hennessey and we will have chief lansdowne as well. i would permit this. i would overrule the objection.w commissioners? ok. that paragraph shall be omitted. there are no objections to mr. lansdowne. nancy lyman? -- lemon's declaration? i am sorry. was there something about lansdowne? >> about michael hennessey. we are trying to work up a scheduling issue. chairperson hur: while we are on it, that is on my list. what is his status? >> as i discussed on a conference call, the sheriff and the seat is more than willing to submit to cross-examination remotely. however, he will not appear in person, primarily because he has a family member who is severely disabled, for which he is responsible, and he is currently living 3.5 hours away. we have offered repeatedly to make him available for remote testimony. chairperson hur: is he available june 19? what is your view on this? >> i do not know the availability of care givers for this issue. to me, experts are a little different than regular witnesses. the party hires them and retains them. one of the jobs of an expert is to show up. for me, i do not think it is right or fair for him not to show up. i think it is very difficult

mr. hennessey is talking about how he would be viewed. i don't see how that is relevant here either. i would sustain the objection to the second full paragraph of page two. niss dissenting views from the commission? that objection will be sustained. the third objection to the third full paragraph. here he's an expert. i think he's qualified to testify about this. it is a little general. i certainly understand the objection, but this one i would overrule. we have testimony from the hennessey and we will have chief lansdowne as well. i would permit this. i would overrule the objection.

mr. hennessey. i think the last few people are people who i could see potentially coming in by declaration if they must testify. here is how i would like to proceed with this. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on first, whether there are folks i have mentioned who we think there is no need to hear testimony from. secondly, if there are people who why it -- who i committed to and i would like -- who i omitted. when the parties address this, i would like to hear from any witness you think we need testimony and who is not on the list that we discussed, i want to know what charge that testimony would relate to. let me open it up to my fellow commissioners. anybody on the list who you think is -- we do not need to hear testimony from or it is an open question that we should reserve until later. commissioner renne: when you went through this list and said the witnesses who you thought would possibly -- we possibly should receive testimony, were you referring to live testimony or by declaratio

mr. merton and -- sheriff hennessey. we would like to get that testimony before the commission. we do not want to lose the opportunity to get chief still's testimony. to talk about how a three-year term of probation will affect the share of's ability to perform his duties and how it might create a conflict for him. 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 witn

hennessey and the acting sheriff if their testimony would be overlapping and michael hennessey will speak to statements made by mr. mirkarimi? >> i think given the burden of preparing a declaration, i feel is more appropriate to place them on someone who was working so we would use the key heresy -- hennessey. >> if we could keep the silence. it is a long night. the views on vicki hennessey. is there an objection? do we need your testimony? >> did you say it would or would not overlap with michael hennessey's testimony? >> my concern is could we get a declaration from a retired sheriff. >> is your objective to choose one or the other? i am not sure what question is on the table. >> my question is whether we need the acting sheriff vicki hennessy. it sounds like michael hennessey was listed as an expert witness by the sheriff and we can address that later. if he is testifying, do we need what sounds like overlapping testimony from vicki hennessy. whether or not you can get a declaration. >> we did not list the retired sheriff as a witness who will testify to every responsibility. we witnessed him -- listed him as

mr. president, hennessey also explains how the president's spending claim collapses once you take three basicrrors into account. he writes and he -- quote -- "if you instead do this calculation the right way and measure the annual growth rate from 2008 to c.b.o. scoring of the budget proposal for 2013, you get an average annual growth rate of federal spending of 4.5%. that's a nominal growth rate so the real growth rate will be a within in the twos earned, end of his quotation. it's inaccurate to measure the record without looking at the size and scope of government. president obama's preference for big government is obvious. he usually argues for it. he doesn't argue he's for smaller, less active government. the historical average of spending to gross domestic product before president obama took office was roughly 20.6%. so how does president obama's record stack up? here's the breakdown of spending to gross domestic product. these are the ratios during the obama years. remember now, this is compared to the historical average of 20.6%. well, 2009, his first year, 25.2%. next, 2010, 24.1%. 20

hennessey? >> objection, relevance. improper testimony by counsel. this is beyond the scope of both the mayor's declaration as well as the disclosure of what they were going to ask mr lee about in their disclosure of witnesses. >> i am not sure exactly the basis of the objection. >> that was beyond the scope. >> beyond the scope, i am inclined to overrule beyond the scope. the sheriff could call the mayor into taking -- to not require the mayor to appear twice. i think we should allow it. i think the mayor brought it up in one of his answers. i will overrule the objection. >> could i ask if we did have the question read back? >> would you like to ask it again? >> do you think that he has more expertise about what it takes to be the sheriff of san francisco than the ex-sheriff mike tennessee? -- tennessee. >> i think they have equal weight. >> why is that? >> because they both have extensive background in law enforcement. >> he has never held elective office, correct? >> objection, foundation. >> i do not know. >> he has never been a sheriff, correct? >> objection, foundation. this is also -- he is being asked about expert matters an expert testimony. >> again, if w