Yesterday, the Red Cross Board of Governors forced out their President, Mark Everson, for engaging in “a personal relationship with a subordinate employee.” The move was made 10 days after the organization found out about Everson’s relationship with a woman under his employ, despite general approval of Everson’s job performance otherwise. “The situation reflected poor judgment on Mr. Everson’s part and diminished his ability to lead the organization.” It is reported that the other employee is still in her position. Everson is the latest high profile boss to be let go for a workplace relationship. He joins Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher, Wal-Mart’s Julie Roehm, and possibly Microsoft’s Stuart Scott.

Just last week, the Board of Supervisors voted down an ordinance that would have prohibited managers from engaging in sexual relationships with subordinates. With little explanation, Supervisors acquiesced to the administration, ignoring millions in settlements the City has paid out and the low morale in offices where workers perceive favoritism based on sexual relationships between a co-worker and boss.

San Francisco certainly has a forward-thinking and progressive reputation. We are a town with a very proud labor tradition and have been at the forefront of many struggles for civil rights. We’ve even adopted the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Somehow, when it comes to protecting the rights of our own workers from sexual harassment, uneven power relations, and favoritism in the workplace, we’re way behind Boeing, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and the Red Cross.

At least the guys at the Chronicle are.

Sometimes I wonder what I would think about local politics if I never attended a Board meeting and only got my news through the San Francisco Chronicle. Glancing at this morning’s headlines, I would have learned that people really don’t like the affordable housing measure that I’m asking to have placed on the ballot.

“Critics pan Daly’s plan to put housing measure on S.F. ballot.”

I wouldn’t have realized that yesterday’s 2-hour hearing on the measure featured unanimous support from dozens of folks who came out to make public comment on the proposal.  I wouldn’t even have known that other members of the Board support the measure and that the Rules Committee of the Board forwarded it to the Full Board for consideration. I would think that the measure mandates that $88 million gets spent on affordable housing every year, when the truth is that a baseline of existing spending on housing and related services would be established to protect the City’s current commitment. And I would assume that ballot measures already clog the November 2008 ballot, when actually none have yet to qualify.

If I only read the Chronicle for my local news, wow, I would be very misinformed and really quite miserable!

While not surprising, Randy Shaw’s column on the District 9 Supervisor race is dispiriting. Rife with inaccuracy and innuendo, Shaw clearly displays his bias against Eric Quezada and his neighborhood-based campaign for Supervisor. Here’s some of the lowlights.

“Tom Ammiano endorsed David Campos prior to his even having a serious opponent.”

Not true. It was well-known, including to Ammiano, that Mission activists were already convening around a Quezada candidacy for D9 when Tom endorsed Campos. Ammiano received almost immediate push-back from Ammiano-Quezada supporters when the endorsement was announced. I believe that Ammiano’s endorsement of Campos was politically calculated to solidify support for his Assembly campaign and was related to Mark Leno’s co-chairmanship of his campaign committee.

“Campos will also likely get the Harvey Milk Club endorsement…”

The endorsement at Milk is by no means a done deal. While some prominent Democratic LGBT leaders have endorsed Campos, others, like Milk Club PAC Chair Rafael Mandelman and long-time Ammiano confidante Victor Valdiviezo, are with Quezada. Quezada may even end up being a beneficiary of the Migden-Leno struggle within the club.

“(Quezada) could generate a grassroots outreach operation that rivals Sanchez.”

This is actually backwards. Quezada has spent the better part of 2 decades organizing in the neighborhoods of District 9 and has significant grassroots support in the district. Given the experience in district races, this makes Eric the odds-on favorite in the race. The question is whether Sanchez’s citywide Green support can dislodge Quezada’s district support. The answer is probably not.

“But Quezada is unlikely to raise anywhere near the money of his competitors, which could hurt his chances.”

Again, not true. While Campos is likely to have more moneyed support and may benefit from 3rd party expenditures, all three major candidates will probably accept the voluntary spending limit and partial public financing. Quezada will have enough contributions to qualify for the program by the end of the year and is likely to come close to the limit before the end of the campaign. Meanwhile, Mark Sanchez has built a reputation of running campaigns without significant fundraising, so he will face many of the same fundraising challenges as Quezada.

“Had Sanchez not entered the race, Quezada could have framed his campaign as an anti-Establishment grassroots insurgency against Campos…”

The Quezada campaign is about the most pressing issues in District 9 and Eric’s strong history in the district. This campaign strategy is not dependent on any particular challenger or lack thereof.

“Will this be a replay of the District 5 Mirkarimi-Haaland race of 2004, where the Green Party candidate pulls away from the field?”

No. While a strong comparison can be made between Mirkarimi-Haaland and Sanchez-Campos, the District 5 race did not include a candidate with such a strong record within the district. The better comparison is with the 2000 District 6 race whose victor was a lesser-known candidate with a strong district record.

“Quezada’s housing activism would seem to give him a boost, but some find him divisive.”

While Randy Shaw has consistently shown his disdain for Mission district activism since his days of being an apologist for the live/work construction that undermined the character of the Mission in the 90’s, it is unfortunate that he’s continuing his negative subterfuge in the District 9 race. Shaw casts aspersions on Quezada without citing any source or example. This is the very same type of politicking I’ve come to expect from Michela Alioto-Pier and her patron, Don Fisher. Shaw should be ashamed.

“Whoever wins District 9 will be a solid progressive vote in the Ammiano tradition.”

While the next D9 Supervisor is likely to be a progressive vote, the outstanding question is whether the next Supervisor will be firmly enough grounded in the issues of the district to assume a strong leadership and advocacy position at City Hall. Eric Quezada is deeply rooted in the issues of District 9 and would provide the strongest, neighborhood-based leadership on the Board of Supervisors.

Our district system provides the opportunity for genuine neighborhood leaders to win Supervisor elections, making endorsements, citywide stature, and even fundraising much less important. So while Mark Sanchez has done yeoman’s work for progressives at the School Board and David Campos has earned my respect as Police Commissioner, Eric Quezada is by far the best choice for District 9 Supervisor.

Eric Quezada has spent the better part of 2 decades working on District 9 neighborhood issues with PODER, Mission Housing, the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition, the Mission Economic Development Association and now Dolores Street Community Services. He’s also a long-time board member with the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center.

Eric took the lead on challenging live/work development in the Mission in the 90’s and has worked since on stopping the gentrification of the neighborhood. Eric’s been at the forefront of the District’s most pressing issues — affordable housing, immigrant rights, family services, economic development, and environmental justice.

Eric Quezada is not only a good progressive, he’s a neighborhood leader with deep grounding in the issues of San Francisco’s most progressive district. He may not be the best-known candidate and he probably won’t have the biggest endorsements and war chest, but Eric Quezada is the best progressive candidate for District 9.

Newsom’s well-heeled consultants are already spinning hard, trying to lower expectations for their million-dollar reelection campaign. The question isn’t whether Gavin Newsom will win the Mayor’s race. The question is about mandate.

It’s clear that Newsom’s reelection effort has not excited voters and driven turnout. That shouldn’t be any surprise, as Newsom has never fielded a strong turnout operation nor generated any grassroots energy. And all reports indicate turnout is low today. At my polling place at 10:30AM, I was the 21^st voter of the day. Last year around the same time, there were over 100!

While Newsom operatives will push their margin of victory, the real marker for Newsom today was set 4 years ago by the insurgent candidacy of Matt Gonzalez. On a rainy day in December, Matt finished with 119,323 votes, despite being outspent nearly 10-1! If Gavin can’t match Matt’s total with 4 years of incumbency, unlimited positive press attention, lesser known challengers, nice sunshine, and buckets of downtown’s dirty money, he’s the biggest loser of the day. And with the turnout so far, I’d put my money on Gonzalez’s 119,323.