chairperson hayon: ok.ter on, there are all these phone calls that should have been referred to in the afternoon. callskpl> cycle. chairperson hayon: it made the decision it was not -- i do not want to say not that important. it obviously question ivory madison's decision to call the police. >> i never questioned her. >> from what you have described in your testimony. >> when i said back afterwards and here -- hear her and her friend. and having a conversation with eliana, did he ever hit you, going through an assessment and she was saying no, no, no. it did seem sl -- like something is not one yet. chairperson hayon: it does seem out of whack but in your experience with domestic violence victims, i am sure you have encountered total of some erotic behavior if you will where people are saying the exact opposite of what they really want to do or to happ

commissioner hayon: thank you. chair hur: the other question i had was about the electronic version of schedule d. >> says schedule d, the way the state constructed electronic format for the is complicated, and as a result, the way needed to complete that is laborious in the electronic system. we are actually working on a revision that would speed up the entry of schedule d to get around some of the state format issues, but i do not expect that to come out until early next year. chair hur: i am glad to hear you are working on it. that is great. ok. any other questions or comments? is there a motion to adopt 0.1 through five, with the two amendments proposed? vice president studley: so moved. chair hur: it passes. the next item on the agenda is for section 1.126. mr. st. croix? >> when we have is to clarify some issues that have been raised dealing with the extent of the campaign finance reform and ornaments, and basically, many of the changes are technical in nature or are linguistic in nature. the one thing we wan

and i think commissioner hayon made good points. there is the action others assert ms. lopez took, and her own testimony. i think ms. lemon's testimony may be helpful in that regard. i do not feel we need the conclusions of law that she offers us. i think that is our responsibility. chairperson hur: i agree with that. i do not think we need the conclusions of law, and i do not think we need her to tell us how his actions relate to his duties. we have an expert for that. any dissenting views? >> may i speak to the issue? i think the question is not whether it missileman's declaration is cumulative -- -- whether miss lemon's declaration is cumulative. it is about their relationship between a sheriff who has committed an act of violence and the duties of the sheriff. i think those are things for which there is a story. in terms of the ultimate issue, there is a difference in criminal law and in civil law. in civil law, there is explicit evidence that says it is admissible for an expert to offer you their opinion on the ultimate issue. that does not bind you to the expert o

chairperson hayon: i think we i have more general questions.have been asked about a lot of specific phone calls and i would totally agree with you that your member 20 different specific phone calls from six months ago would be very difficult for any of us. however, i think that january 4 must have been a very dramatic and memorable day for you. you said at the end of the day, you were stressed out, a lot had taken place. i am thinking, if i have a day like that, and i am describing the totality of the day to somebody, how would i describe that and that is my question to you? with the words dramatic apply? in terms of all the events that ensued during the course of that day? was a dramatic for you or not really? >> i do not know if dramatic is the right word but it was very intense. in terms of -- since the war dramatic has come out, since i brought this up. the word dramatic or hysterical applied to the tone of which ms. lopez spoke to, perhaps ebbing and flowing and high points and low points? would hysterical apply at any point, overly dramat

commissioner hayon? commissioner hayon: here. chairperson hur: commissioner renne?commissioner renne: here. chairperson hur: when we last left off, we were hearing the testimony of eliana lopez. can the staff bring ms. lopez and her attorney into the hearing room? while that's happening, just a reminder, any disruptions, we're going to have to ask the sheriff to remove anybody who makes noises that are inappropriate, any disruption, i'm asking him now to please remove somebody even without direction from me. we're trying to pay attention to the testimony. you're free to do whatever you deem necessary in light of what we're trying to accomplish here and we thank the public for your cooperation in that. obviously, the testimony is sensitive and we're really trying to pay close attention so thanks in advance for your cooperation. i will ask the attorneys the same question i asked yesterday evening, whether there are additional seats that you had reserved that you're not longer using. if that's the case, please let the sheriff know and we can allow a few more people in.

commissioner hayon? >> good morning, sheriff. in the text messages that we looked at earlier this morning, there was characterization of the domestic violence advocates with beverly upton in particular where the protests that took place following news of the incident on in december 31 where you characterized those efforts as a political witch hunt. is that correct? >> it was in response to the message i received previously from linnette peralta haynes, and i had repeated the term that was in her previous message, yes. >> i guess my question would be then, in terms of domestic violence advocates and the kind of protests that certainly have been prevalent in the city of san francisco and with our very progressive record on how we deal with domestic violence in this city, do you consider all of those of vehement protests or anger about domestic violence a political witch hunt in every case? >> no, but in this particular case what i was informed of is that people who were part of that protest were also well-

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 a fine way to proceed, we think. >> if mr. kopp does not want to cross-examine ms. mattison, given wha

chairperson hur: -- commissioner hayon: -- commissioner liu: correct. >> i suspect there will be fewer issues than with ms. mattison. we may be able to get through it very quickly. chairperson hur: if we dealt with it tonight? >> i would suggest going through right now. chairperson hur: we can give that a shot. i think we need to take a quick break. the court reporter certainly needs a break. let us take 10 minutes. we will then resume. we will start with ms. williams and see how that goes, and then we will try to address objections of the other party. chairperson hur: we are now back in session. i would like to ask the audience to please allow us to proceed. thank you very much. during the break, i met with the parties to discuss scheduling issues, as per the authority granted to me by the full commission. we will address those toward the end of the proceeding. we did have some discussions about scheduling. i wanted to make that clear on the record. before we took our break, we were going to address the objections to ms. williams. >> exhibit for bang -- exhibit four is the video. we w

commissioner hayon: here. commissioner renne: here. chairperson hur: we are here to conduct the hearing by the proceedings instituted against the khmer by the sheriff, -- againste sheriff, evidently objections. because this is going to be one continuous hearing, we will not be taking public comment today. we will be taking public comment at the end of the evidence 3 portion of the hearing. -- the evidentiary portion of the hearing, based on which witnesses are called to the hearing, which evidence is included. it could be over as early as june 29, although it depends in large part on how the evidence comes in and which witnesses are actually called to testify. the second issue i would like to raise is one that was raised at the last hearing. we appreciate the public attendance at this hearing. i think it is important that the public is here. we certainly welcome the public to be here. that said, we are trying to conduct a hearing that we are required to conduct under the charter. as a result, if we could keep comments and any noises fr

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 videotape and that she had recounted the events of december 31 to miss madison, given your reaction december 31 and your anger and volatility, from what it sounds like, i have not heard anything at all about how you reacted upon hearing that news, that your wife had not only gone to the neighbor but had allowed a videotape of these events. can you talk about that more? >> my wife did not go into detail about the videotape when i was first informed. i did not see the videotape until sometime later. i was, just as i said earlier, processing what was occurring. i was kind of in the state of shock when she was informing me about what was going on. when she called me and we met about a block away from city hall, i was simply trying to abort -- absorb what she was telling me, trying to make sense out of this. it was surreal

. >> consumer hayon. >> commissioner renne. commissioner liu is excused today. the first item on the agenda is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the aendda that are within the jurisdiction of the things commission. >> thank you very much, commissioners. and, of course, the public library don't give money to the friends of the library nor accept it. it has been since march 26 that this things commission has had a regular meeting, nearly four months, virtually a third of the year. it is like leaving the city unguarded this is a disgrace, especially in view of the grand jury report. i distribute to you through your staff a flier reminding you that july 13 was the one-year anniversary the letter to mayor lee that the president of the library commission proving that ethics is meaningless for the public/private membership. mr. ray hart was before you attempting to play her statements posted on the library website. let me give it a try. if you're watching at home, you may want to hit the mute button. [inaudible] >> what you have to understand is t

commissioner hayon: sd -- second. chair hur: public comment? >> ray. this is totally meaningless to any of the general public reading it. the description of each item is to be something that anybody of average intelligence can understand. there is nothing in here. you are going in there to discuss litigation. if you are going to discuss anticipated litigation as plaintiffs, how can anyone comment on whether or not it is appropriate to go into closed session when they know absolutely nothing proved litigation about what? against whom? for what purpose? is there not a single, salient point that would give some understanding to be members of the public? members of the public should have enough information in the agenda to enable them to address whether conducting this particular business beyond the view of the public is appropriate. ethics commission staff, and by that i mean mr. sage current -- mr. st. croix -- i would argue that you have missed it completely the spirit of the law. the police commission, they give us the tate -- the type of case, the cas

. >> commissioner hayon: do we want to hear from mr. st. croix? or do we want to read it and see what would be useful? >> it is a good idea. this budget analyst is here in san francisco. >> he is a private contractor contract by the board. >> ok. i would be happy to invite him. i am not sure what half the budget to pay for his time is what would be -- we have the budget to pay for his time is what would be required. >> who signed this? ok, that is his signature? ok. it is not likely have to pay him to come and talk about the analysis. i would reconsider. if it is possible, i certainly would like to hear from him directly. >> i like that idea. any other agenda items for future meetings? >> i meant to say this earlier. in the various draft minutes related to the special meetings we have been having, there is a systematic misspelling of sheriff. somebody needs to go through and correct. left out that we knew how to do it. there is a certain list in which

commissioner hayon: from my point of view, we have at least two declarations, ms. madison's and ms. lopez's declarations, which are fundamentally completely different stories of the same event. for me, i feel that i need some help in trying to figure out why there is such a wide discrepancy in these declarations of these witnesses, in terms of how they describe the events that took place. i think that an expert like miss lemmon could possibly be helpful. perhaps not. perhaps once we hear what she has to say, we will fill this does not apply to the witnesses that we have. but perhaps it will be helpful and will be relevant in helping us to decide which of these stories has more credibility. that, and of course cross- examination of the witnesses themselves. i certainly could see the need to have her testify. chairperson hur: that is the purpose i would want it for. other than that, we can go through it, but i think a lot of it probably does need to be stricken. to the extent it relates to that, i think we need it. commissioner studley i do not think we need a seminar on domestic viol