Sweet Melissa

The Cougar and The Tiger, Part Three

Constant Readers,

It's as simple as borrowing a friend's car. You borrow it and cause an accident. The victim sues the owner of the car (your friend) and wins. Obviously, you should offer to pay whatever amount the judge rules that your friend owes the victim because you are the one who caused the wreck. In lawyerland, we call this agreement to pay for a legal judgment against someone else "indemnification." Think of it as a responsible "bail out."

Back in February, I wrote a two-part piece on the legal liability of the City for the Christmas Day tiger maulings at the San Francisco Zoo.

Predictably, the darling Dhaliwal brothers filed claims against the City on March 26. The complaint itself lists 17 causes of action for each brother, including negligence, emotional distress and failure to maintain property in a safe condition.

Today, the City Attorney responded to the claims with a pithy letter:

An investigation of your client's claim filed with the City and County of San Francisco has revealed no indication of liability on the part of the City and County. Accordingly, your claim is DENIED.

Then it gets interesting. The City Attorney's letter instructs Geragos to refer his clients' claims to the San Francisco Zoological Society (SFZS). Why? Because according to the Agreement between the City and the SFZS (Agreement), the SFZS is supposed to maintain "comprehensive general liability insurance" worth no less than $5 million for each incident leading to damages. (Sec. 17.1(a).) The agreement was signed in 1993, and Fog City Journal reports that the amount of insurance is now $15 million.

However, the insurance that the SFZS is supposed to maintain need only cover the City "to the extent of the losses" for which the SFZS has agreed to indemnify the City. (Sec. 17.2(a).)

So, to what extent does the SFZS have to indemnify (bail out) the City?

The Agreement says that the SFZS does NOT have to indemnify the City for losses resulting from "pre-existing conditions." (Sec. 21.2(a).) In our car-borrowing hypo, if the cause of a wreck were old tires that were already bald when you borrowed the car, obviously it would not be fair to make you pay the owner for resulting damages. Similarly, structural problems at the zoo that existed in 1993 when the City turned over management of the zoo to the SFZS are exempt from indemnification. In this case, the wall at issue was reportedly short well before 1993.

Also exempt from indemnification are "negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of any Civil Service Employees." (Sec. 21.2(b).)

And it gets worse.

The main indemnity provison of the Agreement (Sec. 21.1) states that the SFZS only has to indemnify the City for the damages for which the City is not responsible.

To recap: (a) the wall was reportedly a preexisting condition, (b) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for damages resulting from preexisting conditions, (c) the SFZS does not have to have insurance that covers damages relating to a preexisting condition (though it might), (d) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for negligence by City employees, and (e) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for damages caused by the City.

In other words, it appears as if the City will not be able to hide behind the Agreement when it comes to damages to the Dhaliwal brothers and Carlos Sousa. The SFZS will get their asses sued off, too (as will the owners of the Terrace Cafe) - I'm just saying that absent some recent arrangement between the SFZS and the City, they won't be alone.

--Melissa

BONUS: The reason that the Dhaliwal brothers had to file an initial claim (that was just denied) is because they are bringing suit under the CA Government Claims Act. Now that their claim has been denied by the City, the Dhaliwal brothers have 6 months from today to file a lawsuit in State Court. (Cal. Gov. Code sec. 945.6.)

New Onse

Constant Readers,

I am in Louisiana at a seminar for work this week and have been having technical difficulties with the internets. Rest assured that I am missing my San Francisco. When I checked in here, I got a goodie bag that contained Tobasco-flavored potato chips and a beer cozy. (Actual picture on the right.) This morning, one of the speakers introduced another speaker as having graduated from the Sore Bone. I later got to hear the cringe-worthy phrase "foreign subsiderary" a billion times. Hello, United Airlines? How fast can I get back to Hippietown?

Several of you have (very sweetly) emailed me asking why I haven't posted in a few days. Now that I am reviewing recent news, I can see why y'all missed me: seems local media outlets are not giving you all the information on some recent issues.

One that jumped out at me is the Mayor's recent veto of a $76k expenditure to pay for an increased number of government hearings to be televised. (Veto: Download veto_letter.doc; Legislation: Download recording_of_meetings.doc.)

As you know, I support the effort to televise more government so dorks like me have something to do on Saturday nights. When the ordinance came up for a vote at the Board on April 15, Supervisors Elsbernd and McGoldrick demanded to know what this was going to cost - and were particularly concerned about creating a new expenditure obligation in a year where mass layoffs of City employees are anticipated. (They were also concerned that the ordinance had not been reviewed by the Budget Committee.) Supervisor Mirkarimi and Ron Vinson from DTIS stated that the cost of equipment for the program would be borne by a "cable franchise fund". In addition, two new part-time positions would be needed to make the program work (manpower mostly necessitated by the law's requirement that all hearings be available on the internet within 72 hours). The 76k is for those two part-time positions.

Elsbernd was all: so the City would have to pay for these part-time positions? Out of the General Fund? (yes) In a year of terminations?

Mirkarimi was all: yeah, but for 76k, we get so much stuff!

So, it passed 6 to 5 on April 15, with Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu, Elsbernd, Maxwell, and McGoldrick voting "no". (Maxwell changed her vote and McGoldrick was absent on the second - April 22 - vote, so the second count was 7-3.)

On April 30, Mistermayor was all: ahem. Veto. (unspoken message: get used to it, it's fixin' to be a looong budget season).

The Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to override the veto on Tuesday, May 13.

Sunshine activists are all: harass McGoldrick into changing his vote so we have the 8 votes to override the veto!

Prollem is: a veto override will have no effect whatsoever. Mistermayor can freeze the money again. (See General Hospital Worker's Comp Clinic shutdown.)

So, why vote at all if it won't do nothin'?

Maybe some Supes will vote to override the veto because they can't resist giving the finger to the Mayor, maybe some believe it will be useful for their future Mayoral/Assembly campaigns, and maybe for some it is an easy way to get points from Sunshine activists without actually having to do anything ("Don't blame me, I voted to override the veto!"). Then there's always the argument about "sending a message" to Mistermayor (in case the passage of the law in the first place didn't communicate that well enough).

I still say it would have been a good thing to let this law go forward. I mean, what else are laid-off City employees going to do with all their free time? It's not like they'll be able to afford Showtime anymore. For now, I guess I'll just have to watch the Police Commisssion on Saturday nights. With a PBR in my new cozy.

--Melissa

I Wonder If They Have District Elections...UPDATED

Constant Readers,

You know I spend a lot of time calling out SF Supervisors and Mistermayor for not actin' right. However, this video from an April 11, 2008 Detroit City Council meeting reminds me that things could be worse/funnier/sadder/more interesting.

The woman yelling is Monica Conyers - wife of U.S. Representative John Conyers.

And yeah. She said, "Shrek."

UPDATE:

Watch Mrs. Conyers get pwned by an eighth grade girl about the outburst.

Kierra Bell for City Council!

--Melissa

PS - Here's the background info on this video according to Suzette Hackney of the Detroit Free Press:

A Detroit City Council special investigative session into a police whistle-blower lawsuit settlement erupted into a yelling match when President Pro Tem Monica Conyers made claims that she was being disrespected.

The argument began when Conyers asked an independent attorney who was testifying if the council could be sued by Detroit residents for approving the $8.4-million lawsuit settlement.

Councilwoman JoAnn Watson said: "They can sue you; I voted no."

Conyers told Watson to stop interrupting and disrespecting her. She added: "We all know how you voted; you don't have to keep repeating it."

Moments later, Conyers interrupted Council President Ken Cockrel as he was questioning Carl Edwards, the Detroit attorney. Cockrel reminded Conyers that he had the floor and banged his gavel repeatedly.

Conyers railed: "You're not my Daddy. You're not going to disrespect me. Grow up! Control your house and learn how to treat women."

Cockrel told Conyers that she was "one to talk."

Conyers also made repeated mocking reference to Cockrel as Shrek, the green, grumpy and rotund ogre from the animated film.

As the council members yelled at each other, residents attending the hearings yelled, as well. "You're disrespecting the citizens!" and "This is a shame!"

Cockrel took a quick recess to regain order before then breaking for lunch.

Stashing Trash

Constant Readers,

For an apartment-dweller like me, actually living in a place that has its own trash cans is a reflection of unimaginable wealth akin to having a helicopter landing pad on your roof. Which is to say: I do not have firsthand knowledge of the responsibilities that come along with having trash bins in San Francisco.

But I have read Article 5, Sec. 170 of the SF Public Works Code. Hopefully, I therefore have enough street cred to write about the recent uproar over the fact that the Department of Public Works (DPW) is reportedly issuing $100 tickets to people who fail to follow rules governing trash bins in SF.

So far as I can tell, this all started with an article by Matier and Ross (whom I read religiously) in Monday's Chronicle. In that article, the duo discuss the spate of new trash tickets and state: "existing law...requires cans to be off the sidewalk by 6 p.m. on pickup days."

And everyone ran with it. 

Commenters on SFist were livid! (Who the hell gets home from work by 6 p.m.?!) KCBS even reported the 6 p.m. "rule." Supervisor Dufty, at yesterday's Board of Supervisors meeting called for a hearing on (among other things) "fairness regarding [the garbage receptacle] ordinance requirements that toters be removed by 6 p.m. even for people who work late." (Video at 3:12.) (Note: Only a government employee would call working past 6 p.m. "late.")  

Prollem is: there ain't no such requirement in the law.

The "Garbage Receptacles" law at Article 5, Sec. 170(a)(2) of the SF Public Works Code says:

Any person, firm, or corporation occupying or having charge of any residential premises shall remove any such receptacles from the sidewalk, street, or other dedicated public right-of-way within twenty-four (24) hours after placing said receptacles out for collection and after the contents of the said receptacle have been collected.

So, where did the "6 p.m." part come from? The law prohibits persons from putting their receptacles out "after the hour of 6:00 p.m. of the day immediately prior to the day of said collection." (Sec. 170(a).)

To recap: If your trash is picked up on Wednesday morning, you can't put the cans out before 6 p.m. on Tuesday. If you put the trash bins out on Tuesday at 11 p.m., you don't have to bring them in until 11 p.m. on Wednesday.

Obviously, the DPW is not going to go around monitoring when each person on a street puts their cans out. So, what they do is wait until 6 p.m. the day after pickup (in our hypothetical, that would be Thursday at 6 p.m.) to place people's trash cans under arrest for trespassing.

So, enough hysterics about the workin' man and the mythical "6 p.m. rule". Matier and Ross got it right when they focused on the real issue: the feasibility of "hiding" trashcans where space is limited.

Though, according to page 4 of the DPW Guidelines (see pic on right) a blanket and a couple of sticks will do.

Surely anyone with a helicopter landing pad can manage that.

--Melissa   

Bored of Supervisors - 4/29/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. The Calm Before the Storm?

Once again, this week's meeting was about as exciting as watching grass grow. On the agenda were appointments, second votes on stuff that has already passed and (apparently) unassailable items like Supervisor Mirkarimi's greenhouse gas emissions ordinance. It's hard to bore a dork like me, but these folks still manage... Never fear though, y'all. Budget season is a'coming and this year promises to be especially exciting.  Watching self-interested, pandering broke people try to balance a budget is not only amusing, but involves the kind of dealmaking that results in a $3000 car stereo in a 1989 turquoise Honda Civic. Trust me, I know. I'm from Georgia.

2. Why Didn't He Just Propose A Resolution Calling Heather Fong A Poopyhead?

During Roll Call for Introductions, Supervisor Mirkarimi asked that the Office of the Legislative Analyst and Controller's Office look into the possibility of having a Police Chief who is a contracted employee with the City instead of a Mayoral Appointee. He wants to know how such a set-up would affect performance and accountability.

Hm.

And this one day after a Public Safety Committee hearing in which the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice reported on citywide safety. 

QUOTE OF THE MEETING:

"This is what we call an old fashioned shakedown."

-Bob Peacock, Bernal Heights resident, on the fact that the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center (a low-income housing builder) agreed to withdraw its opposition to the a conditional land use permit sought by ICI (aka Glidden paint) to open a store at 1575 Van Ness Ave if ICI agreed to help the BHNC acquire more Bernal Heights property.

Were any of the Supes outraged? You betcha! Supervisor Ammiano admonished the speakers to refrain from name-calling.   

Welcome to San Francisco, Mr.Peacock.

--Melissa

PS - I have been sick, sick, sick this past week. Forgive me for the scarcity of posts. The upshot is that my sore throat makes me sound like Kathleen Turner.

Well, maybe not exactly. Maybe like, her cousin.

Alright, second cousin.

Whatever. I think I sound cool. Though I am on drugs...

Here Comes the Hotstepper

Constant Readers,

I have three big projects in the hopper that I am still working on before I share them with you, and in the meantime there's not much happening in the news. So, I decided to do a little research on a subject that I always wanted to dig into but never had the time.

Because, unlike me, most of you have lives, you have probably never seen a Board of Supervisors agenda. Trust me when I tell you that there is always a section where the Board has to authorize the settlement of lawsuits against the City. The City Attorney's Office negotiates the settlement and the Board approves it.

You should know that the City does not have legal insurance, so all settlement money is paid outright.

This past week, there were two ordinances to settle lawsuits that were brought before the Board and referred to the Rules Committee where they will be passed with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. The docs are publicly available for only one of the cases, a products liability lawsuit brought by Debra Denise Reed. (Here's the complaint: Download reed_case.pdf.)

Apparently, on March 15, 2005, Miss Debra was taking a step class taught by the perkily-named Daisy Austin. But because the bottom of the step did not have rubber no-skid patches on the bottom (and the world is not made of Nerf), Miss Debra's uncoordinated self fell off the step and on to the hardwood floor. More than a year and a half later, she sued Daisy Austin and the City of San Francisco for negligence, products liability and premises liability. Among other things, she claims to have suffered "wage loss" and "loss of earning capacity." All from falling off of a step she described as being six inches high. I can only imagine that Miss Debra was a world-famous butt model whose numerous plastic surgeries to mend the scars from unsightly gashes she suffered in the dramatic fall were futile.

So, why did she sue the City?

Because the step class was taught at the Joseph Lee Recreational Center - which is City property.

How much is a broken ass on City property worth?

According to the City Attorney: $65,000.00 (Watching someone in your step class fall off their step? Priceless.)

Today's lesson: If you stupidly hurt yourself, crawl to the nearest piece of City property. Step 2: Sue. Step 3: Profit.   

--Melissa 

Bored of Supervisors - 4/22/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. I Smell A Conspiracy

Basically everything on the agenda passed unanimously today. As I sat listening to the votes go by one by one, I started to panic! What if NOTHING interesting happens today? What if the Supervisors all got together and decided to thwart the hopes of dorky bloggers all over the City by not fighting over a single thing? Then I looked at the agenda and saw that there was nothing interesting upon which to vote. Aha! It must be the fault of whoever makes the agenda...I stared at my blank pad of paper and vowed to get to the bottom of this...

2. Goodbye, Sweet Prince

And just when I had given up hope, something marvelous happened! During the time set aside for "Recognition of Commendations" (where Supervisors recognize do-gooders, female sports teams and dead old friends) Supervisor Peskin announced that today marked the auspicious day of retirement for Abdalla Megahed.

Wait, WHAT? I spun around and turned up the volume.

Abdalla, for those of you who have never seen Public Comment, is one of the most impassioned, foul-mouthed public commenters in San Francisco. Obviously, I love him. He almost always speaks first, refers to Mistermayor as "Mickey Mouse" and complains about the plight of the homeless in the City. (From what I can tell, Abdalla has been homeless from time to time.) His rants are entirely non sequitur and from the heart. For example, when accepting his commendation today he said, "It's very hard for me to cry when I have blood pressure over 200." Um, okaaaaaay.  

And after today, Abdalla will no longer speak at Public Comment regularly. He is "retiring". He even wore a suit. Only in San Francisco do you get an award for spending decades showing up at Board meetings and calling the Board members every name in the book. What the hell? I guess there's something to be said for that level of commitment.

What is he going to do now, you ask? In his acceptance speech, he announced plans to go to Sacramento where he will run for Governor.

You're welcome, Sacramento.

QUOTE OF THE MEETING:

"This morning I attended a symbolic lynching...I'm sorry, launching..."

-Supervisor Maxwell talking about attending the symbolic launch of one of the boats at Hyde Street Pier that carried black people from San Francisco to Victoria, BC in 1898 as part of a massive migration caused by the mistreatment of black people in SF. The term "D'oh!" doesn't even come close...the gasps were audible.

--Melissa 

More Government on TV: WOOOOOOOO!

Constant Readers,

As you may know, this past Tuesday an ordinance passed on its first reading that will require more San Francisco political commissions, committees and conversations to be filmed and made available for public viewing. Now, there appears to be some fuzzy math surrounding the funding source for one of the part-time positions that this ordinance will create (according to Ron Vincent from DTIS, it will otherwise be paid for by the "cable franchise fund"), but you know I am generally all for more government on TV. And, while I know that watching it is doing nothing for my love life, every so often I get to see something truly great. Take this video below, for example, in which professional rassler Nature Boy Ric Flair was finally given his due on April 15 in the US House of Representatives.

I just love that the phrase "Figure Four Leglock" is now in the Congressional Record.

--Melissa

BONUS: This video below has no significance beyond that fact that it is one of the saddest and funniest things I have ever seen. I just can't get over the commentary and Tracy McGrady's reaction.

http://view.break.com/453711 - Watch more free videos

Friday Cookys

Constant Readers,

I have been at conferences for the past few days, so apologies for the delay in adding another post. There is so much happening lately that it is hard to choose what to write about! But, because it is Friday, I'll make it easy on you with a few short updates on issues I've been following.

1.Ed Jew, Brute?

Yesterday we learned that Ed filed a motion in federal court to have a special defense fund for indigent people pay for the cost of translation services and other items related to his defense against federal charges of bribery, mail fraud and extortion. How can it be? Is Ed really a penniless street urchin? Before you go feeling sorry for Edmund, you should know that he reportedly transferred all his real property to family members as soon as the shit started to hit the fan. His house in the Sunset was raided on May 18, 2007. Between October 2007 and March 2008, he put three properties in a family trust, and transferred one to his wife and one to his brother. Then in early April he filed a motion asking for federal tax dollars to pay for his defense.   

The Examiner ran a story yesterday pointing out the property transfers and Ed's application for legal welfare.

You know what else happened yesterday? Eddie-boy withdrew his motion for federal funds.Download ed_jew_withdrawal.pdf 

Thank you, Joshua Sabatini!

2. I'll Bet They All Take The Valium

A few weeks ago, I put up a video that I shot back in January about the Baze v. Rees death penalty case that was before the Supreme Court. I predicted that the Court would not find that the Kentucky manner of lethal injection is unconstitutional. (Though it is icky.) The Court was not expected to rule on the case until June or July of this year, but on Wednesday, April 16, the ruling came down and...well...I was right. Rightity right. In addition to holding that Kentucky lethal injection protocol is constitutional, the opinion also states:

The broad framework of the Eighth Amendment has accommodated [] progress toward more humane methods of execution, and our approval of a particular method in the past has not precluded legislatures from taking the steps they deem appropriate, in light of new developments, to ensure humane capital punishment. (P. 24.)

I think we know where this fight is going...

3.  Melissa on ERISA

The hearing before the Ninth Circuit on the City's appeal of a District Court ruling that the employer expenditure requirement of the City's Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) is preempted by ERISA was held yesterday. Interestingly, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association (GGRA) (the group opposing the employer contributions), yielded several minutes to the US Department of Labor whose attorney also argued that the contribution requirement is preempted.

The same three-judge panel that allowed the HCSO to go into effect (despite the District Court's ruling that the law is preempted) also heard the oral arguments yesterday. When they allowed the HCSO to go forward, the same three judges found that there is "a strong likelihood" that the City will win this appeal. Sooooooo, judges not being the kind of folks who will ever admit that they are wrong...I think it is safe to assume that the Ninth Circuit will overturn the District Court ruling. The GGRA can then ask for another hearing at the Ninth Circuit with all eleven judges (called an en banc hearing) or appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Look for an appeal to the Supreme Court - I 'spect the GGRA has had about all it can take of the Ninth Circuit.

NOTE: Looks like restaurants are already blaming the HCSO for putting them out of bidness...

--Melissa

Bored of Supervisors - 4/15/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. This Plan Seems Kinda Mean

The Board considered two resolutions decrying, urging, and generally finger-wagging at the California Department of Food and Agriculture for its plans to spray the City of San Francisco in August with pheromones designed to control the Light Brown Apple Moth. (The plan is to confuse the moths with pheromones so they can't find a mate and die out. Dang.) One was spearheaded by Supervisor Mirkarimi and one was put forth by Supervisor Dufty in conjunction with Mistermayor's office. Both passed unanimously. That's TWO nonbinding resolutions - oh snap!!

2. Speaking Of Things That Are Kinda Mean...

First, Supervisor Alioto-Pier wisely packed the hall with Teamsters and members of Local 16 who loudly supported her ordinance to incentivize movie production in the City through bigger tax rebates. The ordinance passed 6-4 (Supervisors McGoldrick, Peskin, Sandoval and Daly voted "no"). Supervisor Ammiano recused himself on account of the fact that he is a movie star - and recently had a role in the movie "Milk". He thanked the Academy. I shit you not.

Second, Supervisor Alioto-Pier also had a number of people from the Bayview come out who, during public comment, supported her resolution calling for a new study on the building of two peaker plants in the Bayview. (A peaker plant is a power plant that runs only when there is a high demand, known as "peak demand", for electricity.) The construction of two combustion turbine peaker plants is part of a plan approved by the Board in 2004. Since that time the Board has also approved the plan for the Transbay Cable - which would provide the City with 400 megawatts of power. Alioto-Pier's resolution calls for a re-examination of whether and to what extent the peaker plants are needed now that we have additional energy alternatives like the Transbay Cable project on the way.

But, not so fast! Supervisor Maxwell (whose district includes the Bayview) rilly rilly rilly wants the construction of the peaker plants to go forward and made a motion to have Alioto-Pier's resolution sent to a committee (so it would not be voted on today - which will give Maxwell time to introduce a competing measure). It only takes one Supe to get an item sent to committee so off it went...

RIGHT after she had Alioto-Pier's resolution sent to committee, she did something pointedly and hilariously bitchy:

She called for a re-vote on Alioto-Pier's movie production ordinance. (Mind you, it's like, 45 minutes after the first vote and all the union folks are gone.) Only this time, Maxwell and Mirkarimi voted against the ordinance, so it ultimately failed by a vote of 4-6.

Pass the popcorn, y'all, 'cause I love parliamentary drama!!

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"I felt it was rather flippant and condescending."

-Supervisor Mirkarimi describing this article in today's SF Chronicle about the spraying for Light Brown Apple Moths. (snicker) Really, Ross?

--Melissa