• No categories

Politics Blog

Labor war widens

-
1

By Steven T. Jones

On a day when the labor movement rallied in cities across the country in support of the federal Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for employees to form a union, bitter infighting involving the nation’s largest union, Service Employees International Union, also escalated today.
The California Nurses Association today charged SEIU with launching an illegal, multi-million-dollar campaign to take over their organization using what that they call a phony nurses group called RNs for Change to take over the leadership of CNA and affiliate it with SEIU, which calls the accusations “wild and untrue.”
CNA spokesperson Chuck Idelson called SEIU head Andy Stern corrupt and power hungry, echoing criticisms from Stern-ousted United Healthcare Workers leaders who last week formed the new union National Healthcare Workers Union. NUHW spokesperson John Borsos said the new union has now gathered petitions from about 25,000 workers in 101 facilities who want to leave SEIU and join NUHW.
I’ve been doing interviews and research on these related issues all day, so check back here tomorrow for a more complete report.

Regular protests mark Oscar Grant’s death

-
4

bart1.jpg
Editor’s Note: Protests over the fatal shooting of Oscar Grant on New Year’s Day, for which former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle has been charged with murder, have been regular events in Oakland, including one scheduled for tomorrow and another on Valentine’s Day. Here’s an on-the-ground account of last week’s event.
Text and photos by Joe Sciarrillo

On Friday, Jan. 30, a group of up to fifty protesters gathered to denounce the Alameda County Superior Court’s decision to set a $3 million bail for BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle, who was charged with murdering the unarmed Oscar Grant on New Year’s Day. Nine people were arrested, compared to the previous Jan. 7 and Jan. 14 protests, when 105 and 18 were arrested, respectively.

At approximately 3:30pm during Friday’s protest, the group led by activists from CAPE (Coalition Against Police Executions) made its way from the Alameda County Superior Court to the downtown intersection of 14th Street and Broadway in Oakland. A member of CAPE hopped onto an idle AC Transit bus with a megaphone, pleading with protesters to intensify their actions. “The Black Panthers took a stand for something!” he said. “We gotta take a stand!”

Feld avoids the spotlight during Ringling trial

-
20

circus2.jpg
Editor’s Note: Former KTVU anchor Leslie Griffith, who has covered Ringling Bros for years and was profiled in the Guardian for her work, is covering the elephant abuse trial in Washington DC.
By Leslie Griffith

Kenneth Feld, the sole owner of Feld Entertainment and Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus did not appear in U.S Federal Court yesterday. Buying his way out of trouble is a way of life for Ken Feld, but this time, he just may be trapped.
These animal rights people are not clowning around. Many of us in the courtroom craned our curious necks to get a glimpse of him, but he ditched us, just like my big brother used to ditch me when a pretty-willing date was waiting. Yep, Feld stayed true to his reclusive reputation and played the role he always plays, the illusive circus master who calls the moves behind the scenes.

Circus battles “animal special interest groups”

-
0

468-cover.elephant.web.jpg
By Steven T. Jones

I’m still waiting for the dispatch from our correspondent at opening day of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus elephant abuse trial, which I’ll probably post in the morning. But for now, I wanted to offer circus owner Feld Entertainment’s side of the story, which seems to center on the notion that this is all about “animal special interest groups.”
That phrase peppers the press release that was put out by Feld Entertainment, clearly hoping to capitalize on the “special interest” pejorative that has been coined and hammered home by conservative political forces over the last few decades.
“Animal special interest groups are distorting the facts by making false allegations about the treatment of Ringling Bros. elephants as part of a long-running crusade to eliminate animals from circuses, zoos and wildlife parks. Feld Entertainment will show during the trial that its elephants are healthy, alert, and thriving, and it intends to debunk the misinformation that has been spread by those who do not own or know how to care for an elephant,” wrote Michelle Pardo of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., which is representing Feld Entertainment in the case.
It’s certainly true that most animal welfare groups don’t think endangered Asian elephants should be performing in circuses, doing stunts they say can only be coerced with abusive treatment, and many are opposed to them being displayed in zoos. But the opening day testimony reportedly included that of Dr. Joyce Poole, who is an expert in caring for elephants and who, according to a plaintiffs’ press statement, “testified that it’s her expert opinion that Ringling Bros.’ routine practices do in fact harass as well as harm the animals.”
But the defendants don’t agree and say they’re “prepared to refute the meritless allegations of animal special interest groups.”

June 2 special election gets a green light

-
2

By Rebecca Bowe

On Feb. 3, the Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 to adopt a resolution calling for a municipal special election on June 2, setting the stage for an epic ballot battle over budget choices.

With Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd dissenting, the board approved the election, which will ask voters to decide on new tax measures in an effort to raise city revenues.

The election was proposed as a partial solution to the city’s looming $576 million budget deficit for the 2009-10 fiscal year, which Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi described as a “tsunami … that the city is being hit by.” The cuts will deliver painful blows across the board, affecting citywide health and human service programs in particular. At last week’s meeting, hundreds turned out to express concern about how deep cuts will leave some of the city’s most vulnerable populations at risk.

Ken Garcia’s cuts

-
3

By Tim Redmond

Okay, this is the sort of thing that really, really annoys me. Ken Garcia is against a June election, which is fine if he thinks no tax measures will pass and thus it’s a waste of money.

But then he says this:

The City doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. It spends wildly on public health programs and hospitals that most cities long ago curbed, and its health care costs and pension benefits spike around 25 percent each year.

So what the board must do, which it hasn’t to any formidable degree, is start cutting into the bloated bureaucracy our fearless leaders have created during the past 20 years, while the mayor tries to renegotiate labor contracts that always seem to sail through during election years.

And then cut. And then cut some more.

When people bloviate about bureacracy and cuts like this, I think they have a responsibility to tell us all, specifically, what they want to cut. It’s easy to talk about spending “wildly and public health programs,” but it’s another thing to say which programs, serving which people, ought to be eliminated.

I asked Garcia what his proposals were and he said he had no comment but would make some suggestions soon.

Frankly, this is horseshit. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money, and while I agree there’s waste at City Hall, there’s not anywhere near half a billion dollars worth of waste. If you don’t want to raise taxes, fine — tell us what you’ll cut instead. Or shut up.

Ringling Bros elephant abuse trial begins

-
0

circus2.jpg
Guardian illustration by Danny Hellman

By Steven T. Jones

The long-awaited animal abuse lawsuit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus finally gets underway tomorrow morning in a federal district court in Washington DC. As the Guardian reported in August, the case highlights concerns that Ringling routinely abuses its Asian elephants and that federal regulators have turned a blind eye to its violations of the Endangered Species Act.

Plaintiffs American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, three other animal welfare groups, and former Ringling Bros elephant trainer Tom Rider are asking Judge Emmett Sullivan to sanction Ringling and its parent company, Feld Entertainment, and to revoke their ESA permits to use the elephants in their shows, which Ringling spokespersons have said could cripple the company.

“We feel really confident,” attorney Tracy Silverman with the Animal Welfare Institute, one of the plaintiffs, told the Guardian. “We have such strong evidence against Ringling Brothers that they’re violating the Endangered Species Act and we’re looking forward to laying that out in court.”

Parking meters in GG Park?

-
3

203pkg.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Actually, I’m not against the idea of charging for parking in the parks. Parks are free open space, for use by all, but cars have a clear and negative impact on the park (and I say this as someone who drives my kids there to ride bikes, since they’re not old enough yet to ride on the city streets). Paying a modest fee to put your dangerous, polluting vehicle in the middle of public green space shouldn’t be such a horrible burden.

And I’m all for making commuters who use city parks as parking lots pay.

But I’m not really sure how this would work. Parking meters are the only logical option, but since most people who drive to the park spend a fair amount of time there, the meters have to allow, say, four hours worth of time without requiring users to carry $20 in quarters.

And I wonder: If thieves can dig under the ground and rip up miles of copper wire, what will become of all those nice juicy meters filled with cash, deep in the park late at night?

SEIU vs. UHW, a ringside seat

-
15

Guardian intern Joe Sciarrillo was at Friday’s takeover of the UHW by SEIU and has these words and images:
seiu-sign.jpg
Friday afternoon at the United Healthcare Workers headquarters, eight Oakland Police officers mediated a dispute between UHW members resisting the takeover by Service Employees International Union and SEIU representatives who showed up to take custody of the building. Both sides sought to convince the police to let their respective groups stay in the building.

Lover Joyce, a former UHW Executive Board member and medical assistant at Kaiser Walnut Creek, explained to reporters what the SEIU representatives had done around 11am. “They broke into the building, pushed our members” after using bolt-cutters to open the doors. Joyce and several other members had been sleeping at the office for a little over a week, so when SEIU leaders arrived, they called the Oakland Police Department. “We have the deed to the property!” he continued to assure the police and reporters. “It belongs to the Unity Healthcare Workers Corporation, not UHW or SEIU.”

Tara Gorewitz, a contract specialist for UHW at Walnut Creek Kaiser, later explained the history of why the building was legally given to the Unity Healthcare Workers Corporation and not to UHW or SEIU. She noted that Shirley Ware, the late Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU UHW- West Local 250, set up the deed in this manner so that the members, rather than the union, could retain rights to use the building in the case of a split.

Why newspapers won’t die

-
1

By Tim Redmond

But before I get into that:

Doesn’t the Chronicle’s new design look awful? I mean, it’s cluttered and backward-looking and I don’t think it’s going to save THAT newspaper from its financial problems. Why doesn’t the Chron just take local news seriously, cover San Francisco, and hire just one, just one progressive urban political columnist to balance the suburban Chuck Nevius?

Okay: But newspapers aren’t going to die. I try to explain this to people all the time. I tell students that journalism is going to be around forever, even if we stop killing trees to make paper and the internet morphs into a consensual hallucination or people screw sockets into their brains to learn things or whatever. There will still be communication, and some of it will still involve journalists.

I don’t always agree with Bill Keller, the editor of the NY Times, but in a recent column answering readers’ questions, he got this one just right:

First, there is a diminishing supply of quality journalism, and a growing demand. By quality journalism I mean the kind that involves experienced reporters going places, bearing witness, digging into records, developing sources, checking and double-checking, backed by editors who try to enforce high standards. I mean journalism that, however imperfect, labors hard to be trustworthy, to supply you with the information you need to be an engaged citizen. The supply of this kind of journalism is declining because it is hard, expensive, sometimes dangerous work. The traditional practitioners of this craft — mainly newspapers — have been downsizing or declaring bankruptcy. The wonderful florescence of communication ignited by the Internet contains countless voices riffing on the journalism of others but not so many that do serious reporting of their own. Hence the dwindling supply. The best evidence of the soaring demand is the phenomenal traffic to the Web sites that do dependable news reporting — nearly 20 million unique monthly visitors to the site you are currently reading, and that number excludes the burgeoning international audience. The law of supply and demand suggests that the market will find a way to make the demand pay for the supply.

And it doesn’t take that much money to create a news operation on the web. The giants in the industry (and some of the not-so-giants, like the SF Chronicle) may fall by the wayside, and we may see much more web-based local reporting from a larger number of smaller and more diffuse news outlets (already happening in SF) and that won’t be such a bad thing.

But newspapers, in the traditional sense of organizations that pay staffers to report and deliver news and charge people (in our case, by showing them ads) to access it … that’s not going anywhere.

American Apparel battle heats up

-
15

editors note: updated information at the end

By Andrea de Brito

When local author Stephen Elliot saw a sign reading “American Apparel: Coming Soon” in a vacant storefront window near 21st and Valencia two weeks ago, he told himself: “What? No way!”

Within 24 hours, he had whipped up a Stop American Apparel website and spent $750 – money that he didn’t really have — to print thousands of posters reading “Your Mission—Not Theirs” (though that side of Valencia Street technically belongs to the Castro).

You can see the simply designed posters in many storefront windows along Valencia Street, where the overwhelming majority of independent businesses—including Ritual Roasters, Modern Times Bookstore, Dog-Eared Books, Aquarius Records, and Borderlands Books— have taken a strong stand against the mega-chain, which boasts 200 outlets in 19 countries worldwide and is known for its ads featuring skinny teenage girls in skimpy cotton rags.

The issue has generated considerable discussion on the neighborhood blog MissionMission and in our past coverage.

“I do not want to live in a shopping mall,” said Elliot, claiming residents he’s interviewed were largely unaware of the imminent prospect of the chain’s grand opening. Though the company’s progressive position on fair labor practices and immigrant rights may blur the lines between good and evil, most opponents claim the campaign is not a crusade against American Apparel. It’s a crusade against formula retail, already completely banned in several affluent commercial districts of San Francisco.

Business community attacks tax proposals

-
1

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco’s business community has launched a coordinated campaign against calling a special election in June for new revenue measures, which the Board of Supervisors will consider at Tuesday’s meeting.

The board voted 8-3 this week to declare a fiscal emergency and consider various tax measures to help offset $118 million in midyear budget cuts made by Mayor Gavin Newsom and to close a deficit for the next fiscal year projected to be more than $550 million. All eight supervisors will be needed to call the election.

But the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Scott Hauge (who didn’t return my calls for comment) of Small Business California have both blasted out calls to oppose the move, using the same talking points and nearly identical language that complains, “City Hall is rushing to hold a June 2009 Special Election so it can put proposals for hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes before San Francisco voters.”

In reality, current proposals call for less than $100 million in new taxes. Business leaders and Mayor Gavin Newsom (who also opposing the June election) have known since at least Halloween about the size of this deficit (which is roughly half of the city’s discretionary spending) and could have worked with progressives on the procedural issues they’re citing. So this has nothing to do with “a rush,” but is one more example of fiscal conservatives offering knee-jerk opposition to any new taxes.

Still, the business community will be putting intense pressure on the board, particularly the swing votes: Supervisors Bevan Dufty and Sophie Maxwell. So if you think the people should have a say in sparing some of the deepest cuts to city services by making rich people, drivers, or profitable businesses pay a little more in taxes, now’s the time to make your voice heard.

SEIU seizes last holdout: UHW’s Oakland headquarters

-
3

By Steven T. Jones

The takeover of United Healthcare Workers by Service Employees International was completed today as SEIU finally took physical control of UHW’s Oakland headquarters and changed the locks following a final standoff that had to be mediated by Oakland Police officers who were called to the scene.

“We went to the office and we asked to be able to do the work we need to do,” David Regan, who SEIU appointed as a trustee overseeing UHW, told the Guardian. But they were turned away by UHW members still loyal to ousted president Sal Rosselli, who has formed a new rival union. “The police came and we sorted it all out.”

“We have been contacting tens of thousands of our members from all over the state over last few days and talking to them about the core work we should be doing,” Regan said, noting how important it is right now to present a united worker front to counteract deep proposed budget cuts by the state and its 58 counties.

SEIU took possession of UHW’s Los Angeles office shortly after the trusteeship was imposed on Tuesday afternoon, “and it’s a mess,” said SEIU spokesperson Michelle Ringuette. In their calls to members, she said that “a silent majority” are anxious to get past this union turf and aren’t likely to disaffiliate and join Rosselli’s new union.
But John Borsos, a spokeperson for the ousted UHW leaders, said members want a say in their union and “I believe thousands of current UHW members will seek to become part of this new union,” known at National Union of Healthcare Workers.

Both Ringuette and Regan downplayed the Oakland standoff, saying members are more important that offices. “But at the day, the reason the office is important is because it has tools we need to run the union effectively,” Regan said, citing membership data, payroll records, and files on ongoing contract negotiations as examples.

Check back here last and look in next week’s Guardian for more, including a report from Guardian intern Joe Sciarrillo, who was at the scene in Oakland (but who’s now following another protest of the murder of BART rider Oscar Grant after the officer who shot him was paroled)

Newsom’s new spirit of cooperation …

-
0

13009mirk.jpg13009alioto.jpg

By Tim Redmond

… Is utter bullshit.

The mayor proclaimed that he’s going to try harder to work with the Board of Supervisors, and that he sees David Chiu as much more of a potential ally than outgoing board prez Aaron Peskin — but already we’re seeing what that means. Consider:

The supervisors voted 8-0 last week to nominate Ross Mirkarimi for a coveted slot on the California Coastal Commission. It’s an important job, and requires someone with a strong comittment to environmental issues. So what does Newsom do? He ignores the board vote, refuses to defer to the unanimous wishes of Mirkarimi’s colleagues, and instead puts forward Michela Alioto-Pier.

That’s Alioto-Pier, who loves developers and is among the worst environmental votes on the board. Alioto-Pier, who got appointed to the Golden Gate Bridge District a while back then missed half the meetings. Alioto-Pier, who would never get the support of more than two of her colleagues for any kind of important or high-profile job.

The final decision is in the hands of State Sen. President Darryl Steinberg, who has a few more pressing things to think about at the moment.

But the Sierra Club is supporting Mirkarimi. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is supporting Mirkarimi. State Sen. Leland Yee is supporting Mirkarimi. I haven’t been able to reach Sen. Mark Leno yet, but he ought to be supporting Mirkarimi.

Which leaves the mayor defying the supes, defying most of the state Legislative delegation and pushing an unqualified candidate in what can only be an F.U. to the supervisors he so recently pledged to work with. (I emailed his press office and asked why Newsom did this, but they haven’t gotten back to me.)

Some spirit of cooperation.

UPDATE: Leno tells me he is supporting Mirkarimi. But there’s a new twist: The mayor CAN’T nominate Alioto-Pier for the Coastal Commission. He doesn’t have the legal authority. It turns out that in a city and county like San Francisco, nominations can only be made by the supervisors. Government Code Section 50279.2 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, in any county in which there is only one incorporated city, the legislative body of such city is hereby created and shall serve as the city selection committee

Newsom didn’t check before he put the word out, and now he looks like a fool. In fact, I’m told his office is now trying to pretend they never nominated Alioto-Pier in the first place. (Not that the mayor ever worried about things like state law in managing his office.

Hell of a job our guy is doing running this town.

The shit we’re up against

-
3

13009adams.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Why is it so hard to get a budget deal out of Sacramento? While the gov blames the Legislature, let’s take a look at why it’s almost impossible to get Republican members of the state Assembly or Senate to vote for a tax hike.

Case study: Assembly Member Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia.

Adams emerged from a Republican caucus meeting a few days back to say that a budget deal would require both sides to give in on some hot-button issues. The Democrats would have to accept major cuts in popular programs — and the GOP would have to accept some tax increases.

He is now in serious political trouble.

Two popular right-wing L.A. radio nuts, John and Ken, put out a “call to battle stations”, lambasted Adams for 45 screeching minutes on the air, then put a graphic of the Assemblymember’s severed head on a stick on their website. Adams admits that voting for even modest tax hikes, as a part of a broader budget that includes massive spending cuts, will probably be the end of his political career.

“This,” Assembly member Tom Ammiano told me, “is the shit we’re up against.” The radical anti-tax crew in the GOP is preparing to trash, abuse, challenge and if necessary recall any Republican we dares talk of taxes. And since the Legislative districts in California are so successfully gerrymandered to give Democrats more power, the Republican seats are VERY Republican and these anti-tax nuts have a lot of power.

That’s why the two-thirds majority for approving a budget is crippling this state.

Newsom’s self-serving bike proposal

-
0

newsom.jpg
Newsom rode a rental bike as we chatted during Bike to Work Day a few years ago.
By Steven T. Jones

I was already cranking up my criticism of Mayor Gavin Newsom in this post when he announced his anemic bike-sharing proposal – 50 bikes for San Francisco versus the 20,000 in Paris, from where he made the announcement – so I wondered if perhaps I was being a little hard on the proposal. You know, poisoned by my own venom.
It seemed pretty ridiculous to spend $1 million to start a program that nobody could rely on considering there would be less than 10 bikes at each of the five locations that they’re proposing. So I listened to the chatter on the CarFree list (people who promote biking and would support a legitimate bike-sharing program), checked sites such as SF Streetsblog, and did some interviews.
And so now I can say, with great confidence, that this is indeed a really dumb and self-serving idea that has everything to do with Newsom being able to claim he started something sexy like bike sharing and nothing to do with actually promoting bicycling in San Francisco.
Hell, Blazing Saddles (the rental company that lends Newsom a ride for Bike to Work Day, the one day a year that he pedals) rents 200-700 bicycles per day in San Francisco depending on the season and weather, according to someone I spoke with there. So how exactly is the Clear Channel-administered 50 bikes going to make any difference?
MTA spokesperson Judson True did defend the proposal when I called him, telling me the 50 bikes was, “based on Clear Channel’s experience in other cities getting people used to the idea.” Clear Channel runs the only other one in the U.S., Washington DC’s shitty little 150-bike program, unlike the thousands of bikes in real programs in cities around the world. True also said the high cost is based partly on renting private property because the bike injunction, which will be lifted later this year, prohibits bike improvements on public property.
Which, to me, sounds like even more proof that Newsom decided to roll this out now because it fits into his larger political plans, beating other U.S. cities like New York that are doing actual planning to roll out real bike sharing programs. And so it goes with Mayor Press Release.

P.S. See you all at Critical Mass tomorrow.

The District Six dance begins

-
10

12909WKR.JPG12909KIM.JPG
Walker, Kim

By Tim Redmond

Chris Daly will be the district six supervisor for the next two years (minus a couple of weeks), but already the dance to replace him is underway — with some surprising names floating around.

It’s no secret that Debra Walker is running, and with her long record on land-use and planning issues and her LGBT community leadership, she starts out as the leading progressive in the race. SOMA activist Jim Meko has joined the fray, too.

And the rumor mill is abuzzin with talk that School Board member Jane Kim, who by all accounts has a bright political future, is considering the race. Kim recently moved to D6, and we’ve heard from a number of people who’ve been contacted by Kim supporters about a possible supervisorial bid. Kim herself is a bit more coy: “I’m not announcing a campaign,” she told me. But she didn’t entirely rule it out: “Right now, I’m not a candidate. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do in 2010; everything’s on the table.”

And then there’s Michael Yarne, who last year left Martin Builders to take a job with the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development. Mayor Newsom doesn’t have a clear horse in that race yet (Rob Black, who works for the Chamber of Commerce, may run again, but he lost last time and is clearly a Chamber toadie, so his hopes in the liberal district aren’t that good). Yarne told us that he’s been contacted by people who think he’d be a good candidate, and he hasn’t entirely ruled it out, but “there’s no way I could run right now because I don’t live in the district.” Yarne rents in D9.

For my money, Kim is one of the brighest young stars in local politics, and she ought to stay on the school board, where she’s doing a great job, for another term, then start looking at other offices.

Look! SF Newspapers have discovered the Internet!

-
0

By Tim Redmond

This is a wonderful little moment in history. I particularly like the fact that the Examiner editor says “we’re not going to make any money off this.”

And of course, also the comment

This crazy machine could revolutionize the way in which millions of men beat off

Who is Mr. Slim?

-
2

Text by Sarah Phelan

Is “Slim” really Mr. Slim’s real name? And who is this scary-sounding guy, anyways? News junkies should probably be asking these questions now that Carlos Slim Helú has loaned $250 million to the New York Times, and may ultimately take over the financially troubled company, which reportedly is $1.1 billion in debt.

When I first read Mr. Slim’s name, coupled with the phrase “the Mexican billionaire,” I thought there was no way this could be his real name. It had to be a nickname, a scary one at that, evoking comic book-style images in which a burly mobster darkens the newspaper’s door with a long shadow, a cloud of cigar smoke and the threat that “Mr. Slim intends to slim down the newsroom, starting with your left pinkies, if he doesn’t see some profits soon.”

But while it’s true that Mr. Slim is looking for a 10 percent profit at the Times—a scary sounding goal for reporters in an increasingly shrinking media world —it turns out Slim really is Mr. Slim’s real name, albeit a modification of the name of his Lebanese father, Youssif Salim, a Maronite Catholic, who emigrated to Mexico at the tender age of 14.

Upon reaching Mexico, Mr. Slim’s father changed his name from Youssif Slim to Julián Slim Haddad, adding his mother’s surname, Haddad, for good measure, as per Mexican-naming customs.

As the perhaps future king of the NYT, Slim, 69, already exerts influence on the telecommunications industry in Mexico and much of Latin America, and may well be the richest man on Earth, with a net worth of $60 billion, having possibly surpassed Warren Buffet in the recent global economic turmoil. All of which makes me fear that there is a fat chance that Slim will be suffering expanding word counts at the New York Times, any time soon.

How Margaret Brodkin was fired

-
1

By Tim Redmond

Interesting how the mayor tries to spin away his dismissal of Margaret Brodkin, the feisty and highly respected director of the Department of Children, Youth and their Families. Here’s the mayor’s press release:

Margaret Brodkin to take new position as Director of New Day for Learning

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he has asked
Maria Su, current Deputy Director of the Department of Children, Youth and
their Families (DCYF), to become the Acting Director of DCYF.

“During Maria’s tenure, DCYF has become one of San Francisco’s most
respected and influential organizations, making children one of the city’s
highest public policy priorities,” said Mayor Newsom. “She has overseen the
department’s core service areas, including early care and education, family
support, health and nutrition, out-of-school programs, violent response and
youth workforce development, as well as the Wellness Centers, Beacons and
Transitional Age Youth initiatives.”

After over four years of service as Director of DCYF, Margaret Brodkin is
leaving her position in order to become Director of the New Day for
Learning Initiative. The Initiative is a collaboration among city, school
and community partners, and is being funded, in part, by the Mott
Foundation.

“New Day for Learning is an important initiative, and one that will put San
Francisco in the national spotlight of education reform and city and school
partnerships,” said Mayor Newsom. “As the Director of New Day for Learning,
Margaret will continue her pioneering work in local child advocacy, and on
improving the lives of every child and youth in San Francisco.”

Sounds like Brodkin just decided it was time to take another job.

But wait: Here’s what Brodkin told her supporters today:

Dearest Colleagues,

Although he has praised my service and called me a “superstar,” Mayor Newsom has asked me to leave DCYF. Today will be my last day as Director. I am disappointed to be unable to complete the work that I have begun, but I leave behind a talented and dedicated DCYF staff, a broad network of wonderful partners, and many exciting projects in the works. I hope DCYF will continue to thrive

In other words, Newsom fired her. Why? Well, I haven’t been able to reach Brodkin to see if she wants to tell her side of the story. But let me speculate for a moment.

I think it’s fair to say the Mayor Newsom will be taking aim in the next few months at all of the set-asides in the city budget. I think he is looking toward a November ballot measure that will include “budget reform” — which means no more special earmarked programs.

One of the major earmarks he’ll try to eliminate: The Children’s Fund. That was Brodkin’s pet project and she was instrumental in getting it passed. I suspect the mayor, who hates dissent in the ranks, didn’t want to go forward seeking a “reform” in funding for kids programs that his own DCYF chief would loudly and visibly opppose.

Just my suspicion.

I have had a few minor clashes with Brodkin since she went to City Hall, but I have to say that she has been one of the single most tireless and dedicated champions of children and families in San Francisco, has devoted her life to the cause and was one of the few members of the Newsom administration who cared more about the cause than about political ambition. I suspect this new gig is just temporary, and she’ll soon be back raising hell on the streets, where we need her.

Ousted UHW leaders form the NUHW

-
7

rosselli.jpg
Sal Rosselli, Guardian Photo by Charles Russo.

By Steven T. Jones

There’s a new union in town, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which was formed today by the United Healthcare Workers leadership team that was yesterday ousted by UHW’s parent union, Service Employees International Union. NUHW might as well stand for the New UHW.
SEIU has imposed a trusteeship on UHW, which involved suspending local bylaws, taking over UHW lists and contractual obligations, formally kicking out more than 70 elected UHW leaders, and appointing as trustees two SEIU executive vice presidents: David Regan and Eliseo Medina.
But UHW leaders continue to occupy the union’s Oakland headquarters, which they’ve used as the base of operations to launch the new union that they hope will be populated by many of UHW’s 150,000 members, who must vote to disaffiliate with SEIU to join the new union.
“As a healthcare workers union, NUHW is committed to continuing the tradition of a member-led, democratically controlled union,” ousted UHW head Sal Rosselli said in a prepared statement. “There are lot of things that we still have to figure out, but we know NUHW will be all about accountability to the members, democratic-decision-making, organizing the unorganized and winning improvements for healthcare workers and the patients and residents we serve.”
In a conference call with reporters, Regan and Medina blasted the Rosselli team for promoting the schism with SEIU, which had sought to transfer 65,000 long-term care workers from UHW to another SEIU local, something Rosselli says his members urged him to resist. “That battle ended yesterday,” Medina said, while Regan noted that, “It’s sad when a group of local officers lose their way.”
SEIU leaders hope to put the conflict behind them and move forward together to fight deep cuts being proposed in California’s budget, but it’s an open question how many UHW members are going to resist the change and follow Rosselli out the door, something that will become more clear in the coming weeks.

Budget woes show new political calculus

-
1

By Rebecca Bowe

About 150 labor representatives and health-service providers turned out at last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting to sound off on drastic budget cuts that many said would weaken an already-strained safety net for populations who are most in need. For more than four hours, representatives from homeless-advocacy groups; clinics serving the uninsured, sex workers or other disenfranchised populations; youth organizations that strive to keep kids off the street; labor-union representatives; stressed-out hospital staffers and many others gave the board an earful. The overwhelming majority urged the Board of Supervisors to approve a special election for June 2, which would give voters an opportunity to decide whether to establish new taxes as a way of generating revenue, rather than relying solely on deep cuts to solve the city’s budget woes.

The city is facing a budgetary crisis of unprecedented scale, with a daunting $576 million deficit. When Mayor Gavin Newsom appeared before the supervisors last December to ask for their cooperation in tackling the budget shortfall, he described it as arguably the most daunting crisis the city has seen since the Great Depression. (Newsom was attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland yesterday.)

While the members of the board put off the decision as to whether or not to actually hold a special election, they did pass a measure allowing for the option to stay open. With Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu and Elsbernd voting no, the board approved an emergency measure to waive regular election procedures that would have prevented the tax measure from being placed on a June 2 ballot.

Nor did the board vote on an amended budget package, which was introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly to counter Mayor Gavin Newsom’s mid-year budget cuts. Daly’s list of alternative cuts targeted management-level positions, mayoral communications staff and funding for the opera, ballet and symphony in an effort to free up funds that could then be diverted to sectors such as public health.

Instead of adopting Daly’s amended list of cuts, supervisors voted 6-5 on a motion — called by Supervisor Sean Elsbernd — to send the whole thing back to the Budget & Finance Committee for a closer look. “All of this needs to be analyzed,” Elsbernd said after questioning a few management-level cuts included in the list. “To push this forward today without total understanding of the impact of each and every one of these — and these are just the ones I’ve caught while sitting here! — God knows what else is in there. I’m just saying, let’s have this fully vetted.” Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chiu, Chu, Dufty, Elsburnd and Maxwell supported the motion.

That left an interesting and somewhat mixed message about the politics of the new board. Supervisors Dufty and Maxwell, who will be the swing votes on anything that requires a supermajority (to override a mayoral veto) stayed with the progressives on the vote for a June election. But Chiu – elected board president entirely with progressive support – sided with the mayor’s allies and the moderates on the budget re-allocation vote.

We’ll have to see how this new calculus plays out in the next few weeks.

SEIU pulls the trigger and ousts UHW leaders

-
0

By Steven T. Jones

Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern this afternoon executed his threat to take over the Oakland-based United Healthcare Workers and oust its defiant leadership team, formally placing UHW under a trusteeship.

“Today we bring an end to a sad chapter in the life [sic] a local union with great members, whose leadership lost their way, engaged in serious financial wrongdoing, refused to end their attempts to subvert the democratic processes of this union and failed to take action against a reported decertification effort,” Stern wrote in a prepared statement.

UHW head Sal Rosselli was careful to avoid advocating a decertification effort to divorce UHW for its SEIU parent during interviews with reporters yesterday (for more of this point, see my story in tomorrow’s Guardian), but that’s a real possibility now that Stern has ousted the leaders of their fiercely loyal union, precisely because they were doing the will of members in opposing an SEIU-ordered reorganization.

“Today’s action by Andy Stern imposing a trusteeship against the members of United Healthcare West has the effect of declaring martial law against those advocating for the right to vote and other democratic principles in their own union. UHW has rejected this imposition,” UHW wrote in a public statement.

Sources say they’re now a standoff between the rival union branches at UHW’s Oakland office. We’ll have more on this battle here tomorrow.

Who killed Hugues de la Plaza?

-
5

Text by Sarah Phelan

Melissa Nix says she has not seen the report that French investigators recently completed, ruling that her ex-boyfriend Hugues de la Plaza was murdered in his Hayes Valley apartment on Linden Avenue in the wee hours of June 2, 2007

“I was told about it by Hugues’ father, Francois.” Nix said.

But she believes that the SFPD’s suggestion that de la Plaza’s death was a suicide—a suggestion floated out early on in the investigation—is part of a systemic problem that leads all the way back to Mayor Gavin Newsom.

“It was under Mayor Newsom’s guidance and supervision that this happened,” Nix said. “May be there are problems with police workers or the homicide department, but the Mayor has the ability to call upon Chief Heather Fong and her officers any time.”

“Someone has not done their work and I don’t believe it’s the French,” Nix added, claiming that critical forensic evidence went untested for a year, that neighbors were not interviewed in a timely fashion and that vital evidence was not collected.

“I lay the blame not only at the feet of the SFPD, but also at the feet of Gavin Newsom,” Nix said.

Noting that Newsom “incidentally happens to be in Paris right now,” Nix added, “So, what is the Mayor’s priority? Moonlighting as an international celebrity or leading the people of San Francisco?”

1...186187188...258Page 187 of 258

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org