. >> ms. kopp and mr. fox, what impacts have the 2010 sec reforms had on users of money market funds, such as state governments and companies? ms. kopp, please begin. [inaudible] >> states and local governments, and i am here representing 13 organizations of states, local municipal governments, use money market funds for liquidity, or money management as well as refinancing. and the fact is the increased tightening of the credit standards, the shortening of the duration, the enhanced disclosure of having, on the website, the total portfolio, has made a more possible for us to compare the sites, to compare the funds and to go where we have to go. but as you know, we use these funds were daily liquidity, for managing our money. and that is our main concern. it has made it simpler. we think they have been very important. we think there hasn't been a lot of time since 2010 to measure all of the impact, but what the professor called a trot and the senator calls a walk, both i think our testament to the fact tha

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. >> may i respond? chairperson hur: no. i understand the parties have a different view whether and to what degree the actions in this case relate to the sheriff's duties. given that

ms. lopez because she couldn't control herself and that's really what the heresay exception is aimed at. chairperson hur: yeah, mr. kopp, one thing that comes to mind as we discuss this issue, i think we asked if you would -- if you would be prepared today to tell us whether ms. lopez is going to submit a declare ration. do you have that information? >> i do. i do not speak directly to ms. lopez. i talk to her lawyer. i am informed that she is willing to submit a declaration. i don't have a firm grasp on what the timing of that would be. but i hope that it would be within the next week or so. part of it is because it's responsive to these declarations that were responded to the weekend or friday an then again on sunday. no decision has been made as to whether or not she is willing to appear for live testimony or cross-examination or appear remotely. that's all i can tell you at this point. >> when will you know? will you get an answer? >> i expect it within a week. i'm going to know -- i should be able to get a declaration or hope to be able to get one and i should have an answer as to whether or not she'll submit to c

kopp -- >> think it's a little different in terms of trying to assess ms. lopez's attitudes and state of mind. regardless -- paragraphs can relate to various concerns she had about theo and his welfare. whether or not any of these incidents actually happened, she had that concern and that concern is relevant to the actions that she later took. so, in that sense, that is why this information is offered. it's not offered to show that all of these things actually occurred. it's offered to show her concern for theo which explains her actions from the 31st through the fourth. >> any questions for mr. keith with respect to paragraph 10? mr. kopp? >> thank you, again. we object on heresay and relevance grounds, also that again this information is more prejudicial than it is probative. i would like to just address one comment made by mr. keith a moment ago which is their expert witness wants to rely on this stuff assuming the truth of it. i mean, why would you rely on it if it wasn't true. their ex-pirt ms. lemon can rely on whatever she wants. it doesn't mean that

kopp does not want to cross-examine ms. mattison, given what is in and what is out, we may not need her to come in at all. chairperson hur: that is kind of what i was thinking, mr. keith. >> i think we can try to do this on paper. if we come back, we can go to the rest more quickly. >> i should relate to the commissioners that i, about a half an hour before the hearing, received a call from an attorney who identified himself as ms. madison's attorney. for what it is worth to the commission, he expressed a concern by ms. madison about her continued public involvement in this proceeding, and wanting to minimize that. ok. in wanting to minimize that. chairperson hur: here are my competing concerns with this issue. i am cognizant that objections to the rest of this declaration may be so general that they may not really help us actually that said, i really do not want to inconvenience the witness. finally, i am reluctant to push off testimony, if we need it, from miss madison, further than the days we have allocated in june. it

ms. lopez? there is one thing. mr. keith and mr. kopp, do either of you have an objection to ms. lopez appearing by skype if payment of her plane ticket cannot be worked out? >> no. >> commissioner, i do not know if we have an objection. the reason is this. when this issue was raised by the other side, we did some research into the validity of oaths and testimony given from abroad. it is not clear to us that, under the various treaties that govern these, that the oath would be valid. i do not have any other problem with the testimony being by skype. we are not convinced that the of itself would be valid, and we are not sure if that is a risk we want to take, given the validity of the oath. >> let us say that we take the testimony. we get the transcript. we send the transcript to ms. lopez. she signs the transcript, under penalty of perjury. does that obviate your concern? >> i think it would. >> great. thank you. i apologize. this is the third time i have asked you to come up, and i appreciate your willingness. indeed. do you have any objection to bringing the transcript, if this

ms. madison is that mr. kopp is prepared to tell us what the objections are. i think there are legal issues with respect to what relevant testimony can come in with this declaration that i think are going to be informative about a number of issues. so in light of that, i would still propose that we go through it. i would ask that if there's a stipulation on a paragraph not that shouldn't be admitted that it just be stated and that we don't have a rezztation of what the paragraph is about. if this becomes overly prejudicial then i think we can reconsider. i think we can get the parts of this declaration that are actually going to be at issue hopefully quickly. is that acceptable to the commission? >> yes. >> mr. kopp? >> can i just voice a concern that i had because i had the same concern that mr. renne just voice which is i did not want to have the sentences read out. my concern is that when mr. keith responds to my objections he's probably, i would think he would want to explain to you why they are relevant and that would necessitate that recitation of these

ms. kaiser. any questions from the commission? mr. kopp or mr. waggoner? >> i am trying to focus commission attention on what we think are the real issues, here. the real issues are not whether or not there is going to be in difficulty presented by having a sheriff on domestic violence probation. that does not relate to the inquiry. it was official misconduct. again, for many of the same reasons that we argued against the admission of mr. henderson's declaration, we do not think that this sheds any light on the issues you have to decide. for that reason, other than the of -- the portions we agree are relevant, para wraps 19 through 25, -- 22, and the specified evidence, we do not think this should come into evidence. >> is it your position that the fact that the sheriff would be on probation during the time he is in office is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mayor acted properly in saying he could not carry out the duties of sheriff? >> i would have to answer by saying that i take issue with one of the premises of the question. the inquiry

>> ms. koppease begin. >> i am here representing 13 organizations of state, local municipal governments. they use money market funds for liquidity for money management as well as for financing. the fact is that the increased tightening of the credit standards, the shortening of the duration, the enhanced disclosure of having on the web site the total portfolio has made it more possible for us to compare the sites and funds and to go where we have to go. but we use these funds for daily liquidity, for managing our money. that is our main concern. it has made it simpler. we think they have been very important. we think there has not been a lot of time since 2010 to measure all of the impact but what the professor called the trot and the senator called a walk, both are testament to the fact of we have not had a run. >> i would agree as well. i think money market funds have been extremely efficient applicators of capital from investors to borrowers. some 40% of all corporate commercial paper is purch

ms. williams' testimony? thank you. we will invite mr. wagner or mr. kopp to address this issue and deal with a declaration issued. >> we would concur with what chairperson hur state. th- -- stated. that -- i don't thnk that -- think that live testimony would serve any other purpose. i want to respond to something that mr. keith just said. this red herring of witness dissuasion has consumed an incredible amount of time and effort and energy and it does not -- should have no place here. what mr. keith just told you is not true. mr. mertons was interviewed by the police and was asked, did it sound like the sheriff was feeding his wife lines to tell you, to try to dissuade you? the response was no. it sounded like he was on another phone call together. this has been a complete waste of time and an effort to publicly tar the sheriff with something that is not just on provable, it is false. -- unprovable, it is false. chairperson hur: cat i invite you back up? -- can i invite you back up? the list you provided was longer than the list i provided. i apologize if

ms. williams. it makes it more likely that is true. in that aspect, yes. chairperson hur: mr. kopp, do you have a response on that point? >> it is pure character evidence, which should not be allowed. there was reference to penal code section 1109, allowing prior conduct to be used in criminal prosecutions to prove conduct on a particular date by showing past instances, but that is not where we are. this is not a criminal proceeding, as i have been told. this should not be relevant to the inquiry. all these references, anything that happened before december 31, are not admissible. chairperson hur: what authority do you have that it only relates to criminal proceedings? >> it actually says that. we think it should nevertheless apply here. in administrative proceeding, the idea is to use reliable evidence. if something is reliable enough to use in a criminal prosecution, it is reliable enough to be used in a criminal proceeding, particularly when the subject matter is so similar. that is what happened in this incident of the 31st. it is very appropriate to be using those rules in thi

ms. -- >> we hope to at least submit a declaration. ideally, we will have her testify live. >> does that answer your question? is there anybody else, mr. kopp, you intend to offer? >> we are not going to foreclose getting declarations from the other witnesses on our list. it is going to depend on the declarations from the mayor. >> my understanding is you are not offering testimony. many of those people were redundant. the decisions we made about people who were excluded are going to apply equally to your list. >> i think we should go over them. i did not understand that to be the commission. >> ok. >> do you intend to call art agnos? >> i would request a few minute recess before we go into our witness list. >> ok. we will >> we are back in session, if people can please take their seats. mr. wagner, you were going to address the sheriff's witnesses. i am a little surprised. when mr. kopp stood up, he clearly said he only needed two witnesses, the mayor and the sheriff. the other witnesses were there as defensive measures. that is the color through which i am reviewing other discussion. >> if i may, let me clarify that i think you misunderst

kopp anything else on paragraph 16? >> yes. the next sentence now sounds like another level of heresay that is what this person venezuela said to ms. lopez and again it's not rem vant. and then the very next sentence beginning online 23 i don't believe there's any foundation that looks like speculation and it's not relevant. this is offered to show ms. lopez's state of mind and, you know, perhaps indicate why -- what spurred her to action here. we're certainly not offering it for the truth for the conversation she had with somebody in venleds. it's -- in venezuela. it was to explain the way she was feeling and why she was feeling the way she's feeling. i think a person can interpret a look that they're given like that didn't work so well and that explains ms. lopez's state of mind and explains why she chose toe do what she did which is to confide in a friend and make a video. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection to the sentence beginning she and ending withed a -- with advice. two sentences. is there a decenting view among the commissioners? ok. paragraph 17. >> yes, this entire paragraph is irrelevant and -- i don't kn

ms. haines is available to testify on july 18, in person. >> i have not heard directly from her lawyers, so i am relying on mr. kopp. chairperson hur: july 18? >> that is my understanding, yes. chairperson hur: we will have her

kopp, this is a witness from home you submitted a declaration on the sheriff's behalf. i do not know exactly how this would work, to share in the cost of the ticket to bring ms. lopez here. >> not at the present moment. if the mayor were to reinstate his pay, pending the outcome of these proceedings, would be able to get that done. there is the willingness. there is just not the resources. >> i understand. any questions for mr., regarding this issue? -- for mr. kopp, regarding this issue? mr. keith, when you think you will have an answer on this issue? >> i can talk to the mayor tomorrow. i may not have an answer by tomorrow, but certainly, some time shortly after, i could have an answer. >> much appreciated. thank you, sir. we also should deal with the declaration that ms. lopez submitted, and whether or not the mayor has objections to that declaration. i am not going to require that you make them orally, or that we address them now, given that she would not be testifying until the middle of july. do you have objections to her declaration? >> we do, commissioner, in terms of when we could have them put together, i expect the second week of july. i will not h

ms. mattison to appear. we will take the written objections. if they are hopeful and we can resolve the issues with the declaration, miss madison could appear, and if mr. kopp does not want to cross her, we would excuse her. if we determined it would be more efficient to simply proceed with direct, we would ask that you be prepared to direct examine her. you could decide after that if you want to conduct cross- examination. >> that is a possibility. as a reported one we had a conference call regarding scheduling, my understanding is that the council is unavailable to the 30th and once you have the opportunity to prepare his client, if she is going to testify. there may be other testimony issues with ms. haines as well. it may or may not be possible to finish by the 29th. i know that taking a witness out of the question gets us there faster. i would like to take a good run at trading objections, meeting, and conferring, and trying to bring back those objections. this is this type of testimony, so we can get some quick rulings on the 28th. chairperson hur: i propose to do submit objections, and that you respond to them. when can you submit objections? >> to b