Full circle - Page 4

After months of discussion and faulty charges, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to the initial act — and how broadly to define 'official misconduct'

|
(52)
Deputy City Attorney Peter Keith delivers a closing statement that included unsupported accusations.
PHOTOS BY MIKE KOOZMIN/SF NEWSPAPER CO.

16, with each speaker strictly limited to less than two minutes each, speakers overwhelmingly favored Mirkarimi and condemned the city case as overkill.

"Some of the things done in this case, and the levels this has gone to, is outrageous," said Brenda Barros, who works in the city's public health clinic and said these resources could be better applied to help the "seriously abused women" she works with. Barros called the city's case "a political witch hunt."

"I think Mayor Lee has overstepped his boundaries and I think you should find that as well," said Pedro Fernandez, a private investigator and former San Francisco Police officer.

David Elliott Lewis, a member of the city's Mental Health Board, noted that the Sheriff's Department has no civilian oversight, making the role of an elected sheriff who is progressive and independent of the city's good-old-boy police culture all the more important. "Those who claim otherwise are really politically motivated," he said.

One issue left unresolved by the Ethics Commission is whether Mirkarimi should be removed even though the case against him was substantially whittled down. In fact, several commissioners indicated during the hearing that they thought the findings and punishment were separate issues.

"Do you agree that it is a two-step process we have to deal with?" Renne asked Keith, referring to the official misconduct finding and whether Lee abused his discretion by removing Mirkarimi.

"There is a determination of, are the consequences appropriate to the wrongful action," Keith replied.

But later, when attorney Scott Emblidge — who is volunteering his legal services to both the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors on this case — offered his interpretation that the charter language requires removal of officials found to have committed official misconduct, the commission accepted that and opted not to consider recommending a lesser punishment to the Board of Supervisors.

Mirkarimi's team objected to the commission's rewriting of new charges based on its evidentiary findings, and things got so confusing by the end that the commission decided to meet one more time in early September to finalize its recommendation.

So the case probably won't get to the board until mid-September. Nine votes are required to remove Mirkarimi and the charter requires the board act within 30 days, meaning that final vote will be just a few weeks before the Nov. 6 election, timing that will only increase perceptions that politics will largely determine its outcome.

Comments

The only "no" answer to the question as to whether Ross Mirkarimi should lose his job is accompanied by a statement which might very well be seen as wrong by those who might chose it -- and reflects a missed opportunity to state a far more salient reason why many would choose to retain Ross Mirkarimi: that he's *not* guilty of official misconduct and Lee had no business trying to remove him.

Conversely there are two "yes" answers, one of which boldly falsifies the number and character of the "charges" that Mirkarimi plead guilty to.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

The Ethics commission disagrees with you and 61% of SF voters, the Mayor of SF, and pretty much anyone who is sane.

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 6:01 am

Related articles

  • Ethics Commission rejects Mirkarimi delay request

  • Sorting through scandal

    Mirkarimi's case moves from the courts to City Hall -- raising tough political and logistical questions

  • Domestic violence is not a private matter

    It's a serious crime -- but calls to remove the sheriff smack of political opportunism