‘Wrong on the math’ 

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s legal argument against The City to overturn City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s opinion she cannot run for re-election says Herrera “is wrong on the math,” offers a “pretended reason for this mysterious conclusion” and has came to the opinion he did “for reasons and motives unknown.” This legal argument was filed Tuesday.

It all comes down to the City Charter. Members of the Board of Supervisors can serve two four-year consecutive terms.

The dispute is about whether Alioto-Pier is in her second or first four-year term. She was appointed by Mayor Gavin Newsom to serve as the District 2 supervisor after Newsom vacated the seat following being elected mayor. She served at the post for less than one year before running for election, which she won and served out the remainder of what would have been Newsom’s last two years in office and then she ran for re-election to serve the current four year term she is in.

The charter says a person appointed to serve “in excess of two years of a four year term” would be considered to have served a four-year term.

Herrera’s opinion is that Alioto-Pier’s appointment was for more than two years even though she ran for election, while Alioto-Pier is arguing that her election means that she was appointed to serve less than a two-year term.

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 16.

According to the legal argument: “The pretended reason for this mysterious for this mysterious conclusion is that Alioto-Pier’s appointment to serve less than one year and her subsequent and distinct election to serve two years is the same as being ‘appointed …to complete in excess of two years.’ The City Attorney is wrong on the math and the language: ‘one’ year is not the same as ‘in excess of two years;’ and ‘appointed’ is not the same as ‘appointed and/or elected.’”

Pin It
Favorite

More by Joshua Sabatini

Latest in Government & Politics

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation