Here’s your secret decoder ring for mayoral succession. The League breaks down the City Charter, definitions, process, and political inside baseball.
It’s been 14 years since San Francisco had a mayoral election without an incumbent! We think it's time.
- The last time the Mayor’s office was vacant in 2011 was a clusterfuck. The Willie Brown-Gavin Newsom crew pulled power plays to give Ed Lee the power of incumbency, which led to a divisive election and a lot of bad blood.
- We don’t support power plays where political insiders decide who our mayor is -- even if the potential Mayor is someone we would support.
- The Board of Supervisors needs to go through a transparent process to select a caretaker Mayor (we’ve got some ideas - see below).
- San Francisco voters deserve the clean slate of a fair and rigorous debate about who should be our next Mayor without an incumbent running.
There has been a lot of talk about what the City Charter says about this mayoral succession process and confusing terminology (Acting Mayor, Interim Mayor, Caretaker Mayor, Care Bear Mayor?), so let’s start with City Charter Section 13.101.5(b):
“If the Office of Mayor becomes vacant because of death, resignation, recall, permanent disability or the inability to carry out the responsibilities of the office, the President of the Board of Supervisors shall become Acting Mayor and shall serve until a successor is appointed by the Board of Supervisors.”
Acting Mayor: This term is defined in the Charter section above. City Charter, Section 3.100.13 also allows the Mayor to designate a member of the Board of Supervisors as Acting Mayor when the Mayor is out of state or temporarily disabled. This occurs regularly when the Mayor travels. The Acting Mayor is not always the President of the Board of Supervisors during these routine designations. Currently, District 5 Supervisor London Breed is both Acting Mayor and President of the Board of Supervisors.
Interim Mayor/successor Mayor: The term “interim Mayor” isn’t defined in the Charter, but people are using this to refer to someone who is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to be Mayor until the June 5 election. When the Board appointed Ed Lee, their Motion #11-11 referred to this position as the “successor Mayor.” This person would be the for reals Mayor -- not “Acting Mayor” -- with the full paycheck and the requirement that they not hold any other job (City Charter, Section 3.100). The Charter doesn’t specify a deadline when the Board must appoint a successor, but it seems clear that they are supposed to appoint someone.
There is precedent for this: after the death of George Moscone and the resignation of Gavin Newsom. And even though the Board can delay appointing a successor and temporarily leave the Board President in place as Acting Mayor, that person continues to hold three positions, including head of both legislative and executive branches, with major obligations at both district and citywide levels. (See our possible scenarios below.) That’s why the Board of Supervisors voted to appoint Dianne Feinstein as successor Mayor, on December 5, 1978--eight days after she became Acting Mayor following the death of George Moscone. She resigned from her seat on the Board of Supervisors, and went on to win the election in November 1979.
And that brings us to...
Caretaker Mayor: In 2010, the term “caretaker Mayor” was proposed by then-Mayor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom said, “The board should pick a caretaker, not a politician. That’s my criteria1." The idea was that neither progressive or moderate factions of the Board of Supervisors would have an incumbent in the 2011 Mayor’s race. In January 2011, the Board appointed Ed Lee after he agreed not to run in November. But after months of assuring San Franciscans he’d return to his old job of City Administrator, Lee announced his run for Mayor in August 2011 following the “Run Ed Run” campaign.
Fun fact: In 2011 the Board passed ordinance #86-11 for Ed Lee that allows a City employee who is appointed Mayor to return to their old job.
Care Bear Mayor: Okay, we made that one up, although the Care Bears did have their own mayoral controversy.
Are you still with us? This shouldn’t be this hard, but it is, so…..
Let’s walk through the three steps of mayoral succession from City Charter Section 13.101.5(b):
- The Office of Mayor became vacant when Ed Lee passed away.
- London Breed immediately became Acting Mayor. She also remains as President of the Board of Supervisors and the Supervisor for District 5.
- She “shall serve until a successor is appointed by the Board of Supervisors.” The Board can appoint Breed or any other registered voter of San Francisco.
Why is this sooooo complicated? Part of the complication is because the City Charter is kinda vague.2 They might not want to be too prescriptive in the event there’s not anyone to run the City after a catastrophic event.
Who wants to be Mayor anyway?
Turns out, a lot of people. At the time of publishing, 25 people have “pulled papers” to run for Mayor. Pulling papers means you’ve notified the Department of Elections that you intend to run for that office. It also prepares the department to complete the nomination process. Candidates have to turn over a few required items like signatures, financial declarations, filing fee, etc. before the nomination period ends at 5pm on January 9th.
In addition to Breed, some well-known names have already stated they’d like to be Mayor - Jane Kim, Mark Leno, Dennis Herrera, and Angela Alioto. There are others rumored to be interested - Carmen Chu and David Chiu.
State law says no one can vote for themselves if they have a political or financial interest, and Board Rules say 6 votes are necessary to elect a successor Mayor. That complicates the vote, since Supervisors Jane Kim and London Breed are both declared candidates for Mayor. If either of them try to rally enough votes to become successor Mayor, they would effectively need seven votes instead of six (since their own vote ‘doesn’t count’).
In 2010, there was so much disagreement that Supervisors and the Clerk of the Board created a special one-time process to choose the next Mayor - but not before then-D6 Supe Chris Daly called it a “clusterfuck,” saying it was too complicated and could make it harder for the Board to appoint a successor Mayor.
San Francisco tried once and failed to have a true caretaker Mayor. This is why we have a short list of super-qualified and capable women (mostly women of color) who we’d most definitely support as an interim caretaker Mayor:
- Nadia Sesay, head of the Successor to the Redevelopment Agency, former head of the Office of Public Finance
- Naomi Kelly, San Francisco’s City Administrator
- Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
- Micki Callahan, Director of Human Resources
- Monique Zmuda, retired Deputy Controller
They all have broad experience at high levels of San Francisco government and could keep the City running until the voters can elect a new Mayor in June.
We believe an interim process is the best way to build trust in our government and limit political shadiness. We would feel this way regardless of who was Board President or running for Mayor.
So WTF happens next? We made a list of possible scenarios. And we made a chart!
If London Breed remains Acting Mayor...
- She would continue to be District 5 Supervisor, President of the Board, and Acting Mayor if the Board doesn’t appoint an interim/successor Mayor.
If London Breed is appointed successor Mayor by the Board...
- She would have to resign as D5 Supervisor. She would then appoint a new D5 Supervisor. If Breed is appointed Mayor before February 5, the election for the D5 seat would be in June. If Breed is appointed Mayor after February 5, the D5 election would be in November.
If someone else is appointed successor Mayor:
If a local elected official, such as City Attorney Dennis Herrera, is made successor Mayor, he or she would then appoint someone to take their previous job.
- If the successor Mayor is appointed before February 5, the election for the office they vacated would be in June.
- If the successor Mayor is appointed after February 5, the election for the office they vacated previous seat would be in November.
- If a state-level elected official, such as Assemblyman David Chiu, is made successor Mayor, his or her seat would remain vacant until the Governor calls for an election to fill the seat in either June or November.
- If an unelected city official, such as the police chief, is made successor Mayor, they must resign that job, but could return to it after the June election.
- If retired Giants pitcher Matt Cain was made successor Mayor (and he can by City Charter), then he unfortunately can’t pick the next Giants pitcher. That only works for political inside baseball.
- That led to an appointment process where progressives thought they had the votes to appoint Sheriff Mike Hennessey before behind-the-scenes power politics led to Bevan Dufty meeting with Mayor Newsom and changing his vote to Ed Lee. Ouch! The League didn’t oppose Ed Lee’s appointment, but we hoped he’d be more open and less divisive than Newsom.
- The City Charter says voters can weigh in at the next scheduled election, in this case, June 2018. But the timing of the June election and the date of Ed Lee’s death create some interesting scenarios. Mayor Ed Lee passed away on December 12, 2017, just shy of two years into his second term that began on January 8, 2016. If someone is appointed successor Mayor after January 9, 2018, that person will be Mayor till June, then can run and (if they win) can eventually run for a second term. If they are appointed before January 9, 2018, however, they can only run once. It just so happens that 5pm on January 9th is the deadline to file to run for Mayor in June. The Board of Supervisors plans on waiting till after that date to appoint a successor Mayor, so if they appoint someone who is in the race, that person will be eligible to sit for the next 6 months, then (if they win) two full terms after that.
The President-Elect's proposed first hundred days' agenda is anathema to progressive beliefs, and could undo years' of work. While the League's primary work has been producing voter guides and increasing voter engagement, we are each part of many communities in San Francisco. Although there is no local election in 2017, there is much work to be done. We reached out to our allies and received suggestions on groups who need your support now.
We have always resisted. Resisted the lies of the two party electoral game. Resisted police beatings and murders. Resisted environmental degradation and the evils of corporate polluters. Resisted male violence and transphobia. Resisted the rich bosses and landlords who own the airwaves and politicians. Resistance is our legacy. Resistance is our duty. We have resisted a long time. We will continue to resist.
Have suggestions for this list? Email us @ firstname.lastname@example.org
Bay Resistance is a new coalition of many of the groups listed below who are working together to resist the Trump administration. They will be sharing rapid response alerts to mobilize against threats to our communities such as immigration raids, healthcare cuts or Muslim surveillance. Sign up on their website and text RESIST to 41411 for action alerts. WHEN THEY COME FOR ANY OF US, THEY TAKE ON ALL OF US!
African Advocacy Network provides legal and social services to African and Afro-Caribbean immigrants and refugees. Contact them for current volunteer opportunities, especially for people who can provide language support. 938 Valencia St., SF, CA 94110
API Legal Outreach fights for justice in the Asian and Pacific Islander communities in SF and Oakland, focusing on issues such as human trafficking, elder abuse, domestic violence, and immigration. Contact them about volunteering (especially pro bono law services) and donating. 1121 Mission St. SF, CA 94103
CARECEN (Central American Resource Center) provides direct services, community development, and advocacy to the Bay Area Latino immigrant community. Contact them to get involved or donate. 3101 Mission St. SF, CA 94110
Dolores Street Community Services- Deportation Defense Program provides pro bono legal defense for individuals facing deportation from the US. You can get involved with this or DSCS's many other programs. 938 Valencia St. SF, CA 94110
La Raza Centro Legal provides legal services for immigration, workers' rights, housing, and civil rights for Latino and low-income communities. Volunteers, especially bilingual Spanish speakers, welcome. Donate here. 474 Valencia St., #295 SF, CA 94103
La Raza Community Resource Center is a bilingual, multi-service organization whose primary focus is to address the unmet needs of Latino immigrants. Contact them about current volunteer opportunities or donate. 474 Valencia St., #100 SF, CA 94103
Chinese for Affirmative Action works on community building, issue advocacy, and social change in the Asian and Pacific American community. They offer many ways to get involved and support their work. 17 Walter U Lum Place, SF 94108
Mujeres Unidas y Activas works to dismantle barriers for Latina immigrants through support groups, leadership training, and political engagement. Support them by volunteering, donating, hiring workers, and more. 543 18th Street, #23San Francisco, CA 94110
PODER works to create people-powered solutions to the profound environmental and economic inequities facing low-income Latino immigrants and other communities of color in San Francisco. Contact them to volunteer, or donate. 74 Valencia Street, #125San Francisco, CA 94103
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights provides pro bono legal services for in many areas, including immigration, criminal justice, reentry, asylum seeking, and equal employment. They rely on volunteer attorneys, interpreters, and many others, as well as donations. 131 Steuart St #400, San Francisco, CA 94105
Pangea Legal Services provides deportation defense, community empowerment, and policy advocacy for immigrants. Support their work by volunteering, pro bono legal service, or donating. 350 Sansome St #650, San Francisco, CA 94104
Immigrant Center for Women and Children provides affordable immigration services to underrepresented immigrants in California. Lawyers and law students interested in volunteering are encouraged to contact them. 3543 18th St, San Francisco, CA 94110
International Institute of the Bay Area provides high-quality low-cost legal immigration services to community members who need them most. They have a number of volunteer opportunities and welcome donations as well. 657 Mission Street Suite 301 San Francisco, CA 94105
Racial & LGBTQ Justice
San Francisco Rising is an electoral alliance working to build political power of SF's working class communities of color. While much of their volunteer work comes during campaign season, they also need people to help with policy, fundraising, outreach, and more.
Causa Justa:: Just Cause is a multi-racial community-building organization working to achieve justice for low-income residents of SF and Oakland. They have many ways to get involved, especially for bilingual Spanish speakers. You can donate money or items from their wish list.
Arab Resource and Organizing Center works to empower and organize the Bay Area Arab community toward justice and self-determination. Contact them about volunteer/internship opportunities, or donate here. 522 Valencia St, San Francisco, CA 94110
National Lawyers Guild Bay Area is an association of lawyers, legal workers, and law students dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights. Volunteers can become legal observers for protests.
Bay Area Legal Aid provides low-income clients with free civil legal assistance, including legal advice and counsel, effective referrals, and legal representation. They have a range of volunteer opportunities for legal professionals and community members. 1035 Market St, San Francisco, CA 94103
Legal Services for Children provides free legal representation to children and youth. Legal professionals can join their pro bono panel, and others can donate here 1254 Market St, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94102
Criminal Justice Reform
Officers for Justice works for equal opportunities for POC, women, and LGBT officers in SFPD, and reforming SFPD policy. They invite the public to attend weekly Police Commission hearings, or help out in their office.
St. Anthony's Medical Clinic provides primary and specialty care to families in the Tenderloin, 80% of whom live beneath the federal poverty level. Volunteer with their clinic, dining room, or many other programs, or donate.
Housing & Homelessness
San Francisco Tenants Union advocates for tenants rights and affordable housing, SFTU provides counseling and publishes the Tenants Rights Handbook. SFTU operates almost entirely through volunteers and donations.
Coalition on Homelessness works with homeless persons, services providers, and allies to expand housing and protect the rights of homeless people. Volunteers can join their policy workgroups or help produce the Street Sheet newspaper. Donate here.
350 Bay Area is a grassroots climate movement, working for divestment, renewable energy, and pollution reduction. With multiple active campaigns, they offer several volunteer opportunities. Donate here.
Parents for Public Schools - San Francisco promotes the value of public school education and equitable schools. They work with newcomer families to navigate schools. Parents can volunteer as school ambassadors, and donations are welcome.
There is so much shady, awful, and downright illegal shit going on in this election, we're all struggling to keep up. With Donald Trump threatening the very fabric of our democracy, misleading political commercials dominating the airwaves, and Scott Wiener spending millions trashing Jane Kim, we're concerned the critical races for the Board of Supervisors aren't getting enough attention.
The race for District 11 (the Excelsior, Outer Mission, OMI) is one of the most contested. We're 100% supporting Kimberly Alvarenga, who is awesome. The big business slates are all supporting Ahsha Safai, who is hella shady. But if you haven't been obsessively reading every local paper and blog, you wouldn't know how shady. So here is a quick summary of nine reasons why we can't let Ahsha Safai anywhere near the Board of Supervisors:
- Safai is supported by the Police Officers Association, the biggest bullies in town and the biggest impediments to reform of the SFPD.
- He's supported by the Mayor, who has done several press events and press releases with Safai in the last few months.
- He’s a house flipper. He bought a house in foreclosures in 2005, and sold it less than a year later for a profit.
- Safai was kicked off the Housing Authority board after Executive Director Henry Alvarez was fired for gross mismanagement, discrimination, and intimidation, and the Authority was found to be in disarray. At the time Safai said Alvarez had “done a great job.”
- On the ballot he claims to be a union organizer, but almost all of Safai's income comes from being a consultant for landlords and developers. In 2012 and 2013, he earned less than $10,000 as a consultant for the janitors union, but more than $100,000 from his consulting firm.
- The leadership of the janitors union pressured its members to campaign for Safai, and fined members who didn’t "volunteer" $150 a day. These are janitors who are barely earning a living wage!
- Safai claims that he "saved St. Luke's Hospital," but the California Nurses Association and others who led that campaign say he had nothing to do with it. Check out this damning video.
- Safai is benefiting from at least $700,000 in independent expenditures from real estate and big tech companies. That is being funneled through the dubiously named Robert F. Kennedy Democratic club to pay for tons of TV commercials. TV commercials on CNN for a district supervisor election?? Why do LinkedIn, Facebook, and Airbnb care about District 11? They don’t. They care about electing Supervisors who will keep their taxes low and favor big business and developers over workers and tenants.
- Safai is an unregistered lobbyist for a real estate developer. Mayor Lee and the Chronicle recently trumpeted a press release about a new development that would be half rent controlled and half affordable housing, and they credited Safai as a “family friend” of the developer who came up with the idea and negotiated it with the Mayor’s office. But the thing is, the developer paid Safai as a consultant, which means his negotiations with the Mayor are lobbying. Safai has never registered as a lobbyist. And the developer’s promise of new rent control housing is hella catfish. There is nothing in writing to describe how it will work or to hold the developer to their sketchy campaign promise. Their announcement sounds awesome, but if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Wow, that's a lot of bullshit!
We're excited to vote for Kimberly Alvarenga, a queer Latina mom who worked in Tom Ammiano’s Assembly office, where she played a significant role in the campaign to Save CCSF, the California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, and Seth’s Law, which protects children who are bullied in California schools. She’s currently the political director for SEIU 1021, the most progressive union in San Francisco.
We also endorsed Francisco Herrera as our #2 choice, and we've heard from some allies who are also including Berta Hernandez (a socialist who seems to share our values, but didn't respond to our questionnaire) on their ballot. With ranked choice voting, you get to vote for up to three candidates. It's fine to include Herrera and Hernandez anywhere on your ballot, but this election will come down to Alvarenga vs Safai.
That's why it's critical to vote for Kimberly Alvarenga and to leave Ahsha Safai off your ballot! Can you please help us out by sharing this and forwarding it to all your friends in the Excelsior, Outer Mission and OMI?
A lot of people have been asking us why we’re not supporting London Breed. We love the idea of supporting a sharp, young African American woman who grew up in public housing in the Western Addition. But when she ran four years ago, we wrote a letter expressing our worry that the folks bankrolling her campaign were people we just couldn’t trust. We hoped she would prove us wrong, but we think her record shows she doesn’t share our values. Part of the League’s promise is to pay attention to politicians’ actions between elections.
Breed has been good on some issues, and she’s proven to be a savvy politician. If she were representing a more conservative district (like the Marina or West of Twin Peaks), we would probably support her. But her politics are simply out of line with District 5, which is one of the most progressive parts of town. District 5 shouldn’t have to wonder when their Supervisor will be siding with the Mayor or developers or the Police Officers Association. District 5 deserves a Supervisor who will stand up for the progressive values the League has been championing for over a decade.
Here are seventeen of London Breed’s most disappointing votes and actions.
Sides with landlords, realtors and developers over tenants:
- Proposed amendments to water down TIC/condo legislation which would permanently remove rent controlled apartments from the market.
- Opposed 2014’s Proposition G, the anti-speculator tax, which would have stopped speculators from evicting tenants.
- Voted repeatedly against regulating Airbnb, making rent-controlled homes in the city more scarce. She has only supported stronger regulations after Preston got in the race.
- Tried to weaken tenant protections by giving less relocation compensation to people being evicted through the Ellis Act.
- Voted against regulating “tenant buyouts” which have displaced thousands of San Franciscans.
- Voted against a small increase in the fee developers of office space pay to fund transit impacts.
Sides with the Police Officers Association over police reform:
- Voted against holding the Police Department accountable for implementing reforms by putting a small chunk of their budget on reserve.
- Refused to call for former Police Chief Suhr’s resignation amidst police killings and racist text scandal, despite community demands.
- Voted against post-Ferguson resolution recognizing racial bias in Police Departments, calling the resolution “divisive.”
Sides with Mayor Ed Lee over good government reforms:
- Voted against Prop H that will create an Office of Public Advocate, an independent watchdog over the Mayor and City Hall.
- Voted against Prop D that will let the people decide who should represent them when there’s a vacant Supervisor seat, making sure the Mayor kept the power to appoint successors.
- Voted against Prop L that will split appointments to the MTA Board between the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, which would continue the Mayor’s ability to bully the MTA Board into failed policies (rescinding Sunday parking meters, bad bike lanes on Polk, allowing median parking on Dolores, etc.).
Other bad votes:
- Voted against a 1% wage increase for nonprofit health and human services workers!
- As Board President, handed control over key board committees to the most conservative supervisors and shut out progressive leaders.
- Was the only supervisor to vote against sunshine legislation requiring supervisors to keep and release work calendars.
- Endorsed Mayor’s candidate for District 3 Supervisor (Julie Christensen) over Aaron Peskin, and endorses Scott Wiener over Jane Kim
- Supported and was a member of the realtor-backed slate for conservative control of the SF Democratic Party that would have made endorsements the opposite of our voter guide.
We know that Dean Preston will be rock solid on all of those issues. Before Dean founded Tenants Together, there was no statewide tenants rights group! They’ve kept thousands of people in their apartments. We’ve gone to Sacramento with Dean to fight for repealing the Ellis Act and protecting rental deposits, and we can all thank Dean for helping save rent control back in 2008! So please join us in voting for him and telling all your District 5 friends about Dean Preston!
(Note: Big thanks to Jennifer Fieber and the San Francisco Tenants Union for their research that we used in this post.)
Dang, Mark Farrell sure does hate homeless people. Though apparently the District 2 Supervisor has no problem using them as fodder to propel his fetid political career. He authored this Prop amending the police code to make it illegal “to place an encampment on a public sidewalk.” SFPD would have the authority to remove an encampment after giving just a 24-hour notice and offering ‘shelter options’. As we know, though, the options are pretty limited. Authorities would either bus folks out of the City via the Homeward Bound program or give them housing for 24 hours in a temporary shelter if housing was not available at the Navigation Center. But, seriously, one night is not even 24 hours of housing. They could also could toss homeless people’s seized property after 90 days - but eep! right now there are reports of people's belongings being tossed right away.
San Francisco has approximately 6,686 homeless residents according to the 2015 count, though many advocates say that is an undercount as families and youth are underrepresented. About half of them sleep on the streets every night. The City estimates there are 500-700 homeless residents in tents. There are only about 1,300 adult shelter beds - with a huge waiting list for 90-day beds (~900 on the waitlist any given night). There simply aren’t enough resources. Even great efforts like the Navigation Centers suffer from a fundamental problem. To quote Street Sheet: “The problem with the Navigation Center model is that it is not particularly successful in linking homeless people with long-term permanent housing because there is no housing to be linked up with.”
Prop Q isn’t just cruel, it’s arguably unconstitutional. In August 2015, the Department of Justice announced that these types of ordinances criminalize the status of being homeless and violate the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.
People for True Homeless and Housing Solutions released a short video on Proposition Q, which breaks down Prop Q, and really highlights the absurdity of it.
Ultimately, this isn’t about helping homeless people. It’s about getting Mark Farrell’s name out there as a “homeless advocate” so that he can run for Mayor, similar to how Gavin Newsom did with 2002’s “Care Not Cash”. But it's more than just Farrell that deserve the blame: Prop Q was sponsored by Supervisors Wiener, Tang, Farrell ("Team WTF") and Cohen. Shame all four of them. We say fuck no.
What might be most frustrating about the fight over Prop Q is that it's distracting all of us from the measures that will actually fund housing for the homeless: Prop J, Prop K, and Prop S. Please vote yes on those three for real solutions to homelessness.
Prop Q: Demonize the Homeless for Political Gain - Fuck No 😡
In a recent debate with Jane Kim, his opponent in the race for San Francisco’s seat in the State Senate, Scott Wiener said he respects Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the national anthem. But while he’s served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Wiener has repeatedly voted against police reform.
Wiener has had multiple chances to stand with people of color in San Francisco calling for police reform. But every time there’s been a contested vote on police reform, he’s voted on the side of the Police Officers Association against reform:
- July 20, 2016: Wiener voted against a proposal to put a portion of the SFPD budget on reserve until the department demonstrated that it was making progress on several reforms including its Use of Force policy, and its processes for hiring and disciplining officers. Wiener continued to oppose this even after John Avalos reduced the amount of the budget reserve from $200 million to $20 million!
- April 19, 2016: Wiener voted against a resolution in support of Mark Leno’s bill to give the public access to records of police misconduct. The ACLU says the California Police Officers Bill of Rights is one of the most restrictive in the country. Even states like Texas, Kentucky, and Utah make records of police misconduct public!
- June 23, 2015: Protesters literally turned their backs on Wiener and his resolution to prioritize hiring more police over funding education, jobs, and housing.
- December 16, 2014: Wiener opposed a non-binding resolution calling for police reform in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown and the protests in Ferguson. The Examiner later reported that the lobbyist for the SF Police Officer Association threatened to break off ties with any Supervisor who supported the resolution.
As Mark Leno’s failed attempt to make modest reforms to the Police Officers Bill of Rights shows, any meaningful police reform efforts in California will require state legislators who are willing to stand up to the law enforcement lobbyists. Leno has been a champion for police reform, and this November voters will decide whether Jane Kim or Scott Wiener will replace him.
Here in San Francisco, there is a growing consensus that the Police Officers Association is the biggest barrier to police reform. Wiener has been endorsed by the POA in every election he’s run, and every time there’s been a contested vote on police reform, he’s voted with the POA against reform.
So it’s great that Wiener respects Colin Kaepernick’s protest calling for police reform. But Scott Wiener's actions as an elected official disrespect Kaepernick and everyone else who is working on the reforms needed to address the crisis of police shootings of unarmed black and brown Americans.
And hey, @kaepernick7: if you’re serious about making police reform happen in California and San Francisco, then we need you to support Jane Kim for State Senate! Jane has a track record of standing up to the Police Officers Association. She voted for all of the reforms listed above. Will you join us in standing with Jane?
What's up, Leaguers!
Are you ready for this crazy November election? Because there are sooo many propositions on the ballot, 17 state and 26 (we think) local ones, we're starting earlier than ever this year and splitting our endorsements into two batches. Join us on August 6th for our first of two endorsement meetings!
We'll be discussing the state propositions and some of the local propositions for this election, then voting on the League's official position. If you've donated (which you can do on the spot) and volunteered four or more hours in the last year, you can vote for your favorites...but even if you can't, this is a fun opportunity to learn about the big races and get ready for the election. This meeting is also your chance to sign up for election volunteer opportunities, like pub crawls!
Saturday, August 6, 2-5pm
1600 17th Street at Wisconsin
RSVP on Facebook or at:
We'll be on the patio. Thee Parkside is kid-friendly. Bring cash for drinks and food. The carne asada tater tots are the bomb.
And mark your calendar for August 20th for our second endorsement meeting. We'll be tackling all of the local candidate races and the rest of the local propositions.
Saturday, August 20, 2-5pm
The Eric Quezada Center for Culture and Politics
RSVP on Facebook or at:
A NOTE FOR CANDIDATES & CAMPAIGNS!
We do not have speakers for ballot measures or candidates at our endorsement meetings. We present our research, discuss the contests, and conduct a member vote. You are welcome to grab a beer with us and participate in the discussions at the endorsement meeting, but we ask that any candidates or paid campaign staff leave the room during the discussion of their contest.
Ed Lee’s “Transportation 2030” Ballot Measure Is Meaningless, Hypocritical, and Divisive at the Same Time
UPDATE: On Friday, February 26, the Mayor removed the ill-conceived Transportation 2030 from the June ballot! Thank you, Mayor Lee!
ORIGINAL POST: Mayor Lee: it’s not too late. Please take this measure off the ballot, and let’s all work together on a real transportation funding ballot measure for November.
On the same day that Mayor Ed Lee vetoed the Bike Yield ordinance, he announced a ballot measure for the June 2016 election about transportation funding called “Transportation 2030: Smart Investments for a Better Future" (PDF). It’s less than three pages double-spaced, but it manages to be simultaneously meaningless, hypocritical, and divisive. Here’s the tl;dr version:
- It’s meaningless. It’s a non-binding declaration of policy.
- It’s hypocritical. It purports to implement the “recommendations of the “Transportation 2030” Task Force, but the Mayor already fell two years and $140 million behind on implementing those recommendations when he blocked attempts to put the Vehicle License Fee restoration on the ballot in 2014!
- And it’s divisive. It says no new transportation revenues should be used for Muni’s operating expenses for the next fifteen years! Why? Because the Mayor wants more leverage to push back in labor negotiations with MTA workers. This artificial separation of the MTA’s capital and operating budgets also threatens to pit Muni advocates (that require both capital and operational money) against bike and pedestrian advocates (mostly capital expenses).
Let’s take a closer look, shall we?Read more
What the SF League of Pissed Off Voters’ Wants from Tech Commuter Buses
(Photo by Sean Rea.)
Ten months ago, the League weighed in on tech buses with our post “Hey Tech Buses: Just Pay Your Fair Share, Please.” The SFMTA and City ignored what we felt like were reasonable requests. Since then, the pilot program has gone on to litigation. The judgment is slated for mid-December. [Note: The League is not part of the lawsuit.]
On Tuesday, November 17, the SFMTA Board will vote on the proposed permanent program, and we want to weigh in with our position and call attention to a few points we feel are really important and have been omitted by the press reporting on the final pilot findings.
The TL;DR version is this:
- The pilot has not achieved its goal of eliminating safety and traffic issues.
- The City is not receiving the data it needs to manage this program.
- The City is not collecting fees that correlate to the impacts of the commuter buses.
- The City is expanding the program before the pilot has concluded.
- The City is not being completely transparent on the study conclusions.