spirited some of her comments were, berating some of the people in public comment. >> president chiu: if i could -- >> we don't work for you. remember that. >> president chiu: if i could mention that all comments during public comment should be directed to the full board. thank you. next speaker. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in general public comment? general public comment is ended. madam clerk, is there in he more business in front of the body? >> clerk calvillo: that concludes our business for today, mr. president. >> president chiu: ladies and gentlemen our special meeting for today is now adjourned.

♪

>> welcome to hamilton recreation and aquatics center. it is the only facility that has an integrated swimming pool and recreation center combined. we have to pools, the city's water slide, for little kids and those of you that are more daring and want to try the rockslide, we have a drop slide. >> exercises for everybody. hi have a great time. the ladies and guys that come, it is for the community and we really make it fun. people think it is only for those that play basketball or swim. >> i have been coming to the pool for a long time now. it is nice, they are sweet. >> in the aquatics center, they

are very committed to combining for people in san francisco. and also ensuring that they have public safety. >> there are a lot of different personalities that come through here and it makes it very exciting all the time. they, their family or teach their kids have a swim. >> of the gem is fantastic, there is an incredible program going on there, both of my girls have learned to swim there. it is a fantastic place, check it out. it is an incredible indication of what bonn dollars can do with our hearts and facilities. it is as good as anything you

will find out why mca. parents come from all over. >> there are not too many pools that are still around, and this is one-stop shopping for kids. you can bring your kid here and have a cool summer. >> if you want to see some of the youth and young men throughout san francisco play some great pickup games, come wednesday night for midnight basketball. on saturdays, we have a senior lyons dance that has a great time getting exercise and a movement. we have all the music going, the generally have a good time. whether it is awkward camp or junior guard.

>> from more information, visit i'm derek, i'm hyungry, and ready to eat. these vendors offer a variety of the streets near you. these mobile restaurants are serving up original, creative and unusual combinations. you can grab something simple like a grilled cheese sandwich or something unique like curry. we areher here in the average

eight -- upper haight. you will be competing in the quick buy food challenge. an appetizer and if you are the winner you will get the title of the quitck bite "chompion." i am here with matt cohen, from off the grid. >> we assembled trucks and put them into a really unique heurban settings. >> what inspired you to start off the grid? >> i was helping people lodge mobile food trucks. the work asking for what can we get -- part together?

we started our first location and then from there we expanded locations. >> why do think food trucks have grown? >> i have gotten popular because the high cost of starting a brick and mortar or strong, the rise of social media, trucks can be easily located, and food trucks to offer a unique outdoor experience that is not easily replaced by any of their setting any worlwhere else in san franc. san francisco eaters are interested in cuisine. there adventuress. the fact theyuse grea use great

ingredients and make gourmet food makes unpopular. >> i have been dying to have these. >> i have had that roach coach experience. it is great they're making food they can trust. >> have you decided? >> we are in the thick of the competition? >> my game was thrown off because they pulled out of my first appetizer choice. >> how we going to crush clear? >> it will be easy. probably everyone has tried, something bacon tell us delicious. >> -- people tell us is delicious. >> hopefully you think the same

thing. >> hopefully i am going to win. we're in the financial district. there is a food truck right there. every day changes. it is easy and fun to go down. these are going to be really good. >> how are you going to dominate? >> i think he does not know what he is doing. >> i was thinking of doing [unintelligible] we are underrepresented. >> i was singing of starting an irish pub. that was my idea. >> one our biggest is the corned beef and cabbage. we are asking people what they're thinking in getting some feedback. >> for a lot of people i am sure this combination looks very wrong. it might not sound right on

paper but when you taste it to or have it in your mouth, it is a variety. this is one of the best ways in creating community. people gather around and talk about it and get to know different cultures. that brings people together and i hope more off the grid style and people can mingle and interact and remove all our differences and work on our similarities. this creates opportunity. >> the time has come and i am very hungry. what have you got? >> i got this from on the go, a sandwich, and a caramel cupcake. i went with home cooking. what de think?

>> i will have another bite. >> sounds good. >> that was fantastic. let's start with you. >> i had the fried mac and cheese, and twinkies. i wanted to get something kind of classic with a twist on it. >> it was crispy. >> i will admit. >> want to try fieried mac and cheese? >> was that the best twinkie? >> would you say you had the winning male? >> definitely.

>> no. >> you are the "chompion." clair has won. you are the first "chompion." >> they know it iwas me because i got a free meal. and check a map on -- check them out on facebook. take a peek at the stuff we have cut. to get our -- check out our blog. i will have

>> president chiu: welcome to the special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. it is tuesday, october 9, 2012. madam clerk call the roll. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, present. supervisor campos, present. supervisor chu, present. supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor ferrell, present. supervisor kim, present. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. response wiener, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, please join us in the pledge of allegiance.

madam clerk, do we have any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: if you could read three items related to the official misconduct hearing. >> clerk calvillo: item 1 the board of supervisors sitting as a commission of the who will for a public hearing on the san francisco ethics commission related to charges of official misconduct presented by mayor edwin lee against sheriff ross mirkarimi. item 2 is the motion sustaining motion of official misconduct. in the three is not to sustain the -- of official misconduct. >> president chiu: why don't we start with a couple of housekeeping items. we have a number of individuals unable to join us due to the capacity of this room. there are at this moment at

least three overroom rooms, room 263, 273, and on the fourth floor room 416 upstairs. through the course of this afternoon and evening, as there are other rooms made available on the fourth floor, we will open them up to the public as well. the procedure for today's hearing was set by a motion of this board of supervisors on july the 31st, 2012. let me go over that. today's hearing will involve presentations by the ethics commission, by representatives for the mayor, and for the sheriff, in the following order and with the following times. first of all, for a presentation of up to 10 minutes, we will hear from the ethics commission. and i want to thank and welcome the president of the ethics commission who is with us today. then we will hear from the two parties involved in this hearing. as the charging party, the mayor will go first with a presentation not to exceed 20 minutes. the sheriff will then make a presentation not to exceed 20

minutes. and then the mayor will have the opportunity to respond to the sheriff's presentation, with a response not to exceed five minutes. after the presentations by various parties, there will be time for public comment. each member of the public will have opportunity to speak if you so choose up to two minutes and that will be followed by deliberations by the board. as is our normal practice during presentations if colleagues wish to ask questions, they will hit the roster, i will recognize them in that order. the time for each party's presentation will be pause for questions and answers so parties will have full time for their presentations. i want to remind members of the public for the first rule of order at the board of supervisors. rule 1.1 states that persons in the audience shall not vocally express support or opposition to statements during board meetings. applause or expressions of disagreements to the board proceedings are prohibited. and i will enforce this rule.

now, there have been numerous requests to take a potential dinner break which we will likely do around 6:30 or so. i understand we have a court reporter so we may need to take some additional shorter breaks to relieve the dictation with that, unless there are comments, why don't we turn it over to the ethics commission. >> good afternoon. thank you, president chiu, distinguished members of the board, i am "ben-hur", chair of the san francisco ethics commission. as you have likely reviewed the commission engaged in a lengthy and extense sieve fact finding investigation relating to the

charges of official misconduct. our aim was to provide a hearing that was going to be both thorough and fair, and as efficient as reasonably possible under the circumstances. to that end we engaged in nine separate hearings, covering five and a half months. we received and reviewed 37 legal briefs and other submissions by the parties. we reviewed and handled objections to 17 different declarations. we amassed almost 2,000 pages of reporter's transcripts. we heard from five live witnesses, and also dealt with one bomb scare. thankfully only one. after this extensive procedure, the parties were given an opportunity to present argument before us, during which all the commissioners had an opportunity to ask questions, both on the

legal basis for potential findings of official misconduct and for the underlying factual allegations. after having that time to ask questions, we entertained public comment, and engaged in several hours of deliberations. the result of those deliberations was the commission determined by unanimous vote that the mayor had proven that the sheriff had abused e elaina lopez on -- that he had certain duties as sheriff-elect, that he was in fact sworn in as sheriff of the city and county of san francisco on january 8 and he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of false imprisonment in march 2012. following the determination of the factual allegations, the

commission engaged in extensive discussion about whether the factual allegations supported finding of official misconduct. by a 4-1 vote the commission decided that the mayor had sustained the charges of official misconduct on the basis of the physical abuse from the sheriff on december 31, 2011, as reflected in counts 4 and 5 of the amended charges. now, if you've had a chance to read the transcript of those deliberations you perhaps will be sympathetic to my challenge of summarizing for you the majority's view. there were many nuances to my fellow commissioners' points and ultimately the vote, just by nature of the process, had to simplify the bases that some of them had and some of them perhaps did not disagree with. so i will do my best to communicate to you what the bases of the decision were,

although probably the best place is the transcripts in the order that we provided to you in an effort to summarize what the findings were. once i do that, i will give you some brief explanation of the reasons for my dissent. the majority consisted of commissioner studley, vice chair studley, commissioners lu, reny and han. they determined the the conduct fell below the standard of decency and good faith in action required of all public officers. the majority did not find credible the sheriff's and ms. lopez's accounts of the incident on december 31, and found the conduct relates to the duties of office because the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer and also responsible for handling domestic violence programs within the county. now the commission believed -- the majority believed that while there was some room for debate

as to whether this conduct or decency clause is limited by the relations to the duties clause, they found that it didn't matter. ultimately whether or not the decency clause is related to the duties of office in this case official misconduct had been shown. now, i've looked at this charter provision quite a bit so when i say things like conduct, clause, and decency clause, they mean something. perhaps -- not sure how much you all have looked at it. so i am going to borrow a definition that the parties ultimately agreed to, and this is a handout actually that i believe the mayor may have created. so this is the language of 15105e, but broken down in a way to identify theirs clauses within that section. it reads, official misconduct

means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, wilful in its character including -- in the actual provision there is no bracketed inaction clause but that's what i will call it --ny failure refusal or negative of any officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law. now that is not the basis for the commission's decision. the focus of the commission's decision was what's called the conduct clause or the decency clause. and that states, conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith, and right action impliedly required by all officers. now because it is modified by the first section there, relation to the duties of his or her office, the commission determined that whatever the standard of decency good faith and right action impliedly

required by all public officers must be in the -- in relation to the duties of his or her office. there was also a fair bit of discussion among the commissioners and in the majority ultimately determined that mazzola, which is a case by the california court of appeals, did not apply to this proceeding because, at the time of mazzola, the conduct clause was not in existence, and therefore they deemed that mazzola was not controlling to this case. i dissented on three grounds, principally two grounds. first, that the law does not actually support the broad meaning of official misconduct that the majority propounded, and second, that the public policy suggests that we should interpret this provision more narrowly than proposed by the majority.

here is another version of 15105e. again, its the same language but merely an attempt to emphasize different portions of it. if i could have the overhead please. again, this version of 105e is identical to what's in the charter except for the addition of option 2, which i can talk about if any of you all are interested. and in the bolding of certain sections, and the numbering of the two clauses. again, the commission's decision was based on the second portion, conduct that falls below the standards of decency, good faith, and right action. the plain language suggests that there is only one standard.

there cannot be one standard for the sheriff, one standard for the board, one standard for the city attorney, one standard for other elected officials. in my view there was no way to read that to require or imply multiple standards. but the import -- but the result, the conclusion of the majority's decision requires that there be a standard, and it be applied to the duties of the sheriff. which i think is, in my stimulation, not the -- the --et maition the best interpretation of the stoocht. the way you look at the standard whether its relates to the meaning, is it done in the performance of duties of office or under color of law. in other words, is it actually done in your official capacity or are you purporting to do it in your official capacity and i think case law supports this view. while the majority believe that

mazzola did not apply mazzola actually did discuss this portion of 15105e, and they discussed it extensively and determined that relation of the duties of his or her office must have a direct connection to the duties. and finally, as a matter of public policy, i think the voters wanted this to be clear, and i think that clearly they intended for official misconduct to be different than some other type of misconduct, likely personal misconduct. the reason i dissented is because if you follow what the majority did, they did not provide a clear basis for how official misconduct and personal misconduct would be delineated. and i think a bright line rule. >> president chiu: thank you. >> required here. thank=)ñ you. >> president chiu: colleagues,

any questions to the chairman? supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: i'd like to hear him continue his sentence. >> president chiu: could you finish your final thought. >> thank you, mr. president. there is -- i think there is a -- in my view, there is a temptation here to view the conduct in a vacuum. i think the conduct was morally inappropriate. i think it was wrongful. but there must, i think be a line between official misconduct and personal misconduct and i could not find a principalled way to make that distinction based on the arguments suggest by the mayor and ultimately the decision made by the majority. thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor olague, do you have any follow-up questions? supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: you mentioned you had two principles

that you were debating, one the law doesn't support misconduct, and two, you said public policy -- public policy in that it needed to be a more narrow -- it needed to be more narrowly viewed. what public policy were you referring to? >> i think the public policy implication here is how this procedure is used. i think it was meant to be narrow. it hasn't been used very often. and i think we want to interpret it clearly so that elected officials, so that the mayor, so that the people understand exactly what we're talking about when referring to official misconduct. so i think there is a public policy goal of having clear interpretations of charter provisions. >> supervisor cohen: maybe i misunderstood your statement. i thought you came to this conclusion based on previous public policies that you taken in and interpreted to -- >> i