of what official misconduct is or is not. that is not the case and the mayor has conceded it is a discretionary decision. there is no real definition. conduct that falls below a standard of decency, good faith, and action. determining what fits into this parameter is is a discretionary decision. the mayor's discretion is at issue. you have to decide, did the mayor exercise his discretion in a reasonable manner when he suspended the sheriff? is the mairs idea of what he thinks is official misconduct, is that reasonable? did he exercise his discretion reasonably? his credibility, his truthfulness go to whether or not he exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner. and if the shoe were on the other foot, if the mayor had alleged that the sheriff was not truthful, as he has, they brought forward the transcripts and he allowed that in. allowed many other kinds of impeachment evidence in against the sheriff. now, there's an cragle evidence that the mayor was not truthful as to who he talked to about the suspension, about the of

or disprove what the sheriff engaged in acts on december 31 that would price to the level of official misconduct. i am inclined to agree with my colleagues and commissioner studley in following official -- additional testimony. >> i do not know if you want a response or not. i could respond if you want a response. >> i will leave it to you. commissioner liu: no. not really. commissioner renne: i went back into the look at the transcript, portions of the transcript where the question, the question that were at issue were raised, and there were objections to the admissibility as being immaterial. i think we may have been too lax in letting it come in. i share the view that has been expressed here that, regardless of what the answer would be and to the testimony you want to put in, i am sure it will not be clear cut one way or the other based upon the stories that appear in the newspaper. denials and -- it will not be clear cut but even if we did, it has nothing to do with whether or not there was a violation which constitutes official misconduct. it has nothing to do with that. it is a totally sep

>> not specifically. >> do you have a written policy about what is and what is not official misconduct? >> no, i do not. >> it has been argued that the mayor's decision to attempt to remove an elected official for official misconduct is purely discretionary. you agree with that? >> i believe that it is a duty through the charter. san francisco charter. >> you have the discretion to decide whether you are going to attempt to move someone or not? >> yes. >> is it your position that every public official who is convicted of a criminal offense is guilty of official misconduct? >> i think it is a case by case basis. >> merely being convicted of a crime does not constitute official misconduct? >> i believe in this case, it does. >> that is not my question. my question is, does the fact that an elected official is convicted of a crime, does that constitute official misconduct? >> i believe i have answered that. it is a case by case basis. >> there are some credit card -- criminal convictions he would not seem to be official misconduct? >> possibly. >> like what? >> i do not know because i hav

>> at that time, i had come to a final conclusion that he had conducted himself with official misconduct and he had engaged in wrongful behavior. >> ok. did you ever extend an offer through a third-party that if he would resign, you would find him another job in the city? >> objection, relevance. >> where are you going with this? >> credibility. if he did not think it was unfit to be sure of, why would he be fit for a city job? -- sheriff, why would he be fit for a city job? >> i will continue to object on the basis of relevance. many times there are problems that people try to resolve with compromise. that does not mean they do not believe there is a natural problem. >> -- actual problems. >> i understand your objection. the mayor has put at issue the reasons why. it is pretty close to the line, but i do think given that bases, it could go to bias. it is overruled. >> i do not recall offering mr. mirkarimi any job. >> you did not authorize anyone to convey to sheriff mirkarimi that if he would step down, you would give him another job? >> absolutely not. >> i have no further questions.

>> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> do you think you are more prone to bringing official misconduct charges against people who are not your political allies? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. >> no. >> a sheriff is a department head in san francisco, is that correct? >> yes. >> is there any department head of any department who could plead guilty to domestic violence and not be removed for official misconduct? >> [inaudible] >> you asked the same types of questions. i will overrule that. >> i would find that that would be a serious enough charged to fulfil official misconduct, certainly wrongful behavior. >> in the department head? >> that is correct. >> would you -- did you have any special concerns of any sort of the department heads in question who had pled guilty to a charge of domestic violence was the share of -- sheriff? >> i think there is added significance because it is one of the top to law enforcement positions in the city. -- top two law enforcement positions in the city. >> can you say more about how that is significant in your view? >> one of the more disturbing aspects of this is

it just speaks in general terms about official misconduct for an elected official, right? >> objection, argumentative. >> requires a legal conclusion. >> legal conclusion is sustained. >> do believe there is a separate standard? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> should be the same standard. >> ok. one of the things that is expected of elected officials is for them to be honest and forthright when dealing with their constituents, and with other elected officials. >> i am very sorry to interrupt you. that question will be pending. i instructed that we need to adjourn proceedings for now. we will resume when it is permissible. the meeting is adjourned. we will notify the parties and the press when we can resume. >> objection, foundation. >> overruled. >> there were declarations from the police department that indicated there was less than full compliance with the orders of the court. >> you did not make noted that in your original written charges, right? >> objection, foundation. consumes -- assumes that the mayor wrote those charges. >> sustained. >> you originally

short of committing official misconduct, the sheriff answers only to the voters. are you aware of the provision that provides for the voters to recall the sheriff as well as every other elected official in the city? >> yes, i am. >> there is another way othe sheriff could be removed. that is the democratic way to do it. >> objection, argumentative. >> can i have the question read back? i was thinking about the objection. >> that is the democratic way to do it? >> overruled. >> i do not know if we got your answer. >> could you repeat the question? >> the other way to remove the sheriff would be the democratic process? >> yes. >> one of the other things that you stated in your declaration, you found a lot of fault with sheriff mirkarimi. safe to say that? >> correct. >> yoon noted that sheriff mirkarimi did not take any corrective action and did nothing to disavow improper conduct like witness dissuasion, right? >> yes, sir. >> did you see the text message for his wife asked him to contact the ex-sheriff to do something. and he responded that he could not do that. i

the turner cares whether or not the official committed official misconduct. the charging authority is the mayor. the way to test the allegations that -- is with this hearing. it is with thitheir witnesses ad the charter does not care if the mayor's best friends are bitter enemies with the person charged and it does not matter whether or not deterred the official was dishonest -- charging official was dishonest in some way because of the test of the truth is that -- the test of the truth is this hearing. the reason that mariposa testimony was relevant is because it should -- showed his to rotation and of what official misconduct met under the charter. whether he did it truthfully or falsely, that is up for you to determine at this hearing. not bring in experts. i would be doing my kids to service and i did not tell you straight out i believe if we had this hearing, it would be quite apparent that the mayor did test, -- testified truthfully. we only have a war of media articles and the only people saying they mayor trusted on tressler are the people had no know

his failure to step up and commend her for stepping up is, in your mind, official misconduct? >> i thought he should have defended her. chairperson hur: it is official? >> yes. chairperson hur: as you can tell, we are struggling with the notion of what official misconduct really is, and how it relates to the duties. in probing that, what wrongful conduct could a share of engage -- could a sheriff engage and that is not official misconduct? >> not to be arrested for a crime. not to commit domestic violence. chairperson hur: i am talking about wrongful conduct that does not constitute official misconduct. do you understand my question? >> i am trying to understand it for you. >> commissioner? it may be easier for this expert, given the nature of his expertise, not to try to answer the legal question about what is official misconduct, but maybe to testify about the question he is here to testify about, which is the standard of conduct for law enforcement officer. chairperson hur: it is a good point, and i am going there, thank you. >> thank you. chairperson hur: what wrongful cond

his failure to step up and commend her for stepping up is, in your mind, official misconduct? >> i thought he should have defended her. chairperson hur: it is official? >> yes. chairperson hur: as you can tell, we are struggling with the notion of what official misconduct really is, and how it relates to the duties. i

it attempts to define official misconduct. in my opinion, the task of the commission is to decide whether what occurred constitutes official misconduct, not whether it constitutes domestic violence. >> why don't i asked a different question? do you think that the crime of false imprisonment that the sheriff pleaded guilty to is domestic violence? >> i do not think i can answer that question, because it depends on how you will define the term. if you want to define it by the terms and conditions of probation when you are convicted of that crime, and are they some of the terms and convictions you would get if you were convicted of a battery on your spouse or significant other, possibly. but i do not think the term is sufficiently definite for me to give a response to that question. >> if the term is not sufficiently definite for you, wouldn't expert in that field help us figure that out? >> maybe so. but that assumes the foundational question, which is, is that important to your determination? our position is that is not. it is

our contention is that official misconduct remains what it has always been in san francisco and at -- as it has been described in case law. >> under a different standard of the city charter though, right? >> well, not exactly. the original language of official misconduct remains and then this extra purposes is grafted onto it in the 1995 amendment. >> this was not in play in the time of the case. >> our position is that the extra parts should not be considered. you might not agree with me, but if we are right, and, if off the death flushed the line you might agree with me, but if we are rough -- you might not agree with me, but if we are right. >> so, this portion is excluded. ok. the next item is the testimony of the sheriff. before he comes up, can you give us a time estimate of how long you would examine him. >> in total, if it is hard to say without knowing how to first floors of the exam goes. if i don't think i will finish tonight. if i can say that much. >> ok, will the sheriff please come and sit in the chair closest to the commission. thank you, sir. we will have the court re

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 is not could he fulfill the duties of sheriff. i do not think that is what the commission needs to decide or should decide. i think the inquiry is was what he did official this conduct. -- misconduct. in politics, people may get elected that do not get along with other members of the city

it attempts to define official misconduct. in my opinion, the task of the commission is to decide whether what occurred constitutes official misconduct,

the point is to help the fact finder determine if there was official misconduct and if the facts on which that expert relies are not facts that we deem relevant, it is difficult to do find this paragraphs. it would be inconsistent to find this paragraphs helpful in our determination if we thought the underlying facts were not. >> it is possible that with the understanding i need is in her more general description of the nature and elements of domestic violence and it troubles the rest of you. maybe i am in the minority and i am not trying to prove that these things are true and i do not think she is, either. she is saying if we thought these things were going on, it would fit into a certain pattern. i understand we are saying. >> i think it is addressed in the rest of her declaration. 135. >> what was the ruling on 128? >> that it would be stricken. >> i would like to remind the commission that even mr. kopp said when you are making evidenciary release about fact witnesses, information did not need to be admitted into reliance -- into evidence. i will not belabor the issue. >> mr. kopp, 1

. >> i'm sorry if i missed it but how does that relate to the mayor's official misconduct? >> as if the sheriff did nothing to stop it and the sheriff funded miss lopez's attorney. >> please, we cannot have comments from the audience. >> to me, that is not relevant. i will sustain the objections and welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ok, hearing no objection. mr. murton. first objection is to paragraph 6 through 9. i had a hard time seeing the relevance here. i would sustain the objection. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. if there are any where you would like to be heard, we will certainly give you that opportunity. >> thank you. commissioners, i want to say this, i recognize things discussed in these paragraphs. they are not flattering but we take to the fact as they come. from our standpoint, information like this about the past relationship between -- between miss lopez and the sheriff are relevant to our theory that domestic violence would occur, and our view of the fact domestic violence would occur. our it is extreme thrirs, the couple senten