Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 14, 2012 7:00am-7:30am PDT

7:00 am
all. and/ people from across all&vó!p backgrounds, all ethnic backgrounds, racial'v' socioeconomic backgrounds, sexual orientation, gender'?rh÷ identity, domestic violence affects us all. the fact is that there arezdv9ç cases when even strong successful people strong successful women[ú÷x and men have been victims of domestic violence. so i$vcv want to be very clear about what we say about domestic violence. the third thing that i want to say is thate in the last few months about some of the witnesses thatwñ9
7:01 am
worries me is that what transpired in the last few months mights÷édw send the wrong message to people who have witnessed domeáurh violence,e yy and who might be afraid to come forward to report it.&& i think that we have to be very careful to make sure that we dosy not send that message today. we wantqt2 suspicion of domestic violence to come forward and reporto÷ll that. and i think that there is a danger in the way that some of these discussions ha:m place, that that wrong message is beingerñ sent. i also want to say this, and i say this as0? with sheriff mirkarimi while he was on the board of supervisors. but as someone who again is imperfect but believes in takingñq responsibility. at the end of the day, theyjç
7:02 am
ultimate responsibility of how we got to this point goes back to what ha(@dt" that night. and that ultimate responsibility i think we have to be very clear aboutñpyxw that. i also want toéqi say that we have an obligation i think, as a city, to makeyp this proceeding is over, that regardless of whatggfqg side of this issue we're on, that we rededicate ourselves to make y/ that we educate the public about this very important issue. i think weúi to make sure thatjp(pens. and so where does that leave us. let me say that i am thankful to the ethics commission for the -- all the wod÷op that has gone into
7:03 am
this issue. but the reality is that the role of[kx this board of supervisors is limited. we do not decide thisgrm8w case based on what has been reported in the papers based onzo0eñ the innuendo and comments that have been made. we decide this casee24ne based on the law that governance official misconduct, including. the charter provisions that control it, and based on theam1sidence presented. and if you look at the facts and aç the law, it is clear that there are two possiblel+lcm interpretations of what official misconduct and while i understand and respect the position that has been articulatedí
7:04 am
comments and the analysis ofq% the president of the ethics commission. i ñ really believe that we have a responsibility to make sure885e that we interpret relevant provisions in the(sfm possible in fact in a narrow way so that whatever interpretation is followed actually survives legal6vhx scrutiny. california courts have made it clear that if:= the interpretation is vague, the the law will be found to bex and i want to specifically mention some of the pointspp3z that have been made by president hur of the ethics) >uááájuárjy and i want to thank president hur because it's not easy to be in thew but i think that he is right when he said the following, andó3)5ñ i quote, i think if we don't
7:05 am
find a nexus to the relation o the duties, then we are opening this provision up to abuselqhp and manipulation down the road in a way that we're not really going tojsañ like. i mean i have grave concern about what the next case looks like, unless we interpret this in a way that i think the voters intended, and alson3÷l3 that is narrow and understandable for electedz4óup officials. i also think that president hur was the benefits of a bright line rule, and of pma the importance of clarity in this case. i think that he was right whenqq=÷ he said, i think we're going to do future, this mayors and elected officials, a service, if7? we interpret this in a way that is clear. and i have a lot of concerówsi about where you draw the line if
7:06 am
you don't relate this to thelb duties. and in talking to the issue of what the relation to$k means, i also believe that president hur was correct when he said theí0oñ following. in relation to the duties means whi7)[iq you're performing your duties or purporting to perform your dutiesóx4ko sort of acting under color of law. i think he isñ correct in that interpretation. a couple of other points0adcri think are also important to be made. and that has to i1v do with what i said earijly the reading of the chartersu provision means that there has to be a direct connection to theexgv3 duties underlying the office does not mean that the conduct is notödl wrongful.
7:07 am
to the contrary. as president hur said, thisft is egregious conduct. but the way that this charter egregious conduct,cgdsu as currently written, does not fall within the definition of officialsz0vu misconduct. and then the last point that i want to say, which i think is important, that was made by 8m president hur, is that when it comes to the conduct ofxés(y elected officials, this is but one of the tools that are in place to protect theññíiñ public. as president hur noted, you have theanwo criminal process, the criminal justice system that has a way of dealing with any kind>ryxñ of criminality that is conducted. there is also the disciplinary)wjok process that individual agencies have within the the city and county ofr and finally there is the recall
7:08 am
process so that if there is wrongf9r: conduct that does not fall within the definition of official misconduct, the voters themselves whether or not that wrongful conductóukqu(ááp'ts removal. in the end, what drives me to?$f this conclusion is that i believe that there is a danger in+j some of the analysis that we saw. and i appreciate the effort by the city provide some clarity. but i don't think that the discussionzi< actually made me feel any better. to the extent that as the attorney noted, this'tvd is a nimble standard, i don't know the difference between nimble be and vague. in fact, i think legally, they might very well betú and so i believe that we must interpret this provision[-7:b narrowly, or open the door -- open the
7:09 am
abuse. and so i will be voting againstúg sustaining the charges. thanks%c÷. >> president chiu: supervisor >> supervisor avalos:' k,thank you president chiu. i want to thank members of-t)]o the public for your testimony tonight, and in1c previous months. and that's actually testimony from all sides. this is a room wherema[ spoke on both sides, that i feel close to. and so it's been troubling night. and hearing stories of people's own experiences of&x more difficult to consider these issues before us today. i want to thank the ethics
7:10 am
their countless hours of deliberation. i want to thankuj the lawyers on all sides of the issue, as well.a also, i want to thank and express my empathy with:0h&z ross and eliana and their family and theo. been through a]/f lot. ié+ in a city where we take domestic93 violence very seriously. we have law enforcement agencies that over the past severalgze decades have changed dramatically in how we respond to domestic violence. a lotdyí3h of that has come through great sacrifice and great activism. i think it was/6÷ back in 2000 that a young wom lost her life and
7:11 am
loste%11m their lives and the city's come together around that. this; íc vote is certainly about how seriously we take domestic violence but it's alsoaah about democracy and due process. it's about keeping the publicw
7:12 am
by the reports of what have happened, and possibly some things that are2 i also feel that people mistakes, and that when you havelufc experienced what ross mirkarimi and his family have experienced over the pastkkk8 many months, that it offers a chance for personaln< transformation and a chance to really remake your life. and i tx that ross mirkarimi needs to do. and i'm hoping that? experience has led to rossigsdgk of his own humility with a sense of)>'1ñ own responsibility to his constituents, his family, people who like himv/67s and dislike him. he's a public figure, and he needs to be held to5sblñ a very, very high standard as a public figure. i believe that
7:13 am
also, because he pleaded guilty,op and has been mandated to go through counseling, and is onog probation, that he is actually not goingavli" to -- scott-free with domestic violence that hexógá; being held accountable and that is something i take into deep consideration going ross is going through steps that i hope will lead to his personal 4k6 juá )jr(t let him partly, you know, that way, thiscc ñ far. and another consideration to weigh in, you know onywky this measure. whether the mayor has the ability to removegv mirkarimi or another public official for official misconduct, whetherg! what we have before us is an actual act of officialuáb) misconduct. i have my doubts, and i will probably vote accordingly.pfp
7:14 am
whether there's actually due process of the mayor to remove adur5ñ democratically elected official in san frí
7:15 am
and get back together to figure out how to move the city forward to be more.yr responsive to people who are facing domestic violence. i want to thank members ofc4>? the domestic violence community here,oqoñ people in the mierntd and recognize the great courage it's taken to come and give testimony tonight. my wife's bestb7+ig friend's mother is here with the dom efg violence community. i love her dearly and it'syy$81q)y difficult to be on the opposite side of issues but i think i?qñ on the opposite side of issues on thisóñ"çç case. i want to think about the faith that we put --2eúñ the public puts in public officials and the city law, and city law enforcement. we need toíy and balances in city government and how we're upholding the will of the voters. i think it goes without saying that no one here condones any
7:16 am
form of domestp whether it is physical verbal or psychological abuse and all could havet )ñ been in play tonight. i'm proud as a city we have8ep )tátdomestic violence and what we can domestic violence in the future. ash£&ic officials we are expected to be models of good behavior and lawful behaviory,çgx while everyone knows none of us are perfect. there was reasonable expectation of greateroqt&3 scrutiny of public officials in our private practices. but this vote is not about affirming thatñh$ what -- is not about affirming that we abhor all forms of domestic violence or;@6u )jt moral standards for elected officials. what we are here to decide is whether or not sheriff is guilty of official misconduct and thus8qoñ removal from offers. while the agents -- the commission > jf÷ñ 4-1 for the board to uphold the sheriff's
7:17 am
removal on the bas5 he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor and false imprisonment. the arguments fors8 compelling on an emotional level. i've been reading this material and myñéósí emotional reaction is repulsion and disturbance. i find xjzdk lot of arguments are convoluted and questionable from a legal point of view an@%hw policy level and that's disturbing to me that we can make a decision about how toct/u could be official misconduct that sets the tone for the cityh& in future years, equates a slippery slope movingsi x forward. the ethics commission found most of the mayor'sg finding for misdemeanor/á!zbeh! misdecharges for actions before he was sheriff is disturbing toyén while political ens,q+b4 expedience -- is very tempting that is precisely
7:18 am
the danger of removing 4ao an elected official for official misconduct for actions taken before tj")h person are officially in office. it is a dangerous precedent to set and aqx 4u slippery slope to be opening up this process as a political tool.k however, intolerable and unacceptable we find actions of our former colleague on the day é december 31 or subsequent actions following that our duty is to uphold& process, public faith in city government and safeguard06jo the integrity of democratic processes and not/cbuu)áu or contort the law that we think best serveswj!or everyone. i will not be voting today to sustain the/ >> president chiu: supervisor:k wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, ú?7t% %9q.
7:19 am
>> president chiu: order please. : supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. this whole process i know has been incredibly%0b= hard for other than --c4í,÷ everyone involved especially being asked to judge a former colleague.4 and i am going to speculate that i don't think any of the 11 of us are goingwxas' to walk out of this room tonight feeling great, no matter what happens, no matter how weóçuon vote. this case has been incredibly messy on many, many levels. andp6f-7ñ will say that you know, in the community, thereáare people whom i know, and who i respect, who feel very, very strongl$)i on both sides of this issue. and i think that reflects how difficulty this is. tonight, i will be voting to sustain the charges of misconduct in agreement with
7:20 am
recommendation of the ethics commission. correct and that the commission was correct in concluding what happened on december 31 did relate to the duties of the sheriff'sdñ an act of domestic violence does relatel@ those duties. nothing in this charter-[ln utj that the oath of office have been taken already. the sheriff was the 4'[i% had the highest obligation to act"w6[m accordingly. he was about to become, and had been elected to be3[ ñ and certified to be the next chief elected law enforcement officer inf4u san francisco. there is a direct relation. and in terms of the standard of decency good+v 0 faith and right action, domestic violence ismqbç incredibly significant. domestic violencegaéañ advocates are not a special interest, as i think several people said
7:21 am
tonight. i found that to be b% very, very offensive comment. even though theáì9 sheriff did plead guilty, and did state that he was taking responsibility, a1 he should be commended for that, we also, over the course of the last number of#z85p months, heard -- i think it was loudly in a lot ofboy= ways, taking responsibility than downplaying it. we heard it tonight. a was correct to criticize these comments.u' we heard tonight again that while maybe this wasn't really domestic violence,ó?y3s maybe this really wasn't a big issue at all it is a big issue, it isjr-]z a big deal. and i think it's important for this board to actuallyc÷ say that domestic violence is unacceptable and that we have a=z zero tolerance, but to actually act in that way, and that is why i will be!ds voting to uphold the
7:22 am
recommendation. youxhá% know, i want to talk about redemption.[[g+ absolutely, i, and probably everyone in this room believes inpgyqa redemption and rehabilitation and restorative justiceickk but rededges doesn't mean you don'tgmi experience loss as a consequence of what you did. and i know that the sheriff will#fz i'm sure he will be rehabilitated, he will have redemption, and i hope he has awmjoç wonderful life with his family but that doesn't mean that he should remain as abwn"x chief elected law enforcement officer of the city and county of san francisco. you cans doesn't mean you are entitled to continue tosjéc hold that position. i alsonrnzcç want to make reference to the -- iv think really repeated
7:23 am
and unfortunate attacks on the c2-ñ mayor. and i just want to preface this, and there were frankly)kuúñ petty pot shots, not just at the mayor but at our former mayor, our firep iyñ chief, and i found them to be really over the top and(-c)p inappropriate. and i say this as someone who -- i=n'ñ did not support mayor lee in the last election. i supported a different candidate. j&"1 have had several recent significant disagreements with the mayorus[. but tonight, we're doing this on the merits. this is not about whether you ef?- the mayor or whether you hate the mayor. it's about the merits of the matter beforez%n us. and that is why i'm voting the way i am. i knowr that's why my colleagues are voting the way they're voting. we are exercisingbejá our independent judgment and that is what we are all doing today. with that i move itemm$+ñ 2 and move to table item 3.
7:24 am
>> president chiu: supervisor wiener's made theb% described. is there a second to that motion? secondedb
7:25 am
misconduct i closely evaluated whether or not i the official misconduct related to
7:26 am
highest standard of;)dp conduct. now, i do disagree with the sheriff and many others that the right of the mayor to&oj elected or -- an elected for official misconduct isñiçu an unconstrained and overly broad right, or that somehow that we support theud7 ethics -- or that somehow if we support the ethics commission finding that we're opening1
7:27 am
believe that the reading of the charter is narrow and appropriately applied in this particular :. specifically i believe that the actions of sheriff mirkarimi on
7:28 am
mr. hur, thank you very much for your l commission on the status of women thank you. to the constituents of district 10 that showed up, bñ to the constituents of all of san francisco that took time to come out and be with us and share with us%uv for hours your testimony, thank you for being hereá.=é and from the bottom of my heart, i wish the mirkarimi-lopez family a continued success and blessing as they continue]p#2j to heal collectively together. it iswziz very difficult decision to come and stand before you, and explain how we're going to -- how i'mwn&4 going to vote. this is a very important issue. many
7:29 am
be taken lightly. ipcau wholeheartedly do agree with that. but i also believe that we need to decide this0 p case on the merits of the law. i too shared some concernsúo> with my colleagues about the comments that we heard today. i foundxa,w them to be -- some to be ñ6émi a shocked because it's coming from a community r advocating peace, fairness restorative justice democracy yet at timesf3wv i feel like particularly when listening to public comment that these principles were/ñ-l not extended to every single san franciscanñçñ. in?zji closing i will say that i think -- i believe that the sheriff musto? capable of maintaining


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on