Yes, Virginia, There Is a Removal Clause

Recently, the City Attorney gave local journalists a reason to dust off their high school Latin by filing a complaint in quo warranto with the State Attorney General. [Fun fact: according to the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 803 only the Sate Attorney General can actually bring a quo warranto action claiming someone is unlawfully holding public office, so what Hererra's office filed was a petition asking the State AG to join with Hererra's office in bringing a such a suit against Jew.] Still, many of us onlookers are left wondering why such a high-falutin' move was necessary when Section 15.105 of the Charter allows the Mayor to remove a Supe for Official Misconduct, refer the matter to the Ethics Commission and then let the Board of Supes vote on permanent removal.

I am a huge Matier and Ross fan. Read them religiously. Which for me means on holidays or when I am depressed and scared. So, yes, every day. On Monday, June 18, M&R wrote an article on the issue of why the City Attorney has to get daddy's permission at the state level to remove our local Supe for violating local laws. According to the article, "City Hall insiders" are saying that, because Jew's lies are related to whether he lived in District 4 before the election and before he took office, they don't constitute "Official Misconduct" because he wasn't an official at the time.

With all due respect to those City Hall insiders, allow me to drop some Georgia public high school Latin: (Ahem.) Horsepucky.

Let's begin with the definition of "Official Misconduct" found at Section 15.105 of the City Charter.
"Official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her office, willful in its character, including any failure, refusal or neglect of an officer to perform any duty enjoined on him or her by law, or conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required of all public officers and including any violation of a specific conflict of interest or governmental ethics law."

I agree with the "insiders" that misconduct from 3 years ago is not grounds for removal. Misconduct from July 12, 2006 until today, however, is. See, if Jew did not live in District 4 at least 30 days before the filing of certain election papers on August 11, then his very status as an elected official is in violation of the Charter. The Charter doesn't define "willful[]...conduct that falls below the standard of decency, good faith and right action impliedly required" of Supes but I think that any official act by a Supe who knows damned well he is not legitimately in office certainly qualifies. That's right. Every vote cast by the illegitimate representative is an act of Official Misconduct. The alternative would be an umpire yelling, "SSSSSSSSSSAFE!" at home plate once a person manages to get elected under false pretenses. Surely a reward of immunity from removal by the Mayor under such circumstances is not consistent with the intent of the "Official Misconduct" clause.

If you don't agree with me, allow me to introduce myself: my name is Hillary Clinton and I am running for Mayor.

-Melissa

BONUS Nerd Test:
The reason why Jew prolly won't take any plea bargain offered to him by the D.A. in which he would have to plead guilty to a felony is because: (a) Section 15.105(c) of the Charter states that the Mayor has to remove Supes convicted of felonies involving moral turpitude while in office or face Official Misconduct charges himself; (b) Section 15.105(d) of the Charter states that, if removed on the basis of a felony conviction Jew can't run for office again in San Francisco for 10 years (as opposed to 5 years if removed for Official Misconduct); or (c) he is completely deluded by the absurd "legal advice" he's getting such that he actually believes that, despite living in Burlingame, contact with the 28th Ave. residence plus the intent to return at some point actually equals "residence" in District 4. (All of you budding lawyers out there concerned about studying for the California Bar Exam should be feeling much, much better right about now.)

Answer: C. A and B actually make sense.

Comments

[el Greco]

Ed Jew: he has all the virtues I detest and none of the vices I admire.

[Applejuice]

Before this Ed Jew mess, I had never visited your blog. Since then I have been checking in on your updates daily. I really enjoy your perspective, and sense of humor. Keep it up! And seriously when is this guy gonna get the hell out????