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. 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 h csidered? and hat theis 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 have that incorrect, i

suggest that we calendar it for a meeting in the near future. does any commissioner object? does any commissioner believe that that authority was not delegated to the chair to adjudicate a request such as provided? |ái decided forth worth. >> wagner. >> wagner, i apologize. >> although i'm honored. [ laughter ] >> one final question i have for you, there was a legal analysis of this case that was submitted and i just wanted to confirm you have received it? i can't be more specific really because it was submitted anonymously, but i felt quite compelling and i believe it was conveyed to mr. emblig and make sure it's a part of the

record? >> well, >> well, one thing i want to say about submissions that come in, if parties make submissions we may consider them, we may ignore them. they will likely be part of the record in any event. when people who are not parties or witnesses to the commission submit things, it's not part of the record. we may or may not read them. we certainly have no requirement to read them. a lot of us are curious and do read them and maybe don't, but one thing is clear it will not be part of the record. i think things that are sent to mr. emblig are typically forwarded to us. if that was your question. >> thank you, commission. >> anything else from the parties? from the commissioners? okay. the meeting is adjourned. any

objection to that from the commissioners? do the commissioners have any proposed edits to any of the remainder of the document? commissioner renne? >> i have three suggestions for additional language that again if in any way would delay these proceedings, i would pass on them. but i believe they are consistent with what the record was and what the conversations

were back on august 16th and that in paragraph no. 3 of findings of fact on page 5. after what is typed in there, "on or about december 31, 2011, during the time he was incumbent supervisor and sherifflect ross mirkarimi committed acts of abuse against 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