ms. kaiser. any questions for ms. kaiser from the commission? would someone from the sheriff's team like to respond? mr. kopp? >> thank you. to enlarge on our objection, this is part of the mayor's effort to expand the duties of the sheriff. the reason is clear. it makes it easier for the mayor to prove his case. but the problem that we have, particularly with this declaration by mr. henderson, is he is telling you about these fundamental responsibilities that the sheriff has that are nowhere to be found in the charter. that is why we have objected there is not a foundation for this. mr. henderson wants to tell you the share of pass to convey to the public that domestic violence is a serious matter of public concern that is never acceptable. maybe he does, and maybe he does not. if a sheriff or to take office and not at any time in his or her tenure say domestic violence is a serious issue, i am pretty sure the sheriff would not be subject to renewal from office for violation of his official duties. that is the problem with this declaration. it

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. 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

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, her testimony, whether l

ms. kaiser, if we were to exclude one or teo, do you have a preference? >> arlette to be able to -- i would like to hear from a witness to give you -- opinions based on solid expertise and experience. i would like to how well as her office " -- i do not know which one will be better qualified to do that. >> i would find that acceptable. to let the city to use. chairperson hur: we should have an exclusion or timeline but i find that exceptional as well. ok. we have the sheriff's list of experts. >> there is two additional experts under tab 14. chairperson hur: thank you. >> if i may go ahead and offer, i am happy to reserve the potential of a barbaro war of it -- witness. he can speak to that but until those arguments are made, i am happy to put him aside. >> mr. kopp? >> which witness would that be? >> i do not have a report -- i do not have the testimony. i will not -- will let mr. rattner address this. >> we object to mr. sinclair's testify in any fashion. he made public statements that were very harshly critical of sheriff mirkarimi cyrus to -- as to t

ms. kaiser? mr. kopp or mr. wagner, do you have a response? -- or mr. maggonerwaggoner, do u have a response? >> our response is founded upon the fact that we have a very different view of what the duties of the sheriff are then the mayor appears to have. we take more of a literal list or strict constructionist approach -- literalist or strict constructionist approach. we believe the duties are spelled out in the charter, which is why we did not object to that portion. the rest of what acting sheriff hennessy has to tell you will be irrelevant to your determination of whether what he is charged with doing constitutes official misconduct and is related to the specific duties enumerated in the charter. much of the is an enlargement of those core duties. that is the basis for our objection. chairperson hur: any questions for mr. kopp from the commissioners? thank you, mr. kopp.

ms. kaiser is correct on the law. i still think it would be helpful for you all to get together and see if there are portions of this that are not relevant, based on what we have discussed. you can tell me if you are unsatisfied about the view of the commission on this. when you tell us down the road what the bases are for certain findings of fact, it is going to be helpful for us if we are clear what is in the record and what is not. i am very tempted by it, because it is such a long declaration, and it is very time consuming. some of the things to bleed over. i think we should make the effort to cut it down. given that i think mr. kopp has called us he is not one to cross-examine, regardless of objections, i would like to give you the opportunity to meet and confer, bring us back something that looks like what you did for madison, and we can evaluate it later, since she is not going to testify anyway. does that sound acceptable to my fellow commissioners? >> i am happy to do that, just so you understand and do not g

ms. kaiser? >> brown makes clear that this testimony is admissible under the regular evidence code section, section 801, and not just the special section for criminal prosecution. 1107 is a separate evidence code section geared toward criminal prosecutions and says the testimony is admissible for the purpose. we are not in a criminal proceeding. but the brown case, by the supreme court, said we would come to the same conclusion, and do come to the same conclusion, under section 801, the section for regular expert testimony in civil cases and administrative cases, and frankly also in criminal cases. it is just that there is a special duplicative rule in criminal cases, in case the court was about to get the wrong. the legislature is making a strong policy consideration in criminal cases. but the ruling in brown is explicitly, we do not need to resolve a particular conflict 41107, for the very reasons that commissioner hur stated, under 801. i do not think brown is the only reason for which such te

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 regarding witness list and the briefing is we