[Sustain] Update On Mayor Selection Battle - Pretty Good News

[Eric Brooks]

Hi all,

On Tuesday Nov 23, we won most (though not quite all) of what we needed 
to ensure a truly public process and a fair vote on a nominee for 
interim mayor.

The SF Guardian published this very solid synopsis of how it all came 
down. (Note my added blog comment below the report which fills in an 
important detail the Guardian missed.)

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/11/24/progressives-show-unity-board-approves-mayoral-succession-process

Progressives show unity as board approves mayoral succession process
11.24.10 - 11:41 am | Steven T. Jones |

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a process 
for replacing Mayor Gavin Newsom last night after the progressive 
majority stuck together on a pair of key procedural votes and some 
parliamentary jousting provided a preview of the high-stakes power 
struggle that will begin Dec. 7.

Sup. Sean Elsbernd led the board moderates (Sups. Carmen Chu, Michela 
Alioto-Pier, Bevan Dufty, and Sophie Maxwell) in trying to dilute the 
voting power of the six progressives on the board (Sups. David Chiu, 
Chis Daly, David Campos, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, and John Avalos) and 
ensure they can't vote as a bloc to choose the new mayor.

State conflict-of-interest rules spelled out by the California Political 
Reform Act and associated rulings prevent supervisors from voting in 
their economic interests, as becoming mayor would be. So Board Clerk 
Angela Calvillo and the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office (legal 
counsel in the matter after our own City Attorney's Office recused 
itself) created procedures whereby all nominees leave the room while the 
remaining supervisors vote.

But as Daly noted, clearing several supervisors from the room would make 
it unlikely that those remaining to come up with six votes for anyone. 
He also said the system would deny too many San Franciscans of a 
representative in this important decision and allow sabotage by just a 
few moderate supervisors, who could vote with a majority of supervisors 
present to adjourn the meeting in order to push the decision back to the 
next board that is sworn in on Jan. 11.

“The process before us is flawed,” Daly said.

So Daly sought to have the board vote on every nomination as it comes 
up, but Elsbernd argued that under Robert's Rules of Order, nominations 
don't automatically close like that and to modify a board rule that 
contradicts Robert's Rules requires a supermajority of eight votes. 
Calvillo, who serves as the parliamentarian, agreed with that 
interpretation and Chiu (who serves as chair and is the final word on 
such questions) ruled that a supermajority was required.

Although some of his progressive colleagues privately grumbled about a 
ruling that ultimately hurt the progressives' preferred system, Chiu 
later told the Guardian, “I gotta play umpire as I see the rules...We 
need to ensure the process and how we arrive at a process is fair and 
transparent.”

Nonetheless, Chiu voted with the progressives on the rule change, which 
failed on a 6-5 vote. But Daly noted that supervisors may still refuse 
nominations and remain voting until they are ready to be considered 
themselves, which could practically have the same effect as the rejected 
rule change. “If we think that's a better way to do it, we can do it, 
but we don't need to fall into the trap and subterfuge of our 
opponents,” Daly told his colleagues.

Elsbernd then moved to approve the process as developed by Calvillo, but 
Daly instead made a motion to amend the process by incorporating some 
elements on his plan that don't require a supermajority. After a short 
recess to clarify the motion, the next battleground was over the 
question of how nominees would be voted on.

Calvillo and Elsbernd preferred a system whereby supervisors would vote 
on the group of nominees all at once, but Daly argued that would dilute 
the vote and make it difficult to discern which of the nominees could 
get to six votes (and conversely, which nominees couldn't and could 
thereby withdraw their nominations and participate in the process).

“It is not the only way to put together a process that relies on 
Robert's Rules and board rules,” Daly noted, a point that was also 
confirmed at the meeting by Assistant Santa Clara County Counsel Orry 
Korb under questioning from Campos. “There are different ways to 
configure the nomination process,” Korb said. “Legally, there is no 
prohibition against taking single nominations at a time.”

So Daly made a motion to have each nominee in turn voted up or down by 
the voting board members, which required only a majority vote because it 
doesn't contradict Robert's Rules of Order. That motion was approved by 
the progressive supervisors on a 6-5 vote.

Both sides at times sought to cast the other as playing procedural 
games, and both emphasized what an important decision this is. “This is 
without a question the most important vote that any of us will take as a 
member of the Board of Supervisors and one that everyone is watching,” 
Elsbernd said of choosing a new mayor.

So after the divisive procedural votes played out, Chiu stepped down 
from the podium and appealed for unity around the final set of 
procedures. He said that San Franciscans need to have confidence that 
the process is fair and accepted by all, and so, “It would be great if 
we have more than a 6-5 vote on this.”

As the role call was taken, Carmen Chu was the first moderate to vote 
“yes,” and her colleagues followed suit on a 11-0 vote to approve the 
process. At that point, the board could have begun taking nominations, 
but it was already 7 p.m. and both Daly and Chiu argued to delay that 
process by couple weeks.

“We owe it to ourselves and this city to have a discussion [of what 
qualities various supervisors want to see in a new mayor] before we get 
into names and sequestration,” Daly said.

He and other progressive proposed to continue this discussion to Dec. 7, 
but Elsbernd – who was visibly agitated by the discussion – suddenly 
moved to table the item (which would end the discussion without spelling 
out the next step), a motion rejected on a 4-7 vote, with Maxwell 
joining the progressives.

The discussion ended with a unanimous vote to continue the item to Dec. 
7, when supervisors will discuss what they want in a new mayor and 
possibly begin the process of making and voting on nominations. Anyone 
who receives six votes will need to again be confirmed during the board 
meeting on Jan. 4, a day after Newsom assumes the office of lieutenant 
governor.

Comments:

One Problematic Glitch Remains In Mayor Appointment Rules

There is still one problematic glitch in the newly passed rules for the 
selection of the new mayor.

Specifically, what the rules now say, is that nominations will be opened 
and a series of nominations will be taken. Then the supervisors will 
vote on those nominations one by one. HOWEVER, if more than one sitting 
supervisor is nominated in that first set of nominations, ALL of them 
will have to leave the room and not take part in ANY voting UNTIL their 
own nomination is voted on.

So we still could get a situation in which most of the progressives 
supervisors are out of the room for a key vote on a specific progressive 
candidate.

So the progressives will either have to tweak the rules as they begin so 
that candidates leave the room -only- during a vote on their -own- 
candidacy, or the progressives will have to agree to only appoint one 
progressive sitting supervisor in that first wave of nominations, and 
only one in all subsequent new sets of nominations. The latter option is 
tricky because the Brown Act precludes them from discussing it ahead of 
time.

So they should just tweak the rule before they begin voting.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 4:01 pm