BART Archives — Page 4 of 29 — San Francisco Bay Guardian Archive 1966

Kelly challenges Cohen in D10

Sasha Cuttler

-

February 18, 2014

After being narrowly edged out in the race for the District 10 seat on the Board of Supervisors four years ago, Potrero Hill political activist Tony Kelly says he will launch his campaign for the seat tomorrow [Wed/18], challenging incumbent Malia Cohen.

In 2010, after former Sup. Sophie Maxwell was termed out, the D10 race was a wide open contest that had low voter turnout and the squirreliest ranked-choice voting ending that the city has seen. On election night, former BART director Lynette Sweet finished first, followed by Kelly, a third place tie between Cohen and Marlene Tran, and Potrero Hill View publisher Steve Moss in fourth.

But the strong negative campaigning between Sweet and Moss, the leading fundraisers in the race, allowed the likable but then relatively unknown Cohen to vault into the lead on the strength of second- and third-place votes, finishing a few hundred votes in front of Kelly, who came in second.

Cohen has had a relatively unremarkable tenure on the board, spearheading few significant legislative pushes and being an ideological mixed bag on key votes. But she’ll likely retain the support of African American leaders and voters in Bayview and Hunters Point, and enjoy the always significant advantage of incumbency.

Kelly hopes to turn that advantage into a disadvantage, tying Cohen to City Hall economic development policies that have caused gentrification and displacement. “Too many San Franciscans face an uphill battle, especially here in District 10,” Kelly said in a statement announcing his candidacy. “Our district is part of one of the richest cities in the richest state in the richest country in the world, and yet our neighborhoods are home to the highest unemployment rates in the City, our homeowners are at risk of foreclosure, and our tenants at risk of evictions. This is unacceptable, and we must do better.”

Kelly and his supporters plan to file his official declaration of candidacy tomorrow at 12:30pm in the Department of Election office in the basement of City Hall.

Guardian honored for investigation of buying influence at City Hall

Sasha Cuttler

-

February 13, 2014

33

Guardian honored for investigation of buying influence at City Hall

Bay Guardian News Editor Rebecca Bowe and Staff Writer Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez are being honored by the Society of Professional Journalists with a James Madison Freedom of Information Award for “Friends in the Shadows,” our investigation of the shady ways that developers and other powerful players buy influence at City Hall.

The package of articles, prepared for the Guardian’s 47th anniversary issue of Oct. 6, used extensive public records to show how contributions to the city’s various “Friends Of…” organizations create cozy relationships between regulators and the regulated, donations that are often designed to skirt public disclosure requirements.

“Their detailed and thorough account explored a trail of money through myriad city agencies and departments,” the awards committee wrote, noting how the paper “used public records, interviews and independent research to probe how developers, corporations and city contractors use indirect gifts to city agencies to buy influence.”

The Guardian will profile the other winners in our annual Freedom of Information Issue on March 12, and all the winners will be honored at SPJ’s James Madison Awards banquet on March 20. The full press release follows:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JAMES MADISON AWARD WINNERS FOR SUNSHINE AND FIRST AMENDMENT WORK ANNOUNCED BY NORCAL SPJ CHAPTER

SAN FRANCISCO – Retired San Francisco Chronicle editor Peter Sussman, known for histireless pursuit of an end to restrictions on media access to prisoners, his support of the inmate journalists’ rights, and for his many other contributions to journalism, has been named winner of the Norwin S. Yoffie Award for Career Achievement Award by the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California chapter.

Sussman will be honored along with other winners of the chapters’ James Madison Freedom of Information Awards on Thursday, March 20 in San Francisco. Other winners include three high school journalists who honored confidential agreements with sources by beating back a subpoena for their notes, an online newspaper that successfully sued for its right to basic law enforcement information after being blacklisted by a county sheriff it had angered by reporting on his past, and an investigative journalist who used more than 100,000 pages of documents to report on potential structural problems on the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge.

The 29^th Annual James Madison Awards will be presented to champions of the First Amendment and freedom of information on Thursday, March 20, 2014, at a banquet at the San Francisco City Club.

Besides Sussman, whose award is named for the late editor of the San Rafael Independent Journal and co-founder of the SPJ NorCal’s Freedom of Information Committee who was a staunch advocate for transparency, the honorees are:

Rob Gunnison, a former instructor and Director of School Affairs at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism will be honored with the Beverly Kees Educator Award for his years of mentoring aspiring journalists and for the re-establishment of required course work on access to public records. The award is named for a former SPJ NorCal president who was an educator and nationally recognized journalist.

In a year when whistleblowers have been both applauded and excoriated, Peter Buxton will be honored with the FOI Whistleblower/Source Awardfor his historic 1972 role in exposing to a reporter the evils of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. From 1932 to 1972 African-American sharecroppers who thought they were getting medical care went untreated for syphilis so the government could study the disease’s progression.

State Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco will receive the Public Official recognition award for his courage to oppose his own Democratic Party leaders and the governor in 2013 with public criticism of efforts to weaken the California Public Records Act by loosening disclosure requirements for local governments.

The Lake County News and its co-foundersElizabeth Larson and John Jensen will receive theNews Media Award, for their successful legal fight to force the county sheriff to end a news blacklist of the paper after a series of hard-hitting, critical articles about his conduct in office.

Attorney Terry Gross of Gross Belsky Alonso, will receive the FOI Legal Counsel Award in recognition of his years of work to expand the rights of online journalists and to protect reporters who were victims of corporate email snooping and to redress the illegal police detention of reporters during protests in Oakland and Berkeley, among many causes.

Freelance journalist Richard Knee will receive a Distinguished Service Award for 12 years of service on San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, an 11-member body that monitors City Hall’s compliance with open-government laws. He has served two decades on the SPJ NorCal FOI Committee and he helped in a successful ballot-measure campaign to strengthen the Sunshine law in 1998-99.

Reporter Tom Vacar of KTVU Channel 2 will receive a Journalist Award for his story exposing false claims by BART and BART unions that the California Public Utilities Commission certifies BART train operators. Using the California Public Records Act, Vacar forced the CPUC to disclose it does not certify, review, test or train operators, but is no more than a rubber stamp for BART operator certification.

The San Quentin News will be honored with aNews Media Award for accomplishing extraordinary journalism under extraordinary circumstances. In the only inmate-produced paper in California, and under the scrutiny of prison authorities, the inmate journalists and volunteers covered a prison hunger strike, overcrowding and denial of compassionate release for a dying inmate.

Samuel Liu, Sabrina Chen and Cristina Curcelli, reporters at The Saratoga Falcon, at Saratoga High School, will receive the Student Journalist—High School Award for their resistance to subpoenas for their notes and for protecting their sources by invoking California’s reporter shield law as they covered cyberbullying claims and the suicide of a classmate.

Judith Liteky, a former nun, and Theresa Cameranesi, will receive the Citizen Award, for pressing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense to win a precedent-setting ruling that the government may not withhold on national security grounds the names and military unit information of graduates and instructors at the former School of the Americas, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

News Editor Rebecca Bowe and staff writerJoe Fitzgerald Rodriguez of the San Francisco Bay Guardian will receive Journalist Awards for extensive use of public records, independent research and interviews to produce a detailed account of financial “gifts” given to some city agencies that are used to curry favor out of the limelight.

Aaron Swartz, a computer programmer who launched a method of secure communication between journalists and their sources, will be honored posthumously with the Public Service Award. Swartz died in January 2013 at the age of 26, but his work on the journalist-source software ‘Strongbox’ has flourished.

Senior investigative reporter Charles Piller ofThe Sacramento Bee will be honored with theJournalist Award for breaking the story that the tendons connecting the skyway portion of the new eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge were corroded and could potentially fail. His digging led to the revelation that engineers had warned for two years of the danger.

Columnist and editorial writer Daniel Borenstein of the Bay Area News Group will receive the Editorial & Commentary Award for his strong editorials that helped beat back a legislative attack on California’s Public Records Act. He also produced a string of columns critical of school districts that failed to report suspicious behavior and he challenged the lack of disclosure during BART labor negotiations.

The awards banquet will be held at the City Club of San Francisco, 155 Sansome Street, 9^th floor, 1½ blocks from the Montgomery St. BART station. A no-host reception at 5:30 pm will be followed at 6:30pmby the dinner and awards ceremony. Tickets are $50 for SPJ members and students, and $70 for other attendees. Full table hosting opportunities and program sponsorships are also available.

To purchase tickets please go tohttps://www.eventbrite.com/e/29th-annual-james-madison-freedom-of-information-awards-banquet-tickets-10528851077

The James Madison Freedom of Information Award is named for the creative force behind the First Amendment and honors local journalists, organizations, public officials, educators and private citizens who have fought for public access to government meetings and records and promoted the public’s right to know and freedom of expression. The awards dinner is held annually during the week of Madison’s birthday, which was March 16, 1751.

Award winners are selected by SPJ NorCal’s Freedom of Information Committee.

Background information, including a complete list and description of winners is attached. Additional information is available from FOI Committee co-chairs Thomas Peele or Geoffrey King at the email addresses listed above.

###

2014 JAMES MADISON HONOREES

NORWIN S. YOFFIE CAREER ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Peter Sussman has spent most of his career as a vocal advocate for journalistic ethics and freedom of information, and as an editor for the San Francisco Chronicle. But he is perhaps best known for his dogged advocacy for news media access to prisoners and as an advocate for prisoners’ right to practice journalism. He began pushing for media access to inmates when federal prison officials punished convicted bank robber Dannie “Red Hog” Martin for writing to Sussman in the 1980s. It began an epic fight for freedom of speech, and from 1986 to 1992 the Chronicle, with Sussman as his editor, published Martin’s articles about prison life. Sussman co-authored a book with Martin, “Committing Journalism: The Prison Writings of Red Hog.” During his stint as SPJ chapter president from 1995-1997, state prison officials issued “emergency” restrictions on media interviews with prisoners. During the ensuing national media attention, Sussman became the natural spokesman on the issue. For years after that he helped write and sponsor bills in Sacramento that would overturn the media access limits. He also helped to write the SPJ Code of Ethics. And in his spare time he edited “Decca,” a collection of letters by Jessica Mitford, muckraking journalist and memoirist.

BEVERLY KEES EDUCATOR AWARD

Rob Gunnison spent two decades as a journalist for United Press International and the San Francisco Chronicle, giving him the kind of hands-on experience journalism students covet. Gunnison taught at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism from 1999 to 2013, mentoring dozens of students in the realities of news gathering. In the years before he left, Gunnison also served as the Director of School Affairs. He guided the school through trying periods of transition and pushed to reinstate requirements that students understand and are able to use public records laws. He has been an outstanding influence to aspiring journalists with his passion for reporting, his humility and approachability. He instilled optimism in the face of a rapidly shifting and often hostile media climate.

.

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD

Peter Buxton played a historic role as a whistleblower in 1972 by exposing the decades-long experimentation on the effects of untreated syphilis on hundreds of African-American sharecroppers. Although penicillin was a proven cure for syphilis, for 40 years, the government allowed the men to suffer and die, and to expose their wives and children to the disease, and left it untreated to monitor its course. As a young venereal disease researcher for the U.S. Public Health Service in Alabama, Buxton met with doctors and tried to force the issue of treatment, only to be mocked and refused. He left the service for the UC Hastings School of Law but, haunted by the plight of the men, he reached out to a journalist about the government’s experiment. As a result of his action, Congress reformed laws on human research, Medical Ethics Committees were required to have non-physician members and the victims were given $10 million in reparations. In 1997 President Bill Clinton apologized to the victims and their survivors: “The United States Government did something that was profoundly, morally wrong… clearly racist.”

JOURNALIST AWARD

Reporter Tom Vacar of KTVU Channel 2 pursued a critical safety story at the height of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) strike in 2013: Were substitute drivers, drawn from supervisor ranks, qualified to operate the trains? BART and the union told him the California Public Utilities Commission certified the train operators. But he was stonewalled when he asked the CPUC to explain how it certified operators. It was not until Vacar pressed for documentation, using the state Public Records Act, that he learned BART provided no more than a rubber stamp for drivers. He exposed the false claims of certification, showing the CPUC did not certify, review, test or train operators. In fact, after two BART workers were killed on the tracks by a passing train, he discovered the CPUC did not even have copies of training materials.

PUBLIC OFFICIAL AWARD

Despite the risk of infuriating his own Democratic party leadership and Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco spoke out early against the governor’s plan to weaken the California Public Records Act. A proposal, slipped into the 2013-2014 state budget would have allowed the open records law to be essentially optional for cities and other local agencies. Yee became the lone Democrat in the state Legislature to cry foul early. With public sentiment on his side, Yee ultimately prevailed. The governor and the legislature backed away from the plan when faced with a flood of opposition from newspaper editorials, environmentalists and conservatives.

DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD

Freelance journalist Richard Knee has been a fixture on the SPJ NorCal’s FOI Committee for more than two decades. He played a major role in the successful effort to strengthen San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance in 1998-99. And since 2002 he has served on the city’s Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, an 11-member body that monitors how well (or poorly) City Hall complies with local and state open-government laws. He has not been afraid to lock horns with powerful politicians suspected of sunshine-law violations, including former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and current Supervisor Scott Wiener.

NEWS MEDIA AWARD

Lake County News co-founder Elizabeth Larson first confronted a candidate for sheriff, Frank Rivero, in 2010, with evidence of his arrest record in Florida. When Rivero won the election, Larson learned he was under investigation for changing a story about shooting a man in 2008 while working as a deputy. His credibility was so undermined from the shooting statements that Rivero could not testify in court, without defendants being informed of his history under a legal precedent called the Brady rule. When Larson used the open-records law to expose Rivero’s status as a Brady violation risk, he retaliated by blacklisting the Lake County News from routine media information. Larson and her husband, John Jensen, took Rivero to court and in March 2013, with the help of attorney Paul Boylan of Davis, they won restoration of access to public media information and the county had to pay $110,000 to cover the pair’s legal fees.

STUDENT JOURNALISTS—HIGH SCHOOL AWARD

Samuel Liu, Sabrina Chen and Cristina Curcelli, reporters for Saratoga High School’s The Saratoga Falcon, questioned the accuracy of news accounts that attributed the tragic suicide of a schoolmate to virulent cyberbullying by fellow students. National headlines said students passed around photos of an alleged sexual assault on the girl during a party. Liu, Chen and Curcelli wanted to discover what was accurate. They interviewed more than 50 people, some on condition of anonymity. In sharp contrast to the national headlines, they reported “roughly 10 people” saw the illicit photos and they “never went on Facebook.” But on the first day back to school in 2013 the three were handed subpoenas demanding their emails, notes and names of sources from a lawyer for the girl’s family, which was suing the school. All three successfully resisted the subpoenas by invoking California’s reporter Shield Law. In so doing, they highlighted that the Shield Law is for all journalists, not just those working for pay. Guylyn Cummins, lawyer for the students, pointed out the Shield Law applies to student journalists, who do not lose their constitutional rights when they step onto campus.

JOURNALIST AWARD

Rebecca Bowe, San Francisco Bay Guardian news editor, and staff writer Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez used public records, interviews and independent research to probe how developers, corporations and city contractors use indirect gifts to city agencies to buy influence. Their investigation found that donations are not made directly to regulators where disclosure laws would leave them easily tracked. Instead, millions of dollars are funneled through private nonprofits, sometimes dubbed “Friends of” committees, such as Friends of City Planning or Friends of Animal Care and Control. Bowe and Rodriguez found that a mechanism allows large amounts of cash to flow in shadowy donations that make it difficult to see who is behind the money. Their detailed and thorough account explored a trail of money through myriad city agencies and departments.

NEWS MEDIA AWARD

The San Quentin News has accomplished extraordinary journalism under extraordinary circumstances. It is the only inmate-produced newspaper in California, begun in 1940 by warden Clinton Duffy. These prison reporters, along with volunteers from the outside, raise the curtain of secrecy that shrouds those who live behind the walls. Although under the scrutiny of prison authorities, they reported on last year’s prisoners’ hunger strike, prison overcrowding, the controversial handling of a deadly Valley Fever outbreak in the prisons and a feature on the refusal of a Superior Court judge to grant compassionate release to an 81-year-old inmate dying of cancer. They handle reporting with tenacity, sensitivity and thoroughness.

CITIZEN AWARD

Judith Liteky, a former nun, and Theresa Cameranesi, sued in federal court in San Francisco to gain public release of the names of students and instructors at the U.S. military school known for its role in training military officers later linked to human rights abuses. Liteky was a founding member of the non-profit School of Americas Watch, formed after the 1990 murder of six priests and their housekeeper and her daughter in San Salvador. The massacre was linked to 19 Salvadoran military officers trained at the former U.S. Army School of the Americas. The two women sued the Department of Defense to force resumption of what had been routine release of student names. In 2013 they won a significant victory. An Oakland federal judge, in a precedent-setting decision, ruled the government could not withhold the names on a national security basis. Although the legal fight is not over, this ruling alone curbs the government’s ability to restrict access to internationally sensitive information.

LEGAL COUNSEL AWARD

Attorney Terry Gross of Gross Belsky Alonso, in San Francisco, has spent years working to expand the rights of online journalists, to vindicate reporters wrongly arrested during protests and to protect reporters whose phone records were subject to corporate snooping. Last year, Gross secured a $99,000 settlement for photojournalist Jane Tyska after former Oakland Unified School District Police Chief Art Michel detained her while she covered a protest. In 2012, he won a $162,500 settlement and restraining order against the UC Berkeley Police Department for the illegal arrest and search of a camera belonging to Indybay journalist David Morse during a 2009 protest. Gross successfully represented Think Secret in a landmark state appeal court decision that extended California’s journalist Shield Law to online-only publications. In 2008, he sought damages on behalf of The New York Times and several Business Week journalists from Hewlett-Packard, after it was discovered HP obtained the private telephone records of reporters in an attempt to discover a news source from unpublished material.

PUBLIC SERVICE CITATION

Aaron Swartz was, by all accounts, a brilliant and sophisticated young man. Although he died in January 2013 at the age of 26, his work on the journalist-source software “Strongbox” flourished. “Strongbox” — now renamed “SecureDrop” — promises to be a crucial tool for journalists and their sources in the wake of revelations about mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. “Strongbox/SecureDrop” provides a secure system for sources and journalists to receive documents and communicate with each other confidentially in the digital age. Swartz initially conceived of “Strongbox” in San Francisco, where he lived at the time. The New Yorker adopted the secure document submission system in May and it has now been adopted by such publications as Forbes, The Global Mail and ProPublica. At the time of his death, Swartz was under federal indictment for downloading a large number of academic papers via MIT’s network, which he reportedly intended to distribute. He could have been sentenced to as many as 50 years in prison if convicted and many have attributed to his tragic taking of his own life to the government pressure he faced.

JOURNALIST AWARD

Senior investigative reporter Charles Piller of The Sacramento Bee pored over more than 100,000 pages of construction and inspection records to make a troubling discovery: Tendons on the new eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge were subject to water-induced corrosion. He broke the story that a comparison of inspection records and a rosy report by the California Department of Transportation showed CalTrans found few significant problems and that its report was littered with misstatements and wrong information. His relentless digging uncovered the failure of CalTrans to protect the “post-tension” tendons on the new spans skyway from water and that the bridge construction violated universally accepted techniques meant to prevent corrosion. He was also able to report that inspectors had warned for at least two years about water leaks and potential corrosion.

EDITORIAL & COMMENTARY AWARD

Columnist and editorial writer Daniel Borenstein of the Bay Area News Group helped beat back a 2013 attack by Governor Jerry Brown and the California Legislature on the California Public Records Act. Borenstein sounded the first alarm in his columns and kept up the attack. He also directly challenged a stonewalling school district attorney over access to documents, including the lawyer’s withholding of his own job contract renewal. This led the district to release them and fire the attorney. His tenacity in seeking out and monitoring of Bay Area Rapid Transit District paperwork during the BART administration’s months-long duel with unions over contract terms prompted him to call for more transparency and disclosure in a series of editorials. Lastly, he pushed for, and obtained, release of documents related to teacher abuse of students in local school districts, which enabled his colleagues to put together stories about the failure of local districts to report suspicious behavior to authorities as required by law.

Events: February 12 – 18, 2014

Michael Redmond

-

February 11, 2014

0

Listings are compiled by Guardian staff. Submit items for the listings at listings@sfbg.com. For further information on how to submit items for the listings, see Selector.

WEDNESDAY 12

Black History Month programs San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, aboard the Balclutha, Hyde St Pier, and in the Visitor Center, 499 Jefferson, SF; nps.gov/safr. Daily throughout Feb (9:30am-5pm in the Visitor Center, free): “African Americans in the Maritime Trades: A Photographic Exhibition.” Sat/15-Sun/16 (3pm in the Visitor Center, free): “The Saga of Captain William Shorey,” slide lecture. Sun/16 and Feb 23 (2:15pm aboard the Balclutha, $5): “The Great Migration in Alaska: African Americans, the Alaska Packers Association, and the Politics of Race at Sea, 1896-1929,” interactive program. Feb 22 (1-1:45pm aboard the Balclutha, $5): “Chanteys: The African American and Caribbean Connection,” musical program.

“Darwin Day Celebration” Revolution Books, 2425 Channing, Berk; www.revolutionbooks.org. 7pm, free. Presentations and videos on the topic “Evolution: What it Means for Science and the Struggle to Radically Change the World.”

Habitot Children’s Museum Valentine Play Date Habitot Children’s Museum, 2065 Kittredge, Berk; www.habitot.org. Children with special needs and their families are invited to this free afternoon of hands-on, safe, and accessible fun at the museum.

Cecile Pineda Latino Hispanic Community Room, San Francisco Main Library, 100 Larkin, SF; www.sfpl.org. 6:30pm, free. The Neustadt International Prize for Literature nominee, also a noted anti-war activist, reads from her award-winning first novel, Face.

San Francisco Middle School Science Fair Randall Museum, 199 Museum Wy, SF; www.randallmuseum.org. On display through Feb 21; museum hours Tue-Sat, 10am-5pm. Free. Check out all the exhibits in the 32nd annual fair, with participants hailing from 30 local public and private schools. The 200 projects on display are chosen from 4,000 total entries, with prizes going to the top three winners in each grade. Sat/15, 10am-2pm, visit the “Science Fair Fest,” celebrating the fair and engaging in interactive science experiments.

THURSDAY 13

Falu Bakrania Booksmith, 1644 Haight, SF; www.booksmith.com. 7:30pm, free. The author reads from Bhangra and Asian Underground: South Asian Music and the Politics of Belonging in Britain.

Eileen Cronin Book Passage, 1 Ferry Bldg, SF; www.bookpassage.com. 6pm, free. The author reads from Mermaid: A Memoir of Resilience.

“Curator’s Talk with Professor Al Camarillo” California Historical Society, 678 Mission, SF; www.californiahistoricalsociety.org. 6-8pm, $5. The curator and Stanford university prof discusses the exhibit “Juana Briones y Su California: Pionera, Fundadora, Curandera,” as well as the life and legacy of its subject.

“Ricky Vincent: Party Music: The Inside Story of the Black Panthers’ Band” Humanist Hall, 390 27th St, Oakl; www.humanisthall.org. 7:30pm, $15. With hip-hop historian Davey D, Marcus Books proprietor Blanche Richardson, original Black Panthers, and others.

“Valentine’s Day from Cleis Press” Books Inc., 2275 Market, SF; www.booksinc.net. 7:30pm, free. The veteran LGBT publisher visits the indie bookseller for a night of reading and romance, with authors Felice Picano, Lewis DeSimone, and Rob Rosen, plus the releases of the Best Gay Romance 2014 and Best Gay Erotica 2014 anthologies.

FRIDAY 14

Mass wedding Downtown Berkeley BART Plaza, Berk; www.downtownberkeley.com. 5pm, free. Any and all couples (queer and straight, as long as you have your IDs and a valid marriage license) can get hitched at this mass wedding to celebrate Valentine’s Day and the end of Prop 8 and DOMA; three couples will win a mini honeymoon package for dinner, hotel, theater tickets, and more Berkeley-centric gifts. Yes, there will be cake.

SATURDAY 15

Chinese New Year Spring Festival Chinese Culture Center, 750 Kearny, Third Flr, SF; www.c-c-c.org. 11am-3pm, free. This year’s theme, “Old School/New School,” is embodied by performances by Starr King Elementary School students and Pacific Wushu, as well as China Dance Theater, traditional lion dancing, calligraphy art activities, and more. Make sure to visit the exhibit Between Modern and Contemporary: Fong Chung-ray, highlighting the work of the abstract art pioneer.

“Oakland Art Murmur’s Third Saturday Guided Gallery District Tour: Developing a Critical Eye” Meet at Manna Gallery, 473 25th St, Oakl; oaklandartmurmur.org/walking-tours. 2-4pm, free. Free guided walking tour of several galleries in Uptown Oakland.

“Valentine’s Day Weekend at Playland-Not-at-the-Beach” Playland-Not-at-the-Beach, 10979 San Pablo, El Cerrito; www.playland-not-at-the-beach.org. Sat/15-Mon/17, 10am-5pm. $10-15. Special Valentine’s-themed games and prizes in addition to all of the arcade’s usual attractions: pinball, amusement devices, penny arcades, and more.

SUNDAY 16

“Ex Postal Facto Lectures” Koret Auditorium, San Francisco Main Library, 100 Larkin, SF; www.sfpl.org. 1-4:30pm, free. Correspondence art is the topic of this lecture series, with panels entitled “The History of West Coast Mail Art” and “Artistamps and Their Makers: Seeing the World in Miniature,” plus a reception and “passport stamping.” Participants include artists Lowell Darling, Leslie Caldera, Carl Chew, and Anna Banana, as well as James Cline, James Felter, Harley, and Ginny Lloyd.

TUESDAY 18

“Capp Street Project’s 30th Birthday Party” CCA Wattis Institute for Contemporary Arts, 350 Kansas, SF; www.wattis.org. 8pm, free. Celebrate the groundbreaking visual-arts residency program Capp Street Project with 1980s jams, a display of custom-crafted piñatas by Capp Street alum, and more.

Peter Mountford Booksmith, 1644 Haight, SF; www.booksmith.com. 7:30pm, free. The author reads from The Dismal Science and discusses his work with Peter Orner. *

Alerts: February 5 – 11, 2014

Michael Redmond

-

February 4, 2014

0

THURSDAY 6

Speaking event: After the Arab Spring 312 Sutter, 2nd Floor Auditorium, SF. www.globalexchange.org/events. 7-8pm, $15 or $5 for students. Three years ago, the Arab Spring started with a single protest in Tunisia and quickly spread across the rest of the region, bringing with it promise of a brighter future. As part of the national Engage America Series, internationally renowned blogger and professor Marc Lynch will discuss the current state of affairs in the Middle East, what’s gone wrong across the region, and what it means for the United States.

FRIDAY 7

Speaking Event: Islamaphobia Holy Spirit Parish, 2700 Dwight Way, Berk. (510) 499-0537. 7pm, free. Newman Nonviolent Peacemakers and the Fr. Bill O’Donnell Social Justice Committee are honored to present Attorney Zahre Billoo, who will examine the roots of anti-Muslim hate (or Islamaphobia), the funding which makes it possible, how it overlaps with other forms of bigotry, and how best to challenge it.

SATURDAY 8

LGBTQ Rally for Winter Olympics UN Plaza, 7th St and Market, SF. maketheworldbetterSF@gmail.com. 11-1pm, free. Show your support for the victims of escalating fascism in Russia on the opening day of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. Recent legislation from the Kremlin unfairly persecutes the LGBTQ community in Russia, with sweeping laws that repress virtually any expression of queerness. Join the rally — and stand up for people who are prohibited for standing up for themselves.

Citywide Tenant Convention Tenderloin Community School, 627 Turk, SF. www.sftu.org. 12pm, free. The San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition was formed by tenant organizations and their allies, who banded together and led the successful fight to curb condo conversions. Its mission is to organize against soaring evictions and rent increases which have resulted in the displacement of thousands of residents. Help build tenant power in SF, and participate in crafting a ballot measure to protect tenant concerns.

Stop privatization of public goods Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, 2868 Mission, SF. (415) 282-1908. 1-6pm, $10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds). Veolia is a multinational corporation that works to privatize water supply, waste management, transport services, and energy. They are currently pushing for water privatization in Richmond, CA, working against unions and environmental groups. A Veolia VP was also hired to represent BART management during the recent negotiations. Educate yourself and learn more by attending this conference.

Alerts: January 29 – February 4, 2014

Michael Redmond

-

January 28, 2014

0

WEDNESDAY 29

“Flying Paper” film screening and discussion Mission Cultural Center, 2868 Mission, SF. www.missionculturalcenter.org. 7pm, $5–$20 sliding scale. “Flying Paper” is the uplifting story of Palestinian children in Gaza on a quest to shatter the Guinness World Record for the most kites ever flown. It showcases the creative resilience of these children despite the difficult realities in their daily lives. The film was co-produced with young Palestinians in Gaza, trained by the filmmakers through a youth media program called Voices Beyond Walls. Featuring a discussion with co-director Roger Hill.

“We are Palestine” film screening ANSWER Coalition Office, 2969 Mission, SF. www.ANSWERsf.org. 7-8:30pm, $5–$10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds.) “We are Palestinian” was filmed in 1973 and includes an excellent chronology of events leading to the establishment of Israel by using rare historical footage. The film also explains the role of Britain and the US in establishing and supporting the Israeli state, and documents the resistance by the Palestinian people against settlement and expulsion. A discussion will follow the film led by Richard Becker, author of “Palestine, Israel and the US Empire.”

FRIDAY 31

International Day of Action Against Corporate Globalization San Francisco Federal Building, 90 Seventh St, SF. www.tradejustice.ca/tpp/jan31. 4:30pm, free. Join a broad coalition of community, environmental and social justice groups in protest against Fast Track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that has been described as “NAFTA on steroids.” Protesters will meet at Congresswomen Pelosi’s office, then peacefully march to Senator Feinstein’s office at One Post, SF.

SATURDAY 1

Una Plaza Para la Comunidad/A Plaza for the Community Sixteenth and Mission BART Plaza. 1-3pm, free. This gathering, hosted by The Plaza 16 Coalition/La Plaza 16 Coalición, is being called to advocate for the use of the 1979 Mission SF site to supply much-needed affordable housing for the neighborhood, as well as more public spaces and a local ecosystem of mom and pop business that can meet the needs of the neighborhood. The coalition feels that the proposed $82 million development with 351 housing units does not meet the need for affordable housing.

SUNDAY 2

What’s happening to City College of San Francisco? Niebyl-Proctor Marxist Library, 6501 Telegraph, Oakl. Gene Ruyle (510) 428-1578. 10:30am-12:30pm, free but donations are welcomed. CCSF has been under extreme pressure from a private accrediting agency that is threatening to close the college. Rick Baum, a part-time instructor of Political Science at CCSF for over 15 years, will give an overview of the current situation that CCSF is facing, and answer questions.

Nickels and dimes… or transit for our times?

Michael Redmond

-

January 21, 2014

14

STREET FIGHT Much has been written about the so-called “Google buses” and San Francisco’s latest round of gentrification. It’s a horrible mess and the city’s trifling $1 charge per bus stop will do little to address the broader structural problem that these buses lay bare.

Ordinary people cannot ride them, nor do the people who clean and cook for the tech world. Like tour buses, they are clunky and inappropriate for many neighborhood streets. While they do substitute for some car trips, an ad hoc private transit system does not reflect the kind of thoughtful regional planning needed to truly reduce car use in the Bay Area.

But the controversy over the private commuter buses does show that there is great potential for a public regional express bus system. Consider that in 1980, 9 percent of commuters in San Francisco left the city every day to go to work. In 2010, outbound commuters approached 25 percent. Owing to regional political fragmentation, Muni cannot provide intercounty service and thus is not the travel mode of choice for many of these commuters. And although Caltrain and BART offer some regional service, the sprawling locations of suburban firms often make regional rail impractical or at the very least time-consuming owing to unavoidable multiple transfers to local buses.

So in noteworthy ways, the rise of private transit is an immediate reaction to poor regional transit connections. Yet rather than sidestepping failed regional planning by encouraging an inequitable, two-tiered, private system, we need to expand and regionalize the existing public bus systems. San Francisco’s mayor and Board of Supervisors have seats at the table of regional planning and ought to use the controversy over private buses as an opportunity to kickstart the implementation of a regional public bus system accessible to all.

For example, something like AC Transit’s Transbay routes should be extended through San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, perhaps operated by BART or Caltrain as part of the next iteration of Plan Bay Area. This network would use reallocated express lanes on 101 and I-280 and use transit priority lanes on arterials like 19th Avenue in San Francisco and El Camino Real in San Mateo. Regional property assessments on the corporations and developers, in part already possible within the existing BART district (one should be created for Caltrain), could be used to fund such a system. Congestion charging on 101 and I-280 should also be deployed and those funds used for electrifying Caltrain and developing the parallel and complementary regional bus system.

Of course there will be opposition to a regional public bus system as there already is to progressive regional planning. Transit-connected, walkable communities in the South Bay, for example, have been made all but illegal by decades of conservative middle and upper class, anti-density, anti-tax homeowners in suburban localities. As recently as last year, this Tea Party-style conservative politics dampened Plan Bay Area, resulting in a weak regional housing plan with an underfunded and lackluster transit vision. This conservative approach stifles our collective sense of what is possible and the fear-mongering has rendered regional planners virtually impotent. Yet it can and must be overcome.

Some progressives may find it convenient (and in some cases justifiable) to target tech workers right now, but they could also direct energy into shaping the next round of Plan Bay Area. Remember that Plan Bay Area is a living document, a work in progress. The current version of the plan, weak on transit funding, has been subdued by a loud, irrational mob of Tea Party cranks bent on sabotaging anything that hints of progressive ideas. Plan Bay Area is also stifled by a regional business class that wants to keep the status quo and that is comfortable with the neoliberal model of private transit.

So while a smattering of dedicated and hard-working progressive transit activists showed up and attempted to shape Plan Bay Area last year, in the coming years the plan needs a broader progressive movement — including transit, housing, social justice, and environmental activists — to demand a more visionary regional transportation plan that connects all of the Bay Area. I am hopeful that this would not only steer regional planning in a progressive direction, but many of the tech workers who are now on the private buses would gladly join in the cause.

THE POLITICS OF SUNDAY PARKING

Speaking of hopeful, last month the SFMTA reported that Sunday metering, implemented last January, is a resounding success. Switching-on the meters doubled parking availability on Sundays, which is invariably what small businesses, most of which are open on Sunday, want to see.

Sunday meters increased the number of cars using city-owned garages and decreased the time cars circled in search of parking from an average of four minutes to two — de-cluttering streets in commercial districts. While this might seem like a boon to drivers, it also means less pollution, safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, less delay for Muni, and a much needed enhancement of revenue for operating public transit.

So it is mystifying that such success would be ignored by Mayor Ed Lee, who instead has proposed to discontinue Sunday metering. This is doubly confusing because, based on existing travel behavior to many commercial districts, 25 percent of people arrived by driving, while 31 percent took transit and 25 percent walked. So what the mayor is effectively saying to the pedestrian and transit-using majority is you matter little. What does matter is the few whining motorists who called him to complain about being “nickel and dimed.”

The mayor talks a good game when saying he is truly concerned about pedestrian and cyclist safety, and insisting that he wants to fix Muni. But gutting a reliable source of operating funds and pandering to car drivers who will dangerously circle for parking is inconsistent.

Lee says money isn’t an issue because his proposed General Obligation bond (which must be approved by voters) will patch the lost revenue from Sunday metering. But the GO bond will incur further debt and only fund existing capital needs, while parking meters provide a debt-free steady revenue stream for Muni. It’s also slightly misleading because the bond would not cover Muni operations, while revenue from Sunday metering does pay for operations.

The mayor’s pandering also put the SFMTA Board of Directors, which has been working out parking management and Muni finance, on the spot. Ultimately, it has to vote to preserve or scrap Sunday metering in the coming months. Now the directors have to decide if they support transit-first or the mayor’s pandering.

Unfortunately, when it comes to parking policy, the way that the Board of Supervisors has behaved lately suggests it will either jump on the mayor’s bandwagon and pander to motorists or cower in silence as good public policy is trashed. Not a good situation at City Hall, where transit riders seem to be routinely thrown under the bus by the political establishment.

Street Fight is a monthly column by Jason Henderson, an urban geography professor at San Francisco State University.

Left turn?

Michael Redmond

-

January 14, 2014

27

rebecca@sfbg.com

Dan Siegel, an Oakland civil rights attorney and activist with a long history of working with radical leftist political movements, joined a group of more than 150 supporters in front of Oakland City Hall on Jan. 9 to announce his candidacy for mayor.

With this development, the mayor’s race in Oakland is sure to be closely watched by Bay Area progressives. Siegel’s bid represents a fresh challenge from the left against Mayor Jean Quan at a time when concerns about policing, intensifying gentrification, and economic inequality are on the rise.

Siegel is the latest in a growing list of challengers that includes Joe Tuman, a political science professor who finished fourth in the 2010 mayor’s race; Oakland City Councilmember Libby Schaaf; and Port Commissioner Bryan Parker.

In a campaign kickoff speech emphasizing the ideals of social and economic justice, Siegel laid out a platform designed “to make Oakland a safe city.” But he brought an unusual spin to this oft-touted goal, saying, “We need people to be safe from the despair and hopelessness that comes from poverty and long-term unemployment. We need safety for our tenants from unjust evictions and … gentrification.”

Siegel voiced support for raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour. He also called for shuttering Oakland’s recently approved Domain Awareness Center, a controversial surveillance hub that integrates closed circuit cameras, license plate recognition software, and other technological law enforcement tools funded by a $10.9 million grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security.

He spoke about pushing for improvements in public education “to level the playing field between children from affluent backgrounds and children from poor backgrounds,” and described his vision for reorganizing the Oakland Police Department to foster deeper community engagement.

Among Siegel’s supporters are East Bay organizers with a deep history of involvement in social justice campaigns. His campaign co-chair is Walter Reilly, a prominent Oakland National Lawyers Guild attorney who said he’s been involved with civil rights movements for years. “This is a continuation of that struggle,” Reilly told the Bay Guardian, adding that leadership affiliated with “a progressive and class-conscious movement” is sorely needed in Oakland.

Left Coast Communications was tapped as Siegel’s campaign consultant. Siegel’s communications director is Cat Brooks, an instrumental figure in Occupy Oakland and the grassroots movement that arose in response to the fatal BART police shooting of Oscar Grant, whose Onyx Organizing Committee is focused on racial justice issues.

Olga Miranda, an organizer with San Francisco janitors union, SEIU Local 87, also spoke on Siegel’s behalf during the kickoff event. “San Francisco has become for the rich, and we understand that,” she said. “But at the same time, Oakland isn’t even taking care of its own.”

Referencing a recent surge in Oakland housing prices due in part to an influx of renters priced out of San Francisco, she added, “Dan understands that if you live in Oakland, you should be able to stay in Oakland.”

Siegel’s decision to challenge Quan for the Mayor’s Office has attracted particular interest since he previously served as her legal advisor, but their relationship soured after a public disagreement.

In the fall of 2011, when the Occupy Oakland encampment materialized overnight in front of Oakland City Hall, Siegel resigned from his post as Quan’s adviser over a difference in opinion about her handling of the protest movement. Police crackdowns on Occupy, which resulted in violence and the serious injury of veteran Scott Olsen and others, made national headlines that year.

“I thought that the Occupy movement was a great opportunity for this country to really start to understand the issues of inequality in terms of wealth and power,” Siegel told the Bay Guardian when queried about that. “And I thought the mayor should embrace that movement, and become part of it and even become a leader of it. And obviously, that’s not what happened.”

Since then, his relationship with Quan has been “Cool. As in temperature, not like in hip,” he said during an interview. “I don’t want to make this personal. But we have a difference about policy and leadership.”

With Oakland’s second mayoral election under ranked-choice voting, the race could prove fascinating for Bay Area politicos. Also called instant runoff voting, the system allows voters to select their first, second, and third choice candidates. If nobody wins more than 50 percent of the vote, the last-place candidates are eliminated in subsequent rounds and their vote redistributed until one candidate crosses the majority threshold.

Quan, who ran on a progressive platform in 2010, was elected despite winning fewer first-place votes than her centrist opponent, former State Senate President Don Perata. She managed to eke out an electoral victory with a slim margin (51 percent versus Perata’s 49), after voting tallies buoyed her to the top with the momentum of second- and third-place votes, many gleaned from ballots naming Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan as first choice.

Early polling conducted by David Binder Research showed Quan to be in the lead with the ability to garner 32 percent of the vote, as compared with 22 percent for Tuman, who placed second. That’s despite Quan’s incredibly low approval ratings — 54 percent of respondents said they disapproved of her performance in office.

When Schaaf announced her candidacy in November, Robert Gammon of the East Bay Express opined, “Schaaf’s candidacy … likely will make it much more difficult for Quan to win, particularly if no true progressive candidate emerges in the months ahead.” But Siegel’s entry into the race means there is now a clear progressive challenger.

The Guardian endorsed Kaplan as first choice in 2010, and gave Quan a second-place endorsement. While there has been some speculation as to whether Kaplan would run this time around — the David Binder Research poll suggested she would be a formidable opponent to Quan — Kaplan, who is Oakland’s councilmember-at-large, hasn’t filed.

Siegel, meanwhile, cast his decision to run as part of a broader trend. “I feel that not only in Oakland, but across the country, things are really ripe for change,” he told the Guardian.

Indeed, one of the biggest recent national political stories has been the election of Kshama Sawana, a socialist who rose to prominence during the Occupy Wall Street movement, to the Seattle City Council.

“When you have a city like Oakland where so many people are in poverty or on the edge of poverty, or don’t have jobs or face evictions,” Siegel told us, “it’s no wonder that the social contract falls apart. It seems to me that what government should do is elevate the circumstances of all people, and particularly people who are poor and disadvantaged.”

BART approves contract, union threatens electoral challenges

Michael Redmond

-

January 7, 2014

0

The BART Board of Directors approved a modified contract with its two biggest labor unions on Jan. 2, an action that received faint praise and was followed up with implied threats from both sides, continuing one of the ugliest and most impactful Bay Area labor disputes in recent memory.

The four-year contract resolves a dispute over a paid family leave provision that BART officials say was mistakenly included in the contract that the unions negotiated and approved in November following two strikes and two workers being killed by a train that was being used to train possible replacement drivers on Oct. 19.

Recent negotiations yielded a contract with seven new provisions favorable to workers, including a $500 per employee bonus if ridership rises in the next six months and more pension and flex time options, in exchange for eliminating six weeks of paid leave for family emergencies.

The new contract was approved on a 8-1 vote, with new Director Zakhary Mallett the lone dissenter, continuing his staunchly anti-union stance. Newly elected President Joel Keller was quoted in a district statement put out afterward pledging to change the “process” to prevent future strikes.

“The Bay Area has been put through far too much and we owe it to our riders and the public to make the needed reforms to our contract negotiations process so mistakes are avoided in the future,” Keller said.

But from labor’s perspective, the problem wasn’t the “process,” but the actions taken by the Board of Directors; General Manager Grace Crunican; and Thomas Hock, the union-busting labor negotiator they hired for $400,000 — and the decision by BART to practice bargaining table brinksmanship backed up by a fatally flawed proposal to run limited replacement service to try to break the second strike.

A statement by SEIU Local 1021 Executive Director Pete Castelli put out after the vote began, “Today’s Board vote incrementally restores the faith that the riders and workers have lost in the Board of Directors, but it’s not enough to fix the damage they’ve caused to our communities.”

It goes on the blame the district for the strikes and closes with a vague threat to target the four directors who are up for election this year: Keller, James Fang, Thomas Blalock, and Robert Raburn (whose reelection launch party last month was disrupted by union members).

“Today BART is less safe and less reliable because of the Directors’ reckless leadership,” Castelli said. “Something has to change in order for all of us to regain our confidence in BART, and it starts with having BART Directors who are committed to strengthening the transportation system we all rely on and who prioritize its workers’ and riders’ safety. We look forward to the opportunity to work with our communities and to elect Directors who are committed to improving service and safety to all who depend on BART.”

Asked whether the union was indeed threatening to get involved in those four elections this year, spokesperson Cecille Isidro told the Guardian, “You’re absolutely right, that’s exactly what we’re trying to project.”

Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly took the threat a step further, singling out Mallett as by far the most caustic and anti-union director, saying the union is currently considering launching a recall campaign against Mallett, although that could be complicated by the fact that he represents pieces of three counties: San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa.

“He is so out-of-touch with the region. When he was elected, people didn’t know what they were getting,” Daly said, noting that voters elected Mallett over longtime incumbent Lynette Sweet in 2012 mostly out of opposition to her and not support for him. The Bay Guardian and others who endorsed Mallett have been critical of Mallett’s erratic actions since then, which included trying to raise fares within San Francisco without required social equity studies before becoming the most dogmatic critic of BART’s employee unions.

Daly was also particularly critical of Keller, who he accused of using today’s vote “to roll out his reelection campaign” with an anti-worker tenor. Mallett didn’t respond to Guardian requests for comment, but Keller told us he takes the union’s threat seriously.

“They’ll probably be successful,” Keller said of the impact that a serious union-backed challenge would have on his race. “If I lose my seat over this, I lose my seat.”

And by “this,” Keller means the likelihood that he’ll push for prohibiting BART employees from going on strike, which he said is already the case with the country’s four largest systems — Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC — which have deemed transit an essential service.

“Large transit agencies do not allow their employees to strike,” Keller said, noting that the San Francisco City Charter also bans transit strikes, something he pointed out Daly didn’t alter during his tenure on the Board of Supervisors.

And Keller said he’s willing to risk his seat to make that change: “I feel my responsibility is to use my remaining time to break this dysfunctional labor process.”

Daly cited a litany of grievances that could be corrected by new blood on the board. “The experience of the last 8-10 months elevates the importance of these BART Board races,” Daly told us. “They spent about $1 million to basically malign their workers and improve their negotiating position on the contract.”

SEIU Local 1021 members are slated to vote on the latest BART contract on Jan. 13.

No comments, but we’re working on it

Sasha Cuttler

-

January 3, 2014

12

If you’ve been trying to comment on our site and having trouble, no, I didn’t shut down our comments again. We’ve had some technical difficulties that now appear to be resolved, so you can finally have at The Rise of Candidate X, our cool Year in Evictions timeline, the union threat to go after BART directors, and other red meat that we were sorta surprised to see such silence on. Our bad.

P.S. We thought comments were back, but we hear some are still having trouble. We’re still working on it.

BART approves contract as tensions with its workers continue UPDATED

Sasha Cuttler

-

January 2, 2014

7

BART approves contract as tensions with its workers continue UPDATED

The BART Board of Directors today approved a modified contract with its two biggest labor unions, an action that received faint praise and was followed up with implied threats from both sides, continuing one of the ugliest and most impactful Bay Area labor disputes in recent memory.

The four-year contract approved today resolves a dispute over a paid family leave provision that BART officials say was mistakenly included in the contract that the unions negotiated and approved in November following two strikes and two workers being killed by a train that was being used to train possible replacement drivers on Oct. 19.

Recent negotiations yielded a contract with seven new provisions favorable to workers, including a $500 per employee bonus if ridership rises in the next six months and more pension and flex time options, in exchange for eliminating six weeks of paid leave for family emergencies.

The new contract was approved on a 8-1, with new Director Zakhary Mallett the lone dissenting vote, continuing his staunchly anti-union stance. Newly elected President Joel Keller was quoted in a district statement put out afterward pledging to change the “process” to prevent future strikes.

“The Bay Area has been put through far too much and we owe it to our riders and the public to make the needed reforms to our contract negotiations process so mistakes are avoided in the future. I will appoint a new Board committee to investigate the policies and practices of labor negotiations and will make recommendations to the Board and the General Manager on how we can improve the process,” Keller said.

But from labor’s perspective, the problem wasn’t the “process,” but the actions taken by the Board of Directors; General Manager Grace Crunican; and Thomas Hock, the union-busting labor negotiator they hired for $400,000 — and the decision by BART to practice bargaining table brinksmanship backed up by a fatally flawed proposal to run limited replacement service to try to break the second strike.

A statement by SEIU Local 1021 Executive Director Pete Castelli put out after the vote began, “Today’s Board vote incrementally restores the faith that the riders and workers have lost in the Board of Directors, but it’s not enough to fix the damage they’ve caused to our communities.”

It goes on the blame the district for the strikes and closes with a vague threat to target the four directors who are up for election this year: Keller, James Fang, Thomas Blalock, and Robert Raburn (whose reelection launch party last month was disrupted by union members).

“Today BART is less safe and less reliable because of the Directors’ reckless leadership,” Castelli said. “Something has to change in order for all of us to regain our confidence in BART, and it starts with having BART Directors who are committed to strengthening the transportation system we all rely on and who prioritize its workers’ and riders’ safety. We look forward to the opportunity to work with our communities and to elect Directors who are committed to improving service and safety to all who depend on BART.”

Asked whether the union was indeed threatening to get involved in those four elections this year, spokesperson Cecille Isidro told the Guardian, “You’re absolutely right, that’s exactly what we’re trying to project.”

Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly took the threat a step further, singling out Mallett as by far the most caustic and anti-union director, saying the union is currently considering launching a recall campaign against Mallett, although that could be complicated by the fact that he represents pieces of three counties: San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa.

“He is so out-of-touch with the region. When he was elected, people didn’t know what they were getting,” Daly said, noting that voters elected Mallett over longtime incumbent Lynette Sweet in 2012 mostly out of opposition to her and not support for him. The Bay Guardian and others who endorsed Mallett have been critical of Mallett’s erratic actions since then, which included trying to raise fares within San Francisco without required social equity studies before becoming the most dogmattic critic of BART’s employee unions.

Daly was also particularly critical of Keller, who he accused of using today’s vote “to roll out his reelection campaign” with an anti-worker tenor. Neither Keller nor Mallett immediately responded to Guardian requests for comment, but we’ll update this post if and when we hear from them [see UPDATE below].

Daly cited a litany of grievances that could be corrected by new blood on a board that has seen little changeover in the modern era, from hiring Crunican (who Daly called “a terrible hire”) and Hock to conflating the district’s capital and operating budgets during the current negotiations, trying to expand the system on the backs of workers using an aggressive media strategy.

“The experience of the last 8-10 months elevates the importance of these BART Board races,” Daly told us. “They spent about $1 million to basically malign their workers and improve their negotiating position on the contract.”

BART spokesperson Alicia Trost denied that the district has been hostile to it workers, telling the Guardian, “From the beginning, we negotiated in good faith and we always tried to strike a balance between investing in the employees and investing in the system.”

In addition to the unions targeting directors in this November’s election, the district is also awaiting a ruling from the National Transportation Safety Board on its responsibility for the Oct. 19 fatalities, as well as facing scrutiny from the California Legislature, particularly its Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment, whose members criticized BART’s lax safety culture during a Nov. 7 hearing.

Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-SF) called that hearing and criticized BART officials there for failing to provide requested safety information, requiring them to submit that information in writing, which he says still wasn’t adequte. “It was very difficult to decipher,” Ting told the Guardian recently.

Once the Legislature comes back into session on Jan. 6, Ting said that, “We’ll have a clearer idea whether we need more hearings.”

Meanwhile, SEIU Local 1021 members are slated to vote on the latest BART contract on Jan. 13.

UPDATE 1/3: Keller got back to us and admitted that if the unions really target him for removal in a serious way, “they’ll probably be successful.” He was fatalistic about that possibility, repeatedly voicing acceptance of that prospect: “If I lose my seat over this, I lose my seat.”

And by “this,” Keller means the likelihood that he’ll push for prohibiting BART employees from going on strike, which he said is already the case with the country’s four largest systems — Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC — which have deemed transit an essential service.

“Large transit agencies do not allow their employees to strike,” Keller said, noting that the San Francisco City Charter also bans transit strikes, something he pointed out Daly didn’t alter during his tenure on the Board of Supervisors.

And Keller said he’s willing to risk his seat to make that change: “I feel my responsibility is to use my remaining time to break this dysfunction labor process.”

Keller also said that there were mistakes on both sides during BART’s labor impasse, including BART’s decision to train replacement drivers to offer service between Oakland and San Francisco during a strike. “Maybe the prospect of training replacement drivers was a mistake, and I’ll accept that responsibility,” Keller told us.

He explained the ill-fated decision by saying, “We were in a hardball environment,” which he said both sides contributed to.

In SF and Oakland, activists block tech buses to protest displacement

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee

-

December 20, 2013

152

Between 70 and 100 protesters gathered at 24th and Valencia streets this morning (Fri/20) for yet another blockade of a private tech shuttle, this time to protest evictions in the city of San Francisco.

The activists, who were from Eviction Free San Francisco, Our Mission No Eviction, Causa Justa / Just Cause and others, stood in front of a white shuttle bus holding banners and signs. Some peeked through cardboard signs fashioned in the shape of place markers on Google maps, with “Evicted” written across the front.

The shuttle was bound for “Main Campus Ridgeview,” a hint that it was operated by Apple. While there was no contact between the bus passengers and the protesters, a few sitting inside the bus could be seen capturing the scene outside with their iPhones.

With chants of, “What do we want? No Eviction!” And, “Get off the bus! Join us!” The group of tenant advocates marched from the 24th Street BART station to the intersection, where Erin McElroy, who was an unwitting participant in union organizer Max Alper’s street theater performance during the Dec. 9 Google bus blockade, led the street rally on a megaphone.

“What we are against is eviction,” she said. “What we are against is the Ellis Act. We want the ruling class – which is becoming the tech class – to listen to our voices.”

Guardian video from today’s protest by Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez.

Patricia Kerman, who is facing an Ellis Act eviction from her apartment of 27 years at 20th and Folsom streets in the Mission, was among the speakers who shared personal stories during the blockade, which lasted around twenty minutes or so. She told the Bay Guardian that she is a senior on disability, with a “very low fixed income,” and has had no luck finding alternative housing since she received an eviction notice. “He doesn’t understand that a roof over my head is more important than money in my pocket,” she said, referring to her landlord.

Paula Tejada, who is also facing eviction, said having rent control made it possible for her to get into a financial position to open her small business, Chile Lindo, a Mission District empanada shop near 16th and Capp streets. “I am once again proud of the Mission that stands for what is right,” she said of that morning’s action. “Not everyone is taking this lying down.” She added, “if you want homogeneous, go live in the suburbs.”

Mariko Drew and Anabelle Bolanos had turned out with Our Mission No Eviction. Drew, who described herself as a longtime resident, said the bus was “a symbol of the privatization and increasing separation between the poor and the rich.” Bolanos chimed in, “It’s a constant reminder of how … our mayor and our local government has sold us out. [Mayor] Ed Lee is letting money make decisions.”

Highly visible activism around eviction and displacement has fueled new policy proposals, such as Mayor Ed Lee’s recent announcement that affordable housing development would be prioritized.

Meanwhile, the Bay Guardian received reports that across the bay, two separate blockades of Google buses took place at Oakland BART stations.

According to a post on IndyBay, a Google bus was blocked at MacArthur BART station at 7:45am in Oakland. There have also been reports that activists blocked a tech shuttle in West Oakland.

When the Bay Guardian asked several protesters who were involved in the San Francisco action if there had been any coordination between the actions, they responded that there was not.

At the San Francisco protest, police showed up on the scene and asked people to step onto the sidewalk. The Apple bus departed and the protest concluded without incident.

The Gbus minus window. pic.twitter.com/qfMnzFgiLf

— Craig Frost (@craigsfrost) December 20, 2013

This window was allegedly broken during the protest of this Google bus in Oakland.

Protesters blocking the Google bus at MacArthur BART station in Oakland.

The Gbus minus window. #googlebus #protest pic.twitter.com/dklgVTM6BD

— Urban San Jose (@urbansanjose) December 20, 2013

Music Listing: Dec. 18-24, 2013

Jesse Hawthorne Ficks

-

December 18, 2013

0

WEDNESDAY 18

ROCK

Bottom of the Hill: 1233 17th St., San Francisco. Holograms, TV Ghost, G. Green, 9 p.m., $10-$12.

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. The Sweet Bones, Sam Code & The Gums, Edge City Ruins, Johns, Jack Graves, 9 p.m., $5-$7.

Cafe Du Nord: 2170 Market, San Francisco. MoonFox, Spider Heart, Lady Stardust, DJ Neil Martinson, 8:30 p.m., $8.

The Chapel: 777 Valencia St., San Francisco. Holidaze with The Blank Tapes, The Electric Magpie, The Spiral Electric, Assateague, 8 p.m., $12.

El Rio: 3158 Mission, San Francisco. Neon Anyway, The Threads S.F., Clementine’s Day, 8 p.m., $5.

Hemlock Tavern: 1131 Polk, San Francisco. The Kaizoku, Largesse, 8:30 p.m., $5.

Hotel Utah: 500 Fourth St., San Francisco. The Shams Eire, The Guverment, Another Tangent, Paul Magill, 8 p.m., $5.

The Knockout: 3223 Mission, San Francisco. The Riflemen, Nasty Christmas, Names, Richard Toomer, 9:30 p.m., $6.

Milk Bar: 1840 Haight, San Francisco. Owl Paws, Yassou Benedict, Fell Runner, Sunhaze, 9 p.m., $5.

DANCE

Beaux: 2344 Market, San Francisco. “BroMance: A Night Out for the Fellas,” 9 p.m., free.

The Cafe: 2369 Market, San Francisco. “Sticky Wednesdays,” w/ DJ Mark Andrus, 8 p.m., free.

Cat Club: 1190 Folsom, San Francisco. “Bondage A Go Go,” w/ DJs Damon, Tomas Diablo, & guests, 9:30 p.m., $5-$10.

Club X: 715 Harrison, San Francisco. “Electro Pop Rocks: The EPR Nightmare Before Christmas,” 18+ dance night, 9 p.m., $15 advance.

The EndUp: 401 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Tainted Techno Trance,” 10 p.m.

F8: 1192 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Housepitality,” w/ Guillaume & The Coutu Dumonts, Dave Aju, Tyrel Williams, Mike Bee, 9 p.m., $5-$10.

Harlot: 46 Minna, San Francisco. “Qoöl,” 5 p.m.

Infusion Lounge: 124 Ellis, San Francisco. “Indulgence,” 10 p.m.

Lookout: 3600 16th St., San Francisco. “What?,” w/ resident DJ Tisdale and guests, 7 p.m., free.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “Rock the Spot,” 9 p.m., free.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. “Burn Down the Disco,” w/ DJs 2shy-shy & Melt w/U, Third Wednesday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

MatrixFillmore: 3138 Fillmore, San Francisco. “Reload,” w/ DJ Big Bad Bruce, 10 p.m., free.

Q Bar: 456 Castro, San Francisco. “Booty Call,” w/ Juanita More, Joshua J, guests, 9 p.m., $3.

Showdown: 10 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Nokturnal,” w/ DJs Coyle & Gonya, Third Wednesday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

HIP-HOP

Skylark Bar: 3089 16th St., San Francisco. “Mixtape Wednesday,” w/ resident DJs Strategy, Junot, Herb Digs, & guests, 9 p.m., $5.

Slate Bar: 2925 16th St., San Francisco. “Special Blend,” w/ resident DJs LazyBoy & Mr. Murdock, 9 p.m., free.

ACOUSTIC

Cafe Divine: 1600 Stockton, San Francisco. Craig Ventresco & Meredith Axelrod, 7 p.m., free.

Club Deluxe: 1511 Haight, San Francisco. Happy Hour Bluegrass, 6:30 p.m., free.

Fiddler’s Green: 1333 Columbus, San Francisco. Terry Savastano, Every other Wednesday, 9:30 p.m., free/donation.

Plough & Stars: 116 Clement, San Francisco. Annie Corbett, 9 p.m.

The Rite Spot Cafe: 2099 Folsom, San Francisco. Quinn DeVeaux, 8:30 p.m., free.

JAZZ

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. Gaucho, Eric Garland’s Jazz Session, The Amnesiacs, 7 p.m., free.

Burritt Room: 417 Stockton St., San Francisco. Terry Disley’s Rocking Jazz Trio, 6 p.m., free.

The Independent: 628 Divisadero, San Francisco. Charlie Hunter & Scott Amendola Duo, DJ Harry Duncan, 8 p.m., $20.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Charles Unger Experience, 7:30 p.m., free.

Le Colonial: 20 Cosmo, San Francisco. The Cosmo Alleycats featuring Ms. Emily Wade Adams, 7 p.m., free.

Revolution Cafe: 3248 22nd St., San Francisco. Michael Parsons Trio, Every other Wednesday, 8:30 p.m., free/donation.

Savanna Jazz Club: 2937 Mission, San Francisco. “Cat’s Corner,” 9 p.m., $10.

Sheba Piano Lounge: 1419 Fillmore, San Francisco. Fran Sholly, 8 p.m.

Top of the Mark: One Nob Hill, 999 California, San Francisco. Ricardo Scales, Wednesdays, 6:30-11:30 p.m., $5.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Anya Malkiel, 7:30 p.m., free.

INTERNATIONAL

Bissap Baobab: 3372 19th St., San Francisco. Timba Dance Party, w/ DJ WaltDigz, 10 p.m., $5.

Cafe Cocomo: 650 Indiana, San Francisco. “Bachatalicious,” w/ DJs Good Sho & Rodney, 7 p.m., $5-$10.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. VOENA: Voices of the Season, 7 p.m., $14-$21.

BLUES

Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. HowellDevine, 8 & 10 p.m., $15.

The Royal Cuckoo: 3202 Mission, San Francisco. Big Bones & Chris Siebert, 7:30 p.m., free.

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Leah Tysse, 9:30 p.m.

SOUL

Boom Boom Room: 1601 Fillmore, San Francisco. “Soul Train Revival,” w/ Ziek McCarter, Third Wednesday of every month, 9:30 p.m., $5.

Elbo Room: 647 Valencia, San Francisco. Myron & E, New Love Soul Revue, The Selecter DJ Kirk, 9 p.m., $8.

THURSDAY 19

ROCK

Boom Boom Room: 1601 Fillmore, San Francisco. Caught a Ghost, The Coffis Brothers & The Mountain Men, 9:30 p.m., $8-$10.

Bottom of the Hill: 1233 17th St., San Francisco. Good Riddance, Cobra Skulls, Western Addiction, 9 p.m., $13-$15.

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. Midnight Nasties, Working from Home, 9 p.m., $5-$7.

DNA Lounge: 375 11th St., San Francisco. Blood on the Dance Floor, Davey Suicide, The Relapse Symphony, Haley Rose, Lionfight, Kat Haus, 7 p.m., $17-$20.

S.F. Eagle: 398 12th St., San Francisco. Victory & Associates, Sit Kitty Sit, Winter Teeth, The Secret Secretaries, 9 p.m., $8.

Hemlock Tavern: 1131 Polk, San Francisco. Everyone Is Dirty, Frozen Folk, Light Thieves, 8:30 p.m., $6.

Hotel Utah: 500 Fourth St., San Francisco. Manzanita Falls, Ash Thursday, 9 p.m., $7.

Milk Bar: 1840 Haight, San Francisco. Should We Run, The Tropics, Gotaway Girl, 8:30 p.m., $8.

DANCE

Abbey Tavern: 4100 Geary, San Francisco. DJ Schrobi-Girl, 10 p.m., free.

Audio Discotech: 316 11th St., San Francisco. “Trap City,” w/ Kennedy Jones, UltraViolet, Harris Pilton, Napsty, Lé Swndle, more, 10 p.m., $10-$20.

Aunt Charlie’s Lounge: 133 Turk, San Francisco. “Tubesteak Connection,” w/ DJ Bus Station John, 9 p.m., $5-$7.

The Cafe: 2369 Market, San Francisco. “¡Pan Dulce!,” 9 p.m., $5.

Cat Club: 1190 Folsom, San Francisco. “Throwback Thursdays,” ‘80s night with DJs Damon, Steve Washington, Dangerous Dan, and guests, 9 p.m., $6 (free before 9:30 p.m.).

The Cellar: 685 Sutter, San Francisco. “XO,” w/ DJs Astro & Rose, 10 p.m., $5.

Club X: 715 Harrison, San Francisco. “The Crib,” 9:30 p.m., $10, 18+.

Elbo Room: 647 Valencia, San Francisco. “Afrolicious,” w/ DJs Pleasuremaker, Señor Oz, and live guests, 9:30 p.m., $5-$8.

F8: 1192 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Beat Church,” w/ Knowa Lusion, Tiger Fresh, Spekt1, Releece, Morzfeen, more, 10 p.m., $5-$10.

Harlot: 46 Minna, San Francisco. Marques Wyatt, 9 p.m.

Infusion Lounge: 124 Ellis, San Francisco. “I Love Thursdays,” 10 p.m., $10.

John Colins: 138 Minna, San Francisco. “SoLuna,” w/ resident DJ Miquel Penn, Third Thursday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

Laszlo: 2532 Mission, San Francisco. “Werk It,” w/ DJ Kool Karlo, Third Thursday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “Night Fever,” 9 p.m., $5 after 10 p.m.

Monarch: 101 6th St., San Francisco. Together, Typhoon Haiyan benefit with Worthy, Atish, Bells & Whistles, Elz, Papa Lu, Joey Alaniz, DJ Bluz, DJ Vinroc, Mr. E, The Whooligan, more., 7 p.m., donation.

Neck of the Woods: 406 Clement St., San Francisco. Blaus, on the downstairs stage, 10 p.m. continues through Dec. 26, free with RSVP.

Q Bar: 456 Castro, San Francisco. “Throwback Thursday,” w/ DJ Jay-R, 9 p.m., free.

Raven: 1151 Folsom St., San Francisco. “1999,” w/ VJ Mark Andrus, 8 p.m., free.

Rickshaw Stop: 155 Fell, San Francisco. “Popscene,” w/ Wild Cub, Aaron Axelsen, 10 p.m., $13-$15.

Ruby Skye: 420 Mason, San Francisco. “Awakening,” w/ Adrian Lux, 9 p.m., $20-$30 advance.

The Tunnel Top: 601 Bush, San Francisco. “Tunneltop,” DJs Avalon and Derek ease you into the weekend with a cool and relaxed selection of tunes spun on vinyl, 10 p.m., free.

Underground SF: 424 Haight, San Francisco. “Bubble,” 10 p.m., free.

Vessel: 85 Campton, San Francisco. “Base,” w/ DJs Alessandro, Rooz, and John Kaberna, 10 p.m., $5-$10.

HIP-HOP

1015 Folsom: 1015 Folsom St., San Francisco. Yasiin Bey aka Mos Def, Kev Choice, Jahi, DJ D-Sharp, Mr. E, DJ Leydis, 9 p.m., $25-$35 advance.

Eastside West: 3154 Fillmore, San Francisco. “Throwback Thursdays,” w/ DJ Madison, 9 p.m., free.

The EndUp: 401 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Cypher,” w/ resident DJ Big Von, 10 p.m., $5-$10.

Showdown: 10 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Tougher Than Ice,” w/ DJs Vin Sol, Ruby Red I, and Jeremy Castillo, Third Thursday of every month, 10 p.m.

Skylark Bar: 3089 16th St., San Francisco. “Peaches,” w/ lady DJs DeeAndroid, Lady Fingaz, That Girl, Umami, Inkfat, and Andre, 10 p.m., free.

ACOUSTIC

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. The Amigos Band, Ben Flocks, 7:30 p.m., $7-$10.

Atlas Cafe: 3049 20th St., San Francisco. Bluegrass & Old-Time Music Jam Session, 8 p.m., free.

Bazaar Cafe: 5927 California, San Francisco. Acoustic Open Mic, 7 p.m.

Cigar Bar & Grill: 850 Montgomery, San Francisco. The Neckbeard Boys, 8 p.m.

The Independent: 628 Divisadero, San Francisco. Nat Keefe Concert Carnival, w/ Tim Carbone, Tim Flannery, The T Sisters, Melody Walker & Jacob Groopman, Matt Sharkey, The Coeds, members of Hot Buttered Rum, DJ Shooey, more, 8 p.m., $20-$35.

The Lost Church: 65 Capp St., San Francisco. The Scrap on Capp: Songwriter Grudge Match, w/ Maurice Tani vs. Paul Griffiths, 8 p.m., $10.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. Parker Gibbs’ Annual Holiday Craptacular, S.F. Food Bank can drive featuring Marc & The Casuals, Mark Eitzel, Kelley Stoltz, Paula Frazer, Joel Robinow, Justin Frahm, more, 7 p.m., $15 plus non-perishable food item.

Plough & Stars: 116 Clement, San Francisco. Emperor Norton Céilí Band, 9 p.m.

JAZZ

Blush! Wine Bar: 476 Castro, San Francisco. Doug Martin’s Avatar Ensemble, 7:30 p.m., free.

Bottle Cap: 1707 Powell, San Francisco. The North Beach Sound with Ned Boynton, Jordan Samuels, and Tom Vickers, 7 p.m., free.

Cafe Claude: 7 Claude, San Francisco. Dick Fregulia’s Good Vibes Trio, 7:30 p.m., free.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Eugene Pliner Quartet with Tod Dickow, First and Third Thursday of every month, 7:30 p.m., free.

Le Colonial: 20 Cosmo, San Francisco. Steve Lucky & The Rhumba Bums, 7:30 p.m.

The Lucky Horseshoe: 453 Cortland, San Francisco. Ralph Carney’s Serious Jass Project, 9 p.m.

Pier 23 Cafe: Pier 23, San Francisco. Grant Levin Group, 7 p.m., free.

The Royal Cuckoo: 3202 Mission, San Francisco. Charlie Siebert & Chris Siebert, 7:30 p.m., free.

Savanna Jazz Club: 2937 Mission, San Francisco. Savanna Jazz Jam with Eddy Ramirez, 7:30 p.m., $5.

Top of the Mark: One Nob Hill, 999 California, San Francisco. Stompy Jones, 7:30 p.m., $10.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Barbara Ochoa, 7:30 p.m., free.

INTERNATIONAL

Bissap Baobab: 3372 19th St., San Francisco. “Pa’Lante!,” w/ Juan G, El Kool Kyle, Mr. Lucky, 10 p.m., $5.

Cafe Cocomo: 650 Indiana, San Francisco. Bembe, DJ Good Sho, 8 p.m., $12.

Jewish Community Center of San Francisco: 3200 California, San Francisco. “Celebrating Cuba,” w/ Vission Latina, 7 p.m., free with RSVP (required), arts@jccsf.org.

Pachamama Restaurant: 1630 Powell, San Francisco. “Jueves Flamencos,” 8 p.m., free.

Sheba Piano Lounge: 1419 Fillmore, San Francisco. Gary Flores & Descarga Caliente, 8 p.m.

Verdi Club: 2424 Mariposa, San Francisco. The Verdi Club Milonga, w/ Christy Coté, DJ Emilio Flores, guests, 9 p.m., $10-$15.

REGGAE

Pissed Off Pete’s: 4528 Mission St., San Francisco. Reggae Thursdays, w/ resident DJ Jah Yzer, 9 p.m., free.

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. Bayonics, Native Elements, Da Mainland, DJ Mr. Lucky, 9 p.m., $14.

BLUES

50 Mason Social House: 50 Mason, San Francisco. Bill Phillippe, 5:30 p.m., free.

Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. Jules Leyhe, 7:30 & 9:30 p.m., $15.

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Chris Ford, Third Thursday of every month, 4 p.m.; Craig Horton, 9:30 p.m.

COUNTRY

The Parlor: 2801 Leavenworth, San Francisco. “Twang Honky Tonk & Country Jamboree,” w/ DJ Little Red Rodeo, 7 p.m., free.

EXPERIMENTAL

The Luggage Store: 1007 Market, San Francisco. Dave DeFilippo, Joshua Marshall, 8 p.m., $6-$10.

FUNK

Cafe Du Nord: 2170 Market, San Francisco. Black Christmas with the Afrofunk Experience & Broun Fellinis, 8:30 p.m., $8.

SOUL

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. “Sugar Snap,” w/ DJ JZA, Third Thursday of every month, 6 p.m., free; “Soul: It’s the Real Thing,” 11 p.m., free.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. Sweet Soul Christmas with Greg Adams & East Bay Soul, 8 p.m., $25.

FRIDAY 20

ROCK

Bottom of the Hill: 1233 17th St., San Francisco. Eric McFadden & Friends, The Pleasure Kills, The Campbell Apartment, 9:30 p.m., $10-$12.

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. Freestone Peaches, Pat Nevins, 9 p.m., $7-$10.

Cafe Du Nord: 2170 Market, San Francisco. Icewater, Eleanor Friedberger, Michael & The Strange Land, Proceeds benefit a fund established in Grant Martin’s memory to provide music assistance for underprivileged students., 9:30 p.m., $10-$15.

El Rio: 3158 Mission, San Francisco. Friday Live: Steel Hotcakes, DJ Emotions, 10 p.m., free.

Elbo Room: 647 Valencia, San Francisco. The El Vez & Rosie Flores Mexmas Show, w/ Toshio Hirano, DJ Sid Presley, 9 p.m., $15-$18.

Hotel Utah: 500 Fourth St., San Francisco. The Night Falls, The Desert Line, The Beggars Who Give, Bears for Sharks, 9 p.m., $8.

The Independent: 628 Divisadero, San Francisco. The Growlers, The Abigails, Mystic Braves, 9 p.m., $20.

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. Exodus, Nails, Hellfire, 8 p.m., $25.

DANCE

1015 Folsom: 1015 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Re:Creation,” w/ Purity Ring (DJ set), Giraffage, Sweater Beats, Insightful, B. Lewis, Pony Bwoy, DJ Dials, more, 10 p.m., $15-$20 advance.

Audio Discotech: 316 11th St., San Francisco. Pezzner, Fred Everything, 9:30 p.m., $10 advance.

BeatBox: 314 11th St., San Francisco. “Bears in the Dark,” w/ DJ John LePage, 10 p.m., $5-$10.

Cafe Flore: 2298 Market, San Francisco. “Kinky Beats,” w/ DJ Sergio, 10 p.m., free.

The Cafe: 2369 Market, San Francisco. “Boy Bar,” w/ DJ Matt Consola, 9 p.m., $5.

Cat Club: 1190 Folsom, San Francisco. “Violator: A Depeche Mode Tribute Night,” w/ DJs Tomas Diablo, Daniel Skellington, and Sage, 9:30 p.m., $7 ($4 before 10 p.m.).

The Cellar: 685 Sutter, San Francisco. “F.T.S.: For the Story,” 10 p.m.

DNA Lounge: 375 11th St., San Francisco. “The End,” w/ Hieroglyphics, Wick-it the Instigator, Ill-Esha, K Theory, Sugarpill, Singularity, Sam F, Mutrix, Stylust Beats, Clark Kent, LabRat, J. Lately, many more, 8 p.m., $25-$35.

The EndUp: 401 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Fever,” 10 p.m., free before midnight.

The Grand Nightclub: 520 4th St., San Francisco. “We Rock Fridays,” 9:30 p.m.

Infusion Lounge: 124 Ellis, San Francisco. “Escape Fridays,” 10 p.m., $20.

Lookout: 3600 16th St., San Francisco. “HYSL,” 9 p.m., $3.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “That ‘80s Show,” w/ DJs Dave Paul & Jeff Harris, Third Friday of every month, 9 p.m., $5.

Manor West: 750 Harrison, San Francisco. “Fortune Fridays,” w/ DJ Solarz & Marcus Lee, 10 p.m.

MatrixFillmore: 3138 Fillmore, San Francisco. “F-Style Fridays,” w/ DJ Jared-F, 9 p.m.

Monarch: 101 6th St., San Francisco. “Disco Knights,” w/ Wolf + Lamb, DJ M3, Anthony Mansfield, 10 p.m., $15-$20 advance.

OMG: 43 6th St., San Francisco. “Release,” 9 p.m., free before 11 p.m.

Public Works: 161 Erie, San Francisco. “Odyssey,” w/ Matrixxman, Vin Sol, Robin Simmons (in the OddJob loft), 9:30 p.m., $10.

Q Bar: 456 Castro, San Francisco. “Pump: Worq It Out Fridays,” w/ resident DJ Christopher B, 9 p.m., $3.

Ruby Skye: 420 Mason, San Francisco. Fleming & Lawrence, aka John 00 Fleming & Christopher Lawrence, 9 p.m., $20-$25 advance.

Slate Bar: 2925 16th St., San Francisco. “A Darling Nikki/Hella Gay Soirée,” w/ DJs Durt, Finn, Black, and G-Star, 9 p.m., $5.

Underground SF: 424 Haight, San Francisco. “Bionic,” 10 p.m., $5.

Vessel: 85 Campton, San Francisco. Autoérotique, Justin Milla, 10 p.m., $10-$30.

Wish: 1539 Folsom, San Francisco. “Bridge the Gap,” w/ resident DJ Don Kainoa, Fridays, 6-10 p.m., free; “Depth,” w/ resident DJs Sharon Buck & Greg Yuen, Third Friday of every month, 10 p.m., free.

HIP-HOP

EZ5: 682 Commercial, San Francisco. “Decompression,” Fridays, 5-9 p.m.

John Colins: 138 Minna, San Francisco. “Juicy,” w/ DJ Ry Toast, Third Friday of every month, 10 p.m., $5 (free before 11 p.m.).

Mighty: 119 Utah, San Francisco. Mighty 10-Year Anniversary, w/ Triple Threat DJs Shortkut, Apollo, and Vinroc, 9 p.m., $5 (free before midnight with RSVP).

Public Works: 161 Erie, San Francisco. DJ Z-Trip, DJ Goldenchyld, J-Boogie, Ren the Vinyl Archaeologist, 9 p.m., $18.

Rickshaw Stop: 155 Fell, San Francisco. American Tripps Hip-Hop & Ping Pong: Ho-Ho-Ho Edition, w/ DJ Beauregard, 8 p.m., $5-$7.

Showdown: 10 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Fresh to Def Fridays: A Tribute to Yo! MTV Raps,” w/ resident DJs Boom Bostic, Inkfat, and Hay Hay, Third Friday of every month, 10 p.m.

ACOUSTIC

Bazaar Cafe: 5927 California, San Francisco. John Elliott, 7 p.m.

The Chapel: 777 Valencia St., San Francisco. KALX Solstice in Stereo, w/ Foxtails Brigade, The Seshen, Farallons, 9 p.m., $12-$14.

Mercury Cafe: 201 Octavia, San Francisco. Toshio Hirano, Third Friday of every month, 7:30 p.m., free, all ages.

Old First Presbyterian Church: 1751 Sacramento, San Francisco. Golden Bough: A Celtic Yuletide Celebration, 8 p.m., $14-$17.

Pa’ina: 1865 Post St., San Francisco. Ukulenny, 7 p.m.

Plough & Stars: 116 Clement, San Francisco. “Bluegrass Bonanza,” w/ The Dust Bowl Cavaliers, Nobody from Nashville, 9 p.m., $6-$10.

The Sports Basement: 610 Old Mason, San Francisco. “Breakfast with Enzo,” w/ Enzo Garcia, 10 a.m., $5.

JAZZ

Atlas Cafe: 3049 20th St., San Francisco. ESP Quartet, 7:30 p.m., free.

Beach Chalet Brewery & Restaurant: 1000 Great Highway, San Francisco. Johnny Smith, 8 p.m., free.

Bird & Beckett: 653 Chenery, San Francisco. The Third Quartet, Third Friday of every month, 5:30 p.m., free.

Cafe Claude: 7 Claude, San Francisco. Marcus Shelby Trio, 7:30 p.m., free.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Charles Unger Experience, 7:30 p.m., free.

The Palace Hotel: 2 New Montgomery, San Francisco. The Klipptones, 8 p.m., free.

Pier 23 Cafe: Pier 23, San Francisco. Hard Bop Collective, 8 p.m., free.

Revolution Cafe: 3248 22nd St., San Francisco. Emily Anne’s Delights, Third Friday of every month, 8:45 p.m., free/donation.

Savanna Jazz Club: 2937 Mission, San Francisco. Benn Bacot, 7:30 p.m., $8.

Top of the Mark: One Nob Hill, 999 California, San Francisco. Black Market Jazz Orchestra, 9 p.m., $10.

Verdi Club: 2424 Mariposa, San Francisco. Sixth Annual Stompy Jones Sleigh Ride, 8 p.m., $15.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. The Count Basie Orchestra, 8 & 10 p.m., $29-$35.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Joyce Grant, 8 p.m., free.

INTERNATIONAL

Asiento: 2730 21st St., San Francisco. “Kulcha Latino,” w/ resident selectors Stepwise, Ras Rican, and El Kool Kyle, Third Friday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

Bissap Baobab: 3372 19th St., San Francisco. Qumbia Qrew, Third Friday of every month, 8 p.m.; “Paris-Dakar African Mix Coupe Decale,” 10 p.m., $5.

Cafe Cocomo: 650 Indiana, San Francisco. Taste Fridays, featuring local cuisine tastings, salsa bands, dance lessons, and more, 7:30 p.m., $15 (free entry to patio).

Cigar Bar & Grill: 850 Montgomery, San Francisco. Conjunto Picante, 10 p.m.

Pachamama Restaurant: 1630 Powell, San Francisco. Cuban Night with Fito Reinoso, 7:30 & 9:15 p.m., $15-$18.

Red Poppy Art House: 2698 Folsom, San Francisco. A Night of Latin American Music, 7:30 p.m., $10-$15.

REGGAE

Gestalt Haus: 3159 16th St., San Francisco. “Music Like Dirt,” 7:30 p.m., free.

BLUES

Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. Rod Piazza & The Mighty Flyers, 7:30 & 10 p.m., $24.

Lou’s Fish Shack: 300 Jefferson St., San Francisco. Eldon Brown, 6:30 p.m.

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Highwater Blues, 4 p.m.; Chris Cobb, 9:30 p.m.

FUNK

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. “Hella Tight,” w/ resident DJs Vinnie Esparza, Jonny Deeper, & Asti Spumanti, Third Friday of every month, 10 p.m., $5.

Boom Boom Room: 1601 Fillmore, San Francisco. Bad Jellyfish, 9:30 p.m., $20 advance.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. “Loose Joints,” w/ DJs Centipede, Damon Bell, and Tom Thump, 10 p.m., $5-$10.

SOUL

Edinburgh Castle: 950 Geary, San Francisco. “Soul Crush,” w/ DJ Serious Leisure, 10 p.m., free.

Feinstein’s at the Nikko: 222 Mason St., San Francisco. “Love Hangover: LaChanze Sings Diana Ross,” Fri., Dec. 20, 8 p.m.; Sat., Dec. 21, 7 p.m., $30-$50.

The Knockout: 3223 Mission, San Francisco. “Oldies Night,” W/ DJs Primo, Daniel, Lost Cat, and friends, Third Friday of every month, 10 p.m., $5.

The Royal Cuckoo: 3202 Mission, San Francisco. Freddie Hughes & Chris Burns, 7:30 p.m., free.

SATURDAY 21

ROCK

Bottom of the Hill: 1233 17th St., San Francisco. Happy Body Slow Brain, Facing New York, Gavin Castleton, Via Coma, 9 p.m., $10-$12.

Cafe Du Nord: 2170 Market, San Francisco. Beware of Darkness, Down & Outlaws, 9:30 p.m., $10.

El Rio: 3158 Mission, San Francisco. The Atomic Machines, The Shams Eire, Fenton Coolfoot & The Right Time, 9 p.m., $8.

Hemlock Tavern: 1131 Polk, San Francisco. Hungry Skinny, Saturn Cats, Brasil, 9:30 p.m., $6.

The Independent: 628 Divisadero, San Francisco. The Growlers, The Abigails, Cat Signs, 9 p.m., $20.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. Windham Flat, That’s Not Her, 7:30 p.m., $8.

The Riptide: 3639 Taraval, San Francisco. The Honey Wilders, 9:30 p.m., free.

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. The Vandals’ 18th Annual Christmas Formal with Emily’s Army, The Blast, 9 p.m., $18.

Thee Parkside: 1600 17th St., San Francisco. Youth Brigade, Civil War Rust, Rats in the Wall, Bum City Saints, 9 p.m., $12.

DANCE

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. “Pance Darty,” w/ Jjaaxxnn & Duke, Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m., $7.

Audio Discotech: 316 11th St., San Francisco. Felix Da Housecat, Andrew Phelan, Mario Dubbz, 9:30 p.m., $10 advance.

BeatBox: 314 11th St., San Francisco. “Evolution,” w/ DJ Alexander, 10 p.m.

Cafe Flore: 2298 Market, San Francisco. “Bistrotheque,” w/ DJ Ken Vulsion, 8 p.m., free.

Cat Club: 1190 Folsom, San Francisco. “New Wave City: Numan League – A Double-Synth Tribute to Gary Numan and the Human League,” w/ DJs Skip, Shindog, Low-Life, Kenny, and Moonshine, 9 p.m., $7-$12.

The Chapel: 777 Valencia St., San Francisco. The Range, 9 p.m., $12.

DNA Lounge: 375 11th St., San Francisco. “Bootie S.F.,” w/ Entyme, MyKill, Meikee Magnetic, Mixtress ShiZaam, more., 9 p.m., $10-$15.

The EndUp: 401 Sixth St., San Francisco. “The Show,” w/ Syd Gris, DJ Denise, Dragn’fly, Influence, Ryan Cavalier, Bill Samuels, Ben Seagren, Lise Rose, Beau Kelly, 10 p.m.

F8: 1192 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Team Supreme S.F.,” w/ B. Lewis, Colta, Mike Gao, Jnthn Stein, Kenny Segal, Ruff Draft, more, 9 p.m., $5-$15.

Il Pirata: 2007 16th St., San Francisco. “Requiem,” w/ DJs Xiola, Owen, and Dire DeLorean, 10 p.m.

Infusion Lounge: 124 Ellis, San Francisco. “Social Addiction,” Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m., $20.

Lookout: 3600 16th St., San Francisco. “Bounce!,” 9 p.m., $3.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “Fringe,” w/ DJs Blondie K & subOctave, Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m., $5 (free before 10 p.m.).

Manor West: 750 Harrison, San Francisco. “Chemistry Saturdays,” w/ DJ Scooter, 10 p.m.

Mezzanine: 444 Jessie, San Francisco. “Fools in the Night: Winter Wonderland,” w/ Viceroy, Mystery Skulls, FM Attack, Amble, 9 p.m., $15.

Mighty: 119 Utah, San Francisco. “Salted,” w/ Grant Nelson, Miguel Migs, Julius Papp, 10 p.m., $10 before 11 p.m.

Milk Bar: 1840 Haight, San Francisco. “The Queen Is Dead: A Tribute to the Music of Morrissey & The Smiths,” w/ DJ Mario Muse & guests, Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m.

Monarch: 101 6th St., San Francisco. “Night Moves,” w/ Kevin Knapp, Jimmy B, Brothers in Arms (J-Boogie & Deejay Theory), Papa Lu, 9 p.m., $10-$20.

Powerhouse: 1347 Folsom, San Francisco. “Beatpig,” Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m.

Public Works: 161 Erie, San Francisco. “Deep Blue,” w/ Tini, DJ Rooz, more (in the main room), 9:30 p.m., $10-$20; “All Night Long,” w/ DJ Garth (in the OddJob Loft), 10 p.m., $7 advance.

Rickshaw Stop: 155 Fell, San Francisco. “Gameboi S.F.: The Annual Xmas Party,” w/ VJ LaRock, 9:30 p.m., $8-$15.

Ruby Skye: 420 Mason, San Francisco. “World Town: 6-Year Anniversary,” w/ Henrix, Trevor Simpson, 9 p.m., $20 advance.

Slate Bar: 2925 16th St., San Francisco. “Smiths Night S.F.,” w/ The Certain People Crew, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m., $5.

Slide: 430 Mason, San Francisco. “Luminous,” w/ DJ Zhaldee, Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m.

The Stud: 399 Ninth St., San Francisco. Squrrrl Gives Back, Larkin Street Youth Services benefit with DJs Trevor Sigler, Joe Pickett, and Ben Holder., 9 p.m., $5.

Vessel: 85 Campton, San Francisco. EDX, 10 p.m., $10 advance.

HIP-HOP

111 Minna Gallery: 111 Minna St., San Francisco. “Shine,” Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m.

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. Rappin’ 4-Tay, RBL Posse, Cellski, Equipto, 10 p.m., $8-$10.

John Colins: 138 Minna, San Francisco. “The Bump,” w/ The Whooligan, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m., free.

The Knockout: 3223 Mission, San Francisco. “The Booty Bassment,” w/ DJs Dimitri Dickinson & Ryan Poulsen, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m., $5.

Showdown: 10 Sixth St., San Francisco. “Purple,” w/ resident DJs ChaunceyCC & Party Pablo, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m.

Skylark Bar: 3089 16th St., San Francisco. “Night Swim,” w/ resident DJ Mackswell, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m.

ACOUSTIC

Atlas Cafe: 3049 20th St., San Francisco. Craig Ventresco & Meredith Axelrod, Saturdays, 4-6 p.m., free.

Bazaar Cafe: 5927 California, San Francisco. Sweet Hayah, Samuel Roland, Olivia Clayton, 7 p.m.

Hotel Utah: 500 Fourth St., San Francisco. Bonnie Sun, Jean Marc Enriquez, Gyasi Ross, 9 p.m., $10.

The Lost Church: 65 Capp St., San Francisco. Eight Belles, Jameson Swanagon, 8 p.m., $10.

The Lucky Horseshoe: 453 Cortland, San Francisco. Xmas with the Bogues, 9 p.m.

Plough & Stars: 116 Clement, San Francisco. Daniel Seidel, 9 p.m.

The Rite Spot Cafe: 2099 Folsom, San Francisco. Toshio Hirano, 9 p.m., free.

St. Cyprian’s Episcopal Church: 2097 Turk, San Francisco. Celtic Winter Solstice Concert with Four Shillings Short & Brocelïande, 7:30 p.m., $10-$12.

JAZZ

Cafe Claude: 7 Claude, San Francisco. Monroe Trio, 7:30 p.m., free.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Bill “Doc” Webster & Jazz Nostalgia, 7:30 p.m., free.

Pier 23 Cafe: Pier 23, San Francisco. Legends & Friends, 8 p.m., free.

The Royal Cuckoo: 3202 Mission, San Francisco. Jules Broussard, Danny Armstrong, and Chris Siebert, 7:30 p.m., free.

Savanna Jazz Club: 2937 Mission, San Francisco. Savanna Jazz Trio, 7:30 p.m., $8.

Sheba Piano Lounge: 1419 Fillmore, San Francisco. The Robert Stewart Experience, 9 p.m.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. The Count Basie Orchestra, 8 & 10 p.m., $29-$35.

INTERNATIONAL

1015 Folsom: 1015 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Pura,” 9 p.m., $20.

Bissap Baobab: 3372 19th St., San Francisco. “Paris-Dakar African Mix Coupe Decale,” 10 p.m., $5.

Cafe Cocomo: 650 Indiana, San Francisco. La Fuerza Gigante, El DJ X, 8 p.m., $15.

Cigar Bar & Grill: 850 Montgomery, San Francisco. Orquesta La Clave Del Blanco, 10 p.m.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. “El SuperRitmo,” w/ DJs Roger Mas & El Kool Kyle, 10 p.m., $5 before 11 p.m.

Old First Presbyterian Church: 1751 Sacramento, San Francisco. Kitka: Wintersongs, 8 p.m., $15-$25.

Pachamama Restaurant: 1630 Powell, San Francisco. Eddy Navia & Pachamama Band, 8 p.m., free.

Red Poppy Art House: 2698 Folsom, San Francisco. Bolo, 7:30 p.m., $15-$20.

Revolution Cafe: 3248 22nd St., San Francisco. Go Van Gogh, Third Saturday of every month, 9 p.m., free/donation.

Space 550: 550 Barneveld, San Francisco. “Club Fuego,” 9:30 p.m.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. Nene Malo, in Yoshi’s lounge, 10:30 p.m., $25-$30.

BLUES

Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. Rod Piazza & The Mighty Flyers, 7:30 & 10 p.m., $24.

Lou’s Fish Shack: 300 Jefferson St., San Francisco. Willie G, 6:30 p.m.

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Tony Perez & Second Hand Smoke, Third Saturday of every month, 4 p.m.; Stan Erhart, 9:30 p.m.

EXPERIMENTAL

Center for New Music: 55 Taylor St., San Francisco. RTD3, 8 p.m., $7-$10.

FUNK

Boom Boom Room: 1601 Fillmore, San Francisco. Funk Revival Orchestra, Swoop Unit, DJ K-Os, 9:30 p.m., $10-$15.

Pa’ina: 1865 Post St., San Francisco. Typhoon Fundraiser with Chocolate Rice, 7 p.m.

SOUL

Elbo Room: 647 Valencia, San Francisco. “Saturday Night Soul Party,” w/ DJs Lucky, Phengren Oswald, and Paul Paul, Third Saturday of every month, 10 p.m., $10 ($5 in formal attire).

Feinstein’s at the Nikko: 222 Mason St., San Francisco. “Love Hangover: LaChanze Sings Diana Ross,” Fri., Dec. 20, 8 p.m.; Sat., Dec. 21, 7 p.m., $30-$50.

SUNDAY 22

ROCK

DNA Lounge: 375 11th St., San Francisco. The Jingle Bell Rock & Metal Fest 2013, w/ First Contact, This Plague Between Us, Orbiting Pluto, The Wet Bandits, Point of Interest, Ocelot, Global Affront, Bellyfull, Hairstrike, Sketch Republic, Posers, The A6’s, Parkside, Only the Pinkys, Pillars of Hercules, Mythra, Buried, 5:30 p.m., $10-$15.

Great American Music Hall: 859 O’Farrell, San Francisco. The Ugly Sweater Social: Day 1, w/ Finish Ticket, French Cassettes, 9 p.m., $1-$20.

Hemlock Tavern: 1131 Polk, San Francisco. Wreck & Reference, Creepers, So Stressed, 8:30 p.m., $6.

Make-Out Room: 3225 22nd St., San Francisco. Chrome Eagle, Crystal Goblet, 7:30 p.m., $8.

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. Strung Out (playing An American Paradox), Voodoo Glow Skulls, Dearly Divided, 8 p.m., $18-$20.

Sub-Mission Art Space (Balazo 18 Gallery): 2183 Mission, San Francisco. Jokes for Feelings, Sarchasm, Push, MFB, Skank Bank, 7:30 p.m., $7.

DANCE

BeatBox: 314 11th St., San Francisco. “Tea-Rex,” w/ DJ Corey Craig, 4-8 p.m., $10.

Beauty Bar: 2299 Mission, San Francisco. “The Horror Hop: A December to Dismember,” w/ DJs Creepy B, Adrienne Scissorhands, and Roxy Rolle, 10 p.m., free.

The Cellar: 685 Sutter, San Francisco. “Replay Sundays,” 9 p.m., free.

Club X: 715 Harrison, San Francisco. “Electro Pop Rocks: EPR’s Electric Christmas,” 18+ dance night, 9 p.m.

The Edge: 4149 18th St., San Francisco. “’80s at 8,” w/ DJ MC2, 8 p.m.

Elbo Room: 647 Valencia, San Francisco. “Dub Mission,” w/ Kush Arora, Jimmy Love, DJ Sep, 9 p.m., $6 (free before 9:30 p.m.).

The EndUp: 401 Sixth St., San Francisco. “T.Dance,” 6 a.m.-6 p.m.; “Local Love,” Fourth Sunday of every month, 8 p.m.; “Sunday Sessions,” 8 p.m.

F8: 1192 Folsom St., San Francisco. “Stamina,” w/ Flaco, Submorphics, Retox, Canadub, 10 p.m., free.

The Knockout: 3223 Mission, San Francisco. “Sweater Funk,” 10 p.m., free.

Lookout: 3600 16th St., San Francisco. “Jock,” Sundays, 3-8 p.m., $2.

MatrixFillmore: 3138 Fillmore, San Francisco. “Bounce,” w/ DJ Just, 10 p.m.

Monarch: 101 6th St., San Francisco. “Reload,” w/ Pedro Arbulu, 9 p.m., $5.

Otis: 25 Maiden, San Francisco. “What’s the Werd?,” w/ resident DJs Nick Williams, Kevin Knapp, Maxwell Dub, and guests, 9 p.m., $5 (free before 11 p.m.).

The Parlor: 2801 Leavenworth, San Francisco. DJ Marc deVasconcelos, 10 p.m., free.

Q Bar: 456 Castro, San Francisco. “Gigante,” 8 p.m., free.

The Stud: 399 Ninth St., San Francisco. “Cognitive Dissonance,” Fourth Sunday of every month, 6 p.m.

HIP-HOP

Boom Boom Room: 1601 Fillmore, San Francisco. “Return of the Cypher,” 9:30 p.m., free.

ACOUSTIC

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. Merry Flipping Christmas Variety Show, w/ Heidi Alexander, Noelle Cahill, Jen Snyder, Sonny Smith, Justin Frahm, Rob Spector, Paula Frazer, Bart Davenport, Paul Costuros, Matt Shapiro, more, 9 p.m.

Bazaar Cafe: 5927 California, San Francisco. Manjali Light, 6 p.m.

Lou’s Fish Shack: 300 Jefferson St., San Francisco. Sam Johnson, 4 p.m.

The Lucky Horseshoe: 453 Cortland, San Francisco. Bernal Mountain Bluegrass Jam, 4 p.m., free; JimBo Trout & The Fishpeople, 8 p.m.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “Spike’s Mic Night,” Sundays, 4-8 p.m., free.

Plough & Stars: 116 Clement, San Francisco. The Pat O’Donnell Band, 9 p.m.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church: 1755 Clay, San Francisco. “Sunday Night Mic,” w/ Roem Baur, 5 p.m., free.

JAZZ

Bird & Beckett: 653 Chenery, San Francisco. Buena Vista Jazz Band, 4:30 p.m., free.

Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. Kim Nalley’s Gospel Christmas, 7:30 & 9:30 p.m., $22.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Bill “Doc” Webster & Jazz Nostalgia, 7:30 p.m., free.

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “Sunday Sessions,” 10 p.m., free.

Revolution Cafe: 3248 22nd St., San Francisco. Jazz Revolution, 4 p.m., free/donation.

The Royal Cuckoo: 3202 Mission, San Francisco. Lavay Smith & Chris Siebert, 7:30 p.m., free.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Amanda Addleman, 7:30 p.m., free.

INTERNATIONAL

Atmosphere: 447 Broadway, San Francisco. “Hot Bachata Nights,” w/ DJ El Guapo, 5:30 p.m., $10 ($18-$25 with dance lessons).

Balancoire: 2565 Mission St., San Francisco. “Tardeadas Tropicales,” 3 p.m.

Bissap Baobab: 3372 19th St., San Francisco. “Brazil & Beyond,” 6:30 p.m., free.

El Rio: 3158 Mission, San Francisco. “Salsa Sundays,” Second and Fourth Sunday of every month, 3 p.m., $8-$10.

Pier 23 Cafe: Pier 23, San Francisco. Mario Flores, 5 p.m., free.

Thirsty Bear Brewing Company: 661 Howard, San Francisco. “The Flamenco Room,” 7:30 & 8:30 p.m.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. Christmas with the Celts, 2 & 6 p.m., $28-$55.

BLUES

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Blues Power, 4 p.m.; The Door Slammers, 9:30 p.m.

Sheba Piano Lounge: 1419 Fillmore, San Francisco. Bohemian Knuckleboogie, 8 p.m., free.

Swig: 571 Geary, San Francisco. Sunday Blues Jam with Ed Ivey, 9 p.m.

SOUL

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. Jasmine Nichol, 8th Grader, 8 p.m., $15-$25.

Delirium Cocktails: 3139 16th St., San Francisco. “Heart & Soul,” w/ DJ Lovely Lesage, 10 p.m., free.

MONDAY 23

ROCK

Bottom of the Hill: 1233 17th St., San Francisco. Local Hero, Eager Eyes, Before the Brave, 8 p.m., $8-$10.

Brick & Mortar Music Hall: 1710 Mission, San Francisco. Breakaway Patriot, Musical Charis, 9 p.m., $7-$10.

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. The Ugly Sweater Social: Day 2, w/ Finish Ticket, Picture Atlantic, 9 p.m., sold out.

DANCE

DNA Lounge: 375 11th St., San Francisco. “Death Guild,” 18+ dance party with DJs Decay, Joe Radio, Melting Girl, & guests, 9:30 p.m., $3-$5.

Q Bar: 456 Castro, San Francisco. “Wanted,” w/ DJs Key&Kite and Richie Panic, 9 p.m., free.

Underground SF: 424 Haight, San Francisco. “Vienetta Discotheque,” w/ DJs Stanley Frank and Robert Jeffrey, 10 p.m., free.

ACOUSTIC

Amnesia: 853 Valencia, San Francisco. The Pick Bluegrass Jam, Fourth Monday of every month, 6 p.m., free; The Earl Brothers, Fourth Monday of every month, 9 p.m., free.

Bazaar Cafe: 5927 California, San Francisco. Patrick Luckett & Hanako Irie, 7 p.m.

The Chieftain: 198 Fifth St., San Francisco. The Wrenboys, 7 p.m., free.

Fiddler’s Green: 1333 Columbus, San Francisco. Terry Savastano, 9:30 p.m., free/donation.

Hotel Utah: 500 Fourth St., San Francisco. Open Mic with Brendan Getzell, 8 p.m., free.

Osteria: 3277 Sacramento, San Francisco. “Acoustic Bistro,” 7 p.m., free.

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. Peter Lindman, 4 p.m.

JAZZ

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Eugene Pliner Quartet with Tod Dickow, 7:30 p.m., free.

Le Colonial: 20 Cosmo, San Francisco. Le Jazz Hot, 7 p.m., free.

Sheba Piano Lounge: 1419 Fillmore, San Francisco. City Jazz Instrumental Jam Session, 8 p.m.

The Union Room at Biscuits and Blues: 401 Mason, San Francisco. The Session: A Monday Night Jazz Series, pro jazz jam with Mike Olmos, 7:30 p.m., $12.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. Natasha Miller’s Annual Holiday Concert, 8 p.m., $16-$20.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Gayle Wilhelm, 7:30 p.m., free.

REGGAE

Skylark Bar: 3089 16th St., San Francisco. “Skylarking,” w/ I&I Vibration, 10 p.m., free.

BLUES

The Saloon: 1232 Grant, San Francisco. The Bachelors, 9:30 p.m.

SOUL

Madrone Art Bar: 500 Divisadero, San Francisco. “M.O.M. (Motown on Mondays),” w/ DJ Gordo Cabeza & Timoteo Gigante, 8 p.m., free.

TUESDAY 24

DANCE

Ruby Skye: 420 Mason, San Francisco. Latke Ball 2013, Presented by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties., 9 p.m., $30-$50.

JAZZ

Burritt Room: 417 Stockton St., San Francisco. Terry Disley’s Rocking Jazz Trio, 6 p.m., free.

Jazz Bistro at Les Joulins: 44 Ellis, San Francisco. Clifford Lamb, Mel Butts, and Friends, 7:30 p.m., free.

Yoshi’s San Francisco: 1330 Fillmore, San Francisco. Clairdee’s 11th Annual Christmas Eve Show, 8 p.m., $20.

Zingari: 501 Post, San Francisco. Hubert Emerson, 7:30 p.m.

GOSPEL

Slim’s: 333 11th St., San Francisco. Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir Ensemble, 7 & 9:30 p.m., $15. 2

Steering transportation funding

-

December 17, 2013

20

STREET FIGHT The coming year will be a critical one for shaping transportation in San Francisco. Mayor Ed Lee’s Transportation Task Force, comprised of SPUR, city agencies, and labor and transportation organizations, is floating a package of proposals to finance transportation infrastructure that includes a general obligation bond, fees on cars, and a sales tax increase. Some permutation of the elements in the package will ultimately go in front of voters by November 2014.

It’s important to take a look at what’s being proposed and what’s at stake, right now, because whatever goes forward to the November ballot must be certified by June 2014. In the next six months, progressives have an opportunity to offer better ways to shape the city’s transportation future. Here are some things to consider.

First, whatever one thinks of this decidedly development-oriented mayor and his policies, the Transportation Task Force Report, issued to the public last month, makes a clear case for raising the $10 billion we need for transit, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure. Proclaimed as the “first of many steps,” it can be considered a conversation starter that is open for modification and amendment.

The report points out the need to replace all of Muni’s 1,050 buses and trains by 2030 (costing $228 million in local matching funds) and implement the Transit Effectiveness Project ($282 million required), while also showing that Muni needs over $800 million in order to avert transit crowding as the city approaches a population of 1 million.

It considers the costs of implementing a citywide bicycle network ($108 million to get to 10 percent mode share for bicycling, or $215 million to approach 20 percent). It envisions making 70 miles of streets safer for pedestrians, and it shows what it will take to make Market Street a signature transit-bike street.

Mayor Lee’s plan includes a progressive funding proposal: A citywide vehicle license fee. The VLF, which needs majority approval by voters, would repair the past damage wrought by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Republicans, who gutted state education, transportation, and social funding by slashing the fee in 2004.

State legislation last year enabled San Francisco to re-establish the fee for local transportation needs. Collecting 1.35 percent of the market value of registered vehicles in the city can raise $73 million annually for transportation programs. Since it’s based on the value of the vehicle, luxury car owners pay more. Progressives should rally around this proposal.

While the VLF is promising, the other two funding schemes proposed by the task force are dubious. Increasing citywide sales taxes by a half-cent, proposed for the November 2016 ballot, is regressive. Based on taxes as a share of household income, low-income households pay a disproportionately higher portion of their income in sales taxes relative to wealthier people.

Innocuous on the surface, the use of a sales tax to spread the burden reflects a neoliberal tactic to divert attention from more equitable taxation such as increasing annual assessments on commercial property owners who are reaping huge windfalls from the real estate boom. This takes us to the General Obligation Bond (GO Bond) proposal.

GO Bonds are a long-term debt financing tool whereby the city borrows to build transportation infrastructure and future property tax revenue repays the debt. Rather than raising property taxes, the scheme proposed by the task force ensures that tax rates remain below 2006 levels and the city would only issue new debt as other debt is retired.

Progressives should look carefully at this. While this scheme would effectively create a dedicated fund for Muni (a good thing), by locking-in this revenue source, there may be negative impacts on future social, education, or housing funding. And the GO Bond will only raise $55 million annually. (Raising property taxes, which no one is talking about as a mechanism to finance Muni, could yield much more.)

Bonding is also a boon to bankers, and ultimately uses already scarce transportation funds to pay interest on debt. Moreover, none of the proposals address Muni’s operating cost, which is $861 million today but must expand with additional capacity and operators.

Nobody knows better than downtown land owners that public transit is the keystone for making San Francisco functional and profitable. In the 2.5-square-mile downtown area, half of workers — 170,000 — take public transportation, more than those who drive alone. Every day, 200,000 riders use surface transit on Market and another 350,000 pass through the four downtown BART/Muni Metro stations.

Hundreds of thousands of workers use transit to access one of the densest concentrations of office, hotels, and retail space in the country. Transit is what makes this density work and what generates value and profit to real estate investors. It’s why Twitter and others choose to be downtown.

Almost 20 years ago, a coalition of progressives advocated for the creation of a downtown transit assessment district (TAD), an annual property assessment on downtown commercial property, excluding retail and hotels, that would provide revenue for Muni operations. Had it been established, it would have generated up to $54 million its first year. In today’s dollars, this would amount to over $85 million. Considering the new developments since the 1990s, by now TAD revenue could have likely approached $100 million annually. For comparison, the Task Force suggests a general obligation bond would raise $54 million, a sales tax increase $69 million, and a vehicle license fee $73 million annually (these can only be used for infrastructure and not operations).

But a transit assessment district has been all but erased from the menu of possibilities for funding Muni. For the past 20 years, neoliberal developers and real estate speculators have captured the discourse of how transit can be financed, and have instead offered lucrative tax breaks to new tech firms such as Twitter, raised Muni fares, and allowed destructive deferred maintenance of the fleet. In this latest round of funding proposals, the assessment district remains off the table, while a regressive sales tax and a paltry GO Bond are promoted.

Meanwhile, Sup. John Avalos and his progressive cohort (Sups. David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Norman Yee) have offered a “Transit Equity” amendment. But it only nibbles at the edges. Their proposal limits future Muni fare increases and future transit impact fees on low-income social service providers receiving public money. This is commendable and should be adopted by the board.

Yet while progressives are spot-on to emphasize equity, they’ve not offered a financing scheme such as a transit assessment on the tech boom. Avalos’s plan to direct $70 million of the city’s general fund to low-income transit riders looks good on paper, but as proposed it might actually siphon funds from one funding pot to another. Like the GO Bond, this may have implications for other important social programs progressives care about.

This will be a critical year for setting the trajectory of transportation finance for a generation. Progressives should direct the legislative analyst to analyze the nexus between downtown real estate value and Muni capacity in order to better inform the debates. We have six months to illuminate a more equitable path that asks more from the tech boom and real estate speculators.

PARKING METER CIRCUS

If the recent debacle over parking meters is any indication, progressives will start 2014 on a clunky, disjointed, and rudderless transportation platform.

In the case of parking meters, last month progressives joined the bandwagon of pandering to motorists and voted to block the expansion of parking meters, a proven source of revenue that could help avert future fare hikes or service cuts. It is also a key to managing the public right-of-way as Muni seeks to implement important improvements. What seems to be happening now is that the supervisors are taking transit riders for granted while pandering to a conservative ideology of unfettered free parking.

It’s no surprise that conservative-leaning supervisors such as Mark Farrell oppose the expansion of parking meters. Conservative ideology holds that the government accommodates unfettered, cheap automobility at all costs, and Farrell said bluntly that he does not like paying for parking.

The impacts on Muni, on pedestrians, on bicyclists, and on the planetary environment are secondary to free parking. But progressives are becoming increasingly disoriented on this issue. While they decry parking meters, they haven’t offered a way to better manage streets so that we can improve Muni, bicycling, and walking.

Maybe it’s time to champion a citywide, omnibus residential parking permit strategy in all neighborhoods (as Sup. Kim hinted). Or are supervisors willing to champion the better alternative: just take away parking without a management strategy? Perhaps even better, can they champion the removal of travel lanes now open to private cars and keep the unmetered curbside parking? These options won’t bring in revenue (except maybe more tickets) but would certainly make space for a reliable Muni and a citywide cycletrack network, both progressive goals.

Speaking of parking, there’s rumors that the two-acre Plumber’s Union Hall on Market Street might be developed. Hey Building and Trades Unions, how about a car-free, family-oriented affordable housing development smack dab in the middle of the city so some of your members don’t have to commute from Tracy?

Street Fight is a monthly column by Jason Henderson, an urban geography professor at San Francisco State University.

Last stand at the Bulb

Michael Redmond

-

December 3, 2013

8

news@sfbg.com

As the squatter residents of Albany Bulb make one final push against being evicted from their home in a former landfill, the city of Albany is pushing forward with its plan to change the untamed space into a waterfront state park (see “Battle of the bulb,” Sept. 24).

The first signs of the transition came on Nov. 22, when a temporary shelter was set up for residents whose camps would be cleared. The shelter came after a disappointing week in court left the 50 to 60 residents of the Bulb without the stay-away order their advocates had sought, which they intended to use to keep the city and police at bay during the winter.

On Nov. 18, the residents and their attorneys received word that the stay-away order was denied by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. After the decision and an Albany City Council meeting later that evening, campers and area activists set up a permanent settlement against the eviction after marching through the streets of Albany.

Barricades made of rocks were set up at the Bulb to resist police getting into the camps. However, the rain that followed for a few nights inhibited their efforts, according to activists involved in the action. And the police, using a backhoe, destroyed the rock barricades. The city of Albany, according to a press release, is calling the transition “ACT” which includes, “Assistance to homeless, including housing-centered outreach, transitional services, support, and shelter; Cleanup and maintenance of the Bulb; and Transfer of the Bulb to McLaughlin Eastshore State Park.” “As part of the City Council’s Strategic Planning Process conducted in 2012, the City Council identified key goals for the City,” Albany City Clerk Nicole Almaguer wrote in an email to the Guardian. “One of which is to ‘Maximize Park and Open Space’ including developing a plan to transition the Bulb into Eastshore State Park, and to improve accessibility for general public use of all of the Albany Bulb as a waterfront park.” Almaguer stated that part of the plan included a temporary shelter and support services, which started this summer and is headed by Berkeley Food and Housing Project. The BFHP also provides case management for the Albany campers interested in securing housing outside of the Bulb.

While the city has provided a housing subsidy program to help Bulb residents with rent, a portion of it will also need to be covered by the tenant. Many of the Bulb residents are only supported through government programs such as SSI, and cannot afford housing costs.

In addition, most residents, and their attorney Osha Neumann, who is also a longtime contributor to art at the Bulb, say that the city does not have any affordable housing in which the residents can transition into. Managed by Operation Dignity, a nonprofit designed to help homeless veterans, the transitional shelter is set up by Golden Gate Fields racetrack near the entryway into the Bulb.

“I was out… talking to people and was overwhelmed by the fragility and vulnerability of many of them, as well as their strengths,” Neumann said of the residents in an email to the Guardian. “The portables are awful. You look at the Bulb and all the life and beauty that’s out there, and then you look at those anonymous utilitarian boxes, and really you expect it all to be stuffed into those containers? 22 men in one, eight women in the other? It’s all really appalling.” According to the shelter’s posted rules, the doors for the shelter open at 5:30pm and close at 8:30am. Showers may be taken 8:30-9:30pm, and breakfast is served 7-8am. The sexes are separated, and pets must stay in kennels outside of the shelter. There are also no “in and out privileges” and if a person doesn’t return by 8pm they are not admitted into the shelter. No one stayed in the shelter the first three nights it was available, according to city reports. Amber Lynn Whitson, a Bulb resident, said that access to the shelter is difficult for people, and doesn’t address the need for people with disabilities to access a bed during the day. “At least two individuals were turned away at the door to the shelter, due to their names not being on ‘the list’, she said in an email. “Both were told that they could stay in the shelter, despite their names not currently being on ‘the list,’ but only after getting ‘a voucher’ from BFHP.” The transitional shelter came to the residents’ lives after Breyer rejected the campers’ request for an injunction to block the eviction with a temporary restraining order. A lawsuit also filed by the residents against the eviction remains open, according to Neumann.

Based on information obtained in court documents, $570,000 was allocated to remove the Bulb residents, based on a Albany City Council decision made on Oct. 21, with $171,000 spent on the cleanup of the campsites and the remainder spent on the two portable trailers with bunk beds to serve as transitional housing for six months. As of now, the shelter’s efficacy to get the campers off the Bulb, as well as the residents’ efforts to resist the transition, remains unclear.

BULB ART TO BE CLEARED

The Albany Bulb, a wild shoreline space near Golden Gate Fields and a former landfill for BART construction and other industries, is well known for its art. Now that a transitional shelter looms over the entrance as part of the city’s plan to remove the residents from the Bulb, campers, activists, and artists came together this past weekend for a festival of resistance against the eviction.

The rubble and sculpture filled space will soon be transformed into part of the Eastshore State Park system. The event drew around 60 people, according to resident Amber Whitson. She led an art walk on Nov. 29, giving the history of the art at the Bulb and explaining why it’s important to preserve it as a cultural resource.

“Some things should remain sacred, and Sniff paintings are out on the Albany Bulb,” she said, referencing works by a group of Oakland-based artists.

Other prominent Bulb artists, such as Osha Neumann and Jason DeAntonis, who built massive sculptures made of found wood and parts along the shoreline, were on hand to speak about their contributions and the personal significance the Bulb holds for them.

While residents have come and gone throughout the years, the art has remained a constant draw. Graffiti artists practice their craft, and sculptors work undisturbed, using debris that is scattered around. Even some of the campers’ shelters, makeshift shanties of concrete, wood and tarp, could be considered artistic.

Once the transition of the Bulb from untamed outcrop to a state park of well-kept trails is further along, the city plans to remove most of the art currently installed there.

The campers and activists organized the art walk as part of a three-day festival of trainings, workshops, and music, to enjoy the space, but also to educate residents and others about how the space could be kept in its current state. “I know that organizing is continuing, and again, the shape it takes will depend on how the city goes about the planned evictions,” said Neumann in an email to the Guardian.

For now though, the art stands, in between garbage, rubble, trees and shrubs, a constant reminder that artists and Bulb dwellers are still around.

Unions suing BART board over contract disagreement today, no strike yet

Erica Hanna

-

December 3, 2013

35

Unions suing BART board over contract disagreement today, no strike yet

Two of BART’s largest unions will announce a lawsuit against the BART board of directors today on the steps of the Alameda County Superior Court at 11am, which they plan to file shortly before the press conference.

The suit will directly challenge the board’s Nov. 21 decision to ratify a contract between the unions and BART management without a hotly contested provision on family leave.

In their announcement of the suit, SEIU Local 1021 and ATU Local 1555 allege the board made “illegitimate and unprecedented actions” in ratifying the contract while removing a section on family leave, which was signed off on by BART management in July. Under the provision, workers who go on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act would be paid for six of the 12 weeks the law allows them to take unpaid.

Management has since called signing off on family leave a “mistake,” and the board asked all sides to ratify a contract without the provision, hence the lawsuit.

But would a lawsuit mean a new strike?

“That’s what everybody is asking,” SEIU Local 1021 spokesperson Cecille Isidro told the Guardian. “The unions aren’t ruling out any options, but no strike is being called or scheduled at this time.”

BART spokesperson Luna Salaver told the Guardian last month that “it was a mistake that a provision rejected twice by BART management ended up in the stack of approved documents.” She noted that it was caught as the district prepared to give the contract final approval on Nov. 21, though it was already signed by the two unions.

“We were never confused as to the status of the Family and Medical Leave Act agreement,” Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly told the Guardian, in our earlier coverage, which you can read here.

Isidro said more details on the lawsuit would be available at the press conference at 11am.

ATU Local president Antoinette Bryant responds to family leave “mistake” at a press conference.

BART standoff continues as board modifies contract

Michael Redmond

-

November 27, 2013

1

The BART Board of Directors voted 8-1 on Nov. 21, with conservative young Director Zakhary Mallett in dissent, to approve a hard-won contract with its unions, after removing Section 4.8, the paid family leave section that the district says was inserted by mistake.

The motion also directed management to negotiate a settlement over that issue with its unions, which have already approved the contract and now must decide whether they are willing to do so again without that provision or whether the possibility of another BART strike is once again looming.

The next day, BART’s largest unions, SEIU Local 1021 and ATU Local 1555, issued a joint statement: “We consider the Board’s actions to be unprecedented and illegitimate, and we’re considering our next steps, including possible legal action. The BART Board of Directors has disregarded the vote of more than 2,000 BART workers and has chosen to subvert the collective bargaining process, and we take their actions seriously.”

After meeting in closed session for about two hours, Vice President Joel Keller began the open session with a motion to remove Section 4.8 from the contract, approve the rest, and direct management to negotiate with the unions.

Mallett, the 25-year-old newbie who lives in unincorporated West Contra Costa County but whose District 7 includes part of San Francisco, spoke first: “Even before this hiccup, I was not in the position to support this contract. I find it too costly.”

But he was the only one to take that stance, with the rest of the directors calling the underlying contract a fair compromise, even if all said they couldn’t support the paid family leave provision that would add anywhere between $4 million and $44 million to a contract that was already going to cost the district an additional $67 million.

Director Gail Murray noted that the unions had given up raises for years when BART had budget deficits, and now that the district is running surpluses, it’s reasonable to give workers raises that amount to about 2 percent per year for four years.

“Our employees kept the system going…They’re the reason why we keep 40-year-old cars still running,” Murray said, later adding, “To say this contract is not a good contract is wrong.”

The rest of the board agreed, even while acknowledging it is more than they hoped to pay given the district’s capital needs and aggressive expansion plans.

“We’re probably paying more for this than we anticipated we would pay, and labor is probably giving up more than they want to, but that’s the nature of collective bargaining,” Keller said, who also began what turned into a chorus of criticism for how district negotiators signed off on a provision the board never agreed to.

“We ended on a sloppy note and that’s regrettable,” Keller said, pledging that if he’s elected president next month — an ascension that is customary for the vice president — he plans to launch a full investigation into what happened.

“I’m pained that we put ourselves in such adversarial positions with each other and that we lost the lives of two employees,” Director John McPartland said of the protracted labor negotiations and the fatalities that occurred while the unions were on strike Oct. 19. He called the contract “more than fair and equitable.”

Director James Fang, who represents western San Francisco, sounded the strongest criticisms of BART management and negotiators. “Yes, it was a mistake, but nobody has come forward and said ‘there was a mistake and I’m responsible,” Fang said, later adding, “The ones who signed this must be held to account.”

Fang then went further, albeit without specifics, when he said, “Every bit of management advice we’ve received has not worked out to the district’s best interests.”

Director Robert Raburn echoed Fang’s calls for accountability: “I’m still not clear on how that [contract provision] arrived and it hasn’t been accounted for by anyone at the district who said ‘I am responsible.'”

But he also said that the provision was clearly an error and not something arrived at through the negotiations: “Both parties agreed on a $67 million package and we should keep that intact because it’s fair.”

Reached by the Guardian while union leadership was conferring to plan next steps, SEIU Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly told us, “We are about as up in the air as we’ve ever been.”

He called it “unlikely” that union leadership would simply submit the board-revised contract to an up-or-down vote by union membership, saying that he doesn’t think it would be approved.

And Daly echoed the concerns expressed by several BART directors about how this mistake happened and why nobody has taken responsibility or been held accountable: “If I were on that board, I’d have the general manager’s head, there’s no two ways about it.” (Steven T. Jones)

SF General reduces psych care

A 22-bed psychiatric unit at San Francisco General Hospital will be taken out of service, and reopened only if the facility experiences a high caseload of patients exhibiting the worst signs of psychiatric crisis.

As of Nov. 19, five patients were receiving care in that unit, 7B, according to spokesperson Rachael Kagan. None had symptoms that rose to the level of requiring acute care. Instead, they were classified as sub-acute patients, a distinction that essentially means they didn’t present an immediate threat to themselves or others.

But under a new policy that will take effect after they have been released, all 22 beds in 7B will be closed — unless they are needed for acute patients who do reach that critical threshold. The unit will be staffed only if patients can’t be accommodated in the hospital’s other acute psych unit, which has 21 beds.

The decision was made in response to a changing financial picture under federal health care reform, Kagan explained.

“There is a big push … to ensure hospitals are only providing acute care,” Kagan said, and this trend is driving efforts to reduce sub-acute patients. “It fiscally makes more sense,” she added, because insurers pay higher rates for acute care than for lower levels of treatment.

Yet some hospital staff members are nervous about the implications of this shift, because it means fewer patients will be able to access psychiatric care at SF General unless they represent a danger to themselves and/or the general public — at a time when demand for these services is on the rise.

“To us, it’s a matter of priority for the city,” said Brenda Barros, an employee at SF General who is active with hospital union SEIU 1021. “Do you want to take care of these people, or don’t you?”

Some staff members are doubtful that 7B will reopen. An internal SF General memo issued Nov. 18 informed the 7B staff: “Our census will be gradually reduced until we won’t have any more patients. Then 7B will be closed.” The memo added, “this came from [SF General CEO] Sue Currin due to budgetary constraints.”

However, a second internal memo went out the following day, to “clarify” the first one. In that message, Nursing Director Kathy Ballou wrote: “We are not closing psych beds or any beds.” Instead, beds in 7B would be closed unless “we get acute patients needing that level of care,” she wrote. “As in other hospitals, we are accountable to our operating budget.”

Further complicating matters, said Barros, is that patients can fluctuate rapidly between needing acute care and a lower level of attention. “They absolutely can swing back and forth.” She added that patients initially requiring a lower level of care could experience worsening conditions if they’re unable to secure an appointment in time to get help, and delays are very common.

Kagan emphasized that the unit wasn’t being closed down, but did confirm that sub-acute patients would no longer be able to receive treatment in 7B. Instead, those patients will be placed with various service providers throughout the city, she said. “The goal is to move the patients to their appropriate placement.”

Meanwhile, this shift coincides with an overall rise in citywide demand for psychiatric services. According to a report delivered to the Police Commission earlier this year, SF General had 6,293 patient admissions for psychiatric holds in 2012, a sharp increase from 5,837 in 2009.

While there were deep cuts to the city’s Department of Public Health during the economic downturn, Mayor Ed Lee has recently trumpeted a boost to city coffers thanks to growing economic activity. But if the city’s financial health has improved, it seems odd that its safety-net hospital would be put into the position of reducing psych care due to budgetary pressures when that kind of care is sorely needed.

For Barros, it’s a matter of whether or not city officials will decide to allocate more funding for mental health services. “If they don’t have enough money in Public Health,” she said, “then they need to put more into Public Health.” (Rebecca Bowe)

We give thanks

Michael Redmond

-

November 26, 2013

0

EDITORIAL We offer a lot of criticism here on the Guardian’s editorial page, which is probably inescapable given the obvious failures of our political and economic systems to address the needs of the people and the planet and to uphold the progressive values that the Guardian and much of the Bay Area supports. We have so much potential, and it’s sometimes maddening when we fall short of realizing it.

So, this week, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, we’re going to put a positive spin on the civic scene and talk about some of the things that we’re thankful for.

We’re thankful to live in such a beautiful, vibrant place. San Francisco is one of the greatest cities in the world, both physically and culturally. And we’re thrice blessed to have Marin County and the East Bay — particularly the progressive and diverse cities of Oakland and Berkeley — just a short bridge ride away. Layer on top of that the nearby Sierras, Sonoma County, and the coastline from Point Reyes down to Santa Cruz and this is perhaps the best region on the planet.

We’re thankful to have a functional, modern transportation system that offers plenty of good alternatives to the automobile. While there’s certainly room for improvement, BART is an amazing transit system that closes the gap among the Bay Area’s many diverse communities, while Muni does a good job at ferrying huge numbers of people around this bustling city. Caltrain is a great link down the peninsula and we’re super excited to see it electrified and that transportation officials are working hard to connect downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles with a long overdue high speed rail line. And we love how San Franciscans have embraced bicycles as an important everyday transportation option.

We’re thankful that so many smart, interesting, creative people have been drawn to San Francisco and its environs. This is home to recognized global leaders in pursuits ranging from technological innovation to progressive and environmental organizing and advocacy. We’re proud of the political initiatives hatched here in the Bay Area, from marriage equality to criminal justice reform. We have a cornucopia of artists and musicians tucked into every little nook of the city, from the stage of Slim’s to the studios of surreal Hunters Point Shipyard. And the locals here cook up some of the world’s best culinary offerings, from a plethora of fancy restaurants to quickie taquerias to surprisingly bountiful food trucks.

And we’re really thankful for you, the person reading these words. The Guardian has been around since 1966 because of the support of our readers, our advertisers, and our community, and we’re grateful that you’ve all given us the opportunity to offer the news, views, and reviews that are helping to shape this wonderful place. Happy Thanksgiving.

BART board approves labor contract, minus the district’s “mistake” UPDATED

Sasha Cuttler

-

November 21, 2013

36

The BART Board of Directors has voted 8-1, with conservative young Director Zakhary Mallett in dissent, to approve a hard-won contract with its unions, after removing Section 4.8, the paid family leave section that the district says was inserted by mistake. The motion also directed management to negotiate a settlement over that issue with its unions, which have already approved the contracts and now must decide whether they are willing to do so again without that provision or whether the possibility of another BART strikes is once again looming.

Shortly after the meeting, SEIU Local 1021 Executive Director Pete Castelli issued the statement saying, “We’re disappointed that the BART Board of Directors had decided not to fulfill their commitment to the workers and the riders by approving contracts without the provision on family medical leave. The unions have voted on and ratified these contracts in their entirety.”

He accused the district of over-inflating the cost estimates of the family leave provision and said the unions were willing to discuss it, but the district instead chose “to prolong the process and hold the fate of the riders, the workers, and the Bay Area in the balance.”

“Right now we are considering all options, meeting with workers who have ratified this contract, and working to find a way to reach a resolution to BART management’s alleged mistake in the agreement it made with its workers,” he said.

After meeting in closed session for about two hours this morning, the BART board opened the meeting up around 11:45am to discuss and vote on the contract. Vice President Joel Keller opened with a motion to remove Section 4.8 from the contract, approve the rest, and direct management to negotiate with the unions.

Mallett, the 25-year-old newbie who lives in unincorporated West Contra Costa County but whose Dist. 7 includes part of San Francisco, spoke first: “Even before this hiccup, I was not in the position to support this contract. I find it too costly.”

But he was the only one to take that stance, with the rest of the directors calling the underlying contract a fair compromise, even if all said they couldn’t support the paid family leave provision that would add anywhere between $4 million and $44 million to a contract that was already going to cost the district an additional $67 million.

Director Gail Murray even chided Mallett’s certitude given his age and inexperience, noting that the union had given up raises for years when BART had budget deficits, and now that the district is running surpluses, it’s reasonable to give workers raises that amount to about 2 percent per year for four years, particularly given the union also gave on their benefit packages.

“Our employees kept the system going…They’re the reason why we keep 40-year-old cars still running,” Murray said, later adding, “To say this contract is not a good contract is wrong.”

The rest of the board agreed, even why acknowledging it is more than they hoped to pay given the district capital needs and aggressive expansion plans.

“We’re probably paying more for this than we anticipated we would pay, and labor is probably going up more than they want to, but that’s the nature of collective bargaining,” Keller said, who also began what turned into a chorus of criticism for how district negotiators signed off on a provision the board never agreed to.

“We ended on a sloppy note and that’s regretable,” Keller said, pledging that if he’s elected president next month — an ascension that is customary for the vice president — he plans to lauch a full investigation into what happened.

“I’m pained that we put ourselves in such adversarial positions with each other and that we lost the lives of two employees,” Director John McPartland said of the protracted labor negotiations and the fatalities that occurred while the unions were on strike Oct. 19. He called the contract “more than fair and equitible.”

Director James Fang, who represents western San Francisco, sounded the strongest criticisms of BART management and negotiators. “Yes, it was a mistake, but nobody has come forward and said ‘there was a mistake and I’m responsible,” Fang said, later adding, “The ones who signed this must be held to account.”

Fang then went further, albeit without specifics, when he said, “Every bit of management advice we’ve received has not worked out to the district’s best interests.” Given the looming investigations by the California Legislature and National Transportation Safety Board of BART culpability in the Oct. 19 deaths — the result of management preparing to break the strike by training replacement drivers and contesting longstanding demands by state regulators to make safety improvements that likely would have prevented the tragedy — Fang’s comment could ultimately prove to be a huge understatement.

Director Robert Raburn echoed Fang’s calls for accountability: “I’m still not clear on how that [contract provision] arrived and it hasn’t been accounted for by anyone at the district who said ‘I am responsible.’”

But he also said that the provision was clearly an error and not something arrived at through the negotiations: “Both parties agreed on a $67 million package and we should keep that intact because it’s fair.”

Reached by the Guardian this afternoon while union leadership was conferring to plan next steps, SEIU Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly told us, “We are about as up in the air as we’ll ever been.”

As a first step, he said the unions are consulting with their attorneys on the legality of today’s vote. “We think the action might be an unfair labor practice and illegal under labor law,” Daly said.

He also called it “unlikely” that union leadership would simply submit the board-revised contract to an up-or-down vote by union membership, saying that he doesn’t think it would be approved.

And Daly echoed the concerns expressed by several BART directors about how this mistake happened and why nobody has taken responsibility or been held accountable: “If I were on that board, I’d have the general manager’s head, there’s no two ways about it.”

UPDATE 11/22: Today BART’s largest unions, SEIU 1021 and ATU 1555, issued the following joint statement on the BART Board’s recent vote regarding whether to ratify the labor contracts:

“We consider the Board’s actions to be unprecedented and illegitimate, and we’re considering our next steps, including possible legal action.

“The BART Board of Directors has disregarded the vote of more than two thousand BART workers and has chosen to subvert the collective bargaining process, and we take their actions seriously.”

BART “mistake” threatens its contract agreement with workers UPDATED

Sasha Cuttler

-

November 15, 2013

35

BART “mistake” threatens its contract agreement with workers UPDATED

Just when it appeared the ugly contract impasse between BART management and workers was over — a divisive struggle that resulted in two debilitating four-day strikes and the Oct. 19 death of two workers struck by a train being used to train possible replacement drivers — BART management is threatening to scuttle the deal over a provision it says was mistakenly added to the contract.

At issue is a contract provision where BART workers from SEIU Local 1021 and ATU Local 1555 who go on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act will be paid for six of the 12 weeks the law allows them to take unpaid, BART spokesperson Luna Salaver told the Guardian.

While BART management and its negotiators — including Assistant General Manager of Operations Paul Oversier and Thomas Hock, a contractor who the district paid $400,000 to lead its negotiations — signed off on the provision back in July and again when the final deal was reached last month, Salaver said BART didn’t mean to include it.

“It was a mistake that a provision rejected twice by BART management ended up in the stack of approved documents,” Salaver said, noting that it was caught this week as the district prepared to give the contract final approval on Nov. 21. It has already been approved by the two unions.

“We were never confused as to the status of the Family and Medical Leave Act agreement,” Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly told the Guardian, calling the provision a reasonable benefit similar to one that he sponsored for city employees when he was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

But Salaver said it could add tens of millions of dollars in costs (the district still isn’t sure how much) to a contact that will already cost the district an additional $67 million, so management is convening a special session of BART’s Board of Directors this afternoon (Fri/15) to discuss the issue, saying that management isn’t yet recommending the contract be rejected, as some had reported. [UPDATE: The BART board told administrators to re-open negotiations with the unions, but the unions are resisting a return to the bargaining table and urge the board to approve the contract on Thursday].

“There is an erroneous report that BART management is going to tell the BART board to reject the contract,” Salaver told us, inside calling the closed-session discussion a “fact-finding session.”

But Daly said BART management had told the unions that it would recommend rejection of the contract, and that it is now backpedaling because some directors are unhappy with the snafu. It also has a serious public relations problem on its hands, finding itself in a position to reignite the battle with workers while also contending with angry state legislators and an ongoing NTSB investigation into its culpability in the worker deaths.

The complete prepared statement issued last night from SEIU 1021 Executive Director Pete Castelli follows:

“BART Management has been in contact regarding the tentative agreement they reached with SEIU 1021 and ATU 1555 on October 21st and which our members unanimously ratified. We’ve been informed that they’ve scheduled a special meeting with the BART Board of Directors to discuss the terms of the contract and to clarify details regarding certain provisions for tomorrowafternoon.

“In July, BART Management and its unions reached a tentative agreement on family medical leave, which was signed by BART Management and their chief negotiator. During a thorough review of the final settlement last month, BART Management and their attorneys did not raise any concerns about how this tentative agreement or other provisions in the final settlement would prevent them from recommending the contract to the Board for approval.

“It’s disappointing to hear BART Management would recommend that the BART Board reject this agreement—a contract they negotiated with their workers for more than five months, signed, and praised in the public as a fair compromise.

“We expect the BART Board of Directors to vote on and approve this fair and reasonable contract.”

BART’s safety culture slammed at Assembly hearing

Michael Redmond

-

November 12, 2013

1

BART was slammed by legislators and its workers on Nov. 7 for refusing to make a key worker safety improvement demanded by state regulators since a 2008 fatality, instead choosing to aggressively defend the “simple approval” process that contributed to two more fatalities on Oct. 19, after which the district finally made the change.

The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment had already planned the San Francisco hearing into why BART spent years appealing rulings by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration before the recent tragedy, but that incident sharpened criticism of the district for valuing efficiency over safety.

“The culture of safety at BART must change,” said BART train operator Jesse Hunt, who gave dramatic testimony about the callous culture at BART that led to the Oct. 19 tragedy. “It’s not a single incident, it’s a pattern of disregard for safety.”

The hearing also delved into why BART had an uncertified trainee at the helm of the train that killed Christopher Sheppard and Laurence Daniels on Oct. 19, despite warnings by its unions that district preparations to run limited service during the strike would be unsafe (see “Tragedy follows strike,” Oct. 23).

“Simple approval” made employees doing work on the tracks responsible to avoid being hit by trains moving silently at up to 80mph. When BART exhausted its administrative appeals of Cal-OSHA’s rulings in June, it filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court and continued to defend the practice, which its unions had long sought to end.

“BART challenged that citation and continues to do so to this day,” Chair Roger Hernandez (D-West Covina) said in his opening remarks, noting that it took two recent fatalities for BART to drop its stance. “I’m deeply troubled this decision wasn’t made much earlier.”

For BART, the hearing only went downhill from there as state regulators testified to the district’s litigious refusal to adopt important safety precautions, employees painted a picture of a district hostile to them and their safety concerns, and legislators chastised BART managers for not having reasonable answers to their questions.

In response, BART Assistant General Manager of Operations Paul Oversier denied the district undervalues safety and said that it defended the simple approval process because it had been used tens of thousand of times and, “We had a track record in mind of a procedure that was working well.”

Asked whether he continues to defend it after the Oct. 19 incident, Oversier said, “Irrespective of what our opinion might be, we suspended the simple approval process,” a decision that he said could disrupt service, increase costs, and “that may cause us to look at what our hours of operation are.”

The hearing was called by Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-SF, who said in his opening remarks, “I was very concerned to read many of the OSHA findings, that it found BART was in violation of California state law,” which prohibits employers from making workers responsible for their own safety in dangerous situations.

Later, Ting questioned BART Chief Safety Officer Jeff Lau about how many of OSHA’s safety violations it had taken steps to correct versus how many it continues to resist, a question Lau said that he couldn’t answer. “I’m extraordinarily disappointed in your response,” Ting told Lau, demanding that he prepare a detailed written response to the questions and submit it to the committee, which plans to revisit the issue once more details emerge from the NTSA investigation of the Oct. 19 incident.

Undocumented and unafraid

Michael Redmond

-

November 12, 2013

45

rebecca@sfbg.com

Business as usual means buses depart from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in downtown San Francisco every weekday, ferrying deportees from throughout the region to federal detention centers or the airport. Even in San Francisco, a Sanctuary City where local law enforcement agencies have limited cooperation with ICE authorities, life can be filled with uncertainty for those who lack legal citizenship status.

In recent years, many immigrant activists have taken the step of publicly revealing themselves to be “undocumented,” to sound a call for immigration reform and to push back against the fearful existence that the looming threat of deportation can create.

But the young people who are profiled here have taken things a step further, going so far as to risk arrest by protesting deportations and pushing for immigration reform, all while identifying themselves loud and clear as undocumented.

In the same vein as protesters who marched for civil rights, gay rights, free speech, or in anti-war movements before them, the undocumented youth are putting themselves on the line. Their mantra, chanted at top volume, is “undocumented and unafraid,” highlighting the ever-present possibility that they could face stiff penalties for their actions.

Nationwide, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants remain in limbo as a push for federal immigration reform, which would create a pathway to citizenship for people in the country illegally, remains stalled in Congress. While community-led campaigns have yielded legislation that creates safeguards against deportation for young people who arrived with their parents as children, bureaucratic nightmares and forced deportations continue unabated.

Nearly everyone we interviewed for this article mentioned their grandparents while sharing their personal stories with the Guardian. While the politics and policy surrounding immigration reform are tremendously complex, the impact the current system has on people’s lives often boils down to problems like not being able to take a flight to visit an ailing grandparent because it would be impossible to return.

“It’s intense,” says Nicole Salgado, an American citizen who lives with her foreign-born husband in Mexico. “Because you know, it’s essentially an issue of trespassing, and so it seems to me like it’s a really harsh penalty for a civil infraction. No harm was done to a person, and that’s the case for the vast majority of people who are in this situation.”

ALEX ALDANA

Alex Aldana is nervous.

He’s stopped making eye contact, which is strange, because Aldana doesn’t normally break eye contact, and isn’t the nervous type. Since 2012, he’s been arrested seven times.

All seven arrests stemmed from acts of civil disobedience, each carried out to protest the same issue: immigration laws that he views as unjust, because they lead to forced deportation.

Aldana, 26, is an undocumented immigrant. He entered the US legally from Guadalajara, Mexico, in February 2003 on a work visa, but when the time on his visa ran out, he was left undocumented. It coincided with the departure of his father, a man Aldanda says deceived his family.

Like many other undocumented immigrants, he has been trying to give a largely misunderstood population a face. Unlike many others, he’s doing so in a way that carries a great deal of risk.

He’s part of the growing contingent of undocumented immigrants who are, as they say, “undocumented and unafraid.” And when they say it, they shout it.

Aldana participated in a sit-in inside Gov. Jerry Brown’s office. He’s faced the Ku Klux Klan at pro-immigration reform rallies in San Bernardino. He’s been a key link in a human roadblock created to halt a deportation bus in San Francisco. He’s been detained by ICE and local police departments. He normally comes across as fearless, but not on this day.

“This is probably the last crazy thing I’ll do,” Aldana says. “I have thought about it, I have planned it.”

Sometime in late November, he and an intrepid band of humanitarian crusaders plan on taking their fight to the southern US border for the first action of its kind.

The details — which they’re keeping intentionally vague — involve a group of activists crossing the San Diego-Tijuana border legally (many are still Mexican citizens, after all), before ferrying previously deported people back over the border into the United States.

Their hope is to create a spectacle to raise awareness, and even mentioning the planned action makes Aldana squirm a bit. He’s hesitant to disclose specific information; the wrong statement could end his journey before it begins, he explains.

And the timing isn’t perfect for community support, he adds. The last act of civil disobedience he engaged in — a human blockade that halted an ICE bus (see “On the line,” Oct. 23) — didn’t garner universal backing within the immigrant activist community.

“[Some] people are really backlashing the immigrant youth movement right now,” says Aldana. “They consider us harmful.”

But on the flip side, Aldana considers that community’s apathy toward deportation harmful. He doesn’t think that any approved immigration reform should even include deportation as an option.

“In the immigrant community, if you mention ‘immigration reform’ — not ‘conscious,’ not ‘comprehensive,’ just ‘immigration reform’ — then you hear, ‘Yeah, I support it,'” he says. “But what kind of immigration reform are we supporting? Are we supporting militarization? Are we supporting massive deportation? Because word by word, that’s what it says right now.”

The immigration reform package now being pushed by President Obama includes beefed up border security, a crackdown on the hiring of undocumented immigrants, and streamlined deportation procedures, along with a path to citizenship.

Aldana’s confidence in his activism belies a background drenched in fear.

“I never learned how to drive because of that fear [of being deported]. I never traveled because of that fear,” he says. “One of the reasons I never went to college was because ICE was in every bus stop, at least where I come from. When you lose fear, you do incredible things. I’ve been to like 30 states now.”

He started on the activism trail when he was still in high school in Coachella, advocating for women’s rights after watching his mother suffer through domestic abuse, but he didn’t start advocating for immigration reform until years later.

“I was very open about my sexuality and my gender identity very early on,” says Aldana, who identifies as queer. Yet he felt more self-conscious about sharing his immigration status. “Ten years after that, even when I was working for a nonprofit [in Southern California], I was really afraid saying I was undocumented, because my family depended on that job.”

More recently, Aldana has struck a balance between activism and bread winning, a lifestyle that will be put to the test in the coming month. He says he isn’t planning on coming back to the US for a little while after the protest at the border, but not for legal reasons. He just wants to have peace of mind for a moment, to be treated like any other American.

“My grandmother is dying, and I’m not gonna wait for any policy to deny what I couldn’t do with my mom’s mom,” says Aldana. “I think that when what makes us human is that vulnerability, that we really need to have those rights.”

He adds, “I really dislike when people say, ‘I’m gonna visit so-and-so because they’re really sick and they’re on the other side of the world.’ To me it’s like, why can’t I do that?” (Reed Nelson)

MAY LIANG

May Liang, a 23-year-old campaign organizer who accompanied her parents to the United States from China as a child, remembers the moment she realized there were other undocumented Asian families in her midst.

She was at a conference on issues surrounding the Asian Pacific Islander community at the University of California Berkeley campus, where she was a student. “Outside of each workshop, there’s this poster. This one said ‘undocumented Asian students.'” It struck a chord as she realized she wasn’t the only one.

It was one of the first meetings of ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education), a small but growing organization where Liang is now the first paid staff member. Her first undertaking was to plan out last month’s ICE bus blockade.

Now, she’s in the middle of preparing for a Thanksgiving Day vigil to be staged with others outside the West County Detention Center in Richmond, where undocumented immigrants are held in federal custody. Many in her community won’t get the chance to enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with loved ones, she says, “because their families have been ripped apart by deportation.”

Liang wasn’t always an activist. She didn’t become aware of the barriers her immigration status presented until she became a teenager and started pursuing part-time jobs and a driver’s license, only to discover she lacked a Social Security number.

Not having an ID posed problems, but she’s quick to note that she had it easier than some of her fellow activists. “I walk around, and nobody suspects me because I’m Asian. In the media we see a lot of Latino people,” she explains. Nevertheless, “It was just like hiding a secret. I was trying to pass as something I knew that I wasn’t.”

One day, just as she was gearing up to go to college, her father called a family meeting. Their immigration status had been “pending” ever since they’d arrived on tourist visas and applied for green cards. But he’d just been notified that their applications had been denied.

“As soon as you get denied, you can’t be here,” Liang notes. “And so we were also ordered deported.”

They decided to fight it out in court, and the case dragged on until after she’d entered college.

“My family’s first court date was on the same day as a midterm,” she recalls. “It was really early in the morning, at the immigration court on Montgomery. I was in the waiting room, reading and studying. And then right afterward, I got on the BART and took my anatomy midterm. It felt really surreal.”

In the end, they were able to avert deportation, yet remained undocumented. As a full-time activist, Liang is thinking big. “For me, it’s like we need to change the system of immigration. One of the most important things we need is sort of a cultural shift as to how we treat people.”

Her first priority is to call for an end to deportations as long as federal immigration reform remains pending in Congress.

Liang is big on being inclusive. Laws such as the California DREAM Act, which aids undocumented students, and the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals can help youth like herself. Yet she doesn’t understand that piecemeal approach.

“Why is there a distinction being made, just because we’re younger?” she says. “These narratives were given to us. We did not create them. And it becomes divisive, because it really puts our parents under the bus.”

She’s also critical of the notion that immigration laws should treat people differently based on their nations of origin. “We like to say immigration is a Latino issue,” she says. “But it is also an Asian issue. It’s an American issue, because we are immigrants of America.”

Along those lines, Liang regards the work that she and other undocumented youth are engaged in as being a kind of patriotism, for a country that hasn’t yet accepted them as citizens.

“We actually love this country,” she says, “because it does have this sort of mentality of fighting for your rights, social justice, freedom of speech, and that stuff. In all that has happened in the history of this country, there are so many examples of things having been changed because of the people.” (Rebecca Bowe)

DAVID LEMUS

On July 21, 2008, David Lemus arrived in the United States at the age of 16.

He’d spent the previous two days marooned in the pick-your-poison expanse of desert spanning the southern border of the US.

All told, his El Salvador-to-California journey lasted a month, and he did the final two-day leg of the passage solo, carrying nothing more than a water bottle, tortillas, and beans.

He had no identification, he said, and no other personal items; nothing that could tie him to an existence he was supposed to be leaving behind. The goal was to be invisible, both to Border Patrol and any computers storing records.

He made the trip with his father and two younger brothers, but he’d last seen them in Mexico; the coyote guiding them across the border had informed Lemus and his family that they stood a better chance of making it if they split up. Lemus got in one car, next to a Honduran teenager who was roughly the same age, and his father and brothers got into another one.

He didn’t see his father and brothers again until October 2008. They were detained at the US-Mexico border and were deported back to El Salvador; their second trip took over four months, but they finally made it.

Lemus, his father, and his brothers were trying to reunite with his mother and sister, who had successfully completed the journey earlier that year. But as things went, Lemus was ferried across the border, let out in the desert, and traveled across a desert known for its potentially fatal landscape, all without his family.

It was a remarkable journey — hot, rugged, impossibly arid — made even more remarkable by the fact that Lemus, along with the rest of his family, is among the millions to complete it. Yes, millions.

But now, as a UC Berkeley student and member of the East Bay Immigrant Youth Coalition, Lemus is a key player in the “undocumented and unafraid” wave of activism that is under way in California, and he’s a long way from donning the invisible mask he felt he had to wear while crossing the desert.

“Undocumented and unafraid is probably the only thing owned by the undocumented community, where we can say, ‘This is our thing,'” Lemus said.

Lemus and his peers have been making waves in California since 2011, when an anti-ICE action in San Bernardino made national headlines. He was arrested alongside six other students in the demonstration, which he refers to as “coming out of the shadows.”

It was his first action of civil disobedience, and the rush of activism overwhelmed him. The second time he was arrested for civil disobedience was this past summer, while protesting President Obama and the slow pace of immigration reform.

“The first time was scary, because we didn’t know what was going to happen,” Lemus said. “But I also feel that that is the moment when you really wake up, because you see it for the first time.”

Lemus is a born agitator, someone who can’t sit idly by while an injustice is being committed. His face, almost eternally placid, contorts when he mentions things like the public perception of undocumented immigrants.

“People say that we are not only the shit stirrers, but that we created the shit,” said Lemus. “And that’s not fair. The way I see it is that most immigrants are here because of a lot of actions the US has taken in Latin America; military interventions in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, Venezuela. You know we don’t even have a currency in El Salvador anymore? We have dollars.”

Lemus doesn’t consider himself a DREAMer, a word used to describe students brought here as children who would receive protection from deportation under the federal DREAM Act, were it signed into law. He was born in El Salvador and remembers it well, in stark contrast to the DREAMers — and doesn’t know if he would even want to become a US citizen should the opportunity present itself, since he says he’s witnessed too much injustice at the institutional level.

What he won’t stop fighting for is what he calls, “not civil rights, but human rights. It would be unfair for us to want civil rights right now, because we need to get human rights first.”

For Lemus, that distinction is about valuing our basic humanity more than our citizenship.

“I don’t think a lot of people realize the amount of risk it takes to come here,” he said. “We leave everything behind in the process, and a lot of times we don’t get it back. We just want a better life.” (RN)

SITI “PUTRI” RAHMAPUTRI

Siti Rahmaputri, who goes by Putri, was 19 when she risked arrest by joining a handful of classmates in disrupting a meeting of the University of California Board of Regents.

A petite, soft-spoken UC Berkeley student, she hardly comes across as an agitator. Yet she joined the July protest to voice anger about the selection of Janet Napolitano, former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as head of the UC system. For undocumented students like Rahmaputri, Napolitano is synonymous with deportations due to her former post as head of the agency that oversees ICE.

When they got word of Napolitano’s appointment, Rahmaputri and fellow activist Ju Hong joined with some students from UC Irvine and UC San Diego to call attention to the secretary’s role in deportations.

“We started chanting, ‘undocumented unafraid,’ ‘education not deportation,’ ‘no to Napolitano.’ Unfortunately, two of my friends got hurt — they were tackled down by the UC police. And at the end, the four of us stood there and really linked arms. We were screaming and screaming,” she recalls. In a matter of minutes, “everyone left except for us, the media, and the UC police. The UC Regents were just outside the door.”

She was charged with two misdemeanors, placed in handcuffs for several hours, and then released. But the whole time, Rahmaputri said she felt encouraged by supporters from ASPIRE and others.

“I heard people chanting from the outside: Let them go. Let them go. I didn’t want to seem scared, I wanted to seem confident, like here I am, getting arrested, so what?” she says. “I’m just standing for the things that I feel is right.”

Originally from Indonesia, Rahmaputri attended middle school and high school in San Francisco after coming to the United States with her parents at age 11. Not long ago, she and her parents narrowly averted deportation.

“They never really told me exactly that I was undocumented, but they gave me hints,” she says of her upbringing.

A couple years ago, not long after she’d enrolled in Diablo Valley College, her parents were notified — six months late, due to an incorrect address — that their green card applications had been denied.

“I lost a lot of hope. I didn’t really know what to do,” she remembers. “I talked to my counselor and asked, ‘should I keep going in school or should I start working instead to save money to go back to Indonesia?'”

In the end, they were able to defer deportation through letters of support and legal assistance from the Asian Law Caucus, but their immigration status continues to hang in the balance, and the possibility of eventual deportation still looms.

In early October, Napolitano agreed to sit down with Rahmaputri and nine other UC students to discuss policies affecting undocumented university students. The activists urged her to shore up sanctuary protections, by providing campus resources and incorporating better sensitivity training for UC police.

But it was a little awkward, Rahmaputri thought, because Napolitano’s office had made it a lunch meeting.

“She was just there eating her lunch, listening to our stories and our struggles and why we think she should not be here. And here she is, enjoying her meal. It was a weird conversation. She said okay, ‘I will look at it thoroughly. Give me time to look at it.’ So, she’s basically not giving us any answers.”

She and others plan to keep the pressure on by staging rallies whenever Napolitano makes public appearances, and they were planning an action for the Nov. 8 inauguration of the new Berkeley chancellor, Nicholas Dirks.

When her family was fighting deportation, Rahmaputri caught a glimpse of detainees in the ICE facility in downtown San Francisco when she was there to be fingerprinted. She was impacted by the sight of them being led around in shackles.

“It was time for me to reflect, that I have this privilege to be free, to be out here where I can speak my mind, and I am able to go to school and get educated,” she says of that experience. “At the same time, I want to represent others who cannot.” (RB)

Agitating in exile

An American citizen who was born and raised in the United States, Nicole Salgado holds a master’s degree, is a published author, and previously held jobs in the Bay Area as a high school science teacher and urban gardener. While she might seem like an unlikely person to be directly impacted by immigration laws, she’s essentially been living in exile in Queretaro, Mexico, for the past seven years.

She’s there because Margo, Salgado’s husband and the father of their daughter, is prevented from returning to the US from Mexico due to immigration laws.

“It really boils down to some pretty strict technicalities,” Salgado explained in a Skype interview. “There’s really not any way around it. My husband has a permanent bar that lasts 10 years, and we’re in year seven of that. And if there was no reform in the next three years, we would not be able to apply — just apply — for his return until 2016.”

They met in 2001, when she was 23.

“I worked for the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners. I was working on a project down the peninsula, in La Honda, and I met Margo through friends. We got really close really fast, and got engaged within a few months,” she said.

Salgado knew he was undocumented, “but I didn’t know what it entailed.” Simply getting married, it turned out, wasn’t going to put them in the clear.

As long as they remained in the US, Margo’s status was a source of anxiety. He didn’t have a driver’s license, but nevertheless had to drive in order to work.

“I was always really petrified when he would be working more than half an hour away from the house,” Salgado said. “Because I always knew that if there was just one little bit of racial profiling, or something wrong with the taillight or something, then he could get pulled over.”

They closely monitored the progress of proposed laws that could offer protection for undocumented immigrants, and went to immigration rallies. But in the end, they opted for joining his family in Mexico, because they did not want to live in fear.

Salgado co-authored a book with Nathaniel Hoffman, Amor and Exile: True Stories of Love Across America’s Borders, which explores the role that American citizens who are married to undocumented immigrants might play in the larger immigration reform efforts in Congress.

She’s also been organizing online. “We got together and we formed a sort of loosely organized forum of women, like myself who were in exile, or were separated from their spouses in the US,” she said. “We called ourselves Action for Family Unity.”

She acknowledges that adults who knowingly crossed the border illegally might have a harder time winning over the public at large than youth who were brought to the US as children. Yet she still believes the laws that have placed her in this situation are in need of reform.

“My basic premise is, you know, the US is a nation of immigrants, and we depend on immigrants every year as part of our economy and part of our society,” Salgado says. “And as an American citizen, I believe that it’s my right to be able to determine where I want to live, regardless of who my choice of spouse is.” (RB)

BART’s safety culture slammed at Assembly hearing

Sasha Cuttler

-

November 7, 2013

7

BART was slammed by legislators and its workers today for refusing to make a key worker safety improvement demanded by state regulators since a 2008 fatality, instead choosing to aggressively defend the “simple approval” process that contributed to two more fatalities on Oct. 19, after which the district finally made the change.

The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment had already planned today’s San Francisco hearing into why BART spent years appealing rulings by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations before the recent tragedy, but that incident sharpened criticism of the district for valuing efficiency over safety.

“The culture of safety at BART must change,” said BART train operator Jesse Hunt, who gave dramatic testimony about the callous culture at BART that led to the Oct. 19 tragedy. “It’s not a single incident, it’s a pattern of disregard for safety.”

The hearing also delved into why BART had an uncertified trainee at the helm of the train that killed Christopher Sheppard and Laurence Daniels on Oct. 19, despite warnings by its unions that district preparations to run limited service during the strike would be unsafe.

“Simple approval” made employees doing work on the tracks responsible to avoid being hit by trains moving silently at up to 80mph. When BART exhausted its administrative appeals of Cal-OSHA’s rulings in June, it filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court and continued to defend the practice, which its unions had long sought to end.

“BART challenged that citation and continues to do so to this day,” Chair Roger Hernandez (D-West Covina) said in his opening remarks, noting that it took two recent fatalities for BART to drop its stance. “I’m deeply troubled this decision wasn’t made much earlier.”

For BART, the hearing only went downhill from there as state regulators testified to the district’s litigious refusal to adopt important safety precautions, employees painted a picture of a district hostile to them and their safety concerns, and legislators chastised BART managers for not having reasonable answers to their questions.

In response, BART Assistant General Manager of Operations Paul Oversier denied the district undervalues safety and said that it defended the simple approval process because it had been used tens of thousand of times and, “We had a track record in mind of a procedure that was working well.”

Asked whether he continues to defend it after the Oct. 19 incident, Oversier said, “Irrespective of what our opinion might be, we suspended the simple approval process,” a decision that he said could disrupt service, increase costs, and “that may cause us to look at what our hours of operation are.”

That suggestion drew murmurs of outrage from the union members that packed the hearing, including those who had just testified about how the district refuses to work collaboratively with its workers, who even had to learn of the district’s decision to end simple approval from evening news reports rather than directly.

“Shifting the burden from people in the field to the control center is not a long term solution,” testified Sal Cruz, a BART train controller of 15 years who was on the contract bargaining team. “Time and time again, we’re never really involved in these decision-making processes.”

Christine Baker, director of the Department of Industrial Relations, and Juliann Sum, acting director of its Division of Occupational Safety and Health (better known as Cal-OSHA), testified as to their agency’s long, trying history of getting BART to comply with its rulings, with Baker calling the resistance to reform “clearly an issue of grave concern.”

Legislators probed why that might be the case, asking whether abating the problems might be seen as an admission of liability to either the agency and a victim and whether it was the norm for those cited. Baker said no to both questions: “It is not an admission of guilt if they abate…Many employers abate as soon as there is a citation.”

So why is it standard practice at BART to avoid correcting the 40 violations it received from Cal-OSHA in the last 12 years?

“In most cases, the district has acted in good faith to try to abate the citations,” Oversier testified, but he said that BART often disagreed with Cal-OSHA’s findings and that “the investigation doesn’t really start until you appeal.” He said BART has paid just 22 percent of what it has intially been fined by OSHA, casting that as smart stewardship of ratepayer money and saying, “It’s the appeal process that brings closure to the process.”

Meanwhile, Baker, Sum, and Cal-OSHA attorney Amy Martin said they are currently investigating the Oct. 19 incident for both civil violations and penalties and the possibility of criminal prosecution of BART officials if “they intentionally took the action that led to the fatality,” Martin said.

The hearing was called by Assemblymember Phil Ting, D-SF, who said in his opening remarks, “I was very concerned to read many of the OSHA findings, that it found BART was in violation of California state law,” which prohibits employers from making workers responsible for their own safety in dangerous situations.

Later, Ting questioned BART Chief Safety Officer Jeff Lau — whose testimony came almost entirely from prepared statements he read, in a way that didn’t inspire much confidence in the material — about how many of OSHA’s safety violations it had taken steps to correct versus how many it continues to resist. Lau said that he couldn’t answer the question, even though Ting noted that he first called this hearing back in June and Lau should have been prepared to answer that central question.

“I’m extraordinarily disappointed in your response,” Ting told Lau, demanding that he prepare a detailed written response to the questions and submit it to the committee, which plans to revisit the issue once more details emerge from the NTSA investigation of the Oct. 19 incident.

Most of the panel criticized BART’s foot dragging and called for reforms.

“This latest accident, a terrible tragedy, could have been avoided,” said Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), decrying Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent veto of Assembly Bill 1165 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Oakland), which would have expedited Cal-OSHA appeals and perhaps required BART to fix the problems pending its appeal.

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (S-SF) recounted his own history of difficult dealings with intransigent BART officials, from trying to improve station safety when he was a supervisor starting in the mid-‘90s to his work as a legislator trying to provide some oversight of the BART Police after the Oscar Grant shooting.

“I feel like it still has a long way to go. Transparency and accountability will be very important around this issue,” Ammiano said.

Later, Ammiano asked Cruz whether the ill-fated Oct. 19 train should have been traveling slower than 60-70mph, and Cruz responded, “With knowledge of people being wayside [a term that means on the tracks], you would think that.”

The most scathing and dramatic testimony came from the nine workers called to testify at the hearing, three from each of BART’s three unions, all of which had made safety reforms a big part of their recent contract negotiations, with varying degrees of success.

“We are dealing with a culture at BART that doesn’t take workers seriously or the safety of workers seriously,” began AFSCME District Council 57 Executive Director George Popyack. “Our objective today is to make BART a better and safer place to work.”

Several workers said the district’s main imperatives are to cut costs and keep the trains on time, which causes safety compromises on an almost daily basis. “We’re so pushed to keep that schedule sometimes we push on the edge,” said train controller Ken Perez.

While BART officials refused to discuss details of the Oct. 19 incident, as per a gag order from the NTSB, union members that testified said it’s clear that the district’s disregard for safety and its desire to break the strike are what led to the tragedy.

“BART was planning to run a limited service with people not trained to run those trains and that was connected to this accident,” ATU Local 1555 President Antonette Bryant testified.

“The train that hit the workers was a manager being trained to run the train in the event of an extended strike,” Poyyack said, noting how irresponsible it was to be running a train at what the NTSB said was 60-70mph on the one line where there were workers on the track. He and others said there was no good reason for the district to do so, calling it an example of the district’s flagrant disregard for safety.

“The culture of BART is a significant contributor to the incident,” said BART train operator Jesse Hunt. “The culture is one of gambling with worker and rider safety.”

Hunt said BART’s safety culture directly caused the Oct. 19 tragedy: “There was no reason for a trainee train to be operated or for employees to be on the ground.”

John Arantes, president of the BART Professional Chapter of SEIU Local 1021, said the district took an extremely aggressive posture in labor negotiations — “a scorched earth strategy encouraged by directors like Zachary Mallet,” the newest elected member and one critical of unions in the press — forcing the strike and the unnecessary Oct. 19 tragedy.

And he posed a question that remains unanswered, despite the hearing and the Guardian’s attempts to get an answer: “Who authorized the training exercise and to what extent were the BART directors involved?”

Hearing to probe safety at BART and issues related to recent tragedy

Sasha Cuttler

-

November 6, 2013

10

Hearing to probe safety at BART and issues related to recent tragedy

The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment will hold a hearing in San Francisco tomorrow (Thu/7 at 10am) looking at workplace safety issues in the BART system, one initially prompted by the district’s record of unaddressed safety violations, but which took on special resonance when two BART workers were killed on the tracks on Oct. 19.

Assemblymember Phil Ting called for the hearing back in June, but he postponed it until the district resolved a protracted contract impasse with its three unions that resulted in two four-day strikes this year, with an agreement finally reached two days after the tragedy — and at least partially prompted by it.

Ting told the Guardian that he was motivated by dozens of violations from the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the district has received since its last fatality in 2008 — which were highlighted by the unions and reported by us — and the fact that “BART ended up appealing them instead of going to fix them.”

“It’s so unfortunate that we have this tragedy, which will create a greater sense of urgency on this issue,” Ting said, noting that he wants to focus on, “How do we move forward and fix these problems?”

Beyond those safety issues lurk another important issue that we at the Guardian have been raising, but which most journalists have ignored and the district has tried to avoided addressing: Was the district ignoring safety concerns by its unions to train replacement drivers on that ill-fated train, and did its preparations to run limited service during a strike harden its negotiating stance and force the strikes and ultimately the tragedy?

It may be many months before the National Transportation Safety Board investigation arrives at conclusions about what caused the fatalities, but it has already said that a trainee was at the helm at the time. Although the NTSB has told the district not to publicly discuss the accident, that doesn’t cover the labor negotiations that led up to it, and the Guardian has finally been able to get some responses from the district to our questions (below, you can find an extended exchange between me and BART spokesperson Alicia Trost), but key questions remain unanswered.

Will tomorrow’s hearing illuminate the connection between the labor impasse and the tragedy? “We’ll have to touch on some of it,” Ting told us. “But I’m not sure what they’ll say.”

BART Board President Tom Radulovich discussed the issues with the Guardian, and he cautioned about any rush to judgement about the cause of the Oct. 19 accident and whether it was connected to preparations that the district was making to possibly offer replacement service, which the board would have had to approve.

Although he said the board was briefed by district officials about the possibility of offering service, Radulovich said he didn’t consider the idea feasible and that “a lot of directors had misgivings about even the possibility of running replacement service.”

Radulovich also defended the eventual deal as resulting from compromises on both sides and not simply the district sweetening its offer and dropping some of its work rule demands — which the unions had blamed for the Oct. 17 breakdown in negotiations — and “I don’t think [limited replacement service] would have broken a strike.”

But SEIU Local 1021 Political Director Chris Daly, who was part of the union’s negotiating team, said the district was “bargaining toward a strike” all year and that the threat of running replacement service was taken seriously by the unions, all of whom warned the district it would be unsafe.

“We would have lost this fight if they had put limited service on,” Daly told us, noting how that would have allowed the district to weather a strike long enough to break the will of union members.

Daly also disputes the district’s characterization that relaxed work rules demands by the unions settled the impasse, telling us, “In the end, the deal was a little more compromise on substance, but not as much as that would have occurred in the binding arbitration that we proposed before the strikes.”

The district rejected that offer, setting the stage for the latest strike, and Daly said the only reason why BART softened its stance was because the tragedy made BART realize its plan to run replacement service was not longer a viable option: “There is not question in anyone’s mind that was the breakthrough.”

Both Radulovich and district officials insist there were no active plans to run replacement service, although BART spokesperson Alicia Trost made clear that the district had publicly raised that possibility and that training to that end was already underway at the time the tragedy.

Radulovich insists that the district wasn’t bargained toward a strike and that “we just wanted a balanced package.” But he also wasn’t at the bargaining table, and he says that he’s not aware of how much driver training had been done and whether it was being done on the ill-fated train in preparation for replacement service.

“I still have a lot of questions and I do want to see the facts,” Radulovich told us.

We at the Guardian also still have a lot of questions, which Trost was dodging until just a few days ago, when my last blog post on the topic finally prompted a substantial response. So here’s our most recent email exchange:

SFBG: Who at the district proposed training replacement drivers and did the board approve that training?
Did the district discuss warnings from the unions that such training would be unsafe? Why was the decision made to go ahead with the training anyway?
Why did it take days for BART to admit a trainee was driving the train that killed those men? And wasn’t casting that train as solely on a maintenance run deceptive?
Does the district regret the decision to train replacement drivers?
What role did the tragedy play in BART’s decision to sweeten its final offer and end the strike?
Did anyone at the district discuss with Tom Hocke how running replacement service could help break a strike? Do you deny that running limited service would help to break a strike?
Did the possibility of running replacement service allow the district to take a tougher stance at the bargaining table? And did this tragedy help the district conclude that running such service wasn’t a viable option?
Can you characterize what you meant by an “extended strike” and explain why training took place immediately at the onset if the strike?

BART: The District wanted a plan in place to run limited train service in the event of a prolonged strike. The intent was never to replace workers, as our workers would be welcomed back once a strike ended, but to provide some limited congestion relief if the Bay Area was faced with a long, crippling and economically devastating strike.

If the district was going to provide this limited service for the public it would need more certified managers which is why we were training. At the same time we were negotiating in good faith and trying to prevent a strike from happening in the first place. Our priority was always to get to a deal and avoid an unnecessary strike. Once the unions went on strike for the second time we continued to negotiate and leave the door open for a deal. Which is exactly what happened. A deal came together and BART never needed to go to the board with a limited train service plan. Safety is always our top priority and is always the first, second and third consideration in everything we do.

The NTSB immediately put a gag order on BART officials just hours after the tragic deaths, which remains in place today. Only the NTSB can provide information surrounding the incident. The NTSB announced the train was being used for both maintenance and training purposes. Under the gag order, BART is allowed to site what the NTSB has reported to date.

The tragedy certainly redoubled everyone’s efforts to get to a deal. The breakthrough came when the unions presented language on Beneficial Past Practice on Sunday night. This opened the door to continue to work off the progress that had been made on the economic components with the mediators just days before and resolve the remaining issues.

SFBG: Thanks for finally getting back to me, but I don’t think you directly answered any of the questions that I posed.

BART: Did BART management consider the warnings (include one in the form of a

lawsuit) that running that service was unsafe? Safety is always our top priority and is always the first, second and third consideration in everything we do.

And did the tragedy reinforce that safety question and signal to the district that running trains during a strike was probably unwise and that the district should sweeten its contract offer?

We have to run trains during a strike to exercise the system (details sent in a earlier email.) If you are talking about running passenger service, we never needed to move forward with such a plan as we were not faced with a prolonged strike. The tragedy certainly redoubled everyone’s efforts to get to a deal. The breakthrough came when the unions presented language on Beneficial Past Practice on Sunday night. This opened the door to continue to work off the progress that had been made on the economic components with the mediators just days before and resolve the remaining issues.

Who at the district proposed training replacement drivers and did the board approve that training?

The Operations Department was conducting the training as publically discussed by Paul Oversier to the MTC and to the media. The board does not need to approve training. (on background: I do not know if or who officially “proposed it.” The first I learned of the concept was the MTC meeting.)

Did the district discuss warnings from the unions that such training would be unsafe? Why was the decision made to go ahead with the training anyway?

Safety is always our top priority and is always the first, second and third consideration in everything we do. The District wanted a plan in place to run limited train service in the event of a prolonged strike.

Why did it take days for BART to admit a trainee was driving the train that killed those men? And wasn’t casting that train as solely on a maintenance run deceptive?

During the press conference immediately following the accident, a reporter asked where the train was going. Mr. Oversier explained the train had just dropped off the graffiti train and was headed back to Concord. He said he didn’t know who was driving the train as he had just arrived to the scene. The NTSB immediately put a gag order on BART

officials just hours after the tragic deaths, which remains in place today. Only the NTSB can provide information surrounding the incident. The NTSB announced the train was being used for both maintenance and training purposes. Under the gag order, BART is allowed to site what the NTSB has reported to date, which is why we can now point out the fact the train was both a training train and a maintenance/inspection trains we routinely run during strikes to exercise the system and deploy staff to assignments.
Does the district regret the decision to train replacement drivers?

This is a difficult question to answer without a summary of findings from the NTSB.
What role did the tragedy play in BART’s decision to sweeten its final

offer and end the strike?

The tragedy certainly redoubled everyone’s efforts to get to a deal. The breakthrough came when the unions presented language on Beneficial Past Practice on Sunday night. This opened the door to continue to work off the progress that had been made on the economic components with the mediators just days before and resolve the remaining
issues.

Did anyone at the district discuss with Tom Hocke how running replacement

service could help break a strike?

No, the intent was to provide some contingencies for the travelling public being adversely impacted by the unions decision to strike.

Do you deny that running limited service would help to break a strike?

The intent was never to replace workers, as our workers would be welcomed back once a strike ended, but to provide some limited congestion relief if the Bay Area was faced with a long, crippling and economically devastating strike. Skeletal service would never be able to replace BART’s normal operation but it could provide a tiny bit of
congestion relief to the public. BART’s bargaining team was always focused
on getting a deal with union leadership- one that would be approved by the
workers as well.

Did the possibility of running replacement service allow the district to take a tougher stance at the bargaining table? And did this tragedy help the district conclude that running such service wasn’t a viable option?

Our priority was always to get to a deal and avoid an unnecessary strike. Once the unions went on strike for the second time we continued to negotiate in good faith and leave the door open for a deal. Which is exactly what happened. A deal came together and BART never needed to go to the board with a limited train service plan.

Can you characterize what you meant by an “extended strike” and explain why training took place immediately at the onset if the strike?

There was never an exact time period placed on what an “extended strike” would be, but
union leadership indicated publically they were prepared for a month long strike which would be the “longest and bloodiest strike” we’ve ever seen. We began initial training weeks before the strike- as widely covered by the media. If the district was going to provide limited service for the public it would need more certified managers than we had.

Media let BART slide

Michael Redmond

-

November 5, 2013

2

BART continues to stonewall important questions about whether it was training scab drivers to break the recent strike by its unions when its trainee-driven train killed two workers on Oct. 19 — a stance made possible by the failure of the mainstream media to connect the dots or correct the anti-union bias that characterized its coverage of this long labor impasse.

Local journalists have failed to highlight the connection between that tragedy and the subsequent decision by the district to suddenly soften its stance and sweeten its offer, within hours of the National Transportation Safety Board revealing that a trainee was driving and that BART’s “maintenance run” story was a deception.

Local media outlets did dutifully report that a trainee was driving, but they failed to point out to readers and viewers the significance of that disclosure or ask the district whether the training was intended to break the strike and whether that plan fed the district’s hardline bargaining stance.

We have asked those questions of the district, and when we got misleading obfuscations, we asked again and again, and our questions are still being largely ignored. And here’s why they matter: Because if the district was planning to run trains during the strike, it reinforces the unions’ contention that the district forced a strike that it was preparing to break, a plan that became untenable when two people died, just as the unions warned might happen if the district ran trains without experienced drivers.

BART spokesperson Alicia Trost did finally confirm to us that, “BART has been training some non-union employees to operate limited passenger train service in the event of an extended strike if so authorized by the Board of Directors,” but she and BART Board President Tom Radulovich have each ignored our follow-up questions and requests to discuss this is greater detail.

This should be a huge scandal, the kind of thing that might force General Manager Grace Crunican to resign and BART directors to lose their seats — except for the fact that the media are ignoring this simple, obvious narrative and failing to do their job.

The East Bay Express, a rare exception on the local media landscape, published an excellent article on Oct. 30 about how the San Francisco Chronicle and Bay Area News Group (which includes the Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, and San Jose Mercury News) misled the public about the BART standoff.

Not only have these daily newspapers written some truly atrociously anti-worker editorials, but even the supposedly objective news stories have been clearly biased in their emphasis and omissions, including the current failure to demand accountability.

But this could backfire considering the truth will probably come out eventually, even if it’s long after the media spotlight has moved on. NTSB investigations can take up to a year, but they are remarkably thorough and it will probably eventually discuss why these drivers were being trained.

The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment announced on Oct. 29 that it will also hold a hearing to “get to the bottom” of the tragedy, and one can only hope that someone on that committee will grill the district about its intentions in running that ill-fated train and conducting new driver training just one day into the latest strike.