may always feel he needs to bring it up, because he does not want to be looked at as letting official misconduct go on the flip side, the defendant is always going to say, "look at these people who do all sorts of bad things. why did you choose my bad act?" it may not come up often, but it may come up more frequently if we do not come up with a bright line rules. i think we owe it to the public to really try our best to come up with an interpretation that is clear and could be followed, even if it is not perfectly bright line. >> just to say parenthetically -- i do not know if this is appropriate or not. often, when there is a case of misconduct, usually, it is personal misconduct, in the political arena across the country, usually those individuals, on their own, resigned without having to force any kind of public, you know, process, such as we have had to go through. we know of many many very well known cases of misconduct, but those individuals at least resigned in a timely manner. >> or took more affirmative steps to mitigate or demonstrate they could cooperate in other ways, reflecting the ser

official misconduct be sustained or not. i am wondering whether you're going to be limiting the authority of the drafting if we let it specificallyto those paragraphs. >> i think it depends on what card the cow or allegations played. i never quite understood why we have amended charge in particular, and the first place. why didn't we just figure out what troubles us and what we thought was official misconduct. i defer to the council. if we have to stand on those counts, i think we should stand firmly on the ones we are adopting. otherwise it will apply these of accounts and we did something else and if they don't converge, our process will be unhelpful to the supervisors. >> what i am hearing is that you have voted 4-1 to sustain the charges of official misconduct based on the conduct of december 31 and the subsequent conviction. as reflected in counts four and five. if i am correct, you might want to amend the motion to incorporate the language so that it is clear that you are stating it both on the actions that occurred, the conviction that resulted from those actions, and you believe that those are related to counts 4 and 5. >

official misconduct be sustained or not. i am wondering whether you're going to be limiting the authority of the drafting if we let it specificallythose paragraphs. >> i think it depends on what card the cow or allegations played. i never quite understood why we have amended charge in particular, and the first place. why didn't we just figure out what troubles us and what we thought was official misconduct. i defer to the council. if we have to stand on those counts, i think we should stand firmly on the ones we are adopting. otherwise it will apply these of accounts and we did something else and if they don't converge, our process will be unhelpful to the supervisors. >> what i