Sweet Melissa

Either Work Hard or You Might as Well Quit...

Constant Readers,

So, in today's SF Examiner column, I wrote about Supervisor John Avalos' proposal to mandate local hiring for city-funded construction projects.

It just so happens that there was a protest today at UCSF's Mission Bay Hospital groundbreaking because of a local hiring issue. (No, I didn't know about the protest when I wrote the piece. I wish I were so savvy, but I'm not.) Anyway, according to an email I got about the event, "local hiring [at the hospital] over the past 3 months is rumored to be in the 12-13% range. UC has zero community hiring plan in place, despite the scale of the $1.7 billion investment and the promise of jobs that are before us today and just a T-line ride from the Southeast sector and San Francisco's blue collar core."

Word is that Mistermayor sat out of the event because there is no local hiring plan for the project. And also he would like to be elected Lieutenant Governor.

BUT guess who was there? Nancy Pelosi!

AND MC HAMMER!

And this is where it gets good...

According to an eyewitness, the Secret Service was all skittish about the local-hiring protest outside the groundbreaking ceremony, so they wouldn't let Pelosi leave and locked the gate to the event.

Then MC HAMMER WAS DISPATCHED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROTESTERS. Ohmygod. Breathe. Just take a minute with that.

Don't believe me? Here is proof!

Apparently, the Deputized Diplomat Sir Hammer promised to take the protestors' message to Pelosi. That message was, "We Want Jobs." And also: "Duh."

Then the fence cracked just enough for The Honorable Federal Agent Hammer to squeeze back in to the event. And the Secret Service thereafter sped off, with Pelosi in tow, using another exit.

Hey, I hear there's a little tiff going on between Jed York and Mistermayor. Sounds like a job for the Super Dope Homeboy from the OakTown.

-Melissa

What was the problem we're trying to fix? Oh, right. Hm.

When City Attorney Dennis Herrera decided to run for mayor, he knew that it would be tricky. The city attorney is, after all, supposed to advise and represent The City and all its officers and employees. (It’s in the charter!) This, of course, includes legal advice and representation on election issues.

So, let’s imagine another mayoral candidate submits his biography for the voter pamphlet and it says, “San Francisco was named after my uncle Frank and I once beat Dennis Herrera in a double-dutch jump rope contest.” Well, Herrera’s office would be the normal place to call and object to such nonsense. (Everyone knows San Francisco was named after that Tony Bennett song and Herrera is unbeatable at double-dutch.) However, as a candidate in the race, it would look bad for Herrera to weigh in on whether the description gets pulled from the pamphlet.

So, Herrera wrote a long memorandum about a month ago in which he said his office wouldn’t deal with mayoral election issues because it looks bad. Not that he’s not capable of being objective. Just that he knows it looks bad. So, he wrote, we’ll have another county attorney’s office handle it.

Chief Assistant City Attorney Jesse Smith proposed Miguel Marquez, Santa Clara County Counsel. Marquez’s office says it will provide the election law advice and representation for free, though Santa Clara County residents might have a different take on that. The Rules Committee of the Board of Supervisors will consider the appointment of Marquez’s office today.

However, I’m not sure Marquez is the best person to fix the “it looks bad” problem. For starters, early in his legal career, Marquez worked for a firm called Remcho, Johansen and Purcell. That firm worked for the 2009 election effort “No on 17, A Coalition of Consumers and Dennis Herrera.”

Later, Marquez worked with Herrera at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office until 2006, when he left to become the general counsel of the San Francisco Unified School District. Supervisor David Campos was Marquez’s predecessor in that job and Marquez campaigned for Campos to be elected to the Board of Supervisors. (Campos, incidentally, is on the Rules Committee — which should be interesting.)

Now, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m sure Marquez is a competent and fair attorney. I’m just saying that, if someone has to make a call on an election issue that affects Herrera’s mayoral prospects, choosing Marquez still kind of looks bad.

(BONUS: Here is the memo from the CA office and Marquez' biography:  Download Marquez Docs.)

Just another day in SF politics...

Constant Readers,

On Thursday, I wrote that the two largest contributors (for a total of $150,000) to Jeff Adachi's pension reform measure are a married couple and each had contributed to Matt Gonzalez's 2003 run for mayor.

Well, according to a recent press release, Gonzalez himself is joining Adachi's SMART reform campaign!

“Pension reform isn't the only solution that cities facing budget difficulties have to seriously employ. But it is a key component given the un-sustainability of current practices,” said Gonzalez. “Cities all over the US are facing the choice between bankruptcy and a taxpayer bailout every year. All San Franciscans (progressives included) must get serious about this issue if critical service cuts are to be averted. I commend Jeff Adachi for advancing this measure.”

Also:

Matt Gonzalez will lend his support to the campaign at the mobilization on Saturday, June 26. The 10 am event will be held at the campaign headquarters located at 910 Harrison.

-Melissa

FULL TEXT OF RELEASE

NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact: Darcy Brown 415.307.7707

Darcybrown7@gmail.com www.SFsmartreform.com

ADACHI IN FINAL PUSH TO BALLOT PENSION REFORM IN NOVEMBER

-Matt Gonzalez steps up to support last 10 days of signature drive - San Francisco (June 25, 2010) –

 San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s pension reform measure is in the final 10 days to gather the signatures needed to qualify for the November ballot. Former Board of Supervisors president Matt Gonzalez will lend his support to the campaign at the mobilization on Saturday, June 26. The 10 am event will be held at the campaign headquarters located at 910 Harrison.

“Oakland just laid off 80 police officers because they can't afford to pay their pension costs, and we can’t afford to have that happen here in San Francisco,” Adachi said. “We need the help of every San Francisco voter to sign the petition right now so that San Francisco can keep our streets safe, avoid new taxes and higher fees and maintain vital city services.”

“Pension reform isn't the only solution that cities facing budget difficulties have to seriously employ. But it is a key component given the un-sustainability of current practices,” said Gonzalez. “Cities all over the US are facing the choice between bankruptcy and a taxpayer bailout every year. All San Franciscans (progressives included) must get serious about this issue if critical service cuts are to be averted. I commend Jeff Adachi for advancing this measure.”

Public Defender Jeff Adachi has drafted a pension reform measure that could add $170 million to San Francisco’s budget as soon as it is implemented. Adachi and his team have been gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2010 ballot that would require employees of the City and County of San Francisco to contribute to their pensions and contribute more for dependent health care.

The Civil Grand Jury revealed on Thursday, June 24 that San Francisco has lost over $52 million in uncollected pension contributions from the 2002 passage of Proposition H because there has been no pension contribution increase from police or firefighters as required by City law since 2004-05. The SF Smart Reform measure requires both San Francisco employees to increase pension contributions from 0% to 7.5% and police officers and firefighters to increase their respective pension contributions from 7.5% to 10% of wages. By requiring contributions to their own pensions, the SF Smart Reform measure would make $170 million available to prevent more service cuts and lay-offs.

SF SMART Reform has over 100 signature gatherers who are posted at local stores and coffee shops to collect signatures. Persons interested in obtaining the petition can request a petition be sent to them by emailing sfsmartreform@yahoo.com or by downloading the petition from the organization’s website at sfsmartreform.com. SF SMART Reform will have mobilizations this weekend, June 26 & 27, and next weekend, July 3 & 4th, 10 am at the campaign headquarters located at 910 Harrison Street (at Fifth).

Instead of paying taxes, we should each have a personal account and get a bill each month...

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor John Avalos proposed a 5-cent tax on boozy beverages sold in San Francisco. The money collected would pay for alcohol-related services and expenses borne by The City. This would be in addition to state taxes of $3.30 per gallon on spirits and 20 cents per gallon on wine and beer.

I called my mom on my cell phone — which emits 1.51 watts of radiation per kilogram of body tissue — and told her the news. She advised me to stock up because wine, like a nanny, gets better with age.

I decided to try a Walgreens and looked for one without a pharmacy so I could buy cigarettes and pay 20 cents extra because the Department of Public Works thinks I litter, but I settled for one with a pharmacy where I could get tequila and ephedrine but not cigarettes because we have to protect the children.

Not seeing any decent wine, I reached for a Diet Coke, momentarily forgetting that Mistermayor has declared this a soda-free summer and soft drinks are about to be assessed a fat fee. I put the drink down.

I left the drugstore empty-handed and instead stopped by my local supermarket, where the wine selection is better, but as I walked in the door, I realized that I had forgotten to bring a reusable shopping bag. Without it, paper bags are the only choice and, while they can — and must — be composted, they don’t hold wine very well.

I gave up. I grabbed a bag of Skittles and headed home. As I walked down Van Ness Avenue, I saw City Hall in the distance and suddenly it all made sense. If people who ingest cigarettes, alcohol and soda suck up city resources, why shouldn’t we make the suckers pay?

According to Rob Reiter, the City Hall building manager, last week’s five-hour debate about whether the Board of Supervisors should condemn Israel for raiding a flotilla outside the Gaza Strip cost The City about $7,000 for security, custodians, clerks and building staff.

The supervisors who put it on the agenda — Avalos and Sophie Maxwell — can send their checks to the Controller’s Office. See, we’re all suckers sometimes.

Don't make me choose between the board meeting and 'my stories'...

One criticism I frequently hear about the Board of Supervisors is that it meets during the day when regular folks can’t attend. This results in very specific constituents having considerable sway at the board. And while I’m not suggesting votes are determined by the Applause-O-Meter, everyone knows a good turnout can help persuade supervisors who are on the fence about a particular vote.

Sharp Park Golf Course is one fine example of this. I don’t think supervisors knew what they were getting into when taking up the issue of a golf course beloved by retirees. See, retired people have the time during the day to go to meetings — and you bet they do, too! As do others without jobs, or whose job it is to show up to meetings.

But what about the rest of us? Board of Supervisors meetings are held at 2 p.m. Tuesdays. Who can go to that? Certainly not single parents.

Committee meetings are just as poorly scheduled. In addition, there’s usually no set time at any meeting for people to comment. Assuming you can attend, you can be there for one hour or four hours, depending on a variety of factors.

The recent cell phone labeling ordinance (you’re welcome, Fox News) and the sit-lie law debates featured this issue: How are small-business owners supposed to make their voices heard when they are busy literally minding the store? Children’s advocates dominated the cell phone labeling hearing. Homeless and civil-rights activists came out in full force for sit-lie hearings. Listening to each of them gave the impression of a community united in its cause and convictions. But that’s far from the truth.

Of course, there are other ways of making one’s voice heard. E-mail and the Small Business Commission (which meets in the evenings) are such options. But as other groups who show up en masse understand, there’s something helpful about being able to attend and show solidarity, debate a prior speaker’s point and, most importantly, to look your elected official in the eye and tell your story.

Perhaps it’s time for the board to consider a schedule change. They work for us, right?

Alioto-Pier Moving Toward a Resolution of the Question of Her Eligibility to Run for Re-Election

Constant Readers,

Okay, so you know how Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is fighting for the right to party run for re-election in District Two?

(If you are not up on this subject, you must be new to the site. In which case, Welcome! Go here and here for background.)

On June 3, the Director of the Department of Elections (John Arntz) wrote a letter to Alioto-Pier saying he would follow the law as stated in a February 6, 2008 legal opinion by the City Attorney - that memo says Alioto-Pier is not eligible to run for re-election.

Well, yesterday, Alioto-Pier sent a letter to Arntz asking that he reconsider his position because (a) the City Attorney is wrong, and (b) in November 2008 - after the legal opinion was written - voters rejected Proposition F, which would have made the City Attorney right. So, now he's double-wrong.

According to the letter, Arntz needs to listen to the people. The people have spoken! And also:  Alioto-Pier is gonna file a lawsuit against the department unless she's allowed to run for Supervisor. Soon.

Of course, Arntz doesn't give a shit about Prop F and has no real authority to break with the City Attorney's prior advice and may write back saying so. This is Scenario 1.

Scenario 2 (which I prefer for its drama) has Arntz calling the City Attorney and tearfully lashing out: I hate being in the middle of y'all's fight! Look what she sent me? What am I supposed to do with this?

Then, the City Attorney can do one of two things (a) say, "you tell That Woman I said Ima stick by that February 2008 memo and I'll see her in court" or (b) re-visit the issue and say, "In light of the failure of Prop F, our mind is chang-ed. Here's new advice: Michela can run for office." 

She's giving Arntz until 5:00 PM on June 15 to figure it out and respond. 

Oh, you want to see the letter? Here is a PDF of it:  Download Arntz - Request for Reconsideration[1]

INCIDENTALLY: my favorite part of all of this is the fact that we have Aaron Peskin to thank for the provision in Prop F that would have prohibited Alioto-Pier from running for re-election.

See, Prop F was initially just about holding elections in even-numbered years. Jake McGoldrick kept trying and trying to get that nonsense on the ballot but could never get 6 votes at the Board to do it. After like, three tries, Peskin - probably feeling sorry for McGoldrick - agreed to vote for the thing if McGoldrick put in the anti-Alioto-Pier provision.

McGoldrick did, and Peskin voted yes, and we got Prop F.

Why would Peskin do that? Well, Peskin was not a fan of Alioto-Pier and, as my dear friend once put it, "likes to dick at her." But hey, maybe there was some loftier purpose. (Yeah, no.)

So, when Prop F failed, Peskin might have inadvertently given Alioto-Pier just what she needs to make the City Attorney reverse his position and let her run for re-election.

Man, I love this town.

-Melissa

Let the Games Begin! Bay Area Folks on the November Ballot

On Tuesday, California voters determined who will face off in November for key state offices, and San Francisco names had a big day.

Governor

In one corner, we have Republican nominee and Atherton resident Meg Whitman, who has (so far!) spent $71 million of her own money to convince us she’s a fiscal conservative. During her Tuesday speech accepting the Republican nomination, Whitman declared herself the “nightmare” of politicians in Sacramento. I don’t disagree. I feel most sorry for the ones who will have to explain to her the rules governing the state Legislature, including the structural barriers that prevent real reform regardless of who is in charge. Awkward!

In the other corner, we have San Francisco native Jerry Brown acting like someone’s peepaw in running shorts clutching a new vegetable juicer, vowing to live forever and singing, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet!” (Seriously, Brown played that song at his victory speech last night.) It’s as if Brown wants us to believe that during his four decades in office, he was restraining the beast that is his political genius because he wanted to wait until this moment to show us. “I know I ain’t seen nothin’ yet, baby, baby, baby.”

Lieutenant Governor

Now that Mistermayor has won the Democratic Party primary, his transformation from City Executive to Sitting Alternative is almost complete. All that’s left to do is beat Republican candidate Abel Maldonado in November, which may be difficult.

First of all, independent Hispanic voters choosing between Gavin “The Gay Marriage Guy” Newsom and Maldonado, the son of immigrant Mexican-American­ farmworkers, may go with the latter.

Second, when candidates for governor have the means, they often send money downstream to their potential lieutenants. In this case, Jerry Brown has about $16 million in the bank. Plus, it was only about five minutes (OK, months) ago that Newsom was running for governor against Brown, attacking Brown for lacking “fire in his belly.” Newsom isn’t likely on Brown’s Christmas card list, much less his “people to give money to” list.

Whitman, on the other hand, prints money on a machine she bought from the government in an eBay auction. Maldonado can out-fundraise­ Newsom by simply following Whitman around, collecting the $1,000 bills she uses to blot her lipstick.

Attorney General

On Tuesday, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris happily accepted the Democratic Party nomination for state attorney general, while Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley won the Republican Party nod. This one actually promises to be a fun race, and for once in a San Francisco vs. Los Angeles fight, we have the prettier team.

The neat twist to this race is that Cooley presides over a criminal justice system in Los Angeles that reportedly does the things Harris’ office is now in trouble for not doing: checking the backgrounds of public safety employees and telling defendants about the results.

Add the fact that Cooley has been praised by Republican leaders for landing “more death penalty convictions than the entire state of Texas last year,” versus Harris’ steadfast opposition to capital punishment — even for cop killers — and this matchup between antipodes is bound to get ugly.

Luckily, the enjoyment of political slap-fighting is one pleasure not banned in this state — yet.

The other kind of football doesn't want to be here, either.

The list of U.S. cities being promoted to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup tournament is out. And our fair city isn’t on it. Know who is? Phoenix! That’s right, even Phoenix made the list, though international players would be advised to keep their passports in their shoes while they play. Other cities on the list include New York and Los Angeles.

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi announced that he’s issuing a “letter of inquiry” to Mistermayor’s office to find out why we aren’t on the list, which includes Tampa, Fla., and Nashville, Tenn. Seriously? Tampa?

I spoke with mayoral spokesman Tony Winnicker, who explained that San Francisco was one of many cities asked to submit applications to host the event back in April 2009. Around November, we were whittled right off the list. Other castoffs include Las Vegas and Chicago, so we’re in some decent company in the circular file.

Of Mirkarimi’s promised letter of inquiry, Winnicker said, “I’m glad he’s interested, but he’s a year late. I guess he’s been busy doing all he can to run Bay to Breakers out of town.”

UPDATE: I heard from Mirkarimi's aide, Jeremy Pollock (who is really one of my favorite people at City Hall) who had this to say:

 I think Tony Winnicker pulled a fast one on you. According to this US Soccer press release:
http://www.gousabid.com/news/entry/58-venues-interested-in-holding-fifa-world-cup-matches-in-2018-or-2022/
Candlestick was the only NFL stadium that "was not listed as a candidate."

Three cities that weren't on the original "candidate" list asked to be considered, including Vegas, which doesn't even have a stadium built yet. Vegas still managed to make the first cut from 58 candidates down to 38 before being eliminated in the 2nd round. We couldn't find any info about SF ever applying.

Of course we know why Candlestick wasn't included on the candidate list: it's old and run down. But the rest of San Francisco has so much to offer, we feel like we should have at least taken a shot. A World Cup bid could've been a hail mary to renovate Candlestick or get a new stadium built and save the 49ers in the process. It doesn't seem like the Mayor's office tried.

So that's what the letter of inquiry was about: not asking why we weren't on the list, but asking if the administration at least tried to get us on the list.

And finally, I have to say that the Bay to Breakers crack is a cheap shot. Especially coming from a Mayor who has been AWOL on B2B the last two years and even bragged about running it without paying!

You'd think BP might have better things to do...

Arizona is not the only candidate for the top spot on Santa Francisco’s Naughty List. British Petroleum’s recent decision to give free oil to all manner of marine life in the Gulf of Mexico has angered everyone, including Greenpeace and the tea party movement (whose members obviously have been itching for a reason to declare war on Britain again anyway).

As luck would have it, our very own state Sen. Mark Leno is in a position to score a small but important victory against the oil company. See, the California Senate is currently considering a bill (SB 933) that would prohibit surcharges on consumers who use debit cards. (A 1985 law prevents surcharges on credit card purchases.) Opposing the measure are groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Grocers Association and, you guessed it, BP.

Introduced by Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, the bill was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 27, where it passed. Despite being in the middle of the oil spill crisis, BP made sure a representative was there to testify against the bill. Leno is on that committee and not only voted in favor of the bill, but he’s a co-author.

If, as is widely rumored, Leno runs for mayor, I think thumping BP on behalf of consumers will be worthy of a campaign flier almost as slick as the recent spill. 

Taking it to the Streets...

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi just launched an effort to put a measure on November’s ballot that would increase the amount of money city employees must pay for retirement benefits. Recently, he sat down with me to discuss the initiative.(Read all about the details at http://www.sfsmartreform.com)

What exactly does your proposal do?

It requires all City employees to pay 9 to 10 percent of their salary toward pension benefits. Right now, employees are supposed to contribute 7.5 percent toward pensions, but only about half of The City’s employees actually pay that amount. The City picks up the tab for thousands of workers — paying our contribution and theirs — and they pay nothing.

When city employees retire, they qualify for a guaranteed pension up to 75 to 90 percent of their salary for the rest of their lives. This year, the taxpayers are paying $525 million to cover pensions and in a few years, it’ll be $818 million. This comes at a time when The City faces a $525 million deficit this year, and a deficit of $787 million next year.

What’s the difference between this proposal and Proposition D on the June ballot?

The measure in June only affects city employees hired after July 2011, so we won’t see any savings until many years down the road. The SMART Reform initiative would apply to all current and future city employees, and The City will see immediate savings if it gets on the ballot and passes.

What’s the total amount of savings your SMART Reform is supposed to generate?

And will that be enough to fix the financial mess we are in? According to the city controller and Health Services [System], this measure would save us $170 million annually. Of course, we also need to look at other aspects of the budget process.

How many signatures do you need in order to get this on November’s ballot?

We have to turn in 46,000 signatures by the July 6 deadline. You can view and print out ballots at the SMART Reform website.

You are up for re-election in November. Will this affect your campaign?

Not really. I think that once people understand what a dire situation we are facing, they will support the proposal — even city workers.