Text and photos by Sarah Phelan
How can someone this pretty play so dirty?
Two weeks have passed since Mayor Gavin Newsom told me in person that he had every right to waive the attorney-client privilege in giving a confidential memo to the Chronicle.
And today—two weeks and many requests later– the Mayor’s Office finally sent a copy of this memo, which outlines llegal issues in connection with Sup. David Campos’ proposed legislation to extend due process to undocumented youth.
Sup. David Campos at the Aug.18 rally in support of his legislation. That same day, Newsom, whose office sits directly above the rally, leaked the memo to the Chronicle. Two days later, Newsom claimed he waived attorney-client privilege, but he kept the rest of the media waiting two weeks before sharing the memo with anyone else.
I guess someone in the Mayor’s Office finally got the other memo from the City Attorney’s Office–the one in which the City Attorney explains how the attorney client privilege cannot be reasserted once it’s been waived.
“You cannot un-ring the bell” is how it was explained to me two weeks ago. And no one in the City Attorney’s Office has told me anything different since.
But in the last two weeks, it has became painfully clear that Mayor Gavin Newsom and members of his staff feel entitled to play favorites in their treatment of the media. That’s unjust and totally sucks, and here’s why:
Up until this moment, the only people who have seen the memo have been the Mayor, members of the Board of Supervisors—and reporters at the Chronicle.
As a result, the only interpretation of what this memo says has been the Chronicle’s. And their interpretation was an extremely negative assessment that included damning quotes from Newsom and seemed to amount to sending a free road map of how to sue San Francisco to any anti-immigrant rightwing nuts who have it in for our city and its progressive policies.
Newsom and the Chronicle are entitled to their opinions. But what Newsom is not entitled to do, once he claims he has waivered the attorney-client privilege, is make sure that no other media outlet has the opportunity to read the memo and then report on what it does and doesn’t say.
But now that I have the memo in hand, I can really see just how dirty Newsom is playing around immigration reform.
As Angela Chan, staff attorney for the Asian Law Caucus, puts it, “The gist of the City Attorney’s memo is that the City could get sued more by anti-immigrant groups. It doesn’t say the City would lose. San Francisco is at the forefront of the civil and human rights movement, which is why it rightly takes on these kinds of issues.”
And as Chan further points out, the City Attorney’s memo does not point out the legal risks that the City is taking by allowing undocumented youth to be deported without due process.
Maybe that’s because the City Attorney’s office, understandably, has little or no experience of immigration law.
But those concerns have been outlined in a 20-page brief by the Asian Law Caucus and four other civil rights’ groups that have tons of experience dealing with these issues.
Sadly, the Chronicle has only dedicated one sentence to what this civil rights brief says, even though it outlines legal issues that are just as important to the City’s fiscal and legal well being.
Reached by phone, Sup. David Campos told me today that the Aug. 18 memo about his legislation identifies the challenges that the City could face under federal law.
“But those are challenges that apply to the whole concept of sanctuary, period,” Campos said. “There’s nothing new here.”
“If anything,” Campos added, “my legislation is arguably more legally defensible, because it’s predicated on state law and its unique treatment of juveniles. So, I don’t think that the way the Chronicle characterizes [the Campos proposal] is accurate. They are making it sound like my legislation makes the sanctuary ordinance politically less defensible.”
As Campos notes, his proposal doesn’t protect undocumented youth , if the court decide to charge them as adults.
“If a youth is charged of something so heinous that court decides to charge them as an adult, then they will be reported to ICE right away,” Campos said. “We decided to have a very modest and conservative approach to address a lot of the public safety concerns that law enforcement would have.”
Campos is also bummed that the Chronicle has never bothered to point out that a lot of legal memos are written, particularly when the city is doing something new and edgy.
As for why Newsom’s decided to release the memo about Campos’ proposal, Campos opined “People are terrified of this issue, and I can see why. I get a lot of hate mail, and this is not a way to promote your political career.”
One last point for now: when I asked SFPD Chief Goerge Gascón’s press officer Sgt. Lyn Tomioka to verify quotes he reportedly made in the Chronicle’s Aug. 19 article, expressing concern that under the Campos legislation, “drug or even violent offenders could be released by judges on reduced charges in lieu of reporting them for possible deportation,” Sgt. Tomoika replied that she has “suggested and Chief Gascón has agreed to read the entire Supervisor Campos legislation, and then give a statement.”
I don’t know about you, but my reaction in reading this reply was to think that it was unfair of Newsom to ask the Chief to comment on a memo about a piece of legislation that Gascón had not yet read.
Newsom and Gascón during the Chief’s Aug. 21 swearing-in ceremony.
