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 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.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookGoogle Plus

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • 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?

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →