Commission narrows Mirkarimi charges to one but recommends removal

|
(238)
Ross Mirkarimi with Eliana Lopez, attorney David Waggoner, and his mother, Nancy Kolman Ventrone (right), after the ruling.
Steven T. Jones

The Ethics Commission today unanimously rejected most of Mayor Ed Lee’s official misconduct charges against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi – including abuse of power, impeding a police investigation, and dissuading witnesses – but voted 4-1 to recommend the Board of Supervisors find him guilty of official misconduct for grabbing his wife’s arm on Dec. 31 and pleading guilty to the resulting misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment.

The sole dissenting vote, Chair Benedict Hur, said he had “grave concerns” that such as a broad interpretation of what behaviors constitute official misconduct would give mayors a “strong tool” to inappropriately remove their political adversaries (or at least invite charges that they were), as Mirkarimi supporters allege is happening now.

But the rest of the commission adopted a broad interpretation of what city officials and voters intended in 1995 when they overhauled the City Charter and added a new official misconduct clause banning “conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers.”

“I have a lot of concerns about where you draw the line if you don’t relate it to official duties,” Hur said, appealing to his colleagues that, “I think this charter provision was meant to be narrow.”

Commissioner Paul Renne – who in earlier hearings had taken a strong role in excluding prejudicial evidence against Mirkarimi and was thought to be a possible vote in his favor – today led the charge in interpreting misconduct in the broadest possible way, arguing it didn’t even have to be related to his official duties, while the three other votes against Mirkarimi made the case that his conduct and conviction were related to a sheriff’s role overseeing the jail and its domestic violence programs.

“I think the voters would be shocked if we were to say a public official who pleaded guilty to domestic violence has not committed an act of official misconduct,” Renne said.

But Mirkarimi’s attorneys and supporters – who outnumbered those urging his removal (mostly domestic violence advocates) by more than 4-to-1 during the three hours of public testimony taken today – say the shocking thing is for a just-elected official to be unilaterally removed from office by a political adversary for reasons that today’s proceedings showed were tenuous.

“No case has ever been upheld in court to remove an elected official for a low-level misdemeanor,” said Paula Canny, the attorney for Mirkarimi’s wife, Eliana Lopez, who sat next to and supported his husband throughout today’s nine-hour proceedings.

Indeed, the city is wading into uncharted waters and the commission had few court precedents to draw from in making its findings. It’s also possible that the charter provision is unconstitutionally vague, as Mirkarimi’s attorneys have alleged, both here and in court, with an earlier judge opting to wait until after the city’s process plays out before ruling on the question.

But first, it will be up to the Board of Supervisors, where nine votes on the 11-member body are required to remove Mirkarimi. Today’s hearing got complicated at the end – as commissioners wrestled with what it means to essentially throw out the mayor’s charges and adopt their own more narrow accusation, and how to present everything to the board – that it decided to hold one more meeting in early September to adopt a summary and send everything to the board, which will then have 30 days to act.  

“I leave this process concerned that the will of the voters is being undermined,” Mirkarimi told reporters after the hearing. Holding his hand, Lopez said, “I’m shocked to see what happened today, but we are fighters.”

 

For complete coverage and analysis of what happened today, what it means, and what’s next, read next week’s Bay Guardian.

Comments

Who conducted the push poll? What were the questions asked? How were the respondents selected?

Thanks in advance for giving up this information.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 9:21 pm

Each poll result has been internally and externally consistent.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

If that poll you keep referencing (without citation) was done by the same outfit that just called me, then I'd have to agree that they're experts. Yeah, they're experts all right... in the Josef Goebbels sense.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 10:47 pm

The questions are simple, fair and reasonable. Should a convicted criminal be sheriff? Should someone on probation be sheriff? Should someone who admits he committed an act of Dv be sheriff?

Only someone mindlessly left-wing and pro-Ross would see those questions as skewed. They are the only questions that can be asked and the only questions that matter.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 11:15 pm

1) Should a mayor who stole an election be allowed to fire an elected officer who didn't?

2) Should a sheriff whose only crime is turning a car around at dinner time by sacked?

3) Should progressive politicians always be cut some slack because there is a vast right-wing conspiracy?

4) Aren't women sometimes emotional and need firm direction from the man of the house?

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 4:14 am

The questions you suggest are about the same level of hyperbole that the poll itself asked -just from the other side. If someone presented a push poll with those questions, you'd be howling.

The odd thing is, that the first two questions aren't that bad. I'd rephrase the second to say "Do you think that turning a car around amounts to false imprisonment?"

How about:
"Do you think that someone whose only crime was an allegation of grabbing an arm should lose their career?"

"Do you think it should matter that the alleged victim strongly opposed the prosecution from the start?"

"Does the knowledge that the majority of the Ethics Commission is composed of representatives of the 3 officials involved in prosecuting the case make you more likely to support the ruling, less likely to support the ruling, or does it make no difference?"

"Do you think that a commission where the majority of the members are representatives of the prosecution can make an unbiased decision or not?"

If you want to do a poll that's scientific, rather than a push poll, you ask a straightforward question like "Should Sheriff Mirkarimi be removed from office?" first, *before* you give any background information. Then, if you give background information to see if it changes people's opinions, you ask it in a neutral way or you present information from both perspectives. Clearly that wasn't being done here.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 7:46 am

Regarding you point:

"I'd rephrase the second to say 'Do you think that turning a car around amounts to false imprisonment?'"

I think that this is also inherently biased. A proper wording would be:

'Do you think that DRIVING a car amounts to false imprisonment?'

But I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for these blatant propagandists to seek the truth.

Posted by Steroidal Progressive on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 8:06 am

someone else in it. It was driving a car with someone in it to a place where that person did not wish to go.

Neutral poll questions would be:

Should a criminal be sheriff?

Should someone on probation be sheriff?

Should someone who admits a violent act towards his wife be sheriff?

It's really as simple as those three questions

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 8:16 am

anyone who turns the car around in the heat of an argument is a "criminal" guilty of "false imprisonment?"

Posted by Greg on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

But yes, if you have someone in your car to take them to A and then you say they have to go to place B against their wishes and opposition, them you have taken them captive.

If you then further grab them to restrain them, that's more imprisonment. While bruising them of course constitutes an act of violence against a spouse, as Ross has already admitted, and as we have seen on video.

The poll question is very simple: "Should a violent criminal who is on probation for false imprisonment be running our prisons and working closely with the probation service?"

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

"he *shouldn't* be removed; which is probably what most voters think now that the basic inadequacy of Lee's case has been brought to light."

That's hilarious. Thanks for a good laugh on a Saturday morning.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 6:12 am

brought by the mayor sought to show that Ross Mirkarimi was a serial abuser, witness intimidator, perjurer, etc, etc, etc, but only succeeded in proving that he turned the family van around rather than bring a family argument into a public place.

What's funny is the cognitive disconnect so common among the Mirkarimi haters who forget what extreme indictments they originally took such glee in extolling -- hatred they expounded on at length -- and which now lie deflated and discarded on the cutting room floor of the ethics commission. Even the hand picked representatives on the ethics commission couldn't vote in support of the great majority of those baseless and inflamatory accusations.

What is left? Well, for one, the nakedly political calculus of a mayor who ran for election after promising to only be a caretaker and who has turned out to be willing to engage in some pretty odd behavior on the witness stand, and so on.

What *do* the voters think? Well, how's your recall coming along?

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 7:48 am

Look, 'lillipublicans', I'm interested in this stuff but I'm not going to spend my day commenting on page 15 of an SFBG post. But you do show an alarming difficulty in your cognitive processing of the events. I'll accept that you really believe that the charges were based on turning a van around but in reality there was a criminal conviction (and a guilty plea) involved. Can you accept the fact that Mirkarimi is on 3 years probation? Go to news.google.com and type in 'Mirkarimi'. There seems to be so much that you are unable to handle because it is inconvenient for you to do so. Maybe you can get help, it is never too late!

And the members of the Ethics Committee weren't 'hand picked' just to cause you pain, lillipublicans. In reality they were put on the Commission by various parties and vetted by the BOS long before this unfortunate event started.

Seriously, I don't know who you are but I think that you need to get some help so that you can accept that reality isn't always going to be about what you say it is. Some things are out of your control.

And maybe get out of the house! It looks like a nice weekend.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 8:36 am

Mayor Lee? I probably should be glad you don't know who I am, seeing what police and prosecutorial powers you wield.

I can imagine myself brought on charges with large billboards towering over the courthouse proclaiming my guilt right now...

Have a nice day. Not.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 8:46 am

The San Francisco mayor lied when he said that the sheriff: "beat his wife", in a televised interview.

The city attorney lied when he claimed he had the evidence of official misconduct necessary to proceed with this case.

The SF Chronicle has been disingenuous all along in their reporting of this case.

The Ethic's commission have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of political appointees determined to please the DV advocates.

The board of Supervisors needs to issue an apology to Eliana Lopez. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 4:06 pm

Here ya go, jccourt:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sore%20loser

BTW, The City Attorney DID get a ruling of official misconduct.

Sorry...really sorry...but I do think that the Progressives would be better off if they didn't crawl into a fetal position and start crying about how unfair the world is because they didn't get their way.

That's not going to happen, of course, I'm just saying that they would be better off IF they were capable of doing so.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

What about all the whiny cops who said that they couldn't work under Mirkarimi? Or the ones who said that they'd beat up their wives if Mirkarimi was Sheriff? No one is a sore loser if the game hasn't played out. And it hasn't.

You know, I wouldn't doubt that Mirkarimi could beat Lee in the next mayoral election.

In any case, I don't think that Lee will get nine votes on the BOS, and even if he does will probably lose in court. Maybe Lee can lose another few million of SF taxpayers' money in a vain attempt to put his own puppet in as sheriff.

Meanwhile, we have two accusations of perjury against Lee that the DA refuses to investigate, as well as violations of federal law surrounding that faux bomb scare. All in Lee's vain attempt to keep Mirkarimi out of office. Since the bomb scare involved members of the Sheriff's Dept., Lee really has to fight to keep Mirkarimi out of office now, or face what happens when Mirkarimi does his own investigation of that bomb scare.

It won't end well for Lee.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

@Troll you say: "None of that is true"

I could not make this up. But will add:

What ever happened to the investigation of the bomb treat that removed the mayor from the witness stand, and why wasn't city hall evacuated?

Awaiting for your reply that none of this is true, or makes any sense. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 10:28 am

Step by step. Again, nothing that you said makes any sense but here it is:

1) >The San Francisco mayor lied when he said that the sheriff: "beat his wife", in a televised interview.

What lie? Mirkarimi admitted that he committed an act of violence against his wife. You don't have to hit someone over the head to beat them. If you don't believe me then get in the ring with an MMA fighter who will have no problem twisting your arm off without ever hitting you.

2)>The city attorney lied when he claimed he had the evidence of official misconduct necessary to proceed with this case.

I don't even know what I can say about that one, except that not only did the City Attorney CLAIM that he had the evidence but the Ethics Commission AGREED with him, voting 4-1 that official misconduct had indeed occurred.

3)>The SF Chronicle has been disingenuous all along in their reporting of this case.

The Chronicle Editorial Board has been strongly anti Mirkarimi but at least they label their pieces as Opinion, something that Redmond and Jones here at the SFBG fail to do. I would say that John Cote and the other reporters have been reasonably neutral, Debra Saunders has been very strongly pro-Mirkarimi. Over all, if the SFBG has been a -10 to the left, the Chronicle has been +5 to the right but has labeled most of it as opinion.

4)>The Ethic's commission have shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of political appointees determined to please the DV advocates.

Actually the Ethics Commissioners were appointed and vetted according to the City Charter long before the whole Mirkarimi thing started. One of the Commissioners, Dorothy Liu was appointed by the BOS. 10 Supes voted for her including, you guessed it, Ross Mirkarimi.

5)>The board of Supervisors needs to issue an apology to Eliana Lopez.

WTF did the Board of Supervisors do to Eliana Lopez?? She made a video saying that her husband had abused her more than once. Her husband pled guilty to a reduced charge. The Ethics Commission considered his actions to be Official Miscounduct. What does the BOS have to apologize for?

6)>What ever happened to the investigation of the bomb treat that removed the mayor from the witness stand, and why wasn't city hall evacuated?

You don't think that they consult the Mayor before a possible evacuation? How often does City Hall get evacuated? You think that they evacuate on every threat?

Also, you think that you are the only one clever enough to notice that not everyone was evacuated? And the Mayor's people who came up with the plan wouldn't have thought of that? If they would have evacuated the building then the Mayor would have had even more time to get his story straight.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

Dang, Troll. Here you are bloviating again and you still haven't copped to mistakenly referring to a "Louis Renne" on the ethics panel.

There's so much about your lengthy contribution here which deserves disection and embalming -- or maybe a sojurn in the freezer until just before the garbage pick up -- but since the nature of Paul Renne's service on the ethics commission seems like to be a mystery to you, let me point out that he was appointed by DA Gascon in February.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 7:53 pm

1. Bruising an arm is not "beating", which by definition requires repeated blows. Perhaps you have problems with numbers.

2. The City Attorney said he had proof that Mirkarimi dissuaded witnesses. He didn't. The office made the accusation prior to any investigation. The City Attorney's office NEVER interviewed Ms. Lopez. That is a lie.

3. The Chronicle has methodically banned those posters who could broadly be described as "pro-Mirkarimi". Phil Bronstein's version of events for his involvement, that he was giving Madison phone numbers of Mirkarimi allies so that they could hold a sort of intervention for him, does not make sense nor is there any proof that he did that at all. There is no explanation that, if he had, Madison ever made any attempt at organizing such a thing. Editorial opinion (to include Nevius' slanted reporting) is all against Mirkarimi. The newspaper routinely downplays news stories that make Lee look corrupt in this case. Note how it first avoided the fake bomb story, then finally reported that there was no conspiracy because the police told them there wasn't.

4. Renne's arguments conflict with the City Charter.

5. The Mayor and the City Attorney should issue an apology to Ms. Lopez. But that's why there are civil courts.

6. You fail to address the key points of the fake bomb scare. For example, why the threat was phoned into a phone line that isn't monitored? Why was Lee removed from the witness stand but not the building? How did the police know that there was no actual bomb when they removed Lee from the witness stand?

Troll, you don't like Mirkarimi. Don't try to confuse rationality with your hate.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:42 am

Look, most of this is just too weak to even deal with. Like I said, if your definition of a 'beating' must include repeated blows then get in a ring with an MMA fighter who agrees to only grab your limbs and to not strike you. It won't be a 'beating' so yo have nothing to worry about.

In terms of the bomb scare and Lee being removed from the witness stand but not the building...they consult with the Mayor about what to do when they get a bomb threat. I's sorry if your blind support of Mirkarimi doesn't allow you to consider that simple fact. Lee talks to other Mayors and gets regular security briefings. He knows things that others may not. Like I said, if they really wanted to delay the hearings they would have evacuated the building which would have bought them a lot more time.

Instead, they met in Lee's office and decided what to do.

Do you want to tell ME again about confusing 'rationality with your hate'?????

Posted by Troll on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:42 am

Troll, the Mayor was taken off the witness stand a half hour after the "bomb threat" was phoned in? And then spent an hour, hour and a half with his staff deciding whether or not to vacate the building? And not notifying the guards at the security stations at the doors about this threat? And letting people walk in and out of the building. And not check the cars parked around the building?

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

Bob....

Please explain how you know the following things that you said:

"And not notifying the guards at the security stations at the doors about this threat?"

and

"And not check the cars parked around the building?"

Really, please let me know how YOU know that the guards at the security stations weren't advised and also how you know that they didn't check the cars around the building.

Really..let me know. Because, honestly, I think you just make stuff up and say whatever you please without having any idea if it is true. And you expect us to believe you.

So please disabuse me of the notion that you just blither away mindlessly.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:23 pm

So where did the "impliedly required" language originate? Evidently, it *already* was in the 1932 Charter before the the passage of the 1996 Charter.

Here's an excerpt from 1995 Prop E summary (page 63 @
http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November7_1995short.pdf ):

"Article XV: Ethics
The current Charter contains provisions establishing and governing the operations of the Ethics Commission. The Charter also contains detailed prohibitions regulating conflicts of interest. Under the Charter, a salaried officer of the City may not also hold a salaried office with the state or federal governments.

The proposed revision would make no substantive changes regarding the Ethics Commission, although some procedural material would be moved to Appendix C, which could only be changed by a charter amendment. The conflict of interest provisions would also be retained in Appendix C. Dual officholding would be prohibited where the City and the state or federal salaries both exceed $2,500 a year."

In the Nov. 2003 Ethics reform (coincidentally also named Prop E) the "impliedly required" language is struck from Appendix C, Sec 16.118 of the 1995 measure (seen on page 118 or so in the previous document), and moved to Section 15.105.

http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November4_2003.pdf

So did the "impliedly required" language come from the 1932 Charter -- or some subsequent change?

I looked for the text of the 1932 Charter and had difficulty finding it, but in searching out the earlier charter, I found an archive.org page with what appears to be the current charter with notes regarding past amendments.

http://www.archive.org/stream/gov.ca.sf.charter/ca_sf_charter_djvu.txt

"(e) OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. Official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, willful in its character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers and including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law.

When any City law provides that a violation of the law constitutes or is deemed official misconduct, the conduct is covered by this definition and may subject the person to discipline and/or removal from office. (Amended November 2001; March 2002; November 2003)"

I cannot possibly understand how any reading of that paragraph can fail to conclude that the second paragraph directly is connected with the first's "official duties." The fact that Renne made the contrary claim does sharply bring the question to my mind as to whether he was not perhaps being disingenuous in his lead role with regard to striking the laughably prejudicial hearsay evidence early in the proceedings; giving himself cover to propone this most extreme interpretation later.

There is both the reasoning of the EC chairman Benedict Hur with regard to constitutionality and proportion for thinking completely the opposite of Renne, but I think it is wrong simply based on the punctuation. I'm no expert in English, but after a series of commas, I think it is obvious that further clauses are to be associated with the previous ones. If you want to add a completely different clause -- I heard it described as "disjunctive OR" perhaps -- a semi-colon is used to make clear the groupings.

No way do we want our supervisors and other elected officials subject to such a three-way gambit as has been played against the Sheriff. No matter what you think of the specific case and which facts you assess, such power should not rest in such a concentrated strength. Republican Terrence Faulkner spoke against the Ethics Commission proceedings and I believe that is a point he was making.

(As an aside -- as voters, I think we should abolish this misinterpreted language and at the same time we should also abolish the six-month waiting perior for a "people's recall," for when circumstances truly call for action.)

Still looking for the 1932 charter, I found this document on the SFPL SF ballot pamphlet page called by them "Text of Freeholders Charter of the City and County of San Francisco (Proposition 1)" but identified on the cover page as a "Charter Amendment."

The document's cover date of March 26, 1931 is obviously more reliable data than the library's .pdf name. There is some language regarding ethics under "Charter Amendment 28, Civil Service Improvment," which is basically an implementation of the progressive's policy of isolating the civil service from political graft and power brokering.

Is there some earlier document which needs to be consulted to have a full text of what is known as the 1932 Charter? I'd still like to know where that "impliedly required" language came from originally.

http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November4_1930.pdf

Here's the SFPL ballot pamplet menu page:

http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000126101

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 10:23 am

THE SAN FRANCISCO BOMB SCARE CLASS ACTION.

To anyone who was in or around the San Francisco City Hall when Mayor Ed Lee was evacuated while under oath at the ethic's commission hearing. Your life could have been in danger, and you were not notified, nor evacuated.

You should consider a class action law suit against the mayor and the city of San Francisco. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 11:13 am

I got am automated push poll. Questions were HEAVILY anti-Mirkarimi. And the script reader was just as snarky as the questions.
I would opine that these are being propagated in the districts with supe elections going on...but the questions were really over the top push questions......dirty pool continues.

Do they think the supervisors are stupid?

clearly the anti Mirk folks think the voters are stupid.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 8:01 am

question, but it is the key question here.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 8:14 am

Or that anyone who bruises another person should be barred from law enforcement?

It's a little silly how people want to draw the chalk line to exclude Mirkarimi from being Sheriff. After all, a large anti-Mirkarimi segment are members of law enforcement who oppose Mirkarimi's politics and theories of correctional science. I haven't heard anyone from that sector bemoan the SFPD, under Mayor Lee's directions, hitting Occupy demonstrators with nightsticks, or kicking them, or pushing them into police wagons. Or shooting people in wheelchairs.

The hypocrisy is deep and rich. Cops like the idea of having the legal license to use violence in their jobs. We know that DV statistics are two to four times as high among law enforcement as the general population and that cops are far less likely to be prosecuted for domestic abuse than the average citizen, and when disciplined receive lighter sentences than the average citizen.

We also know that there are allies of Lee who have committed official misconduct, misconduct directly involved with their jobs, like sexually harassing employees, and yet Lee seems to have no problem with that.

In the process of trying to get rid of Mirkarimi Lee has probably committed perjury twice. There was a fake bomb threat which seemed only to threaten Lee while he was on the stand. And yet anti-Mirkarimites are incurious as to violations of federal anti-terrorist laws.

It's politics, plain and simple. Just admit it, folks. You are not holier-than-thou. You are very dirty. You're not fooling anyone unless you're fooling yourselves.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:26 am

So someone guilty of a mesdemeanor is a criminal.

When Ross's probation is over, he can apply to the courts to have his conviction expunged, under the city's Clean Slate program

And if and when that expungment is granted, Ross could be sheriff again, assuming that the voters agree.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:46 am

And the felony must be official misconduct. So while you are a very strict moral person, your opinion does not coincide with the City Charter.

Mirkarimi was elected to the Sheriff's position with ten thousand more votes than Lee got for Mayor. If the public has a change of heart they can recall him or vote him out of office in three years.

Whatever the results of the BOS's vote, Mirkarimi will undoubtedly win his job back in court and will collect much damages. When returned to his office, he will undoubtedly investigate the Sheriff's Dept's role in the fake bomb scare.

By the way, how does your strict morality abide how Lee hasn't acted about sexual harrassment in his administration?

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:13 am

comprehension of why 75% of SF voters want Ross gone.

So I will leave you to your fantasies. Ross is toast and it's all his own stupid fault.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:21 am

They don't bother me. However...

You have failed to provide the requested information that you claim exists.

That makes you a liar.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Where?

Because we just went through a pretty extensive hearing with lawyers on all sides and nobody brought that up. Not even Mirkarimi's lawyers.

So, bob, does it REALLY say 'felony' or are you just playing pretend because you really wish that it said felony?

Posted by Troll on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:50 am

The City Charter says "felony" that involves official misconduct.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:18 am

Should this guy be leading a force of men that will, at some point, be arresting people for doing what he has admitted doing to his wife? The answer has to be NO!

Additionally if I'd realised how much of a cockey slime ball he is in interview I would never have voted for him in the first place to be honest.

Posted by Adam Hunter, Lafayette. on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

You didn't vote for him in the first place "to be honest"..To be honest, you didn't vote for anyone on the San Francisco ballot, because you are from Lafayette.
You might want to also do a little google research on the duties of the Sheriff of San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 7:20 am

And in fact the SF sheriffs are involved in DV cases, quite significantly:

1) They run the jails, which house many DV perps
2) They police the courts, and there's a special courtroom dedicated to DV cases
3) They liaise with the PO's who run the DV probation service, which are active for DV cases because of the ongoing classes, community service etc
4) They serve and enforce TRO's, injunctions and stayaway orders
5) They seek and arrest on bench warrants issued because of violations of DV probation, parole or failures to appear

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 7:58 am

Anonymous, would you admit that there were members of the Sheriff's Dept in City Hall on the day of the fake bomb scare that only threatened the Mayor, and only threatened enough to move him from the fourth floor to his offices on the second floor, which would actually put Lee closer to where the bomb was alleged to be?

So shouldn't the Sheriff's Department investigate the apparent bizarre lapses in security at City Hall that day? Don't you think that alone is enough to keep the political machine from allowing Mirkarimi to return to office?

To your point, you mention all the ways that the Sheriff's Department is involved with DV cases. So what? Would they be incapable of carrying out there duties if Mirkarimi were to assume the office he was elected to fill?

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:05 am

and I know nothing about the rest of what your post diverted into.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:17 am

(in a pig's eye.)

You can tell the comma in Adam's handle means Adam is *from* -- rather than *living* *in* -- Lafayette, the same way, no doubt, you can tell that the fifth comma of the "impliedly required" clause in our ethics code is different from all the previous commas and comma-delimited clauses in that code in that it separates that clause from all the previous clauses related to "official duties."

A comma means exactly what you say it means, neither more, nor less.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:47 am

Just the usual trivial nitpicking huh?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:23 am

I note that no one seems to have any information on who did this poll, how the respondents were selected and what questions were asked.

So apparently none of the people who keep quoting the poll knows or are willing to provide this information.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:00 am

down here where, ya know, this stuff is actually happening, the polls have been widely reported, analyzed and trusted.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:24 am

Polls designed to project a certain opinion are known around the world.

The poll of which you speak was mentioned once in the Matier & Ross column, but there weren't many details about who paid for the poll, how the questions were written or how the respondents were selected. Or who was the source of the information given to Matier & Ross.

So, since you are presumably speaking up for this poll you will tell us who paid for the poll, how the questions were written and how the respondents were selected. And you can point me to all the places in the press where this poll was "widely reported", who did the analysis of this poll, and who trusts the poll. Please don't bother with the last question until you provide the rest of the information.

Thanking you in advance for answers to these questions which no one else seems able to provide.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 10:56 am

Both gave remarkably consistent results. The first showed 70% wanting Ross gone. The second, done after more details of Ross's violence were revealed, showed 76% supporting Lee's view that Ross cannot do his job.

Again, those of us who live here talk to others who live here, and we know that at least 3 out of 4 SF'ers want Ross gone.

And Lee's approval rating is higher now than even his landslide election win.

The only people trying to discredit the poll are the relatively small number of Ross supporters. That should tell you something up there in another State, where you cannot know such things.

Maybe focus on Portland politics?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:06 am

You don't seem to be answering any questions. If you want to give us the names of who paid for both polls, what the questions were and how the respondents were selected I won't argue. And if you want to tell us who analyzed both polls for their authenticity, fine.

But if you don't have the information, just say so. Otherwise, you look dishonest.

Saying that I should mind my own business and not concern myself with San Francisco politics sounds like you're telling me to shut up. That sounds to me like you were caught in a lie and don't have an honest response.

Thanking you in advance for all the information you presume exists.

Posted by Bob_in_Portland on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:25 am

is publishing today the names of the wealthy women connected to Willlie Brown who commissioned and paid for a poll by an out of state polling company.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 6:46 am

Assuming it's results are in the same 70% to 80% ballpark as the previous two, I think we can fairly infer that Ross has little public support at this point, which is certainly the vibe I'm getting "on the ground".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 8:04 am

Little wonder.

In fact, forgetting about the lack of evidence for the supposed poll, even on an a priori basis we can discount the claimed results.

Because the results have been claimed to be the same right? Well, the "first" poll -- which besides having significant problems took place before Mirkarimi and Elian had a chance to explain what happened -- was also taken under a barrage of salacious innuendo emanating from a myriad of sources including the DA's office.

So, a "second poll" is claimed to have the same numbers? No. That doesn't make sense. It isn't the least bit credible.

Now that the ethics commission has invalidated the vast majority of Lee's legal claims against the sheriff, I'm sure that in the next "poll" we'll hear claims the numbers *still* match. It's easy to make the numbers come out the way you want if you just start making them up.

Just to be clear: this kind of rhetoric serves the same purpose as does push polls. These same propagandists seek to modify public opinion under the guise of asking questions of the public -- or mischaracterizing the majority's opinion.

Posted by lilliipublicans on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:10 am