BALLOT & CANDIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSOLIDATED STATEWIDE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION, JUNE 7, 2002

San Francisco Ballot Propositions:

PROPOSITION A ($400 MUNI Improvement Bond Issue)

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO (I’m spitting into the wind here but I have my reasons — see below). 

This proposition would authorize the borrowing of $400 million to improve MUNI.  The proposition was approved by all the members of the Board of Supervisors as well as the Mayor, a rare event and one conferring, normally, something akin to “God and Motherhood” (assuming that phrase is still in fashion) in terms of bipartisan appeal.

The improvements proposed are wide ranging, everything from repair of facilities to traffic improvements to other infrastructure work, no doubt long overdue.

I’d like to vote yes but I don’t have confidence in the City delivering on its promises, much less doing so at or under budget.  We only just went through a seven-year agony involving transit improvements to the Van Ness corridor, a disaster to local businesses, with huge cost overruns.  The Chinatown subway extension is another major project that has gone sideways.  We also have the not so faint whiff of corruption when it comes to City government and money, not to mention the now legendary inefficiency of some government departments.

On top of all that, with only 30% of office workers returning to the downtown, I have to wonder what the future of public transit in San Francisco is going to be.  When you put all these factors together, whatever the abstract virtues of this proposal, this is not the time to do this.  It will likely pass in a landslide, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

PROPOSITION B (Good Government Reform of the Dep’t of Building Inspection):

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

Speaking of endemic corruption, Proposition B seeks to help address the problem by changing the way the Director of the Department of Building Inspections is selected as well as how members of the Building Inspection Commission are appointed.  Basically both the Mayor and the President of the Board of Supervisors gain greater flexibility in selecting the members of the Commission and all appointees become subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors, including the Mayoral appointees.  Perhaps the latter explains why the Mayor didn’t join a unanimous Board of Supervisors in backing this proposition.

The Department of Building Inspection is at the epicenter of the federal corruption investigations.  Something needs to be done and this proposition strikes me as a classic good government measure.  Interestingly, no rebuttal or opposition argument was even submitted, paid or otherwise.

PROPOSITION C (Tinkering With the Recall Process): 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

This proposition would alter the recall process which was recently used to recall three highly unpopular members of the Board of Education.  In substance, the proposition would reduce the window of time when a recall petition could be put on the ballot.  If this proposition had been in effect at the time, the three members of the Board of Education would likely still be there and that is more than sufficient reason for me to recommend a no vote. 

The notion that the three board members would not have been recalled in a general election, when more voters turn out, than during a special election, and that evil Republican money has a disproportionate effect on the vote, at least in the case of the recalled Board of Education members, is nonsense.  Using the 2020 election results as a datapoint, if every one of the 56,417 misguided voters who voted for Trump in 2020 had participated in the Board of Education recall, the three commissioners would still have been recalled.  The case might be closer regarding the Chesa Boudin recall (to be discussed when I get to Proposition H), but we need to be able to do something about public officials who show themselves seriously out of sync with what the voting public wants and when that happens it really can’t wait as such officials can do serious harm.

On top of that, the proposition would hobble the Mayor’s ability to select fully functioning successors by turning them into lame ducks — the Mayoral appointments could not run to be elected in their own right.  As such it’s a pretty thinly disguised slap at the Mayor and is also inconsistent with the “strong Mayor” type of government envisioned by the City Charter.  Yes, there is the power of incumbency so the Mayoral appointee will have a leg up if he/she/they/it (hopefully I've covered all the bases here) seeks to be elected to the post.  But having lame ducks serve during that period strikes me as the greater evil.

I hope for a resounding no vote to send a message to the seven supervisors who put this on the ballot that the voters are getting tired of these games.

PROPOSITION D (Proposed New City Department):

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO (RELUCTANTLY)

This proposition would create a new city department, the Office of Victim and Witness Rights.  This new City department is to “provide or coordinate existing services for victims and witnesses of all types of crimes.”  The proposition would also create a pilot program to provide free legal services for domestic violence victims, with a view towards making such a program permanent.   The beneficiaries of these services would be limited to City residents or victims of instances of domestic abuse that occurred in the City.

I am not a fan of creating new City bureaucracy as a rule.  In this instance it doesn’t help that the purpose of this new department is so vague (“provide or coordinate”).  I am also reluctant to see the City subsidize legal services for any particular group.  The City Controller, who is required to opine regarding the fiscal impact of propositions, says that the ordinance will not bind future Mayors or Boards of Supervisors to any particular funding level.  That means that there is going to be an annual battle over this department with no assurance of any consistency in terms of the funding, and, therefore, the impact of this new department.  He also suggests that if the free legal services component becomes permanent that there will be significant (and at this point unspecified) costs to be charged against the City’s budget.

On the other hand, domestic abuse is a terrible problem.  But is a local program addressing the issue the right way to go here?  Like so many things I see these days, for example homelessness, I really wonder if local government is capable of addressing such problems effectively. 

So with all that baggage, I’m reluctantly going to vote no.

PROPOSITION E (Ending “Behested Payments”): 

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

This is another good government proposition.  It is intended to address a kind of “soft corruption” that seems to have embedded itself into San Francisco’s politics.  The corruption here involves so-called “behested payments” — people wanting favors from City officials fund charitable projects at the “behest” of the officials, which can benefit such officials indirectly by associating them with pet projects that are not funded by the City directly.   It’s not bribery in the sense of money changing hands; it’s more a form of political logrolling — someone interested in influencing a public official basically gives money to that official’s favorite charity to curry favor and to make the public official look good.

The opponents of the measure argue that this proposition will chill the formation of things such as private-public partnerships and that community groups will sustain hits to their funding.  But the evil being addressed here is greater than the good resulting so I’m not persuaded.  A yes vote makes sense.

PROPOSITION F (More Reform Legislation):

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE YES.

This proposition is intended to address another cesspool of corruption, the garbage collection business in San Francisco.  You may have read a number of articles on the subject — the issue here is out and out bribery, not “behested payments” — serious cash changed hands to permit the local trash collector, Recology, to gouge consumers.

Proposition F would change the membership of the City board that sets the rates for trash collection services and the rules under which trash companies such as Recology function.  It would also change the composition of the Rate Board and give the City Controller a greater role in the process.  This is an easy yes vote.

PROPOSITION G:  (Paid Leave For Public Emergencies):

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.  (Not that it will matter — this is going to win whatever I say but hear me out, please).

This proposition will require both the City and private employers with more than 100 employees worldwide to provide to their local employees paid leave for public health emergencies.  These include calamities like Covid but also events like Spare the Air Day. 

I might feel differently about this proposition if it was applied uniformly but it isn’t; it only targets a particular type of large employer — presumably the four members of the Board of Supervisors who put this proposition on the ballot realized they would have their heads handed to them if they tried to impose this requirement on local businesses at large.  Instead the proposition targets, essentially, Big Tech as well as City government.  There comes a point where soak the rich legislation is just going to persuade employers that San Francisco is not a great place to work from their perspective and that is already happening as a result of the greatly increased availability of work from home options.  So why poke the bear here?  Plus there is an element of unfairness in giving this perk to City employees and no one else (other than Big Tech employees). 

PROPOSITION H:  (Proposed Recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin)

RECOMMENDATION:  VOTE NO.

I was originally going to write a piece exclusively devoted to this issue.  But there is so much out there on the subject that I don’t see an advantage in doing so.  The SanFrancisco Standard (a new online news source funded by Michael Moritz) has excellent coverage, including a pretty revealing interview with Mr. Boudin that is worth your time.  The San Francisco Examiner pleasantly surprised me with an excellent opinion piece discussing what it describes, in my view accurately, as “Chesa Boudin Derangement Syndrome,” again worth your time.  [Ed.  And see discussion below of a just published article in Mission Local that is very much worth your time reading.]

So let me cut to the chase here.  Boudin’s conduct is not nearly as egregious as the three recalled Board of Education members.  Basically he has been carrying out his campaign promises to act as a “Progressive DA,” and I think he should be given the chance to do so.  If you haven’t seen it, I really recommend the PBS documentary Philly DA, describing another Progressive District Attorney, Larry Krasner.  (It’s available through PBS as well as Apple TV, and at least one other vendor.) While I don’t usually get my information from documentaries, the depictions of how oppressive the current criminal justice system is to Black people, in particular, are simply compelling.  The current system just isn’t working despite local governments pouring money into the police (and often militarizing them) and so far crime statistics do NOT support the argument that Boudin’s actions are increasing the crime rate.

That is not to say that Boudin is doing a great job.  I have friends in the criminal defense bar who are actually slightly bewildered at some of his charging decisions.  I was also struck by aspects of the San Francisco Standard interview where I found him a bit too glib and arrogant for his own good.  It is also interesting that the interviewer did not pick up on the real significance of turnover in the District Attorney’s Office.  Turnover is, at least to an extent, pretty normal when a new District Attorney takes over and the amount of turnover in this instance is not greatly different than when other, non-Progressive District Attorneys, have taken office.  But what is interesting about the turnover is that of the 62 prosecutors who left the office when Boudin took over, Boudin filled 16 of those positions with Public Defenders.  This is a huge change and while consistent with Boudin’s Progressive DA objectives, it could be (mis)interpreted as an attempt to undermine the orientation of the office.  It also did not help that Boudin assigned two of these former Public Defenders/District Attorneys to prosecute the first police officer to stand trial for felony assault while on duty.  That only magnified the suspicion of groups who were already prepared to assume the worst from Boudin.  I also found it pretty interesting that Boudin’s discussion about his parents’ criminal background did not play out as I expected.  He’s actually pretty mad at them for their foolish entanglement in criminal activities that deprived him of his parents for decades.  There is a lot of complexity here that the shrill social media attacks don’t even come close to touching.

Speaking of which, I am also pretty offended by the type of cheap shots the anti Boudin campaign is taking in their constant drumbeat of e-mails, flyers and press releases.  The District Attorney is not the only public official in charge of the criminal justice system in San Francisco.  Both the police and the courts have a huge role as well but you wouldn’t know it from what is blanketing social media in particular.  Social media has also caused an over focus on decisions that go sideways.  If you’re old enough to remember the 1988 Presidential election, you might recall the “Willie Horton” smear.  Then Massachusetts Governor (and Presidential candidate) Michael Dukakis was unfairly attacked because a state parole board consisting of his appointees released someone who later committed a murder.  Boudin is getting more than his share of  “Willie Horton”-type attack ads.  Any time a prosecutor (or judge, or the police) makes a judgment call releasing someone there is a risk that someone will reoffend. 

Similarly, the notion that putting criminal defendants into diversion programs rather than prosecuting them represents some kind of leniency is misleading in the extreme.  Defendants who agree to diversion are closely supervised, actually more so than they would be if they went through the normal criminal process.  But you would not know that from the social media attacks on Boudin.  And, to emphasize, there is no evidence that anything Boudin is doing that has significantly increased the crime rate.

That is not to say that I would necessarily vote for Boudin when he is up for reelection.  That will depend on who is running against him.  But that, too, is a problem with the recall process.  There is no one to compare Boudin to in terms of making a choice.  But if that choice is someone claiming to be a “law and order DA,” I probably would not vote for that person.

It’s easy to pick on Boudin for every decision that went sideways.  Some are merited; most are not.  But he has not done anything that I believe merits a recall and giving the Mayor an opportunity to appoint a virtual incumbent.  I therefore recommend a no vote.

[Ed.  Just after (and I mean minutes after) I published this post, Mission Local, a superb local news blog focusing on the Mission District, came out with an article entitled The case for recalling DA Chesa Boudin: There isn’t one. But that hardly matters.  You can find it at this link.  It's really must-reading and Joe Eskenazi does his usual first rate job in explaining the issues underlying the recall and its lack of justification.]

CANDIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS

The candidates running for office in this particular election all involve either state or federal offices (plus one local office).  Many are incumbents who clearly merit retention and I do not plan to spend a lot of time on those particular elections.

U.S. Senator (two different votes, oddly).

Governor Newsom appointed then California Secretary of State Alex Padilla as one of the two U.S. Senators for California in place of now Vice President Kamala Harris.  He is on the ballot both for purposes of serving out then Senator Harris’s current term (ending in November)  as well as running for a new six-year term at the end of the current appointment.  While (and perhaps commendably) understated, he has done a good job and I recommend that you vote for him.  And this time you actually get to vote for someone twice without fear of criminal prosecution (😊).

On statewide offices, I recommend, for the most part, the Democratic ticket.  There are no credible Republican or independent candidates who are worth a look.  I will occasionally include a comment or an explanation of what the more obscure offices are about or why I am recommending someone other than an incumbent.

Governor:  Gavin Newsom

Lieutenant Governor:  Eleni Kounalakis

Secretary of State:  Shirley N. Weber

Controller:   Steve Glazer.  State Senator Steve Glazer has a well earned reputation as a Democrat who is willing to take stands against the prevailing wisdom of his party.  He notably did so when he opposed the 2013 BART strike and thereafter supported legislation in 2015 seeking to take away their right to strike.  (I’ve lived long enough to remember when public employees were actually not allowed to strike — the idea was that there was a trade off in often lower than prevailing salaries in the form of solid medical and pension benefits.)  Glazer has also worked hard to expose fraud and mismanagement in BART.   Perhaps because of his prior successful career in public relations, he seems to know how to get himself in the limelight; but that’s not necessarily a bad thing if harnessed for an appropriate purpose.  I should note that the Chronicle Editorial board endorsed Los Angeles Controller Ron Galperin.  It explained that it saw Galperin as more of a persuader and Glazer more of a bulldog.  But Glazer is already an accomplished player at the state level and while you could likely not go too far wrong in voting for one or the other of them, my preference is for the bulldog.  I do agree with the Chronicle Editorial Board that former San Francisco Supervisor (and current Board of Equalization member Malia Cohen) is a bit too much a part of the Democratic political establishment to give me comfort that she will be nearly as independent as Glazer or Galperin.

Treasurer:  NO RECOMMENDATION.  Originally I thought about recommending Fiona Ma.  Ms. Ma is termed out as a member of the State Board of Equalization (see discussion below on that race).  I liked that she is one of the people largely responsible for bringing that very dysfunctional organization under control and greatly reducing its responsibilities.  But then I was reminded by the Chronicle Editorial Board that she had some significant baggage, including some dubious interventions that could be interpreted as being in exchange for campaign contributions and a sexual harassment/wrongful termination lawsuit.  There is also the matter of her continuing to live in San Francisco while charging the state for her and her staff’s lodging in Sacramento.  There is no other Democrat running in the race and the Chronicle Editorial Board suggests that the Republican in the race is no angel either.  So I have no recommendation to make for this office. 

Attorney General:  Rob Bonta.  Bonta, a little like Chesa Boudin, has been subjected to “law and order” attacks by his opponents.  But, again, that trope is tiresome and dishonest. 

Insurance Commissioner:  Marc Levine.  The incumbent, Ricardo Lara, is mired in ethics scandals.  You can get the full flavor from the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board.  Assembly member Marc Levine is a far better choice. 

Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Tony Thurmond.

Member of the Board of Equalization:  Sally Lieber.  As I’ve written in the past, the Board of Equalization is a mysterious state-level board with obscure responsibilities involving taxation.  It has also been largely stripped of its functions and it probably should be abolished.  But until that happens, someone is going to have to hold the office.  I was not impressed by Michela Alioto-Pier’s performance on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and I generally dislike politicians who trade on the name of family members (and I have not been particularly impressed with the Alioto political clan generally).  Lieber is a former member of the Assembly and of the Mountain View City Council.  She is endorsed by the California Democratic Party and, for me, more importantly by former State Senator and current Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, one of the more conscientious and effective politicians I’ve observed over the years. (We were law school classmates but didn’t know each other at the time, but the coincidence has caused me to follow his political career over the years.)

State Assembly, District 17:  Matt Haney.  Now former Supervisor Matt Haney is currently holding this seat, having crushed David Campos in a special election to fill the seat following the transition of David Chiu to the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.  He is now running in the primary and Campos, while his name is on the ballot, is not campaigning against him (having gotten the message from the result of the special election).  While Haney has the reputation of being a “Progressive” on the Board of Supervisors, I found that tempered by a greater pragmatism than many of his colleagues, especially when it comes to developing desperately needed housing.  If you are in District 17, I recommend you vote for him even though there is no way he is going to lose.

San Francisco City Attorney:  David Chiu was appointed to the position by Mayor Breed after resigning from the State Assembly (before that he was a member of the Board of Supervisors.)  He is a competent legislator and during his brief time on the job so far he has made no missteps of which I am aware.  He is going to win in a landslide and since I am aware of nothing adverse to report, you may as well vote for him.  Time will tell how good a job he will do.

I hope you have found this post helpful.  If you disagree with me, that is absolutely fine.  I see my mission as one to inform, educate and to provide context.  For your convenience, here is a link to a printable cheat sheet with my recommendations (without commentary).