SHREW(D)?
Yesterday the Chronicle reported that State Senator Carole Migden has introduced a bill in the State Legislature that would allow straight couples to register as domestic partners. (Heteros have been able to taint the sanctity of domestic partnerships in San Francisco since domestic partnerships were first established here with Prop K in 1990.) What is interesting is that the bill itself (SB 1066) was introduced on February 28, the day after a poll commissioned by Mark Leno showed Migden running third behind Leno and Joe Nation in the race for the District 3 Senate seat. Furthermore, the text of SB 1066 is exactly the same as SB 11, which Migden introduced in December 2006. The legislative history of SB 11 shows that the measure passed in the Senate and was sent to the Assembly where it was amended in the Judiciary Committee and then sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee where it sits "under submission". Which makes one wonder: is Migden just whipping it out again now to get some badly-needed publicity?
TUESDAY AT TWO
At tomorrow's Board of Supervisors meeting, they will be voting on the fast food menu labeling ordinance and on something that has ever-so-quietly made its way though the Rules Committee and on to the full Board: a motion to eliminate the Board rule allowing for a monthly appearance by the Mayor at the Board. Back in November 2006, SF voters passed Prop I, a policy statement urging the Mayor to appear at the Board once a month. The Board then had to create a rule to effectuate the policy (per section 2.113 of the City's Charter), so it created Rule Number 3.9.1. With the failure of Prop E (which would have codified the policy into the Charter) in November 2007, Supervisor Alioto-Pier claims that Rule 3.9.1 is no longer necessary. (No matter that 126,023 people voted for Prop I and Prop E was defeated with only 74,253 votes.) At the Rules Committee hearing, Supervisor Ammiano called Rule 3.9.1 a "wart" that must be removed. Personally, I thought it gave us character. Ah well, good-bye, little buddy. Here's hoping Supervisor Daly gives you one last moment in the sun...by pointing out that a policy "urging" something and a Charter Amendment "requiring" the same thing are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
--Melissa
Comments