mr. keith or ms. kaiser on this? does the mayor have a position on the costs of bringing ms. lopez to san francisco? >> she is a defense witness. normally, we would expect a defense witness to pay for it. we would consider their request. i will take it to the mayor. this is the first i have heard of it. i am happy to take it to the mayor. >> i am sorry. i have a couple more questions. if there is not an agreement for ms. lopez to appear live, is she willing to appear by video testimony? >> it is interesting. i have thought about it. i do not think skype would work. my preference is that she would come here to testify. i have never seen the president of skype testimony. i have a difficult time in my experience. it drops. sometimes it wks. sometimes it does not. ms. lopez was also listed by the mayor's office as a witness. >> the sheriff has submitted a declaration in support of the defense. she is here to be cross- examined by the mayor. any witness who does not appear for testimony, the declaration is going to receive little to no weight. given the status of her declaration,

mr. keith or ms. kaiser? >> chairman, if i might suggest, i think a lot of the admissibility arguments may turn on the arguments about the admissibility of the ivory williams decoration. the argument might be too abstract if we do not go first to ms. mattison. chairperson hur: here is my concern. we received that declaration only recently, and i do not believe the sheriff's team has had an opportunity to submit written objections. in scheduling discussions i had with the parties, i did ask if the council could be prepared to orally discuss the objections, if any, to ms. mattison. are you prepared to do that? ok. why don't we -- >> i am. chairperson hur: thank you. [inaudible] chairperson hur: before we get to -- i think it is a good suggestion. before we get to ms. madison and ms. williams, i have a couple of questions, in light of the rulings on the other witnesses. do i understand that you will not -- obviously, you will not have any need to cross-examine paul henderson. do you have any need to cross- exami

ms. lopez told them happened? >> not in so many words. but just to give you a sense of what is happening. i believe it was last monday or tuesday. mr. keith and ms. kaiser sent us a fairly -- a fairly long stipulation. we look to the that over and gave them our response. end of last week. that fact was included. i did not say, if we -- the commission does not need to hear from ms. madison or ms. williams. we have not fleshed out to that extent yet. i'm not going to leave. >> i am sure you will be back appear again. -- up here again. >> we should take up the issue of witnesses by declaration. i appreciate that declarations are less burdensome for the fact finders that live testimony. that said, i am still concerned -- i do not want a situation where because it is just declaration, the parties can submit whatever they want regardless of whether it is relevant. i would like, even if you intend -- even if your view is that some of these people should come in by a declaration, i would like to know who on the list you would like to come in by declaration and why they are relevant to our proceedings. >> one of the benefits of this process of the back and forth

ms. kaiser or mr. keith. do you agree that the second prong, the decency, has to be in relation to the office? i was thinking that when we had heard briefing on it at the prior session's that there was some agreement from your office that it did have -- that it had to relate to his office, and that you were trying to put on a case that showed it did relate to his office. >> i think there are a couple of points of legal significance. this is not clear, i do not think, yet. what does "the duties of office" mean? is it the charter? is it the charter plus statutes? is it the charter, statutes, and what the sheriff says? how do you define it? >> setting that aside. >> setting that aside, it is not our position that the second prong has to relate to the duties of office, however that is defined. it is our finding that the second clause relates to the professional standards of the office, which is somewhat different than the actual duties of office. professional standards are something you must meet as you exercise