November 2010 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Update On Mayor Selection Battle - Pretty Good News
by Eric Brooks 25 Nov '10

25 Nov '10

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-appro… 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

1 0

SF Weekly, Guardian, Nail Key Flaws In Proposed Mayor Selection Process
by Eric Brooks 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

Hi again all, Both the SF Weekly and the SF Guardian just nailed incredibly deep flaws in the Clerk's proposed Rule for the Mayoral selection process. See.. Weekly: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/11/board_of_supervisors_mayor_fac.… Guardian: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/11/23/editorial-screwy-process-selecting-…

1 0

CRUCIAL: Tell Mirkarimi & Mar Vote NO On Clerk's Mayor Appointment Process
by Eric Brooks 23 Nov '10

23 Nov '10

All, It is crucial that the supervisors vote -no- today on the Mayoral appointment rules process just proposed by the Clerk of the Board and advising attorneys. (See attached.) I have never seen a more convoluted process designed for failure in my life. It is nearly impossible to understand its pretzel-like implications at all, yet after reading it a couple of times, what does become clear is that there is no way in hell that the proposed process could lead to 6 votes to appoint a mayor. Especially the provisions requiring Supervisors to leave the room for various reasons and not be allowed to vote, and the necessity that Supervisors permanently remove themselves from contention during various points in the process will make it impossible to reach a successful conclusion. There are many other similar extreme problems with the proposed rule, too numerous to list; those are just the most obvious examples. If we are going to succeed in seating a progressive mayor quickly enough to face the budget crisis, we must get the four votes necessary to vote down this ridiculous rule. ACTION: CALL supervisors Mirkarimi 415-554-7630, and Mar 415-554-7410, right away and -before- 3pm today to insist that they: "Vote NO on the rule proposed by the Board Clerk for the Mayoral appointment, and instead proceed with existing Board rules with ongoing advice from the Santa Clara County Council." Daly, Avalos, and Campos are very likely already with us. Their numbers are: David Campos: 415-554-5144 John Avalos: 415-554-6975 Chris Daly: 415-554-7970

1 0

CRITICAL! Tomorrow 4pm City Hall Rm 250 SPEAK Demand New Mayor Choice Now
by Eric Brooks 16 Nov '10

16 Nov '10

Hi all, TURN OUT TOMORROW 4PM CITY HALL Turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. Because San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has won the Lieutenant Governor's race, and will take that office in early January, the Board of Supervisors must appoint his replacement. But there is a -big- problem. Downtown big business and real estate developer interests allied with Newsom, are maneuvering behind the scenes in private meetings with our City supervisors, to convince them to back down, not make this choice, and instead delay the decision so that it will be made by the far less experienced newly elected Board of Supervisors in January. This is extremely alarming. San Francisco is in the midst of one of the worst budget crises in its history, and it is vital that the current Board of Supervisors make a choice this month for Mayor Newsom's replacement, so that the Board and new Mayor can begin working together right now to assure the best possible budget deal for the upcoming year. We cannot afford a two month delay during which secret backroom politics, influenced by corporations and developers, will determine how our Mayor is chosen. The budget deeply impacts every issue that we are working on as organizers. To avoid this very bad outcome, Supervisor John Avalos and others have put forward a measure to be voted on by the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, Tue, Nov 16, in an open hearing at 4pm, during which we will be able to speak on that item. Supervisor Avalos' measure will make sure that the Board makes a choice for Mayor right away and in front of the people of San Francisco. So turn out tomorrow Tuesday Nov 16, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) 4pm to support John Avalos' legislation triggering the Board of Supervisors to choose a new mayor now, not in January. If you absolutely can't make it, call Board President David Chiu TODAY! The President of the Board of Supervisors, David Chiu, will be the key swing vote on this measure and may hesitate to support it because he is experiencing high lobbying pressure from downtown elites. It is vital that we flood Board President Chiu's office with phone calls -today- insisting that he take a stand for the public good and vote in favor of the current Board choosing our new Mayor right away, in an open public process. CALL David Chiu at: 415-554-7450 WITH THE MESSAGE: "Please vote in favor of Supervisor Avalos' measure to convene the current Board of Supervisors, in a public hearing, to choose the new Mayor of San Francisco this month!" If you are calling after hours, or get a recording, leave your message as voice mail. If you get a busy signal, call David Chiu's staff at either: 415-554-7451 or 415-554-7453

4 5

IMPORTANT: CEQA Continued: Alioto-Pier CEQA Measure Now Continued To December 6th
by Eric Brooks 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Hey gang, The Alioto-Pier CEQA item was just continued to the December 6 Land Use meeting. No need now to show up today to testify. Eric B

1 0

(Correction 1pm) Reminder - Monday: Alioto-Pier Attack On CEQA In Land Use Committee
by Eric Brooks 13 Nov '10

13 Nov '10

Michela Alioto-Pier's legislation to limit local access to CEQA procedures is in the SF Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee this Monday, SF City Hall Room 263, 1pm. Full Agenda at: http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=37172 Eric B

1 0