were to say that a public official who pleaded guilty to false imprisonment had not engaged in official misconduct. clearly, a public official who has pleaded guilty, particularly given the circumstances of this case, that that conduct clearly falls below anybody's standard of decency, good faith, and right action. i would believe that is what the overwhelming majority of voters would say. that does not address the second part we have talked about. for us to say that a public official who has pleaded guilty has not committed an act of official misconduct because it was not directly in performance of his duties, but it took place in a domestic setting -- i clearly would vote to recommend that we find that there was a violation of the section of official misconduct. commissioner studley: i think your points are very well taken. the potential abuse is real. i look, though, at the way the voters developed and amended this, and think they did not mean to create a very specialized and narrow tool. i look at the fact that it says "any wrongful behavior," when there are other words that could have been us

board recommend or do something other than remove him from office if there is a finding of official misconduct. i don't see the benefit of providing any other recommendation to the board. commissioner liu? >> thank you. i do understand commissioner hayon's concern for taking a position on the consequences and what effect the misconduct charges should have. however, i think that i am more inclined to agree with chair hur on this particular issue, because -- and the reason is because we were so careful in analyzing what the charter says and what the standards are and we parsed the language. we were trying to be true to what each of felt what the charter allowed us to do and not do. so i would not feel comfortable now straying from that principle and doing something that i really don't see that the charter allows us to do. so for that reason, i wouldn't want to take a recommendation on it, simply because that is not what i think we're authorized to do under the charter. and if we have been true to what we each believe the charter allows or doesn't allow and i understand commissioner renne's point

are we in agreement that there is a distinction between personal misconduct and official misconduct? >> how do you mean? chairperson hur: and a sheriff engage in misconduct that is not official? wrongful behavior that is not official misconduct? >> yes. chairperson hur: what would be an example of such a thing? >> i promised my husband i will be home, this time, by 7:00. i am not. that is personal misconduct. i have broken a promise to a family member. i do not think it is actionable at work, just to get the ball started. >> do you mean conduct that is unlawful that would not constitute official misconduct? is that what you mean? chairperson hur: what is conduct that would fall below the standard of decency that would not relate to the duties of a share of -- of sheriff? perhaps commissioner studley's example is a good one. >> breaking a promise to a friend or family member. it is not unlawful. if you want unlawful, you will have to search for another. >> perhaps misconduct that does not end up being unlawful if there is no criminal conviction. but it is something that was tasteless.

kop who will discuss official misconduct and the facts as it relates to official misconduct. >> before you start, can i make a comment as someone who was tried cases for a lot of years and appear before a lot of judges, you did not do your client any favor by starting off your brief by saying at the end of an unnecessary protective dog and pony show. is that what you consider these proceedings to be? >> respectfully, no. >> you understand, we are mandated once the mayor took action, we have no choice whether or not to have such a hearing, and counsel for the sheriff and the mayor got together and said how they wanted it to be conducted. >> with all due respect, i apologize for the use of the phrase. it certainly was not meant to describe your consideration and what the commission has been doing under the obligation of the city charter. that was solely meant to describe the mayor's presentation of evidence, which we have felt from the outset was not called for in any stretch, either under official misconduct or was a reasonable exercise in the mayor's discretion. the test for bigness is

crimes, misdemeanors would warrant removal from office because they would constitute alleged official misconduct, then how can any official be on notice? if the mayor does not even know what other misdemeanors would constitute -- warrant removal, that would warrant suspension. how can anyone be on notice? >> council, in determining whether or not the mayor exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner, can the mayor and for this commission take into account what the elected official did between the time that the alleged misconduct occurred from the time he is suspended from office? >> can the commission take into account the suspending authorities conduct? lpor the removed official -- >> in other words, let's assume in the case of public official, it's an act that would constitute official misconduct, and between the time he commit the act or she commits an act and when the mayor exercises his discretion, can he take into account what happened in between in regard to that public officials conduct relating to the investigation for example? >> i believe the mayor can take into account. he or she

the reason for this is the very purpose of the official misconduct provision. n is meant to deal with wrongdoing that comes up after the voters have voted, hour after an official has been appointed to their position. it when the voters went to the polls nov., 2011, and a marked their ballots, they did not say, i am casting a vote to -- casting a vote for a share of that has committed domestic violence. these things came to light after the election. it is the very situation that official misconduct provisions in our city and elsewhere are meant to deal with. >> it may well be that the second portion of its deals with that question. but the first portion, i do not know how you can read it other than it st. official misconduct meaning any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office. the first paragraph clearly says whenever that wrongful misconduct was, it has to be in reti

i think the voters intended official misconduct to be something narrow because it provides the mayor with a very strong tool that really could disrupt an elected official. i do not think the mayor engaged in anything improper here or that there is any improper political motive. but you could certainly see that possibility, especially if we interpret this in a way that is so broad as to encompass any number of -- any amount of personal misconduct that does not relate to one's job duties. >> maybe we should take option #2, the tougher, higher standard and then see where we are with that and see if we need to discuss option #1 some more. chairperson hur: i think that is a good idea. under option #2, i am guessing, based on what i am hearing, that the debate is going to be about whether the relationship to the duties has to be a direct relationship, meaning something that is performed on the job or purporting to be on the job under color of law. lpor whether it instead must merely affect the elected official's ability to perform a duty. i probably should have not use the word "merely." i

. -- we did not find facts for, let alone official misconduct. having done all this, i would prefer to say something to the supervisors about the actions they might consider, rather than simply say we found one, and you, the supervisors, have only one choice. there was a big difference between what came to us and what is going forward for us. commissioner liu: are you saying we should specify the recommendation that charges be sustained as to certain counts only? commissioner studley: and what meaning we think that might have, and i have some thoughts. i will pass it forward. chairperson hur: i am just trying in my mind to square it with the automatic removal if there is a finding of official misconduct. maybe you can claim what you have in mind. commissioner studley: give me a minute to think about it. one is that -- one strand is the automatic removal if the supervisors agreed with us. the first half to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days -- they first have to reach that, or fail to act within 30 days. but there were members of the public

this case specifically says official misconduct is misconduct occurs while you are in office.hat is one of the reasons why the case -- >> this definition that we have before us now was not before the court in mizola. presumably it was driven -- written in drafted after the decision. the first part of it does track the mizola opinion, but the second part would seem to be filling in at gap that it left out, and that is or condo that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and write access and required of all public officers. so that one could say reading mizola what the charter drafters were concerned about that if we limit it tot( what it said, we o not get the broader coverage. we do not want public officials to have conduct, which falls below some standard. you are arguing that standard is so big it cannot be enforced, but isn't that the logical reading and why it does not control us, because we have language that did not exist. >> my answer to that, there are a few ways to respond, and i will try to address those points. i agree there is at least one word in the curr

this was not official misconduct. ihe was not an official yet, so it has nothing to do with his job. i can tell you about domestic violence. when i had an infant in my arms and my husband shoved me. not a little tug of the yard. let's be reasonable. if willie brown can father a child in office at 68 years old and did not get a slap on the rest, gavin newsom had an affair in the office and to drugs and alcohol and not a slap on the rest. how can you call this misconduct by comparison? how can you sit there and judge this man? this is wrong, from beginning to end. [applause] please, use your good judgment and weigh the facts. this is not official misconduct. it is not violence. because i have a little bruise on my arm from something else, that is no proof. you were not there. you did not see how hard it was or how little it wise. some people breeze very easily. that is no proof of violence. this is not justice. if willie brown and gavin newsom, the mayor, could get away with that -- [tone] and here you are trying to mak

why didn't we just figure out what troubles us and what we thought was official misconduct. defer to the council. if we have to stand on those counts, i think we should stand firmly on the ones we are adopting. otherwise it will apply these of accounts and we did something else and if they don't converge, our process will be unhelpful to the supervisors. >> what i am hearing is that you have voted 4-1 to sustain the charges of official misconduct based on the conduct of december 31 and the subsequent conviction. as reflected in counts four and five. if i am correct, you might want to amend the motion to incorporate the language so that it is clear that you are stating it both on the actions that occurred, the conviction that resulted from those actions, and you believe that those are related to counts 4 and 5. >> any objection to that? would someone like to make the motion? >> i move that we adopt the recommendation. >> the second. >> i think we also meet at the adoption of the interim ruling is and the empowering of the written summary. maybe i will take a shot to tie up al

found to have committed official misconduct shall be removed from office. seemed to me there is no discretion for the commission to determine or to provide a recommendation to board as to what should happen, should the board find that the sheriff committed official misconduct. so i just want that to be clear in terms of why our order doesn't address what the affect of the findings shall be, because the charter really provides no option. commissioner hayon? >> while that may be the case, i do understand that the charter spells out what punishment should be based on our recommendation or finding. sheriff mirkarimi guilty on those two counts. i do feel there has been a tremendous amount of confusion about this in the public and even in the media to some degree. and even if our recommendation really has no bearing, in the case of what the punishment should be, i feel that the commission should at least go on the record as to how -- what we feel the punishment should be and the board can certainly ignore that particular recommendation, or use it to bolster whate

but yes, one of them may be official misconduct or wrongful conduct.n other words, i would submit that your recommendation can be as nuancedÑilp has your discussn has been and you have spent several hours discussing what this provision means. as i argued earlier, that ambiguity should be read most favorable to the sheriff. and in that regard, i believe that giving the support of supervisors more options at not less is consistent with due process, consistent with respecting the intent of the charter provisions and also with your discussion. reading the charter in the most narrow way the have to say yes of were down and yeses removal, that is not consistent with the rest of the charter provision that clearly says there can be official misconduct that does not warrant removal. >> what is your position on the written document? >> again, i was actually appearing before the board of supervisors a couple weeks ago notifying that they would be discussing their procedure that they already have the draft procedure in place, presumably, that was drafted. we got v

i do not think it amounts to official misconduct, but i do not want there to be any illusion to my viewabout whether it was appropriate conduct or not from what i would expect from an elected official. but i do not think it rises to official misconduct. >> you are talking about this item only? >> yes. any other views with respect to the factual allegations? of course, the parties submitted a joint statement which was somewhat helpful in us trying to determine what facts we really need to find and discuss here. we have addressed, i think, the most salient ones. there are a couple that we may want to address just so that we can ensure that we have established the predicate for our discussion of the law and the application of the law to the facts. i think it is undisputed that the share of -- sheriff was elected on november 8, 2011, and that he was sworn in on january 8, 2012. i also think that there is -- it was proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he did engaged in actions at the sheriff's office that he was getting up to speed on what his duties would be in the interim between

two bodies both of them ethical over set boundaries which both concluded she had engaged in official misconduct and when that was brought to the mayors attention he chose to do nothing in stark contrast to what he did to official [indiscernible] and we're still wondering. you can't charge the sheriff with official misconduct over false charges and then let a library commission president off the hook for proven charges. speaker: thank you very much. i do have graphic presentation but there are only two reel points i want to make. first of all, with respect to official misconduct in general, there have been questions about the appending charges against the elected sheriff about whether it was related to his office and whether he acted in his official capacity with respect to mrs. go mess there is no question this took place at an official public meeting and that she was conducting the office that she was appointed to while this was happening but more importantly the mayor removed while charges were pending yet he did nothing, not even make a response after miss go mess was found guilty. you may r

>> yes. >> so you are say m did not say that the board should sustain the charges of official misconduct against sheriff ross 6ç0 on the seriousness of the incident that occurred december 31st, 2011, and the subsequent conviction as reflected in counts 4 and 5 of the amended charges of oehl misconduct. that is the part you are complaining about, right? >> yes, and specifically the first five words . >> well, on page 16 11 of the transcript, there is a motion that says, "is there a motion to sustain the charges as to the conduct that occurred on incidence 31st, 2011 and subsequent conviction as reflected if counts 4 and 5 of the amendment charges of official misconduct." so i think it's pretty clear that the order reflects the motion that was made, seconded and approved by the commission. okay. your concern about the facts that are not included here. meaning the fact that we found there wasn't sufficient evidence on the guns or other conduct. i am certainly not suggesting that we didn't make those findings and i stand by them and i think we were absolutely right to find that the mayor did

lying under oath by an official is official misconduct. f one interprets the allies as going to motivation for removing the sure from office, then the perjury goes to right action and decency, which are explicitly required of all public officials, a standard the mayor himself refused to reply to himself. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is danielle. i would like to see ross reinstated to his job as a sheriff. i believe domestic violence is a serious offense, and as such, am glad the allegations in this case were brought forth and taken seriously. however, i do not believe any serious offense was committed here, certainly none that would preclude him from serving as sheriff. we're all humans, including high-level officials. we all have faults and weaknesses, and sometimes in life those come to a head. in retrospect, it is those times in life we are thankful for, provided we are shown the way to healing and cold mist, which has certainly been a part of this case, as well as the original intent of the mirkarimi family. d

official misconduct when you look at the plane language of the time, misconduct by one who is in office. he was not in office. therefore, he cannot commit official misconduct. i mean what official misconduct would mean if he had been in office, that's another question. that question is not you are really asked to answer. the question is whether he committed official misconduct. and ross who i have known for a long time did not commit official misconduct because he wasn't in office. it's that simple. he has done a an awful lot good for this city as a supervisors, as a sheriff and i would ask that you reinstate him in office. thank you. [applause] >> hi, i'm jeannie maher. like so many others, a resident of this city and i want to thank you all for the time that you have devoted to this matter. i don't envy you having to have done that. but thank you again. i think that we have heard some very thoughtful comments from a number of people on both sides. i did hear a supporter of ross mirkarimi tell me at the end of this process, we will find a man much better than he began. i can only hope