Sweet Melissa

Sweep the Leg, Johnny!

Constant Readers,

Today Mistermayor was in Washington, D.C. where he testified before the Congressional Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The subject of the hearing: “Building Green, Saving Green: Constructing Sustainable and Energy-Efficient Buildings.”

Who else was there to testify? Ed Norton!

Now, I'll admit to rolling my eyes and thinking: Pfft. Whatev. Just another example of the magical alliance between starstruck politicians and insipid actors who read one book/watch The Daily Show/have a Word-a-Day calendar and now want to get political.

But I was (kinda) wrong. It seems that Edward comes from a long line of hippies. He is now a Trustee of Enterprise Community Partners, a non-profit founded by Norton's grampy in 1982. According to Ed's testimony,"Enterprise Community Partners provides training and expertise to community based organizations for affordable housing development and other community revitalization activities." ECP is now trying to bring green building practices to affordable housing.

None of which explains his hair. Jebus.

What did Mistermayor say? His testimony was about San Francisco's high environmental standards for new construction. In the course of that testimony, he thankfully disabused listeners of the notion that SF is full of kooks by pointing out that insulation at the New California Academy of Sciences building is made of recycled blue jeans.

Way to represent.

He also touted the fact that SF businesses have supported the new building standards.

Whoopiddydoo! Everybody wins, right?

Well, maybe not everybody.

Take the Federal Building (which I note is not LEED certified). Aside from being built to look like a post-apocalyptic prison in a perpetual state of construction, it apparently sucks to work in. According to an article by Randy Shaw at BeyondChron, among other issues, some federal employees have to use umbrellas in their offices to keep the sun out and the elevators only stop at every third floor - so employees just pull a Costanza and tie up the disabled elevator that stops at each floor.

I'm down for protecting this rock we live on, but I just hope politicians, actors, and architects don't forget that, even though it's pretty cool to tell Congress we are building a "green" library that has no right angles and is made entirely of old Barbie shoes, discarded landline telephones and Karate Kid posters, regular folk will have to function in such science eco-speriments.

I would totally go to that library though. I loved The Karate Kid.

--Melissa   

PS - Some other folks testified at the hearing today. Go here for the full scoop and more pics.

Bored of Supervisors - 5/13/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. Stop, Or I'll Say "Stop" Again!

Remember the Ordinance requiring all public meetings in City Hall to be recorded by audio or video? 'Member how Mistermayor vetoed it? Well the Board voted 8-3 to override that veto today. Supervisor McGoldrick changed his vote to allow for the override. (He voted against the ordinance initially, on April 15.)

All of which would be a lot more interesting if the vote actually resulted in more recorded City Hall meetings. Yawn.

2. Come On, Maaaaan...

Owners of medical cannabis dispensaries got another extension of time in which to obtain a final permit from the City. The new deadline is January 21, 2009. Reportedly, the reason only one dispensary has a final permit is because of the confusing and glacially-paced machinations of the City and its agencies. Supervisor Elsbernd wasn't buying it and voted "no."

Which may seriously impact his ability to score 420.

3. Peaker Plants

The vote on whether to move forward with the construction of three peaker plants in Potrero Hill was continued for one week to allow Mistermayor to "aggressively" pursue a resolution of the issues raised by opponents of the plan. But only after an amusing exchange between Supervisor Daly and a sweet gal from the Mayor's office (charged with the unenviable task of defending the continuance) named Cristine Soto-DeBerry. It went something like:

Daly: What will be aggressively pursued this week that hasn't been pursued in the past year?

Soto-DeBerry: Blah blah blah....Mayor is committed to resolution...blah...

Daly: Does this mean that the Mayor did not aggressively pursue a resolution before?

Soto-DeBerry: Blah blah blah....new technologies...blah...

Daly: Does the Mayor think there will be a technological breakthrough in the next seven days?

Soto-DeBerry: Blah blah blah....Mayor is committed to resolution...blah...

Supervisor Daly wasn't buying it and voted "no."

Which may seriously impact his reputation as an optimist.   

4. Roll Call for Introductions

A number of initiatives were introduced today, so I won't detail them all here. (I can email them upon request.) But here's what is noteworthy: it seems like recently McGoldrick unearthed a file in his office labeled "Stuff To Do Before I Am Termed Out Of Office," handed the stack of bescribbled cocktail napkins and envelopes to his staff and said, "Make it work!" Today, (in addition to two ordinances) he announced plans to introduce Charter Amendments that will:

a. make half of the members of the MTA Board of Directors (who are currently all appointed by the Mayor) be appointed by the Board of Supes;

b. prevent City employees from serving on City Boards and Commissions (what did Bill Lee and Michael Cohen ever do to Jake?);

c. eliminate the Charter requirement that the City employ a minimum number of police officers (section 4.127 of the Charter says: "The police force of the City and County shall at all times consist of not fewer than 1,971 full duty sworn officers");

d. limit City elections to even-numbered years (yeah, this is about the billionth time he has tried to pass this damn amendment); and

e.  win the award for "Most Unabashedly Pissy Proposed Charter Amendment of 2008" for his plans to introduce an amendment that would double the number of signatures required to recall a Supervisor. Really, Jake? You beat the recall effort in your district. Show some sportsmanship.

QUOTE OF THE MEETING:

"I think even McDonald's offers benefits."

-Who else? Supervisor McGoldrick in the course of an excessively long and mind-numbing discussion of the pay and benefits for City Hall cafe workers who, pursuant to a new contract, will be part of a job skills training program run by Juma Ventures. I'm sure next week we'll see a Charter amendment requiring all teenagers serving prepackaged food in City Hall to have health insurance...

--Melissa

Look Out For This Lessen

Constant Readers,

Those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I love history.

Maybe it stems from growing up in the South where every goddamn rock is a designated Civil War memorial because "Jessup 'Bunky' Edwardsmunson, Jr. IV bravely stopped in this very spot to steal the metal fillings from a dead Union soldier." Moment of silence.

Or maybe it's because reading history reminds me that things have always been a little crazy and a little sane, too. But we have managed. Perspective needs to be checked. And so it follows that I dig reading old SF voter guides.

And my Mom wonders why I'm single.

As current issues arise, I find it useful to go back to the original text (the arguments pro and con are intereseting, too) of laws passed by the voters. Back in ye olde 2003, when the conflict in Iraq still had that New War Scent, voters in SF did something shockingly rational: people elected to plan for the future. Like Grownups. No shit. This actually happened.

2003's Proposition G, established a "Rainy Day Fund" made up of half of the money collected by the City in excess of 5% of the year before. So, if the City collected $100 in 2005 and $150 in 2006 - $22.50 would go into the Rainy Day Fund. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(b).) (5% of $100 is $5.  $150-$105 leaves us with an $45 excess, half of which is $22.50. Good Lord, my friend Derek had to do the math on that one.)

How much is in the fund? Reportedly, $122 million.

What is defined as a "Rainy Day"? (aka - when can we get our grubby little hands on that moolah?) According to Proposition G, whenever we have a year in which the Controller projects that the City's revenue will be less than it was in the previous year, we can spend up to 50% of the fund, but not more than the amount of the budget shortfall. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(f).)

Also - if per pupil spending in any year will be reduced and "the San Francisco Unified School District has noticed a significant number of layoffs," up to 25% of the Rainy Day fund (but no more than the amount of the shortfall) may be used to make up for the shortage. (SF Charter, sec. 9.113.5(k).)

With an estimated $40 million dollar budget shortfall due to funding cuts at the State level, the SFUSD issued 535 layoff notices on March 15.

But even before that, on February 8, Mistermayor issued a press release entitled, "Mayor Newsom Pledges Rainy Day Funds To Support Public Schools." The first line reads:

"Today, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced his intention to use Rainy Day Reserve funds to support the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) in the current fiscal year as a response to the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s deep cuts to education programs in order to offset the state’s $14.5 billion budget deficit."

Initially, at a February press conference, Mistermayor announced support for $29.5 million from the Rainy Day fund to the SFUSD. (25% of $122 million is $30.5 million.) In April, Mistermayor announced that the SFUSD would get likely get somewhere between $18 and $19.7 million. (In truth, we won't know the real extent of the shortfall until the Governor submits a revised budget in May.)

One teensy problem, though.   

The Board of Supervisors has to approve the Rainy Day fund expenditure, too. And while Supervisor Ammiano has been at the Mistermayor's side in expressing support for the spending of funds, it doesn't look like the other Supes have been involved at all. On May 6, the Board unanimously passed a resolution agreeing in principle to support a Rainy Day Fund expenditure but it is not clear whether there will be another Board vs. Mayor's office battle here. (Supervisor Elsbernd, for one, was altogether peeved at being left out of the Rainy Day Fund process.) Obviously no politician in their right mind would vote against a Rainy Day Fund disbursement whose amount has already been announced by Mistermayor. However, there is more than one way to negotiate the total...

The Public Education Fund, which was established by Proposition H in 2004, requires specific amounts of money to be set aside each year for educational priorities. This year, the City is obligated to contribute $45 million to the fund. However, there is a provision in Prop H that allows a reduction in contributions to the fund in a year where the City is facing a budgetary shortfall of $100 million or more. (SF Charter, sec. 16.123-8(a).) Because our budget shortfall is reportedly $305 million, this provision could be invoked to offset part of the Rainy Day Fund expense if the Board disagrees with the amount promised by Mistermayor. 

Who would do well to make nice with the Board on even a seemingly unassailable issue like school funding. Any Southerner can tell you what happens to a house divided...   

--Melissa

The Cougar and The Tiger, Part Three

Constant Readers,

It's as simple as borrowing a friend's car. You borrow it and cause an accident. The victim sues the owner of the car (your friend) and wins. Obviously, you should offer to pay whatever amount the judge rules that your friend owes the victim because you are the one who caused the wreck. In lawyerland, we call this agreement to pay for a legal judgment against someone else "indemnification." Think of it as a responsible "bail out."

Back in February, I wrote a two-part piece on the legal liability of the City for the Christmas Day tiger maulings at the San Francisco Zoo.

Predictably, the darling Dhaliwal brothers filed claims against the City on March 26. The complaint itself lists 17 causes of action for each brother, including negligence, emotional distress and failure to maintain property in a safe condition.

Today, the City Attorney responded to the claims with a pithy letter:

An investigation of your client's claim filed with the City and County of San Francisco has revealed no indication of liability on the part of the City and County. Accordingly, your claim is DENIED.

Then it gets interesting. The City Attorney's letter instructs Geragos to refer his clients' claims to the San Francisco Zoological Society (SFZS). Why? Because according to the Agreement between the City and the SFZS (Agreement), the SFZS is supposed to maintain "comprehensive general liability insurance" worth no less than $5 million for each incident leading to damages. (Sec. 17.1(a).) The agreement was signed in 1993, and Fog City Journal reports that the amount of insurance is now $15 million.

However, the insurance that the SFZS is supposed to maintain need only cover the City "to the extent of the losses" for which the SFZS has agreed to indemnify the City. (Sec. 17.2(a).)

So, to what extent does the SFZS have to indemnify (bail out) the City?

The Agreement says that the SFZS does NOT have to indemnify the City for losses resulting from "pre-existing conditions." (Sec. 21.2(a).) In our car-borrowing hypo, if the cause of a wreck were old tires that were already bald when you borrowed the car, obviously it would not be fair to make you pay the owner for resulting damages. Similarly, structural problems at the zoo that existed in 1993 when the City turned over management of the zoo to the SFZS are exempt from indemnification. In this case, the wall at issue was reportedly short well before 1993.

Also exempt from indemnification are "negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of any Civil Service Employees." (Sec. 21.2(b).)

And it gets worse.

The main indemnity provison of the Agreement (Sec. 21.1) states that the SFZS only has to indemnify the City for the damages for which the City is not responsible.

To recap: (a) the wall was reportedly a preexisting condition, (b) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for damages resulting from preexisting conditions, (c) the SFZS does not have to have insurance that covers damages relating to a preexisting condition (though it might), (d) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for negligence by City employees, and (e) the SFZS does not have to indemnify the City for damages caused by the City.

In other words, it appears as if the City will not be able to hide behind the Agreement when it comes to damages to the Dhaliwal brothers and Carlos Sousa. The SFZS will get their asses sued off, too (as will the owners of the Terrace Cafe) - I'm just saying that absent some recent arrangement between the SFZS and the City, they won't be alone.

--Melissa

BONUS: The reason that the Dhaliwal brothers had to file an initial claim (that was just denied) is because they are bringing suit under the CA Government Claims Act. Now that their claim has been denied by the City, the Dhaliwal brothers have 6 months from today to file a lawsuit in State Court. (Cal. Gov. Code sec. 945.6.)

New Onse

Constant Readers,

I am in Louisiana at a seminar for work this week and have been having technical difficulties with the internets. Rest assured that I am missing my San Francisco. When I checked in here, I got a goodie bag that contained Tobasco-flavored potato chips and a beer cozy. (Actual picture on the right.) This morning, one of the speakers introduced another speaker as having graduated from the Sore Bone. I later got to hear the cringe-worthy phrase "foreign subsiderary" a billion times. Hello, United Airlines? How fast can I get back to Hippietown?

Several of you have (very sweetly) emailed me asking why I haven't posted in a few days. Now that I am reviewing recent news, I can see why y'all missed me: seems local media outlets are not giving you all the information on some recent issues.

One that jumped out at me is the Mayor's recent veto of a $76k expenditure to pay for an increased number of government hearings to be televised. (Veto: Download veto_letter.doc; Legislation: Download recording_of_meetings.doc.)

As you know, I support the effort to televise more government so dorks like me have something to do on Saturday nights. When the ordinance came up for a vote at the Board on April 15, Supervisors Elsbernd and McGoldrick demanded to know what this was going to cost - and were particularly concerned about creating a new expenditure obligation in a year where mass layoffs of City employees are anticipated. (They were also concerned that the ordinance had not been reviewed by the Budget Committee.) Supervisor Mirkarimi and Ron Vinson from DTIS stated that the cost of equipment for the program would be borne by a "cable franchise fund". In addition, two new part-time positions would be needed to make the program work (manpower mostly necessitated by the law's requirement that all hearings be available on the internet within 72 hours). The 76k is for those two part-time positions.

Elsbernd was all: so the City would have to pay for these part-time positions? Out of the General Fund? (yes) In a year of terminations?

Mirkarimi was all: yeah, but for 76k, we get so much stuff!

So, it passed 6 to 5 on April 15, with Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu, Elsbernd, Maxwell, and McGoldrick voting "no". (Maxwell changed her vote and McGoldrick was absent on the second - April 22 - vote, so the second count was 7-3.)

On April 30, Mistermayor was all: ahem. Veto. (unspoken message: get used to it, it's fixin' to be a looong budget season).

The Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to override the veto on Tuesday, May 13.

Sunshine activists are all: harass McGoldrick into changing his vote so we have the 8 votes to override the veto!

Prollem is: a veto override will have no effect whatsoever. Mistermayor can freeze the money again. (See General Hospital Worker's Comp Clinic shutdown.)

So, why vote at all if it won't do nothin'?

Maybe some Supes will vote to override the veto because they can't resist giving the finger to the Mayor, maybe some believe it will be useful for their future Mayoral/Assembly campaigns, and maybe for some it is an easy way to get points from Sunshine activists without actually having to do anything ("Don't blame me, I voted to override the veto!"). Then there's always the argument about "sending a message" to Mistermayor (in case the passage of the law in the first place didn't communicate that well enough).

I still say it would have been a good thing to let this law go forward. I mean, what else are laid-off City employees going to do with all their free time? It's not like they'll be able to afford Showtime anymore. For now, I guess I'll just have to watch the Police Commisssion on Saturday nights. With a PBR in my new cozy.

--Melissa

I Wonder If They Have District Elections...UPDATED

Constant Readers,

You know I spend a lot of time calling out SF Supervisors and Mistermayor for not actin' right. However, this video from an April 11, 2008 Detroit City Council meeting reminds me that things could be worse/funnier/sadder/more interesting.

The woman yelling is Monica Conyers - wife of U.S. Representative John Conyers.

And yeah. She said, "Shrek."

UPDATE:

Watch Mrs. Conyers get pwned by an eighth grade girl about the outburst.

Kierra Bell for City Council!

--Melissa

PS - Here's the background info on this video according to Suzette Hackney of the Detroit Free Press:

A Detroit City Council special investigative session into a police whistle-blower lawsuit settlement erupted into a yelling match when President Pro Tem Monica Conyers made claims that she was being disrespected.

The argument began when Conyers asked an independent attorney who was testifying if the council could be sued by Detroit residents for approving the $8.4-million lawsuit settlement.

Councilwoman JoAnn Watson said: "They can sue you; I voted no."

Conyers told Watson to stop interrupting and disrespecting her. She added: "We all know how you voted; you don't have to keep repeating it."

Moments later, Conyers interrupted Council President Ken Cockrel as he was questioning Carl Edwards, the Detroit attorney. Cockrel reminded Conyers that he had the floor and banged his gavel repeatedly.

Conyers railed: "You're not my Daddy. You're not going to disrespect me. Grow up! Control your house and learn how to treat women."

Cockrel told Conyers that she was "one to talk."

Conyers also made repeated mocking reference to Cockrel as Shrek, the green, grumpy and rotund ogre from the animated film.

As the council members yelled at each other, residents attending the hearings yelled, as well. "You're disrespecting the citizens!" and "This is a shame!"

Cockrel took a quick recess to regain order before then breaking for lunch.

Stashing Trash

Constant Readers,

For an apartment-dweller like me, actually living in a place that has its own trash cans is a reflection of unimaginable wealth akin to having a helicopter landing pad on your roof. Which is to say: I do not have firsthand knowledge of the responsibilities that come along with having trash bins in San Francisco.

But I have read Article 5, Sec. 170 of the SF Public Works Code. Hopefully, I therefore have enough street cred to write about the recent uproar over the fact that the Department of Public Works (DPW) is reportedly issuing $100 tickets to people who fail to follow rules governing trash bins in SF.

So far as I can tell, this all started with an article by Matier and Ross (whom I read religiously) in Monday's Chronicle. In that article, the duo discuss the spate of new trash tickets and state: "existing law...requires cans to be off the sidewalk by 6 p.m. on pickup days."

And everyone ran with it. 

Commenters on SFist were livid! (Who the hell gets home from work by 6 p.m.?!) KCBS even reported the 6 p.m. "rule." Supervisor Dufty, at yesterday's Board of Supervisors meeting called for a hearing on (among other things) "fairness regarding [the garbage receptacle] ordinance requirements that toters be removed by 6 p.m. even for people who work late." (Video at 3:12.) (Note: Only a government employee would call working past 6 p.m. "late.")  

Prollem is: there ain't no such requirement in the law.

The "Garbage Receptacles" law at Article 5, Sec. 170(a)(2) of the SF Public Works Code says:

Any person, firm, or corporation occupying or having charge of any residential premises shall remove any such receptacles from the sidewalk, street, or other dedicated public right-of-way within twenty-four (24) hours after placing said receptacles out for collection and after the contents of the said receptacle have been collected.

So, where did the "6 p.m." part come from? The law prohibits persons from putting their receptacles out "after the hour of 6:00 p.m. of the day immediately prior to the day of said collection." (Sec. 170(a).)

To recap: If your trash is picked up on Wednesday morning, you can't put the cans out before 6 p.m. on Tuesday. If you put the trash bins out on Tuesday at 11 p.m., you don't have to bring them in until 11 p.m. on Wednesday.

Obviously, the DPW is not going to go around monitoring when each person on a street puts their cans out. So, what they do is wait until 6 p.m. the day after pickup (in our hypothetical, that would be Thursday at 6 p.m.) to place people's trash cans under arrest for trespassing.

So, enough hysterics about the workin' man and the mythical "6 p.m. rule". Matier and Ross got it right when they focused on the real issue: the feasibility of "hiding" trashcans where space is limited.

Though, according to page 4 of the DPW Guidelines (see pic on right) a blanket and a couple of sticks will do.

Surely anyone with a helicopter landing pad can manage that.

--Melissa   

Bored of Supervisors - 4/29/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. The Calm Before the Storm?

Once again, this week's meeting was about as exciting as watching grass grow. On the agenda were appointments, second votes on stuff that has already passed and (apparently) unassailable items like Supervisor Mirkarimi's greenhouse gas emissions ordinance. It's hard to bore a dork like me, but these folks still manage... Never fear though, y'all. Budget season is a'coming and this year promises to be especially exciting.  Watching self-interested, pandering broke people try to balance a budget is not only amusing, but involves the kind of dealmaking that results in a $3000 car stereo in a 1989 turquoise Honda Civic. Trust me, I know. I'm from Georgia.

2. Why Didn't He Just Propose A Resolution Calling Heather Fong A Poopyhead?

During Roll Call for Introductions, Supervisor Mirkarimi asked that the Office of the Legislative Analyst and Controller's Office look into the possibility of having a Police Chief who is a contracted employee with the City instead of a Mayoral Appointee. He wants to know how such a set-up would affect performance and accountability.

Hm.

And this one day after a Public Safety Committee hearing in which the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice reported on citywide safety. 

QUOTE OF THE MEETING:

"This is what we call an old fashioned shakedown."

-Bob Peacock, Bernal Heights resident, on the fact that the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center (a low-income housing builder) agreed to withdraw its opposition to the a conditional land use permit sought by ICI (aka Glidden paint) to open a store at 1575 Van Ness Ave if ICI agreed to help the BHNC acquire more Bernal Heights property.

Were any of the Supes outraged? You betcha! Supervisor Ammiano admonished the speakers to refrain from name-calling.   

Welcome to San Francisco, Mr.Peacock.

--Melissa

PS - I have been sick, sick, sick this past week. Forgive me for the scarcity of posts. The upshot is that my sore throat makes me sound like Kathleen Turner.

Well, maybe not exactly. Maybe like, her cousin.

Alright, second cousin.

Whatever. I think I sound cool. Though I am on drugs...

Here Comes the Hotstepper

Constant Readers,

I have three big projects in the hopper that I am still working on before I share them with you, and in the meantime there's not much happening in the news. So, I decided to do a little research on a subject that I always wanted to dig into but never had the time.

Because, unlike me, most of you have lives, you have probably never seen a Board of Supervisors agenda. Trust me when I tell you that there is always a section where the Board has to authorize the settlement of lawsuits against the City. The City Attorney's Office negotiates the settlement and the Board approves it.

You should know that the City does not have legal insurance, so all settlement money is paid outright.

This past week, there were two ordinances to settle lawsuits that were brought before the Board and referred to the Rules Committee where they will be passed with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. The docs are publicly available for only one of the cases, a products liability lawsuit brought by Debra Denise Reed. (Here's the complaint: Download reed_case.pdf.)

Apparently, on March 15, 2005, Miss Debra was taking a step class taught by the perkily-named Daisy Austin. But because the bottom of the step did not have rubber no-skid patches on the bottom (and the world is not made of Nerf), Miss Debra's uncoordinated self fell off the step and on to the hardwood floor. More than a year and a half later, she sued Daisy Austin and the City of San Francisco for negligence, products liability and premises liability. Among other things, she claims to have suffered "wage loss" and "loss of earning capacity." All from falling off of a step she described as being six inches high. I can only imagine that Miss Debra was a world-famous butt model whose numerous plastic surgeries to mend the scars from unsightly gashes she suffered in the dramatic fall were futile.

So, why did she sue the City?

Because the step class was taught at the Joseph Lee Recreational Center - which is City property.

How much is a broken ass on City property worth?

According to the City Attorney: $65,000.00 (Watching someone in your step class fall off their step? Priceless.)

Today's lesson: If you stupidly hurt yourself, crawl to the nearest piece of City property. Step 2: Sue. Step 3: Profit.   

--Melissa 

Bored of Supervisors - 4/22/08

Constant Readers,

Today's Board of Supervisor's meeting is over and here's what happened:

1. I Smell A Conspiracy

Basically everything on the agenda passed unanimously today. As I sat listening to the votes go by one by one, I started to panic! What if NOTHING interesting happens today? What if the Supervisors all got together and decided to thwart the hopes of dorky bloggers all over the City by not fighting over a single thing? Then I looked at the agenda and saw that there was nothing interesting upon which to vote. Aha! It must be the fault of whoever makes the agenda...I stared at my blank pad of paper and vowed to get to the bottom of this...

2. Goodbye, Sweet Prince

And just when I had given up hope, something marvelous happened! During the time set aside for "Recognition of Commendations" (where Supervisors recognize do-gooders, female sports teams and dead old friends) Supervisor Peskin announced that today marked the auspicious day of retirement for Abdalla Megahed.

Wait, WHAT? I spun around and turned up the volume.

Abdalla, for those of you who have never seen Public Comment, is one of the most impassioned, foul-mouthed public commenters in San Francisco. Obviously, I love him. He almost always speaks first, refers to Mistermayor as "Mickey Mouse" and complains about the plight of the homeless in the City. (From what I can tell, Abdalla has been homeless from time to time.) His rants are entirely non sequitur and from the heart. For example, when accepting his commendation today he said, "It's very hard for me to cry when I have blood pressure over 200." Um, okaaaaaay.  

And after today, Abdalla will no longer speak at Public Comment regularly. He is "retiring". He even wore a suit. Only in San Francisco do you get an award for spending decades showing up at Board meetings and calling the Board members every name in the book. What the hell? I guess there's something to be said for that level of commitment.

What is he going to do now, you ask? In his acceptance speech, he announced plans to go to Sacramento where he will run for Governor.

You're welcome, Sacramento.

QUOTE OF THE MEETING:

"This morning I attended a symbolic lynching...I'm sorry, launching..."

-Supervisor Maxwell talking about attending the symbolic launch of one of the boats at Hyde Street Pier that carried black people from San Francisco to Victoria, BC in 1898 as part of a massive migration caused by the mistreatment of black people in SF. The term "D'oh!" doesn't even come close...the gasps were audible.

--Melissa