chairperson hur: ok.ommissioner renne: let me ask you this question -- at the time of the incident, he was a member of the board of supervisors, which made him a public official, which meant he was subject to the language of this section. if he had run for reelection, hypothetically, and was reelected to the board, do you read that to say that because this does not relate to the activities of the board, it is one thing to talk about the share of -- the sheriff, are you saying that an act of domestic violence by a member of the board of supervisors could not be official misconduct? chairperson hur: i think there are two parts to your question. are you asking about the timing? commissioner renne: if you interpret that it has to relate to the office, if he had been reelected to the board of supervisors, are you saying that he would not be subject to a claim of official misconduct because of domestic violence? you would not have the same argument that you would have about the duties of share of -- of sheriff.

chair hur: ok. there should not be any additional delay, or there is no need to further provide for a timeline for when they are available because they are automatically available, if and when an electronic filers files the documents? >> yes. as soon as we receive the documents, the staff has access to them. vice president studley: just to be clear. staff does not need to do anything with it? a person hits submit. it goes into the system and is accessible to staff and the public, or is there some intervening step? >> it is not an immediate process. we do not have to intervene at all. chair hur: commissioner hayon? \ commissioner hayon: does this go to the point that was made by mr. bush? vice president studley: x that not all of these are filed electronically. if they are filed electronically, then they have to be entered. chair hur: we are proposing that any thing that inspired electronically, and we are proposing that more be filed electronically, it will be made available faster than if we had to

chairperson hur: it is a good point. i do think a standard is something you should be able to look at now and know if it sticks. if the standard is we expect you to act in a way that, in the future, you would still be affected even if you do the act -- >> let me try making up hypothetical is on the fly. -- hypotheticals on the fly. if i held public office and i admitted to perjury in another jurisdiction in a matter not related to my city responsibilities, i lie in my family's state matter, that is wrongful behavior. say i am the district attorney. if you think that the standard that i should be held to as a law-enforcement officer is related to not perjuring myself, would it be in relation to the duties, even though both the time and the substance are distant from mylp job here in sn francisco? chairperson hur: i would say that is not in relation to your duties. again, the reason being that -- i think there has to be a greater connection. there is another line between perjury and lying. if you lie to your husband, if yo

chairperson hur: ms. lopez, i'm going to stop you right there. >> i'm sorry. chairperson hur: you're starting to be nonresponsive to the question and i don't think we need to go into the details of that. i think you have your answer. move on. >> ok. >> and when you told your husband to stop in the kitchen, what happened after that? >> he moved to another room. >> how soon after he came into the house did you tell him to stop? how soon after your husband came into the house did you tell him "stop"? >> immediately he came inside and i say, you don't talk to me and stop. >> did you continue to argue with your husband inside your home? >> no, i just said that. >> didn't you tell cali williams that the argument with your husband continued inside your home? >> no. >> didn't you tell ivory madison that the fight with your husband continued inside your home? >> no. i told them exactly what i already told you right now. >> so did your husband push and pull and grab you inside your home? >> never. >> ok. didn't you

chairperson hur: i'll allow that question. overruled. >> every person has been working with ross, knows that ross just take coffee in the morning and work until late and can be working for hours without to eat and he never stop for eat, and i'm completely different. i have to have -- i need to have breakfast, snack, lunch, a snack, and dinner, as theo, and for him in the beginning was very hard. like i told him, if you are just going to take coffee, anyway you have to sit down, not with a computer, and sit down in the chair and have breakfast with us. and if you are home, even if you don't want to eat, please sit down and have lunch with us as a family. that is family. i know he grew up without that kind of -- but that is not my case and i want to teach theo that case so if we are traveling, i'm not in my kitchen so i cannot run to the kitchen and pick the things that i want so i told him, ok, we are going to monterey, but you know that how i am and theo so we are going to stop every two hours and we have to eat. and he did an

chairperson hur: ms. cani, i appreciate that you need to be here but that's not acceptable. >> the problem is, your honor, that shepwas -- shep was distracted. chairperson hur: i don't want to hear it. can we have the question read back, please? [court reporter read back the question. >> that assumes facts not in evidence. chairperson hur: ask a foundational question, that's sustained. >> as of january 2, did you feel you were in an abusive relationship with your husband? >> of course, no. >> as of january 2, did you understand that your husband's behavior was a serious problem for you and theo? >> no. >> you and ivory madison sent several emails back and forth to each other during that trip to monterey january 2 and 3, is that correct? >> yes. >> i'd like to show you exhibit 50 and i have a copy so you don't have to flip to it. >> thank you. >> ms. lopez, exhibit 50 is a four-page exhibit. the first page is a response to an email that you wrote and then the next three pages show the full email that ms. m

chairperson hur: ok.mmissioner renne: let me ask you this question -- at the time of the incident, he was a member of the board of supervisors, which made him a public official, which meant he was subject to the language of this section.

chairperson hur: counsel, what is it going to? is going to the witness' state of mind and what her state of mind was on the 31st with regard to the situation with her husband. it's part of our claim that the witness had an awareness that she was being abused and after the communications we have been going over over the past couple of nights that changed. chairperson hur: we'll allow this question. overruled. >> can you repeat the question? >> you were concerned about your son growing up in an abusive environment? >> i think an abusive environment is when that kind of thing happen every day or every week. i would never be -- i would never let my son have that kind of experience. but, of course, if it happened one time --. >> a warning signal. >> that you have to pay attention and that is why i was mad of him. >> did you tell cali williams you were concerned about your son growing up in an abusive environment? >> i think to cali williams, you said? >> yes. >> can you repeat the question? >> did you tell cali williams you were concer

chairperson hur: yes.

chairperson hur: i think that is interesting.hat do people think about taking a short break, and then maybe reconvening and sharing our views on the ultimate issue? ok, let us take 10 minutes. >> we are back in session. before the break, we had been discussing our views on the legal application of the facts in this case. we have had, i think, a robust discussion. i think at this point it may be useful to take a straw poll of how various commissioners would apply the law to the facts in this case, assuming option two. then, perhaps, we can address option one after that. yes, so just to be clear, option to -- optioned two -- the parties are missing -- you have the options. can you put that on the overhead? option 2 below, please. thank you. maybe we can make that a little bigger. [laughter] >> he is trying. [laughter] tap it when it gets to echo mr. keith, didn't you effectively use this earlier today? ok. >> well somebody stands here, he doing that. chairperson hur: i am not sure anybody can read that. >> maybe somebody could read

chairperson hur: let's talk about that.oth you and commissioner renne have raised the course of conduct after the arrest. are you of the view that statements that were made that are reflected in paragraph 9 and paragraph 14 have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence? have they been proven and do you think that they are relevant to our determination? commissioner renne: as to whether he made that statement? chairperson hur: yes. commissioner renne: that it was a private matter? chairperson hur: iraq 9 and 14. -- paragraph 9 and 14. commissioner renne: i understand that he was not denying it. the response that he gives was that the surest private family matter was in a statement given to him by his attorney. still his statement. he is not disputing that he made the statement. maybe he got bad legal advice. chairperson hur: any dissenting view towards that? i am not asking about the bad legal advice, at, just in general. -- bad legal advice comment, just in general. in my view, 9 and 14, to the extent that they are fa