(I worked with Chris Cunnie on the AG's election, and he is a good guy who really knows his stuff. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
By: Attorney General Kamala Harris
They say true convictions are what you display when no one is looking and there is nothing to gain. I have seen the true convictions of Chris Cunnie - which is why I am so convinced he is the best choice to be our next Sheriff.
While the legislators are getting paid again, California's budget wrangling is not yet over. Or, more properly, the dominoes are now falling. Yesterday, I mentioned that we would likely see some local sales taxes appearing on budgets soon. And, well, it didn't take long for that to happen:
But San Francisco voters might be asked on Nov. 1 to enact a local half-percent sales tax on April 1. The half percent raises the sales tax to 9 percent, still cheaper than consumers are paying until July 1. However, the benefit is that San Francisco retains all the money raised by the hike.
Mayor Ed Lee, who is proposing the increase, says the half-cent tax would generate about $60 million annually for The City's coffers and be used to pay for rising costs of police and firefighter salaries, as well as public health and social services. (SF Examiner)
The measure would void itself if the state sales tax were increased again, and then sunset in 2022. However, given the Republican obstinance over revenue, a legislative sales tax increase seems unlikely. In San Francisco, this stands a decent shot of passing, but the 2/3 vote requirement on the November ballot still puts a high hurdle. However, as of right now, it looks like there will be near universal support for the measure from elected officials in SF.
The bigger question is whether other municipalities will be able to accomplish this. Certainly in some of the redder areas, this is pretty much off the table. But as local budgets start bleeding a little bit more, don't be surprised to see more of these in 2012.
In San Francisco, great policy still isn’t always enough. Sometimes we need public support to help our friends and colleagues in city government make the right choices.
That’s why the Sierra Club and many others are rallying this morning at San Francisco City Hall at 9:30 AM today (Thursday, May 18) in support of GoSolarSF – the pioneering local solar incentive program that has helped more than quadruple the number of solar roofs in San Francisco in just three short years.
GoSolarSF is creating green jobs, attracting new green industries, helping fight climate change and helping to make our nation more energy independent.
All of that – and a new study that shows adding solar pays for itself by increasing the value of homes. That means that the GoSolarSF program is more than paying for itself in the long run with higher tax revenues captured from the higher valuations of solar homes (once the homes are sold, assessments don’t go up for those who install solar).
So what’s the catch?
Beats me.
But for some reason the SF Public Utilities bureaucracy is digging in their heels – trying to dramatically cut one of San Francisco’s most effective environment efforts and economic development initiatives.
Part of the resistance might just be cultural. The SFPUC is the old water department and its focus is still mostly on tunnels and trenches – not renewables.
But whatever is motivating the resistance – we need to spread the word that San Francisco should continue to fully fund this important and highly regarded program. Just a few facts to consider:
• GoSolarSF has helped Increase the number of rooftop solar energy systems installed in San Francisco from approximately 500 to 2385 • It has helped drive down the installed cost of solar power by 25% by creating more competition and scale in the solar installation sector • The program attracted over 30 solar companies and organizations to San Francisco and established the City as a solar power leader. • GoSolarSF has created or retained hundreds of new jobs • And the solar projects promoted by GoSolarSF are installed at about 10% of the cost of what it would otherwise be if the City had to own the systems outright (a small GoSolarSF incentive unlocks a much larger private customer investment in the SF economy)
With all of the clear-cut benefits associated with the program, it shouldn’t be anywhere near the SFPUC chopping block. GoSolarSF has clearly demonstrated an ability to get San Francisco more while paying less – and that’s the type of program we should be supporting during these challenging fiscal times. Eliminating or reducing a program that is paying for itself in the long run just doesn’t make sense.
Former San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón's "conflict of interest challenge" continues to grow with yet another allegation of police misconduct by officers serving under his command.
The latest allegation stems from a video showing officers allegedly improperly searching a residential hotel room and taking property from the room that was not marked into evidence - and then allegedly lying about it under oath.
These serious allegations of police misconduct require a serious response - and Interim District Attorney George Gascón can't be serious if he proposes to investigate officers who were under his command at the time of the alleged misconduct.
When similar allegations arose last month, Gascón said he was under no obligation to recuse his office from any potential criminal prosecution. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in to review the allegations of misconduct, Gascón said he was stepping away from investigating those earlier allegations because of "resource" issues while continuing to insist that he had no conflict of interest. He has not defined what resources he was lacking.
From day one, Gascón had the clear obligation to recuse himself from investigating the Police Department he so recently led. And that obligation only becomes more pressing as the number and scope of allegations of police misconduct during Gascón's tenure as police chief widens.
The National District Attorneys Association's National Prosecution Standards clearly states:
"The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation...where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor's neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised."
In my career as a criminal justice expert I have learned that our community is safest when the police and prosecutors earn - and keep - the public's trust. Our appointed District Attorney undermines years of progress in building trust when he refuses to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest.
Gascón's failure to address conflict of interest issues was also highlighted by recent disclosures that his former campaign consultant potentially violated city ethics laws by lobbying him on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association, the police union. The campaign consultant also potentially violated the same ethics rules in lobbying another former client, San Francisco's City Attorney. The City Attorney acted quickly to recuse himself from any investigation regarding the matter. Gascón has taken no action to recuse himself, despite the nearly identical fact set.
The people of San Francisco deserve and demand a District Attorney who will avoid clear conflicts of interest as a matter of policy - rather than personal whim. Gascón must recuse himself as a matter of policy from police misconduct cases of officers who served under his command. And Gascón is under an ethical obligation to develop and publish a clear conflict of interest policy.
Last September, the San Francisco Police Department - under the command of former chief George Gascón - submitted a proposal responding to the uptick in violence outside a handful of San Francisco nightclubs.
The proposal was supposed to be heard this week by the city's Entertainment Commission, but Mayor Ed Lee appropriately delayed the hearing for more debate.
The violence outside of nightclubs is a serious problem that must be addressed in a thoughtful way. But the SFPD's flawed proposal is a knee-jerk response that will not make us safer and will violate our privacy rights. We need to understand why a city as progressive on policy as San Francisco is being offered flawed political solutions to serious public safety challenges.
When San Francisco’s sitting police chief was chosen to become San Francisco’s district attorney, there were two clear schools of thought on such an unprecedented move.
Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and others wrote to underscore the conflict of interest inherent in elevating a sitting police chief to district attorney in the same city. They predicted that new District Attorney George Gascón would be terribly challenged by the conflict of interest posed by his tenure as police chief.
Other San Francisco leaders took a different view. They argued that Gascón had shown signs of being a reformer as police chief and that this was the same spirit necessary in the district attorney’s office. Conflict of interest issues, these thinkers argued, could be identified and isolated.
But the events of the past few months have highlighted just how significant the conflict of interest challenges faced by former chief Gascón are going to be. And his responses have not been encouraging.
San Francisco police officers have been accused of allegedly conducting illegal searches and committing perjury – incidents that occurred while they were under Gascón’s command as chief. Most of these cases occurred at Southern Station – the one station located in the Hall of Justice, the same building where Gascón worked as chief (and where he works today as district attorney). As chief, Gascón was responsible for the training and supervision of the involved officers.
When confronted with these facts, the former chief insisted he was perfectly capable of handling the investigation in his new office. He maintained he could fairly investigate the San Francisco Police Department for conduct that occurred when he led the agency.
Gascón maintained this position for nearly a week. Finally, after lawyers for the accused officers met with the police officer’s union, Gascón announced he was turning over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office – but insisted that it was due to unspecified “resource” issues, not because of a conflict.
His decision to turn over these cases to a third party, regardless of the motive, is a correct step. Yet something absolutely foundational is still missing – Gascón has not made it a policy to recuse himself from investigations relating to his own tenure as chief.
Gascón’s decision to continue – as a matter of policy – to investigate incidents involving police officers when they were under his command is fundamentally flawed on at least two basic levels. First, every suspect is entitled to a fair, objective investigation. When Gascón sits in judgment of his own service as police chief, this foundational principle of the law is undermined.
The second flaw underscores a management principle rather than a legal principle, but is vitally important if you are an advocate of reform in San Francisco or elsewhere.
When Gascón makes the decision to investigate the officers who served under his command, he is saying clearly that he himself holds no responsibility for their behavior. Such a position of inoculating the leader from the behavior of his agency undermines the basic tenets of reform – and frankly, the basic principles of sound management.
In the not too distant past, San Francisco saw the bulk of the police department command staff criminally indicted for allegedly covering up an incident involving off-duty officers on the street. Those charges were dismissed, but the underlying culture of top command looking the other way rather than embracing oversight and responsibility was identified as a problem that needed to be fixed.
The new chief after that incident was Heather Fong, who embraced a culture of responsibility starting at the top.
If former chief Gascón is now saying that he was not responsible for the actions of his own officers – he is saying he does not understand the foundational principles of how to lead a reform movement.
For the sake of justice – and for the sake of reform – former chief Gascón needs to implement a clear conflict of interest policy that would recuse him and the office he now leads from investigating the San Francisco Police Department.
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.
Take a look at the Redistricting commission's schedule. Specifically, look at the end of June, where you will find the final Sunday's meeting is in San Francisco. If you happen to know much about San Francisco, you'll also think to yourself, isn't there some big event in the Civic Center that weekend?
Well, you are a pretty sharp cookie. Because June 26 happens to the San Francisco Pride event which attracts hundreds of thousands of LGBT locals, visitors, and their friends, to the Civic Center. Note that the Civic Center also happens to be where meetings like the redistricting commission typically meet. So, it is even doubtful that people could get into the building. All in all, probably not the best time for a meeting.
The Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club sent a letter to the commission noting the issue, and pointing out both the importance of SF Pride and of the openness of the redistricting commission's hearing. The latest update is that the Commission is now working to reschedule the meeting (likely to the following Monday, 6/27).
So, hooray for local Democratic clubs who pay attention to redistricting.
Wait, it's not that boring! Drawing lines really can be fun. What I can tell you is that the people at the top of both major parties in California have this once-a-decade process at the top of their priority lists and you should too. If you don't believe me, just check out all the partisan back and forth in the public comments to our new Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). Until this year, the parties were drawing the lines for their own benefit behind closed doors and now they're frantic that an independent commission really will be independent.
The powerful people who run the state from Sacramento are sidelined and YOU are now front and center as we draw district lines for the State Assembly, State Senate, Board of Equalization and U.S. House of Representatives.
Please join us in the Bay Area to learn how to get involved and share information with fellow Californians.
Some of the organizations you lean on for expertise and wisdom when you don't know where to turn for political information you can trust make up the coalition hosting this conference.
Please consider telling others you know in the Bay Area about this half-day event. People power is YOU.
Members of the Redistricting California Alliance include the Advancement Project, African American Redistricting Collaborative, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California Common Cause, California Forward, Center for Governmental Studies, Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, League of Women Voters of California, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, Rose Institute for Government Studies, the Greenlining Institute, San Diego Foundation for Change and The Redistricting Group at Berkeley Law.
There is a little food shop down the street from where I live that seems to know more about using technology than the $6 billion dollar organization where I work.
I work at San Francisco City Hall.
The shop in the Sunset District in San Francisco was having some challenges. People complained on Yelp. The shop owner was kind of mad at first, but then he figured it out. The response was actually helping him understand how to get better. And when he fixed the problems, the neighbors came back.
If we can use technology to make a small business more responsive to the neighborhood, why can't we use it to make our government better?
The answer is we can.
That's why I have a pretty simple idea to help make my City Hall more effective and responsive. And I would like to ask for your help in making it a reality.
My idea is to allow more people to talk back to government by being able to make their voices heard at City Hall by submitting YouTube videos that would be heard just like other public testimony.
If you have ever been down to your own City Hall to testify or if you have watched this process on TV you know the problem. What happens now is most of the testimony seems to come from about the same people who either work for government, are lobbyists or work for people who have city contracts or want city contracts.
There is nothing wrong at all with these people making their voices heard. And most of them here in San Francisco are pretty knowledgeable and committed to a better city. The problem is that not enough people can be heard. And a government decision is only going to be as good as the information it was based on.
Right now almost every single Board and Commission, including our Board of Supervisors, meets during the day. So what about the people who work or go to school or just can't make it to City Hall on a few days notice? What about virtually everyone else?
So here's a pretty simple - and absolutely free - way of making government better right now.
Let's ask our government boards and agencies to accept ten minutes of testimony via YouTube, and hear that testimony on equal footing with the lobbyists and activists who can make it to City Hall.
We could make it social. So if more than five videos were submitted, only those with the most "likes" would be shown.
This may seem like a small idea. But it is based on a pretty radical concept - democracy works. The more people can be heard, the better our government will be. And when we open up government to more people, not just the usual suspects, the decisions will be more representative of the rest of us.
A couple of months ago, I wrote a blog about how we can reset local government. My idea was that one of the most progressive things we can do right now is to make government better.
