Ammiano Backs Campos for D9 Supervisor

Written by Luke Thomas. Posted in News, Politics

• marc

  That was quite a performance on Tom’s part, especially the fantasies about returning phone calls, and about being a supervisor for the Mission, AWOL on 3400 Cesar Chavez and police violence. But, hey, Tom’s got another gig afoot, so he’s taken care of.

  What’s really interesting here is how David is doing an imitation of John McCain, in that David has been on the Police Commission for several years now, but sat by idly while the cops were given a 25% raise for not doing their jobs, and now rails as an agent of change, of police reform as violence rages in the Mission, on his watch.

  Hillary Clinton had a good line, saying that McCain was the iceberg that was going to save the Titanic.

  But then again, David Campos is the chameleon of this race, being whatever he has to be whenever he has to be it in order to thread whatever needle confronts him.

  This is how David went from one of Dennis Herrera’s lackeys to Louise Renne and Arlene Ackerman’s choice as SFUSD counsel to being a civil rights attorney.

  What we see here is David’s ambition clouding any sort of consistency with David’s record, a infinitely mutable record which apparently Jim Stearns feels he can cynically conjure up, de novo, at will.

  -marc

• tami

  Wow,
  This must be the reason why the left is still a weak, splintered factor in politics! Republicans succeed because of how they unify behind their common goal and agenda, but the “left” is too busy in-fighting to make the gains we need to make. Lives are being lost, immigrants are being terrorized, single-payer is in limbo, schools are being marginalized and affordable housing is not being created, the left does not have the luxury of time when people’s lives are at stake.
  To compare David to McCain? Really? How could you, Marc?
  Can you not just extol the virtues of your candidate without deriding another candidate?
  That is what I do. As a mother, with children who have ALL LOST young friends to violence, I am supporting the candidate that I think will most effectively address the violence amongst our youth and other issues that affect the working class, immigrants,etc. I am looking for someone that will take the lead on these issues. David has been an exemplary police commissioner. I know that when citizens complain about police activity, David takes these complaints seriously and acts on them. For this he is not popular with the POA. I think he holds one of the riskiest posts in government and he should be commended for courageously taking this on. He has support from police accountability advocates.
  My supervisor is a Green named Ross Mirkarimi. You may have heard of him. I endorsed him 4 years ago, ahead of Democrats, when there was not unanimous consensus and enthusiastically endorse him again. But since Ross’ district is plagued by much of the same challenges as D9, as much as Ross works tirelessly to address and prevent the root causes of violence, he his very pro-police! He has been quoted that more needs to be done to catch and convict the perpetrators of crime. But I do not attack Ross for wanting more police. I understand that he sees law enforcement as one of the tools necessary to combat tragedy. I think David and Ross share a very similar vision for public safety. Prevention and rehabilitation first, law enforcement when that is not enough.
  Marc, please save your venom for those who deserve it, and if David is not your candidate, that is your prerogative, but your attack is unfair and unwarranted.
  BTW, I was the parent plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Ackerman’s contract, so when I met David, it was because I was attending board meetings fighting for the district’s employees and students. He was SFUSD counsel so I was often at odds with their position. But SFUSD was David’s employer, it is not fair to associate his ideology with that of his employer. David was able to do a lot of positive and progressive things as school district counsel, like protecting our students from La Migra.
  I work for the State of California, does that mean that I think like Arnold? Not!
  Sanctuary is under attack. Who better qualified and more committed to defend sanctuary than an attorney who came here undocumented?
  You do realize how racist it is for you to attack a Latino in this manner?
  I do not think that racism is part of a progressive agenda. Remember, my lawsuit was against a contract but not the individual. I agree with you on so much. I even think highly of your candidate, so I do not need to go negative in order to support my candidate.
  I hope you will cease these vicious attacks, and instead focus on why people should support your candidate. Big picture-do you want to move a progressive agenda forward, or do you want to work in collusion with the right wing to undermine the progressives?

• marc

  tami, why not listen to Tom Ammiano go off if you want to hear an example of venom?

  Ross has made change at the SFPD by implementing foot patrols, and was single handedly responsible for the only successful overrides of Newsom’s vetoes, three of ‘em.

  But as you might know, our system of government divides executive and legislative responsibility.

  Assisting the executive in carrying out the policies of the legislative are the commissions.

  The SFPD was in poor shape when Campos was appointed, and it has deteriorated since. It is that track record on a matter of life and death–not some academic arcane point of debate–which is germane to this campaign.

  Just as David should have done something to stop the massive raise that rewarded cops who are not doing their jobs, we are doing something be sure that David is not rewarded with a promotion for not using his position on the PC to bring around the kind of structural reform that is required to get the cops doing the job we pay them to do.

  So much of SF politics is centered around political kinship networks. Sometimes that can be a mere annoyance. But in the case of the SFPD and violence, it is time to dispense with the manners of court and demand that someone in whom power has been vested shit or get off the pot.

  A good district supervisor needs his/her feet on the ground so that when an issue arises, s/he is poised to pounce. Whether that issue is the SFPD POA MOU that David slept through or 3400 Cesar Chavez that Tom slept through, that skillset is missing from that crowd.

  Interpersonal manipulation of political elites or the need for pure thoughts are not the “critical” skill sets.

  Progressives are not weak because we challenge people who claim to be progressive even though their record reflects no such thing, whether they are David Campos or Gavin Newsom.

  -marc

• marc

  tami, one further thought. ON the Veterans Day of 2004, after the eleciton, David okayed an illegally noticed meeting where a lame duck Heather Hiles provided the swing vote for the Ackerman contract extension that cost us $375,000. I find that decision by David quite instructive, a window into his thought process.

  As counsel for the SFUSD, Campos worked for all of the Superintendent, commissioners and taxpaying public. The job of a government attorney is to balance those interests.

  As one schooled in transactional politics, Campos appeased the Superintendent and 4 of the commissioners, leaving 3 commissioners and 760,000 San Franciscans out in the cold when he okayed the lame duck golden contract extension.

  Now consider the nature of this decision.

  Was the Brown act that required notice enacted to protect bureaucrats like the Superintendent? Of course it was not.

  Was the Brown act put forth to protect elected officials like the Commissioners? To an extent, Commissioners need to be notified of an upcoming meeting with sufficient time to prepare.

  Was the Brown Act put into place to protect citizens, residents and taxpayers by informing us in a timely manner when a meeting is to take place where our tax dollars are to be spent? Yes, as the Brown act requires adequate notice and providing for public comment on decision items.

  Four commissioners were informed quickly of this meeting, but three were not informed as required by the Brown act.

  The public who foots the bill for that cavalcade was left in the cold, just as the public left Heather Hiles in the cold on election day. Campos carried water for Hiles after the voters rejected her. That speaks volumes to David’s inclinations.

  If you look into David’s brain on this decision, there was no place in his analysis for the right of the people to be informed of a meeting where a lame duck was going to provide the swing vote for a platinum parachute that the public would pay for.

  Public service requires a balanced informed tradeoff of various interests so as to maximize the interests served by a decision. That cannot happen when certain voices, 3 commissioners and the general public are not considered.

  Just as Dennis Herrera okayed same sex marriage and that became the default against which a court case would be lodged, David Campos as counsel to the SFUSD could have taken the position that the right of the public to be informed of a meeting where a sketchy contract was approved was the highest concern and had that be the default to be challenged in court.

  But David took another path, one designed to not offend the political elites, just as David took another path on the POA MOU to not rock the boat.

  While we’ve seen that Chris Daly, ever well intentioned, has rocked the boat to the point where it is taking on water, there is a sweet spot that Ross has identified where one can take principled political stands that clash with those of the political elites without threatening the integrity of one’s viability, while representing constituents and most critically, keeping to one’s political principles.

  When one’s political principle is singularly acquiring power for oneself and not doing much with it other than trying to acquire more power, then folks can understand how fast and loose one can then play with representing the interests of the political elites over those of the general public in one’s official duties.

  -marc

• tami

  Marc,
  Ross supported the raise for the police. I know this for a fact so it is unfair to demonize David for this. Yes, I KNOW how hard Ross has fought for foot patrols. I have corresponded with him, the Mayor and Chief Fong on the matter. Young Black men are losing their lives at a shameful pace in my community.
  As for the lame duck Hiles. I have no idea what you mean that David “carried the water for her”. Hiles’ appointment by Newsom to the BoE was the precise reason, I as a mother of three SFUSD students, became involved in the BoE. If what you say is true, the Sunshine was violated, wouldn’t the lawsuit to invalidate the contract have prevailed?
  To me, that technicality would have been enough to invalidate the contract. I am not an attorney, and I realize that the law is as nebulous as it is black and white, but I really counter that David okayed an illegally called meeting. It had to have been legally, albeit, questionably called.
  I do not have any of the legal papers I once possessed regarding the lawsuit and do not have the time to research the Sunshine violation you allege but I believe that the law was followed, beyond the authority of David to call the shot.
  Otherwise, it seems the progressive school board members should have been able to thwart the effort when it happened.
  Again, you lump David with Newsom, this is unfair. Newsom is clearly not progressive on any issue whatsoever! He is an inauthentic shell of an individual, truly in it for himself and his own political ambitions.
  David is in it for the benefit of the community, and you really have no basis to accuse him otherwise.
  I reiterate, can you not just promote your candidate and cease this vicious attack on David?

• marc

  tami, Ross held a hearing on the POA MOU that happened to be the day of the BofS meeting where the contract was approved (and the same day of a legislative hearing in Sacramento that failed to cure the Copley decision which restricts the information on cop discipline that police departments may disclose, so professional advocates who would normally have made the case were otherwise legitimately disposed, it was just me and h. brown who testified, nobody else), while David and the Police Commission apparently took no steps to influence the negotiations when they could have.

  Sometimes, politicians cast throw away votes that they otherwise wouldn’t, knowing that a vote on principle would be wasted and the other vote might improve one’s political position, but at least Ross did that after making at least a token stand to bring key issues to light in committee.

  But then again, Ross has many other public policy achievements against which we can measure the troubling decision to vote for a POA MOU that was going to pass anyway. Chris Daly gets kudos for standing on principle, tho.

  Specious claims on doorhangers and campaign literature aside, David does not have that record of progressive accomplishment in public service which would mitigate one or two decisions that were disagreeable to one. Like McCain and Palin, Campos’ literature and campaign message bears scant resemblance to his record, rather it more resembles what he thinks the voters want in an candidate, and that is most troubling.

  To correct the political history, in the fall of 2004, there were only three progressive School Board members on that fractious Ackerman slavish panel at the time, one less than was required to change the outcome.

  The way things work is that the counsel for a public agency issues an opinion on the legality of a course of action. Often in politics, policy and the law, reasonable minds can differ, and it is the politics and principle of the actors which determines where the cards fall.

  Sure, a court found that the course of action taken at David’s behest to sneak through Ackerman’s platinum parachute was not illegal, but had David advised in favor of rescheduling the meeting in an abundance of caution and concern for public participation, the courts would have most likely had no problem with that either were it appealed. Could you imagine a court insisting that a meeting be rescheduled with minimal notice after the fact? That was the risk David took, apparently one he avoided.

  That record is representative of the kind of priorities an individual uses in balancing competing interests and should clearly be a consideration in this election. Does anyone think that San Francisco’s bureaucrats deserve that kind of leeway in favor of taxpayers?

  That many would equate presenting an individual’s record as a public servant with an attack underscores the cliquishness that plagues San Francisco progressivism. It also speaks to the insecurity of a campaign that they are unable to respond substantively to criticism, rather decry criticisms on the substantive issues as attacks and then try to change the subject. That means there is fire beneath the smoke because the substantive resume is as thin on substance as it is thick on appointments.

  Remember when Willie Brown was pillaging the city and Terence Hallinan declined to investigate those crimes because he got all misty eyed and said that he and Brown had been friends for so long? That’s the kind of thing I’m trying to avoid. A true friend does not enable dysfunction.

  District Nine is the most progressive district in the City, and after years of neglect, D9 deserves an advocate with a proven track record of progressive achievement.

  At the end of the day, a candidate’s record in public service and accomplishment cis what really matters in an election.

  Failing to take steps to cure the rot at the SFPD or to push for concrete concessions in return for more money and finding for the bureaucrats instead of taxpayers while on the Police Commission is part of David’s record of public disservice that progressives and Mission residents should find disturbing, especially when our neighborhood is being racked by a paroxysm of violence.

  Our house is on fire.

  I could care less about hurting someone’s feelings with a cold dose of the truth when the cops he’s been commissioning are not keeping us safe from being hurt and killed on our streets. That’s not venom, that’s a wakeup call. David does not have cooties, he is not a bad person, he is just not the best fit for the most progressive district which is under tremendous pressure.

  In the 20 years I’ve been living here, I’ve not seen David wielding a progressive firehose, and our house is burning.

  -marc