honestly, i am a bit at a loss to address the objections to the declaration of share of -- sheriff hennesy. sy. the declaration is that the duties and powers of the sheriff, contained in this declaration, are relevant. i do not understand that objection. one of the elements we have to prove is that the misconduct occurred in relation to the duties of office. in order to do that, we need to provide evidence to you of what the duties of office consist of. the acting sheriff certainly has a foundation and the knowledge to tell you what the duties of the office of sheriff are. i believe, unless you or sheriff mirkarimi has questions, this is limited to a declaration of how the office functions, and standards of professional conduct for the share of as the sheriff understands them to be a duty of her office. chairperson hur: questions from the commissioners for ms. kaiser? mr. kopp or mr. wagner, do you have a response? -- or mr. maggonerwaggoner, do u have a response? >> our response is founded upon the fact that we have a very different view of what the duties of the sheriff are then the mayo