Sweet Melissa

Draft Ed Lee for Mayor Effort Commences...

Constant Readers,

I wrote a few weeks ago about what a dang good job Ed Lee and his mustache are doing as mayor and predicted that folks might start an effort to get him to run in November. (Miss Cleo could have told you that. Not the psychic, mind you. My friend's cat named Miss Cleo. That's how hard that prediction was.)

Well, lo and behold, the Draft Ed Lee for Mayor website is up and open for bidness.

The City Hall scuttlebutt is that Lee has said he'd run if the public begs. Though I'm sure he was way nicer about it - he probably used the term "groundswell of public support."

If you want a second helping of Mayor Lee, get on over there and join the fun!

-Melissa

PS - Hat Tip to CC for the link.

In case you thought there was a chance in hell that this would pass...

(Before we get into this, let me just say that there is no amount of money you could pay me to constantly deal with parents. School Board members are angels of mercy and the ones I know are damn fine people.) 

Last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors voted to put a measure on the next ballot (whenever that is) that would allow the Board of Education to increase their pay from $500 per month up to half the regular salary of a first-year teacher in San Francisco – or about $25,000 per year. Only Supervisors Carmen Chu, Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell voted “no.”

There are many, many problems with this proposal, but today let us discuss one issue conceded by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, “The timing of this is a bit funky.” (Never one to be afraid of funky town timing, Mirkarimi voted in favor of the measure.)

Voters are generally in no mood to give raises to anyone, especially people who ran for office knowing they would be paid $500 per month, but the real killer will be the other measures on the next ballot and the voters they will inspire.

The major measure to look out for is a tobacco tax proposal set to be voted on whenever the next statewide election is held, which optimists still believe will be June. The proposal would assess one dollar on every pack of cigarettes sold in California and use it to pay for cancer research. Tobacco companies have defeated similar measures 14 times, mostly by drowning the opposition in millions of dollars. (They spent $66 million on the last one.) Guess who big tobacco is going to mobilize to get out and vote? Hint: it ain't people who like giving money to government employees.

Incidentally, this is also bad news for Governor Jerry Brown’s tax-extending budget proposal.

But the tobacco measure isn’t the only one that will be a problem: the Students First initiative has gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot at the next local election. (November unless there is a statewide special election before that.) That measure is a policy statement that says students should be guaranteed a spot at a school near their home unless parents want to send their kids elsewhere. The whole thing is a Bronx Salute to the Board of Education’s current student placement “system” and it will attract voters who are angriest at the board.

Add to all this the fact there are no real makings of a campaign in favor of increasing the pay for Board of Education members, and you have a recipe for one big funky failure.

Pension action shifting location. (I hear they gave Hellman a fireman's hat! Fun!)

Today the Board of Supervisors will enter into closed session to review The City’s position on reforms to the pension and health care benefits of city employees. Attending the meeting will be Mayor Lee and members of his labor negotiations team.

Take note of this first of several meetings between Mayor Lee and the board, because this is officially where the real reform action is.

Unless a group wants to gather thousands of signatures, getting six votes at the board is the only way to put a Charter amendment on the ballot to change the system of retiree benefits. Whatever proposal the board endorses will be voted on in November.

But it may not be the only proposal for retiree reform before the voters. Once a proposal has six votes at the board, we’ll have to see whether Public Defender Jeff Adachi will be satisfied with it or if he’ll move forward to gather signatures for his own proposal. (He's got the money to do it.) We may be looking at two reform measures in November.

Then there is the council of union representatives commonly referred to as “the Hellman Group” – after Warren Hellman, its singular member who is a wealthy businessman. That group is slipping from relevance. Ostensibly, they are waiting on the Controller’s office to cost out the savings from several proposals. In reality, neither Mayor Lee nor the board is limited by the group’s ideas. Don’t let Lee’s lofty cooperative rhetoric fool you; he has been openly meeting with Adachi. Remember, his background is non-profit, not union. And I don’t doubt that he’d risk angering unions to prevent cuts to city services.

Warren Hellman is also primed for defection from the group that bears his name. Hellman recently stated that we need to save $300-$400 million per year in pension costs, which is more than double the figure that would have been saved by last year’s Proposition B. The massive changes required to achieve that level of savings are not going to come from a group of union representatives. (Their little list of proposals so far proves as much.) Any anything less than lasting structural change is hardly befitting what Hellman likely sees as his legacy in San Francisco.

For these reasons, the Hellman group seems weakened and the main players in the retiree reform debate are now the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor and Jeff Adachi. If all three can agree on one proposal, I doubt any amount of union spending could defeat it in November.

I just moved to SOMA where taxis apparently don't exist, so yes, I'm bitter...

“We all know that calling a taxicab dispatch is about as effective as calling Muni to pick you up,” said David Chiu in a rare moment of candor and gumption at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. I nearly dropped my Red Bull in a rush to applaud his insult to both Muni and taxi service.

Chiu was actually chastising the taxi industry just as the board was about to pass legislation – a law that Chiu sponsored – that would help the Metropolitan Transportation Agency crack down on illegal cabs and limousines. The new law would actually help registered cab drivers, but the moment was far from a love-fest as Chiu acknowledged that illegal cabs are the result of a dysfunctional legal cab system.

Supervisor Wiener then proposed an amendment that stripped out severe penalties for illegal taxis because, “the only reason why these unpermitted cabs exist and flourish is because of the inadequacies in our system - to come down with very, very heavy penalties does not make sense from a policy perspective.”

He also added a provision that requires the MTA to report to the board every quarter with actual evidence that the agency is working on the problem of abysmal taxi service in our fair city. Wiener’s amendments passed unanimously. His resolution asking the agency to issue additional taxicab permits for use during peak-hours is up for a vote today.

I asked Wiener whether he’s worried that taking on the taxi industry will get him blacklisted from service. His response? “Well, since I usually can't get a cab anyway, that wouldn't be a particularly effective weapon.”

Countdown to the November Ballot...

July 6 is the deadline to submit signatures to get initiatives on the November ballot. The number of valid signatures required varies depending on whether the proposal is an ordinance or a City Charter amendment. There are three signature-led ballot measures in circulation:

• “Why Tuesday?” is an ordinance that would add a day of polling on Saturday for the November 2011 election. The extra day would be privately funded — though publicly administered — and hopefully go on to be a model for other places, ultimately leading away from (dumb) Tuesday voting. The initiative is the brainchild of Alex Tourk, whose last idea — Project Homeless Connect — was just hailed by President Barack Obama as a model for the new national Opening Doors program. Tourk tells me that they have more than enough signatures and are hopeful that the Department of Elections will approve it for the ballot.

• “Fix Muni Now” is the charter amendment that would end the guaranteed pay and benefits that Muni operators enjoy. In light of the operators’ recent refusal to make labor concessions, people are signing the petition for this with flourish, in big letters, and in red ink — the same color as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s bloody financial statements. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who is collecting the signatures, said, “We remain optimistic and hope to qualify, assuming we have a strong volunteer weekend.”

• “SMART Pension Reform” is the charter amendment backed by Public Defender Jeff Adachi that would substantially reduce The City’s current and future pension obligations. Needless to say, this has lots of union members and supporters up in arms. Recently filed financial statements show two large contributions of $75,000 each from novelist Harriet Heyman and investment banker Michael Moritz, a married couple who each contributed to Matt Gonzales for Mayor in 2003. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Signature drives are still in full swing for all three initiatives, so if you want to sign, do it soon!

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

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!

Hearing on Laura's Law Will Probably be the First of Several

Per the request of Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier on Monday, the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee held a hearing on whether San Francisco should adopt a law that would allow courts to order treatment for mentally ill persons before they become dangerous.

Under existing law, if a person is gravely disabled or a threat to oneself or others, they can be forcibly detained under Section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Anything less than such a threat, and treatment for mental illness is voluntary. The problem here is obvious: Mentally ill people don’t generally become dangerous or disabled overnight. When the ill person refuses treatment, heartbroken spouses and parents watch helplessly as their loved ones embark on a decline that is usually stopped by death, prison or — at best — a temporary 5150 detention.

In an effort to give counties a way to order the mentally ill into treatment before they harm themselves or others, the California Legislature enacted Laura’s Law in 2002 — named after a behavioral health care clinic worker who was among three shot and killed by a man who was mentally ill. (That's her in the picture.)

According to the legislative analyst’s report, Laura’s Law allows a court to order a person into an assisted outpatient treatment program “if the person has a psychotic disorder or other severe mental illness and has been offered but failed to engage in treatment, is substantially deteriorating, and outpatient treatment would be the least-restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person’s recovery and stability.” The law also has a bunch of requirements that programs and facilities be available.

At the hearing Monday, Public Health Department Director Mitch Katz pointed out that Laura’s Law does not mandate drug treatment — there still has to be a special court order for forcible medication. (Section 5348(1)(5)(c).) Still, according to other speakers, just getting the person into the system and having them meet with treatment providers often results in a voluntary agreement to take proper medication.

Of course, Laura’s Law is not a mandate. Counties have to opt-in to the program, and so far we have not. That may be about to change. According to statistics presented by Alioto-Pier and others at the hearing, treating mental illness early is cheaper than jail, emergency room visits and homeless shelters. For a City facing dire financial straits, avoiding Laura’s Law is starting to look ... well, crazy.

Sausage and legislation...

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board considered whether to release bond money to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to fund the Hetch Hetchy rebuild, which was approved by voters who supported Proposition A in 2002. Here’s my interpretation of the debate (these are not quotes):

Supervisor David Campos: I move to delay this vote until the commission stops dragging its feet on community choice aggregation. [Note: Aggregation will allow The City to sell energy to residents.] This is an emergency because we need to have a deal in place before Prop. 16 gets voted on in June. [Note: That proposition — backed by PG&E — would make aggregation harder to implement.] Aggregation should be the commission’s No. 1 priority.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd: Actually, the voters have said that the Hetch Hetchy rebuild is the commission’s No. 1 priority and have never voted to endorse aggregation. You want to hold up a water bond because of something unrelated? That’s messed up!

Supervisor John Avalos: I’m all for aggregation, but this is not the right way to do business.

Supervisor Chris Daly: Hello? This is how we exert power at the board. When someone needs a vote from us, we use it to get what we want. We are not a rubber stamp. Voters didn’t elect aggregation, but they did elect a whole bunch of supervisors who are in favor of it.

SFPUC chief Ed Harrington: We are working every day on the aggregation plan and you’re actually considering using the health of our water system as a hostage? Are you people serious?! I’m flabbergasted! [He actually used the term "flabbergasted" twice.]

Ultimately, the board narrowly voted down Campos’ proposed delay then unanimously elected to release the bond money, but as The Muppets song goes, “Getting there is half the fun.”

Lord knows we can't have political opposition...

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions and groups of individuals can spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates — as long as they do it independently of politicians’ campaigns. The decision in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, doesn’t affect San Francisco election laws directly because we don’t have a limit on the amount groups can give to noncandidate causes.

We do have something almost as fun: a law banning corporations from donating to candidates unless they set up a special fund for political purposes. (Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sec. 1.114.) The law does not apply to unions. And that distinction is the problem.

According to Legislative Digest, at the time the law was passed in 2006, its purpose was to protect shareholders who might not know what the corporation is contributing to. Unions are exempt because union members can opt out of having dues used for political purposes. However, the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case basically said that “protecting shareholders” is a dumb argument and you can’t base a rule limiting contributions on that reasoning because it applies to companies with only one shareholder, who would obviously know what’s going on. (BIG pdf of decision here: Download Citizens-opinion.)

This law, then, is ripe for the plucking if someone wanted to challenge it.

Will they? Well, all contributions to candidates in San Francisco are limited to $500, so it’s unlikely that the business community would fight too hard to contribute such a small amount. (See sec. 1.114 above.)

At the hearing on this law before the Ethics Commission, David Owen, legislative aide to former Supervisor Aaron Peskin (the measure’s sponsor), reportedly said, “The decision to exempt unions from the ban and to focus instead on corporations was a deliberate policy choice.” You see, “applying the ban to unions could create political opposition.”