last hearing, the counts are the charges. so when the commission is saying in this document, the board should sustain the charges that implies that the board should sustains the counts, when, in fact, the commission rejected four of those counts completely. and that is 1,2,3 and 6. so i think this document should reflect that fact and by simply saying that the commission -- the board should reject counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 completely, and as to counts 4 and 5, well, i will leave it to the commission. that language is already in here and i do think it's clear that the commission -- well, it's not entirely clear. i think the commission should be clear in this document to say that they rejected all of the counts as drafted by the mayor. that is a fact. and it does not reflect that here. >> one of the problems that i have with your statement that

we rejected 1, 2, 3 and 6 is they were rejected because they concluded so many things. you know? and i have got to say from my point of view, one of the frustrations is there was never one simple charge saying x and y. they added everything in all of them and i think our problem when we went to 4 and 5, because they were the ones that were closest to what we found to be official misconduct. that is part of the problem. >> i completely agree commissioner renne, and my reading of the charter is that it does not empower the ethics commission to redraft the charges. if the mayor made an error in charging, i don't believe that the ethics commission has the power to cure such a defect after the fact by redrafting

the counts. >> i'm looking at count 4 and my understanding of what the majority did they fund each element of count had was met. the problem that the commission had was incorporation by the commission ragraphs 1-46, found that sheriff mirkarimi was a public officer the all-times during the event. that he engaged in wrongful behavior by the crime of falsely imprisoning his wife, resulting in miscriminal conviction and thinks behavior was wrongful and willful and that the crime, conviction and sentence as related -- well, maybe that each and every duty of his office may be overstated. but i think the majority found it related to his duties.

is that consistent what was founded? >> as was said we struggled with the other counts because they had so many elements and i do not think it's accurate will it tosy that we rejected in their entirety, for instance, count no. 1. we talked about that count in particular and decided to go with 4 and 5, because 1 did include a number of things that we were not sure, some people may have agreed and some may have not. so that one i feel strongly we did not natomasly unanimously reject count no. 1. so for that reason i would say it's better to say what we did find and not what we did not find. >> thank you, commissioners. i think this language should

roflect what commissioner hur read into the [stra-pbz/] script, page 1611 of the transscripted and that is sustain the charges as to the conduct that occurred on december 31st, et cetera as reflected in counts 4 and 5. that makes it very specific that well that is just what the commission decided and this language here is more broad. the language in the document is not the same. it says sustain the charges of official misconduct, et cetera. >> i mean, it is substantively the same. what is the substantive difference in your mind? the only difference is that we added what was certainly implied in the motion that it's charges of official misconduct. rather than charges as to the

conduct. i mean, look, if the majority wants to change that to the exact language of the motion, i guess i have no problem. this just seemed clear as to what you all really did. but i leave it to you . >> well, i don't believe that the board ever -- excuse me, the commission ever actually took a vote and said we're going to sustain counts 4 and 5. we find there was official misconduct as reflected in counts 4 and 5, which is not the same thing. >> well, what is in the order right now is the "as reflected" language. so you still have your argument. so i don't think you want language that weakens your position here. >> i agree. thank you. and if i may now address the

issue of mr. hemblig representing the commission before the board, i think this is a thorny issue, as the commissioners are aware, we initially filed a motion to or may be aware we filed a motion in civil court to have the city attorney's office disqualified from the case and the ethics commission of its own accord determined to hire outside counsel and did so. throughout this process to my one another mr. hemblig has been representing both the commission and the board simultaneously. now that the commission by vote of 4-1 has decided to move forward with the mayor's efforts to remove the sheriff or at least find that he engaged in official misconduct, it occurs to me or seems to me that the commission takes on a prosecutorial role in trying to

convince members of board of the mayor's position, at least as reflected in counts 4 and 5. so that you now have the same attorney, who is now taking on a prosecutorial role advising the decision-maker, and i think that raises a conflict of interest and we would therefore object to mr. hemblig representing the commission before the board. >> i am not sure -- mr. hemblig wouldn't be advising the board, but be the spokesperson for the commission to tell the board what the commission did. he is not going to be the one to tell the board what they should do, i gather. >> is he providing legal advice to the board. he is acting as the board's lawyer, as well as the commission's lawyer. i don't know if that contradicts your statement. he is playing the same role for the board that he played for us.

>> why is that? >> because that is what i was asked to do, to provide outside advice both to this commission and the board of supervisors on the process. >> if mr. hemblig is only planning on discussing process questions before the board, then we would withdraw the objection. but my understanding is that mr. hemblig or whoever is going to be representing the commission is -- i would presume -- going to be advocating for the commission's position. >> i guess that was not my understanding. my understanding is that we're going to have a different procedure than is typically occurs at the board. it would be a shorter presentation that would provide for the board what we did, timeline on which we did it, to the extent necessary what evidence we considered and then to the extent necessary summarize the findings that are already in this document.

i am hoping that that is actually redundant, since they have the document and the transcript. which is why it didn't seem it would be a conflict. i hear your objection and i'm certainly sensitive to not only sort of potential -- actual conflict, but potential conflict as well. so mr. hemblig, let me put you on the spot, do you have a viewpoint in light of mr. wagner's comments? >> i think mr. wagner raises a good point, mainly on a perception issue. what i believe the board is seeking and what i felt i could do without putting myself in a conflict situation is simply report to the board what this commission did and what findings it made. essentially reiterating the written document. the board wants someone there to be able to make that presentation and answer questions. i don't think there is an ideal

solution to who that right person should be. if it were the chair, it would be awkward, because the chair is the one dissenter from the decision. if it one member of four-person majority, that would be awkward, because that person may be asked questions to speak for the entire majority and not feel comfortable doing that. if it were me, there is some awkwardness with the legal advice that i might be called upon to present to the board and what i hope to be a very dry and neutral presentation of what the findings are here. but it puts me in some of the an awkward situation, so i don't disagree with mr. wagner, but it may be the best of the alternatives to have me do it given my neutral position. but i'm open to whatever the commission would like. >> mr. wagner? >> i think mr. hemblig said it

well in pointing out that it raises a perception issue. the question is -- >> so are you advocating then that rather than mr. emblig, who will give a neutral, as he put it "dry presentation," you would want someone from the majority to go there and make the presentation? is that what you are suggesting? >> no. >> who do you think should do it? >> well, we objected to any one from the commission. >> well, if we're going to send someone, mr. wagner, so if you object to mr. emblig. >> i don't think it's fair, respectfully commissioner to put it back on us who is the best person to advocate your position to the board in the process? >> we're giving you an opportunity to weigh in on how we should present this to the board. if you are going to object to mr. emblig and have no other suggestion, that is fine. but i'm giving you that opportunity and if you decline it, that is fine. >> then i would respectfully

suspect that the director, mr. sancroix explain the procedures and the commission's position to the board. ultimately as mr. emblig said, there is a perception issue and the ethics commission, i believe should take every action that it possibly can to avoid the perception of impropriety and to avoid the appearance of conflict. so that is why i raised the issue and i think that the director making the presentation would alleviate that concern, because the director is not counsel for the commission or the board. >> i am a little confused as to why the board can't have other counsel. >> i have no objection to the board retaining other counsel. >> i didn't realize that your engagement at the present time that you engaged by the board,

have you been advising the board during our proceedings? >> yes. and there has been one meeting about procedure with the board. one public meeting. >> i apologize, commissioners, were you waiting? did you have a question or just a general pause? >> i guess i am a little surprised and i don't know why the board doesn't have independent counsel. >> i can't answer that question. i am doing this pro bono. >> i know that and we're very appreciative of all of the help you have given us and i am just a little surprised that that it wouldn't be obvious to the

board that there is to a certain extent a conflict between you advising us and they as the decision-makers. because we're not the decision-makers, we just make the recommendation, but be that as it may, i would suggest that the solution is for the board to get counsel, find another pro bono. >> i would just also add respectfully commissioners and with all due respect to mr. emblig, it's my understanding that mr. emblig was retained by the city attorney's office of the city and county of san francisco. mr. emblig's firm hass a client the city and county of san francisco and that is further reason why we believe that the board should have independent and different counsel. >> one thing i'm sure we can't decide is who the board's lawyer should be.

okay? so i don't want to hear anything about who the board's lawyer should be. i can't weigh in on this or make any decision about that. none of us can here. what we're trying to determine is who should make the presence to presentation to the board? you object to mr. emblig, because maybe you are alleging actual conflict of interest. is there anything else you want to say about that, whether or not mr. emblig should give the presentation? >> no thank you. >> anything else, mr. wagner? >> as to the issues that have been addressed so far? no, thank you. >> would the city attorney have any view point on who should make the presentation to the board? >> obviously that is for the commission to decide. we believe that there would be no actual conflict if mr. emblig gave the presentation. we do understand the sheriff's

concern about perceived conflict. this was an issue that came up in superior court and one way we dealt with it was, in fact, having the city attorney withdraw from its usual representation of the council and board and this is not because of any unfairness of the party. normally our office would be advising and acting in many different capacitis in this city procedure. we are the city's lawyers in many capacities. so it would be here on behalf of the mayor. we would be normally advising your commission as you are familiar in other matters. we would normally be advising the board. those are our standard roles. and there is nothing wrong in any way with us having all of those different roles simultaneously. >> i don't want to hear about

that. >> our understanding of mr. emblig in this matter, we have no official position. we think it's permissible to have mr. emblig present the commission's viewpoint. my view is that the safer, more conservative route would be to have someone other than mr. emblig do it, but we don't believe there is an actual conflict if he does. >> okay. thank you. mr. emblig? >> i just want to make one clarification for the record. i was not retained by the city attorney's office. i have two retention agreements, one with the ethics commission, one with the board of supervisors, both agreements were approved in public sessions by the respective commission and the board. both agreements did point out that i would be advising both the commission and the board. so this is not something new. this has been out there since the very beginning, even before the beginning of these

proceedings. >> my concern with mr. sancroix doing the presentation is that he wasn't here for a lot of the hearings. he has many responsibilities, and in light of all of the resources devoted to this effort, could not attend every session. nor do i think he has really been reviewing the transcripts. so while in most cases, i think he is by far the best person to present these kinds of things to the board, i don't think this is one of those situations. i think the alternative to mr. emblig would be a member of the commission. i welcome the views of our commissioners. >> i for one have no objection to you being the spokesperson even though you dissented to the result.

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 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.