Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF Chronicle Desperation to Remove Sheriff in Full Force
The bias and distortions by the Chronicle were in full force during the events of the ethics commission hearings yesterday on Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.
The Chronicle posted multiple biased editorials to push their corporate-driven agenda to remove Mirkarimi, distorting the facts and appealing to authority with no opinion supporting him, in the days leading up to the final hearing. They published images to attempt to make the anti-Mirkarimi side look larger than it was (almost all were from a single organization), and minimized the much larger rally by his supporters by showing only a close-up -- http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/08/16/closing-arguments-begin-in-ross-mirkarimi-official-misconduct-hearing/
The commission decided to have the public comment at the same time as the rallies so many Mirkarimi supporters who wanted to speak had to wait in line and not be at the rally. Despite that, as you can see from the non-corporate media video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRSbc4h62Ao&feature=plcp), the sparse group of anti-Mirkarimi people were given the city hall steps, while the larger, diverse and loudly chanting group of his supporters was forced to stand across the street. Later the anti-Mirkarimi crowd went inside and then for hours the supporters rallied out front. The main media covering the rallies were Spanish speaking.
Being there with so many people, and then seeing the biased treatment was a disgusting experience. Among many other groups, the National Lawyers Guild SF Bay Area Chapter has come out supporting Ross:
"As an organization of Bay Area attorneys, legal workers, law students, and community members, the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter urges the City of San Francisco to stop using public resources to oust Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office. We are deeply concerned that his suspension without pay by Mayor Ed Lee is an affront to the democratic will of the people of San Francisco, and that the current efforts to remove him from office both lack sufficient due process protections and are politically motivated. . . .Because Mirkarimi has a record as a political progressive who has championed policies that many in law enforcement vigorously oppose, we believe this process is largely motivated by politics and not concern for victims of domestic abuse. Mirkarimi has been a strong supporter of San Francisco’s Sanctuary city policies that protect immigrants, has consistently opposed racial profiling by police, and supports efforts to decrease the jail population as part of the budget and jail re-alignment processes. In contrast, Mayor Lee has recently called for NYC police style stop-and-frisk programs in San Francisco. If District Attorney Gascon and Mayor Lee succeed in removing Mirkarimi from office, we are concerned that law enforcement policies in San Francisco will become more oppressive, and the jail population will increase."
http://www.nlgsf.org/news/statement-suspension-sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-and-ethics-commission-proceedings
Ross spoke at the end, after the decision came down --
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-responds-to-ethics/vdRZD/
The commission decided to have the public comment at the same time as the rallies so many Mirkarimi supporters who wanted to speak had to wait in line and not be at the rally. Despite that, as you can see from the non-corporate media video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRSbc4h62Ao&feature=plcp), the sparse group of anti-Mirkarimi people were given the city hall steps, while the larger, diverse and loudly chanting group of his supporters was forced to stand across the street. Later the anti-Mirkarimi crowd went inside and then for hours the supporters rallied out front. The main media covering the rallies were Spanish speaking.
Being there with so many people, and then seeing the biased treatment was a disgusting experience. Among many other groups, the National Lawyers Guild SF Bay Area Chapter has come out supporting Ross:
"As an organization of Bay Area attorneys, legal workers, law students, and community members, the National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter urges the City of San Francisco to stop using public resources to oust Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office. We are deeply concerned that his suspension without pay by Mayor Ed Lee is an affront to the democratic will of the people of San Francisco, and that the current efforts to remove him from office both lack sufficient due process protections and are politically motivated. . . .Because Mirkarimi has a record as a political progressive who has championed policies that many in law enforcement vigorously oppose, we believe this process is largely motivated by politics and not concern for victims of domestic abuse. Mirkarimi has been a strong supporter of San Francisco’s Sanctuary city policies that protect immigrants, has consistently opposed racial profiling by police, and supports efforts to decrease the jail population as part of the budget and jail re-alignment processes. In contrast, Mayor Lee has recently called for NYC police style stop-and-frisk programs in San Francisco. If District Attorney Gascon and Mayor Lee succeed in removing Mirkarimi from office, we are concerned that law enforcement policies in San Francisco will become more oppressive, and the jail population will increase."
http://www.nlgsf.org/news/statement-suspension-sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-and-ethics-commission-proceedings
Ross spoke at the end, after the decision came down --
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-responds-to-ethics/vdRZD/
For more information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRSbc4h62A...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Some of the many many people who spent hours and hours at numerous commission hearings to speak out for a progressive sheriff are documented here: https://www.youtube.com/user/Cihuamexica
For more information:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Cihuamexica
Photo by Fog City Journal
Ethics Commissioners, seated left to right:
* Dorothy S. Liu, Esq., Appointed by the Board of Supervisors
* Jamienne S. Studley, Esq. Appointed by the City Attorney
* Benedict Y. Hur, Esq., Appointed by the Assessor.
* Beverly Hayon, Appointed by the Mayor
* Paul A. Renne, Esq. Appointed by the District Attorney
----------------------
I attended each Ethics hearings and unlike the Chronicle I am reporting in full truths not half ones.
Of the 6 charges brought by the City on behalf of Mayor Ed Lee, 5 of the 6 were overruled and not sustained. The only charge that was sustained was that Ross had accepted a conviction for false imprisonment in March taking a plea to avoid a costly extended trial. However, Ross and his attorneys had stipulated to this fact six months ago prior to the hearings start.
In effect Ethics functionally did not move the matter forward, partly due to the confusedly written charges presented by the Mayor.
Even more central to Ethics burden is the vaguely written 1996 statute itself which uses standards such as "decency" a very subjective concept. In fact "decency" is the backbone for Cmmr Dorothy Liu's vote to sustain the misconduct charge as she stated that the incident on NYE "must be more serious than testified to."
For Commr Beverly Hayon (appointed by the Mayor), her vote to sustain a misconduct charge is based on the facts that Ross did not speak publicly or to the police on January 4 to "address his wrongdoing" and that "he didn't do the decent act and resign" thereby causing the matter to land at Ethics.
Commr Paul Renne, a member who introduced impartial comments during the hearing, stated that his vote to sustain a misconduct charge is based on "what would the public think if he took the position that a sheriff can serve with a misdemeanor conviction. Renne remarked repeatedly that there was "no client-attorney privilege" in this matter and that neighbor Ivory Madison didn't represent herself as an attorney (Renne's facts are dubious). It's worth noting also that his wife, former City Attorney Louise Renne, authored the 1996 voter "Public Officials Ethics" proposition and he's likely displeased at having it parsed and poked for its imprecise language and vagueness.
Co-chair Commr Jamienne Studley is concerned about overturning a democratic election and although she does not support Ross's removal as Sheriff, she voted that a domestic violence act of any degree is misconduct.
The chair, Commr Benedict (Ben) Hur, voted for a narrow interpretation and warned that creating a low hurdle for misconduct charges is a risk. Hur voted to overrule the Mayor's case, but he was outflanked by the other four commissioners and is the minority voter. However the body agreed to submit a Summary to the BOS to be co-written by Hur with the Ethics (pro bono) attorney.
The only remedy in the statute is removal from office and the body is undecided on that point.
My comment to Ethics is that 4 of the 5 are attorneys who I believe recognize that Ross was charged on a legal technicality, and that there was no pattern or syndrome of domestic abuse. The pattern was in the mind of one person, the agitated neighbor highly motivated to climb the San Francisco social ladder crushing a decent family for her own future prosperity. But Madison's karma is severely damaged not only for now, the curse permeates for next generation and the next.
Ethics Commissioners, seated left to right:
* Dorothy S. Liu, Esq., Appointed by the Board of Supervisors
* Jamienne S. Studley, Esq. Appointed by the City Attorney
* Benedict Y. Hur, Esq., Appointed by the Assessor.
* Beverly Hayon, Appointed by the Mayor
* Paul A. Renne, Esq. Appointed by the District Attorney
----------------------
I attended each Ethics hearings and unlike the Chronicle I am reporting in full truths not half ones.
Of the 6 charges brought by the City on behalf of Mayor Ed Lee, 5 of the 6 were overruled and not sustained. The only charge that was sustained was that Ross had accepted a conviction for false imprisonment in March taking a plea to avoid a costly extended trial. However, Ross and his attorneys had stipulated to this fact six months ago prior to the hearings start.
In effect Ethics functionally did not move the matter forward, partly due to the confusedly written charges presented by the Mayor.
Even more central to Ethics burden is the vaguely written 1996 statute itself which uses standards such as "decency" a very subjective concept. In fact "decency" is the backbone for Cmmr Dorothy Liu's vote to sustain the misconduct charge as she stated that the incident on NYE "must be more serious than testified to."
For Commr Beverly Hayon (appointed by the Mayor), her vote to sustain a misconduct charge is based on the facts that Ross did not speak publicly or to the police on January 4 to "address his wrongdoing" and that "he didn't do the decent act and resign" thereby causing the matter to land at Ethics.
Commr Paul Renne, a member who introduced impartial comments during the hearing, stated that his vote to sustain a misconduct charge is based on "what would the public think if he took the position that a sheriff can serve with a misdemeanor conviction. Renne remarked repeatedly that there was "no client-attorney privilege" in this matter and that neighbor Ivory Madison didn't represent herself as an attorney (Renne's facts are dubious). It's worth noting also that his wife, former City Attorney Louise Renne, authored the 1996 voter "Public Officials Ethics" proposition and he's likely displeased at having it parsed and poked for its imprecise language and vagueness.
Co-chair Commr Jamienne Studley is concerned about overturning a democratic election and although she does not support Ross's removal as Sheriff, she voted that a domestic violence act of any degree is misconduct.
The chair, Commr Benedict (Ben) Hur, voted for a narrow interpretation and warned that creating a low hurdle for misconduct charges is a risk. Hur voted to overrule the Mayor's case, but he was outflanked by the other four commissioners and is the minority voter. However the body agreed to submit a Summary to the BOS to be co-written by Hur with the Ethics (pro bono) attorney.
The only remedy in the statute is removal from office and the body is undecided on that point.
My comment to Ethics is that 4 of the 5 are attorneys who I believe recognize that Ross was charged on a legal technicality, and that there was no pattern or syndrome of domestic abuse. The pattern was in the mind of one person, the agitated neighbor highly motivated to climb the San Francisco social ladder crushing a decent family for her own future prosperity. But Madison's karma is severely damaged not only for now, the curse permeates for next generation and the next.
For more information:
https://www.facebook.com/StandWithRoss
A few examples of the common language being used in the past month alone in the below articles in the Chronicle to bias readers against Mirkarimi:
"His supporters, who argue he's repentant and has suffered enough, are evading the seriousness of the issue."
"The stigma of such a finding should lead Mirkarimi to quit"
"If he loses his job, it is because he brought it on himself."
"Mirkarimi was judged as unfit for office by a panel designed to weigh the ethics and probity of city leaders."
[Chron editors forgot to mention who appointed these panel members, which the NLG-Bay Area described this way: ". . . Four of the Ethics Commissioners are appointed by people who are or will be directly involved in this case: the Mayor, the City Attorney, the District Attorney and the Board of Supervisors. At the very minimum, the situation raises the appearance of impropriety, conflict of interest and bias." http://www.nlgsf.org/news/statement-suspension-sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-and-ethics-commission-proceedings]
"He and his supporters have demonized neighbor Ivory Madison . . . Why? Madison had nothing to gain by coming forward."
[Chron editors forgot to mention that the majority of Madison's testimony was thrown out of the ethics commission hearings as hearsay and that one of the first people she contacted, before calling the police, was Phil Bronstein, former editor of the Chron . . . leading some to ask questions like, "Did Bronstein massage and direct the unbalanced Chronicle reporting in this matter?" and "Does Mr. Bronstein and his wife, Christine Borders(yes, that borders) bronstein have a financial interest in Ivory and Abe's bidness?" http://sfist.com/2012/06/19/mirkarimi_hearing_begins_ivory_madi.php]
And below some examples of the threatening undertones of most of the recent articles directed at the Supervisors . . . already yesterday I got a spam email from Olague because her yahoo account got hacked.
"Each supervisor should consider what's just happened"
"The issue should be a telltale sign of an incumbent's judgment"
"As one insider said, 'Ed doesn't want much from Christina, but he does want this.'"
"She'd be doing some serious bridge-burning to turn her back on her benefactor."
"The next step will be a showdown test of the board's character. . . The answer should be clear."
"Campos is likely to run for state Assembly when this term is up. Backing Mirkarimi . . . is the kind of vote that could come back to haunt him."
"As for Avalos, he's the personification of the problem of this case."
"They will feel the squeeze by forces entrenched on the left" . . .
Forces entrenched on the left? Amazing.
No doubt the corporate-funded Chron-connected thugs will be dumping as much money as possible into the Supervisor's opponents' campaigns to have a tool to manipulate them. Hopefully Olague will bow out of any vote, like she threatened she might have to.
-------------------
Mirkarimi case puts pressure on supes
Rachel Gordon
Updated 11:04 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mirkarimi-case-puts-pressure-on-supes-3798786.php
"The two who will feel the most heat . . . 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."
Dialogue clogs up Ross Mirkarimi case
Willie Brown, Chronicle Columnist
Updated 8:06 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Dialogue-clogs-up-Ross-Mirkarimi-case-3798737.php
"Mirkarimi needs to win over just three of the 11 supervisors to stay in office, but he may have a tough time. Remember, five incumbents are going before the voters in November, and there's a good chance that anyone who doesn't vote to remove Mirkarimi will be taken on by the anti-domestic violence advocacy crowd. That is one group you do not want to mess with. The sad thing about the whole affair is how Mirkarimi mismanaged his way into this. He should have just fallen on bended knee when the allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced, admitted he had done wrong by bruising his wife's arm, gone into counseling, and begged forgiveness. Instead, he portrayed the whole thing as a conspiracy by Mayor Ed Lee to neuter a formidable political adversary. Give me a break."
Near the end of the Mirkarimi mess and the Ethics Commission
Debra J. Saunders
Published 1:03 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
Notice how the *ONLY* voice at the Chron is the far rightwing writer -- most likely it is the Chron's effort to try to turn off progressive readers to Mirkarimi, that if Saunders defends him, he's got to be wrong.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Near-the-end-of-the-Mirkarimi-mess-and-the-Ethics-3798262.php
Good Morning Mission! 08.18.12
Mission Local
By Jamie Goldberg
"San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi suffered another setback as the San Francisco Ethics Commission said he is guilty of two of six misconduct charges, according to the San Francisco Chronicle."
http://blog.sfgate.com/inthemission/2012/08/18/good-morning-mission-08-18-12/
Ethics Commission made the right ruling
Updated 8:41 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
"After months of debate, San Francisco's Ethics Commission made at least one matter crystal clear: Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's manhandling of his wife amounts to official misconduct. The stigma of such a finding should lead Mirkarimi to quit, though he probably won't."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Ethics-Commission-made-the-right-ruling-3797376.php
Can supes muster 9 anti-Mirkarimi votes?
C.W. Nevius, Chronicle Columnist
Updated 3:02 a.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
"There are two very strong opinions about what will happen when the supes vote on whether to uphold the mayor's suspension order."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Can-supes-muster-9-anti-Mirkarimi-votes-3797307.php
Mirkarimi loses another way to save job
John Coté
Updated 9:39 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
Surprisingly fact based article, despite the title, without opinionated claims or veiled threats.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-loses-another-way-to-save-job-3797306.php
The Mirkarimi Medley
Debra J. Saunders
Aug 17 at 4:42 pm
"During Thursday’s public comments in the middle of the S.F. Ethics Commission hearing on Ross Mirkarimi, a supporter seranaded the room. As far as I can tell, the crooner is an Elvis fan."
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2012/08/17/the-mirkarimi-medley/
SF panel says sheriff committed misconduct
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press
Updated 12:40 a.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
A reasonable AP story.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SF-panel-says-sheriff-committed-misconduct-3792237.php
Panel: Mirkarimi engaged in misconduct
John Coté and Rachel Gordon
Updated 2:01 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
A reasonable article with some balance.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Panel-Mirkarimi-engaged-in-misconduct-3794860.php
Dueling sheriff rallies
Rachel Gordon, Jill Tucker
Updated 10:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 15, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Dueling-sheriff-rallies-3791912.php
Mirkarimi unfit to serve as sheriff
Updated 7:14 p.m., Wednesday, August 15, 2012
"Nothing has changed the heart of the charges against Mirkarimi. His rough and bruising treatment of his wife, Eliana Lopez, and his subsequent actions to tamp down the incident make him unfit to be sheriff. Mirkarimi, of course, could have spared the city a legal spectacle by quitting. He originally took a plea deal, accepting a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment that originated from an argument with his wife while their child watched. Then Mirkarimi went into political overdrive, declining to cooperate with police and hiding behind lawyers. His subsequent protestations of regret aren't enough . . . In one far-fetched sideshow, Mirkarimi's lawyers grilled the mayor about rumors he dangled a job if the sheriff would resign. . . It's time to remove a discredited figure. Mirkarimi should be dismissed."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-unfit-to-serve-as-sheriff-3791654.php
Facts should matter in Mirkarimi's case
Mary C. Morgan
Published 6:12 p.m., Monday, August 13, 2012
"Over the course of three decades, I served as a San Francisco Municipal Court and Superior Court judge. For several years, I had the privilege of presiding over the Domestic Violence Court. In every criminal case, but particularly in domestic violence cases, the facts matter. Thursday, when the Ethics Commission decides whether San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi committed official misconduct, it will be, as it should, the facts that matter most. . . . One need not be a specially trained judge to conclude, after a careful review of the facts, that Mirkarimi's actions fall far below the standards of decency, good faith and right action that San Franciscans demand of their sheriff. . . . Over time, domestic violence tends to escalate and can reach lethal levels."
'Mary C. Morgan is a retired judge of the San Francisco Superior Court.'
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Facts-should-matter-in-Mirkarimi-s-case-3785488.php
Ross Mirkarimi fate rides on definition
John Coté
Published 5:17 p.m., Saturday, August 11, 2012
"There is a logical relationship," Kaiser wrote, "between the duties and functions of a sheriff and the misconduct here: committing a crime, threatening to use public office for private advantage, dissuading a witness, permitting a police investigation to be compromised, failing to cooperate with a court order, setting back domestic violence law enforcement in San Francisco, and then being convicted and sentenced to three years of probation under the supervision of peer criminal justice agencies."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Ross-Mirkarimi-fate-rides-on-definition-3781596.php
and on and on . . .
"His supporters, who argue he's repentant and has suffered enough, are evading the seriousness of the issue."
"The stigma of such a finding should lead Mirkarimi to quit"
"If he loses his job, it is because he brought it on himself."
"Mirkarimi was judged as unfit for office by a panel designed to weigh the ethics and probity of city leaders."
[Chron editors forgot to mention who appointed these panel members, which the NLG-Bay Area described this way: ". . . Four of the Ethics Commissioners are appointed by people who are or will be directly involved in this case: the Mayor, the City Attorney, the District Attorney and the Board of Supervisors. At the very minimum, the situation raises the appearance of impropriety, conflict of interest and bias." http://www.nlgsf.org/news/statement-suspension-sf-sheriff-ross-mirkarimi-and-ethics-commission-proceedings]
"He and his supporters have demonized neighbor Ivory Madison . . . Why? Madison had nothing to gain by coming forward."
[Chron editors forgot to mention that the majority of Madison's testimony was thrown out of the ethics commission hearings as hearsay and that one of the first people she contacted, before calling the police, was Phil Bronstein, former editor of the Chron . . . leading some to ask questions like, "Did Bronstein massage and direct the unbalanced Chronicle reporting in this matter?" and "Does Mr. Bronstein and his wife, Christine Borders(yes, that borders) bronstein have a financial interest in Ivory and Abe's bidness?" http://sfist.com/2012/06/19/mirkarimi_hearing_begins_ivory_madi.php]
And below some examples of the threatening undertones of most of the recent articles directed at the Supervisors . . . already yesterday I got a spam email from Olague because her yahoo account got hacked.
"Each supervisor should consider what's just happened"
"The issue should be a telltale sign of an incumbent's judgment"
"As one insider said, 'Ed doesn't want much from Christina, but he does want this.'"
"She'd be doing some serious bridge-burning to turn her back on her benefactor."
"The next step will be a showdown test of the board's character. . . The answer should be clear."
"Campos is likely to run for state Assembly when this term is up. Backing Mirkarimi . . . is the kind of vote that could come back to haunt him."
"As for Avalos, he's the personification of the problem of this case."
"They will feel the squeeze by forces entrenched on the left" . . .
Forces entrenched on the left? Amazing.
No doubt the corporate-funded Chron-connected thugs will be dumping as much money as possible into the Supervisor's opponents' campaigns to have a tool to manipulate them. Hopefully Olague will bow out of any vote, like she threatened she might have to.
-------------------
Mirkarimi case puts pressure on supes
Rachel Gordon
Updated 11:04 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mirkarimi-case-puts-pressure-on-supes-3798786.php
"The two who will feel the most heat . . . 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."
Dialogue clogs up Ross Mirkarimi case
Willie Brown, Chronicle Columnist
Updated 8:06 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Dialogue-clogs-up-Ross-Mirkarimi-case-3798737.php
"Mirkarimi needs to win over just three of the 11 supervisors to stay in office, but he may have a tough time. Remember, five incumbents are going before the voters in November, and there's a good chance that anyone who doesn't vote to remove Mirkarimi will be taken on by the anti-domestic violence advocacy crowd. That is one group you do not want to mess with. The sad thing about the whole affair is how Mirkarimi mismanaged his way into this. He should have just fallen on bended knee when the allegations of domestic abuse first surfaced, admitted he had done wrong by bruising his wife's arm, gone into counseling, and begged forgiveness. Instead, he portrayed the whole thing as a conspiracy by Mayor Ed Lee to neuter a formidable political adversary. Give me a break."
Near the end of the Mirkarimi mess and the Ethics Commission
Debra J. Saunders
Published 1:03 p.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
Notice how the *ONLY* voice at the Chron is the far rightwing writer -- most likely it is the Chron's effort to try to turn off progressive readers to Mirkarimi, that if Saunders defends him, he's got to be wrong.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Near-the-end-of-the-Mirkarimi-mess-and-the-Ethics-3798262.php
Good Morning Mission! 08.18.12
Mission Local
By Jamie Goldberg
"San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi suffered another setback as the San Francisco Ethics Commission said he is guilty of two of six misconduct charges, according to the San Francisco Chronicle."
http://blog.sfgate.com/inthemission/2012/08/18/good-morning-mission-08-18-12/
Ethics Commission made the right ruling
Updated 8:41 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
"After months of debate, San Francisco's Ethics Commission made at least one matter crystal clear: Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi's manhandling of his wife amounts to official misconduct. The stigma of such a finding should lead Mirkarimi to quit, though he probably won't."
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Ethics-Commission-made-the-right-ruling-3797376.php
Can supes muster 9 anti-Mirkarimi votes?
C.W. Nevius, Chronicle Columnist
Updated 3:02 a.m., Saturday, August 18, 2012
"There are two very strong opinions about what will happen when the supes vote on whether to uphold the mayor's suspension order."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Can-supes-muster-9-anti-Mirkarimi-votes-3797307.php
Mirkarimi loses another way to save job
John Coté
Updated 9:39 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
Surprisingly fact based article, despite the title, without opinionated claims or veiled threats.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-loses-another-way-to-save-job-3797306.php
The Mirkarimi Medley
Debra J. Saunders
Aug 17 at 4:42 pm
"During Thursday’s public comments in the middle of the S.F. Ethics Commission hearing on Ross Mirkarimi, a supporter seranaded the room. As far as I can tell, the crooner is an Elvis fan."
http://blog.sfgate.com/djsaunders/2012/08/17/the-mirkarimi-medley/
SF panel says sheriff committed misconduct
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press
Updated 12:40 a.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
A reasonable AP story.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/SF-panel-says-sheriff-committed-misconduct-3792237.php
Panel: Mirkarimi engaged in misconduct
John Coté and Rachel Gordon
Updated 2:01 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2012
A reasonable article with some balance.
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Panel-Mirkarimi-engaged-in-misconduct-3794860.php
Dueling sheriff rallies
Rachel Gordon, Jill Tucker
Updated 10:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 15, 2012
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Dueling-sheriff-rallies-3791912.php
Mirkarimi unfit to serve as sheriff
Updated 7:14 p.m., Wednesday, August 15, 2012
"Nothing has changed the heart of the charges against Mirkarimi. His rough and bruising treatment of his wife, Eliana Lopez, and his subsequent actions to tamp down the incident make him unfit to be sheriff. Mirkarimi, of course, could have spared the city a legal spectacle by quitting. He originally took a plea deal, accepting a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment that originated from an argument with his wife while their child watched. Then Mirkarimi went into political overdrive, declining to cooperate with police and hiding behind lawyers. His subsequent protestations of regret aren't enough . . . In one far-fetched sideshow, Mirkarimi's lawyers grilled the mayor about rumors he dangled a job if the sheriff would resign. . . It's time to remove a discredited figure. Mirkarimi should be dismissed."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Mirkarimi-unfit-to-serve-as-sheriff-3791654.php
Facts should matter in Mirkarimi's case
Mary C. Morgan
Published 6:12 p.m., Monday, August 13, 2012
"Over the course of three decades, I served as a San Francisco Municipal Court and Superior Court judge. For several years, I had the privilege of presiding over the Domestic Violence Court. In every criminal case, but particularly in domestic violence cases, the facts matter. Thursday, when the Ethics Commission decides whether San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi committed official misconduct, it will be, as it should, the facts that matter most. . . . One need not be a specially trained judge to conclude, after a careful review of the facts, that Mirkarimi's actions fall far below the standards of decency, good faith and right action that San Franciscans demand of their sheriff. . . . Over time, domestic violence tends to escalate and can reach lethal levels."
'Mary C. Morgan is a retired judge of the San Francisco Superior Court.'
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Facts-should-matter-in-Mirkarimi-s-case-3785488.php
Ross Mirkarimi fate rides on definition
John Coté
Published 5:17 p.m., Saturday, August 11, 2012
"There is a logical relationship," Kaiser wrote, "between the duties and functions of a sheriff and the misconduct here: committing a crime, threatening to use public office for private advantage, dissuading a witness, permitting a police investigation to be compromised, failing to cooperate with a court order, setting back domestic violence law enforcement in San Francisco, and then being convicted and sentenced to three years of probation under the supervision of peer criminal justice agencies."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Ross-Mirkarimi-fate-rides-on-definition-3781596.php
and on and on . . .
It's not clear when the poll appeared, but the hundreds of right-wing teenagers that post hater comments (aka, formerly the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, probably located on the East Coast, http://www.dailykos.com/news/101st%20Fighting%20Keyboardists), usually before anyone else can post anything, don't appear to have yet seen it . . .
-------------
Should San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi lose his job?
Yes, the Ethics Commission concluded he engaged in misconduct
64 ( 12.0% )
No, the Ethics Commission has not said he should be fired
394 ( 73.6% )
Yes, he pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges
51 ( 9.5% )
The board of supervisors will decide if he loses his job
26 ( 4.9% )
-------------
-------------
Should San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi lose his job?
Yes, the Ethics Commission concluded he engaged in misconduct
64 ( 12.0% )
No, the Ethics Commission has not said he should be fired
394 ( 73.6% )
Yes, he pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges
51 ( 9.5% )
The board of supervisors will decide if he loses his job
26 ( 4.9% )
-------------
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/
"Even the protests were treated as strategy rather than as a substantive debate."
Apparently nothing has really changed since 2003.
Lies and half-truths
The Chron's Bronstein and other journos admit war coverage didn't reflect reality
By Steven T. Jones, May 07, 2003
http://www.sfbg.com/37/32/news_war.html
I came to the Commonwealth Club of California May 1 to ask a few questions of Phil Bronstein, the San Francisco Chronicle editor and executive vice president, who has been refusing to take my calls about why he fired reporter Henry Norr and unilaterally banned Chron employees from publicly speaking out on the war (" 'Chron' Fires Norr," 4/30/03).
Although that exchange happened – in an emotionally charged fashion before a crowd of nearly 100 and a National Public Radio broadcast audience – it didn't do much to illuminate Bronstein's thinking or motives. Yet the debate at the forum did yield some stunning admissions by Bronstein and other mainstream journalists that the American news media have presented an incomplete and deceptive picture of the recent invasion of Iraq.
The occasion was "War with Iraq: Perspectives in Coverage," a panel discussion that included Bronstein, ABC News reporter Mike Cerre, CBS News cameraperson Larry Warner, Ted Glasser, director of the Stanford University Graduate Program in Journalism, and, as moderator, Bob Calo, a former NBC producer who now teaches journalism at UC Berkeley.
Cerre and Warner had both been embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq, while Bronstein oversaw coverage by the Chron's three embedded and two roving reporters in Iraq. The discussion began with the usual war stories and journalistic navel-gazing, but then drifted into something far more revealing to anyone practicing active listening.
"We got so involved with it that it took over the coverage," Cerre said of the firsthand accounts of troop movements. He admitted that such a focus came at the price of context and a wider view of what was happening in Iraq.
"Nobody had a complete picture of what was going on because we were cut off from the outside world," Warner added. "Everything we did was as a unit."
Beyond the sacrifice of journalistic independence, Warner said that he came to identify with and feel great pride in the U.S. soldiers whom he traveled with. Cerre later told the story of being surrounded by the soldiers he was embedded with as he gave his report on how soldiers had shot and killed seven innocent Iraqi civilians as they approached a checkpoint earlier in the day, a major story quickly dropped by the media. Once the camera was shut off, Cerre turned to the soldiers and asked, "Was that fair?"
Yet these admissions by television journalists paled in comparison to Bronstein's statements about what was presented in the Chron. Bronstein said he knew his five reporters wouldn't capture the complete picture: "Most of the correspondents there never saw what the war was like."
Exacerbating the problems in coverage were his own editorial decisions not to show the gore of war. "The Europeans saw that and al-Jazeera viewers saw that, but the decisions were made by people like me not to put blown-up bodies on the front page."
"The fact is none of us got the big picture, and to this day none of us know what the big picture was," Bronstein said.
Glasser used admissions like these to make the point that the mainstream U.S. news media presented a biased and deceptive view of the war. It was biased in favor of a U.S. military worldview and deceptive in eschewing the brutal realities of the conflict in favor of video-game presentation.
"The coverage focused almost entirely on the strategy at the expense of substance," Glasser said. "The coverage took on the tone of coverage of a football game.... Even the protests were treated as strategy rather than as a substantive debate."
Though Bronstein testily bristled at Glasser's generalization of mainstream media coverage – and the two clashed over these issues for the rest of the forum – the stage had been perfectly set for me to confront Bronstein about the Norr incident and its implications.
I waited in line at the microphone as others criticized the media's war coverage. The woman in front of me asked Bronstein whether the Chronicle covered the April 26 hearing in San Francisco on the Federal Communications Commission rule changes that will allow more media mergers ("The Democracy Disaster," 4/30/03), and he arrogantly answered with one word, "Yes."
Having been there, and knowing the Chron had failed to write about what happened at that historic hearing, I blurted out, "No, you didn't." Bronstein then admitted he was out of town and didn't, in fact, know whether his paper had covered the hearing. So as I stepped to the microphone to ask my question, even the audience knew there was about to be a confrontation.
"Why did you unilaterally ban your employees from war-related protests but not other equally controversial forms of political speech, why did you fire Henry Norr, and why won't you return phone calls from me or other journalists to discuss the reasons for your decision?" I asked after reiterating some of Glasser's points as a premise.
As I said, Bronstein's answer didn't reveal much. He said he doesn't feel an obligation to return calls, particularly from the Bay Guardian, which he said "makes things up." He said the policy change was made to protect the paper's credibility. He didn't address why he singled out the war from other issues, and when I tried to follow up that point, I was cut off by Calo and heckled by a handful of conservative audience members whereas progressives in the crowd had cheered my question. (I followed up with Bronstein the next day by e-mail, but he again ignored me.)
Yet as my moment in the sun ended, I was intrigued to hear the next questioner press Bronstein on the point of whether Chron readers were deceived about what happened in Iraq. Bronstein said the only way for readers to get a complete picture of the war was to read a variety of publications, and that the Chron could only present a narrow slice of the conflict.
The questioner seemed incredulous and followed up by asking whether Chron readers knew they were being presented only with partial truths and asked whether the newspaper ever acknowledged this to readers.
"I hope we did that," Bronstein said of his paper's admission in print – or lack thereof – that it didn't present a complete picture of the Iraq invasion, "and if we didn't, that was our fault."
Apparently nothing has really changed since 2003.
Lies and half-truths
The Chron's Bronstein and other journos admit war coverage didn't reflect reality
By Steven T. Jones, May 07, 2003
http://www.sfbg.com/37/32/news_war.html
I came to the Commonwealth Club of California May 1 to ask a few questions of Phil Bronstein, the San Francisco Chronicle editor and executive vice president, who has been refusing to take my calls about why he fired reporter Henry Norr and unilaterally banned Chron employees from publicly speaking out on the war (" 'Chron' Fires Norr," 4/30/03).
Although that exchange happened – in an emotionally charged fashion before a crowd of nearly 100 and a National Public Radio broadcast audience – it didn't do much to illuminate Bronstein's thinking or motives. Yet the debate at the forum did yield some stunning admissions by Bronstein and other mainstream journalists that the American news media have presented an incomplete and deceptive picture of the recent invasion of Iraq.
The occasion was "War with Iraq: Perspectives in Coverage," a panel discussion that included Bronstein, ABC News reporter Mike Cerre, CBS News cameraperson Larry Warner, Ted Glasser, director of the Stanford University Graduate Program in Journalism, and, as moderator, Bob Calo, a former NBC producer who now teaches journalism at UC Berkeley.
Cerre and Warner had both been embedded with U.S. forces in Iraq, while Bronstein oversaw coverage by the Chron's three embedded and two roving reporters in Iraq. The discussion began with the usual war stories and journalistic navel-gazing, but then drifted into something far more revealing to anyone practicing active listening.
"We got so involved with it that it took over the coverage," Cerre said of the firsthand accounts of troop movements. He admitted that such a focus came at the price of context and a wider view of what was happening in Iraq.
"Nobody had a complete picture of what was going on because we were cut off from the outside world," Warner added. "Everything we did was as a unit."
Beyond the sacrifice of journalistic independence, Warner said that he came to identify with and feel great pride in the U.S. soldiers whom he traveled with. Cerre later told the story of being surrounded by the soldiers he was embedded with as he gave his report on how soldiers had shot and killed seven innocent Iraqi civilians as they approached a checkpoint earlier in the day, a major story quickly dropped by the media. Once the camera was shut off, Cerre turned to the soldiers and asked, "Was that fair?"
Yet these admissions by television journalists paled in comparison to Bronstein's statements about what was presented in the Chron. Bronstein said he knew his five reporters wouldn't capture the complete picture: "Most of the correspondents there never saw what the war was like."
Exacerbating the problems in coverage were his own editorial decisions not to show the gore of war. "The Europeans saw that and al-Jazeera viewers saw that, but the decisions were made by people like me not to put blown-up bodies on the front page."
"The fact is none of us got the big picture, and to this day none of us know what the big picture was," Bronstein said.
Glasser used admissions like these to make the point that the mainstream U.S. news media presented a biased and deceptive view of the war. It was biased in favor of a U.S. military worldview and deceptive in eschewing the brutal realities of the conflict in favor of video-game presentation.
"The coverage focused almost entirely on the strategy at the expense of substance," Glasser said. "The coverage took on the tone of coverage of a football game.... Even the protests were treated as strategy rather than as a substantive debate."
Though Bronstein testily bristled at Glasser's generalization of mainstream media coverage – and the two clashed over these issues for the rest of the forum – the stage had been perfectly set for me to confront Bronstein about the Norr incident and its implications.
I waited in line at the microphone as others criticized the media's war coverage. The woman in front of me asked Bronstein whether the Chronicle covered the April 26 hearing in San Francisco on the Federal Communications Commission rule changes that will allow more media mergers ("The Democracy Disaster," 4/30/03), and he arrogantly answered with one word, "Yes."
Having been there, and knowing the Chron had failed to write about what happened at that historic hearing, I blurted out, "No, you didn't." Bronstein then admitted he was out of town and didn't, in fact, know whether his paper had covered the hearing. So as I stepped to the microphone to ask my question, even the audience knew there was about to be a confrontation.
"Why did you unilaterally ban your employees from war-related protests but not other equally controversial forms of political speech, why did you fire Henry Norr, and why won't you return phone calls from me or other journalists to discuss the reasons for your decision?" I asked after reiterating some of Glasser's points as a premise.
As I said, Bronstein's answer didn't reveal much. He said he doesn't feel an obligation to return calls, particularly from the Bay Guardian, which he said "makes things up." He said the policy change was made to protect the paper's credibility. He didn't address why he singled out the war from other issues, and when I tried to follow up that point, I was cut off by Calo and heckled by a handful of conservative audience members whereas progressives in the crowd had cheered my question. (I followed up with Bronstein the next day by e-mail, but he again ignored me.)
Yet as my moment in the sun ended, I was intrigued to hear the next questioner press Bronstein on the point of whether Chron readers were deceived about what happened in Iraq. Bronstein said the only way for readers to get a complete picture of the war was to read a variety of publications, and that the Chron could only present a narrow slice of the conflict.
The questioner seemed incredulous and followed up by asking whether Chron readers knew they were being presented only with partial truths and asked whether the newspaper ever acknowledged this to readers.
"I hope we did that," Bronstein said of his paper's admission in print – or lack thereof – that it didn't present a complete picture of the Iraq invasion, "and if we didn't, that was our fault."
For more information:
http://www.sfbg.com/37/32/news_war.html
Probably once the Chron's own poll showed massive support for Mirkarimi staying on, they had a bring out a new one . . . anyone get a call?
---------
Advocates on both sides of the case have been ramping up efforts to influence the board and public opinion as the extraordinary case enters its next round.
Some questions in the poll were aimed directly at the supervisors. For example, it asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to support supervisors in their next elections if they rejected the Ethics Commission findings.
Just more than half, 51 percent, said less likely, 19 percent said more likely, 23 percent said it wouldn’t make a difference; the rest weren’t sure.
A breakdown of the poll results found that more men (69 percent) than women (55 percent) thought Mirkarimi should be removed, as did more Democrats and independents or third-party members (62 percent) than Republicans (59 percent).
In every supervisorial district, a majority believed that Mirkarimi should be removed, the poll found.
---------
Advocates on both sides of the case have been ramping up efforts to influence the board and public opinion as the extraordinary case enters its next round.
Some questions in the poll were aimed directly at the supervisors. For example, it asked respondents if they would be more or less likely to support supervisors in their next elections if they rejected the Ethics Commission findings.
Just more than half, 51 percent, said less likely, 19 percent said more likely, 23 percent said it wouldn’t make a difference; the rest weren’t sure.
A breakdown of the poll results found that more men (69 percent) than women (55 percent) thought Mirkarimi should be removed, as did more Democrats and independents or third-party members (62 percent) than Republicans (59 percent).
In every supervisorial district, a majority believed that Mirkarimi should be removed, the poll found.
For more information:
http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/08...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network