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

Comments

[mschool]

Here's where I have a hard time with this one. Newsom is supposed to be the embracer of technology for our city, except he just keeps pulling the wrong dance card. This one is a no-brainer. I don't get it. Does he just want us to be barefoot and pregant?

He wasted everyone's time with that Wi-Fi blanket over SF bullshit. Then he created that wireless magic bus with Cisco Systems that's a joke. You ever ride it?

And now, for a measly $76K he ducks a chance to get back on the stump and show the world what a smart dude he is by delivering streaming content to his peoples.

I want my 500 Channels of San Francisco committee meetings. They've got me hooked on the Board of Appeals (my personal favorite), the Taxi Commission (snore), and the Planning Commission (Fighting the Acadamey of Art Borg).

Mirkirimi read off a litany of sessions that had my interest genuinely piqued. May 13th, huh? I have a good mind to go down there and tell that Foghorn Leghorn McGoldrick a thing or two during public comment.

[Gus]

I found this blog last month because of my love of SF Politics and the Allman brothers. I stayed because of its wit. This is spectacular, thank you!

[L'Italiana]

Since when are you watching SFGOVTV on Saturday night?! I have reason to believe otherwise...!

[Kimo Crossman]

Thanks for the coverage on this. Please note that legislation only requires digital recording in rooms with that equipment which will generally mean only audio recording not video and in the 4th floor of City Hall. Also SFGTV and Media Services will be webcasting the audio live on their own initiative.

Both set for August 2008 if override occurs.

[Jamie]

I sent an email to Supervisors McGoldrick and Chu asking them to change their vote and take the voters out of the dark on a few more City meetings. I appreciate the fiscal responsibility angle, but this is peanuts to expand public access to meeting details - this benefits everybody, not just some small group of folks at the expense of others.

[vansmack]

If any of your readers don't know what a PBR is, they shouldn't be reading thesweetmelissa.

[Kimo Crossman]

This would be an ordinance requiring action - i don't think the issue with the Mayor not spending money from the BOS approved budget is the same scenario.

more here:
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2008/05/08/mcgoldrick-on-the-spot-with-sunshine-veto/

[Sweet Melissa]

L'Italiana - zip it, sister!

Vansmack - my Mom reads this site!

Kimo - what I was trying to convey - however inarticulately - is that this is like General Hospital in the sense that the veto override is useless because the Mayor can simply refuse to spend the money.

[Kimo Crossman]

Why are Open Government Advocates considered "harassers" for asking a Supervisor to change their vote. Funny I thought that was regular politics. Seems this blog has bought off on the PIO vision of Open Gov - We support it unless you ask questions that aren't in our Press Release!

[Sweet Melissa]

Kimo - In case you didn't catch it in the content of this post- i am in support of this ordinance. I also supported it here (http://sweetmelissa.typepad.com/sweet_melissa/2008/04/woooooooo.html) and wrote that the Mayor should turn over personal cellphone records here: (http://sweetmelissa.typepad.com/sweet_melissa/2008/03/spilling-it.html) -so I can hardly be accused of not being in favor of open government. Thanks for looking out, though.

No disagreement from me on the fact that this is "regular politics" - the Board spends a lot of time voting on items of mostly symbolic value.

PS - I never called anyone a "harasser." And I don't know what "PIO" stands for.

[Greg]

Kimo

Try doing a little research before popping off. Clearly in this case your comments are not only completely stupid, but also simply wrong. I doubt we'll be hearing any mea culpas from you, given what an asshat you are to people ON YOUR SIDE.

[Prissy]

Is anyone reading the facts?

This is good legislation that expands open government. It is worth supporting, including with letters to the Supervisors.

The legislation gives people who cannot come to City Hall a chance to follow first-hand what happened at a meeting -- without mediation from media that Melissa says do not cover this anyway. (To quote Melissa: "...seems local media outlets are not giving you all the information on some recent issues.")

And I do not think we need nasty personal name-calling from Greg, without any facts or evidence to back up anything he says.

Melissa, why do you argue with Kimo that you didn't call anyone a harasser? You may not have meant it seriously, but it is an insulting reference to people who have worked for the general good and Kimo and the rest should get the credit they deserve. Here is the exchange, taken directly from the texts above:

A. Melissa wrote the following:
"Sunshine activists are all: harass McGoldrick into changing his vote so we have the 8 votes to override the veto!"

B. Then Kimo wrote to ask her "Why are Open Government Advocates considered 'harassers....'"

C. and Melissa replied:
"I never called anyone a 'harasser.'"

[Greg]

@Prissy: the fact remains that in the Big Scheme of Things, Kimo and Melissa are on the same side.

The problem is that Kimo and YOU demand a certain political correctness that means one can't just agree with you, they have to sing from the same hymnal.

You and Kimo need to sit down, review the facts and pick your battles. This is why people like me, who philosophically totally believe in open government and the like, hate you and Kimo's frakking guts because of your bellicose, uncivil tone.

[greg]

@ prissy: oh and by the way I sign all my posts with a real name and you can read my blogs and email me at any time.

You, however hide behind a handle. Hmm. What are YOU hiding?

As for facts: well if Kimo wants I'll be happy to broadcast his attacks on my pal Alex Clemens that were totally unprovoked and despite Alex's classy handling of the situation to be a good guy, got him nothing but shite from Kimo. Case closed. Kimo and "Prissy", if you want open government I'm with you. If you're gonna be a douche and crap on my friends WHO ARE ON YOUR FRAKKING SIDE, I'll return the favor 10-fold.

[Sweet Melissa]

What people were asked to do: "Call the four [supes who voted against the ordinance] and demand they vote to override."

Definition of harass: "to disturb persistently"

What I wrote was that people were asked to harass the supes (McGoldrick in particular) who voted "no". Whether anyone called repeatedly or not (i.e. whether anyone acted as a "harasser") I do not know and did not accuse.

The cumulative effect of lots of phone calls from different people "demanding" a supe vote a particular way on a futile veto override sounds to me like a persistent disturbance, regardless of the subject. I stand by what I wrote. And didn't write.

[Beth Spotswood]

Nerds.
I miss my wife! Call me immediately.