain that is designed for the person to not lose their job it's the plea bargain designed so that the breadwinner continues to have employment, health insurance and medical benefits for the family and it's the plea bargain that allows the criminal justice system to allow that person to be rehabilitated and to -- i don't know, be rehabilitated and pace pay their price to

society and the like. that is what ross did. i'm not ross' lawyer. i was never ross' lawyer, but we would not have been convicted in a jury trial and instead, to try and save the shame of so much of really what his wife believed was a confidential video so i am saying that we have a decision to make as a society, if you want ># revenge it's never going to be pretty and nothing is going to get better. if you did something that 0wnn allowed somebody to continue to do the good work that they do, because by all accounts, you saw it. he has worked his whole life as a matter of service to this city. and so if you believe that this act of a low -level misdemeanors warrants a person

losing their job, then people are going to lose their jobs. how does that make people any better? i know have i prattled on and not really said what i wanted to say. but i hate where we are ten months later and i hate it. >> i think we understand your sentiment. >> here is the bottom line. >> well, you have passed your time. there will be another public comment, perhaps you would like to make another one at that time. thank you. [ inaudible ] >> i won't comment on that either. is there any motion to approve the amended order that the commission has considered? and i think for purposes of clarity, i don't know if we have to read them all, but i think we should at least identify them all. so mr.

emblig, would you like to take a shot? >> i will take a shot. so i think it would be to approve the findings of fact and recommendation to the board of supervisors as drafted with the following changes. as to the first you did not specify where you wanted this, so i am winging it. inserting on page 6 before the paragraph beginning, "commissioner hur dissented." insert a sentence that says -- a stand alone paragraph that says commission hayon supports a finding that the official misconduct in this case, merits the sheriff's removal from office. on page 6, line 6, between the word "officers," at the end of the sentence and the words, "in

addition," at the beginning of the next sentence insert two new sentences that is a 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. rather the commission finds that the evidence contained in miss lopez' video was more credible. then as to finding 7, on page 5, add a clause at the end after "of his spouse," that says and the court imposed a sentence consistent with the march 12, 2012 plea agreement as reflected in paragraph 31 of the amended charges. on page 2, oh, okay.

going backwards. i'm sorry. on page 4, line 1, add after the words "except the mayor," add the words, "and san diego chief of police william lansdowne." and finally i believe on page 2, the first sentence should be altered to read, "this matter presents for the first time -- no. this matter presents the first time that the ethics commission has provided a recommendation to the board of supervisors regarding charges of official misconduct under charter section 15-105. that is all i have got. >> one thing that we didn't include in there and i want to

make sure that the commission is doing this affirmatively and not by omission. what is not included there is a statement adding what facts we found were not proven. while i have no particular objection to including it, i don't think it's necessary, and in my view, things that are not necessary we're better off not including thing that are not necessary. if the commissioners feel strongly, i have no objection to the statement of what facts we found were not proven to be included. is there any dissenting view from that? >> no, i agree. >> okay. were there any other changes that we discussed that mr. emblig did not identify? is there a motion to approve

the findings of fact and recommendation to the board of supervisors as amended by the language noted by mr. emblig? >> i will so move. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? none opposed. the motion passes. the next item on the agenda is minutes of the special meetings of april 23rd, may 29th, june 19th, june 28th, june 29", july 18th, 19 and august 16 >> i am correct in noticing there is no court reporter today? >> yes. >> we object to the commission having this meeting without a court reporter. there has been a court reporter at every other meeting on this

case and i'm not sure why there is not one today, but i would object to moving forward or having the meeting at all or the commission taking any action without a court reporter. >> mr. wagner, there is no requirement that there is a court reporter at any proceeding. this was a proceeding to ratify the decisions already made. your objection is noted. >> i would also note for the record if that was going to be an objection, it should have been made before the meeting started or when the meeting started, so the commission if they thought was merit to could have corrected it. >> thank you, commissioner renne and to that, we were not notified there was not going to be any court reporter and i just noticed in the last ten minutes. i just assume there had would be, because there has been one at all the other meetings and that is why respectfully i raised the issue now. thank you. >> with respect to the

minutes, i have some amendments. subsequent to the april 23rd meeting we essentially had one continuing meeting up until august 16th. so when the minutes reflect starting on may 29th, motions that were voted on and passed, i think that is inaccurate. i think we made preliminary motions or preliminary decisions to be later ratified when a motion -- when the motion was made on august 16th. so i think the minutes need to reflect that in every place, where we did not make an official motion, but made a preliminary motion. that may have begun on june

19th. i'm not off the top of my head remembering exactly when we started the continuing motion, but if the staff could ensure those corrections are made, i would appreciate it. are there other changes to the minutes that were prepared for this matter? give the parties a chance to weigh in.1wnnp$ >> peter keith for the mayor. we had submitted some changes to the minutes directly and they appear to have been included. we have no further changes. >> mr. wagner? >> no changes, thank you. >> commissioners?

public comment on this matter? >> patrick -- i'm surprised in the minutes that you are about to adopt that you didn't note that it is customary in court orders to include motions that are sustained and motions that are denied by the court and to that except i think david wagner was absolutely correct ten minutes ago when he recommended to you that the summary report that you are giving to the board of supervisors should specifically state what you denied in finding regarding the mayor's charges. and to that extent your previous minutes should have alerted the public that you

were going to get to the point that you weren't going to include in the recommendation going to the board of supervisors what you threw out because most courts will tell you what they sustained and what they denied. you should have told us about that in your earlier meetings. it's the kind of unethical behavior that san franciscans have grown accustomed to seeing from this ethical body. >> three minute intervals, how great. still paula caney and now i'm not talking as me. i am talking as eliana's lawyer and what she is question me to communicate to each of you is her dismay of

the commission's finding that her testimony was not credible. i know that you each have reasons why you are going to say that. but my client wants you to know that you are flat out wrong. and that what she said to you and what she testified to at this hearing in her heart of hearts is her truth. and that granted mr. wagner and another made a decision not to cross-examine ivy wilson, but in terms of how you view her testimony leer being uncredible, she is upset and frankly as her attorney, i'm upset. you took a snippet of what you want to see and i'm worried that that is what it is is that rather than view something as true, the same with your

dismissal of linnette peralta. and it has to be that elaina is not credible to sustain your findings here. as far the whole attorney-client privilege, i'm not eliana's first attorney. sheryl wallace was, but you have to know the first time sheryl ballas had contact with the police, within a day and a half of the video being taken from -- ivory madison, miss wallace asserted it's an attorney-client privilege and i know some of you are lawyers and in terms of attorney-client stuff i have tons of people tell me stuff that i would not disclose to somebody.

it's the belief that i tell somebody something in confidence and if you are going to believe the video, you need to also believe that the only reason eliana made that video was to be used in a custody dispute, not to report anything other than she was afraid that she would lose theo. you also have to remember that at that time she hadn't received her paperwork from ice yet and there were concerns and anybody who is not an american citizen has to worry about ice in this day and age and what is going to happen. that is my three minutes. >> is there a motion to approve the minutes that we have identified? >> so moved. >> is there a second?

>> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion passes, ÷$wnn amendments. that being the last item on the agenda, the meeting is adjourned. >> commissioner hur, i submitted a request for the commission -- >> hold on.

hold on. >> i submitted a request to the commission yesterday asking to you delay delivering the record to the board of supervisors until such time as the board may consider the case after the november 6th election due to the political pressure on each member of the board. did you receive that and are you going to take aside that question? >> i have received it. i think was it sent to all the commissioners? i believe it was. my understanding is that a decision like that has been delegated to the chair. if any commissioner feels it should be a decision rendered by the commission, perhaps we should calendar it for another meeting. it strikes me as the sort of procedural type of issue that you all have delegated to me, but if i