Tue 25 Sep 2007
It was yet another minor media circus today at City Hall with the news of Gavin Newsom’s suspension of Supervisor Ed Jew and his appointment of Deputy Budget Director Carmen Chu to fill in during the suspension. Lost in the ruckus however, a trial balloon floated in this morning’s Chronicle story, that Newsom is considering Assessor Phil Ting for the District 4 seat.
Given Ms. Chu’s apparent lack of political operation and experience (she actually said that she didn’t know much about district issues at this morning’s press conference.) And given the Mayor’s gamesmanship on a previous Board appointment, I am concerned that Newsom may be planning another “triple play”. I have written much about how the Newsom administration has benefited from the Elsbernd for Hall trade. While Tony Hall brought a very conservative politics to City Hall, he was most certainly a voice of independence from the machines of Willie Brown and then Gavin Newsom. While Newsom took a week of bad press for the move, he was able to trade a vocal critic for a calculating and efficient field marshal on the Board. As much as any other Supervisor, Elsbernd now frames the Board’s debate.
Newsom now may have the opportunity to fundamentally change the politics of the Board again. While District 4 has been home to some of the most conservative local politicians, no District 4 Supe has ever been aligned with Newsom. Clearly Gavin will be able to turn this conservative but independent seat over to a close ally.
With the introduction of Ting’s name into the mix, Newsom may have a shot at picking up 2 seats by executing another “triple play”. Interim Supervisor Chu only serves during Ed Jew’s suspension. After today’s meeting, I asked the interim Supervisor if she wanted to keep her seat past the suspension period. She told me that she did not know — that it was too early to say. In other words, Newsom hadn’t told her his plans yet.
If the Board removes Jew and then Newsom decides to appoint Ting (who has had his eyes on the District 4 seat since his run for MUD Board) to the Supe seat, then the Assessor’s job would be available for a “progressive” Supe who is termed out in just a year. If Supervisor Sandoval, who recently endorsed Newsom for Mayor, could be convinced to take the job he sought only two years ago, then Newsom could appoint protégé Asha Safai to the District 11 seat. This would give Safai a huge advantage in the District 11 race, where long-time neighborhood and progressive leader, John Avalos, has the early momentum. It would also give Newsom 5 strong allies (4 originally appointed by Gavin) on the Board and most likely the gravity to pull a sixth and deciding vote on the Board. Downtown’s takeover of the “district” Board would be complete.
Newsom has claimed that his suspension of Jew is not politically motivated. If this is true, Newsom should have a conversation with Ms. Chu, publicly announce his permanent replacement, and go on record that he will not attempt a “triple play” to grab 2 Supervisor seats. He also should jointly announce with that individual that they will not seek election in February. This would allow District 4 voters the opportunity to select their representative without the powerful influence of incumbency and Mayor’s office interference in legislative affairs. This would also put to rest concerns that the Mayor’s moves are politically motivated and thus strengthen the Mayor’s charges of official misconduct.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
EDITED VERSION OF MY POST:
So Chris? So what’s YOUR BEEF? I don’t get you? I thought that the corrupting elements bseides the FANGS were the CADC, Chinatown Republican Committee, Chinese Six group and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce?
Newsom didn’t address them on his Chu pick.
Are you telling us now that you will NOT support Ed Jew’s REMOVAL? That’s very alarming to hear. Jew broke the LAW.
You have every opportunity to vote Ed Jew out, and if you make this mistake maybe my support for progressives and district elections might just be OVER…
Marc Chamot
September 26th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Hey, Chamot, I thought my point was pretty clear. It doesn’t seem like Newsom intends to keep Chu on after Jew’s suspension at this point.
Just like Willie, they are looking to consolidate power. That’s what the mass resignation thing was about, and I am afraid that’s what they may be up to with another “triple-play”.
Thanks for reading.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:29 am
The whole thing is sad. I wish Ed Jew would have come to you to learn how to vacuum up money the legal way. Cause $40,000 is chicken feed compared to $52 million shaking down developers.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“…no District 4 Supe has ever been aligned with Newsom”
What about Fiona Ma?
BTW, I think that thwarting Newsom’s attempt to remove Ed Jew is a bad idea. Every BOS meeting at which Jew voted was tainted by the votes of a non-resident of SF who took bribes.
If the BOS doesn’t take a stand for the integrity of its process, it will lose the support of the electorate.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
To Doménicos — the second Rincon Hill agreement that I negotiated will net over $120 million in community benefits, $52 on top of the $70 for affordable housing. Go ahead and spin it as a shakedown if you must, but at least get the figures correct. To be fair, you should also acknowledge that I personally receive none of these funds.
To Dan — Fiona Ma is not a Newsom supporter. She endorsed Leal in ‘03 and has not endorsed Gavin for Mayor despite the lack of a major challenger. Most of Newsom’s political operation supported Janet Reilly for Assembly…
September 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Strange that you would call on the mayor to have public discussions regarding who he will ultimately appoint to fill Jew’s seat, when in 2003 you subverted the process of public discussion when you decided to appoint and swear in two people to the SFPUC while you were acting-mayor for a day.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Hi Chris! Thanks for your response… Sure I read your stuff, you’re great writer too.
I understand your point view but District 4 has always been none progressive but more responsive lackeys to Willie and Newsom anyways. What’s the difference and what are we losing there anyhow?
Now what I liked about Chu, is Newsom went outside the BOX rather than pander and spill over for these power broker Chinatown groups that I’ve been talking about for years.
But you’re on the inside Chris and you would know more about the real happenings in City Hall than I would in regards to these matters…
In regards to the illegal aliens issue it’s a hot topic & bitter subject with me; I have been pretty supportive on most of your other issues though not this one but what the heck I am just one voice out of many… LOL
Doing a great job man, nice hearing from you again… LOL
Best wishes to you,
Marc Chamot
September 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Chris: I had posted this on SF JUNTO yeterday just a suggestion maybe? Best MC
My solution to this FIASCO is simple; get the board of supervisors (progressive) or what’s left of them. FOUR of them to sign on; create an initiative in front of the voters to solve these kind of problems.
Tom Ammiano
Chris Daly
Jake McGoldrick
and G. Sandoval or Ross M
It’s a city charter and can ONLY be amended by voters…
They would automatically place a fallen supervisor to the second tier/placed voter of their district or they could call for special elections. This is do-able and the board has enough time to put it on the ballot for this upcoming election…
And I am sure that the voters will support it and vote for it as I would… take away the power of the mayor in controlling supervisoral appointments… I don’t support mayoral appointments and it should be changed.
I know that Chris Daly is a little upset over the ED Jew situation by his posting on his BLOG; but it’s up to him and other progressives on the board to innitiate a ballot reform…
http://p103.ezboard.com/fsfdebatefrm2.showMessageRange?topicID=1636.topic&start=41&stop=43
September 26th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Ed Jew should be removed from the Board, and if the issue comes in front of the BOS I’d expect you’re going to do the right thing and remove a supervisor who doesn’t live in San Francisco and who is personally corrupt. You shouldn’t allow your animus towards the mayor, no matter how strongly you feel, to stand in the way of enforcing the law in our city.
If not you’ll see the end of district elections and it won’t be a moment too soon.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Chris,
As usual, you are an astute observor. If you were on the opposite side of the political spectrum, you would probably be a billionaire.
The missing piece of your credible conspiracy theory, however, is what Gerardo Sandoval is thinking. Have you talked with him about this matter? If not — based on your knowledge of him over the past 7 years — do you think that he is unethical enough to accomodate Ballard?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hey Louie. My appointment to the PUC Commission was made in consultation with the City Attorney and was heavily scrutinized by the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Werbach was not rejected because of his qualifications for the position and because his appointment blocked that of Andrew (“Keep Your Panties On”) Lee.