Payday loans
Cialis

Adachi Allies Threaten Cuts to Public Defender Budget
over Pension Reform

Written by Luke Thomas. Posted in News, Politics

Published on July 09, 2010 with 75 Comments

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Photo by Luke Thomas.

By Luke Thomas

July 9, 2010

Supervisors usually allied with San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi are threatening cuts to his budget, a Fog City Journal inquiry has revealed.

The move is a retaliatory strike over Adachi’s pension and healthcare reform measure, SF Smart Reform, which aims to rein in unsustainable pension and healthcare costs projected to exceed $1 billion by 2016.

Labor leaders who say the measure will hurt low-income working families are vociferously opposed to the measure. Mayor Gavin Newsom has also expressed opposition to the measure.

According to Budget Committee Chair John Avalos, Supervisor Chris Daly is expected to make a motion at the Board’s July 20 meeting asking the Board to reverse a $1.2 million public defender budget restoration. That restoration, transferred from the trial court budget, was applied to help prevent outsourcing of more expensive indigent defense counsel.

“I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.

“I think what he’s (Adachi) doing, especially on the healthcare side, is very, very problematic,” Avalos explained. “It’s not typically what progressives stand for.”

If the SF Smart Reform measure qualifies for the November ballot and is passed by a simple majority of voters, city employees would be required to pay 50 percent of the cost to insure their dependents. It would also require city employees to contribute between 9 and 10 percent of their income towards their retirement pensions.

The measure would reduce next year’s projected $700 million deficit by $170 million, easing pressures to layoff city employees and make cuts to city services.

Asked what is the motivation behind the motion to cut Adachi’s budget, Supervisor Chris Daly told FCJ: “Even with the heroic work of John Avalos’s Budget Committee, there are important programs and vital services that have been cut. When we are cutting psychiatric beds and underfunding clean elections, no stone should be left unturned.”

Reached for comment, Adachi said, “It will be highly unusual to change the budget as passed by the budget committee.”

Luke Thomas

Luke Thomas

Luke Thomas is 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, has published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle Plus

Newer Comments →
  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    “Where’s my cliff?!?”

    Said Daly to Marc Salomon who relayed it on down the line to the other Progressive lemmings. As if getting on the wrong side (choosing neither is better) of the red herring Sit/Lie ballot measure (polling at 70% positive although it certainly sucks) … not content to allow themselves to be marginalized by Newsom’s office on that matter (which makes em ‘soft on crime’ in the Public eye), now here they go supporting runaway spending on bloated employee benefits. Do these guys have a single clue?

    h.

  • http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/515407/news Ann Garrison

    The Board has collaborated in the financial sector’s takedown of the national and global economies by enabling and enriching the South Florida-based Lennar Corporation for ten years plus. Lennar’s UAMC Mortgage, a Lennar-Lehman Brothers collaboration created largely to push Lennar properties at inflated prices, with predatory subprime loans, was a major player.

    The Board also collaborates in perpetual war, the other major drain on the budget, by inviting Fleet Week and the Blue Angels Air Show military recruitment drive here every year.

    They should address their own complicity in hammering the city budget here and everywhere else in the State instead of engaging in this kind of pettiness. Unless we see some real political courage and creativity, there’ll be nothing on the horizon but shrinking budgets, budget quarrels, and ongoing “structural readjustment” like that the IMF and World Bank impose on the Global South. It could hardly be more obvious that the federal government is on board.

  • http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/515407/news Ann Garrison

    Also, isn’t there something a little off about that headline? Isn’t that supposed to say “Sometime Adachi Allies” since they aren’t on this?

  • marc

    Prefiero morir en las pies como vivir in las rodillas.

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/profiles/profile_chris_daly.shtml Chris Daly

    For 9 years running, I have proposed amendments to the budget to try to save vital health and community services. This year will be no exception.
    While my attention continues to be focused on Police and Fire to pay for these restorations, in this fiscal year, any department that has received an increase will be scrutinized.

    I am an advocate for indigent defense, as I am for mental health and homeless services. In balancing these priorities, I rely on the work of our independent Budget Analyst.

    It is inaccurate, or at the very least a drastic oversimplification, to say that a second look at a committee action equals retribution. Mr. Adachi has done very well during the Board’s budget deliberations over the years, and I have been one of his staunchest advocates. I have successfully argued behind the scenes (when my colleagues didn’t think his numbers added up) that we should give our guy the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, it is the tough budget times, that Mr. Adachi uses to justify his Charter Amendment, that also compel me to look deeper into the budget.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Adachi Allies Threaten Cuts to Public Defender Budget over Pension Reform | Fog City Journal -- Topsy.com

  • http://District5Diary Rob Anderson

    Doesn’t providing legal counsel for the poor qualify as a “vital” service? Adachi isn’t pocketing the money budgeted for his office; he uses it to pay the lawyers on his staff. I don’t believe a majority of supervisors—even on this awful board—will go along with this crude political retaliation.

  • marc

    @Rob, I think that you’ve proven to us all “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there is no correlation between the amount of money spent on public sector legal services and the quality of legal services purchased by the public as measured by outcomes.

    That’s a fair argument.

    -marc

  • greg kamin

    Chris,
    This ballot measure is wrongheaded. But indigent defendants are not the ones promoting it, and they are not the enemy.

    Call it what you like, but what you’re doing looks and smells like retaliation, and the people hit the hardest are the people who least deserve it.

  • Ralph

    Jeff Adachi is learning quickly that no good deed goes unpunished.

  • http://soulpowered.tumblr.com/ Robert B. Livingston

    Another tempest in a teapot. The Board is justifiably troubled breaking precedent, as they have– especially the more progressive ones– staunchly tried to recoup cuts to the poor and meek year in year out. A

  • Martinzehr

    The right of people in San Francisco to legal representation should not be held hostage to an internal feud within Democratic party support groups. There is an embryonic movement against the monopoly of power by the Democrats and we do not seek to promote growth. This movement is independent but has within it the seeds of a real political opposition party in San Francisco. Greens would do well to grasp the growing opposition to the systemmatic attacks on living standards that have occurred through the fines and fees as mechanisms to maintain the bureaucracy.

    Who will suffer by cutbacks in the public defenders’ office? Everyone knows the answer to that.
    What are the driving forces promoting the gentrification of the city and responsible for the mass displacements of African-Americans and the deterioration of the city’s public schools? HINT: They lie within the existing governing coalition in the city.
    What are the priorities for making San Francisco a sustainable city- politically, financially and environmentally?
    1. Break the monopoly of the Democratic Party;
    2. Establish public education funding as the number one priority;
    3. Promote a state bank for public infrastructure (look at the proposal by Laura Wells ; http://www.laurawells.org/

    It is long past the time when the state and municipal budgets can simply be used to return political favors. How many more prisons need to be built in this state before we figure this out? The best offense for San Franciscans is a good defense (read: the Public Defenders’ Office).

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    Hey Avalos!

    You’re reading this right? Show some sack and give your stand right here in front of God and everyone. You were the first to support cutting indigent defense not that many months ago. Do you support cutting the budget of the Office of Public Defender?

    Chris Daly? I just can’t stop shaking my head. Is there anything you will not do for a headline? I’m certain we’ll find out over the next couple of months. How about getting a pair of bolt biters and cutting the lock off Boeddeker Park? Let the poor in.

    Where’s Eric Mar? What’s your position here guy? You do have a position right?

    David Campos? You’re the new white knight? You want a piece of Adachi and Gonzalez too? Come out right now here in public and say so.

    Mirkarimi? Stand up like a man your staff and friends and family can be proud of and tell us what you want to do with the budget of the Public Defender’s office. It ain’t hard. Just open your mouth and say what you think.

    Let’s see all of you get on the record here. Unless you’re all afraid.

    h.

  • DavidinSF

    According to Budget Committee Chair John Avalos, Supervisor Chris Daly is expected to make a motion at the Board’s July 20 meeting asking the Board to reverse a $1.2 million public defender budget restoration. That restoration, transferred from the trial court budget, was applied to help prevent outsourcing of more expensive indigent defense counsel.
    “I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.
    I had assumed Avalos was intelligent with a future, what a foot bullet he just delivered too himself and any prog running for district supervisor.
    If the Sit/Lie ballot measure wedge was not enough, now we have this.

  • http://soulpowered.tumblr.com/ Robert B. Livingston

    Ever want to scrap what you said and hit “send” by tapping the enter key by accident? I guess that is what I did above.

    For the curious. here is the rest of the unvarnished comment:

    ***

    Another tempest in a teapot (over who called who what when)?

    The Board is justifiably troubled breaking precedent, as they have, especially the more progressive ones, staunchly tried to restore budget cuts to the poor and meek year in year out.

    A friend calls it a yearly dance.

    I call it musical chairs.

    No matter how we applaud their efforts, someone will always lose, and hardly anyone ever gains.

    Nader often asked why our cities are so often in shambles… when most have been controlled by Democrats for years.

    Future city allowances are unsustainable unless Adachi’s pragmatic solution to pensions is not pursued. Pretending the problem will go away means future corrective fixes entailing huge job losses.

    If progressives really cared more about working folks they would be less craven to “Organized Labor” which today largely collects dues, works hand in glove with business, and negotiates whose chairs will be swiped.

    Think of the two-tier wage concessions that have become commonplace: veteran workers keep their benefits; newcomers get reduced benefits.

    Been to Safeway lately, and searched for the older workers whose job security was supposed to have been enhanced? (Harassed to extinction perhaps?)

    Seen the weary faces struggling to appeal to your every whim, a grotesque caricaturization of customer service? (The kids don’t know yet what it is all about.)

    Worse, I notice more machines than employees– and long lines of dum-dums, some normally progressive pro-labor San Franciscans, self-serving “for convenience”.

    ***

    At that point I hit the wrong key– BOING!

    ***

    (So you get the gist of my latest rant.)

    I like Chiu, Avalos, Campos, Daly, Mar, Mirkarimi. I think they are decent and trying. The others have their good days but are contemptible like the Mayor. All need to grow up beyond the cant of Organized Labor = Organized Workers. The Mayor knows the difference and uses it to his advantage.

    I love Adachi– now. I am not fooled by the silly name-calling and taking sides. He wants to help San Francisco and San Franciscans. There is nothing phony about that.

    His ballot measure is not perfect– but it won’t be what drives civil servants from this city. The criticisms of his plan are hyperbolic– inflated by the MSM that loves a divide-and-conquer scuffle.

  • http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/515407/news Ann Garrison

    “I’d rather operate to keep the function of the public defender intact rather than apply retribution, although if my colleagues want to apply retribution, I’m not going to cry,” Avalos told Fog City Journal.

    Which colleagues is Avalos talking about?

  • Javalos

    Hhhmm. Frankly I am a little surprised to see my conversation printed close to verbatim here. It appears that Luke has made a few liberties here with my comment. I am surprised to see the word “retribution” printed here. Doesn’t really sound like me.

    Yesterday, I spent a lot of time explaining to Luke why I supported shifting money from the trial courts/indigent defense to the public defender office. This past year, I worked with Eric Mar to see that the PD had adequate funding to not conflict out cases for unavailability of staff.

    I learned to support the PD the hard way: Last year, in my first meeting as budget chair, I did not support giving the PD the authority to hire more staff because I felt that city depts needed to be tightening their belts to meet the challenges of the deficit. While hundreds of jobs were eliminated, labor concessions, vital safety net services lost, Jeff fought to keep his budget whole. In this context I did not think it was fair relative to other departments’ cutbacks even though I believe in Jeff’s mission.

    When Jeff did not get the budget he wanted he claimed he had no ability to represent all the cases that came to his dept and conflicted out cases for unavailability of staff. These cases went to the private bar under the trial courts. I made the case that Jeff should make sacrifices like every other department but Jeff felt such sacrifices compromised indigent defense. I countered that all of our city services were being compromised and that Jeff ought to take his cut like everyone else. He refused and instead of working with a higher case load he passed cases on to the trial courts. As a result the trial courts did not have adequate funding to pay for the private attorneys to represent all the people needing indigent defense.

    Thus, last year, a vicious cycle ensued: As the police dept passed on cases from a drug crackdown in the TL, Jeff claimed he hadn’t the adequate level of staffing to represent everyone that came through his department. He passed more and more cases onto the trial courts which did not have adequate levels of funding to meet the challenge of more cases. As Jeff conflicted out more cases for lack of funding and staff, the pressure on the trial courts grew. Soon the trial courts and Jeff Adachi were asking for more money to meet the indigent defense needs. Subsequently, earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation to bring some balance to these departments.

    The relationship between the public defender and the trial courts takes part in a closed system where cases could be picked up by either department based on 1)the size of case loads that the public defender is willing and able to carry and 2)what the trial courts has funding to support the private attorneys providing indigent defense.

    In this year”s budget process ( last month), when Jeff faced a $2.1M cut to his office, the budget committee approved at my recommendation moving $1.2M from the trial courts to the public defenders office to prevent his conflicting out for unavailability of staff. We had also moved a cut recommendation by the budget analyst from one part of the public defenders office to the salaried part of his budget to allow for adequate staffing levels, thus whittling down the Mayor’s $2.1M cut in the PD’s office to a $664 cut: $2.1 -[ $1.2 (trial crts) + $236 (public def)] = $664K cut to PD.

    In making this restoration to Jeff’s budget I asked if he would not have to conflict out for unavailability of staff. He said he would not do so with this level of funding. I also asked him if he would be asking us for more money and he said no. I have texts to prove it. Later on the mike in budget committee, Jeff was a little more cagey, not quite saying he wouldn’t ask for more money and not exactly saying he would. I pressed him and got something close to the response I wanted.

    After all of this work on Jeff’s budget over the past year and a half, culminating in these decisions on the current year budget, I feel that I cannot work to undercut Jeff’s budget and would vote against retributive cuts. If such cuts prevail I feel the funds should stay within the closed system of the indigent defense program and revert back to the trial courts’ budget which would be burdened with cases that Jeff may conflicted out for unavailability of staff.

    I do not agree with Jeff’s Smart Reform charter amendment. I do not agree with it mostly on the grounds that making city workers pay more for family health care runs counter to progressive values. Rather than make the public sector health benefits appear more like private sector benefits, I prefer bringing the private sector up to humane health care standards.

  • marc

    The courts will not tolerate indigent defendants going without constitutionally mandated levels of counsel. Daly’s move does not take anything out on poor defendants. That is a red herring.

    The question here is how to pay for it and how to organize the office. Perhaps you think that Harvey Rose is some sort of evil plant of Chris Daly put into play before he was born, but the Budget Analysts’ recommendations are generally reasonable and result in greater efficiencies.

    Adachi insisted on maximizing his budget, the Board agreed with him, but during tough times, everyone has to take a haircut, austerity must be shared. Perhaps he thinks that every department should have to take a hair cut but his department all while maximizing the severity of the City’s fiscal hole during his campaign?

    All Daly’s move does is slightly lower the total resources the PD has at his disposal and according to the Budget Analyst does not take out anything on indigent defendants. The Board of Supervisors has bent over backwards to help the PD’s office, and if all that gets the progressive coalition is a kick in the gonads, then implementing Harvey Rose’s recommendations should not be too much to ask.

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    @John, as you recall I asked you if the motion to cut Adachi’s budget is “retribution” for SF Smart Reform. You responded exactly as quoted.

    I should also add, in Supervisor Avalos’ defense, that he did say he would not vote for a motion to cut.

    The bottom line is that whatever issue Avalos, Daly, or anyone else has with Jeff Adachi’s SF Smart Reform measure, they should not be threatening to attack the Office of Public Defender.

    They are two separate entities. One is an individual on a Lone Ranger crusade to save the city from insolvency. The other is an institution bestowed with the responsibility to provide constitutionally-mandated indigent defense.

  • http://soulpowered.tumblr.com/ Robert B. Livingston

    Correction: my comment above.

    Future city allowances are unsustainable unless Adachi’s pragmatic solution to pensions /is/ pursued.

    Better? Thanks.

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    Great discussion,

    Avalos. John, there’s a legal limit to how much you can cut legal defense. Admit that. You sat and listened to the case/lawyer ratio just like I did only I got to do it with a bourbon and water and a cigar.

    I thought the most telling thing Adachi said at those meetings was that he would not risk his bar card by violating the constitutionally mandated right to an adequate defense no matter how poor you are.

    I note that CW Nevius pretty much cribbed this entire discussion in the morning Chronicle. Without attribution. Did you do that CW or did your editor cut out your attribution? I’d like to think it was the latter.

    All people of honor here. A tough problem that our Progressive ‘cloaking device’ couldn’t hide forever.

    “The shields, Scotty! The shields are failllliiinnnggg!!!”

    h.

  • Ralph

    Jeff Adachi lobbied for the funds he believed he needed to provide adequate representation for his clients. Every other organization did the same. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and a lot of grease was spread around.

    The Fog City Journal commenters frequently throw around the word “progressive.” Just what does progressive mean in the 21st century, especially here in San Francisco? Or is it one of those you-will-know-one-when-you-see-one concepts or if you have to ask, you’re not progressive? Just thought I’d ask.

  • Patrick

    Supervisors Daly and Avalos: My understanding is that Adachi was acting as a private citizen, voter, and resident in gathering the signatures and funding for the reform measure. He is taking action where our elected Supervisors and Mayor are not showing leadership–and instead are towing the public employees’ line to the detriment of taxpayers and residents. Suggesting that funding for Adachi’s office (defense of indigents) will be cut sounds highly inappropriate. Engaging in “retribution” against a voter’s participation in the process doesn’t have a place in our system.

    Supervisor Avalos: I recognize you commented above that you are not in favor of cutting his department.

  • http://www.digitaljournal.com/user/515407/news Ann Garrison

    @Avalos:

    Something I don’t understand here:

    You say: “. . . making city workers pay more for family health care runs counter to progressive values.”

    But, quite a few City workers have been laid off altogether. Why are those City workers who’ve managed to hold onto their jobs so much more privileged that they shouldn’t have to take any cuts to preserve City services, including those of the Public Defender’s office?

    I believe that Luke Thomas, near the beginning of the budget battles, did some calculations and concluded that all City workers could have then stayed on the job if all City workers, including Supervisors, had agreed to take an across the Board cut. But, nothing like that happened. (@Luke: please correct me if I’m not remembering what you wrote correctly.)

    This isn’t hostile; I’m simply asking you and/or others, including Chris Daly and Marc Salomon, to explain.

  • marc

    The real question here is whether we can trust Jeff Adachi that the funding he says he needs is a legitimate request when compared to what the Budget Analyst says the office needs.

    Used to be we could trust Jeff, but at this point, Harvey is looking all the more reasonable.

    Should progressive and liberal San Franciscans trust the guy whose first effort at balancing the budget comes straight out of the DLC playbook, the one that brought us NAFTA and lower wages, or should we trust the respected Budget Analyst?

    C.W. Nevius is all behind Adachi. The guy who has no place in San Francisco for poor people, who wants to overload the PD’s office with “quality of life crimes,” thinks that this measure makes sense. Just look to the SFGate comment page on Nevius’ screed

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/07/09/BA4K1EC5QJ.DTL

    to read the kind of right wing swill you all are rolling with.

    Of course, Matt Gonzalez, the guy who thinks in retrospect that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and eight years of Bush were totally worth it in order to teach the conservative Democrats a lesson, is now lining up with the conservative Democrats and Republicans.

    Matt and Jeff and C.W. Nevius, or Harvey Rose, Gavin Newsom and Chris Daly?

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    @Ann,

    Yes, at the beginning of this budget cycle, FCJ proposed an equitable “shared sacrifice” budget proposal that, if implemented, would have saved all jobs and services from the guillotine.

    http://tinyurl.com/2fryply

    It was a rational proposal that was well-received from stakeholders and legislators across the political aisle but required Newsom to declare a fiscal state of emergency to unlock the union MOU’s (memorandum of understandings – union contracts) to implement.

    Newsom balked at the idea, preferring instead to cut services and layoff city employees to shore up his Whitman-esque credentials as a fiscal conservative while running for higher office. Newsom has no clue what its like to live life on the edge, facing the prospect of months/years of unemployment. All he seems to care about is his political career.

    But the blame is not all his. There have been numerous opportunities to air and discuss FCJ’s proposal which could have engendered pressure on Newsom to act with reason and compassion.

    As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it.

    Having said that, there’s still an opportunity to advance this proposal as the City faces a projected $700 million deficit next year, and $800 million the year after.

    Assuming Newsom is elected lite guv, and polls are currently showing him with a slight lead over Moldanado, the next caretaker mayor might well implement this proposal.

  • marc

    What we need is for the City to lead the way for the nation and move to a four day work week while preserving benefits.

    These $100K+ city employees need to be salary capped.

    No uniformed SFPD managers should earn a penny of overtime–work until the work is done.

    Do this, and there will be no need to attack workers’ dependent health care and retirement packages.

    You gotta wonder who was in the room drafting this with Adachi. Jeff, Matt, got an answer to this? Was it h. brown? C.W. Nevius?

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    @Marc,

    Pah-lease! Talk about spin.

    “Of course, Matt Gonzalez, the guy who thinks in retrospect that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and eight years of Bush were totally worth it in order to teach the conservative Democrats a lesson, is now lining up with the conservative Democrats and Republicans.”

  • DavidinSF

    A recent study released on July 6th, 2010 by Standford University, reports that the State of California public retirement fund is heading towards disaster. The plan’s liabilities have increased 2000 percent in the last decade while revenues have risen an anemic 26 percent. The projection indicates that in less than 20 years, the fund will be nearly $500 billion dollars in the red and there is only a 17 percent chance the State will be able to make good on their obligations.

    San Francisco is in the same predicament, for all those who are attacking Adachi it would make sense to know what you are talking about! By the comments you are posting, YOU DON’T!

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patmonkrn/ Patrick Monk

    THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

    The Public Defenders Office is the last thin line of protection available to many of those lacking the means to defend themselves from the onslaught of selective law enforcement and the multitude of other inequities that oppress millions on a daily basis. Even the threat of retaliation by reducing resources is abhorrent. As stated above and elsewhere these are two separate issues, both important, but attempts to ‘link’ them are pure petulant political game-playing.

    I’m sure that Jeff’s proposal is not perfect, but he is at least attempting to start public discourse on an inescapable reality that most don’t have the cajones to confront.

    We cant continue spending beyond our means to pay.

    We need to reorder priorities to restore some semblance of balance between the haves and have-nots.

    Decent and principled ‘labor’ representation in this town is virtually non-existent. Deals are constantly made behind closed doors with little concern for the long term best interests of workers or residents. Public input is minimal at best, and at times even stifled and opposed by those supposed to ‘represent’ us.

    As a worker in the private/corporate sector I am required to contribute to the meager pension I might receive, if I live that long; and I sure cant afford to retire at 65, that would have been last year. My retirement date will probably be the day they put the pennies on my eyes.

    It does not seem unreasonable that those in the public sector, public servants who we subsidize, should also contribute a portion of our money that they receive towards their retirement. I haven’t had time to read Jeff’s proposal, and would probably get lost in the legalese and details anyway, but in principle I applaud and agree with his attempt to rein in runaway spending. I’m sure it could use some ‘tweaking’. Maybe something along the lines of:- ‘From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her needs”.

    For example; Assuming the cost of pensions would be $700mil in 5 years, then pro-rate the contributions so that ALL those receiving paychecks or perks from public monies, pay a percentage based upon their total income and ancillary benefits, in such a way that while the top brass may have to pay 20%, nurses aides at SFGH may only have to pay 1%; and if those receiving six figure salaries don’t like it, well they can always go to work like the rest of us.

    The remedy for another financial sinkhole is also readily available, but again none of our ‘leaders’ seem willing to confront the money-men and risk loosing their financial support. Require a 1% contribution of all profits transferred off-shore or out of town, by “large” (to be defined) downtown corporations/ businesses, and use it to finance Muni.

    While it is sad that this issue and the knee jerk reactions of many ‘progressives’ may diminish the possibility of Jeff becoming Mayor, their is an upside even to that. He will remain in his current position.

    QUESTION. Who else would risk taking such an ‘unpopular’ stand in defense of the public good and ultimate welfare ? Who else would be primarily motivated by what is best for San Franciscans and this town we love.

    ANSWER. I know you’re with me on this ‘h’.

    RUN ANGELA RUN.

    Pat Monk.RN. Noe Valley.

  • marc

    @Luke, I thought at the time that it was a good idea to vote for Nader in 2000, and I stand by that given my knowledge at the time. After the Democrats successfully framed Nader in the media, especially effective amongst progressive Democrats, as spoiling Gore, I learned that this was a dangerous approach. Not only did it cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives but ended up destroying the Green Party politically. Most of us learned that unless alongside the electoral campaign there was a media campaign capable of telling our story and competing with the Democrat frame, we would make things much worse pursuing that strategy.

    Gonzalez continued to bash his head against the Democrat party while thwarting efforts to build a sustainable alternative progressive, radical political formation, declining to recalibrate strategy based on feedback from negative outcomes, until he apparently decided that it was not that bad to get in bed with the DLC economically in order to grasp at fleeting political relevance once again:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html

    NAFTA

    It was quite emblematic of Sen. Obama that he has changed his position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to suit whatever situation he is in. First, while running for the Senate in 2004, he said he supported NAFTA and thought there should be more trade agreements like it. (AP story 2/26/08). Then, while running against Hillary Clinton he blamed her for NAFTA’s impact on workers in the “rustbelt” states of Wisconsin and Ohio. But once he won the primary things changed. When asked if he would truly invoke the six-month clause in NAFTA for unilateral withdrawal, Obama showed his signature political reversal.

    NAFTA created a trilateral trade bloc encompassing the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which was meant to foster greater trade between its members. It primarily lifted tariffs on goods shipped between the three countries but has caused economic turmoil both among American and Mexican labor, with unexpected loss of jobs and negative environmental impacts.

    Nina Easton, a Washington editor for Fortune, noted in a June 18, 2008 article that “the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA,” something he had promised to do when locked in a close primary race with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Asked directly about whether he would move the U.S. out of the trade agreement, Obama said “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” Fortune magazine concluded that, despite once calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” Obama “was toning down his populist rhetoric” and had no intention of following through with his anti-NAFTA promises now that the primary battle was won.

    In light of this evidence, can we believe any of the other commitments he‘s made?

    Indeed!

    Gonzalez is all too willing to blame everyone else for his political failures [1] and incapable of learning from his failures to course-correct in accordance with one’s stated political values.

    The lesson here is that the more progressives shift the load to the charismatic male leader for deliverance, the more we will be disappointed and lose. Taking money from venture capitalists to attack organized labor continues the disregard for the consequences of one’s political plays on screwing working Americans that we saw from Gonzalez in 2004 and in 2008.

    Grassroots organizing, empowering the base and having enough confidence to allow the cards to fall where they may, is what it is going to take to build a sustainable progressive base of power to confront corporate power.

    -marc

    [1] See: http://themattgonzalezreader.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/peter-camejo-on-the-matt-gonzalez-campaign-for-mayor-of-san-francisco/ , Camejo blames the SF Green Party for Gonzalez’ 2003 loss, when each of Enrique Pearce, Carlos Petroni and a rainy election day were responsible for 5,000 lost votes each.

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    Here’s an idea: Come up with an alternative solution that addresses runaway pension and healthcare costs in way that’s palatable and equitable. If it’s viable, and there’s consensus buy-in across the political aisle to advance a legislative solution through the Board, then you can approach Jeff and ask him to withdraw his ballot measure.

    I’m sure he would be open to that.

    Sniping and complaining ain’t gonna do it.

  • marc

    @Luke, SEIU already agreed to pension contributions and to salary cuts as part of the collective bargaining process. The contributions take effect next July instead of next January as per Jeff’s measure. I’m as critical of the SEIU as the next guy, but in this case they have done what most all of Adachi is asking.

    The SFPD and Fire unions, the MEA and MAA, on the other hand, the City employees who suck down the big bucks, have not taken a hit in their pockets proportional to their hit on the budget.

    I don’t think that it is consensus in San Francisco to punish dependents of employees for union intransigence by cutting off our access to affordable health insurance.

    @Patrick, when you “assume” you make an ass out of u and me. I would not assume that Adachi’s dire budget predictions are accurate. It is a mistake to take a snapshot at one extreme case point in time and to generalize based on that. That is a mistake when Calvin Welch does it with developers and it is a mistake in this case.

    We’re all cross with labor about their support for unthrottled unaffordable development, but that is no reason to take it out on non-building trades union families by pricing health insurance out of the range of affordability of most. Are you sure you want to be put down as the only RN to support raising the cost of health insurance for city employees because everyone else has it so bad?

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    Marc,

    Tooo looonnnggg. You’re smart enough to make your point without writing a rambling incoherent raaannnttt. Seriously, tighten it up buddy. What you’re saying is so repetitive that it’s not worth the time spent reading it.

    Patrick. Sorry buddy, I love Angela dearly but she caved into Rosselli in 2003 and endorsed Newsom. I like Adachi and Newsom and Hennessey and Mirkarimi next year and David Campos has a nice smile.

    Speaking of Campos, I’d suggest that those of us who are in accord with Adachi resolve to vote in favor of the Mayor’s Charter amendment to dump Campos and Avalos and Mar and Chiu from the DCCC. A small step I know but we can always support their recalls as a next move.

    Also, let’s poll Kim and Walker and Meko and Mandelman on the issue. Those who side with Daly can have their picture taken at his July 17th Masturbatory Symposium.

    h.

  • marc

    h, you always look better when there’s not smoke blowing up your ass.

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    h, some context would be helpful.

    “Speaking of Campos, I’d suggest that those of us who are in accord with Adachi resolve to vote in favor of the Mayor’s Charter amendment to dump Campos and Avalos and Mar and Chiu from the DCCC. A small step I know but we can always support their recalls as a next move.”

    Is this satire? Sorry if I’m a bit slow this morning.

  • http://sfgop.org Howard Epstein

    Interesting discussion. The bottom line is, as Luke mentioned above, public sector pensions and healthcare are unsustainable. Jeff Adachi’s SF Smart Reform will do what present and past mayors and Boards of Supervisors should have done.

    Smart Reform and Save Muni Now will have bipartisan support and pass by large majorities despite strong opposition from the unions.

  • marc

    From the 2002 Voter Information Pamphlet, Prop H, 90% Police and Firefighter pensions after 20 years:

    Yes on H. Police officers and firefighters put their lives on the
    line every day. Help retain our highly trained professionals by
    matching their retirement benefits with neighboring cities.

    Howard Epstein, 12th Assembly District

    Howard, your kowtowing to law enforcement and resulting fiduciary incompetence led us to this crisis in the first instance. You are probably the last person we should look to for solutions.

    -marc

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/patmonkrn/ Patrick Monk

    marc – i ‘assumed’ because that was a quoted figure, albeit by an utterly unreliable source ‘CN’, so just take out $700mil and substitute $Xmil. I think you know that I’m not always a detailed thinker who can quote facts and figures in support of my rants and raves, but I stand by the rest. I remember back in the day before I left England, over 40 years ago, there were already predictions that we would ultimately be confronted with an untenable situation that would require X workers to support one civil servant. My simplistic analysis is that there are two major factors responsible for our decline and fall. One being the criminally unequal distribution of wealth and resources; the other one a bloated bureaucracy and all the resulting unaccountability, patronage and corruption. Add to that the collusion and malfeasance of those supposed to represent the workers, ideally all workers, not just their particular membership, then who do we turn to. Whatever happened to those old fashioned trade union concepts such as “..a drive to unite all laboring men and women for a different order of things..”.

    Whatever the numbers, I think it is clear that we can not sustain the current order of things. I was merely trying to say that something has to be done. I’m no economist but suggesting that; #1 – we need to close all tax loopholes etc, and redistribute some small portion of the wealth and profits extracted from our community; and #2 – find some way to devise a sliding scale system whereby those at the top of the public sector employment ladder might have to pay $1000 a month for their benefits while those at the bottom paid nothing.

    I know, another simplistic solution, but then I’m a pretty simple dude.

    This may still be America, but there aint no free lunch anymore – the pigs have cleaned out the trough.

    ‘h’ – point taken, so who do you propose, ‘assuming’ Jeff is not in ? Hennessey is good. You think Matt is testing the water – think he has a chance.

    PS. I ‘assume’ it was a typo when you said, “I like Adachi and Newsom(!!).

    Just my 2c – I’m done.

  • http://www.jamiewhitaker.com jamiewhitaker

    Luke is right on when he wrote “Here’s an idea: Come up with an alternative solution that addresses runaway pension and healthcare costs in way that’s palatable and equitable. If it’s viable, and there’s consensus buy-in across the political aisle to advance a legislative solution through the Board, then you can approach Jeff and ask him to withdraw his ballot measure.”

    For those of us living in reality, who recognize money doesn’t get printed by anyone except the Federal Government in the USA, and who are losing more and more needed services as the young people with the least seniority are laid off from the City and County of San Francisco know, the status quo is unsustainable.

    While Mayor Newsom and other politicians (and the peanut galleries on blogs, of which I include myself) in this town are busy shooting arrows in Jeff Adachi’s back for stepping out of line with the career politicians and standing up for sustainable pension reforms that will help to do the most good for the most San Franciscans instead of the band-aid “give backs,” the other 750,000 or so San Franciscans not benefiting from unsustainable pensions and healthcare benefits are quickly learning who is beholden to the special interests and political machines in San Francisco and who the real, principled leader(s) are among our elected officials.

    Here’s something suck on … “Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.73 per hour worked in March 2010. Total employer compensation costs for State and local government workers averaged $39.81 per hour worked in March 2010.”

    Read the whole thing at http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

    You want folks in the private sector who earn an average $27.73 in total compensation per hour to give up needed services like MUNI, public health, and public defense and/or pay for fees and taxes to support the unsustainable retirement benefits of folks who earn 44% MORE TOTAL COMPENSATION? Talk about taking from the poor to give to the well off … what kind of “progressives” are you assholes?

  • http://www.jamiewhitaker.com jamiewhitaker

    Oh yeah .. and the folks making $27.73 an hour in total compensation do not have guaranteed pensions or benefits … they have to contribute to a 401(k) or 403(b) or whatever …. AT LEAST 10% if they actually want to retire at some point.

  • http://www.jamiewhitaker.com jamiewhitaker

    … and they’re most likely already paying 33% or more for their OWN healthcare insurance and most of the balance for any dependents, so again … WTF?

  • marc

    So public sector wages started off less than private sector wages, and after 30 years of deindustrialization, the situation is reversed. Are progressives to blame for that? Are union workers? Are the speculative venture capitalists who are funding Adachi’s measure?

    There are reasons why wages have fallen over the past 30 years. The same economic messages powered by a few wealthy corporations and individuals that had working people voting for corporate interests which put them out of work is at work here as well.

    We’ve learned that Care Not Cash solved nothing, but Newsom is doubling down with Sit/Lie which will also solve nothing except to mobilize voters this November. We’ve learned that moneyed interests succeed when they play us off against one another. Here, Jeff Adachi manages to combine the two.

    There is nothing progressive in furthering the corporate economic project which impoverishes us. What is missing from the progressive discourse are solutions to declining wages, and the commensurate health care and retirement insecurity.

    Had Adachi wanted to solve a policy problem here, he should have opened up a broad conversation about it instead of taking a page from the Newsom and the DLC’s playbook. That indicates to me that the problem Adachi is attempting to solve here is political and has nothing to do with sustainable economics.

    I’m sad to see that the campaign manager for a candidate who bills himself as a community based, progressive consensus builder is pimping for the interests who sabotaged, took the community out of, the candidate’s community based planning process. Jim Meko knows what it was like back when downtown ruled the City. He needs to take steps to distance himself from this garbage lest he own it himself.

    If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, I guess? How fucking pathetic.

    -marc

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/luke/ Luke Thomas

    @Marc, seriously, think about an alternative solution that will prompt Jeff to withdraw his measure. You’ve made your points. Now’s the time to present alternative solutions.

  • http://www.jamiewhitaker.com jamiewhitaker

    Now we’re attacking free speech? Wow … I speak for myself as a resident of San Francisco who absolutely hates it when people propagate the George W. Bush notion that “You’re either with us or you’re against us” What’s next “No new taxes* (unless you’re a private worker)”?

    By the way, if you review the San Francisco Young Democrats “District 6 Candidate Responses to Key Issues,” you would know that the non-political machine, non-special interest Progressive candidates support Jeff Adachi and the Smart Pension Reform because it IS the Progressive and Right thing to do without any other alternative solution that career politicians have gotten done. That would include Anna Conda, James Keys, and Jim Meko – and don’t start giving me bullshit about how they’ve sold their souls or something to non-progressive interests because they’ve proven they are Progressives with their actions over time, and will continue to do so if elected.

  • http://www.jamiewhitaker.com jamiewhitaker

    … oh, and I freely admit that Jim and I do not see eye to eye on several issues, but I know he’s the best candidate for the job because of his 33 years living in District 6, deep knowledge and experience working with District 6 residents to fight off CIty Hall’s attempts at railroading changes into the District without talking with District residents, and I know he will at least listen to me (despite Marc saying I’m garbage or whatever) even when we disagree on issues. That’s why I quit my job as a public finance consultant to help my friend out with his campaign this past May …. My thoughts posted here and elsewhere are my thoughts – period.

  • marc

    @Luke, SEIU members WILL contribute 7.5% to retirement effective July of 2011. That has already been bargained. Does Jeff really wish to go to the mat over dependent dental and health insurance share of cost or over the extra 1.5-2.5% in retirement contribution?

    The Board and Mayor must immediately fulfill the promises of Prop H in 2002 that SFPD and SFFD pensions will not cost the general fund a cent. This should be retroactive from the time that the fund was depleted in accordance with the promises made to the voters.

    The Board and Mayor need to conduct an investigation into why the retirement fund went from a $3 billion surplus in 2002 to insolvent today. Everyone took a bath, but few funds properly managed lost that much.

    Any plan needs to be progressive in that it requires a higher percentage contribution from higher income workers than lower income workers. It needs to flex with the economy so that when the retirement fund is filling up, lower contributions are required and when it is emptying out, higher contributions are in place. And if we learn anything from this experience, good policy needs to be adjustable to provide flexibility in case of unanticipated economic circumstances without having to go to the voters.

    And there needs to be a culling of top dollar employees, middle management and attorneys from the ranks of the MEA and MAA, and a rollback of the recent reclassifications done in 2007-8 which would mean $20K or more cuts in pay. Given that the last time I checked 3 years ago or so the $100K club amounted to half a billion in payroll, 20% savings is significant.

    The economy that inflated public wages to compete with the private sector no longer exists, that bubble has to be popped according to progressive values or else it will do more harm than good to the economy. Salaries are what rose, insurance benefits did not expand. Again, we cannot ignore the fact that those who were earning more saw their salaries rise much more than those who were earning less towards the end of the real estate bubble.

    -marc

  • Martinzehr

    This public display is particularly useful in grasping the reality behind the rhetoric. The public is seeing the cost of opposing the “powers-that-be”.

    Is this just a peak underneath the rug where so much has been swept?

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    Luke,

    I’m not kidding about voting to toss these guys off DCCC if they follow through with their attacks on legal services for the indigent. I don’t have any respect for DCCC anyway. Never have. Probably never will. I went Democrat for a week to vote for Hope cause she’s my friend and wanted to be on DCCC. I never understood why. But, it’s important to the supes and if you go after my candidate (Adachi) and his life’s work I’ll go after your trinkets. None of these guys can carry Jeff’s jock and they all know it.

    Pat, sure Matt could win. Jeff too. Hennessey three and da Mirk four (yeah, the ‘Newsom’ thing was typo – meant to say Gonzalez). We have lots of great Prog candidates. But Peskin sure isn’t one and the DCCC is his baby and I’ve seen the way he uses it. Break up the Peskin machine before it get’s further entrenched.

    Salomon does this same crap everywhere he goes. He came into the SOMA process years after stakeholders had been working on it and tried to take it over. They ended up tossing him out. So, he hates Meko. Daly refused to appoint him (Marc) to a similar group there for just those reasons. Marc’s sexist taunting broke up the Bicycle Commission and he’s proud of it. All he cares about is the spotlight and he’s figured out that the best way to get it is attaching himself like a gargoyle to his betters.

    Giants down 0-2 after 1st inning.

    Luke II weighs over 150 lbs now.

    Over 100 degrees in Fresno again.

    h.

  • http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/author/hbrown/ Harold Brown

    Also,

    Keep in mind that in 2003 Gonzalez got more votes from Democrats then Newsom did. It was Howard and his Republican Party who gave Gavin the win (I’ll always believe the absentees were rigged too). Matt’s always been more fiscally moderate than Newsom. Same for Adachi. The Republicans know this for certain after 7 years of the Gavster.

    Another back story is Gabriel Haaland’s motive for attacking anything to do with Gonzalez. As I recall, Matt was the only one on the BOS to vote against a settlement Gabe (then Robert) got from the Sheriff’s department for strip searching him. Haaland later was canned from the Board of Appeals for not doing any homework and Gonzo buddy Randy Knox fit in cause he’s not all about intrigue and back stabbing. It’s a decades long pattern with Gabe. A cottage industry if you will. He sued recently for sexual harassment in the 1021 offices. Guy’s a real piece of work.

    Salomon’s hell of a brilliant guy and I just wish the hell someone would give him a job.

    Giants and D.C. tied 3-3 and Posey is 1 for 1.

    h.

Newer Comments →