{"id":28146,"date":"2023-08-26T12:32:54","date_gmt":"2023-08-26T19:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=28146"},"modified":"2023-08-26T15:30:50","modified_gmt":"2023-08-26T22:30:50","slug":"war-is-peace-ignorance-is-strength-sfs-mayor-is-weak","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2023\/08\/26\/war-is-peace-ignorance-is-strength-sfs-mayor-is-weak\/","title":{"rendered":"War is peace. Ignorance is strength. SF\u2019s mayor is weak."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"\" by JOE ESKENAZI<\/a><\/strong> AUGUST 24, 2023 (MissionLocal.org)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Mayor
Mayor London Breed welcomes visitors to San Francisco. Photo by Mimi Chakarova, Feb. 2022<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Plucky billionaire-funded outfit TogetherSF released a report this week about what\u2019s ailing San Francisco government. And in only 76 pages, it managed \u2014 amazingly! somehow! \u2014 to say the very same things that TogetherSF\u2019s billionaire backer Michael Moritz said in his curious February New York Times <\/em>op-ed<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is: San Francisco\u2019s mayor, the beneficiary of perhaps the strongest strong-mayor system in America, is actually weak. As Moritz put it in The Gray Lady: \u201cmayors have been stripped of much authority while remaining convenient heat shields for the [Board of Supervisors].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or, in the academic language you get when a wealthy individual can have a think-tank convert his ideological fixations into a position paper<\/a>: \u201cSan Francisco\u2019s 1996 Charter was designed to invest power in the Mayor, but subsequent Charter amendments have reduced the Mayor\u2019s capacity to govern.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s a lot to unpack in this report, even in this one sentence. For the mayor of San Francisco remains clothed in immense<\/em> power. In the most recent budget,<\/a> the amount of discretionary money allocated at the whim of the mayor was more than 57 times higher than the grand total shuffled about by the 11 supes in the add-back process. That frantic add-back process was, as usual<\/a>, the only part of the budgeting cycle that garnered much in the way of media or public attention. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We wrote as much back in February<\/a>. We also wrote that the claim that the mayor has been \u201cstripped of much authority\u201d to the point that she cannot effectively govern this city is \u201cakin to the former editor of the Chronicle<\/em> claiming that they simply had <\/em>to retain Willie Brown\u2019s column because Willie Brown is an everyman.\u201d That is, you\u2019d have trouble making a less accurate statement \u2014 in one page or 76.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
San Francisco City Hall. Photo by Eleni Balakrishnan.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And this, incidentally, is more mention of Willie Brown than you\u2019ll find in the totality of the TogetherSF report penned by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government of Claremont McKenna College. (Of note, while mayoral chief of staff Sean Elsbernd is a board member of the Rose Institute at his alma mater, he made a point of not participating in this report. \u201cBig bright line,\u201d he said.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the report enlightens us by noting the composition of the Board of Supervisors going back to the Millard Fillmore administration, at no point does it note just who<\/em> was the first mayor to rule under the 1996 charter. Or why voters \u2014 and, yes, every subsequent alteration to the charter has been voter-approved, and many of them wildly so \u2014 might want to deviate from a top-down system both wielded like a cudgel and played like a Stradivarius by Mayor Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. (yes, from 1996 to 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This report drew on \u201cin-depth interviews of approximately 30 San Francisco leaders\u201d \u2014 current and former elected and appointed officials and others. These sources are kept anonymous to ensure candor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But it\u2019s not hard to figure out who many of them are. It\u2019s also not hard to figure out who they aren\u2019t. <\/em>Former Assemblyman and supervisor Tom Ammiano says nobody reached out to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\u2019d think he\u2019d be relevant: Ammiano was the top vote-getter as a citywide-elected supervisor \u2014\u00a0and this report spends a great deal of time analyzing the possibility of adding some citywide supes \u2014 and served a stunning 14 years as both a citywide and district supe. \u201cMaybe they thought I was dead,\u201d he joked. Or, more seriously, \u201cmaybe they knew what I\u2019d say.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or maybe they knew what they\u2019d <\/em>say. The issues touched in this report are not only Moritz\u2019s hobby horses, but all the matters tub-thumped in the past<\/a> by TogetherSF: a weakened mayor and empowered Board; problems induced by district elections<\/a>; problems with San Francisco\u2019s unwieldy constellation of committees <\/a>and commissions; and problems induced by San Francisco\u2019s Norse saga-length ballot<\/a>. The preordained nature of this report is hard to miss; it\u2019s the Pepsi Challenge of academics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But are there some valid issues here? Hell yes there are. San Francisco is governed poorly, both on an individual and systemic basis<\/a>. Are there policy suggestions worth looking into here \u2014 and, considering the vast wealth backing TogetherSF, are we likely to eventually be voting on all this? Hell yes to that, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the central thesis here, that the mayor\u2019s very \u201ccapacity to govern\u201d has been compromised, remains a desperate apologia. And don\u2019t take my word for it: I called up a handful of this report\u2019s sources, and none of them felt that way, either \u2014 even if they supported many of the policy suggestions here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou\u2019re dealing with the personality and ability of a particular mayor,\u201d said one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, Mayor London Breed has been in charge since 2018. The warranty has long since lapsed. And, despite attempts to blame the state of the city on the Board or city commissioners or DA or federal judges or this city\u2019s feckless voters, the buck stops with her. Period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe problem is not the Board or the commissions. They are not in the way,\u201d said another source for the TogetherSF report. \u201cThey may make it more difficult, but if you\u2019re a strong mayor, you make it work, and if you\u2019re a weak mayor, you don\u2019t. \u2026 Absent being a king or a dictator, sometimes you have to deal with people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

San Francisco\u2019s problem, the government veteran continues, is \u201ca lack of overall management in the city.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Print that out and frame it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Da Mayor Willie Brown and Mayor London Breed share a moment at the traditional John\u2019s Grill election day schmoozefest in 2018. When Brown asked Breed how she was doing, she replied \u201cI\u2019m feeling like a winner!\u201d Photo by Abraham Rodriguez.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Reading through this report, one might be overcome with disturbing memories of Cher straddling the big guns<\/a> on the U.S.S. Missouri: \u201cIf I could turn back time,\u201d she sang. \u201cIf I could find a way \u2026 \u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This report glances back through a rose-colored mist at the 1996 charter, which enhanced the power of the mayor; San Francisco previously had far more departments running under the aegis of an unelected city administrator, as is the case in many other counties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that charter was not carried down from Mount Sinai; it was crafted by city officials, and then ratified by city voters. And all the subsequent departures from it have also been ratified by voters. The \u201996 charter is not some manner of Platonic ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its creators would tell you the same. And they\u2019re not hard to find; 1996 is not the Middle Ages. They\u2019d tell you a lot, in fact. For starters, says one of the charter\u2019s co-creators, it was originally envisioned not as a document meant to install the mayor as an elected Sun King but, rather, to more fully merge city management under \u201ca professional city manager who worked with the mayor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the framers didn\u2019t get the mayor they were expecting. \u201cWe were designing this with a weak mayor in mind, Frank Jordan. Not a dominating mayor, Willie Brown. Willie didn\u2019t need someone to help him with government.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, he did not. Nor did he want<\/em> someone. The city administrator job was fobbed off on the first of a series of affable and unassuming bureaucrats, and Brown grabbed the reins. Unlike the present day, few accused the former mayor of governing poorly or not putting in the hours; Brown\u2019s problem wasn\u2019t that he governed poorly or passively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201996 charter, then, didn\u2019t exactly do what this report\u2019s authors seem to think it did. But, to be fair, the \u201996 charter apparently didn\u2019t do what its own authors thought it would, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A police SUV parked along Precita Avenue. Photo by Taytum Wymer, June 12, 2023.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

One of the major (voter-approved) departures the city has taken from the \u201996 charter is to give the Board of Supervisors a minority of the appointments on some city commissions. The report notes that this city has far more commissions than most any other city, which gums up government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You know what? That\u2019s a fair argument. TogetherSF has, in fact, cited my work<\/a> in making that argument. That\u2019s gratifying, but I wish they\u2019d noted the unsubtle message of that story\u2019s headline: \u201cInefficient by Design.<\/em><\/a>\u201d <\/em>(emphasis mine).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

San Francisco\u2019s uncountable number of commissions did not proliferate, unseen, like mold in a closet. Rather, in many cases, they were deliberately created and nurtured by politicians looking to deflect the attention of loud and monomaniacal people \u2014 by providing them with somewhere to go blow off steam as either a public commenter or even a member of a commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was a tool wielded by even the strongest of mayors. Brown was well known for creating \u201cblue ribbon advisory committees\u201d often enough that his government contemporaries simply refer to them by the acronym \u201cBRAC.\u201d The purpose of these groups was to stow nettlesome activists safely away in a room where they\u2019d spend their time crafting a report the mayor could then thank them for, put in a desk drawer, and ignore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If TogetherSF, or anyone else, wants to move the ball forward on eliminating some of this city\u2019s redundant or unnecessary commissions, more power to them. Even more power if they take on the mayoral allies handed sinecures overseeing some of these commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Downtown view from the Mission. May 9, 2020, around noon. Photo by Kerim Harmanci.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This report makes the claim that, even though the mayor has the majority of appointments on virtually every commission, it\u2019s actually the Board of Supervisors that has the advantage. That\u2019s because either six supes \u2014 or, in the vast majority of cases, only four of them \u2014 must agree to a mayoral nominee while the mayor receives no such commensurate veto.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this makes sense, until you remember the mayor gets more picks. <\/em>To claim the Board controls these commissions would be akin to stating that the U.S. Senate controls the U.S. Supreme Court. It\u2019s an argument that immediately draws into question the seriousness of those who\u2019d make it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You could say the same about this report writ large, because its overarching hook is that San Francisco\u2019s immensely strong mayor isn\u2019t strong enough \u2014 and, apparently, that any<\/em> form of vetting or check on her powers is inherently problematic (it was only in February that the mayor tapped a nominee<\/a> for a homeless oversight commission who had bilked the federal government out of $20,000 and inflated his resume).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s too bad. Because San Francisco does <\/em>have too many commissions. The benefits of adding citywide members of the Board are <\/em>worth analyzing. The barrier for both elected officials and the general public to place items on the ballot is <\/em>too low<\/a>. These are all worthwhile discussions to have. One has to wonder, however, to what end TogetherSF is advancing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of their proffered solutions, it seems, would do little to alter the outsize role of a coterie of wealthy political players. On the contrary, they would enhance it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Three
San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott announcing updates on the Bob Lee murder investigation on April 13, 2023 with Mayor London Breed (left) and District Attorney Brooke Jenkins (right). Photo by Eleni Balakrishnan.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As quoted in the Chronicle, <\/em>Breed said <\/a>she hadn\u2019t yet read the report, but she agreed with it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then she pointed to the situation with the Police Commission. Because \u2014 really \u2014 it\u2019s all about the Police Commission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s all about the mayor\u2019s ire that, through her uniquely spectacular own goal, she antagonized and alienated<\/a> her own appointee and lost control of the commission. This is what the mayor is talking about when she claims that her powers are circumscribed because she can\u2019t hire and fire department heads. But the mayor, again, is clothed in immense<\/em> power. She controls every commission and can move department heads around as she sees fit. Other mayors did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Breed wanted to fire the police chief, it\u2019d be, perhaps, the final dramatic, time-buying act she could undertake as the public grows ever wearier of crime, filth and lunacy on city streets and her options to deflect blame \u2014 the Board, the liberal DA, unwieldy commissions, federal judges, voters who deviated from the \u201996 charter \u2014 grow thinner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Make no mistake; the mayor can still fire the chief unilaterally. But without lockstep control of the Police Commission, she can\u2019t ensure they\u2019ll enable her to hire a preferred successor. But, you know what? That could still get done. It just requires having some conversations. It requires doing some work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Absent being a king or a dictator, sometimes you have to deal with people. But you\u2019re dealing with the personality and ability of a particular mayor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OF NOTE:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Michael<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Michael Moritz\u2019s strange and terrible diagnosis of San Francisco<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>by JOE ESKENAZI<\/a><\/strong> FEBRUARY 28, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

JOE ESKENAZI<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

getbackjoejoe@gmail.com<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Managing Editor\/Columnist. Joe was born in San Francisco, raised in the Bay Area, and attended U.C. Berkeley. He never left.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYour humble narrator\u201d was a writer and columnist for SF Weekly from 2007 to 2015, and a senior editor at San Francisco Magazine from 2015 to 2017. You may also have read his work in the Guardian (U.S. and U.K.); San Francisco Public Press; San Francisco Chronicle; San Francisco Examiner; Dallas Morning News; and elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He resides in the Excelsior with his wife and three (!) kids, 4.3 miles from his birthplace and 5,474 from hers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Northern California branch of the Society of Professional Journalists named Eskenazi the 2019 Journalist of the Year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by JOE ESKENAZI AUGUST 24, 2023 (MissionLocal.org) Plucky billionaire-funded outfit TogetherSF released a report this week about what\u2019s ailing San Francisco government. And in only 76 pages, it managed \u2014 amazingly! somehow! \u2014 to say the very same things that TogetherSF\u2019s billionaire backer Michael Moritz said in his curious February New York Times op-ed…. Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[21],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28146"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28146"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28146\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28155,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28146\/revisions\/28155"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}