Commissioners sharpen Mirkarimi case and select unlikely rep

Ross Mirkarimi, Eliana Lopez, and David Waggoner speak with reporters after today's hearing.
Steven T. Jones

 The Ethics Commission wrapped up nearly six months worth of proceedings on the official misconduct charges against suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi today, finalizing its findings of fact and choosing Chair Benedict Hur to make its presentation to the Board of Supervisors even though he was the sole dissenting vote against removing Mirkarimi from office. 

After making the key decisions during a marathon meeting on Aug. 16, today's hearing was mostly about mopping up, and it was the most sparsely attended of the hearings so far. But there were still a couple of tough issues to hash out, and the commissioners who voted against Mirkarimi tried to strengthen their case at the last minute.
The City Charter mandates removal of an official if at least nine supervisors find he committed official misconduct. The commission had earlier discussed how they viewed that finding and the punishment as separate issues, but decided against recommending a punishment after discussing that charter language. 
Commissioner Beverly Hayon today sought to remove any doubt about where she stood, adding a personal statement into the record that she thought the sustained charges -- its 4-1 finding that Mirkarimi's grabbed his wife's arm during a Dec. 31 argument and subsequently pleaded guilty to false imprisonment -- warranted Mirkarimi's removal.
In a sign that the commissioners are paying attention to the political climate that has formed up around their deliberations, she made a reference to a discussion and vote last month by the Commission on the Status of Women and sought to clarify any "confusion" about where she stood.
Commissioner Paul Renne also sought to sharpen the findings of fact by adding language indicating the commission found the testimony of Mirkarimi and his wife, Eliana Lopez, to be a less credible and compelling description of what happened on Dec. 31 than the tearful 45-second video that neighbor Ivory Madison helped her make days after the incident displaying the bruise on her arm and saying she wanted to document the incident in case they divorced and there was a custody battle over their three-year-old son. 
That language was inserted in the document without objection, a decision that drew a sharp rebuke from Lopez's attorney, Paula Canny, during the public comment portion of the hearing. "My client wants you to know that you're flat out wrong," Canny said, criticizing the commission's hostile treatment of both Lopez and Linnette Peralta-Haynes, Lopez's confidante on the day Madison unexpectedly called the police. 
"It has to be Eliana is not credible to justify your finding," Canny said, accusing commissioners of selecting facts to fit impressions they formed when watching the emotional video. "The only reason Eliana made that video is to be used in a custody dispute."
Mirkarimi attorney David Waggoner tried unsuccessfully to make changes to a commission summary document that he called "very one-sided," including trying to add language indicating that the commission had unanimously rejected most of the charges that Mayor Ed Lee brought against Mirkarimi, such as witness dissuasion, abuse of power, and interfering with a police investigation. 
Waggoner also objected to Hur's suggestion that attorney Scott Emblidge, who is doing pro bono legal work on the proceedings for both the commission and the Board of Supervisors, calling it a conflict of interest given that the commission's role is akin to that of prosecutor. And on that point, he found support from Renne, who was unaware that Emblidge will also be advising the supervisors, a dual role he found troubling. "I'm a little surprised and I don't know why the board doesn't have independent counsel," Renne said.
Emblidge promised a "dry recitation" of the commission's findings, but Waggoner recommended the commission's executive director, John St Croix, when pressed by Hur for an alternative, a choice Hur rejected because St. Croix hasn't been present at all the hearings. Finally, Renne suggested that Hur do the presentation, saying that he has been fair and represented all arguments well during the proceedings so far, something that Hayon and Commissioner Dorothy Liu enthusiastically agreed with. 
It was an unconventional decision given that Hur made strong arguments on Aug. 16 about the troubling precedent that he thinks the commission's decision represents, saying it gives the mayor too much power and opens the door to political manipulation if the official misconduct provisions are construed so broadly.
But he accepted the duty, telling the commissioners: "I'm willing to do it. It is awkward given that I was in the dissenting view, but I'll do my best."The case is expected to be sent to the board by Sept. 18 and it will have 30 days to act, meaning the decision will be just a few weeks before an election in which five supervisors are running to keep their jobs.Mirkarimi's team has sought to delay the transfer of the case until after the election, noting many political interest groups and supervisorial candidates have been publicly putting pressure on the supervisors to remove Mirkarimi.


I'm not Troll II, or lil' bruise, or anyone else, just me.
I know it is hard for you to comprehend that more than just one person out there thinks you are a shmuck.

Posted by danimalssf on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

It may surprise you lilli but the majority of people in SF feel the same way I do about Ross Mirkarimi. It's not just one person arguing with you here or there.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

Thanks for noticing the faux jccourt. It is agreed that this person is reprehensible and vile. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

"overweight harridans" and "dumpster dykes"?

I'm confused.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

I did not refer to them as "dumpster dykes" but I did say they were both overweight and harridans.


Posted by JCCourt on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 2:06 pm

their looks and lack of sex must inform their eagerness to punish Ross for what was a momentary bruising.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

San Francisco will be hurted for decades. Amen sister! That's what's in the works. The women-haters will rule the roust.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 6:30 am

Eliana is a vision of hispanic beauty, alongside her handsome husband with those oh-so-brooding looks.

And looks matter. Remember how the cute Jane Kim trashed Debra "pigboat" Walker in the D6 election?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:51 am

when is SFBG going to ban this despicable nonentity?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

Because it doesn't require emails and IP's are useless in a wifi world.

So, OMG, we have to endure free speech with no censorship.

Posted by Anonymous on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

I don't know JCCourt but I know a sexist, misogynist and twisted statement when I read one and this is it! Oh please, worse than the injustices suffered by the Native American's etc. Where is the outrage? - It is there in the hearts of the majority of San Franciscans who are standing firm against Domestic Violence and supporting anyone in law enforcement who is convicted of this crime! For the facts - to educate yourself - go to the Ethics Commission's website and read the entire set of documents related to this case. Go back and listen to the entire set of videos of the Ethic's Commissions meetings where this case was being heard.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:40 am

Mirkarimi apparently wishes for an honestly “neutral,” deliberative Board of Supervisors, now that he’s in the hot seat, his future at its mercy.

Delay Board of Supervisors' deliberation on his case until after the November elections, as he’s requested?

Let’s not forget, he had ample time to work for reform from within, if he thought the Board wasn’t capable of serving the broader best interests of S.F. voters.

His undue request for delay in municipal proceedings speaks volumes.

We have it from the hor[se]’s mouth: It’s only in election year that the S.F. Board of Supervisors might be swayed by the majority opinion of its constituents and dump him. As soon as the election is over, Ross could be in like Flynn.

We need to dump district elections, along with Mirkarimi.

Every proceeding at the Board should be neutrally deliberative on behalf of a broader body of S.F. residents than it is today.

Tom Ferriole

Posted by Tom Ferriole on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 8:04 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

that way but didn't get the results we wanted - therefore we continued to manipulate the methods of choosing candidates (RCV) and financing (public financing) until we could get the results we wanted."

How's that working out for you bot?

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Anything BUT connecting with San Franciscans to build a non-corrupt electoral and governing coalition.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:52 am

In my personal experience, some members of the so-called non-corrupt green party are among the most corrupt people I have ever met.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

Woulldn't it be funny if one of the many of murkys exes showed up at the BOS hearing to testify about his abusive behavior with panties on her head ? And emphatically declared- "Yes- you are right, these are my panties !" Call it "panty-gate" Remember those crazy arguments about whose panties were in his apartment....A woman found another woman's under garments....(how awkward) and Ross insisted they were hers...Only a pompous cad could try and pull something like that off....Can't you just hear him now, "No, I swear- I have no idea whose underwear those are ! They must be yours !" "But I know what my own underwear look like !" She says....He angrily refuses to listen...Now it's, "Change the law for me because it don't work on my schedule," THe people of San Francisco deserve MUCH better- What arrogance

Posted by GuestPamela not so nice on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

Now I'm reminiscing about SFGate. Fondly? No.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

EVERY SINGLE anti-Ross post here?

Do you seriously, honestly believe that this chatroom carries any influence at all? If so, with whom exactly?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:59 am

I can't believe that anyone falls for this nonsense.

"@lilli" is obviously a bot, set to sense any negative Mirkarimi sentiment and respond with "Mendacious filthy lies, dumbass"...etc.

You can't tell that "his" posts never include anything approaching human intelligence? Even that of a small child? It is all just a semantically driven program designed to keep the page flows going because people like to respond to something that they see as obviously stupid.

You guys have been had.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 10:17 am

here to discredit those who actually do support Ross.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:10 am

play the part of "concern troll" against the corporate/right/fascists -- long before I even learned the term and early on in my now terminated presence on SFGate -- but I realized that I just wasn't able to make a decent effort at doing so.

I strongly suspect that this is true in the broader sense for those who value progressive -- i.e. democratic, *American,* values: we are hardwired to seek the truth -- and not simply "score points" and destroy the "enemy" at all costs.

We care about facts, and look them in the face. Right wingers, corporate dupes, and anti-social misfits don't have that limitation... so we have the above examples.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:23 am

It's all part of the rich tapestry of political debate and free speech that has helped to make this country great.

So whether it's right-wingers presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments here, or left-wingers like you seeking to skew the SFGate commentary boards, it's all part of our heritage.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:34 am

You are confusing it with "straw man" argumentation which is seemingly the sole province of reactionaries.

Righties just aren't very bright. (It's not rhetoric, just a fact.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:44 am

People just use the term "straw man" when they don't like the results of a RAA.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

It's as true as anything else the reactionaries have to say around here.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

posit a clearly ridiculous conclusion that follows from impeccable logic, thereby proving that the assumed premise must be false.

With a straw-man argument, you posit the premise, show how the conclusions that logically follow from that are false, and therefore refute the premise.

The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. When a RAA is successfully used against you, you can cry out "straw man" - you assert that the cited premise is not the same as your premise. But if your premise follows from the cited premise, it comes down to the same thing.


Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

... again -- just as true as any of the other disgusting anti-intellectual rubbish you reactionaries are peddling on this site.

No. A "Straw Man" argument is one in which a position is falsely attributed to the opponent so it can be easily dismissed, thus giving the appearance -- if ever so feebly -- that one has dismissed the position that the opponent has actually taken.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Posted by Anonymous on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

it was as pure a bold-faced lie as has ever been told on this forum -- and in this case as cover for *yet* *another* abortive attempts to cloak reactionary thinking in a mantle of erudition.

Did you really think you could pull it off? You've fallen on your face *so* *many* *times* already.

No. Reductio Ad Absurdum is a valid logical device, lying about the position of your opponent to smear them is not. No subtlety, "suntlety," intelligence, finesse, or any other grandiose element you can try to name to it.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

You can wriggle and wriggle but "Guest" nailed your hynie to the mast and then pissed on it.

Don't you get sick of being wrong all the time?

Or even being here all the time?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

The apparent inner anguish seems like it ought to elicit pity in me, but I guess I must be growing to be less sensitive over time; surprisingly I find it funny. As a matter of fact, let me offer a hint: cut your wrists.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 5:29 pm
Posted by Anonymous on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

He has no life.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

But a very astute observation - it never varies, it always uses the same insults, it doesn't respond to counter-arguments but instead trashes the commenter.

Definitely a bot.

Posted by A particularly poorly-crafted bot at that on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:17 am
Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:30 am

It prolly keeps trying to re-register on their site but is too dumb to figure out how to mask its IP address.

Dumb bot.

Posted by Troll II on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:47 am

He actually thinks he is changing minds and forming opinions.

He spends hours a day, to zero effect.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 12:54 pm

I still laugh however, whenever someone mentions the polls showing overwhelming sentiment against Mirkarimi and the bot always outputs "Those are push polls!!! Where is the sampling methodology displayed? They were taken before people had a chance to become enamored of Mirkarimi and his brilliant defense!!!"

Cracks me up. "Danger Will Robinson!"

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:37 am

but, unmarried people sometimes have sex with more than one person..It's called being "single". Did you hear that GlennClose has been drafted to play Christina Flores in the remake of "Fatal Attraction". That kind of girlfriend no one wants or needs.(read transcript of Flores' testimony attached to ethics commission record) nuff said.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 6:34 am

best choice for a senior LE job?

Should someone who admits false imprisonment be running the prisons?

Should someone who works closely with probation officers be on probation for 3 more years?

The people say emphatically NO.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:55 am

whatsoever. There were no people who started a recall, were there?There wasn't enough public sentiment to even support an attempt at a recall.Why?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

The results have been between 60% and 75%.

But you also should put that computer away and go out and ask ordinary people (i.e. not just green party memebers). In several months of discussing this with a wide range of people, i am yet to encounter a single person who thinks Ross should get his job back.

So yes, the people have spoken and continue to speak. And Ross wouldn't be asking for a delay unless he knew that that makes an impression on the supes who are up for re-election

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

face value to certify his impartiality in this matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but of all the Ethics Commission members, Hur maintains a legal practice in which he serves an arbitrator in certain cases; in other words, if he had voted with the majority on the EC -- jumping off into the deep end of the pool, so to speak -- it might have cost him real money by causing his professional reputation to suffer.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

credit, but your byline is missing; and the "color" of the type off, needing increased letter and word space, leading and paragraph spacing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

He is a wife beater plain and simple. He should not keep his job or his pension. But Ed Lee will probably pay him off. Business as usual. And we want to be known as a friendly city that knows how to do business. Just fix the pot holes, schools and playgrounds.

Posted by Guest ACTION Now on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 5:09 am

There was no beating,hitting, smacking,punching,bloodying, breaking etc. no matter how many times you repeat it..The old communist party bit about repeating the big lie. Just an arm grab and an arm grab,admitted by both from the very beginning..does not an abuser make.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 6:37 am

Many people have been convicted of DV without even touching their spouse. The fact that Ross bruised his wife just made the prosecution's job easier.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 8:28 am

under a law badly crafted by politicians responding to simplistic stimuli. As for a "pattern of threats, harassment or insults," I'd very much like you to flesh that statement out with examples of specific cases and the nature of such activities specifically citing convictions.

I expect such the facts in such cases will belie your glib description of them -- and dwarf and make ridiculuous the grand indictments of Ross Mirkarimi for what everybody agrees was a momentary mistake he made during a brief moment of stress.

There was *no* premeditation in Ross' momentary arm grab, and *no* intent to injure his wife; and all your glib hot-air and suppositions can't make it so.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:17 am

decided. A conviction for a crime cannot be successful unless it is proven that there was criminal inent.

First year law school.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 9:44 am