A miffed Supervisor Sophie Maxwell responds to Supervisor Chris Daly’s suggestion
that she “flipped” her vote against an appropriation ordinance following a meeting
with Newsom Chief of Staff Steve Kawa.
Photos by Luke Thomas
By Luke Thomas
November 13, 2009
Heated words were exchanged Tuesday between Supervisors Chris Daly and Sophie Maxwell during the weekly Board of Supervisors meeting, Fog City Journal has learned.
The quarrel ensued when Maxwell cast the deciding vote to effectively torpedo a $7 million public health salary appropriation, a general fund budget transfer item requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage on the eleven member Board.
Budget Chair John Avalos, who helped broker an FY 2009/10 budget deal with Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board, said new revenue from state and federal sources made it possible to modify the budget agreement to prevent an additional 320 layoffs in the Department of Public Health, despite a citywide projected $350 million budget shortfall in the current fiscal year that began July 1.
Supervisor John Avalos
As expected, Newsom-appointed Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, voted against the appropriation. An animated Elsbernd said the expectation of new revenue sources was “speculative” and said the appropriation move is a potential “budget deal breaker.”
“This is a proposal to spend money we don’t have,” Elsbernd intoned. “These layoffs are inevitable.”
Supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Chris Daly.
Supervisor David Campos responded saying the appropriation would restore “equity” among minorities who, he said, have been disproportionately impacted by the FY 2009/10 budget cuts. He said 96 percent of termination notices were sent to people of color, 80 percent were women.
“Is this the kind of city we want to be? Are those the kind of choices we want to make?” Campos asked.
Supervisor David Campos
But it was Supervisor Maxwell’s dissenting vote that caught Daly’s attention and his rebuke.
Here’s the exchange, according to Daly, (forwarded via email Wednesday):
I said, “So Steve Kawa flipped your vote.” She said, “What?” I said, “Weren’t you just meeting with Kawa before the meeting?” She said, “I don’t have to answer that question.” I said, “I’ll take that as a yes.” Then she got out of her seat and approached me and said something about me being disrespectful to imply that a black women needed a white man to tell her what to do. I responded, “Well, that is what happened, isn’t it?”
When asked what was said between Daly and Maxwell, Maxwell told FCJ following the vote:Â “That conversation was between me and Supervisor Daly.” Maxwell has not responded to additional requests for comment, or to confirm Daly’s version of the exchange.
Though the appropriation failed to pass, a motion requiring eight votes to send the item back to committee did pass. Supervisor Maxwell supported the motion.
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
November 19, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Hey Arthur and Marc,
Don’t you get sick of each other?
November 17, 2009 at 10:43 am
A note of thanks to Robert Haaland for his fine posts in this thread. Although I disagree with some of his points, he has appealed to facts and logic and avoided ad hominem diversions.
Robert’s approach in this thread is one of rationality, which is always welcome in both politics and life.
Everybody wins when people act rationally.
November 16, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Arthur Evans: I say, Send all the ideologues to the same room in Hell!
First Rush, now Jesus H. Christ: Physician, heal thyself!
Ad hominem means that I argue against your position because since you are “bad,” then your position is “bad.”
Here you would make the case to distinguish yourself from your opponents in argument, an effort curiously exempt from the standards you would enforce on others, yet upon cursory analysis, that case falls apart.
-marc
November 16, 2009 at 1:58 pm
In a post above, marc says:
“All Arthur is doing here is shoehorning what he observes into his preferred slanted framing in a flagging effort to gain political advantage, all while sanctimoniously claiming to be above ideology, the mark of a true ideologue.”
Guess what? Arthur is not the topic of this thread.
The effort to shift attention away from topics to other people, and then dump on them, is what is known as an ad hominem argument.
Ad hominem arguments are a characteristic of ideology, not rationality.
November 16, 2009 at 7:04 am
If done correctly, most all ideologies allow the true believer to wrap themselves in a wholly consistent cloak of rationality. Do any ideologies intentionally expose their irrational aspects? Perhaps contemporary right wing conservativism comes closest, which simply doubles down on hypocrisy when confronted with contradiction.
We can see that all things being equal, people are running for the exits, stage right wing. The only thing that might rescue right wing conservativism is when, not if, but when the Democrats fuck it up again, like when they throw their values out the window and allow their government to kick the pro choice movement in the gut while providing socialism for lucrative health insurance companies which is coerced out of the pockets of average folks.
Arthur is confusing values and ideology here. Values should remain constant and pragmatism means settling for the best bargain one can get when values need to be compromised. Prioritizing values over the rigid progressive dogma of the dogmatic progressive sect also lowers the bar to walking away from a deal when it does violence to too many or too important values.
All Arthur is doing here is shoehorning what he observes into his preferred slanted framing in a flagging effort to gain political advantage, all while sanctimoniously claiming to be above ideology, the mark of a true ideologue.
-marc
November 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
In a post above, marc says:
“So-called lack of ideology is an ideology itself.”
There’s a difference between rationality and ideology.
The former welcomes facts that don’t fit its assumptions, and adjusts the assumptions accordingly, to fit the facts. It honors those who dig up the facts that can’t be accounted for under existing assumptions. At its most consistent, it is called science.
The latter tries to force the facts into pre-existing assumptions. It attacks the character and lives of those who bring up the facts that don’t fit. It is a characteristic of sects.
Rationality may not save the human race, but it has a better chance than ideology.
November 15, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Arthur Evans: I say, Send all the ideologues to the same room in Hell!
Let s/he without ideology cast the first stone about ideological bias.
To quote the rock band Rush, whom I’ve long despised but heard on the road this past week, who was inspired by Ayn Rand to write in a song “Free Will:” “If you choose not to decide/You still have made a choice!”
So-called lack of ideology is an ideology itself.
-marc
November 15, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Thanks to all who are contributing to this conversation. Some responses follow.
* * * * *
Robert,
You say:
“I’m not sure that it is useful at this point to ask the Supervisor as a woman of color to support the workers.â€
Why not just make rational arguments to all, and let the chips fall where they may?
You say:
“we feel that the impact has been disproportionate.â€
There is bloat and overstaffing throughout the city’s huge bureaucracy. In finding fault, some point to high management. Others point to those at the bottom. There needs to be a pruning throughout.
You say:
“We realize that there will be layoffs, but would suggest that the layoffs be proportional across the board.â€
Agreed!
You say:
“The Board should tell the Mayor’s office to go back to the drawing board and tell the Mayor to come back with a new plan for lay-offs.â€
In effect, that is what has happened. Amid all the drama over the last supes’ meeting, many folks have overlooked the fact that the supes voted to send the whole matter back to committee for reconsideration.
Sophie Maxwell, by the way, voted for the recommital.
You say:
“At the end of the fiscal year, last June, DPH had a surplus of 43 million dollars, 8 million was unanticipated, meaning they were surprised that the money was there!â€
The problem is what lies ahead. The global depression has been slow to impact SF. But the dollars will hit the fan next year. It could be a very grim situation for the city. Sensible people should be very worried.
You say:
“we have made two solid arguments that the City really hasn’t been able to refute. One that the lay-offs are disproportionate, and two, that DPH has the money to stave off these lay-offs.â€
The first argument is sound. The second argument has its head in the sand about the economic tornado heading for SF.
You say:
“The Board could say, ‘Look, we need to do lay-offs, but these are disproportionate. Unless you can find other revenue, we need to go back to the drawing board and redo them so that they are proportionate.’â€
In fact, that’s what happened, with Sophie Maxwell’s support, as noted above.
* * * * *
marc,
You say:
“So long as Potrero Hill is allowed to choose the supervisor from D10, we’ll continue to see the kind of disappointing disconnect between City Hall and most of D10 which has characterized Maxwell’s tenure.â€
And who drew up the boundary lines for the districts we now have? The progressives, led by Gwenn Craig of the Milk Club.
You say:
“Perhaps these disciples of Ayn Rand would prefer that we revert to an urban world prior to the advent of public health.â€
That’s right. Anybody who questions any of your dogmas is a right-winger.
You remind me of ideologues in the religious right who accuse anyone of not buying their dogmas of being a pinko or a commie.
I say, Send all the ideologues to the same room in Hell!
You say:
“a good chunk of our local Democrat Party, including Newsom, would be center right Republicans if it were not political suicide to do so.â€
See what I mean!
You say:
“It is incumbent upon labor and progressive supervisors to pass their own budget that represents San Francisco values.â€
I have often heard you complain about the values of San Franciscans after election-day results have come in!
You say:
“But the power of the purse is in progressive hands, and we’ve got to use it or lose it.â€
Aren’t you forgetting about “We the People�
* * * * *
Rob,
You say:
“One big fat chicken heading for the roost in years to come: the extravagant pay and retirement packages for city employees.â€
Yep, that’s the fat that is smothering a city.
* * * * *
Greg,
You say:
“it makes more sense to affect the highest paid employees first.â€
The sensible thing is to eliminate bloat and duplication throughout the entire system.
You say:
“And suddenly Sophie Maxwell is joining them.â€
You forget that Maxwell voted to send the matter back to committee for reconsideration. This vote is consistent with Robert Haaland’s plea that the entire matter be reconsidered.
November 15, 2009 at 10:55 am
“Isn’t that better than laying off hundreds of people and depriving them of 100% of their incomes?”
Either way, it makes more sense to affect the highest paid employees first. If you have to lay off, one 150K employee can save the jobs of 3 50K employees. If you have to cut 10% of a salary, cutting 10% of 150K saves 3 50K employees from having their salaries cut. But it sounds like these layoffs may not have to happen at all. That’s what most of the BOS is trying to find a way to. Except that Elsbernd and his ilk are trying their darndest to make sure that the layoffs happen no matter what. That’s ugly enough.
And suddenly Sophie Maxwell is joining them. Aren’t you curious why? I mean, if Steve Kawa gave her some legitimate reason, it might even bolster your case. OTOH, if there was something corrupt or less than aboveboard, that would certainly be a reason to refuse to answer questions. Her silence speaks volumes. She should end the speculation and divulge the substance of the conversation she had with Mr. Kawa prior to flipping her vote.
Forget moderate vs. progressive. Forget personalities. That last point is really something so basic that any fair-minded person should be able to agree on.
November 15, 2009 at 9:48 am
Sophie Maxwell was just one of several supes who voted as she did on this issue. Yet all the wrath of people who disagree with that vote has been dumped on Maxwell. Also, she is the only person who has become the target of race-specific comments.
This looks like racist scapegoating to me.
And in the name of progressive politics!
I’m not surprised, by the way. In recent years, I’ve seen numerous examples of racism, anti-feminism, age-ism, homophobia, and anti-intellectualism on the part of San Franciscans who boast of being progressive.
At the same time, the label “progressive” is now commonly used as a meal ticket to promote the careers of political hacks.
It’s time to reform the reformers.
November 15, 2009 at 9:46 am
The intellectual bankruptcy of SF progressivism is encapsulated neatly in the “wealthy white corporate power structure” phrase, as if our leaders are either stooges for corporate interests of for The People. Not to mention playing the race card when it’s completely irrelevant. The chickens are coming home to roost here in Progressive Land, as our political leadership comes to grip with the reality that San Francisco can’t afford to pay for all of its programs. One big fat chicken heading for the roost in years to come: the extravagant pay and retirement packages for city employees. We can’t blame workers and unions for getting whatever they can get at the bargaining table, but economic reality will eventually trump what’s economically and politically unsustainable.
November 15, 2009 at 9:28 am
So long as Potrero Hill is allowed to choose the supervisor from D10, we’ll continue to see the kind of disappointing disconnect between City Hall and most of D10 which has characterized Maxwell’s tenure.
Perhaps the Republican mantra that “we have a spending problem not a revenue problem” plays in the red parts of California, but the recent election reveals that the Bay Area is amenable to raising revenue during an economic downturn to ensure that the baseline level of government services is preserved.
The irony is not lost on San Franciscans that those who whine incessantly about the filth crisis, about drunks, druggies and the mentally ill, are the same ones who whine about labor and revenue that finances salaries of public health care workers which addresses those crises. Perhaps these disciples of Ayn Rand would prefer that we revert to an urban world prior to the advent of public health.
Gavin Newsom, of course, the guy who treated all queers like Alex Tourke and brought us Prop 8 for his own immediate political gratification, threw San Franciscans under the bus by refusing to go to the voters for revenue in order to provide lift to his crashing campaign for governor.
For all of San Francisco’s liberal pretensions, a good chunk of our local Democrat Party, including Newsom, would be center right Republicans if it were not political suicide to do so.
Blaming your opponent for your loss gets you nowhere, whether in Maine or in San Francisco. It is incumbent upon labor and progressive supervisors to pass their own budget that represents San Francisco values. That does not happen for a variety of reasons. But the power of the purse is in progressive hands, and we’ve got to use it or lose it.
-marc
November 15, 2009 at 8:56 am
I love this! A white man telling a black woman she is a pawn of another white man for not voting along with this white man. Good call, Chris.
November 15, 2009 at 8:49 am
Hi all,
On the left, we believe, erroneously, that identity politics should guide votes, and more often than not, feel betrayed when they don’t.
I learned this lessen in part during the Affirmative Action debate when I was doing student organizing in the UC system in the mid 90s, and felt frustrated by Ward Connerly’s advocacy to repeal Affirmative Action.
I’m not sure that it is useful at this point to ask the Supervisor as a woman of color to support the workers.
As Nelson Mendela once said, and I ask you to insert woman into his quote, “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.”
It’s fair to say Supervisor Maxwell has repeatedly said that her heart is with the workers, but that she has concerns about the financial implications.
To this point I would make two arguments. It’s fair to suggest that there are more, but in order to be concise, I will make two.
Let’s again assume that the budget is under duress. We all agree on that point. If that’s true, how can SEIU argue to any Supervisor that these layoffs should be stopped.
1) These layoffs are disproportionate:
The City has chosen to lay off 83% frontline workers over the last three years, while the frontline workers are only 50% of the workers. This while there has been a 50% growth in management during the Newsom administration according to a controller’s report last year. To be fair, they argue that it is mostly people being reclassified. In short, Local 21, mid-management types, being promoted to MEA, higher management positions, which means significant raises. So while they are telling people at the bottom that they should take wage cuts, people who have already taken a 3% wage cut, that the should take more wage cuts, literally up to a 25% wage cut, and they are telling others, that they should not have a job at all, they have not layed off Management, and have in fact, consistently raised their wages in huge numbers. MEA has gone from being about a little over 700 positions to over nearly 1200 positions over the last six years.
So, in short, we feel that the impact has been disproportionate. For those who look at disproportionate impact on categories of race and gender, the impact is obvious. Clearly this isn’t intentional discrimination. This is disproportionate impact, or as is referred in legal theory, non-motivational race discrimination.
We realize that there will be layoffs, but would suggest that the layoffs be proportional across the board.
So what is the remedy? The Board should tell the Mayor’s office to go back to the drawing board and tell the Mayor to come back with a new plan for lay-offs. One that is fair and proportionate.
2) the Department of Public Health has, or will have the money to offset these layoffs.
In this round of layoffs, the layoffs are all in the Department of Public Health, literally over 90%. They are causing bumping that is causing chaos across the city.
(By that, I mean, if a clerical worker who works for the City has more seniority, he or she will “bump” someone who has less seniority. We see that as job protection. There is an argument for it. Say you have worked for the city for 20 years, and in another Department, there is someone who has worked for a year. That person is the person who is actually loses their job.)
So you say, how does DPH have the money? Two ways:
1) At the end of the fiscal year, last June, DPH had a surplus of 43 million dollars, 8 million was unanticipated, meaning they were surprised that the money was there! That is more than enough to save these jobs. To be fair, the City would argue that they need that surplus to fill in other areas. The money flows back to the General Fund, and back-fills for other Departments that have problems, like Police and Fire where significant over-time problems are leaving them in higher than expected deficits. But still, we are only asking for the 7 million of the 43 million surplus. We aren’t asking for all of it.
2) We have identified another source of revenue that the City didn’t know about. AB 1383, legislation passed by Assemblymember Dave Jones, will bring in 34 million dollars in the next two years. Essentially, it is Federal Stimulus money that the State had to apply for through legislation. It isn’t State money, it’s Federal money. The money will go to DPH, because it is a hospital provider fee, specifically to SF General.
To be fair, the City is saying that the money isn’t in hand now. But from our perspective, the members gave back 38 million dollars last June with the expectation that the City would find new revenue to save these jobs. It was part of our tentative agreement. Let’ just say that we had put a hotel tax on the ballot. The truth is that we wouldn’t have seen the money for months. So even if the City had passed revenue, we wouldn’t have had cash on hand. In short, the City would have had to front-end the money even if revenue had passed at the ballot, as per our tentative agreement with the City.
So we have identified two sources of “unanticipated” revenue. Even when we find the money, they seem to feel that they have to go ahead anyway.
From our perspective we have made two solid arguments that the City really hasn’t been able to refute. One that the lay-offs are disproportionate, and two, that DPH has the money to stave off these lay-offs.
Both of these arguments address the concerns that Supervisor Maxwell have, and hopefully, as Mandela said, speak the language that she seems to be speaking in the moment.
The Board could say, “Look, we need to do lay-offs, but these are disproportionate. Unless you can find other revenue, we need to go back to the drawing board and redo them so that they are proportionate.”
If you have made it this far in reading my comment, thank you. I know it’s a lot, so it’s much appreciated.
All the best,
Robert
November 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Don’t mean to answer for my neighbor Pat, but, there’s never been any question as to where Sean Elsbernd’s loyalties lie.
November 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Some questions for Patrick and Greg –
* * * *
Patrick,
You say:
“Like the minstrels of old, she [Sophie Maxwell] is a parody, the black-face is only skin deep.”
I notice that you didn’t make any race-specific comments about the other supe who supported the measure, Sean Elsbernd.
Isn’t your comment about Maxwell racist?
* * * * *
Greg,
You say:
“A standard percentage cut is no more fair than a standard percentage flat tax for everyone. That’s because when you cut 10% from the salary of someone making $50,000 per year, the pain is much greater than when you cut 10% from the salary of someone making $150,000 per year.”
Isn’t that better than laying off hundreds of people and depriving them of 100% of their incomes?
November 14, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I’m about to e-mail this to an Black writer, Kevin Alexander Gray, author of “Waiting for Lightning to Strike: The Fundamentals of Black Politics,” http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/waitingforlightningtostrikeakpress He’s trying to finish another, “The Decline of Black Politics, from Malcolm X to Barack Obama.”
I told him about Sophie Maxwell on the evening of Tuesday’s vote and sent him a couple links, to which he said, “Oh shit, now I’m gonna be thinkin’ about Sophie Maxwell all night.” Now I’ll send him this.
November 14, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I posted the above before I saw Robert’s response -wow, it’s even worse, even more inequitable than I thought. It’s just disgusting that Elsbernd is fighting to make sure these layoffs happen, and Sophie Maxwell has no business casting her lot with that crowd.
November 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm
1. I’m a taxpayer, and I recognize the value of having public health employees. I don’t WANT the kind of “relief” Arthur is talking about, because that kind of relief is no relief at all. It hurts people- not just the union members, but poor and working class people who depend on city services. It’s penny-wise and pound foolish, and I think most taxpayers in San Francisco understand that.
2.A standard percentage cut is no more fair than a standard percentage flat tax for everyone. That’s because when you cut 10% from the salary of someone making $50,000 per year, the pain is much greater than when you cut 10% from the salary of someone making $150,000 per year. The first person has far less DISPOSABLE income than the second. AND, if you want to save more money for “da taxpayers,” you’d be much better off cutting a higher percentage from the high wage earners.
November 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm
It should come as no surprise that Auntie Tomasophenia was the deciding vote to lay of primarily low income minority women. The majority of positions she has taken during her miserable elected career have been in support of the wealthy white corporate power structure and in opposition to the long term best interests of those she has failed to protect and represent.
Like Newsom she has been quick to take credit and grab headlines for positive outcomes which came about as a result of years of hard work by others, for example the power plant closure. Her meeting with Kawa was probably a not too subtle reminder that if she didn’t keep kowtowing to massa she might jeapordize the paybacks she will soon be in line for in recognition of her years of subservience and sell outs.
Like the minstrels of old, she is a parody, the black-face is only skin deep.
In her case the apple fell a long, long way from the tree.
November 14, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Two brief comments, one to Robert and one to Greg –
* * * * *
Robert,
Thank you for the articulate and informative post above.
Based on the info you have provided, I would say there has been a systematic failure of leadership at City Hall in dealing with this matter, on the part of both the mayor and the supes. The result of this failure is unfair consequences for many.
From the start, there should have been a standard, across-the-board, percentage cut in the wages of all city employees, from the highest paid to the lowest.
I don’t see why this solution still can’t be implemented. All it takes is some leadership and intelligence at City Hall.
* * * * * *
Greg,
In your post above, you say we should focus on the substantive issue of this thread. Then you devote the rest of the same post to discussing the styles of six supervisors.
Isn’t that a contradiction?
November 14, 2009 at 11:17 am
Thanks for the responses.
There are many unions in the city, and each union has a separate contract with the city. Our union, while giving back the most, got hit the hardest. Let me draw your attention to a graph that outlines how much each union gave back and how many layoffs each union gave.
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2009/11/which_union_got_hit_hardest.html
What is interesting is the MEA, the Municipal Executive Association. They gave back only 1.5% of their wages. They are by far the highest paid workers in the City, sometimes making over $150,000 a year, three times the amount that our members who are being hit make.
Our members gave back twice what they gave, over 3%.
They sustained only 25 layoffs while we 1085 layoffs over the last three years.
What you are suggesting is the direct inverse of what it happening.
Our members know there is a crisis and gave back $38 million dollars to the City, while some unions did not give back at all.
Again, assuming that there will be layoffs, why are 82% of the layoffs frontline SEIU workers?
If there had been a standard wage cut across the board, MEA and other unions would have given back 3% like we did.
If there had been a standard layoff percentage, we would only represent 50% of the layoffs.
Your argument is precisely the argument that I am suggesting. In short, we agree. 🙂
November 14, 2009 at 8:42 am
Chris Daly has a history of challenging those who disagree with him, with the implication always being that they are stupid or corrupt.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2005/05/chris-daly-punk-progressive.html
November 14, 2009 at 12:15 am
Thank you, Robert, for reminding us of the substantive issues at hand. Some responses.
You say:
“why target two classifications that by and large make less than $50,000 when there are over 8,000 workers who are making over $100,000?â€
Instead of laying anyone off, why not have a standard percentage cut of wages across the board for all city employees? That way, the larger the original salary, the larger the cut. Plus, nobody gets laid off.
Would the union support such a cut? If not, why not?
You say:
“Why target two classifications that according to the Department of Public Health are 79% women, and 96% minorities?â€
Isn’t it true that the taxpayers, who pay the salaries of city employees, include a significant percentage of women and minorities?
Shouldn’t the taxpayers get relief?
You say:
“If the City has to tighten it’s belt, shouldn’t it go for the biggest belts first?â€
That would happen with a standard percentage pay cut across the board, as noted above.
You say:
“while our union represents only 50% of the City Workers, we represent 80% of the layoffs. That doesn’t happen by accident.â€
The taxpayers represent 100% of the taxpayers. Wouldn’t it give a break to all the taxpayers to reduce by a certain percentage the salary of all city employees?
You say:
“That all being said, how could any Supervisor rubber stamp a plan like this?â€
Right. Why aren’t the supes pushing for a standard percentage cut across the board for all city employees? Why aren’t all the unions pushing for this solution?
November 13, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Robert is totally right, and thanks for steering the conversation back to the substantive issue.
We shouldn’t get too sidetracked talking about the Daly/Maxwell personality clash, because Daly is asking some very important questions. That’s what I like about the guy -he calls them as he sees them, and he’s not afraid to break the genteel veneer of collegiality when important issues are at stake. I’d like to see Maxwell answer some of those questions rather than getting defensive and hiding behind an air of righteous indignation. If she talked to Steve Kawa before flipping her vote, I think her constituents deserve to know what he said to her.
Too much emphasis is put on style. Contrast someone like Chris Daly, who can ruffle feathers, with someone like Elsbernd, who never raises his voice. But look at what they’re saying… Daly is tenaciously fighting to save people’s jobs, any which way he can. When I hear Elsbernd say “These layoffs are inevitable,” it’s as if he *wants* them to happen. He seems to be pleading to make sure they do happen, lest god forbid the city find some way to prevent them from happening.
What Newsom’s appointed supervisors Carmen Chu, Michaela Alioto Pier, and Sean Elsbernd are doing -in that civil and genteel manner of theirs -is hurting people.
And Maxwell… I think she should come clean about what she and Steve Kawa talked about. What did he tell her? What did he promise her? Whatever side of this we may be on, don’t we deserve all deserve to know?
November 13, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The 64 thousand dollar question:
Even if you assume that there needs to be layoffs, why target two classifications that by and large make less than $50,000 when there are over 8,000 workers who are making over $100,000?
Why target two classifications that according to the Department of Public Health are 79% women, and 96% minorities?
If the City has to tighten it’s belt, shouldn’t it go for the biggest belts first?
By percentage, our union gave back the most of any union in the City when some City unions never gave back at all. Even with that, while our union represents only 50% of the City Workers, we represent 80% of the layoffs. That doesn’t happen by accident.
That all being said, how could any Supervisor rubber stamp a plan like this? They should tell the Mayor in no uncertain terms to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan.
November 13, 2009 at 7:07 pm
In a post above, Greg Kamin says: “the self-styled moderates would be jumping all over Daly ‘bullying’ and whatever else.”
In December of 2008, during the jockeying that led up to the selection of the board prez, Ross Mirkarimi accused Chris Daly of “bullying.”
Is Ross Mirkarimi a “self-styled moderate.”
November 13, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Daly has a well documented history of “bullying”, and that is why it would be appropriate for self-styled moderated to jump on Daly. Maxwell does not.
November 13, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Maxwell looks positively menacing in that first photo. I realize that she’s probably not threatening anyone in reality, but had their positions been reversed, you just know the self-styled moderates would be jumping all over Daly “bullying” and whatever else.
November 13, 2009 at 1:42 am
It’s hard to feel there’s any hope for the city when you watch the politicians down there at City Hall.
Luckily, though, there are many people in San Francisco who are not politicians, their consultants, or their surrogates.
Otherwise, we’d all be totally screwed.