Printer-friendly PDF fileOctober 8, 2024
$8.5 Million Raised Through Sep. 21 Will Reduce Citizen Oversight
Reject “Prop. D” Eliminating Transparent Oversight
Vote “No” on “Prop. D” and “Yes” on “Prop. E” on November 5
“Prop. D” Is a Power Grab to Hand Any Mayor Too Much Power
Proponent Kanishka Cheng Wants Health Commission Eliminated
Seven Former Elected Officials Call for Criminal Investigation
“Prop. D” Would Eliminate Health Commission and Oversight of Laguna Honda Hospital
Supervisor Melgar Wrongly Opposed Placing “Prop. E” on the Ballot
by Patrick Monette-Shaw
Late-Breaking News October 18:
In response to an e-mail I sent today to City Supervisors forwarding my attached article questioning whether Supervisor Melgar was OK with eliminating the Health Commission and its oversight of Laguna Honda Hospital, she belatedly responded saying that she is not, writing: “What Kanishka and her husband [Jay Cheng] are doing to our City sucks.” Melgar’s private correspondence response was a day late and a dollar short. Voters won’t know that!
If “Prop. D” passes and the Health Commission is abolished in the process, we’ll have Melgar and Supervisors Dorsey, Engardio, and Stefani to blame for 1) Not having signed on to Supervisor Peskin’s measure to place “Prop. E” on the ballot, 2) Not having stated in the Voter Guide that “Prop. D” sucks (as Melgar now belatedly says) or that the four Supervisors support “Prop. E,” and 3) Melgar’s response to a Westside Observer D-7 candidate questionnaire saying she didn’t support “Prop. E.”
In response to the October 9 Observer candidate- questionnaire asking which of the two ballot measures candidates supported, Melgar’s skimpy 30-word response stated: “I support neither. I voted no on E at the Board and did not vote on D, as they gathered signatures. I support Mayor Breed's proposal for comprehensive Charter reform.” There’s her true colors, in her own words!
Unfortunately, Breed’s Charter reform isn’t on our November ballot. Only “Prop. D” and “Prop. E” are on the ballot. Asked which ballot measure she supports, Melgar whiffed. After all, silence = complicity. Let’s hope the Health Commission isn’t abolished!
Late-Breaking News:
On Monday, October 7 an e-mail from the “Mark Farrell for Mayor” committee announced three former San Francisco mayors had accused Farrell of campaign finance violations involving “Prop. D”. That’s a strong reason to vote “No” on “Prop. D”!
Farrell downplayed the severity of the complaint. He neglected to include in his e-mail that the “accusation” involves his alleged criminal conduct, and that the three mayors had requested a criminal investigation be expedited prior to the November 5 election.
The “accusation” was actually an undated formal letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, signed by former Mayor’s Art Agnos, Willie Brown, and Frank Jordan, and co-signed by former City Attorney Louise Renne, former San Francisco Supervisor Angela Alioto, former State Senator Mark Leno, Former Superior Court Judge and former Ethics Commissioner Quentin Kopp, and by founding partner John Keker of the Keker, Van Nest, and Peters, LLP law firm. The letter was reportedly sent or delivered on Monday, October 7.
The letter alleges there is a prima facie case against Farrell involving funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop D” committee into his separate campaign for mayor. That criminal investigation could prove Farrell was the head of a private criminal plot as a candidate for mayor. As the saying goes, “Watch this space”!
Proponents and their supporters of “Prop. D” on the November 5 ballot have poured $8.5 million into two campaign committees backing former interim Mayor Mark Farrell’s misguided ballot measure. They’re desperate to buy passage of “Prop. D”.
It’s a clear trojan horse, because despite “Prop. D’s” claim it would rid excessive bureaucracy in San Francisco government, it’s actually a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing disguise designed to prevent voters from understanding it’s a ballot measure to hand Farrell additional “strong mayor” powers, and simultaneously eviscerate citizen-involved oversight of City government should he win his race to replace Mayor Breed as mayor in City Hall Room 200.
“Prop. D” will take a sledgehammer to decades of government reform initiated and approved by San Francisco voters. It will foster special-interest influence. “Prop. D’s” backers are thirsty for this!
To the extent Farrell downplayed the severity of the three mayor’s letter to Attorney General Bonta calling for a criminal investigation of Farrell’s ballot committee, it illustrates Farrell is incapable of shame!
You can bet venture capitalist Mark Moritz (who has donated $500,000), and Farrell’s well-healed millionaire and billionaire friends like Thomas Coates ($250,000) and Linda Coates ($250,000), John Pritzker ($200,000), Bill Oberndorf ($195,000 to perhaps $345,000), and other donors to Farrell’s candidate-controlled committee, will probably contribute another one or two million dollars before November 5. Moritz also dropped at least another $2.5 million into a separate so-called “independent expenditure committee” supporting “Prop. D.” With $8.5 million donated so far through September 21, what’s another couple of million dollars between billionaire and millionaire friends when they are trying to buy City Hall?
“Prop. D” creates a breading ground for more corruption in City government, eliminating accountability, transparency, and oversight. Don’t be fooled!
As Steve Bennen recently noted in an MSNBC article, “Every good heist story invariably involves a crew.” Some of the worst heists involve politics and politicians. Heist crews set out to essentially steal, because they fear they might not win on the merits alone. So, they assemble a team or two to pull off the political robbery. Nixon had his Watergate plumbers. Convicted felon Trump assembled his mob to attack the nation’s capitol on January 6, 2021.
Former interim mayor Mark Farrell — who served just five months and 18 days as interim mayor in 2018 — assembled his heist team: Kanishka Cheng, Margaux Kelly, TogetherSF, another entity named, TogetherSF Action, and most of all billionaire venture capitalist Michael Mortiz. This heist team’s purpose involves a scheme to rob the City of important citizen-assisted oversight of, and participation in, the City’s boards and commissions system.
Their broader goal is to hand Farrell a “strong-mayor system” coup, should he win election as San Francisco’s mayor on November 5. We’ve been warned “Prop. D” would create an “all-powerful mayor.” Don’t fall for it!
Kanishka and Margaux — both of whom were former legislative aides to then-supervisor Farrell — and their teams have been very busy getting the heist plans on track, hoping to deliver the loot to Farrell — with exorbitant funding from Moritz.
That brings us to the deceptive November 2024 “Prop. D” placed on the ballot after collecting almost 80,000 petition signatures.
“Prop. D”: City Commissions and Mayoral Authority
The proposed heist embedded in “Prop. D” struggled in December 2023 to even clearly and accurately name itself. It had a terrible self-inflicted identity crisis.
In December 2023, TogetherSF announced two ballot measures for the November 2024 election to reform San Francisco’s City Charter. One was titled “Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.” It was written to cut the number of city boards, commissions, and other advisory bodies in half. But it had a fatal flaw: Eliminating certain commissions would kick oversight responsibilities over to the Board of Supervisors, not to the Mayor. The San Francisco Standard noted it was an “embarrassing blunder,” which TogetherSF pulled from the Elections Department within two weeks of having submitted it.
The San Francisco Standard reported that TogetherSF’s other proposed ballot measure — “We Need SF To Work Initiative” — would have given the mayor sole discretion to hire and fire department heads, strengthen the mayor’s ability to control commissions, and allow for the creation of deputy mayor positions. “Prop. D” was written to hand the mayor more power under a “strong mayor” system of governance. Voter’s aren’t particularly fond of strong mayors usurping legislative and citizen-involved oversight.
For his part, Mission Local star investigative reporter Joe Eskenazi reported on May 27 that TogetherSF announced on May 1, 2024 TogetherSF had apparently pulled the “We Need SF To Work Initiative” off the ballot (after obtaining the necessary number of petition signatures to place it on the ballot, probably at great signature-gathering expense), “because it looked like it was going to lose.”
That’s because (as Eskenazi noted) while voters bristle at the message behind “make San Francisco’s strong mayor even stronger,” voters like the idea of reducing this City’s clutter of commissions.
TogetherSF eventually managed to place a revised version of the “Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative” on the November ballot after re-collecting the required number of signatures, but the City Attorney’s Office creatively gave the final, single ballot measure a shiny new name of “City Commissions and Mayoral Authority.” That measure, commonly called “Prop. D,” contains much of the same stuff voters didn’t like in the strong mayor “We Need SF To Work Initiative.” TogetherSF’s two initial measures were just rinsed off, dressed up, and given a single new name.
But it wasn’t just TogetherSF that had an identity crisis with what to name it’s ballot measure. Indeed, Mark Farrell’s candidate-controlled expenditure committee first named itself on March 18 “Mark Farrell for the Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.” That initial baptismal name was rapidly changed to the “Mark Farrell for the We Need SF to Work Initiative.” Which was then rechristened with a combination of the two, embarrassingly named the long-winded “Mark Farrell for the We Need SF to Work Initiative and the Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.”
Wow! Most birth certificates contain a first, middle, and last name (perhaps incorporating a hyphenated last name), followed by a “Junior” or “Senior.” How do you even fit a 17-word name onto a campaign donation check, before or after baptism? What was Farrell and his heist-team thinking?
Realizing it had a way-too-long committee name, Farrell eventually renamed his committee for a fourth time to the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop D” committee. That at least can fit on a campaign donation check, or not cause ActBlue to choke processing contribution transactions. All four committees have all along shared the same Committee ID #1467847.
TogetherSF’s final version of “Prop. D” pulls the wool over voter’s eyes: Voters may not realize that if they pass “Prop. D” thinking they are voting for the latter to reduce the number of boards and commissions, they’ll actually be doing the former, including enacting “strong mayor” enhancements.
“Prop. D's” Chopping Block
The Ballot Simplification Committee official Digest in the voter guide summarizes what “Prop. D” proposes.The digest notes “Prop. D” will limit the City to a total of 65 commissions, boards, task forces and other advisory bodies, essentially calling to remove 50 of the 115 current advisory bodies, absent any cost-benefit analysis at all beforehand. “Prop. D” will retain 20 Charter commissions, including Police, Fire, Recreation and Park, Municipal Transportation Agency, Public Utilities, and Ethics, and those overseeing City employee health benefits and retirement, along with commissions required by federal or state law.
But it would remove 24 Charter commissions, including the Public Health Commission, Library Commission, Human Rights Commission, Human Services Commission, Arts Commission, and the Commission on the Environment, among other commissions. Those 24 named Commissions face the immediate chopping block.
That also means of the other potential 45 advisory bodies that might be re-authorized to fit in the artificial cap of just 65 bodies, the 24 Charter commissions being removed along with the other 71 current advisory bodies — for a total of 95 advisory bodies — will be pitted against one another for the 45 “seats” remaining in the 65 bodies artificial limit.
Since “Prop. D” leaves it up to a five-member temporary task force to determine which advisory bodies will survive, voters will have no educated and informed guidance before voting for or against “Prop. D”. Voters will have no way of divining which of the 95 other advisory bodies will survive the chopping block.
That includes eliminating such bodies as the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (regarding disputes over access to public records), the Urban Forestry Council, the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee, the Small Business Commission (which is set for repeal), Juvenile Probation Commission, Health Commission, Children and Families Commission, Disability and Aging Commission, Mayor’s Disability Council, Veterans’ Affairs Commission, Open Space Advisory Committee, Capital Planning Committee, Behavioral Health Commission, Mayor’s Disaster Council, and the Commission on the Status of Women. They’ll all be pitted against one another for one of the 45 remaining seats.
And to the extent these bodies conduct open public meetings and take testimony from members of the public, that venue will be closed off, forcing the public to deal with unresponsive City departments.
On July 8, the Mission Local noted:
“Farrell did not start the effort; it was initiated by TogetherSF, the big-money group that shares extensive ties with the Farrell campaign. TogetherSF is led by a former Farrell aide, and three members of his campaign team are former or current TogetherSF staff.”
An earlier Mission Local article on May 9 cited a text message from Farrell’s paid campaign consultant Margaux Kelly saying that Kanishka Cheng, was “guiding the ship.” Mission Local mentioned the term “guiding the ship” may lead to legal scrutiny about illegal campaign coordination between a candidate’s election committee and an “independent expenditure committee.” Hopefully, Attorney General Bonta will take notice!
From my perspective, Cheng is more like guiding the heist crew, with Farrell bowing to her lead.
Before getting to what’s actually in the “Prop. D” legal text, it’s instructive to look at the official “Proponent Argument” posted on the San Francisco Department of Elections web site and available here. It was authored and signed by Farrell’s former Legislative Aide and now CEO of “TogetherSF Action,” Kanishka Cheng. Importantly, it was date-time stamped as submitted to the Elections Department on August 15, 2024 at 10:11 a.m.
Her paid 289-word Proponent argument — which cost $778 to have printed and included in San Francisco’s Voter Guide — falsely claimed the City had “approximately” 130 Board and commissions, and other advisory bodies. That was absolute bunk. Complete nonsense. Kanishka appears to have taken that 130 number from the cover sheet accompanying her petition seeking Elections Department approval to begin collecting signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The document was submitted on January 22 and date-time stamped as approved on January 25, 2024.
But between January 25 and August 15, San Francisco’s Civil Grand Jury released its report “Commission Impossible?: Getting the Most From San Francisco’s Commissions” released on June 20, 2024. The Grand Jury report listed only 115 boards and commissions in the City, and actually recommended abolishing just 15 and retaining the other 100 bodies.
So, when Kanishka repeated in her official Proponent argument dated August 15, she was lying claiming there were 130 advisory bodies and commissions. That was not so. There were 115. She just repeated her January lie there were 130.
And rather than recommending eliminating only 15 of the policy bodies, Cheng wielded her meat cleaver tightly, demanding voters axe 65 of the 130 bodies.
The 74-page legal text of the “Prop. D” measure states “sixteen months after [passage of “Prop. D”] there shall be no more than 65 appointive boards or commissions in the City and County government.” So, what’s on the chopping block? We don’t know for certain. The legal text of “Prop. D” only lists which of the Commissions listed in the Charter are on the chopping block, not other advisory bodies that may be enumerated in the City’s Administrative Code.
In addition, “Prop. D’s” legal text specifies:
The City Controller’s statement in the voter guide claims that by eliminating 27 of just Commissions, it could yield savings of $85,000 in operating costs annually for each Commission, for a combined savings of $2.3 million annually. That estimate appears to be low-balled, since the Health Commission’s Executive Secretary Mark Morewitz alone was paid $188,146 in the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2024, excluding fringe benefits.
Unfortunately, the City Controller attempted to hide the increase in City costs of adding Administrative Law Judges or hearing officers, low-balling that could cost between $450 and $2,000 per hearing. The Controller creatively didn’t include the denominator for the other half of the equation: How many hearings are held annually across those 27 Commissions? For all we know, the hearing officers and Administrative Law judges may end up costing the city more than the dubious projected savings of $2.3 million!
In addition, the Ballot Simplification Digest in the voter guide notes “Prop. D” would remove 24 Charter commissions, but the Board of Supervisors could later reestablish these bodies by ordinance, but only as advisory commissions without any decision-making authority.
“Prop. D” is clearly a Mayoral power grab, and would be disastrous for the City, handing far too much power over City affairs to whoever becomes the Mayor of San Francisco.
It’s disguised as a good government measure to rid the City of waste in government, but it will undo vital community oversight of what the City is doing in our names, placing decisions behind closed backroom deals.
Madeline Matz in her 48 Hills web site article noted, “Proposition D would scrap the City’s system of oversight boards, commissions, and committees, [and] is antithetical to our local democracy.”
Crime Eliminating the Health Commission
“Prop. D” involves the crime of eliminating the Health Commission entirely, apparently with Mark Farrell’s and billionaire Moritz’s express approval. And apparently, Supervisor Melgar’s vote on July 23 at the Board of Supervisors opposing placing “Prop. E” on the ballot signaled that she, too, might be OK with eliminating the Health Commission!
The “Prop. D” heist:
Follow the Money: Two Committees Raised $8.5 Million So Far
The San Francisco’s campaign finance disclosure rules require candidates and ballot measure committees report their contributions received and expenditures made at periodic intervals using on-line electronic submission forms. Revenue and expenses year-to-date reports due on September 26, 2024 were shockers.
The Form 460 for the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on D” committee supporting “Prop. D” (ID Number 1467847) reported it raised a staggering $2,262,251 in contributions received year-to-date between January 1 and September 21, 2024. (On October 6, that total appears to have climbed with an additional $158,500, to $2,420,751).
For its part, the Form 460 for the long-winded independent expenditure committee named “Committee to Fix SF Government, Yes On D, No On E, A Coalition of Civic Organizations Dedicated to Improving the City’s Future” (ID #1464767) raised an even more staggering $6,301,720 in contributions.
That’s a combined total of $8.56 million contributed to get “Prop. D” passed by voters!
Voters need to ask: “Show me the money”: What has that money been spent on? Here’s a brief recap gleaned from the eight Ethics Commission Form 460 campaign finance reports filed on-line through September 26:
As for following the money, there are oddities in TogetherSF’s IRS Form 990 tax returns linked below.
“TogetherSF Action” funded 22 paid arguments in support of “Prop. D” and 10 paid arguments against “Prop. E” in our voter guides, at an estimated expense of approximately $16,000 just for Voter Guide paid arguments. But campaign expenses about how much TogetherSF Action spent to collect the 78,063 signatures turned in to San Francisco’s Election Department to qualify the measure for the ballot had involved paid signature gatherers is cleverly hidden. At a couple of dollars at a pop for each paid signature gathered, those paid signatures could have easily cost another $150,000, if not more. That’s not chump change. It’s an agenda to elect Mark Farrel as our next Mayor!
Many of the paid arguments supporting “Prop. D” assert it will stop public corruption. But corruption cases in recent years largely involved Mayoral appointments of Department Heads, not policy body Commissioners.
The “throughline” of Kanishka’s and Farrell’s “Prop. D” ballot measure is hellbent deceit. Period.
All in the Family
TogetherSF claims it is a “volunteer” organization dedicated to “making it easier to understand what’s going on in San Francisco,” believing it “can change the way this city works.” According to the IRS Form 990’s for 2022 for both of the purportedly separate TogetherSF entities, TogetherSF and its sister entity TogetherSF Action, billionaire Moritz is an unpaid director/trustee of both entities.
It’s not yet known if Michael Morwitz is also a significant donor to, or principal benefactor of, either TogetherSF or TogetherSF Action, but to think he’s not, is probably naïve since he’s a Board Director of both organizations. according to their IRS Form 990 reports.
Of great interest, TogetherSF’s Form 990 statement shows Mark Farrell’s wife, Liz Farrell, is an unpaid director of TogetherSF, while TogetherSF Action’s Form 990 statement reports Tony Winnicker — former Director of Communications for both former Mayor Gavin Newsom and former Mayor Ed Lee — is an unpaid director of TogetherSF Action.
The Form 990’s reveal TogetherSF’s Kanishka Cheng earned $201,636 and Margaux Kelly earned $168,702 in compensation in 2022. Kelly is reportedly on leave from TogetherSF, now serving as a consultant to Farrell’s mayoral election campaign.
Talk about “The City Family”! Sounds a bit incestuous, to this reporter. Both organizations, under Kanishka’s leadership, have done everything they could to hide from San Francisco voters just who the heck they are. That’s the polar opposite of helping San Franciscans learn what’s going on in the City.
As for their finances, in 2022 TogetherSF reported $1.56 million in total revenue, while TogetherSF Action separately reported $1.74 million in total revenue. That’s a combined $3.3 million in total revenue. But between the two organizations, they had combined expenses of $2.68 million, a difference of $614,359 in net revenue after total expenses.
Most shockingly, their Form 990’s for 2022 reports a total of $5,028,479 in combined net assets or fund balances at the end of the year. Not a bad gig, if you can get it. And they continue to operate largely in secret, with little if any public transparency.
Not only is politics too important, but transparency about politics is too important to be left to politicians who openly admit they want less public oversight of, and fewer, boards and commissions. This is far too important to leave to politicians like Farrell, his former legislative aides Kanishka Cheng and Margaux Kelly, and billionaires like Moritz and John Pritzker.
“Prop. E's” More Sensible Reform
You can read “Prop. E’s” legal text on-line, or in your Voter Guide.
Shockingly, Supervisors Matt Dorsey (D-6), Joel Engardio (D-4), Myrna Melgar (D-7), and Catherine Stefani (D-2) voted against the Board of Supervisors placing it on the N0ovember ballot. Apparently, they’re comfortable with handing more powers to a “strong mayor” or are in TogetherSF’s back pocket. Fortunately, they were overruled by the other seven saner Supervisors who placed it on the ballot in spite of the dissenters.
Again, Supervisor Melgar’s vote on July 23 at the Board of Supervisors opposing placing “Prop. E” was shocking, because eliminating the Health Commission, as “Prop. D” calls for, is so misguided!
The preamble (“Findings”) of “Prop. E” notes San Francisco has long been a place that values public service and civic engagement as part of our City’s system of participatory government. Hundreds of City residents volunteer their time to serve on City boards and commissions. San Francisco’s commissions leverage the perspectives and expertise of the City’s residents to ensure important policy decisions are not made behind closed doors by a powerful few, but through a public and participatory process that is informed by the very people whom those decisions will impact.
By contrast, “Prop. D’s” backers — Kanishka, Farrell, and Moritz — want policy decisions made behind closed doors by a powerful few, and a so-called “strong mayor.” The answer to the question of the contrast between the two ballot measures is an emphatic "No"!
According to the Ballot Simplification Committee’s “Digest” in the Voter Guide, “Prop. E” will establish a temporary five-member “Commission Streamlining Task Force” charged with making recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City’s appointive boards and commissions to improve the administration of City government. This is a much more democratic way of commission reform than the “Prop. D” nonsense billionaire Moritz0, Mark Farrell, and TogetherSF’s Kanishka Cheng are unilaterally trying to shove down our throats.
“Prop. E” requires the Board of Supervisors independent Budget and Legislative Analyst to prepare a cost-benefit report no later than September 1, 2025 analyzing the cost of the City’s current system of boards and commissions, as well as the projected financial impact of eliminating or consolidating commissions. By contrast, “Prop. D” simply ignores any financial impact by taking their bulldozer Trojan Horse heist of citizen involvement in municipal affairs.
”Prop. E” requires the City Attorney prepare a Charter Amendment to implement the Task Force’s recommendations relating to commissions established in the Charter. The Board of Supervisors would be required to hold a public hearing no later than April 1, 2026 on the Task Force’s recommendations and the draft Charter Amendment to be presented at a future municipal election.
That hearing would provide a venue for San Franciscans and voters to add their voices to how they want oversight and advisory bodies to the City and City Departments preserved.
“Prop. E” is supported by Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Shamann Walton, Dean Preston, and Connie Chan, and perhaps other Supervisors. It is also supported by the San Francisco Labor Council, Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods, United Educators of San Francisco, former mayor Art Agnos, former City Controller Ed Harrington, the Bar Association of San Francisco (the lawyers organization), the ACLU, various merchant’s associations, former Health Commissioner Sonia Melara, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), former Supervisor Norman Yee, and many former Commissioners of a variety of City Commissions.
Importantly, “Prop. E” does not hand San Francisco’s future mayor more unbridled “strong mayor” baseball bats. Indeed, “Prop. E” may just save us from more “strong mayor” flagrant violations if “Prop. D” passes, removing checks and balances over the Legislative and Executive branches of City government.
Don’t let “Prop. D’s” $8.5 million war chest buy elimination of the Health Commission!
“Prop. D” claims transferring oversight duties from commissioners to elected politicians, will make government more directly accountable to voters! It will not. That’s gaslighting. Indeed, those oversight duties will be transferred to even more inscrutable department heads and City employees, not transferred to elected officials!
Instead, it will make City government less accountable to voters by removing citizen oversight of governance processes out of public view — back behind closed doors.
“Prop. D” invites, and will ultimately lead to, more corruption, not less — especially by elected officials — by taking away checks and balances, transparency, and civic engagement.
Vote “No” on “Prop D” and “Yes” on “Prop. E”!
And while you’re at it, vote for anybody for San Francisco’s mayor, but not for Mark Farrell. The best ranked choice voting strategy option is not to list Farrell in any ranked choice position!
Farrell had his shot while filling in as interim Mayor in 2018. Don’t give him another shot. Voting for Farrell in any ranked choice spot is the very definition of insanity.
Another definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. You’re not going to get different results from Mark Farrell, other than perhaps more all-time-high Ethics Commission violation fines and penalties. After all, it’s completely probable that TogetherSF, TogetherSF Action, and Mark Farrell may face FPPC and/or San Francisco Ethics Commission close examination scrutiny of potential campaign violations, again, involving “guiding the ship” text messages. Watch this space.
Rather than handing so much more “strong mayor” power grabs to Mark Farrell and TogetherSF, vote for “Prop. E” instead.
Also, see the Westside Observer’s accompanying article in this issue for the District 7 candidates’ ridiculous positions on “Prop. D” and “Prop. E”. All of their responses are irresponsible, and all fail to mention that: 1) “Prop. D” scandalously calls to eliminate the Health Commission completely; 2) Over the past 30 years, many of these boards, commissions, and advisory bodies were created and approved at the ballot box by we, the voters; and 3) “Prop. E” will essentially perform a cost-benefit analysis, whereas “Prop. D” calls for wholesale elimination of oversight without any cost-benefit analysis. And Martin-Pinto believes “Prop. D” doesn’t go far enough. He recommends wielding the meat cleaver even more brutally, by having 25 fewer commissions (recommending just 40) than the 65 maximum “Prop. D” calls for!
Melgar, Boschetto, and Martin-Pinto don’t mention why they support “Prop. D” eliminating Board of Supervisor approval over Department Head hiring decisions, and Board involvement in appointments to Commission seats. Are they willing to hand all of that to, say, a Mayor Daniel Lurie? Or, say, a department head named Kanishka Cheng, if she’s so rewarded by a Mayor Farrell?
I for one, don’t want to hand over oversight duties to elected politicians like Melgar, Boschetto, or Martin-Pinto — let alone to Mark Farrell or London Breed, or department heads and City employees! Melgar’s claim she “supports” Breed’s Charter reform ignores Breed pulled her support of “Prop. D”!
D-7 Voter Update: Given that Myrna Melgar voted against placing “Prop. E” on the ballot, and voted during the Board of Supervisor’s September 30 Land Use Committee against expanding rent control to the extent authorized if the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is repealed by Proposition 33 on November 5, D-7 voters — especially D-7 renters — should not vote for Melgar’s re-election as Supervisor. Don’t rank her or Martin-Pinto in any ranked position.
As well, Supervisor Ahsha Safai introduced a stalling tactic to delay the Board’s vote to strengthen San Francisco’s Rent Control Ordinance during the Board of Supervisors October 8 meeting after he was lobbied at the last minute that morning by the Building and Construction Trades unions to create a new committee including organized labor as so-called “technical advisors” in developing rent control legislation. Ironically, Safai called for creating another new advisory committee after TogetherSF’s “Prop. D” call to slash the number of City advisory committees! Safai’s irony didn’t go unnoticed.
Rather than supporting the 65% of San Franciscans who are renters (hundreds of thousands of people), Safai was trying to gain influence for a couple of thousand construction workers represented by labor unions. Don’t cast any ranked choice vote for Safai in the mayoral election on November 5 ballot, either.
Melgar and Safai don’t get it: “You either support rent control, or you don’t”!
Monette-Shaw is a columnist for San Francisco’s Westside Observer newspaper, and a retired City employee. He received a James Madison Freedom of Information Award in the “Advocacy” category from the Society of Professional Journalists–Northern California Chapter in 2012. He’s a member of the California First Amendment Coalition (FAC) and the ACLU. He’s a Childless (and catless) Cat Daddy, and voter for 50 years. Contact him at monette-shaw@westsideobserver.com.