- Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Time & Place Of SFMTA Meeting Changed - 9am, Tue, 1 South Van Ness (Muni HQ)
by Eric Brooks 12 Feb '11

12 Feb '11

http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/under-dome/2011/02/time-and-location-regula… Time and location of regular SFMTA board meeting changed By: Will Reisman <http://www.sfexaminer.com/people/will-reisman> 02/11/11 3:05 PM /Examiner Staff Writer/ Muni haters looking to vent their rage at the agency <http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2011/02/derailment-castro-st…> might want to check its board schedule before showing up at City Hall at 1 p.m. on Tuesday. Instead of convening the Board of Directors meeting at its regular time on Tuesday, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni, will hold a special meeting at the agency's headquarters at 1 South Van Ness Ave. The meeting is scheduled to take place at 9 a.m., and will tackle some heavy issues. Topics at the meeting include pedestrian safety, long- and short-term financial plans and renewed discussions about the Transit Effectiveness Project. wreisman(a)sfexaminer.com <mailto:wreisman@sfexaminer.com>

1 0

SF Transit Survey For Transportation Plan
by Eric Brooks 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

San Francisco is in the process of updating the San Francisco Transportation Plan (SFTP), which will identify goals, needs and investment priorities for the city's transportation system for the next 25 years. The SF Transportation Authority has created an online survey to get input for the project: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sftp The web site for the Transportation Plan is http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/822/416

2 1

Mar and Kim Help Make Traitor David Chiu Board President
by Eric Brooks 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

Eric Mar and Jane Kim just supported the traitor for Board president and David Chiu therefore has won Board president 8-3 with only Campos, Mirkarimi and Avalos voting against.

1 0

How Newsom, Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Orchestrated Ed Lee Maneuver - Chilling & Outrageous!
by Eric Brooks 08 Jan '11

08 Jan '11

Eric Mar and Jane Kim just supported the traitor for Board president and David Chiu therefore has won Board president 8-3 with only Campos, Mirkarimi and Avalos voting against.

1 0

How Newsom, Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Orchestrated Ed Lee Maneuver - Chilling & Outrageous!
by Eric Brooks 07 Jan '11

07 Jan '11

Everyone with any pull on David Chiu needs to read the article below and then contact Chiu to tell him we will bring down his political career if he continues to take part in this bullshit. In yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/us/07bcmayor.html New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com> Behind-the-Scenes Power Politics: The Making of a Mayor From left, Justin Sullivan/Getty Images; Heidi Schumann For The New York Times; Adithya Sambamurthy/The Bay Citizen Beyond City Hall, from left, Mayor Gavin Newsom, former Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. and Rose Pak played crucial roles in the selection of an interim mayor. By GERRY SHIH Published: January 6, 2011 On Sunday afternoon, former Mayor Willie L. Brown Jr. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/willie_l_jr_br…> made an urgent call to Rose Pak, his longtime political ally and the powerful head of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce. Word had trickled out that San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors had narrowed the list of interim candidates to replace Mayor Gavin Newsom <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/gavin_newsom/i…>, the lieutenant governor-elect. But the contenders — Sheriff Michael Hennessey, former Mayor Art Agnos and Aaron Peskin, the chairman of the city’s Democratic Party <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democra…> — were deemed too liberal by Ms. Pak, Mr. Brown and Mr. Newsom, who are more moderate. With momentum fizzling around Ms. Pak’s favored candidate, David Chiu, the board president, Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown decided to pool their efforts on behalf of another Asian-American official: Edwin M. Lee. Over the next 48 hours, Ms. Pak, Mr. Brown and the Newsom administration engaged in an extraordinary political power play, forging a consensus on the Board of Supervisors, outflanking the board’s progressive wing and persuading Mr. Lee to agree to become San Francisco’s first Asian-American mayor, even though he had told officials for months that he had no interest in the job. “This was something incredibly orchestrated, and we got played,” Supervisor John Avalos, a progressive, said in an interview. “I’m still trying to figure out what happened. I don’t know what the game was about, except that it was to muscle someone into office.” Barring another last-minute development, the board is expected to ratify Mr. Lee’s appointment Friday in its final session. The incoming board, to be sworn in on Saturday, is expected to vote to install Mr. Lee next week — the last step needed for him to become interim mayor, until the election in November. The behind-the-scenes drama was a stark reminder of the enduring power of Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown and their ability to influence city politics at the highest levels, even seven years after Mr. Brown left office. In separate interviews, Ms. Pak and Mr. Brown described Mr. Lee as a committed liberal Democrat, and they emphasized the importance of the symbolism of an Asian-American mayor. “This was finally our moment to make the first Chinese mayor of a major city,” Ms. Pak said. “How could you let that slip by?” Mr. Brown said progressives should be “ashamed” of “subtle biases” in their opposition to Mr. Lee, a former civil rights lawyer who in 1978 led city tenants in the first rent strike against the State Housing Authority. “To present an opportunity to a person of color, well-credentialed and well-qualified, ought to be one of the tenets of the progressive movement,” Mr. Brown said. “That’s genuine progressivism.” Progressive supervisors said that they did not question Mr. Lee’s credentials or his politics. A career bureaucrat, Mr. Lee — who was appointed to his current post as city administrator by Mr. Newsom in 2005 — has a reputation among insiders as one of most competent public officials at City Hall. Rather, the progressives bristled at how his candidacy was engineered by Mr. Brown and Ms. Pak, whose bare-knuckled style of politics they have come to resent bitterly. “I like Ed Lee, and I’ve always been open to him,” Supervisor David Campos said. “If they had given us an opportunity to have the conversation with Ed Lee and consider it, maybe we wouldn’t have had those issues.” The last-minute push to install Mr. Lee involved political maneuvering, as well as misdirection and some luck, according to people involved in the effort. For months, a number of supervisors had asked Mr. Lee if he was interested in being interim mayor, but he had always said no. The critical stumbling block for Mr. Lee, several people said, was his concern about a rule in the city charter that prohibited elected officials from taking appointed positions within a year of leaving office. Mr. Lee, who is putting two daughters through college, was confirmed to a new term as chief administrator in December. He told officials he did not want to risk forfeiting the remainder of his five-year contract as city administrator, worth $1.25 million. As his anxieties became clear, Mr. Newsom’s staffers asked the office of Dennis Herrera, the city attorney, to begin quietly drafting a charter amendment to allow Mr. Lee to return to the administrator’s post after he served as mayor, according to several City Hall officials. The amendment still needs board approval. On Monday morning, Mr. Chiu, the board president, joined Supervisor Sean Elsbernd and others in pushing Mr. Lee as a candidate among the board members. But Mr. Lee remained deeply ambivalent about the nomination as late as Monday evening. “I am tremendously reluctant,” Mr. Lee wrote in an e-mail to Ms. Pak as he prepared to leave Hong Kong for the hot springs of Yangmingshan National Park in Taiwan. “But Newsom would like to take care of as many concerns that I have, including the exemption from work prohibition after serving,” the e-mail continued. Mr. Lee asked Ms. Pak for guidance, writing: “As you know, I love serving my city. Would this be the best way?” Ms. Pak was fortunate to connect with Mr. Lee shortly before he boarded his flight to Taiwan — and an area with spotty cellphone service — and urged him to consider becoming the first Chinese mayor of San Francisco. It was only then, less than 24 hours before the board vote, that the Lee camp persuaded its candidate to accept a nomination. On Tuesday, just hours before the board was to consider nominations and vote for an interim mayor, Mr. Newsom and his allies knew they needed a single vote more to push through Mr. Lee. Mr. Newsom turned to Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who had initially favored Mr. Lee but had signaled to progressive stalwarts like Chris Daly, Mr. Campos and Mr. Avalos that he would back Mr. Hennessey. The mayor summoned Mr. Dufty and another supervisor, Michela Alioto-Pier, a supporter of Mr. Lee, to his office shortly before the board meeting. According to Mr. Dufty, Mr. Newsom urged him to support the “consensus candidate.” When Mr. Dufty went to the board chamber that evening for what turned into an eight-hour session, he told Mr. Campos that he “felt good about Hennessey,” Mr. Dufty said. That led progressives to nominate their favored candidate, Mr. Hennessey, in an effort to lock up his appointment. But their plan was thrown into chaos when Mr. Dufty refused to vote for Mr. Hennessey, leaving the sheriff one vote shy of the six he needed to secure the nomination. Mr. Dufty then called for a recess and met with Supervisor Sophie Maxwell and Steve Kawa, Mr. Newsom’s chief of staff, in Mr. Kawa’s office, with Mr. Newsom on speakerphone. In an interview, Mr. Dufty said he wanted to confirm Mr. Lee’s positions on immigration <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_…> before voting for him. He denied that he brokered a deal with Mr. Newsom. “I could just see the waters shifting around Mr. Hennessey,” Mr. Dufty said. Shortly before 10 p.m., Mr. Dufty emerged from Mr. Newsom’s suite to declare that he was ready to vote for Mr. Lee. Mr. Daly was enraged. He had spent months working to install someone he hoped would be the first truly progressive mayor in 30 years, and that dream had been blown apart. He sharply criticized Mr. Dufty and vowed revenge on Mr. Chiu, who he had believed would side with the progressives, and who could have provided the sixth vote for Mr. Hennessey. Mr. Chiu, who was mentioned as a possible candidate for interim district attorney (to fill the position vacated by Kamala Harris, the new state attorney general), announced Thursday that he was taking himself out of the running. Mr. Chiu is expected to run for mayor in the fall. “I will haunt you,” Mr. Daly told Mr. Chiu on Tuesday night. “After this vote, I will politically haunt you. It’s on, like Donkey Kong.” Twice, he muttered “30 years,” then slammed his fist against a banister and stormed out of the chamber. Across town, Ms. Pak gleefully watched the proceedings from a bar at the New Asia Restaurant. She was in a boastful mood the next day, several hours before she planned to have celebratory drinks with Mr. Brown at the Chinatown Hilton. “Now you know,” she told a reporter, “why they say I play politics like a blood sport.”

1 0

Emergency Alert! Serious Danger Of Losing Progressive SF Board This Friday
by Eric Brooks 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

Hi all, SF Board president David Chiu is apparently on the verge of making a deal with Newsom to vote for Newsom's pick for interim mayor (his own City Administrator Ed Lee). If Chiu has made a deal to vote for Lee and give up his Supervisor post to be appointed as District Attorney (or another post) by Newsom, then Newsom or Ed Lee will appoint a conservative to replace Chiu as Supervisor of District 3. If that happens, we are in deep shit for at least the next decade. There is also the complication that even some of the progressive supervisors may cave in and swing to Lee in the final vote (this Friday at 3pm) if we don't make it absolutely clear to them that we will -not- under any circumstances accept them appointing Newsom's pick for the next mayor. Everyone on this list with any influence whatsoever on Chiu needs to contact him immediately and make sure he knows his political career is -over- if he sides with the mayor; especially if he leaves his supervisor seat. Also contact Mirkarimi, Avalos, Campos, and Mar, and make sure they know that Ed Lee is absolutely unacceptable and that they should get move HARD to get Chiu back in line -immediately- and before the Friday vote. It would also help to contact Duty and Maxwell and tell them we will not accept Lee as interim Mayor. in solidarity Eric B

1 0

Fwd: Please Send Feedback On MTA Nominee Bridges
by Eric Brooks 29 Dec '10

29 Dec '10

Hi all, Please send feedback on this proposed MTA nominee. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: MTA nominee Bridges Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:20:39 -0500 From: Joshua Arce <josh(a)brightlinedefense.org> To: Eric Brooks (brookse32(a)aim.com) <brookse32(a)aim.com> Eric, can you forward this to the appropriate Green Party list? I was approached by Leona Bridges, who has been nominated to serve on MTA. She is a regular Muni rider (38 Geary) and is great on local hiring (which is important because Nat Ford was not much of a fan of the Avalos law when it was in committee), but I want to see what other transportation issues we might want to have a conversation about and I would also like to know if the Bicycle Coalition has talked to her. Can you post to the appropriate SFGP list for me? I'm on a few lists but not sure what's the best one for my question. Thanks! Josh Joshua Arce Executive Director Brightline Defense Project =

1 0

Final Hearing! New Mayor Now! This Tue Tell Supes Unite On Nominee & Appoint! AND Ask Tom To Run!
by Eric Brooks 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Hi all, Final Hearing! New Mayor Now! This Tuesday Tell Supes Unite On Nominee & Appoint! AND Ask Tom Ammiano Today To Step Forward As A Nominee! See petition at http://tinyurl.com/23r7pul TURN OUT! This Tue Dec 7, 3pm, Rm 250, SF City Hall - On Both Polk & Van Ness between Grove & McAllister (from Civic Center BART/Muni cross United Nations Plaza to City Hall) Public Comment will be taken at this hearing! This Tue Dec 7, 3pm is our moment! This is our chance to demand that our elected Board of Supervisors (the peoples' body) avoid back room political games, unite around one mayoral nominee who reflects the progressive goals and values of the majority of San Franciscans; and to appoint that nominee NOW so that our new mayor has as much time as possible to prepare for office and face San Francisco's unprecedented budget and economic crises. It is also vital that you tell the supervisors what San Francisco needs in the person that they will choose, and what programs you insist that our new mayor support in these tight budget times. RECRUIT TOM AMMIANO! Most of us know well that one of the best proposed candidates to become the new mayor and support the most crucial programs, aspirations and values of San Franciscans is Assemblymember (and former Board of Supervisors President) Tom Ammiano. SIGN THE PETITION ASKING TOM TO STEP FORWARD AT: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/san_francisco_needs_tom_ammiano_to_be_… SPREAD THE WORD! Forward this email! AND: See/Share this event on FaceBook at: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175743379122054#!/event.php?eid=17574… and on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/OurCitySF Background- 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 Downtown big business and real estate developer interests allied with the current mayor, are maneuvering behind the scenes in private meetings with 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 new mayor can begin working right now to assure the best possible budget deal for the upcoming year. We cannot afford a full month delay during which secret backroom politics, influenced by corporations and developers, will determine how our mayor is chosen. To avoid this very bad outcome, Supervisors John Avalos, Chris Daly, and others have put forward a motion that the Board of Supervisors select the new mayor this Tue, Dec 7, in an open hearing at 3pm, during which the public will be able to speak. The motion will make sure that the Board makes a choice for mayor immediately and in front of the people of San Francisco. So turn out Tuesday Dec 7, City Hall, Rm 250 (main chamber) 3pm to support this motion and to tell the supervisors the type of mayor that San Franciscans need to face the deep challenges facing the City.

1 0

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