Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedure And Schedule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission sets tight deadlines, asks parties to exchange exhibits and reserves subpoena decisions and video ruling
Summary
Following extensive objections, the commission ordered immediate exhibit exchanges, reserved decision on a key video for additional briefing and review, and tentatively held July evenings for live witness testimony while discussing subpoenas for independent witnesses.
After painstaking paragraph-level rulings on multiple declarations, the San Francisco Ethics Commission set short procedural deadlines and a tentative live-witness schedule to keep the evidentiary phase moving. Counsel were ordered to exchange exhibit lists by the close of business the next day and to file objections by the Monday that followed; the panel also agreed to give the sheriff the chance to file a responsive brief on the disputed video exhibit.
Commission staff were directed to make copies of the video available to commissioners for independent review. Commissioners emphasized that hearing that evidence in context — by watching the video and seeing witness demeanor — would be important before deciding admissibility. Mayor’s counsel said the mayor had submitted seven copies to the clerk for commissioner review.
On scheduling, the commission agreed parties should be prepared for live testimony in the narrow window the panel set: an initial series of hearing nights around the end of June with contingency evenings in mid-July. Commissioners discussed the logistical burden of flying an out-of-town expert (Chief Lansdowne) and agreed a mechanism by which an individual commissioner may notify staff if they wish an expert to appear; if any commissioner requests the expert, staff will notify counsel so the witness can be made available.
On subpoenas, the panel discussed independent witnesses (Ivory Madison, Mertens and Peralta Haynes). Because counsel reported availability conflicts for the witnesses’ attorney and some witnesses, the commission declined to issue immediate subpoenas and instead asked parties to meet and confer; the commission reserved the power to subpoena if necessary.
The commission closed by adopting the rulings and the schedule on the record and instructing staff to publish a summary of the decisions. The next step is written exchanges of exhibits and limited briefing on the video so the commission can rule before the next live testimony date.
