i don't know, mr. renne, if you have any further thoughts on the issue. does any member of the commission propose to not exclude paragraph 22? >> have i no problem with excluding it. >> unless there's dissent from the commission, it sounds like 21 through 28 will be excluded. ok. let's go to mr. hennessey. the first objection is to the full paragraph on page 2, second full paragraph on page 2. by the way, if we ever have to do any more declarations, can you please include paragraph numbers? this is extremely painful without paragraph numbers. >> yes. >> thank you. first full paragraph on page 2 of mr. hennessey's declaration beginning with i am aware

i don't know, mr. renne, if you have any further thoughts on the issue. does any member of the commission propose to not exclude paragraph 22? >> have i no problem with excluding it. >> unless there's dissent from the commission, it sounds like 21 through 28 will be excluded. ok. let's go to mr. hennessey. the first objection is to the full paragraph on page 2, second full paragraph on page 2. by the way, if we ever have to do any more declarations, can you please include paragraph numbers? this is extremely painful without paragraph numbers. >> yes. >> thank you. first full paragraph on page 2 of mr. hennessey's declaration beginning with i am aware and ending with the elected county sheriff, the mayor's argument is that this relates to separate incidents under different law. and that it would be -- it's irrelevant. i agree with that. i would sustain the objection to that paragraph. and i welcome the view of my fellow commissioners. >> i completely agree. i think that we definitely don't want to get in a situation where we're doing little mini trials on

i am cognizant of the concern that mr. renne and other members of the commission have voiced as to the relevance of the effect the sheriff's conduct may have on his ability to perform his job being relevant to the inquiry of whether his act relate to his duties. i think i have expressed the view that i do not think the consequences of those acts are relevant to whether or not the actions were official misconduct. given the diversion of views by the commission previously, i think it would be helpful to admit the first sentence of paragraph 26, and paragraphs 27 -- i am sorry. i would admit, starting with the second sentence of paragraph 26 and the remainder of para rep 26 and 27. my proposal is that we sustain the objection to one through 18, and exhibits citing therein, the first sentence of part of 26, and her group 28. -- and paragraph 28. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ms. kaiser, please take a seat. we have given you an opportunity to speak. if any commissioner wishes to ask you a question, we will ask you.

chairperson hur: i think i know where mr. renne falls on this objection. i think it should be overruled. is there a dissenting view from the commission as to whether that line should be permitted? >> at the very least it could come in as background evidence. i do not see any problem with it. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. paragraph 20, line one. >> this is also relevant to that same issue whether or not the mayor has some kind of bias in his decision. it is also relevant to the issue of whether or not there is an adequate investigation done by the mayor before the charges of misconduct were filed. as i believe has been made clear throughout these proceedings, the investigation was not only not concluded, it was not begun at the time the charges were filed. for those reasons we believe the mayor's failure to talk to the share for his wife about what happened is highly relevant. >> i hate to retread ground but the mayor made this decision when he found out the sheriff is a convict and is on probation for three years of his term. that is when t

>> can i just voice a concern that i had because i had the same concern that mr. renne just voice which is i did not want to have the sentences read out. my concern is that when mr. keith responds to my objections he's probably, i would think he would want to explain to you why they are relevant and that would necessitate that recitation of these facts. i'm not so sure this is going work. i'm throg give it a try. i'm going to make my objections in the most legal and general terms without addressing this specifics. chairperson hur: ok. let's try it. >> so we don't object to paragraphs one, two, three, four and that's as far as i got. we object to paragraph five on relevance grounds. chairperson hur: any other basis? >> the first sentence is probably more prejudicial under 352. when i say relevance grounds i don't know if you want me to spell out the parts specifically that i think are more prejudicial than probative. >> i can actually short circuit this. well, let me say specifically, paragraph five -- oh, i'm sorry. >> ok. >> paragraph five, lines 9-10, i think we would

i wanted to thank publicly mr. renne, inspector van cole, bernadette robinson. they worked extensively. having work that they view for the last 15 months during the evening and during the day and having experience, the dynamics of the club at 550 barneveld and things that affect us, trying to provide public safety services, it is quite and efficient plan. it is doable. it is quite fair to come back in six months. the idea of the permit was under much discussion in april, but it is fair for us to evaluate whether that condition should be lifted. i will answer your questions if you have any. president newlin: i think you are aware that your father was my training officer when i got out of the academy in 1970 in central park station. he is responsible -- >> i am aware of that now. president newlin: that is the only question i have. >> i will pass that along. president newlin: is there anybody else from the police department that wants to comment about this? seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. are there people from the public here to comment on this?

renne: i am still lost. chairperson hur: it begins with i never expected anything going -- this is mr. deleone. commissioner renne: i thought you were talking about linette. that explains it. chairperson hur: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> the foundation appears to have been made previously when she describes her experience in caring for children.chairpersons on this? >> when you say she describes her experience caring for children, are you talking about the first sentence? >> where she says she is a child care provider. it is implied it is not just for sheriff mirkarimi and miss lopez's son. chairperson hur: are would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it lacks foundation in this would be more appropriate for expert testimony if it were relevant. is there a dissenting view with respect to that objection? commissioner renne: the whole paragraph? chairperson hur: "usually children have." the objection is sustained. you said you had two others? >> the next paragraph after that beginning when they were separated. that is basically a lot of statements about observations of

mr. sheriff, a good morning. i want to fall upon something commissioner renne asked you. why is it that once you and your wife got out of the car on december 31, why did the argument suddenly stop? >> frankly, because of our child. i think i stayed in the car to reflect on what happened. my wife collected our son and went into the house. i was still in the driver's seat and took my seat belt off and collected some of the things like the child's bad, some of the other belongings inside the car, and women to the house. it was lunchtime. if you live, she is extremely regimented about eating at certain times. -- if you know my wife, she is extremely regimented about eating at certain times. i did not want to add to the attention. that was something we honor. it was lunchtime. my son was being given lunch. >> any of the questions for the sheriff? -- any other questions for the sheriff? commissioner hayon? >> in terms of the timeline of when your wife called you and spoke to you and acknowledged and explain to you that she had visited the neighbor and that there had been a vide

commissioner renne: it might make some, but it would not make me happy. it seems to me that if i can get it to mr. keith by sometime on friday, sooner rather than later, that would solve the timing problems, would it not? chairperson hur: in light of that, when would you be able to get us in the -- >> if mr. kopp is available to meet on monday afternoon, we could try to get it on tuesday the 26th. chairperson hur: do we have a midnight deadline in this case? the same midnight deadline applies. that is for both. >> understood. chairperson hur: does that cover all of the -- >> i am not clear whether you would like me to prepare a subpoena for ms. mattison and ms. martin to appear next week, in light of what you've just heard. chairperson hur: i understand they are represented by the same party. the same lawyer. is that correct? and he is with a firm, correct? i think we can handle this one of two ways. i think the commission can subpoena these witnesses. i appreciate the attorneys desire to be there. but if he has partners at the firm, i do not have qualms with requesting the appearance of the witn

renne propose and we could go back to this second declaration that we haven't gone through yet. chairperson hur: i think we should discuss that proposal. and think relevant to that discussion mr. kopp would be whether you want to cross examine ms. madison based on what you learned so far with respect to the objections.>> mye portions of the declaration that i shot -- thought should be excluded were excluded, i did not intend to cross. chairperson hur: with respect to the statements made to ms. madison by ms. lopez of coffee -- ms. lopez, we have under rule that a lot of those. you are saying you would not want to cross-examine? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. the proposal to simply permit ms. mattison to testify and handle commission views on her declaration -- i would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners on that. >> i would be fine with that. that would be a fine way to proceed. that would be a fine way to proceed, we think. >> if mr. kopp does not want to cross-examine ms. mattison, given what is in and what is out, we may not need her to come in at all. chairperson hur: that is kind of what i was thinking, mr. keith. >> i think we can try to do this on paper. if we