• No categories

Politics Blog

Art walk used to protest Chase Bank

8

This week’s Thursday evening Divisadero Art Walk is going to combine local culture with a clear political message. Local activists have dubbed the night the “No Chase Block Party” to protest a banking giant’s unwelcome entry in their neighborhood. Many in the neighborhood pride themselves on staving off the corporate chains, but now J.P. Morgan Chase is set to open a new branch at the intersection of Divisadero and Oak streets. Previously, the retail location held three locally owned shops including a specialty cheese vendor.

“We are intentionally choosing to have the action as part of the Divisadero Art Walk to both celebrate and participate in the creative community that exists and is blossoming here,” said Ilyse Magy, a local resident helping with the outreach. “The Block Party will be just that, a block party, a chance for neighbors to meet neighbors and have actual conversations about what they want their neighborhood to look like.”

Magy and others will present an art project in which resident that walk by can brainstorm and write down ideas for the neighborhood. Additionally, information about local credit unions will be available, she said.

As for corporate chains, two other Chase branches lie within a 10-block radius, and a Bank of America is around the corner, indicating there is no shortage of banking options in the area. The location, however, is excellent for displaying an advertising logo considering the immense traffic on that stretch of Divisadero.

The community action is happening in conjunction with formal appeals to the San Francisco Planning Commission. City law requires chain businesses that move into certain neighborhoods to undergo a conditional use permit hearing. But the Planning Department has interpreted the law to exempt banks, thus preventing a hearing that would empower community voices and local concerns.

SFBG Radio: Deborah Iyall

1

Today, Johnny has a special guest, Deborah Iyall, formerly of Romeo Void, who talks about how she was forced out of SF by the dot-com boom, her new band and how the hell they made the drums and bass so loud on “Never Say Never.” Listen after the jump.

DeborahIyall by endorsements2010

Question time’s a waste of time

8

I strongly supported the measure that mandates that the mayor of San Francisco appear before the supervisors once a month to take questions. But the rules adopted by the board — with waaay too much consultation between Mayor Ed Lee and Board president David Chiu — have turned this great idea into a farce.


The supervisors have to submit questions in writing a week in advance. The mayor in essence stands there and reads pre-written answers. Aaron Peskin, one of the backers of question time, sent a text to Sup. Chiu’s office during the April 12th board meeting and made the point:



“Your idiotic question time rules have led 2 an absurd charade of folks reading (poorly) 2 eachother.  What a joke.” 


It’s embarassing. The board needs to rewrite the rules, now, and allow some actual interchange and debate, which is what the whole thing was supposed to be about in the first place.

Ma’s bill would make it harder to resist big city trash

0

Assemblymember Fiona Ma has thrown another curve ball at San Francisco’s already hotly contested plan to dispose trash in Yuba County: Ma recently introduced AB 1178 which would authorize a local agency to assess special fees, rather than local cities and counties. Currently, local cities and counties hold the authority to “assess special fees of a reasonable amount on the importation of waste from outside of the county to publicly owned or privately owned facilities.” And that’s exactly what Yuba County has been discussing in face of having San Francisco’s trash buried in its backyard, starting 2015.
Equally importantly, Ma’s bill seeks to prohibit a city, county, or local agency from otherwise restricting or limiting in any way the importation of solid waste into that city or county based on place of origin. And that’s another topic that’s been hotly debated in Yuba County as residents there have come to realize that their local dump will quickly get filled by San Francisco’s big city trash–ultimately forcing Yuba County to export its own trash elsewhere in coming years.The rationale given in Ma’s bill for trying to amend the law to stop local municipalities from being able to restrict waste importation?

“Because ensuring adequate and appropriate capacity for disposal of solid waste is a matter of state and regional concern,” AB 1178 states.

So far there have been no votes on this bill, which was introduced in mid-February, and was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources on March 17, read and amended, then re-referred to the Committee on Natural Resources at the beginning of April.

But lest anyone doubts who is supporting or opposing this bill, an analysis of contributions undertaken by Maplight.org show that
a) supporters outspent the opposition by a ratio of 5:1. ($243,347 v $46, 165).
b) California Refuse Recycling Council, Recology Inc and Waste Connections, which would benefit from the legislation support the bill, and
c) the Sierra Club Solano County, Yuba Group Against Garbage, and Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund.

Maplight’s analysis also reveals that Ma received $5,000 from “interest groups that support” this bill.

And the Sacramento Bee has a detailed account of other municipalities, including Solano County, that stand to be impacted if Ma’s bill, which argues that decisions about how much trash goes where are better made at the state and regional level rather than by individual counties, endures. And the Sac Bee article includes a revealing quote from Ma spokesperson Nick Hardeman: “If every county decides to adopt ordinances that discriminate based on the waste’s (origin), then the system breaks down,” Hardeman said.

All this is coming to a head as the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is preparing to hold a hearing on its recently commissioned report examining how other municipalities handle their trash collection, consolidation and disposal process compared to San Francisco…The LAFCO hearing will be held at City Hall at 10 a.m. on Monday April 18.

Hererra decries “the real outrage” of PG&E delay

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) considered whether or not to accept a deal with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) at its April 11 meeting in which the company would pay a relatively lenient $3 million fine for failing to turn over safety records for its network of natural gas pipelines to the regulatory agency by the March 15 deadline. The CPUC had demanded that the utility turn over the information in the wake of the San Bruno explosion. Prior to crafting the deal, PG&E had faced a possible $1 million-per-day penalty for every day it failed to comply.

The CPUC did not vote on the deal, but the meeting apparently featured tough questions from commissioners and a very long discussion centering on whether PG&E was saying it would promise to do what the CPUC told them, or only “consider” doing it. (You can read the Chronicle’s account here.)

Meanwhile, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued a press release before the start of the meeting to highlight official commments his office submitted to the CPUC on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco.

“The real outrage is that seven months after the San Bruno tragedy, not a single PG&E gas transmission line prone to similar ruptures has been replaced,” Herrera said. “Yes, I think a $3 million fine for a utility giant that flouts regulatory orders is too lenient. But the imperatives of human life and safety ought to take precedence over punishing PG&E over slipshod recordkeeping.” Herrera’s office urged the CPUC to require PG&E to immediately begin testing and replacement work on the 152 miles of gas transmission lines.

“What is of concern to Dennis is that we’re getting lost in a discussion about records,” said Herrera spokesperson Matt Dorsey, when the focus should be on addressing unsafe gas transmission lines. Dorsey added that one pipeline in particular runs right through the Dogpatch neighborhood, near Herrera’s house.

Avalos for mayor? He’s talking about it

130

The San Francisco mayor’s race is taking a new twist: Sup. John Avalos — one of the best, most consistent and productive progressives on the board — is looking at running.


Avalos told me he wasn’t interested in the interim mayor job and “this was never on my mind when I ran for supervisor.” But the process of selecting an interim mayor and the politics of Sup. David Chiu’s re-election as board president left him deeply disturbed. “I was blown away by how the process was perverted into a backroom deal based on personal ambition,” he said. “The side of the progressive movement that’s about good government and transparency was lost.”


So he’s been meeting with potential supporters and discussing what an Avalos for Mayor campaign would look like.


Although he’s only been in office two years, Avaos has been Budget Committee chair and has a solid and impressive legislative record (the local hire law being his most recent accomplishment). He has as much experience as Matt Gonzalez did when he ran for mayor (and, obvioulsy, as much experience as Chiu, who is also running.)


He makes the case that the progressive movement is better off in the long term if there’s a strong progressive in the race: “If we don’t have someone running, we won’t do as well in district elections next time,” he said, noting that the progressive victories in 2000 and 2004 were helped by the energy generated by Tom Ammiano’s mayoral campaign in 1999 and the Gonzalez campaign in 2003.


Not everyone in progresive poltics agrees with that analysis; I’ve heard from a number of community leaders who question whether what everyone agrees would be a longshot mayoral campaign is the best use if prorogressive resources right now.
But Avalos, to his immense credit, isn’t going to do this on his own. “I don’t believe in just announcing one day,” he told me. “I’m going to talk to people, and if there’s enough support for me, fine, and if there isn’t, I won’t run.”


That’s a sharp contrast to Chris Daly, who has pretty much announced that if no other progressive runs, he will. And with all due respect to the former District 6 supervisor — who has done a tremendous amount of good for the city, and I mean that with all sincerity — Daly’s not the right person to carry the progressive standard in the November mayor’s race.

Bloggers sue over $315 m HuffPo deal

4

The Guardian UK has some great quotes in its story about how Arianna Huffington, her website and AOL have been slapped with a $105 million class action suit. The suit was brought by a bunch of bloggers who are majorly pissed that she sold the Huffington Post for $315 without sparing them a dime. And the story shines more light on the growing dilemma facing members of the “new media,” a world in which a “full-time employee” is as rare as a 100-page issue of a print newspaper.

“Huffington bloggers have essentially been turned into modern day slaves on Arianna Huffington’s plantation” complained Jonathan Tasini, who humself wrote hundreds of unpaid posts for HuffPo until the website was sold to AOL this year.

“People who create content … have to be compensated,” Tasini argued. He and his attorneys contend that some 9,000 people also wrote for the site on an unpaid basis – and their work helped contribute a third of HuffPo’s eventual sale price.

Tasini reportedly led a successful suit on behalf of freelancers against the New York Times a decade ago, winning a 2001 supreme court ruling that copyright for print and online versions of an article are separate. And now he’s taking on Huffington and Ken Lerer, who founded HuffPo in 2005, featured some well-known writers, but relied heavily on unpaid bloggers, too.

In a press release, HuffPo said the lawsuit was “completely baseless”.
“Our bloggers utilise our platform to connect and ensure that their ideas and views are seen by as many people as possible,” the website claimed. “It’s the same reason hundreds of people go on TV shows – to broadcast their views to as wide an audience as possible.”

But Tasini vows to “picket” Huffington’s home.

Ethics Commissioner: No surprises, please

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously on April 11 to amend a post-employment ban under the city’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, creating a provision that’s designed to allow Mayor Ed Lee to resume his post as City Administrator following the completion of his term as interim mayor.

The change allows an appointed mayor to obtain city employment immediately after serving out a term, provided that he or she doesn’t pull papers to run for office, was previously employed by the city, and doesn’t receive a salary that’s higher than the last year of city employment prior to taking office. The amendment builds in an exception to a rule banning the mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors from obtaining city employment for one year after leaving office.

Ethics Commission staff had recommended that this provision be expanded to apply to appointed members of the Board of Supervisors. While Mayor Lee’s circumstance is a rare occurrence, supervisors are appointed far more often. “The underlying ordinance applies only to the mayor and the board, so we thought, why just do one, why not do both?” Ethics Commission director John St. Croix explained.

But a couple commissioners took issue with that idea, saying it was too far outside the scope of the law that voters enacted, and it ultimately did not win approval. “I don’t see the compelling reason to include the supervisors,” noted commissioner Charles Ward, “and I expect that members of the public are going to be awfully surprised. As a member of the public, I’d be surprised myself.”

SFBG Radio: Obama is no Chicago politician

4

If Barack Obama has his roots in Chicago poltiics — where people play for keeps — why is he such a candyass who gets rolled by an orange-faced guy who’s half in the bag? Johnny Angel and Johny Venom discuss after the break.


 

ObamaCandyassOrRepublican by endorsements2010

Rule change for Mayor Ed Lee could expand beyond special case

Last week, the Guardian reported on the Ethics Commission’s decision to waive two post-employment bans for city officials in order to allow mayoral staffer Kyri McClellan to take a job as executive director of the America’s Cup Organizing Committee, a role that will put her into direct contact with the same office she’s departing from as a representative of private-sector interests.

The April 11 Ethics Commission meeting will feature another discussion on whether to bend the rules on post-employment for city officials.

Shortly after former City Administrator Ed Lee was appointed as interim Mayor, Board President David Chiu introduced legislation that would modify post-employment restrictions to allow Lee to go back to his former job directly after serving out his mayoral term. Under the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, the mayor and members of the Board of Supervisors must wait a full year after serving office to obtain employment with the city. Unlike in McClellan’s case, this rule cannot be waived for an interim mayor, so the law must to be changed to include an exception to accommodate Lee in this special case.

As it stands, “This rule is designed to restrict these elected officials from using their influence to create golden parachutes as they leave office,” according to a memo issued by Ethics Commission Deputy Executive Director Mabel Ng.

Yet Ng’s memo proposes expanding the reach of the rule change, advocating for it to apply not only to an interim mayor but any appointed member of the Board of Supervisors who does not plan to seek office after filling out a term.

“If the commission approves this legislation, staff recommends that the Commission also extend the exception to a member of the Board of Supervisors in the same circumstances,” Ng’s memo notes. “Staff makes this recommendation because the same arguments supporting an exception for appointed mayors like Mayor Lee apply equally to appointed members of the board.”

Not so fast, says Jon Golinger of San Franciscans for Clean Government, who issued a press release warning of the possible rule change on April 11. While Lee’s case is rare indeed, supervisors are appointed to fill vacant seats far more frequently, Golinger pointed out. “It introduces a whole new level of uncertainty and political abuse,” he charged. “We don’t want our top officials playing games with public funds so that they can have a job with the city” after leaving office.

Golinger said his group thought the provision that would allow for Lee to resume his old post should include a sunset clause to make it a temporary change, since in his view, “there’s no reason that should be a permanent change.”

As for going a step further to include appointed members of the board, “It’s a major change,” Golinger said, “and it does raise the broader issue of whether Ethics Commission reform is needed.”

In order to be approved, the rule change would have to win at least four votes at the Ethics Commission and at least eight votes at the Board of Supervisors.

Ng’s memo noted that a representative of Chiu’s office would attend the April 11 meeting and respond to questions from staff about the proposed legislation to create an exemption from the post-employment ban for Lee. Reached by phone, Chiu’s legislative aide Judson True said his office had not yet formed an opinion on whether the rule change ought to be extended to the Board of Supervisors.

Proposed SFPD crackdown on clubs gets a hearing

9

A draconian proposal by the San Francisco Police Department to require all visitors to nightclubs in the city to scan their identity cards into a database and go through metal detectors while being filmed by security cameras will be held tomorrow night (Tues/12) by the Entertainment Commission, but an expanding coalition of opponents are rallying against it.

As we reported in December, club owners and nightlife defenders (including the California Music and Culture Association) overwhelmingly oppose the plan, which the American Civil Liberties Union says raises constitutional invasion of privacy issues. In addition, a new coalition of young people called Save the Rave – which turned out hundreds of people for a recent commission hearing on a proposed crackdown on dance parties – is also organizing against the new restrictions.

Police representatives have told us that the proposal stems from concerns about violence in and around nightclubs, that the provisions would allow police to more easily identify suspects when crimes occur, and that police should be trusted not to exploit the data that they’re collecting.

But critics of the legislation call it a gross overreaction to a handful of incidents that have happened around nightclubs and they say the SFPD has shown unreasonable bias against one of the city’s biggest industries. Sup. Scott Wiener recently asked city staff to prepare a study of the economic impact of nightlife in order to defend clubs against crackdowns like this.

The proposal would also require clubs to have one security guard for every 50 patrons, which club owners say would be an economic hardship for an industry opening on thin margins of profitability. The hearing begins at 6:30 pm in City Hall Room 400.

Republicans favor unemployment

6

I like the chart that the Economic Policy Institute has put out on the value of spending vs. tax cuts, but one of the critical points is deep in the report: The GOP budget plans in Washington would lead to the loss of as many as 800,000 jobs in the next year.


Considering that business leaders and economists of all political stripes agree that the modest uptick in new jobs (about 210,000 in March) shows signs of a slow, fragile recovery, you’d think that the loss of four times that many jobs would be a matter of concern.


But no: public-sector jobs don’t count. 

SFBG Radio: Parents gone wild

3

In today’s episode, Johhny takes a break from budget politics to talk about crazy parents and youth sports. Imagine: Johnny Angel, peaceful soccer dad. Next, the minivan. Listen after the jump.

sfbgradio492011 by endorsements2010

Will Muni youth passes be saved?

0

A popular and successful program that gave free group bus passes to summer programs for kids is up for renewal — but nobody knows if Muni officials will approve it.


The Summer Youth Group Pass allowed thousands of children in 50 different nonprofit summer programs access to free rides for field trips. Last year 850 passes were made available and each covered a groups of roughly 20 students.
But despite political support from educators and youth activity leaders, and a official letter from Sup David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, San Francisco Municipal Transporttion Agency Executive Director Nathaniel Ford remains mute on whether the program will continue.


Herrera and Campos issued the letter March 31 detailing the importance of the passes and urging action. Herrera said, “I’m hopeful [it will be renewed]. It was a tremendous success last year and I see no reason why it won’t continue this year.”
But SFMTA spokesperson Kristin Holland a decision has yet to be made. She said staff must look at the finances of renewing the program and that she has yet had audience with Ford to ask his response to the letter.


The politicians in support of the passes are taking their cues from educators and youth advocates on the ground. Education advocate Margaret Brodkin, for example, said she believes “we need to make summer a much more enriching time for young people, especially for low income people.”


One person she said is working toward that goal is Jeff Feinman, executive director of Mission Graduates. Feinman explained, group passes “allow kids to see different parts of the San Francisco they wouldn’t have opportunity to see otherwise. It’s a reward for the work they do.”


From an organizational perspective, group passes are important for two major reasons. Feinman said, “logistically, they make coming and going easy.” Instead of requiring a pass for each student, one pass can work for an entire group. He added that “the cost saving is huge for our programs that are cash strapped.”


When it comes to public transit, Campos said it is important to not only alleviate funding woes but to move forward with comprehensive support for low-income Muni riders. “[Group passes] is one piece of a larger puzzle,” he said. “We want to make Muni more accessible affordable to students in the public schools.”


He added, “We have been exploring the possibilities of making Muni free for all youth in San Francisco. That’s a long term plan.”

Ammiano says support is growing for TRUST Act

5

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano says that statewide support is building for AB 1081 (the TRUST Act), which would give local governments the right to opt-out of the controversial Secure Communities program.

As the Guardian previously reported, ten months after ICE’s controversial S-Comm program was activated in San Francisco, our “sanctuary city” ranks among the top 38 counties nationwide deporting “non-criminal aliens.”

“Unlikely allies are lining up behind this bill because ICE misled the public about S-Comm, whose real focus is more spin than safety,” Ammiano said in a press release today. “In fact, seven in ten Californians deported under S-Comm had committed no crime or were picked up for minor offenses like traffic violations. The program is ruining trust between immigrant communities and the police. But here in California, we can do better. This bill is a practical solution that lets local governments have a say and restores some balance to this dysfunctional system.”

Joining Ammiano as co-sponsors of the TRUST (Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools) Act are Assemblymembers Gil Cedillo and Bill Monning and Sen. Leland Yee. And the act, which is billed as a pro-safety and pro-transparency proposal, already has the support of over 50 organizations and a slew of elected local officials.

These officials include San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey who blew the whistle on the program last May, when federal authorities privately told local law enforcement agencies that S-Comm was going live in San Francisco in June 2010. At the time, there had been no public hearings on the proposed program, which links fingerprints taken when folks are booked at county jails with federal and international databases—in other words, before folks charged with crimes have had their day in court.

A press release from Ammiano’ s office states that S-Comm’s “misleading focus, over-broad reach and lack of transparency” has eroded trust between police and immigrant communities and sparked considerable open government concerns —problems the TRUST Act aims to fix.

In addition to allowing municipalities to opt-out, the TRUST Act would also sets basic safeguards for local governments that participate in the program to guard against racial profiling, protect the rights of children and domestic violence survivors. And it would uphold the right to a day in court by only reporting for deportation individuals convicted, not merely accused, of crimes. 

“Under S-Comm, a desperate call for help can quickly turn into a nightmare situation for victims of domestic violence,” said Tara Shabazz, Executive Director of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. “We’ve seen victims of abuse reported for deportation from San Francisco to Lodi, California. This bill will protect abuse victims and remove an important barrier to reaching out for help, and we are proud to support it.”

Ammiano’s office says that these serious public safety and civil liberties concerns have pushed local governments to seek a way out of the program, imposed on communities with no transparency or opportunity for local oversight. They note that the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors unanimously requested to opt out of S-Comm program in September 2010, but after months of confusion, ICE refused to honor the county’s request.

“The Federal Government forced this program on my jail without my consent,” SF Sheriff Michael Hennessey said. “By allowing local governments to opt out of this flawed program, AB 1081 will help law enforcement win back some trust with immigrant communities. That, in turn, will help improve public safety for everyone.” 

 “The TRUST Act raises this unregulated and inaccurate program to California’s standards and ensures transparency and accountability through clear data reporting requirements for local jurisdictions opting to participate in S-Comm,” said Chris Newman, National Day Laborer Organizing Network’s legal director.
 AB 1081 will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday, April 26 at 9 a.m. in State Capitol Room 126.

Mayoral staff member to direct America’s Cup Organizing Committee

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously on March 14 to waive a pair of ethics rules in order to allow Kyri McClellan, a project manager in the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD), to become executive director of the nonprofit America’s Cup Organizing Committee (ACOC). The fundraising arm of the America’s Cup effort, ACOC’s role in bringing the world-famous sailing regatta to San Francisco is to secure corporate donations to offset city costs.

For months, McClellan has been on the city’s side of the negotiating table in discussions with ACOC to hash out a memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning its fundraising obligations to the city. Without skipping a beat, she’ll now be interfacing with the city on the ACOC side. At press time, it was unclear whether McClellan had already started her new job, but her voicemail with OEWD was still in service. We left a message, but haven’t heard back.

McClellan sat down with the Guardian last November for an interview about the America’s Cup. She seemed knowledgeable and organized — and race organizers were clearly impressed with her performance. Regardless of how qualified she may be, however, the Ethics Commission’s decision to grant these waivers raises the question of whether McClellan received special treatment from the very entity that’s tasked with ensuring ethical government conduct.

The move also raises concerns about a revolving door between the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the powerful private-sector interests behind the prestigious sailing event. Rather than preserving the ethical barrier that the rules intended, ACOC will now gain a team member who has detailed knowledge of OEWD’s inner workings.

In order to accommodate McClellan, commissioners agreed to waive two post-employment restrictions for city officials. The first is a yearlong post-employment communications ban, and the second prohibits former city employees from receiving compensation from city contractors for two years.

To better understand the intent behind these bans, the Guardian phoned the Ethics Commission and was connected to Deputy Executive Director Mabel Ng. She explained that the communications ban prohibits former city employees from taking private-sector positions that interface with the same department they worked for, “because you might have some undue influence.”

The two-year ban on receiving compensation from city contractors is meant to ensure that city officials engaged in negotiating contracts are not doing so to secure an outcome that would benefit them personally. “This again, just to make sure that when you are negotiating a contract … you’re doing this on behalf of the city,” Ng said.

Asked to explain the commission’s reasoning behind the granting McClellan the waivers, Ng said it was because “it determined that there would not be a potential for undue influence … because it seemed like [ACOC’s] interests were aligned with the city’s interests.”

As one ethics commissioner pointed out during the meeting, however, the same could be said of virtually any nonprofit entering into an agreement with the city.

Asked what would happen if ACOC somehow failed to raise the agreed-upon funds, placing McClellan in the position of having to explain the shortfall or re-negotiate with her former coworkers, Ng allowed, “If something like that happened, there might be a conflict.”

And what justification was given for waiving the ban on former employees receiving compensation from city contractors? “For that one, in the law itself, it says the commission may waive it … if it would cause extreme hardship,” Ng explained. “There would be a hardship, because … this is a great opportunity for her, and there was a short timeline for her to do it.”

Pressed on that point, Ng confirmed that the “hardship” in this case was the possibility of being barred from a great job opportunity, not the threat of financial impact or job loss.

The other issue, Ng said, was that without McClellan serving in that post, the committee’s fundraising effort might not be successful. “It just seemed like, you need to have somebody take charge,” she said. “The committee may suffer without her at the helm. If she were not able to do that, the committee — which plays a very crucial role in this — may not be able to meet its obligations.”

When we mentioned to Ng that the committee was composed of some very well-connected individuals, she noted that she was not familiar with its membership.

As we reported in previous coverage of the America’s Cup, ACOC is a veritable who’s who. Hollywood mogul Steve Bing, who’s donated millions to the Democratic Party and funded former President Bill Clinton’s 2009 trip to North Korea to rescue two imprisoned American journalists, is on the committee. Tom Perkins, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, billionaire, and former mega-yacht owner, has a seat. George Schultz and his wife, Charlotte, are members. Billionaire Warren Hellman, San Francisco socialite Dede Wilsey, and former Newsom press secretary Peter Ragone are also on the committee. And that’s to say nothing of the less well-known investors, or the honorary members — elected officials serving at all levels of government. Would a powerful crew such as this have a difficult time raising money without McClellan’s leadership? Seems like a stretch, but that reasoning was offered as a factor in the decision to grant the waiver.

In an odd twist, McClellan might also be working alongside her former boss on the America’s Cup effort. In January, ACOC named its “first ever” Ambassador at Large: Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.

While several ethics commissioners raised questions before granting the waiver, the vote ultimately came to 4-0 in favor of McClellan’s request. Board President David Chiu sent his legislative aide, Judson True, to speak in support of issuing the waiver.

Is Burning Man going communal or selling out?

60

“Man on the move,” the headline I gave to my current Guardian article and an extended personal blog post on the announcement that Burning Man will next month form a nonprofit group to eventually run the event, raises a number of interesting issues that are likely to be vigorously debated within this huge, active burner community in the coming months and years.

How should Burning Man be governed? What is the event worth – if it can even be quantified – and who created and should benefit from that value? Are Black Rock City LLC board members being selfless stewards of the culture in giving up control or are they being greedy control freaks in holding on for six more years and expecting a big payoff in the end? Or, like much about this dynamic culture, is the truth somewhere in the middle?

Event founder Larry Harvey’s big announcement last week, made during a speech that was unusual for its insights into the thoughts and internal dynamics of the BRC board, stressed how to value an event whose central ethos opposes such commodification.

“I thought it was time the owners stepped out from behind the veil of secrecy,” Harvey told me during a follow-up interview this week. He repeatedly emphasizes the benevolence of a corporate board voluntarily giving up control over its assets and revenue stream. “What we’re doing, as far as normal capitalism, is aberrant…What we’re doing is giving up a lot of money.”

But the way that Harvey is trying to frame this issue seems antithetical to how most burners see the event and culture that they’ve spent decades helping to create, from using the term “owners” to describe the six board members to suggesting Burning Man has any relation to “normal capitalism,” even to the claim that there’s “a lot of money” to give up, and that they might be more entitled to that money than the thousands of burners who have contributed their sweat equity to the event.

“We have people who have 10,000 volunteer hours at Burning Man,” says Chicken John Rinaldi, a longtime burner and critic of how Harvey and the board have run the event, believing that they have always overstated their importance considering Black Rock City is built each year almost entirely by its participants. “This event throw itself.”

Yet Harvey and the other board members, such as Michael Mikel and Marian Goodell, insist that the board plays an important role in shepherding the event and the culture that has grown up around it, which is why they plan on waiting three years to turn control of the event over to the new nonprofit, the Burning Man Project, and another three years after that until they liquidate their ownership of the name and associated trademarks and are paid for their value.

“We want it to get on its feet and be able to raise money on its own,” Harvey said of the nonprofit. The board is also creating a committee called the Philosophical Center “to ensure the cultural continuity as we pour Burning Man into a new vessel.” Mikel said he insisted on that because “for me, it’s not about the art. It’s really about the culture.”

The nonprofit board will be comprised of the six LLC board members and at least seven more members that those six members will select, and Harvey said they are doing interviews now, including talking to many longtime burners who were represented at last week’s summit of Burning Man regional leaders from around the world. Chicken said it was offensive that Harvey would tell this gathering that it would take six years before they’d have full control over Burning Man.

“What they’re saying is it’s going to take years to pass the torch over, and they’re saying this to a room full of people who have been involved in Burning Man for decades,” Chicken said. He was particularly critical of Harvey’s statement that the board discussed coming up with a value for Burning Man and dividing that by six. “Once that comes out of someone’s mouth, the bets are off.”

Chicken’s conclusion: “They’ve turned Burning Man into a commodity. They’re selling the event.”

Burning Man doesn’t have much by way of assets now, and its roughly $12 million annual revenue stream from selling tickets goes almost entirely to staging the annual event and supporting the year-round operations of the organization.

But once the nonprofit forms up and starts taking tax-exempt donations and finding other ways of diversifying its revenue stream for the three years before the current board members cash out, Chicken predicts the board members will walk away with about $1 million each. “But I’m not going to let them get away with it,” pledged Chicken, who has already starting agitating and rabble-rousing in online forums, just as he did in 2004 when he launched the rebellion that became known as Borg2.

Harvey has confirmed the board members will walk away with well more than the $20,000 that they’re currently entitled to if they resign, “but we’ll have to work for a living,” he said. Mikel told me, “It’s never been about the money, for me it was there was no succession plan. I really want Burning Man to continue beyond my involvement with it.”

Yet they also said that the bitter divisions on the board have evaporated since the new plan was developed. “Now that we can all see the future,” Mikel said, “we’re getting along wonderfully.”

But Chicken says he’s determined not to let these six board members, who have been getting the highest salaries for the last six years anyway “simply for ordering the PortaPotties,” profit from an event he helped created that has always been been about communal effort and decommidified relationships.

“Burning Man should be a labor of love,” he said. “I think Burning Man should exist outside of commerce.”

Guardian City Editor Steven T. Jones is the author of The Tribes of Burning Man: How an Experimental City in the Desert is Shaping the New American Counterculture.

Photos of Larry Harvey from April 1 speech by

Ana Grillo Photography and Multimedia Productions

SFBG Radio: If the government shuts down

3

What will happen if the federal government shuts down, and 800,000 people lose their jobs, and basic services ground to a halt — and how long will this nasty game last? Johnny Angel and Johnny Venom discuss the implications after the jump.

sfbgradio462011 by endorsements2010