Last night’s meeting of the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) had its share of drama, as members debated whether Mayor Gavin Newsom – the party’s nominee for Lieutenant Governor – could be seated as an ex officio member (and thus, have a vote next month in the Party’s crucial endorsement process.) A legal opinion said that he could not, but the DCCC finally relented by voting to change the rules. It won’t be that easy, however, for Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier – who last week won a lawsuit to run for a third term. City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed an appeal of the trial court ruling yesterday. Although the Charter says appointed Supervisors who served more than half a term are counted (for term limits purposes) as a full term, Alioto-Pier wants the first three years that she served in office (after being appointed by Mayor Newsom) not to count. If allowed to stand on appeal, this legal interpretation would allow future mayors to make political appointments who would get special treatment under the City Charter.

Many have noted the irony of Gavin Newsom wanting to serve on the Democratic Central Committee – at the same time that he wants the voters to pass an ordinance this November prohibiting local elected officials from doing so. But on July 27th, the Mayor sent a letter to Chair Aaron Peskin – asking to be seated on the DCCC as the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor, as an ex officio member.

Ex officio members – or “super-delegates” – are unelected members of the DCCC who get to serve on the influential body, by virtue of their elected positions elsewhere. For example, state legislators and members of Congress who represent all or part of San Francisco get a seat – i.e., Mark Leno, Leland Yee, Nancy Pelosi, Jackie Speier, Tom Ammiano and Fiona Ma. Statewide elected officials who live in San Francisco (i.e., Dianne Feinstein) also get a seat. If Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris get elected Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General respectively, they would also get a seat.

But what about Democratic statewide nominees who won the primary – but have yet to win a general election? The DCCC by-laws are vague, and Peskin sought advice from attorney Lance H. Olson – the Party’s chief legal counsel. Turns out clause 3(e) allows for Kamala Harris to serve on the Central Committee, but not Newsom. Why? Because the current Attorney General (Jerry Brown) is a Democrat, while the current Lieutenant Governor (Abel Maldonado) is a Republican. Policy questions aside, those are the rules.

After heated discussions, the DCCC voted to amend their by-laws last night – clarifying language that allowed for both Newsom and Harris to serve, but with one caveat. If the Democratic nominees don’t win in November, they will lose their seat on the Committee. In Newsom’s case, that might even be redundant – if he loses the Lieutenant Governor’s race, he remains Mayor for a year. And if San Francisco voters pass his measure banning all local elected official from serving on the DCCC, as Mayor he would then lose his seat.

My favorite part of the meeting was when DCCC members asked John Shanley (who Newsom had sent as his proxy) about the Mayor’s wish to serve on the DCCC while opposing other elected officials from doing so. “I’m not appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco,” he replied. “I’m appointed by the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor.”

As for Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, her lawyers may have convinced a Superior Court judge last week – but City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s appeal filed yesterday looks strong.

Section 2.101 of the Charter (which the voters passed in 1990 as Proposition N) says that Supervisors cannot serve more than two consecutive full terms. It goes on to say, “any person appointed to complete in excess of two years of a four-year term shall be deemed, for the purpose of this section, to have served one full term.” Alioto-Pier was appointed in January 2004 because Supervisor Newsom resigned to become Mayor, and she ended up serving three years (i.e., more than half) of his unexpired four-year term. After being re-elected in 2006 to another full term, that means she served two consecutive full terms.

But Alioto-Pier’s case rests on the fact that the voters later amended the Charter twice – in 1995, and then in 2001. Both Charter Amendments required an appointed incumbent like Alioto-Pier to face the voters earlier – before the unexpired full term ended. Rather than wait until 2006, Alioto-Pier won a special election in November 2004 (consolidated with the general election) to finish the second half of Newsom’s term. Nonetheless, that doesn’t change the fact that she still served “in excess of two years of a four-year term.”

The Charter Amendments in 1995 and 2001 were not about term limits – they dealt with special elections, and holding appointed incumbents on a shorter leash. Alioto-Pier’s lawyers may be right that it created a legal fiction in Section 2.101 – because it’s now no longer possible for Supervisors to be appointed, and then not face voters for more than two years. But the legislative intent of Proposition N (“term limits”) is still clear policy. The voters didn’t mean to alter that when they passed the later Charter Amendments.

Of course, Alioto-Pier’s political allies will argue that Chris Daly got to run three times – and that Tom Ammiano got to serve a whopping 14 years on the Board of Supervisors. The facts in those two cases, however, are clearly distinguishable from Alioto-Pier’s.

Daly got to serve 10 years, because his first term (2000-2002) was not “in excess of two years” and thus not a “full term.” He was then allowed to serve up to two “consecutive full terms.” Alioto-Pier was appointed three years before a regularly scheduled full term was up. Therefore, allowing her to run again in 2010 would end up giving her 11 years on the Board of Supervisors – in direct contravention of the Charter’s term limits policy.

As for Ammiano, he was the unintended beneficiary of the return to district elections in 2000 – an aberration that can’t and won’t happen again. Ammiano served a full four-year term (1994-1998) under the at-large system, then got a two-year term cut short by district elections in 2000. Because that two-year term was not “in excess of two years,” he was allowed to run again for two consecutive four-year terms – which he did from 2000-2008.

Probably the best argument in Dennis Herrera’s appeal is that this ruling – if allowed to stay – would affect more than just Alioto-Pier. “No term on the Board [of Supervisors] that begins with a [mayoral] appointment will ever be treated as a four-year term, even if the appointed Supervisor serves three years and 11 months following the appointment. And because appointees reap the advantage of incumbency from the very start, the ruling will only entrench the power of incumbency that the voters in 1990 sought to constrain.”

Given the strange career of Michela Alioto-Pier, one can’t be surprised or shocked by this shenanigan. Once again, we have a politician who works to bend the rules for their own purposes.