San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Photo by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
July 9, 2010
Supervisors usually allied with San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi are threatening cuts to his budget, a Fog City Journal inquiry has revealed.
The move is a retaliatory strike over Adachi’s pension and healthcare reform measure, SF Smart Reform, which aims to rein in unsustainable pension and healthcare costs projected to exceed $1 billion by 2016.
Labor leaders who say the measure will hurt low-income working families are vociferously opposed to the measure. Mayor Gavin Newsom has also expressed opposition to the measure.
According to Budget Committee Chair John Avalos, Supervisor Chris Daly is expected to make a motion at the Board’s July 20 meeting asking the Board to reverse a $1.2 million public defender budget restoration. That restoration, transferred from the trial court budget, was applied to help prevent outsourcing of more expensive indigent defense counsel.
“I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.
“I think what he’s (Adachi) doing, especially on the healthcare side, is very, very problematic,” Avalos explained. “It’s not typically what progressives stand for.”
If the SF Smart Reform measure qualifies for the November ballot and is passed by a simple majority of voters, city employees would be required to pay 50 percent of the cost to insure their dependents. It would also require city employees to contribute between 9 and 10 percent of their income towards their retirement pensions.
The measure would reduce next year’s projected $700 million deficit by $170 million, easing pressures to layoff city employees and make cuts to city services.
Asked what is the motivation behind the motion to cut Adachi’s budget, Supervisor Chris Daly told FCJ: “Even with the heroic work of John Avalos’s Budget Committee, there are important programs and vital services that have been cut. When we are cutting psychiatric beds and underfunding clean elections, no stone should be left unturned.”
Reached for comment, Adachi said, “It will be highly unusual to change the budget as passed by the budget committee.”
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
July 13, 2010 at 6:34 am
The last thing I want to do is pick a fight here today, but when I hear this “spoiler” argument, I wonder just what people are saying. That George Bush was worse than Al Gore would have been? Worse than John Kerry would have been? In what respect? Social issues? A woman’s right to choose and gay rights? Supreme Court? Those aren’t nothing by any means, so if that’s the argument, OK.
But with regard to the U.S.A.’s wars on the Global South, the Democrats have as much blood on their hands as the Republicans. Obama now has more troops overseas than George Bush, and Bill Clinton, quite arguably, has more blood on his hands than George Bush; most Americans just don’t know about it because it’s African blood, shed in covert wars waged by U.S. proxies, most of all Rwandan President Paul Kagame, the darling of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Hillary has been doing her best to watch Bill’s back, meaning his legacy, about this, but Kagame’s making it harder and harder. Today the Vice President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda went missing, and Rwandan Police arrested two more Rwandan journalists, one a reporter arrested for comparing Kagame to Hitler. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294583
This is just one more of a long string of stories I’ve been reporting all year: journalists arrested, political candidates arrested, Human Rights Watch expelled, American Law Professor Peter Erlinder arrested trying to defend a political candidate, journalist gunned down in Kigali, football coach arrested, assassination attempt on exile Rwandan general in Johannesburg, more journalists and politicians arrested and disappeared. . . most every day now, as Rwanda’s August 9th presidential election approaches.
The death toll is between 7 and 10 million, depending on when and where you start counting, in Uganda, Rwanda, or Congo, yet Bill Clinton presented Paul Kagame with a Global Citizenship Award last November, just before Rev. Rick Warren presented him with the same International Medal of P.E.A.C.E. he had presented to George Bush a year earlier. And you can count on Rev. Rick Warren to try pinning that same P.E.A.C.E. award on Obama soon too.
In his final stump speech in 2004, John Kerry said, “Iraq is important to all the world, and we are going to share the prize.”
So, could anyone talking about “spoilers” in presidential or other elections please just be a little more specific about what’s being spoiled, not assume we all know and agree?
Also, with regard to those social issues that the Dems are assumed to be better on, including gay rights: though they are better domestically, the Dems have a big problem most people don’t understand here too:
Reverend Rick Warren twisted George Bush’s arm to fund PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, with 13 focus countries in Africa, plus Haiti and Vietnam, at $15 billion, then joined other principals on the fanatical Christian Right to hijack it in service to abstinence-only-until-heterosexual-married-monogamy-for-life. Last July, despite all the reports from Human Rights Watch and the responsible community of reproductive health professionals and activists saying that PEPFAR has been a disaster in Africa, Obama and the Dems refunded it for $50 billion, three times the original $ figure.
.
July 12, 2010 at 9:12 am
h., actions have consequences. Supporting Nader at the time seemed right and I’ve got no regrets about doing what seemed right. Having learned the consequences of our actions as demonstrated by eventualities that unfolded, many of us reassessed and changed our political position for future elections.
Others continued to believe that spoiling was the way to go. I am made to own the consequences of every word I write, every word I speak. The standard should be no different for everyone else. Continuing to support spoiling given this record means that one is in denial of political history, of the realities of political perception amongst the voters, and is not taking responsibility for the predictable consequences of one’s actions.
Gonzalez is still upset that I exposed the fact that he was urged to join the Green Party in 2000 at the behest of ISO cadre and Carlos Petroni at the “Socialism 2000” conference. True to form, the ISO cadre and associated sectarian leftists tried to take over the Green Party, amplified by the resources of a millionaire speculator, and when unable to do so, sewed divisiveness until it crumbled from within at the federal and state levels.
What’s slanderous here is using political capital invested by progressives to push reactionary and regressive measures like this initiative which are now financed by a billionaire speculator. My efforts in this respect are to drain those accounts of capital to eliminate progressive political cover from this project if the principals refuse to debate and discuss the issues they raise in public.
Agreed, if the Board approves these MOU extensions, they’re driving nails into their own political coffins.
-marc
July 12, 2010 at 7:51 am
Listen up,
Tomorrow, the Full Board will hear Items #38 thru #45 which will extend the MOU’s of the Firefighters and Cops and a number of other unions for two years (thru June 30th 2013). Do you know what that means?
It means that while everyone agrees that the most outrageous contracts negotiated by City unions will remain closed to adjustment for another 2 years.
Folks, other than the Mayor declaring a state of emergency (never gonna happen) or the BOS doing so by unanimous vote (ditto), the only way you can change these disastrous MOU’s is when they are being re-negotiated. What’s before the Board tomorrow is putting off re-negotiating these things for another 2 years.
Any member of the BOS who votes in favor of Items 38-45 tomorrow is not a Progressive. Don’t complain to me about the too-good deal the cops and firefighters and the others have if you don’t scream loudly now about these items
Marc, when you say “spoiling” Gonzo, does that mean the same as ‘slandering’? You surely can’t believe he’s in favor of Bush’s wars.
Go Gigantes!
h.
July 11, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It’s not just the Green Party; it’s also the DCCC Democrats who are “spoiled” in the mind of city voters, since important prog political initiatives, like public power and the legalization of prostitution, have already been rejected. If the Bicycle Plan every got on the ballot, it would be rejected, too, as would the transit corridors, dense development baloney—40-story highrises at Market and Van Ness! City voters are now about to reject the practice of giving the unions a blank check on the city treasury.
What do the progs have left? Maybe Judge Busch will let the city implement the Bicycle Plan, jamming up traffic on Second Street, Fifth Street, and Cesar Chavez, along with eliminating more than 2,000 parking places from city streets. That will put the city’s left in solid with the more than 90% of the voters who don’t ride bicycles.
July 11, 2010 at 7:51 pm
It should go without saying that if you are a Demogreen if you oppose spoiling Gonzalez while he’s helping Adachi price kids out of health care financed by the speculator who likes Max Baucus and the corporate health insurance mandate.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm
According to Matt Gonzalez’ espoused standards whenever someone carries reactionary political values that Matt Gonzalez is carrying now, that individual is to be spoiled politically.
Although spoiling might be painful in the short run, the pain is worth it in the long run because it discourages politicians from taking the easy road and money by pushing corporate values.
We should take solace in the fact that spoiling Gonzalez hurts feelings alone, while spoiling at higher levels plays for much higher and more consequential stakes.
Look around you, man, Green Party is a drying out husk for reasons described above. Quit deluding yourself as to the very real consequences of the actions of individuals over the past decade as if they did not happen.
There are no “do overs” in electoral politics. It is quite possible that the Green Party was frittered away, that it has lost its moment and that was it. Absent “do overs” it is important to play for keeps.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Matt has a track record and a record of integrity and rational analyses on the road forward. He has demonstrated, time and again, his independence from the Democratic Party.
The road forward for Greens is to engage our registered voters in this debate and stop relying on the heavy-handed tactics of “experts”, like marc, who have a compulsive need to control every decision made.
The Green Party is an opposition party and not a governing coalition member anymore. As such we need to address our own constituents and rebuild our own base.
This proposition is worthy of support and substantive in its willingness to address budget issues with integrity and shared sacrifices. Future focus means we need to look to each other and work together and decide for ourselves how we can move forward.
July 11, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@Erika, vicious policies reflect poorly on allies. Words are cheap. Many San Francisco progressives are outraged with Gonzalez and are distancing themselves from him and Adachi. We are all going to have to deal with the fact that we staked our reputations on urging folks to support Gonzalez, credibility which is shot once Gonzalez goes all DLC on us.
Gonzalez credibility is shot, he and Camejo took the Green Party down with them because their concern was never with advancing Green values, rather with opportunistically using a convenient vehicle which others built which could be used in their assaults on the Democrat Party.
Spoiling for the sake of spoiling has real consequences which were framed onto all Greens quite successfully, yet which have instigated no motion in our desired direction. Non duopolists are no more likely to win seats or even run competitive now than back then. And it is not because of lack of IRV for federal and state offices.
Until Greens can work their way out of that framing, it sticks. Until Greens can nurture candidates who are not wiped out in the tsunamis resulting from the professional third partiers launching quixotic crusades against the Democrats, we will not get off of first base. That is all made more difficult when prominent “third partiers” (he’s not a Green anymore) like Gonzalez abruptly change polarities on policies that should be decisively informed by consensus progressive values.
Not satisfied with the damage he’s done to the Green Party, Gonzalez seems determined to do the same thing to the San Francisco progressive coalition. Either we challenge Gonzalez on this or are complicit in that project. Either the Green Value of “Personal and Global Responsibility” have significance in this case or it is just another empty slogan.
Democrats are sitting by idly after Obama dispatched with his electoral coalition in favor of the same old governing coalition. I’m not prepared to sit by silently while Adachi and Gonzalez fuck their previous coalitions in favor of the same old governing coalition except with more labor bashing added in for extended right wing reach.
@h, nobody would hire me five years ago, they won’t hire me now. Nothing has changed but Adachi and Gonzalez’ politics. I’m down with Ross first for Mayor.
@Jim, it doesn’t work that way. For the same reasons why people don’t hire me, they don’t hire consultants that contradict their positions in public unless they desire to be associated with those positions.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“We’ve learned that Care Not Cash solved nothing, but Newsom is doubling down with Sit/Lie which will also solve nothing except to mobilize voters this November. We’ve learned that moneyed interests succeed when they play us off against one another. Here, Jeff Adachi manages to combine the two.”
Marc Salomon is a typical SF prog in that he’s learned nothing about homelessness since 2002, when an obscure supervisor named Gavin Newsom broke from the PC pack and proposed Care Not Cash. Newsom understood what his prog colleagues on the BOS failed to see—that city voters were fed up with the growing squalor on city streets and wanted something done about it. Newsom followed up with supportive housing, Project Homeless Connect, and my favorite, Homeward Bound, which gives the homeless a bus ticket back to wherever they came from.
City progs have been bitter about how Newsom ate their lunch on the issue—and used it to get himself elected mayor—ever since. Progs still seem to think that the homeless are just folks who can’t afford to pay the rent, not people with crippling drug/alcohol problems or serious pyschological problems. When in doubt, play the class struggle card!
The “moneyed interests” are behind sit/lie? Just another prog delusion. Sit/lie will pass easily simply because city voters don’t support allowing punks to take over their sidewalks.
Progs like Salomon and Daly are now making the same mistake they made with Care Not Cash, only Adachi is now playing the Newsom role by breaking from the party line pack to back to deal with the economic tsunami of our retirement system heading our way. Good for him.
Gonzalez and city progs had no answer for Care Not Cash in 2003, except paleo-Marxist prattle about the “root causes” of homelessness, and they’re behind the curve again on the retirement system. No watered down, me-tooism measure is going to regain the political initiative from Adachi.
July 11, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Marc, as I told you in a private email last week, Jamie Whitaker is signing his real name and expressing his own opinions. I’ve never tried to shut you up and I wouldn’t do that to Jamie either but thanks for the advice.
July 11, 2010 at 11:31 am
@marc
You must stop bashing Gonzalez! You are a brilliant policy wonk, and everyone knows it. But, you are not doing anyone any good with your baseless accusations.
“the hundreds of thousands that Gonzalez still thinks must die in Afghanistan and Iraq to teach the Democrats a lesson?” -Just one example of you going off the rails here.
Stick to the facts and issues. Your vicious words reflect poorly on your allies. Remember that.
July 11, 2010 at 10:35 am
Marc,
Nobody’s feeding me any info. I have an excellent memory and only pretend to be dumber than you. You’re the one getting the smoke blown up their ass and it’s me blowing it. You’ve alienated so many of your former comrades that you’re virtually unemployable which is a sad state for a young man. You’re reduced to blowing smoke up Leeland Yee’s butt. The shop lifter and God knows what else who went over to Willy once Brown got a detective on him and who regularly changes his votes in the State legislature to feign being a liberal.
You’re not a hands-on guy, Marc. You’re a practiced dilletente. You sit and play god on the sidelines while I run in the midst of the bulls every year.
And, I’m tired of pretending. Kid, I’m smarter than you period and I’ve certainly got more institutional knowledge and meaningful political relationships than you.
You’re out of your league Marc. Please quit bleeding on me.
Giants up 5-0 in third and Posey has driven in two and scored one. He’s still totally not appreciated by the organization.
Go Spain!!!
h.
July 11, 2010 at 10:19 am
Posey does it again -Gigantes up by 4 – World Cup coming up – gonna cook up a big Hangtown Fry with Sweet Potato Fries then sit down with a nice single malt and a slim Havanna, breakfast of champions. Cheers ‘h’, eat yer heart out.
July 11, 2010 at 9:11 am
@h, if there’s a way to tax the rich without violating Prop 13, I’m all for it. Prop 13 is the legislative block that protects the rich, likely by design.
In ye olde days in England, rates were based on how many windows your house had. Obviously rich people had more windows (larger houses).
What is needed is a State ballot measure that amends Prop 13 so that local municipalities are unrestricted in passing local tax measures that target the multitude of millionaires and billionaires that live in the great City of San Francisco.
July 11, 2010 at 9:09 am
@h, we wouldn’t be stepping in shit right now if nobody had shat on the common ground, okay? As dysfunctional as it is, the current arrangement is not so bad that it requires nuking it from the right wing.
Someone who knew about statistical analysis helped me run regression analysis on turnouts in 2003 and the results were inconclusive.
h, your political relevance revolves around your ability to be bought with a plastic pint of cheap whisky and smoke blown up your ass.
Mine revolves around being right more often than I’m wrong and calling shit when I see it. People still like it when I’m on their side, and as we can tell from your spews, really don’t like it when I identify weaknesses in their bogus plays and highlight them.
Instead of saying “I told you so,” I like to be sure that those who have fucked things up repeatedly don’t get the chance to screw us all again.
They would not feed you misinfo to attack me if I was not being effective. Thanks for the validation.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 8:42 am
@Lucrecia, it is a problem that the highest paid city employee salaries were bid up over the past ten years in response to a real estate driven economic bubble that no longer exists.
The public policy problem now is how to ratchet back down those increases in a way that does not leave families hanging out to dry with obligations based on bubble inflation. Most peoples’ mortgages and rents can only be crammed down so far by refinancing if they are so positioned.
The bottom line is that US standards of living as measured by consumption are so high because the US government has a foreign and military policy that imposes brutality on others to secure cheap resources from points south at gunpoint to provide to us at a discount. That provides the poverty push and abundance pull to drive immigration here and offers up a legitimate rationale to those practicing asymmetrical warfare against Americans, not to mention is why we lead the world in per capita volume of ecological unsustainability.
Our standard of living as measured by consumption is going to have to fall, the challenge is how to make that transition equitable, sustainable and humane, because the US is growing less powerful relative to the rest of the world and resources are scarcer and more difficult to come by. If the global extractive economy can be likened to the petroleum economy, the cheap and easy sources are exhausted and dangerous deepwater drilling is all that’s left.
The financial sector has a plan for class warfare which uses us as human shields for Their Good Thing, and that agenda is crystallized in proposals like this. We need to put forth a plan that deals with ending the consumption party without unceremoniously kicking everyone out into the cold. Labor is the segment of our coalition with the most resources and the tightest nexus to economics, yet they are on the defensive, unable to articulate a coherent narrative, and here we are.
@Whittaker, “free speech” is a protection against prior restraint by government, not me, and is not a cover for evading answering whether your clients running as progressive agree with what you say.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 8:32 am
I agree with Luke and Lucretia,
Let’s talk about viable alternatives. And, these are not my ideas, I’m just hell of a judge of good ideas.
First, the primary thing we all want to do is to stop people from losing their jobs. Declining revenue and insolvent budgets and retirement funds will cause deficits that Newsom and his boys will use as an excuse to fire poor people.
So, we need Avalos and his guys to take the bull by the horns and propose some form of Luke Thomas’ idea that’s been in front of them for going on two years now.
That’s the one where there is some kind of graduated (depending upon salary) reduction of salaries across the board (temporary, until item #2 kicks in) that will make it unnecessary to fire anyone.
Second, the Board is going to have to go to the voters with even more taxes and only on the rich. With a vengeance. Massive transportation impact taxes on Downtown to upright MUNI? Things like that.
Marc, Lord boy, do you really think anyone on any side is going to hire you if you continue to insult everyone? You’re not me. I can get by with it cause I’m old and after 47 years of paying into Social Security get a monthly income. Your fallback protector is Leland Yee? For God’s sake, boy. You have the sharpest mind in the City and you’re unemployed. Please stop and think about why. If I could hire you I sure would. And, I could put up with all the snippity rage. Others can’t.
Also, I’m always willing to go to school on my errors. You’re certain Gonzo didn’t get more votes from Dems than Gavin? I heard the opposite. Where’d I get that? Marc, tell me where to go to find how many Dems voted for each candidate in 2003? Respectfully.
More ideas for taxing the rich please?
h.
July 11, 2010 at 8:17 am
Thank you all. Especially:-
> Luke for creating and maintaining this forum that allows even loudmouthed old curmudgeons like me to contribute an occasional opinion.
> ‘h’ for, among many other things, the depth of his historical understanding of SF political shenanigans, and for calling bullshit. I always appreciate your input, insight and friendship.
> marc for, well some of the above.
> everyone who cares enough to at least try and stay involved, even the knuckle draggers, except of course those who dont have the stones to call themselves by their true name.
No more ‘free’ time – gotta get back to work – hasta la vista.
A CHANGE HAS GOTTA COME.
PS.
Is Posey the new Panda.
July 11, 2010 at 8:07 am
@Luke, what does Jeff want? For SEIU to roll back their bargained concessions that come close to Adachi’s amendment, and to reenact them again while paying deferential tribute to Jeff while enthroned on stage in the Herbst for having the audacity to demand that labor concede that which it already had?
Perhaps Adachi can stage that ceremony on top of a pile of sick kids for added dramatic flair, add that to the hundreds of thousands that Gonzalez still thinks must die in Afghanistan and Iraq to teach the Democrats a lesson?
This has nothing to do with policy, SEIU has come more than halfway on that, and everything to do with politics which are being played as a game with people’s lives here. Hopefully Newsom’s ERISA claims will hold true and Adachi will be permanently damaged goods.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 7:22 am
@All,
As several of you have said, this discussion has been constructive and productive (with just a couple of exceptions).
These are very difficult times and some form of reform is needed to address runaway pension and healthcare costs. Adachi’s reform measure may not be the most desirable way to address this problem, but without viable, alternative solutions, SF Smart Reform, assuming it qualifies, will be on the November ballot and will likely pass.
I suggest all of the passion, energy and intelligence shown in this discussion now be focused on drafting alternative solutions. Just keep in mind, the electorate is also suffering during these hard economic times, so any solution needs to be a compromise between concessions and revenue. In other words, if public employees are perceived to be giving something back, the electorate will more likely be willing to shoulder an equal burden.
July 11, 2010 at 6:42 am
Just a recap from the voter handbook:
How Supervisors Voted on “H”
On July 8, 2002 the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition H on the ballot.
The Supervisors voted as follows:
Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Daly,
—> Gonzalez <—-
Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Newsom, Peskin, Sandoval, and Yee.
—
Gonzalez got us into this mess, why would we look to him to get us out of it?
Funny you should mention the Bicycle Advisory Committee, because former Chair Drennen has one thing in common with Matt Gonzalez besides brittle egos, they both blamed the Green Party after they lost their election for not winning their election for them. The member who was mixing it up with Drennan was the one who predicted that the Bike Plan would suffer in court and why. Boy, they sure made Greg suffer when they mistakenly convinced me to sign onto dissolving the committee, silencing a voice that could have prevented the injunction disaster. Matt gave cover to the SFBC and got their endorsement in ’03, then the injunction came down, and how many SF cyclists have been injured and killed in the interim due to that cynical play?
Wrong on WSOMA, I was on from the start, wrote a universally praised transportation plan with Radulovich, and quit 3 years in after most community members had dropped out as Planning was sabotaging the outcomes on behalf of developers to prohibit any economic justice in affordability. Gave Meko an ultimatum to deliver equivalent equity in housing affordability to what the dregs shot down years after it won the vote, back when there were community folks there. Meko balked, I walked, Jim got rolled and the community will suffer.
See Calvin Welch’s latest efforts at selling out our community to developers for an example of how our side plays to lose but plays to get paid. Speaking of economic justice in affordability, nearest I can figure, Daly kept me off of EN-CAC because Daly’s Stalinist homophobic bud Quesada and I hate one anothers’ guts, and that I could not be trusted to route funding to the properly connected nonprofits. I got over that one quickly.
Adachi is not going to be Mayor and Gonzalez is not going to be DA just like William Westmoreland did not march triumphantly into Hanoi. Operation Phoenix did not work in Vietnam and will not work in San Francisco. You can’t destroy a village in order to save it and expect to win the hearts and minds of the population. They do feel pain like we do.
-marc
July 11, 2010 at 6:07 am
This has been an excellent discussion on the Adachi proposal and it does beholden those of us who OPPOSE this reactionary measure to propose other ideas. Revenue must be raised. One idea, reported yesterday, already closed the remaining budget gap, the real-estate transfer tax which has been bringing 6.5 million a month for the last year as reported in the SF Chronicle. A new revenue generating measure to tax and raise needed funds will also be on the ballot this november on Hotels by a coalition of unions that are formed to pass this measure. This same coalition is gelling to defeat Adachi’s reactionary approach to our budget woes.
On a national level, 47 state governors, including Republicans, are asking for more state funds from the Obama administration to keep their states afloat during these economic hard times instead of the usual, button pushing Aramegedon right wing cut services and wages of state workers and services like. The “Arnold” the Govenator approach of slashing wages and furloughing state workers has landed our state in court for the second time as workers mobilize to stop this regressive, Herbert Hoover approach to easing hardship. Slashing worker pay and benefits hurts us all , including those not in a union for collective bargaining. Remember, unions brought us better pay, the 8 hour work day and the weekend. Unions need to return to the reasons many of us wanted them in first place, as a counter weight to corporations, businesses and even government who wants to pay little for the most work it can get out of a worker without regard to their health or well being. As a member of CNA/NNOC and now NNU, I can tell you that organizing nurses to fight for better wages, safe staffing and good pensions are at the heart of why unionization with NNU is spreading to places like Texas , Missouri, Kansas, Florida and beyond for RN’s fed up with bosses in the private and public sector who want to run hospitals and clinics by the budget to generate profit at the expense of good care. Cutting pensions for RN’s by “Queen Meg”, Republican candidate Meg Whitman, our new replacement for “Govenator” wanna-be is one of the many reasons CNA is back on the road dogging her campaign every step of the way. As a nurse in the public sector too, I see the Adachi proposal the same way
In international news, from Shanghai, workers have been striking in manufacturing and industry for the last two months , demanding higher wages, better working conditions and “benefits”. Despite the fact that China outlaws unions, sure sounds like what unions do,. Businesses are reconsidering relocation to in some cases back to the states.
Revenue must be raised to offset budget cuts. it is what workers, like me, have been demanding for the last two budget cycles and even before that when times weren’t so bad. Getting a pink slip, the first in my working life, in February has energized many of my co-workers to get involved. In some sense,I thank Mr Adachi for this effort. The more I talk with workers, the more angry they get particularly over paying more in health insurance money for their kids.
Anyone who cared about needed services and the workers who deliver them this last year, should know how every worker, gave something to offset this deficit. Raises delayed for two years, furloughs for two years and no holiday pay for two years were voted for by workers who wanted to save the services, jobs and benefits that many need at this time.
This initiative in opinion is a slap in the face for our efforts because it did not bother to ask nurses, doctors , social workers, EMT’s, police, fire, carpenters nor anyone involved that process .
What it has done is mobilize many people I know who have never walked a precinct or participated in a campaign before who are just beginning to understand the repercussions of this badly crafted initiative that will not fund services but merely cut wages. This is not reform but a reactionary right wing approach that manipulates the public’s anger and fear for our city financial health during a jobless recession hitting all working families,
July 10, 2010 at 10:58 pm
h, there is no evidence that Gonzalez got more Democrat votes than Newsom.
You write history like you’re Peter Camejo.
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Yeah,
Giants come back to win 10-5. Posey goes 4 out of 5 with a homer and throws out two guys at third. Anyone still think he needs more ‘seasoning’ in the minors?
I wanna note that only Avalos of the supes had the cookies to join this discussion and he won’t back cutting the PD’s office. I wonder if any of these guys remember what Kimiko Burton (appointed by Willie) did to that office.
This has been helluva discussion. I liked two best. One where Adachi is new mayor and Gonzalez new D.A. and other that said this single issue could produce an entirely new realignment of power in SF’s Left Bank.
Also the most intelligent exchanges I’ve seen on SF Gate ever. No knuckle-draggers.
h.
July 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I had to read the proposed ballot measure before weighing in. I have to say it is very reasonable to ask a worker to contribute to their own pension fund. And a 50/50 ratio isn’t unreasonable, if you are making the high dollars.
My wife had worked for the federal government she paid a cap percentage of her base pay the government matched that and and the pension fund match 1%.
This proposed ballot doesn’t have those caps written into it. Unless I missed it.
This ballot measure I guess with anything in San Francisco goes, is a step in a fiscal right direction.
July 10, 2010 at 3:59 pm
marc – glad to see that you agree with me on one of my two cents. “Any plan needs to be progressive in that it requires a higher percentage contribution from higher income workers than lower income workers”.
Now how about letting the other penny drop and “FixMuni” by requiring ‘contributions’ …
(Oh No !!. is that a euphemism for ‘raising taxes’; in my
dotage I must have devolved into a Republicrat, and I
can’t remember, time to double up on the Geritol
and Aricept.)
.. from those who profit most from the “public be damned” transportation system. Any ‘progressive’ pooh-bahs out there wanna take a stand on this.
Probably not, after all Local 250-A possibly has a higher percentage of black members than any other Local, and we all know that ‘those folks’ dont turn out to vote in significant numbers any more, (I wonder why) unless bussed in by Irreverends and ‘community’ leaders with a vested personal financial stake in the outcome, so why not screw and scapegoat them, again; why risk pissing off the deep pocket plutocrats.
Aint alliteration axiomatic of aging axons and accelerating atrophy, also awesome abandonment of accurate acumen at times,
– but I like it.
Have a lovely weekend y’all, try not to get your pretty progressive panties in a twist, unless of course –
– you like it.
Ooops, the glass is half empty.
Where’s Pigasus when we need him ?
RUN SOMEBODY RUN.
July 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Also,
Keep in mind that in 2003 Gonzalez got more votes from Democrats then Newsom did. It was Howard and his Republican Party who gave Gavin the win (I’ll always believe the absentees were rigged too). Matt’s always been more fiscally moderate than Newsom. Same for Adachi. The Republicans know this for certain after 7 years of the Gavster.
Another back story is Gabriel Haaland’s motive for attacking anything to do with Gonzalez. As I recall, Matt was the only one on the BOS to vote against a settlement Gabe (then Robert) got from the Sheriff’s department for strip searching him. Haaland later was canned from the Board of Appeals for not doing any homework and Gonzo buddy Randy Knox fit in cause he’s not all about intrigue and back stabbing. It’s a decades long pattern with Gabe. A cottage industry if you will. He sued recently for sexual harassment in the 1021 offices. Guy’s a real piece of work.
Salomon’s hell of a brilliant guy and I just wish the hell someone would give him a job.
Giants and D.C. tied 3-3 and Posey is 1 for 1.
h.
July 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Luke,
I’m not kidding about voting to toss these guys off DCCC if they follow through with their attacks on legal services for the indigent. I don’t have any respect for DCCC anyway. Never have. Probably never will. I went Democrat for a week to vote for Hope cause she’s my friend and wanted to be on DCCC. I never understood why. But, it’s important to the supes and if you go after my candidate (Adachi) and his life’s work I’ll go after your trinkets. None of these guys can carry Jeff’s jock and they all know it.
Pat, sure Matt could win. Jeff too. Hennessey three and da Mirk four (yeah, the ‘Newsom’ thing was typo – meant to say Gonzalez). We have lots of great Prog candidates. But Peskin sure isn’t one and the DCCC is his baby and I’ve seen the way he uses it. Break up the Peskin machine before it get’s further entrenched.
Salomon does this same crap everywhere he goes. He came into the SOMA process years after stakeholders had been working on it and tried to take it over. They ended up tossing him out. So, he hates Meko. Daly refused to appoint him (Marc) to a similar group there for just those reasons. Marc’s sexist taunting broke up the Bicycle Commission and he’s proud of it. All he cares about is the spotlight and he’s figured out that the best way to get it is attaching himself like a gargoyle to his betters.
Giants down 0-2 after 1st inning.
Luke II weighs over 150 lbs now.
Over 100 degrees in Fresno again.
h.
July 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm
This public display is particularly useful in grasping the reality behind the rhetoric. The public is seeing the cost of opposing the “powers-that-be”.
Is this just a peak underneath the rug where so much has been swept?
July 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@Luke, SEIU members WILL contribute 7.5% to retirement effective July of 2011. That has already been bargained. Does Jeff really wish to go to the mat over dependent dental and health insurance share of cost or over the extra 1.5-2.5% in retirement contribution?
The Board and Mayor must immediately fulfill the promises of Prop H in 2002 that SFPD and SFFD pensions will not cost the general fund a cent. This should be retroactive from the time that the fund was depleted in accordance with the promises made to the voters.
The Board and Mayor need to conduct an investigation into why the retirement fund went from a $3 billion surplus in 2002 to insolvent today. Everyone took a bath, but few funds properly managed lost that much.
Any plan needs to be progressive in that it requires a higher percentage contribution from higher income workers than lower income workers. It needs to flex with the economy so that when the retirement fund is filling up, lower contributions are required and when it is emptying out, higher contributions are in place. And if we learn anything from this experience, good policy needs to be adjustable to provide flexibility in case of unanticipated economic circumstances without having to go to the voters.
And there needs to be a culling of top dollar employees, middle management and attorneys from the ranks of the MEA and MAA, and a rollback of the recent reclassifications done in 2007-8 which would mean $20K or more cuts in pay. Given that the last time I checked 3 years ago or so the $100K club amounted to half a billion in payroll, 20% savings is significant.
The economy that inflated public wages to compete with the private sector no longer exists, that bubble has to be popped according to progressive values or else it will do more harm than good to the economy. Salaries are what rose, insurance benefits did not expand. Again, we cannot ignore the fact that those who were earning more saw their salaries rise much more than those who were earning less towards the end of the real estate bubble.
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm
… oh, and I freely admit that Jim and I do not see eye to eye on several issues, but I know he’s the best candidate for the job because of his 33 years living in District 6, deep knowledge and experience working with District 6 residents to fight off CIty Hall’s attempts at railroading changes into the District without talking with District residents, and I know he will at least listen to me (despite Marc saying I’m garbage or whatever) even when we disagree on issues. That’s why I quit my job as a public finance consultant to help my friend out with his campaign this past May …. My thoughts posted here and elsewhere are my thoughts – period.
July 10, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Now we’re attacking free speech? Wow … I speak for myself as a resident of San Francisco who absolutely hates it when people propagate the George W. Bush notion that “You’re either with us or you’re against us” What’s next “No new taxes* (unless you’re a private worker)”?
By the way, if you review the San Francisco Young Democrats “District 6 Candidate Responses to Key Issues,” you would know that the non-political machine, non-special interest Progressive candidates support Jeff Adachi and the Smart Pension Reform because it IS the Progressive and Right thing to do without any other alternative solution that career politicians have gotten done. That would include Anna Conda, James Keys, and Jim Meko – and don’t start giving me bullshit about how they’ve sold their souls or something to non-progressive interests because they’ve proven they are Progressives with their actions over time, and will continue to do so if elected.
July 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm
@Marc, seriously, think about an alternative solution that will prompt Jeff to withdraw his measure. You’ve made your points. Now’s the time to present alternative solutions.
July 10, 2010 at 1:08 pm
So public sector wages started off less than private sector wages, and after 30 years of deindustrialization, the situation is reversed. Are progressives to blame for that? Are union workers? Are the speculative venture capitalists who are funding Adachi’s measure?
There are reasons why wages have fallen over the past 30 years. The same economic messages powered by a few wealthy corporations and individuals that had working people voting for corporate interests which put them out of work is at work here as well.
We’ve learned that Care Not Cash solved nothing, but Newsom is doubling down with Sit/Lie which will also solve nothing except to mobilize voters this November. We’ve learned that moneyed interests succeed when they play us off against one another. Here, Jeff Adachi manages to combine the two.
There is nothing progressive in furthering the corporate economic project which impoverishes us. What is missing from the progressive discourse are solutions to declining wages, and the commensurate health care and retirement insecurity.
Had Adachi wanted to solve a policy problem here, he should have opened up a broad conversation about it instead of taking a page from the Newsom and the DLC’s playbook. That indicates to me that the problem Adachi is attempting to solve here is political and has nothing to do with sustainable economics.
I’m sad to see that the campaign manager for a candidate who bills himself as a community based, progressive consensus builder is pimping for the interests who sabotaged, took the community out of, the candidate’s community based planning process. Jim Meko knows what it was like back when downtown ruled the City. He needs to take steps to distance himself from this garbage lest he own it himself.
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, I guess? How fucking pathetic.
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm
… and they’re most likely already paying 33% or more for their OWN healthcare insurance and most of the balance for any dependents, so again … WTF?
July 10, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Oh yeah .. and the folks making $27.73 an hour in total compensation do not have guaranteed pensions or benefits … they have to contribute to a 401(k) or 403(b) or whatever …. AT LEAST 10% if they actually want to retire at some point.
July 10, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Luke is right on when he wrote “Here’s an idea: Come up with an alternative solution that addresses runaway pension and healthcare costs in way that’s palatable and equitable. If it’s viable, and there’s consensus buy-in across the political aisle to advance a legislative solution through the Board, then you can approach Jeff and ask him to withdraw his ballot measure.”
For those of us living in reality, who recognize money doesn’t get printed by anyone except the Federal Government in the USA, and who are losing more and more needed services as the young people with the least seniority are laid off from the City and County of San Francisco know, the status quo is unsustainable.
While Mayor Newsom and other politicians (and the peanut galleries on blogs, of which I include myself) in this town are busy shooting arrows in Jeff Adachi’s back for stepping out of line with the career politicians and standing up for sustainable pension reforms that will help to do the most good for the most San Franciscans instead of the band-aid “give backs,” the other 750,000 or so San Franciscans not benefiting from unsustainable pensions and healthcare benefits are quickly learning who is beholden to the special interests and political machines in San Francisco and who the real, principled leader(s) are among our elected officials.
Here’s something suck on … “Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.73 per hour worked in March 2010. Total employer compensation costs for State and local government workers averaged $39.81 per hour worked in March 2010.”
Read the whole thing at http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf
You want folks in the private sector who earn an average $27.73 in total compensation per hour to give up needed services like MUNI, public health, and public defense and/or pay for fees and taxes to support the unsustainable retirement benefits of folks who earn 44% MORE TOTAL COMPENSATION? Talk about taking from the poor to give to the well off … what kind of “progressives” are you assholes?
July 10, 2010 at 11:45 am
marc – i ‘assumed’ because that was a quoted figure, albeit by an utterly unreliable source ‘CN’, so just take out $700mil and substitute $Xmil. I think you know that I’m not always a detailed thinker who can quote facts and figures in support of my rants and raves, but I stand by the rest. I remember back in the day before I left England, over 40 years ago, there were already predictions that we would ultimately be confronted with an untenable situation that would require X workers to support one civil servant. My simplistic analysis is that there are two major factors responsible for our decline and fall. One being the criminally unequal distribution of wealth and resources; the other one a bloated bureaucracy and all the resulting unaccountability, patronage and corruption. Add to that the collusion and malfeasance of those supposed to represent the workers, ideally all workers, not just their particular membership, then who do we turn to. Whatever happened to those old fashioned trade union concepts such as “..a drive to unite all laboring men and women for a different order of things..”.
Whatever the numbers, I think it is clear that we can not sustain the current order of things. I was merely trying to say that something has to be done. I’m no economist but suggesting that; #1 – we need to close all tax loopholes etc, and redistribute some small portion of the wealth and profits extracted from our community; and #2 – find some way to devise a sliding scale system whereby those at the top of the public sector employment ladder might have to pay $1000 a month for their benefits while those at the bottom paid nothing.
I know, another simplistic solution, but then I’m a pretty simple dude.
This may still be America, but there aint no free lunch anymore – the pigs have cleaned out the trough.
‘h’ – point taken, so who do you propose, ‘assuming’ Jeff is not in ? Hennessey is good. You think Matt is testing the water – think he has a chance.
PS. I ‘assume’ it was a typo when you said, “I like Adachi and Newsom(!!).
Just my 2c – I’m done.
July 10, 2010 at 11:16 am
From the 2002 Voter Information Pamphlet, Prop H, 90% Police and Firefighter pensions after 20 years:
Yes on H. Police officers and firefighters put their lives on the
line every day. Help retain our highly trained professionals by
matching their retirement benefits with neighboring cities.
Howard Epstein, 12th Assembly District
Howard, your kowtowing to law enforcement and resulting fiduciary incompetence led us to this crisis in the first instance. You are probably the last person we should look to for solutions.
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 11:05 am
Interesting discussion. The bottom line is, as Luke mentioned above, public sector pensions and healthcare are unsustainable. Jeff Adachi’s SF Smart Reform will do what present and past mayors and Boards of Supervisors should have done.
Smart Reform and Save Muni Now will have bipartisan support and pass by large majorities despite strong opposition from the unions.
July 10, 2010 at 10:49 am
h, some context would be helpful.
“Speaking of Campos, I’d suggest that those of us who are in accord with Adachi resolve to vote in favor of the Mayor’s Charter amendment to dump Campos and Avalos and Mar and Chiu from the DCCC. A small step I know but we can always support their recalls as a next move.”
Is this satire? Sorry if I’m a bit slow this morning.
July 10, 2010 at 10:47 am
h, you always look better when there’s not smoke blowing up your ass.
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 10:42 am
Marc,
Tooo looonnnggg. You’re smart enough to make your point without writing a rambling incoherent raaannnttt. Seriously, tighten it up buddy. What you’re saying is so repetitive that it’s not worth the time spent reading it.
Patrick. Sorry buddy, I love Angela dearly but she caved into Rosselli in 2003 and endorsed Newsom. I like Adachi and Newsom and Hennessey and Mirkarimi next year and David Campos has a nice smile.
Speaking of Campos, I’d suggest that those of us who are in accord with Adachi resolve to vote in favor of the Mayor’s Charter amendment to dump Campos and Avalos and Mar and Chiu from the DCCC. A small step I know but we can always support their recalls as a next move.
Also, let’s poll Kim and Walker and Meko and Mandelman on the issue. Those who side with Daly can have their picture taken at his July 17th Masturbatory Symposium.
h.
July 10, 2010 at 10:33 am
@Luke, SEIU already agreed to pension contributions and to salary cuts as part of the collective bargaining process. The contributions take effect next July instead of next January as per Jeff’s measure. I’m as critical of the SEIU as the next guy, but in this case they have done what most all of Adachi is asking.
The SFPD and Fire unions, the MEA and MAA, on the other hand, the City employees who suck down the big bucks, have not taken a hit in their pockets proportional to their hit on the budget.
I don’t think that it is consensus in San Francisco to punish dependents of employees for union intransigence by cutting off our access to affordable health insurance.
@Patrick, when you “assume” you make an ass out of u and me. I would not assume that Adachi’s dire budget predictions are accurate. It is a mistake to take a snapshot at one extreme case point in time and to generalize based on that. That is a mistake when Calvin Welch does it with developers and it is a mistake in this case.
We’re all cross with labor about their support for unthrottled unaffordable development, but that is no reason to take it out on non-building trades union families by pricing health insurance out of the range of affordability of most. Are you sure you want to be put down as the only RN to support raising the cost of health insurance for city employees because everyone else has it so bad?
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 10:18 am
Here’s an idea: Come up with an alternative solution that addresses runaway pension and healthcare costs in way that’s palatable and equitable. If it’s viable, and there’s consensus buy-in across the political aisle to advance a legislative solution through the Board, then you can approach Jeff and ask him to withdraw his ballot measure.
I’m sure he would be open to that.
Sniping and complaining ain’t gonna do it.
July 10, 2010 at 9:08 am
@Luke, I thought at the time that it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000, and I stand by that given my knowledge at the time. After the Democrats successfully framed Nader in the media, especially effective amongst progressive Democrats, as spoiling Gore, I learned that this was a dangerous approach. Not only did it cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives but ended up destroying the Green Party politically. Most of us learned that unless alongside the electoral campaign there was a media campaign capable of telling our story and competing with the Democrat frame, we would make things much worse pursuing that strategy.
Gonzalez continued to bash his head against the Democrat party while thwarting efforts to build a sustainable alternative progressive, radical political formation, declining to recalibrate strategy based on feedback from negative outcomes, until he apparently decided that it was not that bad to get in bed with the DLC economically in order to grasp at fleeting political relevance once again:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
NAFTA
It was quite emblematic of Sen. Obama that he has changed his position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to suit whatever situation he is in. First, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he supported NAFTA and thought there should be more trade agreements like it. (AP story 2/26/08). Then, while running against Hillary Clinton he blamed her for NAFTA’s impact on workers in the “rustbelt” states of Wisconsin and Ohio. But once he won the primary things changed. When asked if he would truly invoke the six-month clause in NAFTA for unilateral withdrawal, Obama showed his signature political reversal.
NAFTA created a trilateral trade bloc encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which was meant to foster greater trade between its members. It primarily lifted tariffs on goods shipped between the three countries but has caused economic turmoil both among American and Mexican labor, with unexpected loss of jobs and negative environmental impacts.
Nina Easton, a Washington editor for Fortune, noted in a June 18, 2008 article that “the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA,” something he had promised to do when locked in a close primary race with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Asked directly about whether he would move the U.S. out of the trade agreement, Obama said “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” Fortune magazine concluded that, despite once calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” Obama “was toning down his populist rhetoric” and had no intention of following through with his anti-NAFTA promises now that the primary battle was won.
In light of this evidence, can we believe any of the other commitments he‘s made?
Indeed!
Gonzalez is all too willing to blame everyone else for his political failures [1] and incapable of learning from his failures to course-correct in accordance with one’s stated political values.
The lesson here is that the more progressives shift the load to the charismatic male leader for deliverance, the more we will be disappointed and lose. Taking money from venture capitalists to attack organized labor continues the disregard for the consequences of one’s political plays on screwing working Americans that we saw from Gonzalez in 2004 and in 2008.
Grassroots organizing, empowering the base and having enough confidence to allow the cards to fall where they may, is what it is going to take to build a sustainable progressive base of power to confront corporate power.
-marc
[1] See: http://themattgonzalezreader.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/peter-camejo-on-the-matt-gonzalez-campaign-for-mayor-of-san-francisco/ , Camejo blames the SF Green Party for Gonzalez’ 2003 loss, when each of Enrique Pearce, Carlos Petroni and a rainy election day were responsible for 5,000 lost votes each.
July 10, 2010 at 8:53 am
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
The Public Defenders Office is the last thin line of protection available to many of those lacking the means to defend themselves from the onslaught of selective law enforcement and the multitude of other inequities that oppress millions on a daily basis. Even the threat of retaliation by reducing resources is abhorrent. As stated above and elsewhere these are two separate issues, both important, but attempts to ‘link’ them are pure petulant political game-playing.
I’m sure that Jeff’s proposal is not perfect, but he is at least attempting to start public discourse on an inescapable reality that most don’t have the cajones to confront.
We cant continue spending beyond our means to pay.
We need to reorder priorities to restore some semblance of balance between the haves and have-nots.
Decent and principled ‘labor’ representation in this town is virtually non-existent. Deals are constantly made behind closed doors with little concern for the long term best interests of workers or residents. Public input is minimal at best, and at times even stifled and opposed by those supposed to ‘represent’ us.
As a worker in the private/corporate sector I am required to contribute to the meager pension I might receive, if I live that long; and I sure cant afford to retire at 65, that would have been last year. My retirement date will probably be the day they put the pennies on my eyes.
It does not seem unreasonable that those in the public sector, public servants who we subsidize, should also contribute a portion of our money that they receive towards their retirement. I haven’t had time to read Jeff’s proposal, and would probably get lost in the legalese and details anyway, but in principle I applaud and agree with his attempt to rein in runaway spending. I’m sure it could use some ‘tweaking’. Maybe something along the lines of:- ‘From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs”.
For example; Assuming the cost of pensions would be $700mil in 5 years, then pro-rate the contributions so that ALL those receiving paychecks or perks from public monies, pay a percentage based upon their total income and ancillary benefits, in such a way that while the top brass may have to pay 20%, nurses aides at SFGH may only have to pay 1%; and if those receiving six figure salaries don’t like it, well they can always go to work like the rest of us.
The remedy for another financial sinkhole is also readily available, but again none of our ‘leaders’ seem willing to confront the money-men and risk loosing their financial support. Require a 1% contribution of all profits transferred off-shore or out of town, by “large” (to be defined) downtown corporations/ businesses, and use it to finance Muni.
While it is sad that this issue and the knee jerk reactions of many ‘progressives’ may diminish the possibility of Jeff becoming Mayor, their is an upside even to that. He will remain in his current position.
QUESTION. Who else would risk taking such an ‘unpopular’ stand in defense of the public good and ultimate welfare ? Who else would be primarily motivated by what is best for San Franciscans and this town we love.
ANSWER. I know you’re with me on this ‘h’.
RUN ANGELA RUN.
Pat Monk.RN. Noe Valley.
July 10, 2010 at 8:48 am
A recent study released on July 6th, 2010 by Standford University, reports that the State of California public retirement fund is heading towards disaster. The plan’s liabilities have increased 2000 percent in the last decade while revenues have risen an anemic 26 percent. The projection indicates that in less than 20 years, the fund will be nearly $500 billion dollars in the red and there is only a 17 percent chance the State will be able to make good on their obligations.
San Francisco is in the same predicament, for all those who are attacking Adachi it would make sense to know what you are talking about! By the comments you are posting, YOU DON’T!
July 10, 2010 at 8:37 am
@Marc,
Pah-lease! Talk about spin.
“Of course, Matt Gonzalez, the guy who thinks in retrospect that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and eight years of Bush were totally worth it in order to teach the conservative Democrats a lesson, is now lining up with the conservative Democrats and Republicans.”
July 10, 2010 at 8:16 am
What we need is for the City to lead the way for the nation and move to a four day work week while preserving benefits.
These $100K+ city employees need to be salary capped.
No uniformed SFPD managers should earn a penny of overtime–work until the work is done.
Do this, and there will be no need to attack workers’ dependent health care and retirement packages.
You gotta wonder who was in the room drafting this with Adachi. Jeff, Matt, got an answer to this? Was it h. brown? C.W. Nevius?
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 7:56 am
@Ann,
Yes, at the beginning of this budget cycle, FCJ proposed an equitable “shared sacrifice” budget proposal that, if implemented, would have saved all jobs and services from the guillotine.
http://tinyurl.com/2fryply
It was a rational proposal that was well-received from stakeholders and legislators across the political aisle but required Newsom to declare a fiscal state of emergency to unlock the union MOU’s (memorandum of understandings – union contracts) to implement.
Newsom balked at the idea, preferring instead to cut services and layoff city employees to shore up his Whitman-esque credentials as a fiscal conservative while running for higher office. Newsom has no clue what its like to live life on the edge, facing the prospect of months/years of unemployment. All he seems to care about is his political career.
But the blame is not all his. There have been numerous opportunities to air and discuss FCJ’s proposal which could have engendered pressure on Newsom to act with reason and compassion.
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it.
Having said that, there’s still an opportunity to advance this proposal as the City faces a projected $700 million deficit next year, and $800 million the year after.
Assuming Newsom is elected lite guv, and polls are currently showing him with a slight lead over Moldanado, the next caretaker mayor might well implement this proposal.
July 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
The real question here is whether we can trust Jeff Adachi that the funding he says he needs is a legitimate request when compared to what the Budget Analyst says the office needs.
Used to be we could trust Jeff, but at this point, Harvey is looking all the more reasonable.
Should progressive and liberal San Franciscans trust the guy whose first effort at balancing the budget comes straight out of the DLC playbook, the one that brought us NAFTA and lower wages, or should we trust the respected Budget Analyst?
C.W. Nevius is all behind Adachi. The guy who has no place in San Francisco for poor people, who wants to overload the PD’s office with “quality of life crimes,” thinks that this measure makes sense. Just look to the SFGate comment page on Nevius’ screed
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/07/09/BA4K1EC5QJ.DTL
to read the kind of right wing swill you all are rolling with.
Of course, Matt Gonzalez, the guy who thinks in retrospect that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and eight years of Bush were totally worth it in order to teach the conservative Democrats a lesson, is now lining up with the conservative Democrats and Republicans.
Matt and Jeff and C.W. Nevius, or Harvey Rose, Gavin Newsom and Chris Daly?
-marc
July 10, 2010 at 7:07 am
@Avalos:
Something I don’t understand here:
You say: “. . . making city workers pay more for family health care runs counter to progressive values.”
But, quite a few City workers have been laid off altogether. Why are those City workers who’ve managed to hold onto their jobs so much more privileged that they shouldn’t have to take any cuts to preserve City services, including those of the Public Defender’s office?
I believe that Luke Thomas, near the beginning of the budget battles, did some calculations and concluded that all City workers could have then stayed on the job if all City workers, including Supervisors, had agreed to take an across the Board cut. But, nothing like that happened. (@Luke: please correct me if I’m not remembering what you wrote correctly.)
This isn’t hostile; I’m simply asking you and/or others, including Chris Daly and Marc Salomon, to explain.
July 10, 2010 at 6:06 am
Supervisors Daly and Avalos: My understanding is that Adachi was acting as a private citizen, voter, and resident in gathering the signatures and funding for the reform measure. He is taking action where our elected Supervisors and Mayor are not showing leadership–and instead are towing the public employees’ line to the detriment of taxpayers and residents. Suggesting that funding for Adachi’s office (defense of indigents) will be cut sounds highly inappropriate. Engaging in “retribution” against a voter’s participation in the process doesn’t have a place in our system.
Supervisor Avalos: I recognize you commented above that you are not in favor of cutting his department.
July 10, 2010 at 5:55 am
Jeff Adachi lobbied for the funds he believed he needed to provide adequate representation for his clients. Every other organization did the same. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and a lot of grease was spread around.
The Fog City Journal commenters frequently throw around the word “progressive.” Just what does progressive mean in the 21st century, especially here in San Francisco? Or is it one of those you-will-know-one-when-you-see-one concepts or if you have to ask, you’re not progressive? Just thought I’d ask.
July 10, 2010 at 3:22 am
Great discussion,
Avalos. John, there’s a legal limit to how much you can cut legal defense. Admit that. You sat and listened to the case/lawyer ratio just like I did only I got to do it with a bourbon and water and a cigar.
I thought the most telling thing Adachi said at those meetings was that he would not risk his bar card by violating the constitutionally mandated right to an adequate defense no matter how poor you are.
I note that CW Nevius pretty much cribbed this entire discussion in the morning Chronicle. Without attribution. Did you do that CW or did your editor cut out your attribution? I’d like to think it was the latter.
All people of honor here. A tough problem that our Progressive ‘cloaking device’ couldn’t hide forever.
“The shields, Scotty! The shields are failllliiinnnggg!!!”
h.
July 9, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Correction: my comment above.
Future city allowances are unsustainable unless Adachi’s pragmatic solution to pensions /is/ pursued.
Better? Thanks.
July 9, 2010 at 10:40 pm
@John, as you recall I asked you if the motion to cut Adachi’s budget is “retribution” for SF Smart Reform. You responded exactly as quoted.
I should also add, in Supervisor Avalos’ defense, that he did say he would not vote for a motion to cut.
The bottom line is that whatever issue Avalos, Daly, or anyone else has with Jeff Adachi’s SF Smart Reform measure, they should not be threatening to attack the Office of Public Defender.
They are two separate entities. One is an individual on a Lone Ranger crusade to save the city from insolvency. The other is an institution bestowed with the responsibility to provide constitutionally-mandated indigent defense.
July 9, 2010 at 9:48 pm
The courts will not tolerate indigent defendants going without constitutionally mandated levels of counsel. Daly’s move does not take anything out on poor defendants. That is a red herring.
The question here is how to pay for it and how to organize the office. Perhaps you think that Harvey Rose is some sort of evil plant of Chris Daly put into play before he was born, but the Budget Analysts’ recommendations are generally reasonable and result in greater efficiencies.
Adachi insisted on maximizing his budget, the Board agreed with him, but during tough times, everyone has to take a haircut, austerity must be shared. Perhaps he thinks that every department should have to take a hair cut but his department all while maximizing the severity of the City’s fiscal hole during his campaign?
All Daly’s move does is slightly lower the total resources the PD has at his disposal and according to the Budget Analyst does not take out anything on indigent defendants. The Board of Supervisors has bent over backwards to help the PD’s office, and if all that gets the progressive coalition is a kick in the gonads, then implementing Harvey Rose’s recommendations should not be too much to ask.
-marc
July 9, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Hhhmm. Frankly I am a little surprised to see my conversation printed close to verbatim here. It appears that Luke has made a few liberties here with my comment. I am surprised to see the word “retribution” printed here. Doesn’t really sound like me.
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time explaining to Luke why I supported shifting money from the trial courts/indigent defense to the public defender office. This past year, I worked with Eric Mar to see that the PD had adequate funding to not conflict out cases for unavailability of staff.
I learned to support the PD the hard way: Last year, in my first meeting as budget chair, I did not support giving the PD the authority to hire more staff because I felt that city depts needed to be tightening their belts to meet the challenges of the deficit. While hundreds of jobs were eliminated, labor concessions, vital safety net services lost, Jeff fought to keep his budget whole. In this context I did not think it was fair relative to other departments’ cutbacks even though I believe in Jeff’s mission.
When Jeff did not get the budget he wanted he claimed he had no ability to represent all the cases that came to his dept and conflicted out cases for unavailability of staff. These cases went to the private bar under the trial courts. I made the case that Jeff should make sacrifices like every other department but Jeff felt such sacrifices compromised indigent defense. I countered that all of our city services were being compromised and that Jeff ought to take his cut like everyone else. He refused and instead of working with a higher case load he passed cases on to the trial courts. As a result the trial courts did not have adequate funding to pay for the private attorneys to represent all the people needing indigent defense.
Thus, last year, a vicious cycle ensued: As the police dept passed on cases from a drug crackdown in the TL, Jeff claimed he hadn’t the adequate level of staffing to represent everyone that came through his department. He passed more and more cases onto the trial courts which did not have adequate levels of funding to meet the challenge of more cases. As Jeff conflicted out more cases for lack of funding and staff, the pressure on the trial courts grew. Soon the trial courts and Jeff Adachi were asking for more money to meet the indigent defense needs. Subsequently, earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation to bring some balance to these departments.
The relationship between the public defender and the trial courts takes part in a closed system where cases could be picked up by either department based on 1)the size of case loads that the public defender is willing and able to carry and 2)what the trial courts has funding to support the private attorneys providing indigent defense.
In this year”s budget process ( last month), when Jeff faced a $2.1M cut to his office, the budget committee approved at my recommendation moving $1.2M from the trial courts to the public defenders office to prevent his conflicting out for unavailability of staff. We had also moved a cut recommendation by the budget analyst from one part of the public defenders office to the salaried part of his budget to allow for adequate staffing levels, thus whittling down the Mayor’s $2.1M cut in the PD’s office to a $664 cut: $2.1 -[ $1.2 (trial crts) + $236 (public def)] = $664K cut to PD.
In making this restoration to Jeff’s budget I asked if he would not have to conflict out for unavailability of staff. He said he would not do so with this level of funding. I also asked him if he would be asking us for more money and he said no. I have texts to prove it. Later on the mike in budget committee, Jeff was a little more cagey, not quite saying he wouldn’t ask for more money and not exactly saying he would. I pressed him and got something close to the response I wanted.
After all of this work on Jeff’s budget over the past year and a half, culminating in these decisions on the current year budget, I feel that I cannot work to undercut Jeff’s budget and would vote against retributive cuts. If such cuts prevail I feel the funds should stay within the closed system of the indigent defense program and revert back to the trial courts’ budget which would be burdened with cases that Jeff may conflicted out for unavailability of staff.
I do not agree with Jeff’s Smart Reform charter amendment. I do not agree with it mostly on the grounds that making city workers pay more for family health care runs counter to progressive values. Rather than make the public sector health benefits appear more like private sector benefits, I prefer bringing the private sector up to humane health care standards.
July 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
“I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.
Which colleagues is Avalos talking about?
July 9, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Ever want to scrap what you said and hit “send” by tapping the enter key by accident? I guess that is what I did above.
For the curious. here is the rest of the unvarnished comment:
***
Another tempest in a teapot (over who called who what when)?
The Board is justifiably troubled breaking precedent, as they have, especially the more progressive ones, staunchly tried to restore budget cuts to the poor and meek year in year out.
A friend calls it a yearly dance.
I call it musical chairs.
No matter how we applaud their efforts, someone will always lose, and hardly anyone ever gains.
Nader often asked why our cities are so often in shambles… when most have been controlled by Democrats for years.
Future city allowances are unsustainable unless Adachi’s pragmatic solution to pensions is not pursued. Pretending the problem will go away means future corrective fixes entailing huge job losses.
If progressives really cared more about working folks they would be less craven to “Organized Labor” which today largely collects dues, works hand in glove with business, and negotiates whose chairs will be swiped.
Think of the two-tier wage concessions that have become commonplace: veteran workers keep their benefits; newcomers get reduced benefits.
Been to Safeway lately, and searched for the older workers whose job security was supposed to have been enhanced? (Harassed to extinction perhaps?)
Seen the weary faces struggling to appeal to your every whim, a grotesque caricaturization of customer service? (The kids don’t know yet what it is all about.)
Worse, I notice more machines than employees– and long lines of dum-dums, some normally progressive pro-labor San Franciscans, self-serving “for convenience”.
***
At that point I hit the wrong key– BOING!
***
(So you get the gist of my latest rant.)
I like Chiu, Avalos, Campos, Daly, Mar, Mirkarimi. I think they are decent and trying. The others have their good days but are contemptible like the Mayor. All need to grow up beyond the cant of Organized Labor = Organized Workers. The Mayor knows the difference and uses it to his advantage.
I love Adachi– now. I am not fooled by the silly name-calling and taking sides. He wants to help San Francisco and San Franciscans. There is nothing phony about that.
His ballot measure is not perfect– but it won’t be what drives civil servants from this city. The criticisms of his plan are hyperbolic– inflated by the MSM that loves a divide-and-conquer scuffle.
July 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
According to Budget Committee Chair John Avalos, Supervisor Chris Daly is expected to make a motion at the Board’s July 20 meeting asking the Board to reverse a $1.2 million public defender budget restoration. That restoration, transferred from the trial court budget, was applied to help prevent outsourcing of more expensive indigent defense counsel.
“I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.
I had assumed Avalos was intelligent with a future, what a foot bullet he just delivered too himself and any prog running for district supervisor.
If the Sit/Lie ballot measure wedge was not enough, now we have this.
July 9, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Hey Avalos!
You’re reading this right? Show some sack and give your stand right here in front of God and everyone. You were the first to support cutting indigent defense not that many months ago. Do you support cutting the budget of the Office of Public Defender?
Chris Daly? I just can’t stop shaking my head. Is there anything you will not do for a headline? I’m certain we’ll find out over the next couple of months. How about getting a pair of bolt biters and cutting the lock off Boeddeker Park? Let the poor in.
Where’s Eric Mar? What’s your position here guy? You do have a position right?
David Campos? You’re the new white knight? You want a piece of Adachi and Gonzalez too? Come out right now here in public and say so.
Mirkarimi? Stand up like a man your staff and friends and family can be proud of and tell us what you want to do with the budget of the Public Defender’s office. It ain’t hard. Just open your mouth and say what you think.
Let’s see all of you get on the record here. Unless you’re all afraid.
h.
July 9, 2010 at 3:43 pm
The right of people in San Francisco to legal representation should not be held hostage to an internal feud within Democratic party support groups. There is an embryonic movement against the monopoly of power by the Democrats and we do not seek to promote growth. This movement is independent but has within it the seeds of a real political opposition party in San Francisco. Greens would do well to grasp the growing opposition to the systemmatic attacks on living standards that have occurred through the fines and fees as mechanisms to maintain the bureaucracy.
Who will suffer by cutbacks in the public defenders’ office? Everyone knows the answer to that.
What are the driving forces promoting the gentrification of the city and responsible for the mass displacements of African-Americans and the deterioration of the city’s public schools? HINT: They lie within the existing governing coalition in the city.
What are the priorities for making San Francisco a sustainable city- politically, financially and environmentally?
1. Break the monopoly of the Democratic Party;
2. Establish public education funding as the number one priority;
3. Promote a state bank for public infrastructure (look at the proposal by Laura Wells ; http://www.laurawells.org/
It is long past the time when the state and municipal budgets can simply be used to return political favors. How many more prisons need to be built in this state before we figure this out? The best offense for San Franciscans is a good defense (read: the Public Defenders’ Office).
July 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Another tempest in a teapot. The Board is justifiably troubled breaking precedent, as they have– especially the more progressive ones– staunchly tried to recoup cuts to the poor and meek year in year out. A
July 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Jeff Adachi is learning quickly that no good deed goes unpunished.
July 9, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Chris,
This ballot measure is wrongheaded. But indigent defendants are not the ones promoting it, and they are not the enemy.
Call it what you like, but what you’re doing looks and smells like retaliation, and the people hit the hardest are the people who least deserve it.
July 9, 2010 at 1:24 pm
@Rob, I think that you’ve proven to us all “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there is no correlation between the amount of money spent on public sector legal services and the quality of legal services purchased by the public as measured by outcomes.
That’s a fair argument.
-marc
July 9, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Doesn’t providing legal counsel for the poor qualify as a “vital” service? Adachi isn’t pocketing the money budgeted for his office; he uses it to pay the lawyers on his staff. I don’t believe a majority of supervisors—even on this awful board—will go along with this crude political retaliation.
July 9, 2010 at 12:12 pm
For 9 years running, I have proposed amendments to the budget to try to save vital health and community services. This year will be no exception.
While my attention continues to be focused on Police and Fire to pay for these restorations, in this fiscal year, any department that has received an increase will be scrutinized.
I am an advocate for indigent defense, as I am for mental health and homeless services. In balancing these priorities, I rely on the work of our independent Budget Analyst.
It is inaccurate, or at the very least a drastic oversimplification, to say that a second look at a committee action equals retribution. Mr. Adachi has done very well during the Board’s budget deliberations over the years, and I have been one of his staunchest advocates. I have successfully argued behind the scenes (when my colleagues didn’t think his numbers added up) that we should give our guy the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it is the tough budget times, that Mr. Adachi uses to justify his Charter Amendment, that also compel me to look deeper into the budget.
July 9, 2010 at 11:54 am
Prefiero morir en las pies como vivir in las rodillas.
-marc
July 9, 2010 at 11:46 am
Also, isn’t there something a little off about that headline? Isn’t that supposed to say “Sometime Adachi Allies” since they aren’t on this?
July 9, 2010 at 10:09 am
The Board has collaborated in the financial sector’s takedown of the national and global economies by enabling and enriching the South Florida-based Lennar Corporation for ten years plus. Lennar’s UAMC Mortgage, a Lennar-Lehman Brothers collaboration created largely to push Lennar properties at inflated prices, with predatory subprime loans, was a major player.
The Board also collaborates in perpetual war, the other major drain on the budget, by inviting Fleet Week and the Blue Angels Air Show military recruitment drive here every year.
They should address their own complicity in hammering the city budget here and everywhere else in the State instead of engaging in this kind of pettiness. Unless we see some real political courage and creativity, there’ll be nothing on the horizon but shrinking budgets, budget quarrels, and ongoing “structural readjustment” like that the IMF and World Bank impose on the Global South. It could hardly be more obvious that the federal government is on board.
July 9, 2010 at 9:28 am
“Where’s my cliff?!?”
Said Daly to Marc Salomon who relayed it on down the line to the other Progressive lemmings. As if getting on the wrong side (choosing neither is better) of the red herring Sit/Lie ballot measure (polling at 70% positive although it certainly sucks) … not content to allow themselves to be marginalized by Newsom’s office on that matter (which makes em ‘soft on crime’ in the Public eye), now here they go supporting runaway spending on bloated employee benefits. Do these guys have a single clue?
h.