the mayor-ap himself cannot be removed for official misconduct under the city charter. h is quite interesting, because if we actually committed perjury here -- [tone] before the ethics commission, it would be suitable to bring this up against him. i think this is a waste of resources and time and money. i cannot believe you created 15 in. of documents. i applaud you in your duty, but i think things have gone too far. i ask you to hold the mayor accountable and consider whether he abused his discretion in started this whole process. [tone] give him careful thought and consider whether -- [no audio] >> thank you, ma'am. >> my name is vivian. i am a city workers speaking as a private individual on my own time. the mayor invalidated the will of the voters, who embraced ross and his vision for a better tomorrow. ross has always invigorated the electorate. his brilliance and integrity inspire us and make us better citizens. city hall inflicted unprecedented punishment for a misdemeanor. there was no official misconduct. a false imprisonment was merely turning around his band t

the city charter. that was solely meant to describe the mayor's presentation of evidence, which we have felt from the outset was not called for in any stretch, either under official misconduct or was a reasonable exercise in the mayor's discretion. the test for bigness is whether or not the statute at issue, in this case 15.1 05 has sufficient definite miss that ordinary people could understand what conduct is prohibited. that is number one. the second prong, because the manner or language of the statute anchorage arbitrary and preliminary enforcement. under both of those, can we understand what conduct is prohibited, and does it lead itself to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement? under both of those, we would say that 15. 10105 is vague. how do we tell it the application of an this is enforcement? we look of the context and consistency. how work other examples of alleged wrongdoing dealt with by the mayor, the city, and other enforcement bodies? was the mayor's suspension arbitrary? was a discriminatory? was it consistent with how this mayor has treated other cases of alleged wrongdoing by city officials? was it consistent with how other mayors have handled similar ca