all and extreme difficult challenging circumstances. that's it. >> thank you. añ president chiu. >> president chiu: thank you. i wanted to state in thisj ninth hour deliberations i want to thank the public for all of thewíes perspectives and values and stories and truth that you've i want to thank the competent counsel on both sides of this issue. i absolutely want to thankh-w the ethics commission and its chair for your leadership and for your months of work. as has been stated as is probably quite obvious this may be one of the most difficult decisions that i think those of us e-ñ serve on this body will have to make not just because of the rare historic nature of what we9 because it involves a former colleague who as we all know, and we all agree, has served his

constituents with such distinction and dedication. and my&dñ you and your family for what you've goneg. year. we've heard a suggestion tonight that we are considering a matter that somehow mayë7ñ be against the will of voters. unfortunately years ago, the voters ofubm san francisco included in our city constitution a process for the removal of public officials based on official misconduct the process that we must engage in tonight. these are the difficul46o+2a decisions that we were all elected to make. the ethics commission found in unanimous findings that our]ó2w sheriff committed acts of verbal and physical abuse against his wife restrained his wife and vield her personal liberty pled guilty to the charge of false imprisonment and was civiliansed to three years of probation in our jurisdiction required to go through a year of domestic counseling and pay a fine for

domestic violence. the question in front of us as we know is whether thesíz áeá conduct on december 31 of last year constituted officialtuu)w misconduct. and having reviewed the entire record, it's very difficult for me to come torv+v any other conclusion except to sustain the charges. i have three points i want to make in this regard. first of all they. official duties of sheriff includes not just the direct oversight of programs in thexs- those who have broken the law. this criminal" completely related to the official duties of the sheriff. and it isib how deputy sheriffs, who are not bpj4(p&c"p% allowed to commit crimes while they're off duty to keep their jobs are askedi?z1e to abide by one standard and not require the sheriff, their boss, to abide by that same standard. secondly as i think through the3]ez arguments of the sheriff's lawyers, they have been very

good arguments it's hard for me to agree with the suggestion that somehow this is a personal act of misconduct but not official misconduct, that we are only responsible for what happens from 9:00 to 5:00 when we sit in our public office. as public officials, and

this was not a serious crime. as a former prosecutor i am familiar with the challenges of enforcing our domestic violence laws and we know the history of what happens, when we don't take these laws"z[z seriously. we've heard many stories tonight, very personal stories, ofifñ frustrations, of other examples of alleged domestic violence that haveá/zt not been fully investigated and prosecuted. i don't think the answers to them though is to say in this case we shouldn't take those allegations seriously. i think the answer is to take every allegation ofváj[ domestic violence as seriously as we have considered this situation, as aebm city for the past nine months. as a mother who testifiedñ1rgqujáju about what her children will learn from this tonight's[ 'k"ecision is going to communicate a message to our city and beyond about how we as san franciscans viewe4x÷ domestic violence about

what we should expect in law enforcement leadership. given that itqvm7 appears that there are three votes to not uphold the charges i think it is incumbent and i7:)hv will echo supervisor campos that we will need to come together as a city on this. we're going to have to work together to let our city and the entire world know that we do not stand for this type of activity, we do not stand for domestic violence. >>ke7ñ thank you, president chiu. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor campos. well, colleagues, andyz,i members of the public, i think it is a sad situation that we are here tonight. you know, what has happened over the last nine months has obviously brgy;8)t lot of unwanted spotlight not only on our city and the sheriff's department, i've found it personally wrenching that4 h7knm obviously pit family members against each other and, you know, with the young boyrh involved as well.

and i agree with what supervisor campos said earlier and ii"ñh think everyone has echoed no one takes pleasure in being here tonight. this is not fun ata?b>÷ all. in terms of the issue at hand for me, obviously the crime is a fact. it's whether or not it's official misconduct. i want to talk about a few issuesú m=ñ i struggled with. with the dialogue with the city@j'ñ attorney's office earlier you know, i did reject that notion i did have serious issues with the notion of mr. mirkarimi not being sworn in but being the sheriff-elect. but at thhí )hju$e day as president chiu did mention earlier i do think there are duties that attachk"t prior to being sworn in. it does seem absurd there weredo"0k some comments you know, you take it to extremes, what happens about, you know, =4ñ robbing folks on the way to your

inauguration. that does not make sense to and perhaps you know, this won't nowñ 9 be adjudicated in the courts after what seems to be three votes at aq.$ sustain the charges. but as i've thought about-]9s it, those duties do attach when someone has that expectation that they're going to be sworn into office. i'm okay with that issue but i do caution of taking this to extremes. and i amd precedent-setting natureúonst of what we're talking about today. and i do thinking even going beyond what maybe the final vote here, i think we're going to caution and everyone would agree, that of power underneath this charter provision would be frowned upon. in terms of official misconduct i view it in two ways in reading

the charter, either specifically related to duties as anztv elected official, and in this instance i think there are specific duties that do attach to the sheriff's office as a number of other offices in san francisco or else in an act so egregious no elect official shall remain in officevf; here i think the central debate isn

and as you thinkeké'f about and read through the briefs the duties of sheriff include not only being thebri/ chief law enforcement officer but working with adult probation, discretion to decideéñ?gy which offenders remain in custody enforcing orders and definitely interacting with domestic violence programs. i will say no matter where people come out on this issue i declaring how serious of an issue domestic violence is and that even those people -- and i hope no one takes a chance to pot shot at people after

untenable. elected officials are(4 held to higher standards but like it or not public safety officials are held to even higher?hzn t(áqj in many instances. to me the totality of the circumstances i don't be3pxç doesn't allow mr. mirkarimi to effectively discharge the duties of sheriff going forward. now much has been said about this process thwarting democracy. i will agree with my colleagues mentioned this was put in place by the voters a number of years ago. but i am empathetic to most of ÷o se arguments. you vote someone in. you can vote them out. and i worry a great deal about!5w@m potential for abuse in this charter section. i reject the notion that this is speedy tool to adjudicate. i don't think that's a proper way to look at this. i would almost always argue that a recall is a more appropriate action in these circumstances, unless a continuation of dutiesyv$ during recall is problematic and

presents a hazard. given the duties and theev aq4j4(p&c"p% that the sheriff's status on probation attempting to govern the sheriff's department i believe wasoù a course of action and i will vote to sustain the charges of the ethics commission. let me say one comment about restorative justice that has been mentioned before. i doi i take great pride in our city's efforts in restorative÷nn9e t and especially sheriff hennessy's work here in the years preceding this past>&w?m election. and i'm extremely saddened what this has doneñ. and i wish mr. mirkarimi, ms. lopezrwfo and your son nothing but the best wishes as you=j continue to seek to reconcile and find solace and the time and the gift to reconnect. and as president chiu)bjxhñ mentioned, we do have to come together as a city, no matter what the ultimate tally isç4ol here. we have to come together as a city and move forward. and you have my commitment to dom:÷

that. >> president chiu: supervisorg elsbernd. >> supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. and thank you to the -- i said something to commissioner hur beforehand at! say that the ethics commission reviewing the deliberations and all that you did you truly elevated yourselves as a;h6kk@&c"p% commission and proved yourself worthy of the title of úñ commissioner and i thank you for the work you did as a commission and asu i second the motion by supervisor clearly indicating my intend to vote to sustain the charges 37 i'm not going to get into the oa÷.& issues. i like to associate myselfj:5 president chiu's comments but the point i want to raise i think that needs to be and put on the record with the vote already clear but still needs to be stated.

the issue thatl8u discussion with the sheriff's counsel about theq%-y sheriff's duties, sheriff takes understandably in this instance,u]3 a very narrow scope of what his duties areli h what his official duties are. i could not disagree with that b/(q i think to imply that the sheriff's duties are solely to maintainó?ar the jails, absolutely ignores all the responsibilities that come with enforcement official. what's more, it4?ed absolutely ignores the the responsibilities that come with being the chief law5o enforcement official, and one more piece, the elected[y÷ chief law enforcement official.tk& uniquely to the role of sheriff, elected sheriff, i think truly come require an individual to

impeccably in front of the electorate, impeccably in;bj+ of the public. that person has volunteered, stood forward to say i want to there unquestionably as someone above theéexó, law. and i believe that the sheriff violated that trust. his official duties. and i believe the$>ñ4s sheriff is guilty of official misconduct >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisoríyw want to repeat the points that manyrv) of my colleagues have been making tonight. but i did just want to say that""y )z was personally upset to see some members of our public criticize and> berate some of our domestic violence advocates that came out+eoañ today. i think that that was unfortunate and it was incredibly inappropriate.

i think!íuyu that people are entitled to their opinions and just as your opinion is respected in this room ióc!

somoyv i'll speak quickly on the timing issue and i think most of us are in agreement here. 2 found to perform official misconduct asw.t0ñ sheriff-elect. and i come to this conclusion because even under the most narrow definition of what rmy=ñjjr( to office means, i believe that you can commit official misconductgç#w÷ because you can purport to be on the job or purport to use the power of your officex';[ under the color of the law. i think about the last time this came before us -- notpwon÷ before the board of supervisors but the last time it occurred in the city andi@4y that was with ajew. if supervisor+>çda elect had told the store he would help them through a planning processbú$g if they took a bribe before he swore an oath of office i(r think he committed official misuse of conduct because he is using his office under the color of the law so

tai he can do one thing or a; i think the timing issue has been well settled here. on the definition ofy[ri official misconduct, and hees where i agree with chairman huh i think wej1jj need to take the most narrow definition of official misconduct asxn1 defined by maz ol-a and black's law disiksary and that the conduct clause whether it falls below the standard of desen ski must be inwwg2f direct relation and connected to the performance of your official duties or purá,6u purporting to perform your official duties. on the standard, and this isuú0zp where it got stickier for me is where is the standard for each electw7< official. is there one standard or multiple standards and i completely und colleagues came to the conclusion that there are multiple. if i agree withíymh that then i think the sheriff is held to a higher standard that actually there are things that he can:c3d do.

but when i look at the simple language, it says a ívz standard and it says one that is impliedly required oì6xw all public officials. and so i think the standard to which we hold the sheriff is a standard that we z ñ to all elected officials, whether you are supervisor, or districtb attorney or treasurer. sokúo4r on the sustained charges that have come before us, i wasn't convinced, eitherç#ñ(z by the majority or by the mayor's office that counts four and five then fit under this dxdi of official misconduct. i think that ituqó wasn't shown that when the sheriff grabbed his wife, that it was4rú% done under the color of the law or that he used his office or the powers of his officeqñt to commit what i consider to be violence against her. and i want to be very clear about that. i do think that what happened

was incredibly#] egregious. where i was then again troubled was withw8m counts two and three which were not the counts brought before us. i agreed with@rkz ethics that count three was not shown by preponderance of evidence, that whileñ'5o it was plausible that the sheriff tried to dissuade witnesses fromx8vc speaking out against him, there wasn't the evidence or preponderance ofz@p@k evidence to show that that is what he did. where i remain stuck is count4'ky two. and count two referred touh whether he -- what he meant by the statement that he's a powerful-.÷l man. and whether i think by he was purporting to use his powers to threaten child8=ó custody ownership. the motion before the board -- and i think is kind of a lot of -- certain ambiguity here

because this is8óh:s the first time that we're hearing this, is the motion before us today is that wefcfañ are sustaining charges counts four and five. i won't be able to support thatg,!yá motion. and i won't because i do take this job very seriously, that weq"p% are public policy-makers. i think one of the most important things that we can do official misconduct means$ dj4(p&c"p% going -- what official misconduct means as we move forward, and how we interpret/ñy that charter. unfortunately we are here for the first time toç that definition also to interpret it. and i think that we have

officials to be able to predict whatsdpg official misconduct means but also for our mayor our ethics commission, and fornjj board of supervisors. i know that i had spokena[

talked about how dirp 1q it is, and none of us are pleased to be here, turn. there are people who saidóé ñ domestic violations advocates were trying to break up a family. i don't think they should be wd5 in that light and i hope this conversation helps us to understand thisbcz÷ better. they are not the enemy here and i want to say that it was person make these comments. i was sad to smñ=w a number of people, after they made their public comments give high fives3dc9s to people in celebration for what they had said because the crowd cheeredf that is wrong. this is not a good event to be at and that is important tor#xhú note. so that being said, the items before us are a number of issues. i wantñi69 to speak on two points. i think supervisor kim had spoken about the question ofso timing and i agree with her

comments. i do think that a sheriff-elect is responsiblehy for his or her actions. i don't think that the charter meant to give an individual free pass forr they are sworn into office so that piece to me ish@1tí quite clear. there is a second question about whether or not it constitutes an-q-ma official misconduct situation and whether or not it impacts an individual's abilities toóba:÷ discharge their duties and in this case i really think that it does as a law enforcementñ7 jzejt)(rp&, but also as a leader of city and what it is that you represent being an official ofcg san francisco. and so because of that i will be voting to sustain the i do think to the family, i do

>> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i realize/umm actually my final comments were a little confusing so i think i'm generallpp conflicted on this issue but i will be simple about it today. the charges that ethi[cwa commission sustained were counts four and five. simply the amendment is whether'í+qñ we would sustain those charges. and so as i stated before, i don'ti ó believe that counts four and five fall under the definition of official misconductsm z that i think we should all be under. if the ethics commission found evidence that count two actually hadj jñ been proven by a preponderance of evidence i would be in a different position but being that we had ethics to be the body that looked at the ÷ evidence and judged it before us, i'm going-5wmv to respect that body and the hearing. i was not there for all of those hearings. while ijw-úm the video

personally very moving, and i couldn't come to very manyen other conclusions as to what was meant by that statement, today i o11 respect that these are the charges that were brought befores?í us. >> president chiu: is there any furtherqi + comment? we are not done with the proceedings. any further.écfñ comments from colleagues? supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i k just have a, i don't know if this is going to affect anyone's vote but i have apqht counsel, just to clarify. are we ablewbz7 to sustain any charge alleged by the mayor, whether or not ther'ñç ethics commission recommended sustaining of that charge? >> yes,pñ.u are able to sustain any chargeúndló?eátááhjt the recommendation of the ethics commission but i think you all need to be voting on the same

>> supervisor wiener:j approximate. >> president chiu: any further discussionvs1ñ colleagues? so i understand supervisor wiener has made a motion to/ú l @&c"p% sustain charges. supervisor wiener should we assume those are for charges four and fiveu2 ÷ or are you also going to amend that? >> supervisor wiener: based on the recommendation of the ethicsñ commission. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener has made the motion to sustain the charges reflecting the decision of the9] super-majority of the agents commission on charges four and five. that motion was secondedn yka by supervisor elsbernd. unless there's further discussion why don't we take roll call vote onu> clerk calvillo: supervisor kim, no.qy xm supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, 4 no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos,0p8co no. supervisor campos, no. president chiu,]om aye.

supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen,col' aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell,ñuf aye. there are seven ayes and four nos 3-6r7b89d given that that motion required:pfxz votes in order to pass the motion is not approved the the comarges of9yk official misconduct against ross mirkarimi arek])-ñ sustainedxj5cf. idsf>l+sq1q >> president chiu: colleagues, we still have additional business but why don't i suggest we recess4(fq for five minutes and then resume. with that, we'll recess. >>% (the san franciscon[" ez

supervisors is in1uxo? recess) jlosf6z6oxçç$a=5fñci:l éfu[gññk

9ñ'p9ñw7 0sx!j