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's declaration beginning with i am aware

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

mrs. lopez, and at 5:57, you talked to ms. lopez again for seven-. you recommend -- to you recollect now the purpose of that call? >> i do not. Ñ she suggested calling mike hennessey not. >> in the middle of that phone t a response, i cannot and neither can he. you have to reject the actions. we both do. i cannot involve new people. did she tell you about getting that text? . >> the you know what it meant -- did you know what it meant? >> that is speculation. >> i am asking. >> i did not. >> ok, so that comes in at 5:51. no, that is wrong. i apologize. that comes in at 6:01 in the middle of a phone call you are having with lopez the glass until 6:00 for -- that lasts until 6:04, so you hang up and then call sheriff mirkarimi. you know what that is about? >> i do not recall. eheriff, and says, do not write any other thing. answer the call. she has advised now. you know what that is about? >> i do not know what that is about. >> what advice did you have? >> the only advice i had is that they both needed to get attorney's separately. >> did you tell her to stop writing texts? >> i did not. >> did you tell her to tell the things? >> i did not know. >> how did she know