mr. mazzola made to the court, and argued that this language is too vague and the court itself found thatno, it's not? help me understand. >> well, so at the time the mazzola case was decided, the charter provided for removal for quote official misconduct, unquote. that's all. and in response to a void for vagueness challenge to that language the maz ol-a court decided, no, it's not unconstitutionally vague because we have all these cases and this developed body of law about what it is, what official misconduct is. and that's when they went on to say it's misconduct that occurs in office number one and relates to your duties. the part we object to is the subsequent language -- >> supervisor elsbernd: 1995 language. >> yes. >> supervisor wiener: was not the 1995 language directly a result of the%f7r mazzola -- or than a couple of words verbatim, didn't we include thatÑll langu? >> some, not all. >> supervisor elsbernd: one of the things that i've struggled=f with as i've read through the briefs, your comments, and you was understandably the sheriff very limited view of the role of the3qqt

mr. mazzola was out of office, that they had decided incorrectly. ourt of appeal in mazzola was able to determine that official misconduct was not some vague, unconstitutional abstract notion is because there was a body of law that had been developed over the#r#pñ years. and every case that discussed official misconduct, the of their duties. and that's why the court of appeals will'a"dc say this is nt unconstitutionally vague, all at this definition. in fact, the amendment to the almost exclusively drewa5ñúz from the language that is included in the mazzola case. there was maybe one or two words thatzk9u" added. to this day. what does mazzola say.ns5 it says misconduct has to occur while the public official is in office. because a public official doesn't have any duties unless they are holding that office. and if they don't have any duties because they haven't taken an oath and been sworn in aet, then there is no way that

mr. mazzola was out of office, that they had decided incorrectly. ourt of appeal in mazzola was able to determine that official misconduct was not some vague, unconstitutional abstract notion is because there was a body of law that had been developed over the#r#pñ years. and every case that