Its all well and good that the BOS will get to vote on what happens to Mirkarimi because of his "official misconduct" related to open government. But...should the 4 supervisors with findings of official misconduct against them be permitted to vote in this matter? Seems a little hypocritical. These 4 should recuse themselves.

Oh...but wait...then there wouldn't be a sufficient number of remaining Supes to convene on this matter. Sort of like what's happening with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force at the hands of at least one of the 4 supes with a finding of official misconduct against him.

You can't have it both way BOS.

actually has some connection to their editorial board.

tughest matters she will ever have to handle

Or a spell check pre-post would suffice.

The adult way to look at Mirkarimi's predicament is that any criminal conviction makes a pol ineligible to hold elective office. Had Mirkarmii fought the case at trial, knocked down one of the charges and hung others he might well have held onto the Sheriff's office and survive the recall. Instead, Mirkarmi pled guilty to false imprisonment charges. There is a cruel side to politics, and no doubt this is a tragic loss for Mirkarimi personally. It's hard to see how this movie ends well for him.

The Bay Guardian holds onto the delusion that somehow Mirkarmi can be Sheriff because progressives Avalos, Campos and Mar will walk the electoral plank and vote for him. PPP which is a Democratic polling firm Nate Silver says has a "house bias" for Democrats is slammed as a push poll operation. Judge Kahn has already rejected the Mazzola decision's application to Mirkarimi's facts. The Ethics Commission has voted 4-1 to sustain two of the charges against Mirkarimi. Yet the delusion persists like the Nixon Whitehouse in June 1974 he will somehow hang on. Unlike Nixon's end, there is no adult in the Mirkarimi orbit who can tell him the truth. The price of this paper's delusion is conceding electoral opportunities in 2012 on the College Board, Districts 5 and perhaps District 7 that could be the start of a progressive fightback. Clinging to a past that is gone appears to be more comforting. More tortured stories about what is or is not DV, political conspiracy theories and arguments about the applicability of "official misconduct in office" are sure to follow.

True, Avalos and Campos can vote to keep Mirkarimi in office and avoid political retribution in 2012. That would be fine if their ambitions ended with holding office at the Board of Supervisors, and unlike Mirkarimi they are both fine with being termed out of office and going the way of Jake McGoldrick or Sophie Maxwell. However, if either wants to run for higher office their vote becomes one they'll be attacked for as long as Beverly Upton, Andrea Shorter or Mary Morgan breathes. There is also the sober fact that unless Avalos and Campos pair their vote with a third, support for Mirkarmi is meaningless. If Mar wants longer odds than his 50-50 chance of being re-elected, he can vote for Mirkarimi. Mar could but his campaign consultant would be guilty of misconduct.

The next delusion is that Olague votes for Mirkarmii. Olague is bankrolled by Rose Pak and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. She is advised by two political operatives close to Willie Brown, one a former Planning Commissioner. Those who actually followed politics during the Brown years remember the Brown operation demanded and got a high yield on all political investments. Olague voted for 8 Washington even though her vote was not needed to pass the project. The idea a Lee appointee can undo a decision he spent political capital on is absurd. The women's community will provide Olague with all the necessary cover she needs to say, "if it were any other office but the Sheriff's department is responsible for running DV treatment programs and ..." That is an easy yarn to spin.

The omission in this story is what David Chiu does. Chiu has a score to settle with Ed Lee and Rose Pak. He was played by both in 2011. Chiu has an independent source of campaign money locally and from classmates & old colleagues on the East Coast. Chiu doesn't need to rely Pak's money, just as Gavin Newsom did not. If there is a scenario for Mirkarimi to get 3 votes it runs through Chiu. It's unlikely because Chiu is conscious a vote for a one time male colleague with a DV conviction is 30 second ad material forever. It's more likely than Olague, however.

For argument's sake, let's suspend disbelief and just go with the delusion Mirkarmi survives. What happens then? The progressive community is tagged in the November 2012 election with hundreds of thousands of mugshot mailers. The Chronicle piles on and the SF Weekly can't help itself and gets a few more elbows into the wounded Guardian. Downtown in all likelihood consolidates its hold on the Board of Supervisors. After that San Francisco faces a recall campaign that lands on the November 2013 ballot. Just so no one forgets, every Board member who votes for Mirkarimi gets to defend that vote for another year and the progressive community and this paper are defined by Mirkarmi's actions on December 31, 2011.

The problem with this piece is that advocacy for an outcome, preserving Mirkarimi and saving a paper's sunk costs, is not matched with a journalistic responsibility to give readers insight into either what is going or or what is at stake.