Seven candidates in the District 6 race to succeed Supervisor Chris Daly squared off in debate Wednesday sponsored by the San Francisco Young Democrats. Photos by Michael J. Costa.
By Luke Thomas
June 25, 2010
Wednesday’s District 6 debate hosted by the San Francisco Young Democrats was one of the best local political debates Fog City Journal has attended.
Credit a lively format that included candidates firing questions at each other and Melissa Griffin’s artful and entertaining moderating that combined to keep a well-attended audience engaged and on the edge of their seats.
Mathew Drake, Glendon “Anna Conda” Hyde, James Keys, Jane Kim, Jim Meko, Theresa Sparks, Debra Walker and Elaine Zamora were the only candidates invited to participate in the debate. Zamora chose not to participate.
Attorney Mathew Drake
Glendon "Anna Conda" Hyde
James Keys
School Board President Jane Kim
Entertainment Commissioner Jim Meko
Human Rights Commission Executive Director Theresa Sparks
Department of Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker
It was in round two when candidates fired questions at each other that debate attendees got a sense of which candidates are perceived by the contenders to be the frontrunners in the hotly contested race.
Department of Building Inspection Commissioner Debra Walker, who is considered a frontrunner Progressive candidate, drew first blood when she asked former Police Commission President Theresa Sparks why, after five years sitting and presiding over the police commission, “the commission did nothing about dozens of disciplinary charges against community police officers.”
“My understanding is you did not hold one hearing to review these charges,” Walker said. “How can you tell voters that public safety is one of your strengths if, as a result of your inaction, dirty cops are still on the streets and criminals are running free?”
You could have heard a pin drop as everyone, jaws agape, waited with bated breath to hear how Sparks would respond.
“Thanks for the softball,” a composed Sparks responded, drawing cheers and laughs from the audience. Her substantive response to Walker’s question, however, scored points for Walker when Sparks conceded: “I did hold one hearing in five years and in addition to that, most of, 90 percent of the hearings are mediated before they get to the hearing phase.”
“As you know… the commission cannot get involved in the business of the (police) department,” Sparks added. “And we really didn’t know about a lot of this stuff that was going on as a commissioner.”
Looking to exact revenge on Walker, Sparks asked Walker if she supported six new tax revenue measures being proposed by the Board of Supervisors.
“Do you support these taxes and if you do, how can you also be supportive of small business?” Sparks asked.
Walker thanked Sparks for the question and responded saying she has owned a small business since 1985. “I’m well aware of excessive taxation, especially on small businesses,” she said.
Citing cuts to public services, including Muni, Walker said, “We must revisit our revenue sources, all of them,” adding that she has not had an opportunity to review the Board’s revenue proposals but would not support taxes that “disincentivizes hiring people.”
Next up, longtime D6 dweller, planning activist and Entertainment Commissioner Jim Meko, also considered a Progressive frontrunner, asked School Board President Jane Kim about her position on the mid-Market plan, a controversial redevelopment program to revitalize Market Street between 5th and 8th streets.
“I know you’ve just moved in – you’ve been here just a handful of months now,” Meko said, attempting to cast Kim, who is also considered a Progressive frontrunner, as a carpetbagger. “What do you think about the mid-market plan? Would you reinvigorate the mid-market plan?”
Kim responded to Meko’s jab saying she has been a resident of San Francisco for eleven years, that she is “proud to have been someone who has served families and residents here in District 6 for the past four years as a member of the Board of Education and working on policies around making our schools more quality and ensuring our kids have an opportunity to succeed here in this city.”
Responding to the substantive part of Meko’s question, Kim said she supports the re-invigoration of the mid-market plan. “We need to reinvigorate the process around redevelopment at mid-market,” she said. “We want mid-market – which is the entryway for many tourists that come into our city – to be a beautiful and vibrant part of the city… This should be a part of San Francisco that we are proud of,” adding that small businesses and community arts programs will benefit from mid-market revitalization.
As the round continued, Kim became the focus and target of the candidates’ questions. She received questions from Glendon “Anna Conda” Hyde, James Keys and Mathew Drake, providing Kim substantially more air time than her competitors and giving debate attendees the impression that Kim is the leading candidate in the race.
During the break, commentators Beth Spotswood and Pollo Del Mar reflected on the round.
“I was impressed and a little bit titillated by the back and forth between Debra Walker and Theresa Sparks,” said Pollo Del Mar.
“That was a throw down,” Spotswood added. “They almost have a kind of a tense chemistry between the two of them.”
In round three, where audience attendees posed questions to the candidates, Mathew Drake was asked about a controversial measure on the November ballot that would make it illegal to sit or lie on a sidewalk between the hours of 7 am and 11 pm.
Drake said he “grudgingly” supports the measure. “I just wish that it were better written, but the point is we have to do something. We have a real problem in certain neighborhoods.”
“If I had my preference, the sit/lie law would be limited to certain neighborhoods and not be citywide,” Drake added.
James Keys was asked, “In light of Chris Daly’s failed Progressive Primary, do you in principle support what he was trying to do, or do you favor forums like this one, sponsored by the SF Young Democrats?”
“I’m not sure if he has canceled his Progressive Primary or not,” Keys responded, adding, “It may have been a good thing.”
Positions of each of the candidates on several controversial issues was posted on the wall during the debate. According to Melissa Griffin, Keys has since changed his position in support of protecting undocumented youth from referral to immigration authorities.
Blogista Beth Spotswood with Bay Times contributor Pollo Del Mar, Jane Kim and debate moderator Melissa Griffin.
Editor’s Note: Luke Thomas is a resident and voter in District 6. In the interest of transparency, he has provided photography services to the campaigns of Jane Kim, Jim Meko and Debra Walker.
More Info
Video archive of the debate available online here.
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
June 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm
So why don’t you provide us with any specific example of what response(s) Debra Walker provided that made you conclude that she was, “the most impressive”? This is a legitimate inquiry.
Please persuade me with your reasoning, h, not just colorful quips.
June 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Watch em online!
Technically excellent. Democratically flawed. I’ll watch all of em they present. I’ll also provide a forum every Friday night beginning August 6th from 5-6:30pm under Gavin’s balcony for the ‘feral candidates’ … thru election day. People want to run? I’ll borrow a mic and an amp and give em a chance to give their views once a week and have it put on You Tube and the like for free. Tony De Renzo and I have gotten pretty good at that over the years. Hell, maybe Jane Kim and Theresa Sparks will show up. I’m actually doubting that.
I’m giving $20 a month to my favored candidate and carrying a sign with his name (Meko). I wear Debra Walker’s button on my cap with Meko’s and I’m involved all over all the time. You should be having this much fun when you’re my age.
Or, when you’re your age.
h.
June 27, 2010 at 1:55 pm
And by the way, I actually like Debra Walker. I just think she didn’t do as good a job at the forum as many of her competitors.
June 27, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Hmmm. I notice that h doesn’t want to provide his reasoning for why Walker did better than Meko and Sparks.
If my opinion about who performed better is not correct, please tell me how? h, can you point to which of Walker’s responses that you thought were strong? I am open to being persuaded, but your mere name-calling does nothing to promote “honest exchanges”.
I’ve backed up my opinion with specific critiques, and wish that h would do so as well.
And that, is honest dialogue.
June 27, 2010 at 11:36 am
Okay, okay, I concede. The debate format was apparently much better than most others. I hope to go to future debates organized by SFYD.
June 27, 2010 at 11:35 am
Luke,
You shouldn’t publish ‘Politico’. He/she’s just a shit thrower for Sparks. Make em ID themselves. As the year goes on you’ll get more and more of these paid operatives. They do nothing but fuck up the flow of honest exchanges. Keep in mind that Sparks’ first choice for her campaign was Ryan Chamberlain.
Beautiful day in Fresno.
Lincecum on against the Red Sox in half hour. Wonder how much a bleacher seat is going for with the team’s new ‘dynamic’ pricing (gotta hurt the scalpers).
h.
June 27, 2010 at 8:42 am
Mr. Brown. I have read your work for many years, and think you can be amusing, at times. I work for the city, so revealing my name is a touchy subject for me. Besides, I’d rather just call balls and strikes. I want to be neutral on this stuff.
I am surprised that you thought Debra and Jim did better than Theresa. Which response from Debra impressed you? I didn’t score her as having any quality responses during the entire event. What did I miss?
Meko was better than Walker, I think. Although he was just okay. I thought he spoke in too much ‘insider’ language to be effective–but he did seem knowledgeable. His voice was also very raspy.
Theresa Sparks, like her or not, seemed the most natural up there, and her responses were generally pretty good.
But please tell me on what answers Walker excelled? I thought she gave a pretty bad performance. And that surprised me. What did I miss?
June 27, 2010 at 12:50 am
‘PoliticoWatcher’,
What’s your name? I gave the forum to Kim just for more than holding her own. I thought Walker was the most impressive followed by Meko. I have a prejudice but in the reverse order of what I saw as actually happening. I’m guessing you’re a Mod who has issues with Walker. Good exchanges. Really though, what’s your name?
h.
June 26, 2010 at 10:23 am
In order of how well they did at the debate:
1. Jane Kim
2. Theresa Sparks
3. Jim Meko
4. Glendon “Anna Conda” Hyde
5. Debra Walker
6. James Keys
7. Matt Drake
I was surprised by these results. It was clear that Jane and Theresa were the best. Debra was disappointing. But judge for yourself:
http://vidsf.com/2010/jun/23/district-6-supervisor-forum/
Thoughts?
June 25, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Folks who would like to get a little more background on Jim Meko can check out the “Introducing Jim Meko” video we posted on YouTube a couple of weeks ago … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYnK1z0yQ4
We know Meko … he’s like a rock, having lived and worked in SoMa for 33 years. He sure isn’t a career politician with all of the polish that comes along with running for various offices every 2-4 years, but his experience and knowledge in the District is simply unmatched. I don’t know why folks are even thinking about voting for candidates who just moved into the District last year as an opportunity for themselves to move up the political ladder when there are at least two fantastic candidates who have been working for District 6 specifically for over 2 decades.
June 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Luke,
History of these things is that 90% of the people who file end up paying their fees and running. Deciding who’s real and who’s not is for the voters to decide, not a phony front political club with an economic and political personal agenda. It makes my Friday Night D-6 forums in front of City Hall all the more important. These new candidates need mentored, not excluded. One of the best already dropped out (Elihu).
h.
June 25, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Having attended debates for 40 years this one was informative and fun. I would suggest that candidates be given an opportunity for an opening and a closing. District 6 is in the house.
June 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm
As a Jane Kim supporter, some will take the following opinion as biased — but I have to agree with Luke and say that the debate format was really great.
Why did one candidate (i.e., Jane Kim) get “more airtime than any other”?
Because the format allowed each candidate the chance to ask one opponent of their choice a question. And — for some reason — a lot of candidates (and audience members later) decided to ask Jane.
If I were an undecided voter walking into that debate, I would have started wondering why everyone was picking on Jane Kim.
Are other candidates (and their supporters) mad that Jane got more airtime?? They have no one to blame but themselves.
June 25, 2010 at 7:27 pm
First, Luke, thanks for the link to the video. After watching, there’s not a person there I would vote for unless it was a lesser of the evils vote. However, the lesser of the evils votes are common in San Francisco. Having said that, I agree with Jerry Jarvis. There should be closing statements. I would go farther and have opening statements. Debra Walker started with a prepared opening statement and didn’t answer the first question. Brief, 2 or 3 minute opening and closing statements give a sense of where the candidate is coming from.
June 25, 2010 at 6:41 pm
@David, I agree more time should have been allotted to the portion of the debate that included questions from the contenders, and it’s also fair to say that the format produced inequality in airtime during this segment. Having said that, I still stand by my call that the debate format was the “best ever,” and I’ve covered a lot of local political debates.
It is my understanding that SFYD is working on tweaking the format based on the lessons learned from the D6 debate.
@h, I also have a problem with restricted debates. But I also think there are a number of poseurs who will not be in the race after the filing deadline when the entrance fee is due. Perhaps SFYD’s biggest error is that they should have waited for the deadline before holding an all-inclusive candidates debate. For all we know, the Messiah could be planning a return to lowly Earth to enter the D6 race!
June 25, 2010 at 4:36 pm
“Am I the only one who thinks it’s funny that the same San Francisco supervisors who insisted that we push the limits of the law when it comes to sanctuary for arrested youths are suddenly reluctant to enact a sit-lie law that a court would give the side-eye? The sudden and profound respect for the law supervisors now possess is nothing short of remarkable.” – Debate Moderator Melissa Griffin in the Examiner
Luke, I respectfully disagree that the format was the “best ever.” Candidates asking each other questions does create the appearance of an actual debate. However, when one or two candidates receive a far greater amount of time to speak, this does not strike me as particularly fair or balanced.
Moreover, the debate was a mere 60 minutes long. This is a woefully inadequate amount of time for the audience (especially those undecided) to be able to really get a sense of each candidate. Even if each candidate and the moderator received an equal amount of floor time, that’s 7.5 minutes each.
A 60 minute “debate” among 7 people seems more geared to reducing candidates to soundbites, witty comebacks and the scoring of “points.” A public policy debate is not a game to see who can score the most points. I’m all for entertainment in politics, but let’s have some substance too.
June 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm
What I did like about the forum was it was the broadcasting over the internet for of us that wasn’t able to be there in a hot crowed room. It was almost T.V. like with the 2 commentators Beth Spotswood with Bay Times contributor Pollo Del Mar. That made it less boring.
June 25, 2010 at 3:29 pm
You missed most important point,
Which was that you and the rest of the media and the ‘major’ candidates accepted the idea that it’s OK to shut out the poorer candidates. Good shots of democracy being murdered don’t make the reality any prettier.
I stand by my choices:
Jim Meko, first
Debra Walker, second
Jane Kim, three
Although they’re all elitist.
h.
June 25, 2010 at 2:51 pm
@Kay, most of these candidates forums are predictable and boring with candidates giving the same expected presentations and answering the same questions from the moderator.
I prefer to see how candidates handle tough questions from their contenders who know the issues and the weaknesses/strengths of their contenders.
The SFYD debate format in its current form isn’t perfect. As Jerry Jarvis mentions in his comment, there was no opportunity for the candidates to make a case as to why voters should vote for them. I agree this is an important component missing from Wednesday’s debate.
But, overall, the format is heading in the right direction and we should expect to see additional tweaks in upcoming SFYD debates.
June 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I don’t think the format was well thought-out with one candidate getting more airtime than any other, and I think the folks of SFYD agree that the format needs tweaking to allow for a more balanced forum. Why do you think the format was “best”?
June 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm
The biggest disappointment that I had about the forum was that the candidates weren’t given an opportunity to make a closing statement as to why we should vote for them.
June 25, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Does Sparks think that high taxes caused Good Vibrations to go bankrupt when she was CEO, or was that just someone else’s fault?
Nope, this “San Francisco liberal” is just taking a page straight from the right wing corporatist tax whiners playbook.
My guess is that Sparks’ generation wants to squander the entirety of the investment made in infrastructure and the common good by those who won WWII and came home to build the great society.
-marc