Jim Balderston

What are city officials and the Chamber of Commerce planning behind closed doors?

0

San Francisco public officials and the Chamber of Commerce have launched a new Economic Development Corporation with the stated goal of charting and guiding the city’s economic future. But although the decisions the group might make would have dramatic impacts on all of San Francisco, the agency thus far has refused to conduct its business in public.

Although several city officials serve on the EDC’s board of directors in an official capacity and the corporation will be partially funded by the city, the agency’s first meeting, July 16th, was held behind closed doors at the Chamber’s California Street headquarters. A Bay Guardian reporter was told he could not attend the meeting, and no official minutes have been published. The meeting appears to violate the Ralph M. Brown Public Meetings Act.

Paul Wright, deputy executive director of the Chamber of Commerce and acting executive director of the EDC, insisted the meeting did not fall under Brown Act guidelines.

The EDC’s board of directors, however, includes Bill Witte, executive director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Economic Development, Rudy Nothenberg, the city’s chief administrative officer and Nancy Walker, president of the Board of Supervisors. The Brown Act defines “legislative body” as “any board, commission, committee, or other body on which officers of of a local agency serve in their official capacity as members.”

Furthermore, the new EDC receives its funding in part from the Chamber and in part from MOHED. Presently, that funding is limited to “in kind” services such as preparing presentations and clerical services. Under the Brown Act definition, a legislative body must be “supported in whole or part by funds provided by such a public agency.”

The EDC was formed jointly by the Chamber and MOHED and will be incorporated as a nonprofit in the fall of this year. According to the agenda from the July 16th planning meeting, the corporation is designed to “help retain employers in San Francisco and attract appropriate new businesses to the City” and to maintain “a close working relationship between the public and private sectors in the economic development activity of the City.”

Terry Francke, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association and an expert on the Brown Act, told the Bay Guardian that the new EDC qualifies as a “legislative body” as defined under Government Code Section 54950 and therefore any meetings the EDC holds are subject to Brown Act requirements. “If the meeting is official enough to have public officials in attendance then it’s official enough to be open.”

Supervisor Walker was invited to the meeting but could not attend due to a previous commitment, according to staff aide Jean Mariani. Mariani said Walker’s office was seeking a city attorney’s opinion on the status of the EDC and told the Bay Guardian, “Supervisor Walker is concerned with this issue. We will have the situation resolved before the next meeting.” That meeting is scheduled for September 11th.

City Attorney Louise Renne told the Bay Guardian her staff was looking into the matter.*

Seven months late, mainstream media discovers school asbestos problem

0

A little known group of teachers, union representatives and parents of school children called the Asbestos Council, has met twice a month since its inception in March to monitor the district’s asbestos program with no attention from the press. But when the Council and staff members met July 23rd with Tom Sammon, executive assistant to the superintendent of schools, and Eduardo Escobedo, head of general services, the superintendent’s stuffy little conference room was packed with television cameras and reporters from just about every major news outlet in town.

Suddenly, asbestos in the schools is big news. The Chronicle and Examiner have run several front-page stories on the problem, and all three TV news shows in the city have given it extensive coverage. KRON’s NewsCenter 4 alone has aired six segments on the problem in the past week.

KRON Reporter Emil Guillermo presented detailed, hard-hitting stories outlining the extent of the potential hazards the substance poses to district students and staff, and forced top district officials to acknowledge that they had misjudged the situation in the past and allowed it to continue unabated.

Overall, however, the rash of news stories have provided very little information that wasn’t published in the Bay Guardian seven months ago. Back in January and February, the rest of the local media, with the exception of KKCY radio and the San Francisco Progress, seemed remarkably uninterested in asbestos in the schools. (Only KKCY even mentioned during the recent rush of reports that the Bay Guardian had broken the story in January).

And even today, with the exception of KRON, none of the newspapers or broadcast outlets with a newfound interest in the crisis have sought to explain why the school district allowed the asbestos problem to go unacknowledged and unabated for so many years — and who is to blame.

The rash of mainstream news reports, however, does raise an interesting question. For months, top school officials, including Superintendent Ramon Cortines and Escobedo, who directly oversees the school district’s facilities, have sought to downplay the extent of the problem. Although district consultants and some staff have recommended that several schools be shut down and fully cleaned up before students are allowed back, only in July did Cortines decide to close McAteer High School. In recent interviews, the superintendent has still dismissed the staff, students and media concerns as “asbestosphobia.”When the Bay Guardian first warned of the serious and pressing asbestos danger, school administrators and some Board members accused the paper of “scare tactics” and “journalistic misrepresentation.” Now that just about every news outlet in town has confirmed our reports, will the district begin to change its tune?*