it is not the city attorney s role to determine what the defense of the sheriff is, and a proper defense, or which witnesses the sheriff should be able to call. that is not the city attorney s colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said i respectfully disagree. does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos? no? not for
would only call her potentially as a rebuttal witness to miss florez or ms. lemon. i see your point with florez. lemon is an expert. why does nyevez rebut lemon? my understanding is that ms. lemon would testify that there must have been some other conduct at issue, or some other instances that would qualify as official misconduct regarding how the sheriff has interacted or interact with other people in his life. she lived with the sheriff for many years and could provide evidence to the contrary. ms. lemmon is not going to be providing testimony about other acts of misconduct. she is going to be providing testimony about the nature of domestic violence, and specifically the facts elicited in this case, and how they do or do not relate to what is known about the most violent. we do think ms. neves should not be a rebuttal to the expert. we would have no objection to her putting in a declaration. that should be part of what ms. lemon of pines about. why would you see it
they re not relevant as commissioner renne said. on that basis and the basis of relevance, we would continue to maintain an objection to any of those witnesses. chairperson hur: you have a standard an expert on the standard of care. you do not think you need either of them? respectfully, commissioner, we re prepared to tell you what mr. hennessy s opinion would be. it sounds like it would relate to the standard of care. it would relate to the share of s department sheriff s department. everyone is in agreement. if you have one, the mayor is entitled to have one. whether there are specific objections, we can do with that once we know what the opinions are. i for one think we will need a subject matter standard of care expert. the mayor and you should be entitled to have one. does the mayor have any objection to mr. hennessy? in light of what we just discussed? we would ask that all experts opinions be disclosed by declaration the same way as other witnesses so we c
that is not the city attorney s colorado. the sheriff can put on as vigorous a defense as he can against the charges. mayor agnos is a former mayor of san francisco. he surely knows a little bit about the responsibility of the mayor. he spoke on this exact issue. if the city attorney can have witnesses come in who have nothing to offer except some roundabout opinion on the responsibility of the sheriff and other parts of california, and have no knowledge at all mr. henderson has no knowledge as to any of the underlying facts about this case. he can come in. we are suggesting he permit he be permitted to testify by declaration. somehow, even though he spoke to the mayor, that is not relevant? i said i respectfully disagree. does anybody here think we should receive a declaration from mayor agnos? no? not for the purpose not from what we have heard tonight. why do we need to hear from phil bronstein? he spoke with ivory madison regarding the underlying facts of
mr. wagner, is that correct, how mr. keith characterized what the former mayor would testify to? i believe i have already stated the testimony would impeach the credibility, vis-a- vis the conversations he had with nearly with mayor lee. what would he say? what is this other reason? excuse me. mayor agnos told mayor lee to talk to eliana lopez directly, and asked whether he had spoken to any other mayor about his intention to suspend the sheriff. he indicated he had not. at minimum, that is extremely relevant to the suspension of the sheriff, in terms of his motivations, his lack of reviewing any evidence, or even contacting eliana lopez in this case before he suspended the sheriff. i will add as a former mayor we could have called mayor agnos just as the city attorney has called retired sheriff s, as a witness of what constitutes misconduct and when a mayor should suspend another official. mr. wagner, assuming that the mayor testifies, what you say mayor agnos is