Pressure on supes over fate of sheriff
Votes in Mirkarimi case could influence outcomes for 5 in November election
In politics, timing is everything, and in the official misconduct case of suspended San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the timing couldn’t be trickier for the Board of Supervisors.
On Thursday, the Ethics Commission found that Mirkarimi committed official misconduct when he grabbed and bruised his wife’s arm during a Dec. 31 argument, an incident for which he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment under a plea deal with prosecutors. He was sentenced to three years’ probation and ordered to attend weekly domestic violence intervention classes for batterers.
After Mirkarimi was convicted in March, Mayor Ed Lee swiftly suspended him without pay and said he would seek his permanent removal.
Now it is up to the Board of Supervisors to decide if the sheriff should be stripped of his job. The last time San Francisco supervisors considered
ousting another elected official was in 1932, when the then public defender was indicted for murder and forced from office.
Mirkarimi served on the board as the District Five representative for seven years before he was sworn in as sheriff Jan. 8.
“Obviously there’s going to be a lot of pressure on the supervisors,” said Jim Ross, a local political consultant.
Vote likely before election
A vote of at least nine of the 11 supervisors would be needed to remove Mirkarimi from office for official misconduct. The vote is expected to be held in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 6 election, when five incumbents will face voters.
The two who will feel the most heat, predicted Ross and other City Hall observers, are Supervisors Eric Mar and Christina Olague, the board members facing the toughest election battles. They will feel the squeeze by forces entrenched on the left who back Mirkarimi and oppose the mayor’s move.
Mar, who regularly votes with the board’s left flank, represents District One, a swing district centered in the Richmond that neither progressives nor moderates dominate. He faces two more-moderate challengers in the supervisor’s race.
Olague, also a progressive, has a strong field of challengers running to her left and right in District Five, which includes the Haight. It is the city’s most liberal district.
Supervisors David Campos and John Avalos, who are solid votes with the most liberal faction, are seeking re-election, but any immediate effect the Mirkarimi decision may have on them has been blunted because they are running unopposed. The other supervisor on the ballot is David Chiu, a swing vote on the board and the front-runner in his race.
Jason McDaniel, a political scientist at San Francisco State University, cautioned that their decision may be remembered if they run for another office. “This could be the kind of action that would draw attention the next time they’re up before voters,” he said.
Mirkarimi has cast the case against him as politically motivated, an assertion that has gained traction with progressive activists and organizations. The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, the San Francisco Labor Council and the National Lawyers Guild, among others, have passed resolutions supporting Mirkarimi.
Milk club’s view
While stating that it has no tolerance for acts of domestic violence, the Milk club resolution says the effort to remove Mirkarimi from office “has devolved into a raw attempt to unseat an independent political figure.”
The Bay Guardian, the weekly newspaper that helps drive San Francisco’s progressive agenda and whose endorsements carry clout with a core of voters on the left, suggested in a recent editorial that the charges be dropped and Mirkarimi returned to office.
“For a lot of interest groups, this will be a litmus test,” said Ross, the political consultant.
But McDaniel noted that the myriad interest groups making up San Francisco’s famously fractured progressive camp are not united when it comes to Mirkarimi.
A vocal group of domestic violence victims’ advocates, spearheaded by the leaders of three politically connected organizations— La Casa de las Madres, the Domestic Violence Consortium and Futures Without Violence— wants Mirkarimi out. They have made clear since the saga first unfolded in early January that they are paying close attention.
“The world really is watching,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of the Domestic Violence Consortium.
Mirkarimi’s backers say that while they think what he did was wrong, bruising his wife’s arm was not egregious enough to warrant removing him from office.
His detractors, however, say that his status as a criminal offender on probation makes him unfit to serve as one of San Francisco’s top law enforcement officials.
“It’s not something that’s going to unite a progressive coalition,” McDaniel said. “It’s become a wedge issue.”
Admonished by their legal counsel to keep quiet, no supervisor has signaled his or her thinking on the matter.
30-day window for decision
They will have 30 days to make a decision once the Ethics Commission hands the case over to them. The earliest that would happen would be the first or second week of September. If the board doesn’t act within the requisite 30-day period, Mirkarimi automatically keeps his job.
Gabriel Haaland, a labor organizer and Mirkarimi backer with deep roots in San Francisco’s progressive causes, said that, ultimately, the board’s decision will be a political one.
“None of the decisions at City Hall get made on policy,” he said. “At the end of the day, they’re based on relationships, friendships, grudges, history. This is not going to be any different.”