City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Photos by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
May 19, 2011
Recent comments by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera over pension reform reveals he is partial to union interests and may have violated ethics laws.
“Jeff (Adachi) may be coming from the right place when he first started but he is demonstrating a public defender’s mentality of not wanting to lose and I would agree with him wholeheartedly on that, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to lie, and I can tell you that going through last year’s Prop B ballot and having to be the one that drafts up the titles and summaries and seeing how things were portrayed and what goes on, you need to be honest with the voters and you can’t go out lying to the press, lying in respect to contributions that hard working men and women in labor have made, not just in the last year or two, but going back over generations to show that they have always been willing to be part of the solution, and that’s something that I think that was incredibly insulting as part of the Adachi measure, was to denigrate the work that was done by all of you,” Herrera said.
“I have been absolutely incredibly impressed with how the men and women of labor have come to the table trying to negotiate a solution that recognizes our fiscal necessities in this city, but also does everything it can to maintain (unintelligible) and respect for the contribution of the work that they they have done, so labor deserves a tremendous amount of credit in the negotiations that are going on right now. I feel confidant that we’re going to get there,” Herrera added.
Herrera made the comments Tuesday while seeking a coveted endorsement from the San Francisco Labor Council (SFLC) for his campaign for mayor.
The comments by Herrera, the mayoral candidate, reveal a bias towards the unions in their opposition of Proposition B, a controversial pension reform measure sponsored by Public Defender Jeff Adachi on last year’s November ballot, and raises questions about whether Herrera, the duly elected City Attorney, is able to maintain objectivity and neutrality when writing ballot measure questions related to pension reform.
While a Ballot Simplification Committee writes most of the ballot language, including titles and summaries, the City Attorney is responsible for writing ballot measure questions.
Several competing pension reform proposals are being considered for placement on this year’s November ballot and Herrera will be formulating the corresponding ballot questions.
In a recent FCJ interview published in April, Adachi suggested Herrera intentionally wrote a misleading ballot question to confuse voters, which may have contributed to Prop B’s failure at the ballot.
“Dennis Herrera, as City Attorney, is in a precarious position because he is the City Attorney and is in charge of reviewing ballot measures,” Adachi said in the interview. “For the last pension reform measure, the City Attorney’s office drafted a convoluted ballot question which was written in a way that sounded as if the City was going to pay more for pensions.”
The Prop B question, as printed on last year’s November voter guide, reads: “Shall the City increase employee contributions to the Retirement System for retirement benefits; decrease employer contributions to the Health Service System for health benefits for employees, retirees and their dependents; and change rules for arbitration proceedings about City collective bargaining agreements?”
The words “pension” and “reform” were not included in the ballot question penned by Herrera.
Responding, Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey told FCJ, “Jeff Adachi is trying to spin a fiction – that the City Attorney is the one that calls all the shots about what goes on the ballot, when it is completely untrue,” adding that Adachi lost his battle over the final ballot language with the Ballot Simplification Committee.
When pressed further about the City Attorney’s role in producing ballot measure question language, Dorsey conceded, “The only thing the City Attorney has is ballot question,” adding, “The question directs to what the Ballot Simplification Committee has done.”
Asked if Herrera’s recently stated position on pension reform as City Attorney and as a candidate for mayor creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, Dorsey said, “Dennis is in a no more difficult position than anyone else running for mayor,” adding that Herrera would have “vigorously” defended legal challenges to Prop B if it had passed.
Reached for comment, Adachi said he was “troubled” by Herrera’s comments to the SFLC.
“Over the past year, I have expressed my deep concerns regarding the City Attorney’s fairness toward the pension reform ballot initiative during last November’s election and his handling of the ballot question,” Adachi said. “I am troubled to learn that Mr. Herrera himself has admitted his deep biases against a ballot process entrusted to him as City Attorney. He cannot wear two hats as a mayoral candidate, who is seeking endorsements, and as a City Attorney who is required by law to impartially review and draft language concerning a ballot initiative signed by 77,000 voters.”
Public Defender Jeff Adachi. File photo, 6/26/10.
Meeting on Public Pension Reform
Union officials and key city executives convened with Warren Hellman in the mayor’s conference room on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, to discuss the public sector pensions
Credit: Adithya Sambamurthy/The Bay Citizen
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/129hw)
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
May 24, 2011 at 11:30 am
@Eric – The elderly (and disabled) already DO have to pay some of their meager income to be included in the Medicare program.
Tax the rich, or eat them!
May 23, 2011 at 9:07 pm
We have to -make- it happen.
There needs to be a local general strike serious and wide enough to bring the City to its knees.
May 23, 2011 at 11:32 am
@Eric Brooks
“We should be raising taxes on the rich to solve this problem.”
Not gonna happen when local supervisors are going out of their way to take away average pay and benefits while providing extra for the wealthy – think stock option tax exemptions scheduled for vote soon. There are already many tax manipulations federally without adding locally. See: http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-incentive-stock-options-12196/?zone=intromessage
May 23, 2011 at 10:23 am
@ H
Medicare presents a similar financial threat to the national budget (as pensions do locally).
Does that mean that the elderly should pay some of their bitterly small Social Security income into Medicare, or that Medicare should be cut?
Of course not.
We should be raising taxes on the rich to solve this problem.
May 23, 2011 at 10:20 am
@ Patrick & Seej
Thank you. I asked a simple question, and you deftly avoided answering that question. Thanks for confirming what readers already knew about your anti-worker rant, which is that it doesn’t hold water.
No verbal and actuarial acrobatics about workers ‘paying more into’ their pensions can obfuscate the blatant fact that these measures are cutting pay and benefits of the working class and not doing anything to seek more in general funds from the outrageously rich.
May 23, 2011 at 8:24 am
@ Brooks-
You posted a Tim Redmond editorial in your defense- you could not have picked a person who understands pension math less but insists on writing about it than Tim Redmond.
As others have also stated, your jibberish and wild conspiracy theories are absurd. Maybe you should run down to City Hall today and tell everybody in the building to call off the minimalist pension reform deal fifty people are about to cut because it’s all a “BIG LIE”. I am sure everyone will appreciate the new information you will bring to the table.
May 22, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Labor Council! The unions don’t even help the rank and file when called upon. The City Attorney’s Office is one of the lynchpins in this corrupt enterprise. Please don’t mistake union support for worker support. Clean it up, and send Hererra and crew packing.
The cost monster is the Municipal Executives Association– which as management should not even have collective bargaining rights–and who double-dip their interests by being represented on union-City “partnership” committees as Department brass and also as “union” representatives.
Deal with the uniforms and the MEA, SF!
The City Attorney’s Office wastes money fighting Bike Plan EIRs but bills out its costs–and won’t let Departments hire their own less expensive) counsel! It’s the company store, and you have to shop there, per the opinion of the City Attorney’s Office.
The management monster, (just look at MTA), robs us all. Please aim reform at the problem.
May 22, 2011 at 8:46 pm
@Eric Brooks:
The City made promises it couldn’t keep.
You asked for a direct response to your question, but your question is based on a false premise. Asking people to contribute more to their own pension fund–to contribute to their OWN retirement–is not a pay cut. Why should taxpayers fund these pensions, particularly when private taxpayers don’t get a pension? And when private sector workers make less than private sector workers in San Francisco?
Even if a rank and file worker gets a pension of $50,000 in San Francisco, that means they get $50,000 for life guaranteed starting in their 50s. No one in the private sector gets that, because the math makes no sense. That would require someone in the private sector to have accrued well over a $1,200,000 in their retirement account–and for the accrual to remain unaffected by any market downturns. It is nearly impossible for someone making between $50,000-$100,000 to save $1,000,000 for retirement after 30 years of employment.
FInally, the tax code doesn’t permit the taxes you want. Cal. Rev & Tax Code 17041.5 reads: “Notwithstanding any statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or decision to the contrary, no city, county, city and county, governmental subdivision, district, public and quasi-public corporation, municipal corporation, whether incorporated or not or whether chartered or not, shall levy or collect or cause to be levied or collected any tax upon the income, or any part thereof, of any person, resident or nonresident.” Darrel Steinberg wants to change that law, but even if changes (big, big if), the electorate will need to pass any income tax by a two-thirds vote, and it will never pass when taxpayers realize the revenue is being generated to fund pensions the taxpayers don’t get.
Again, you are trying to make this a macro policy discussion about your beliefs that the rich have too much and rank and file have too little. Your beliefs may be well-intentioned, but they are allergic to San Francisco pension math. Waxing on about “taxing the billionaires” isn’t a solution. It might be nice for a cocktail party or poetry reading or whatever you may do.
May 22, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Campers,
Seej, you’re wasting your time with this crew. Anyone with a brain who doesn’t suffer from tunnel vision can see what’s going to happen. Cause it already happened in Vallejo. Couple of days ago the termed-out mayor of San Jose declared a state of emergency to try and save the jobs and services that the Pension Tsunami (it’s not just hitting here, but all over the country) … Mayor Reed (see Lesly Steven piece in Baycitizen.com) … he says that unchecked the disaster will force the City to release 2,600 of its 4.200 workers within 3 years. And still, the unions will not negotiate. Then, they claim he didn’t talk to them before declaring the emergency. Fact is that, like here and like with Adachi, the unions refuse to talk to serious reformers. Reed’s solutions echo those I’ve suggested. Volunteer police and fire departments for starters.
You’re going to end up with privatized Public Safety officers making minimum wage while Delugnuts and O’Connor (SFPD and SFFD union chiefs respectively) … Delugnuts and O’Connor will sit in their mansions drawing $10,000 dollars a month with a smirk.
Giants won.
But, you knew that.
h.
May 22, 2011 at 7:22 pm
You are totally missing the point Patrick and misreading what I meant.
The potential liability from pensions is indeed real. So is the potential future liability of Medicare.
The clever deception is that it is somehow unexpected or wrong for pensions and health care to be such big ticket items in the budget. That’s the lie that I’m referring to. We knew when we set those programs up that they were going cost a lot. Now the powers that be are -lying- by saying that the cost is some sort of shocking surprise to them. That’s a total load of horse manure.
It is the bad economy and the cuts from the feds and the state that are the surprise. And those cuts need to be addressed fairly through increased taxes; not by cutting our responsibilities to social services, health care and worker pensions.
(What Heather Fong personally negotiated for herself from her petty power position has absolutely nothing to do with the pensions of the rank and file.)
I repeat the question which neither of you has bothered to properly answer (because you know damned well you don’t -have- a good answer). Why are we cutting the pay of rank and file workers making less than $100,000 a year when we should be making wealthy people and corporations in San Francisco pay a lot more than they do now into the general fund?
(And your contention that there is no way to tax the wealthy and corporations locally is simply nonsense. There are ways to do so.)
So, why do rank and file workers have to suffer cuts when the rich don’t? (Those rich who have have grown -hundreds- of times wealthier than the average worker over the past three decades.)
Simple question.
I’m waiting…
May 22, 2011 at 3:35 pm
@Eric Brooks:
You are advocating a conspiracy theory that is nonsensical. Your views are hard to take seriously.
You think that the pension math problem is a “bogus clever lie.” So your view is that the City’s own actuaries, controller, and leaders are making the liability up? The pension fund lost $3 billion in 2008. You believe that is a just a lie.
You propose the solution is “direct local taxes on local millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations.” First, there is no legal authority for the City to impose such taxes. California’s Revenue and Taxation code doesn’t allow such taxes at the local level. Second, you previously (in the same post) said that the pension problem is just a clever lie, so why would any taxes be needed if there is no problem? Apparently you think there is no problem, so no taxes would be needed to solve it.
Finally, calling out Seej for not knowing what he’s talking about then citing a Bay Guardian editorial as support is as weak as it gets. First, the Bay Guardian has shown no understanding of the pension problem and has been the last publication in town to even acknowledge a problem exists. Second, that article took the position that pensions are deferred compensation that public employees negotiated for themselves. So your view is apparently that Heather Fong negotiated $250,000 per year in deferred comp for herself?
May 22, 2011 at 11:34 am
To put it bluntly Seej you simply don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
See:
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2011/02/24/truth-about-pensions
May 22, 2011 at 9:28 am
@Eric Brooks-
@Patrick already commented on your talking point nonsense- my only comment here would be you forgot to mention the Koch brothers and that pension reform is an “attack” on City employees.
You stated in lieu of wage increases the CIty increased pension benefits into the far future – your words. There is only three ways you can increase the future pension benefit 1) lower the retirement age 2) increase the % earned each year (e.g., 3% for police) and 3) increase the maxiumum earned (90% police). None of these can be done at the MOU level. They require a change in the Charter. If these items could be negotiated, you would cite a specific example which you have not.
I would not fret. You folks dupe a lot of people with your nonsense. I only have to go out and count potholes to know how successful you have been…
May 22, 2011 at 9:24 am
Much Better Naomi Klein Video On Local ‘Disaster Capitalism’
In the link I provided before, Naomi Klein, only briefly touches on the ‘Disaster Capitalism’ attack on local workers.
Here is a much better video, which is a recent Democracy Now interview with Klein on exactly what I wrote about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGj6Tnow-LE
May 22, 2011 at 9:22 am
Much Better Naomi Klein Video On Local ‘Disaster Capitalism’
In the link I provided before, Naomi Klein, on briefly touches on the ‘Disaster Capitalism’ attack on local workers.
Here is a much better video, which is a recent Democracy Now interview with Klein on exactly what I wrote about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGj6Tnow-LE
May 22, 2011 at 8:29 am
You are falling prey to a trick.
The local claim that pensions are going to trainwreck our budget is -exactly- the same as the argument that Social Security and Medicare are going to wreck the national budget. It is all a bogus clever lie to get us to focus on further cutting the wages and benefits of the middle and lower classes, in order to give even more wealth to the rich.
The answer nationally is -not- to cut Medicare, but to expand it and raise taxes.
The answer locally is -not- to cut pensions, but to raise local taxes to get general fund money from those who do not pay nearly enough.
I am talking about direct local taxes on local millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations to go directly into the general fund to pay for our local needs.
The trick the wealthy are playing to get us to believe this pension cut nonsense is called ‘disaster capitalism’ which refers to capitalist elites using the specter of financial or other crises as an excuse to cut worker pay and government services, and privatize everything, so that more wealth can be driven into the clutches of the rich and the banks.
The so called ‘pension reform’ narrative is exactly the same deceptive trick, and know that it is being played out in myriad city and state governments, right now, all over the country. Attacks on worker pensions are happening -everywhere- as we type.
Read Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock Doctrine’ which spells out in detail these insidious tricks repeatedly pulled on us by the global -and- local power structure to bilk us of our livelihoods, our commons, and our very lives themselves. And see the video noted below.
Our local budget crisis is -intimately- connected with the global capitalist wealth grab. See Naomi Klein discussing disaster capitalism at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHs64Hz3ZJY
May 21, 2011 at 8:39 pm
@Eric Brooks:
It’s a false argument to turn the pension problem of San Francisco–a local problem–into a macro discussion about federal and state tax policy. San Francisco has a huge math problem. It won’t be solved by esoteric discussions about taxing millionaires and billionaires, particularly when San Francisco doesn’t have the legal authority to tax them in any event.
May 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm
And to your final point. You are simply wrong. The shift of pay to long term benefits was done through labor negotiations; perfectly achievable and legal under the Charter.
May 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm
First of all, a -lot- of city employees do -not- make any where near $94 thousand a year.
But most importantly, you are failing to look at this from a perspective of tax fairness. The pay cut that we are referring to is essentially a new tax on city employees, and a big one.
Why are we levying much higher taxes on people who make less than $100 thousand a year, when we should instead be levying higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires, and huge corporations, most of whom pay proportionately less in taxes than the middle class, because they are able to game the tax system with their wealth?
What’s your answer to that question?
And then we should ask the next question… Why the hell are the unions stupidly going along with this nonsense when they should instead be launching a citywide general strike and demanding that the rich pay their fair share…?
May 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm
@ Eric Brooks-
City employees are paid high wages- I believe the average wage is $94,000 per year. The idea that City employees have been “giving up raises” when they are already highly paid falls flat.
If their wages were any higher, the City would already be bankrupt. The City cannot even sustain the current wage rates without the major cuts in City services we are seeing now and we will see more of in the future.
…”the City transferred what labor was asking for in wages, into pensions and benefits for the far future.”
For the record, this is technically not true. The City doesn’t have the authority to change the future pension benefit- this can only be done with a change to the City Charter which requires a vote of residents.
May 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Besides being witless, the cutesy comments miss the point, which is that Herrera strung out the litigation at city taxpayers’ expense for strictly political reasons. If he’ll do it on that issue, he’ll do it on others.
May 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
@ Seej – The reason this so called ‘reform’ is actually a pay cut, is that, in previous years during pay negotiations, instead of giving immediate pay raises that it felt it couldn’t afford, the City transferred what labor was asking for in wages, into pensions and benefits for the far future.
So for the City to now cut those pensions and benefits which in actuality were deferred pay increases, is to both betray the original agreements, and to flat-out cut the pay of workers. Period.
May 21, 2011 at 10:07 am
For Rob.
Is it true you’re thinking of giving up driving and buying a bicycle, now that we’ve made it a little safer?
GO GIANTS.
May 21, 2011 at 12:53 am
For Rob,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt0V0_1MS0Q
(lots of nudity)
Giants win in 10 innings.
h.
May 21, 2011 at 12:50 am
For Rob,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt0V0_1MS0Q
Giants win in 10 innings.
h.
May 20, 2011 at 11:26 am
City Attorney Herrera also dragged out the litigation on the Bicycle Plan long after he understood that, sooner or later, the city would have to do an EIR on the ambitious, 500-page Plan. If a lawyer does that in private practice, it’s malpractice.
http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2010/09/admirable-dennis-herrera.html
May 20, 2011 at 10:21 am
Pay cut is incorrect. I gather a benefit is derived by increasing one’s contribution in order to make your own pension fund solvent- it’s a good investment. A “pay cut” in San Francisco is defined as deferring yet another raise for one year when you are already paid 35% more than your Bay Area counterparts.
For those interested in what a “pay cut” (an actual reduction in wage rate) actually looks like – see CIty of San Jose public employees. San Jose actually takes enormous projected deficits in out years seriously.
May 20, 2011 at 8:21 am
Pay cut is correct. Pensions and health care ARE social services for working people.
Why would progressives want to do anything that would knock a weakened, damaged candidate like Herrera out of the race?
The fact is that the Labor Council will not endorse because it will not reach the threshold. We should celebrate that candidates with no defined political moorings are prostrating themselves publicly in ways that alienate themselves from other constituencies from which they seek support, we should encourage them to further weaken their coalitions in this manner.
Adachi has his gonads in this deep up to the hilt, to the extent that he can no longer think straight about this. It has become all about Adachi under the influence of his political hormones, needing to prove his political manhood to himself, his buddies, his new billionaire friends and everyone else instead of charting the best policy course forward for all involved.
It is often said that the Democrats try to be liberal in Washington but conservative locally, and this is a case in point.
-marc
May 19, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Guys!
Can we stop calling it ‘Pension Reform’ please?
It’s a pay cut. ‘Pay’…’Cut’ eh?
And Herrera?
He’s bad news to the core. He threw out (on a ridiculous and wildly unconstitutional technicality) 33,000 signatures that District 10 voters gathered to put the question of Lennar Corporation’s toxic gentrification in their neighborhood to a public vote.
It doesn’t get any more in bed with rapacious developers than that.
Herrera is a total enemy of the people and democracy and shouldn’t be put in charge of a hot dog stand, let alone the City of San Francisco.
May 19, 2011 at 6:40 pm
This is shameless behavior by Herrera. In my opinion, it sounds like he manipulated the process. And given the quote in the article, how did he not just conflict himself out of any involvement in the ballot process with respect to pension reform.
May 19, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Wowsuh,
Liar? Sounds like someone is hearing the sound of Mayor Adachi’s footsteps gaining on them. Dennis needs either a thesaurus or a couple of less drinks. If he’s this rattled with Jeff not in the race, what’s he gonna sound like if the Public Defender enters? This is really poor form for a guy I thought had more class.
I’m more convinced than ever that the best way for Adachi to defend his department and City services in general is for him to enter the mayoral contest. Progressives desperately need a candidate with strong City-wide voter appeal and he got 199,000 votes just 6 months ago even with Herrera and the Hellman gang spending 1.6 million buckaroos to blacken his name.
Nice scoop, Luke. I wonder if Dennis is coming unglued because of the Brown/Pak campaign to bring Ed Lee into the race. Everyone at my neighborhood bar’s been saying that Herrera’s money goes away with Mr. Ed in the fray.
Speaking of neighborhood bars and money going away …
Daly’s Dive for my Bulldog Salon tomorrow Noon til 3pm and every Friday. I’m busted, so you’re buying.
Giants go after the Dodgers in 15 minutes.
h.
May 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Dennis the Menace. or. Dennis the Disenfranchiser, both fit. Just ask the 30,000 plus San Franciscans he denied the right to vote. He should be indicted for malfeasence. He is a disgrace.
May 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Well I’m glad Herrera’s fervent anti-pension reform bias is out in the open with regard to the past election. I can’t believe this corrupt individual is acting City Attorney- let alone running for mayor. (I believe the CA’s office is also a non-voting member of the Ballot Summary Committee wielding much influence.)
Regardless, any fair reading of the “Prop B ballot questions” presented would say they were misleading and incomprehensible at best- and now we know they were so for a reason – Herrera did not want Prop B to pass.
What a disgrace when voters are disenfranchised simply due to the clear bias of the City Attorney.
Herrera should resign.
May 19, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Of course Herrera will get Labor Council endorsement.
He and Paulson are so indebted to, and deep in bed with Lennar that it would probably make even dear Margo blush. (If you don’t know who Margo is then you ain’t been here long.)