chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove that the sheriff was actually scared. but it could come in to say that miss lopez said that. >> in addition it is talking about the fact that there the sheriff was on that time and on that day, which is not hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule that objection with the same caveat with respect to hearsay. and the dissenting view? that objection is overruled. >> on paragraph 16, this is irrelevant and up fight to expand on that, -- if i can expand on that, you have heard this allegation that the sheriff persuaded either his wife or peralta hanes to persuade witnesses from talking to the police. there is not going to be any evidence before you now or in the future that he ever did so. whenever these communications were between miss lopez and ms. williams, unless that can be linked to something sheriff mirkarimi did that was inappropriate, they are irrelevant. >> you agree there may not be d

chairperson hur: ok. on the 28, we may hear from the share of. we will certainly hear from him by the 29th. the 29th, we will hear from the mayor and any other experts. we then need a date to hear testimony from ms. haynes and i think we should, whatever that date is, hold that we could get them to the extent they need to be cross-examined. >> based on some conflicts among lawyers, i think the earliest we would be able to do that would be july 16. chairperson hur: i am sorry. the commissioners just got the schedule. is july 16 available for all of the commissioners? that is monday, july 16. >> it is not. chairperson hur: ok. i guess this is a question to the commission staff. there are no rooms available from the 17th to the 20th? >> it is possible that this room is available. in the evening. but we have to double check the schedules of who is meeting during the day. also with sfg tv to see if they have broadcast slots available. for those evenings, if you wish to meet, we can schedule them tentatively an

chairperson hur: we will deal with it then. it sounds like the parties would like the commissioners to review the video. my suggestion is that the commissioners do so on their own time. i do not think we need to set up whatever audiovisual to show it for us to out -- evaluate whether it should be admissible. how will we get a copy? >> i have sent seven copies. they have delivered them. chairperson hur: we have them? ok. it sounds like i will be able to figure out a way. next we should not be -- address the objections submitted by the sheriff. mr. keith, i understand you have no objection. that is still the case? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. what about -- >> i have three objections. i can make them all or early -- orally. chairperson hur: ok. >> if you look at the fifth paragraph of the declaration, and beginning i never suspected, there is a sentence beginning with the word " usually." we would move to exclude that for a lack of foundation and it is getting toward an expert opinion. commissioner renne: which paragraph is this?

chairperson hur: ok. please, we are nearing the end of this proceeding. the public has been respectful thus far and we would like that to continue. none of the extracurricular conversation. >> having made that point, i see the argument we just made regarding the last objection, i would also assume the condition -- the commission arpino's that and they can make their ruling. chairperson hur: my view it is not relevant of anything. i do not see a situation in which that would happen. i do not see the relevance or the value of that. i would strike and permit the remainder. is there a dissenting view to that? the objection is sustained. para graaff 21. -- paragraph 21. >> i do not see this as his opinion that he has ability, it is really just a phrase that is uttered routinely. i do not see this as his expert opinion that he has the ability to serve as a law-enforcement officer. >> is that the limitation? chairperson hur: sounds like there is a stipulation. the objection is overruled. ok. have we handled all

chairperson hur: what part? >> the way i understand the entire paragraph is this is the witnesses' interpretation of the things that were said to her by the ileana -- eliana lopez. chairperson hur: some of this was statements made by eliana. what do you mean when you say impressions? >> she says "as eliana described it." it seems to me this is her interpretation of what's the comment means. that is why i think it is speculative. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. that is something you could cross-examine a witness to. again, it is hearsay. i would give it the same weight we otherwise would. i would be inclined to permit that. commissioner studley:>> i have y starting at the word that in mind 17, which appears to be her comment on what she had heard or read in the press about what mr. mirkarimi was saying. i think that is probably improper. one witness commenting on another as to whether or not they think their statement is consistent. chairperson hur: i apologize for my lack of clari

chairperson hur: commissioners views on handling this? hoip i would just go back -- chairperson hayon: i would go back to what commissioner 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

chairperson hur: thank you. >> before you leave. in view of what you just said, have you asked the city attorney, if we stipulate to those facts that you just said, will the city attorney agree that there is no need to put on witnesses who presumably are primarily going to testify to what ms. lopez told them happened? >> not in so many words. but just to give you a sense of what is happening. i believe it was last monday or tuesday. mr. keith and ms. kaiser sent us a fairly -- a fairly long stipulation. we look to the that over and gave them our response. end of last week. that fact was included. i did not say, if we -- the commission does not need to hear from ms. madison or ms. williams. we have not fleshed out to that extent yet. i'm not going to leave. >> i am sure you will be back appear again. -- up here again. >> we should take up the issue of witnesses by declaration. i appreciate that declarations are less burdensome for the fact finders that live testimony. that said, i am still concerned -- i do not w

chairperson hur: i am sorry. starting with the word "she" on line 10, and ending with "then o" on line 12? >> yes. those of the portions we object to. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. again, cautioning that it has been conceded that it is here say, we could be -- is here say -- hearsay, we likely would not rely on it as sole evidence to establish the fact. is there descent from the commission? -- dissent from the commission? that objection is overruled. paris graphs 7? >> hugh -- paragraph 7? >> hearsay, as to the entire paragraph. also, withdrawn. just here said. -- hearsay. >> as i stated before, this is offered as an administrative hearsay, and to bolster the reliability of the other statements, not for the truth of the matter. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule. any dissent from the commissioner specs -- commissioners? paragraph 8? >> i am sorry, chairperson. i am not sure if you want me to -- i have already launched these objections. i could probably tell you -- i

chairperson hur: ok. >> during the day, i do have a couple of hearings. i have to look and see exactly what dates i have hearings in august, if it is during the day. >> i have a charger if it is an iphone. >> it is a phone i have had problems with, so i think it will take forever. thank you, though. chairperson hur: do the parties have any unavailability, where absolutely things cannot be moved? >> no. chairperson hur: if you can hold those, why don't we plan to talk on monday? i will talk to the parties about scheduling. we can get a commissioner -- get commissioner liu's calendar and look at when we can have our last meeting on this. commissioner liu: thank you. chairperson hur: any comments from the commissioners or objections from the parties about the schedule we have discussed? >> neither of us is available to consult with you on monday. chairperson hur: ok. we can do it tuesday. >> or tuesday. >> we can work out a time. >> what time are we scheduled to start on july 18 and july 19? chairperson hur:

chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. any dissent with respect to overruling the objections 19 and 20? commissioner renne: what is the relevance of 19? what is contained in 19? >> it did to show the relationship between the witnesses and also to show they have not spoken with each other about what occurred. they have not spoken to each other about the substance of what ms. lopez told them. chairperson hur: how does it show that? >> that is what it says. i did not need to have a sharp response. chairperson hur: i was focusing on the other portion. but what about the other portions of paragraph 19? >> part of me wanted to include everything that might be brought up on cross-examination including this idea, have you spoken with other witnesses? so that is why it is included. is there for a complete picture to evaluate the credibility of the witness. chairperson hur: i'm sharing your concern with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence. in fact the last sentence of paragraph 20, should be included. commiss

chairperson hur: great. i understand that the mayor based on our previous conversations is available on the 29th? >> that is correct. chairperson hur: we had discussed the possibility of experts testifying out of order, having been testifying on the 29th. it sounds like they agree that will be ok. do i have that correct? >> there may be no need to take them out of order. chairperson hur: but you still want haynes. >> i do not know about the other witness. we are still deciding. i do not know about the availability of their expert witness. >> i do not have an answer on the former sheriff. i need an indication as to whether they intend to cross- examine them. >> we agreed to do that on thursday. chairperson hur: i think we need to hear from any experts we have on the 29th. i thought that is what we had discussed and i thought we were also going to get an indication they were available. yours are. >> i can find out in short order. again, i still have not had a chance to digest or read the expert witness declara

chairperson hur: ok. if your side is agreeable, mr. kopp, it might be helpful to narrow down the dispute based on the allegations and the charges. i do think we need to make findings of fact. when the you think you will be able to provide the commission with that, identifying the portions of the allegations that you dispute? >> before the next meeting. i do not know how much before that you could want them. if it is like the other document we are going to submit to you, it is going to be a couple of days before. chairperson hur: by the we keep the same date? i think it was july 17. ok. >> may i bring up the related issue, which i think fits index i do believe that, in addition to considering fact, there are also disputes of law here. i am wondering if there is a mechanism that can be put in place of the commission can start to consider getting more information from the parties about questions of law, which are certainly and clearly, just listening to the commissioners, unsettled. chairperson hur: we defin

chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. the second objection. >> in terms of the mayor not telling sheriff mirkarimi why he suspended him, we think it is relevant. there was not a legally valid reason for the suspension but it was an improper reason. that could go to the mayor's bias. >> our objection on this was relevant. there is not a due process claim about whether there is an interest in getting paid or anything like that. this is not relevant. the communications with the mayor and the nature of them, and even if it may go to the bias, did the sheriff thing to the mayor was unfair? clearly he does. i do not think it undermines regarding the validity of the charges. the charges rise and fall on the facts not on what was going on in the mayor's head. >> what is the purpose of the mayor's declaration? >> it was requested. chairperson hur: the mayor basically said -- as seems there is some relevance and the basis of the decision. i think the share should be committed to examine the mayor on whether what that was the basis,

chairperson hur: yes. i think that is right. >> i just want add, once he has one, it does not matter when the others respond. he can just advise us that that expert will appear. that way we would not have to rush to review the material. chairperson hur: why don't we make a deadline so commissioners need to respond by 5:00 on the 22nd -- on the 25th. the 22nd is when you all will tell each other. that is fine. >> we could also hear from the commission by then. >> i can do it. chairperson hur: 5:00 p.m. on the 20 secondary the commissioners will say whether or not want to hear from an expert.

chairperson hur: thank you. [inaudible] chairperson hur: before we get to -- i think it is a good suggestion. before we get to ms. madison and ms. williams, i have a couple of questions, in light of the rulings on the other witnesses. do i understand that you will not -- obviously, you will not have any need to cross-examine paul henderson. do you have any need to cross- examine wendy still? vicki hennessy? richard danielle? i guess we are waiting on exhibit 4. are you going to be challenging the chain of custody of the video, or anything like that? >> no. chairperson hur: no need to cross-examine? >> correct. chairperson hur: that is helpful. thank you. >> i thought i put this in an e- mail. it is possible not everybody got it. chairperson hur: you did? i may have missed it. thank you. the other thing i wanted to ask was about christine florence -- florez. there was potentially a loophole in the order. we did not request objections to testimony. we did not receive any objections to the transcript. does that mea

chairperson hur: commissioners? commissioner liu: i do think that if the sheriff is taking the position that the misconduct has to relate to something going forward with this official duties, this evidence potentially would be relevant. if i understand you are trying to demonstrate what the relationship or the nexus is between the alleged misconduct and his performance of duties going forward. i thought i understood the shares position to be that the mayor has to establish that connection. if that is the case, i do think this would be relevant, at this witness is supposed to testify about how the alleged misconduct or off-duty behavior could potentially affect someone in the the sheriff's position. i do see the relevance of there. >> i think the problem is this is a very expansive reading of what the duties are of the share of of san francisco. i understand why the mayor wants to expand those duties so that they can bring in a parade of the expensive expert witnesses. the problem is the duties of the sheriff are lim

chairperson hur: the same relevance. overruled. >> was this the first time you used physical force on your wife? >> yes. >> was it the first time you used physical force on anyone? >> yes. >> is it the first time you ever bruised a woman? >> yes. >> you have never brings a woman before? >> objection. chairperson hur: sustained. >> you also mentioned -- let me step back for a moment. before december 31, 2011, had you ever prevented a woman from leaving your home? >> no. >> after that december 31 incident with your wife, did you ever contact anyone for advice? >> objection. relevance? >> i will rephrase. on december 31, when you grab your wife and bruised her, did you realize you had just done something wrong? >> yes. >> and did you come to any conclusion that you needed to take these steps to deal with whatever it was that caused you to grab your wife and bruce heard? >> yes. >> what is the first step that you took? >> seeking a therapist. >> what they did you do that? >> the following week. in fact, before that. within a

chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule. any dissent from the commissioner specs -- commissioners? paragraph 8? >> i am sorry, chairperson. i am not sure if you want me to -- i have already launched these objections. i could probably tell you -- if you would just give me a moment, i could tell you whether or not there are any additional objections, besides here said, as to the remainder of these paragraphs through 18. chairperson hur: sure. i will give you a moment to do that. i am sorry. i do have some additional objections. chairperson hur: let us talk about paragraph eight. your objection is here said. anything beyond your arguments with respect to how to handle here say? >> -- hearsay? i would be inclined to overrule the objection with the same caveat. any dissenting view from the commission? paragraph nine, maybe i will first to view the opportunity, if there are other attractions besides here say -- hearsay. >> in paragraph 9, beginning on line 5, starting with eliana, through the end of that paragraph on line 11, irrel

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 agree that the part of the sentence beginning with -- including is not relevant. >> is that sufficient to address the objection to the first sentence of paragraph five? >> yes. >> ok. >> and then mr. kopp do you have any further objection to paragraph five? >> relevance as to the rest of it. >> keith? >> i would say that we would defeat the claim of bias that's being made against ms. madison and mr. burton the

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 come back, we can go to the rest more quickly. >> i should relate to the commissioners that i, about a half an hour before the hearing, received a call from an attorney who identified himself as ms. madison's attorney. for what it is worth to the commission, he expressed a concern by ms. madison about her continued public involvement in this proceeding, and wanting to minimize that. ok. in wanting to minimize that. chairperson hur: here are my competing concerns with this issue. i am cognizant that

chairperson hur: yes. ok. i do not know if that changes or could change your view of whether he is going to show up or not. is it possible that changes your view? >> it does not change my view, because mr. hennessy has been consistent throughout, and that is no surprise to the mayor. if something changes, i will certainly let you know. chairperson hur: meaning, if he will show up in person? >> if he can find care for his family member, i certainly will let everyone know. up to this point, his position has been consistent. chairperson hur: he is the primary caregiver? >> yes. chairperson hur: and there is no secondary caregiver? >> from what i am informed, that is correct. chairperson hur: he told you that? >> correct. chairperson hur: we gave you notice of what we were going to do at the beginning. i would stand by it. miss lemmon. the declaration is extensive. i have read the declaration. i have also read people versus brown. my understanding of that case, and i am happy to have my fellow commissioners or cou

chairperson hur: no. i understand the parties have a different view whether and to what degree the actions in this case relate to the sheriff's duties. given that there is a legal dispute about that, and that the declaration of sheriff vicki hennessy does purport to relate to the duties of the sheriff, that it should be admitted, and the sheriff should be given an opportunity to cross-examine if he so chooses. i welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners, with respect to the hennessy declaration. commissioner liu: i agree that the job duties of the sheriff are at issue, so it seems like both parties are agreeing that is an issue. whether we have competing and differing facts about that, i think that is relevant, and that should come in. chairperson hur: any dissenting view as to the admissibility of the declaration? like we did last time, i think we should do is not take a vote on every one of these, but at the end, we will take a vote on all the decisions we are making. i would ask ms. eng or mr. em

chairperson hur: sure. so this is relevant for this reason -- sheriff has claimed in his public statements that she's refered to the custody laws as being powerful that he never called himself a very powerful man. the fact that this exchange happened and that ms. lopez was communicating that she had asked with her husband how this is a problem in the past that he had made the statement that he was a powerfulman and could use that to get custody with theo. the fact that there has been a previous discussion of this issue and her understanding of what he said tends to defeat the sheriff's claim that there was some kind of a misunderstanding that he was refering to the custody laws. if there were that misunderstanding would have been cured by that conversation. so the facthat she's saying we talked about -- this prompted a conversation before and she still had the same impression that he was threatening to use his power to use theo's shows that there wasn't a statement that the sheriff made that the custody law

chairperson hur: commissioner studly. chairperson studley: i wonder if her testimony is the better source of any kind of that information. chairperson hur: go ahead. >> i don't doubt that her testimony would be helpful. i think one reason that this kind of testimony is permitted in cases involving domestic violence, again not for the truth of the matter but for the nature of the relationship and the motivation of the victim into explaining the actions of the victim, it's -- it's often because victims recant which is again that's something that's in her statement. these kinds of statements can come in to support an expert opinion even if they're not for the truth. >> when you say you're not introducing them for the truth or falsity of the statements that are being made and attributed to ms. lopez, if they're untrue, they're meaningless, right? so you are -- you're trying -- you are arguing that what she -- what ms. madison says ms. lopez told her was in fact a true statement of facts. isn't that a classic here's? >> -- here

chairperson hur: that is fine -- >> that is fine with us. chairperson hur: ok. that is fine by me. >> this chair will be called by you and your case and chief. is it agreeable, mr. kopp, that you or whenever council is handling it, are you going to wait and put him on when you put your case on? >> we will do it at the same time. chairperson hur: in that case, we would allow some leeway on the redirect. >> the objections to the exhibits will be submitted by the end of the day tomorrow are due when? chairperson hur: the objections should be due by monday. the 25th. again, the point is to give you guys a chance to stipulate where stipulation is opprobrious so that we do not have to deal with an objection every single exhibit. is that acceptable to the commission? anything else that we need to deal with? >> not on our part. thank you. >> nothing for us. >> i do not think so. chairperson hur: commissioners, do we need a motion to adopt the interim decisions that we made throughout the evening? >> it is a custom. you do not need it but you usually do it. chairperson h

chairperson hur: yeah, mr. kopp, one thing that comes to mind as we discuss this issue, i think we asked if you would -- if you would be prepared today to tell us whether ms. lopez is going to submit a declare ration. do you have that information? >> i do. i do not speak directly to ms. lopez. i talk to her lawyer. i am informed that she is willing to submit a declaration. i don't have a firm grasp on what the timing of that would be. but i hope that it would be within the next week or so. part of it is because it's responsive to these declarations that were responded to the weekend or friday an then again on sunday. no decision has been made as to whether or not she is willing to appear for live testimony or cross-examination or appear remotely. that's all i can tell you at this point. >> when will you know? will you get an answer? >> i expect it within a week. i'm going to know -- i should be able to get a declaration or hope to be able to get one and i should have an answer as to whether or not she'll submit

chairperson hur: i appreciate your concern. with respect to witnesses appearing by a declaration and we should address that but i want to focus on live witnesses right now. you were saying that the people you think we need to see live r. michael hennessey, the mayor, ms. lopez, mr. merton, and ms. williams. during have that correct? >> i do not think the -- we need to hear from a share tennessee. >> i thought you did. >> i was filling out the list. he probably would not be on the list. we do have our subject matter experts. chairperson hur: what is ms. williams going to offer to us that is relevant to any of the charges? >> we expect ms. madison's credibility to be attacked. ileana lopez told a consistent story. the fact that ms. williams is telling both of these witnesses a similar story career breaks m -- corroborates ms. lopez's story. areas important that her testimony be heard on that matter. -- is important that her testimony be heard on that matter. chairperson hur: what is she going to say that is related to the dissuas