Herrera's right to appeal the Alioto-Pier decision

|
(5)

I'm not exactly sure what Ken Garcia was trying to say here -- his argument is rambling and makes no sense -- but Dennis Herrera really had no choice: He had to appeal the Alioto-Pier decision.

The Superior Court ruling in the case screws up the city's term-limits law. It's not clear now, for example, when Sup. Carmen Chu will be termed out. It's not clear whether the mayor can appoint someone midway into a vacant term and essentially give that person an extra two years on the board. And one ruling from one Superior Court judge doesn't clarify the law (which the judge acknowledged was at the very least ambiguous) or set a binding precedent.

When the voters approved district elections, they also approved term limits; everyone gets two four-year terms. But under Judge Peter Busch's decision, that's no longer true.

Suppose, for example (and this is a wild scenario, but such things happen in local politics) that Gavin Newsom gets elected lieutenant governor (entirely possible) and in January, the newly elected supervisors choose the next mayor. Here's what happens: The board president becomes interim mayor until somebody lines up six votes.

So let's say (and this just happened with David Chiu) that one of the newly-elected, first-time supervisors -- Debra Walker, or Rafael Mandelman, or Scott Weiner, or Jane Kim, or someone else -- lines up six votes and becomes board president, and thus mayor. Then he or she immediately appoints a successor as supervisor. That person gets a free four-year term that doesn't count against term limits at all.

So the city needs clarity, and the only way to get it is to ask the Appeals Court to weigh in. And if it turns out that the current law does, indeed, set a double standard, and that appointed supervisors get special treatment, then the board needs to be a Charter amendment on the ballot fixing the problem.

If Sup. Alioto-Pier wants to claim this is just politics, let's remember: She's already run for Congress, for secretary of state, and was planning to run for insurance commissioner until she fell ill this spring. Now that nothing else has worked out, she wants another term on the board. She has every right to challenge Herrera's opinion, but asking him to apologize is wrong; he's just doing his job.

Comments

and "serve" 14 years and Daly will "serve" ten. Those two carpet baggers were progressives.

Further Herrera scumbaggery.

Anything to get over eh?

Posted by matlock on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:41 am

Alioto-Pier has the worst attendance rate ever and has nearly zero ideas, other than her go-to disability measures, one of which was to spend a million on gilded ramps for the chambers. I'm sure even the landlords and hotel/restaurant association prefer someone brighter and more productive

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

If a person was elected that wasn't a trained monkey for SEIU or whoever?

Still, Herrera in his usual governmental view (left or right) that everything is to his advantage is at it again. Zero standards but the goal to get his way, like Campos typical lawyer POS.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

"That person gets a free four-year term that doesn't count against term limits at all."

Well, no. That person would have been appointed to a term of more than two years, which under the law and Judge Busch's decision would be counted as a full four-year term.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 04, 2010 @ 5:56 am

Fog City Journal is reporting
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2010/08/court-of-appeal-rules-al...

"The California Court of Appeal today unanimously reversed a trial court ruling that last month nullified a key provision of San Francisco’s voter-approved term limits law, and authorized an eleventh hour bid by incumbent Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier to seek another term. The 21-page decision by a three-judge panel strongly vindicates City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office, which advised Alioto-Pier in a February 2008 legal opinion that she was ineligible to seek another term on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors due to the City Charter’s term limits provisions. More than two years later, Alioto-Pier sued to force Elections Department officials to place her name on the ballot. A San Francisco Superior Court judge granted the supervisor’s petition on July 22, holding that voters had implicitly rendered the 20-year-old term limits rule “ineffective” with subsequent Charter amendments."

Posted by Frank McGee on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 4:39 pm