under both of those, we would say that 15. 10105 is vague. how do we tell it the application of an this is enforcement? we look of the context and consistency. how work other examples of alleged wrongdoing dealt with by the mayor, the city, and other enforcement bodies? was the mayor's suspension arbitrary? was a discriminatory? was it consistent with how this mayor has treated other cases of alleged wrongdoing by city officials? was it consistent with how other mayors have handled similar cases? i respectfully submit to you that it was not consistent with how this mayor has dealt with other cases of alleged wrongdoing and not consistent with how the city, how other mayors have dealt with cases of alleged wrongdoing by elected officials. this was only the third time in the history of san francisco that a sitting mayor has suspended an elected official for alleged official misconduct. the first time was in 1932. he suspended the public defender for murder. mr. begin went on to spend 25 years in federal prison. the second time was in 2007. the

it is vague in its application. when the big issues thatave with standard ground because of stand your ground, police officers who were trained in the use of firearms who should have more expernce in judgment making and difficult decisions have a hier burden of proof because of stand your ground than do everyday ordinary serious -- citizens because they go through a great deal of scrutiny when they kill a person. because of that, i thought to myself, this has to be bad public policy. if law enforcement officers have been more difficult time justifying their actions, we believed it was unconstitutional and believed it is unconstitutional because of vagueness. unlike the rest of these lawyers, i am not a lawyer, i am a minister first and an activist second. i believe as a person of faith, we're moving into a dangerous place as a nation when we as a matter of public policy discourage or fail to encourage the presentation of life. i believe we are moving into a dangerous place as the society when we as a matter of publi

perhaps it is not vague as applied.ommissioner renne: i think it could be well read that you look at the particular position of public official and say, did he or she conduct themselves in a manner which violates a sense of decency,

. >> i think the question is vague as time. >> it is kind of vague, so maybe if you want to ask everything> i will ask if separately. did you communicate with share ref mirkarimi by e-mail between december 31 when january 4? >> i did not have any e-mails. >> did you routinely communicated by e-mail while you were his campaign manager? >> not really. it was in the campaign office while we were working, and some phone calls and texats. but did you ever communicate by e-mail? so. what did you ever have miss webb's email address? >> it was either halloween or a fund raiser, and i responded to her. it was prior to december 31. >> i was asking whether you ever communicated with the share of by e-mail and i followed up with whether you ever communicated with miss lopez by e-mail. >> those were the only two instances i ever communicated by e-mail. >> the mayor a subpoena in your documents-- mayor supboenaed your documents. >> yes, he did. >> and the court ordered you to produce any records in your control that were between anyone in regards to the incident and the subsequent police investigation a

perhaps it is not vague as applied. commissioner renne: i think it could be well read that you look at the particular position of public official and say, did he or she conduct themselves in a manner which violates a sense of decency, good faith, and right action or regardless of what the position was, is the action or conduct, does it fall under some general belief that it would be considered to violate the standards of decency and good faith and right action? frankly, i do nothing that it makes a lot of difference in this case whether you apply it to the office or generally. no public official should conduct themselves in the manner that occurred on december 31. >> i have come up for a long time, thought itt( was a very tough decision, which of these two it was. when i look at option 1, the question came up this morning whether if it were intended to apply to each position, all or each public offices, and why standard was singular instead of the world. i think you can get to the same place so i am agreeing with commis

with not having a bright line rule, and how you would decide similar issues, if we went with a more vague -- >> it is hard to draw a line with only one docked. >ipart of our problem is we have just this one matter. we do not know whettmváp&e%ei worried about a slippery slope or a floodgate if we do not provide enough guidance, or if we do something that is hard for this or subsequent mayors to interpret. but it is asking a lot to try to into with a line and a formula for something that happens so rarely. we should not do it willy-nilly. i am with commissioner liu that we may be overburdening an already complex process by trying to imagine all the other possibilities when there is no population to reflect that. >> i have a question. the last time this even came up, which i guess was with supervisor chu, although it did not come to a hearing, and it was an actual criminal misconduct, and prior to that, mizzola was the only previous case. >> i believe there was one in 1932. >> i guess what i was trying to say earlier, in terms of the fairness issue -- you have this description, or this defin

. -- is vague. so i would really like to know what you think we do today that is related to the vagueness consideration or whether you are alerting us to an argument you made. take the>> well, the charter res the commission to make a recommendation. it does not say which laws you may consider that substantiates or is the basis of recommendation. i would respectfully subject that the commission can take into account its own interpretation of what the lot is, and the facts are to make its recommendation to the board. if that does not involve a finding for conclusion of all as to 15.105 that is certainly with the commission's purview. i believe if wanted to make such a finding or conclusion of all, that would also be in your purview. i would like to move on and wind up here and then turn it over. a few other facts that we know of. i talked about the inconsistency in terms of san francisco history. i would like to talk for a moment about the inconsistency of how the mayor has filled with other alleged w

it is vague in its application. when the big issues that have with standard ground because of stand your ground, police officers who were trained in the use of firearms who should have more experience in judgment making and difficult decisions have a higher burden of proof because of stand your ground than do everyday ordinary citizens because they go through a great deal of scrutiny when they kill a person. because of that, i thought to myself, this has to be bad public policy. if law enforcement officers have been more difficult time justifying their actions, we believed it was unconstitutional and believed it is unconstitutional because of vagueness. unlike the rest of these lawyers, i am not a lawyer, i am a minister first and an activist second. i believe as a person of faith, we're moving into a dangerous place as a nation when we as a matter of public policy discourage or fail to encourage the presentation of life. -- the preservation of life. i believe we are moving into a dangerous place as the society when

what is not vague is going down to two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. if we take over, that will not be the standard we use. that would lead to a huge tax increase for very wealthy families. it would also have an immense impact, if you carry that out, on the mortgage interest deduction, on health care exclusion, on the education provision, on state and local taxes -- who would be impacted by the removal of the provision -- i do not think we have all the data on that, but we do have the data on some of them that it would very much hurt. the narrow class. we will take up tax reform, whoever chairs this committee, but it will be very different. >> could i respond? i have also introduced a draft territorial bill that is not incorporated into these principles that has been public since october and has received a lot of comment in hearings and informally. it is specific. it has several different types of provisions, how we prevent companies going to the lowest- tax jurisdiction. we are competing with the entire world, so we need to look at a new way of our in

every time he uses it, he will be accused of using it -- because it is so vague, it will always be subject to that challenge, and he may always feel he needs to bring it up, because he does not want to be looked at as letting official misconduct go. on the flip side, the defendant is always going to say, "look at these people who do all sorts of bad things. why did you choose my bad act?" it may not come up often, but it may come up more frequently if we do not come up with a bright line rules. i think we owe it to the public to really try our best to come up with an interpretation that is clear and could be followed, even if it is not perfectly bright line. >> just to say parenthetically -- i do not know if this is appropriate or not. often, when there is a case of misconduct, usually, it is personal misconduct, in the political arena across the country, usually those individuals, on their own, resigned without having to force any kind of public, you know, process, such as we have had to go through. we know of many many very well known cases of misconduct, but those individuals at least r