Aides Benefit

Constant Readers,

In the course of writing about local SF politics, I am happy to report that I have become friends with a number of current and former aides to members of the Board of Supervisors. They are all too often the only people who know what the hell is going on. And I can safely say that these are some of the hardest working people in showbidness. For the months of June and July, it's like Invasion of the Social Life Snatchers over at City Hall where these guys work around the clock putting together that beastly sphinx of a document called the City Budget. Marriages end. Rehab is postponed. All for the good of City residents who often repay these workers by bombarding them with every kind of communication but a Thank You card.

If they are so swamped, why don't we hire more of them? Well, because the Charter only allows each Supervisor to have two aides - and this has been the case as far back as 1982, maybe longer. (Download prop_k_1982.pdf) Since at least 1996, Section 2.117 of the Charter has read, "Each member of the Board of Supervisors shall have two staff members...."

However, amongst the series of Hail Marys sent out by Supervisor McGoldrick in his final months in office is a proposal to eliminate the foregoing sentence and allow the number of Board staffers to be determined each year through the budget process just like any other position at City Hall. The Board is set to vote tomorrow on whether to place this Charter amendment on the ballot. (Proposed amendment here: Download board_aides.pdf.)

Hey Voters! Changed Your Mind Yet?

In the Rules Committee hearing on this measure, McGoldrick said that he wants more staff because it will "increase productivity."  But in a City brimming with new rules, restrictions and red tape, one has to wonder if a more "productive" Board is what we need. In the past, voters have shied away from allowing the Board to have the resources it needs to make every supervisor's nanny-state dreams come true.

Back in 1997, the Board elected itself a temporary increase in staff - adding one "consultant liaison" for each Supervisor for three years. This pissed people off so badly that in 1998, a Charter amendment was proposed to eliminate the extra positions and any future increase in staff for the Board. (Download prop_g_1998.pdf.) The amendment narrowly failed.

Undeterred and enjoying a 3-person staff, in 2000, the Board put a Charter amendment on the ballot that would allow each Board member to hire an additional person - a "district aide." (Download prop_b_2000.pdf.) Voters were all: "Oh, hell to the no!" It failed with 63% voting against the proposal.

The most recent attempt was in 2004 when the Board tried to eliminate the numerical reference to the Board's staff. Much like the current proposed amendment, the 2004 proposal would have allowed the number of aides to be determined by necessity and the budget process. (Download prop_d_2004.pdf.) Only this time, it was hidden amongst 4 other Charter amendments. In one of the most awesome arguments ever seen in a voter pamphlet, Starchild wrote:

In their argument for Proposition D, members of the Board of Supervisors claim it would “Make Board of Supervisors staffing decisions subject to budgetary constraints, like all other City Departments.”

That is extremely disingenuous. Make no mistake about it, they want to increase staff size, not constrain it. Their big salary increase has undoubtedly increased their feelings that their current staffs are inadequate. No doubt they’re envious of the mayor’s larger staff and want to see Board members more generously endowed. But what city official doesn’t feel his staff is too small? Get over it, guys.

Fifty-eight percent of the voters agreed and the measure failed.

Will this most recent attempt be different? Has the ubiquity of communications technology led to an avalanche that no two aides alone can manage? Have we been worn down like the parents of a toddler? I can't help but think that legislative aides would have more time to respond to constitutent concerns if they weren't stuck dealing with repetitive and cursed Charter amendments. You know, like this one.

--Melissa

FUN FACT: Wonder why this Charter amendment is being voted on so late? Because it is not slated to go on the ballot until November 2009. Even though Supervisor MGoldrick will no longer be in office. At the July 9 Rules Committee hearing on this proposal, Supervisor Dufty suggested the later date because this year's ballot will have a lot of expenditures (like the hospital bond and affordable housing set-aside) and races for seats on the Board of Supervisors. And we don't want the candidates to be "put on the spot" (read: have to take a stand) on this issue.

I agree with Dufty. Let's put off conversations about controversial or unpopular ideas. Every candidate should get a "safe word" to use when they are asked about something that makes them feel prickly or sad.

Comments

[Beth Spotswood]

I love aides! They kick it with us at Lefty's. I also Love AIDS. Mel, plug our fundraiser!!!!

[Jonathan Wright]

Wow, how often do I agree with Beth Spotswood? But yes, board aides rule, they work incredibly hard - often more so than their bosses.

Melissa, could you do a little more investigating? I believe most county supervisors & city council members of larger cities throughout the Bay Area have more staff people who often earn more money than our 11 pairs. This would be a quick salary comp. Would you mind indulging your loyal and lazy readers? Thx.

[Jeni Kunz]

JW - Stop wasting all your time at Molotovs and do your own quick salary comp. Kidding! (Sort of.)

[Jonathan Wright]

Hey, didn't I say I was lazy? Besides, Melissa gets to blog during the day while at work. I'm just encouraging her to continue doing her civic duty.

[Beth Spotswood]

Jonathan Wright can suck it.

[Sweet Melissa]

@Jonathan - Thank you for writing! I'm always happy to get ideas from readers. However, I am a full-time attorney (like you) and I do not get to blog at work. I write at home while other people are enjoying robust social lives. I set the blog to go off during the day to coordinate it with the Examiner.

Having said that, I will look into your question this weekend.

And, as you can see, you shouldn't mess with the Missus.

[Jonathan Wright]

Thanks for the clarification, Melissa, I was misinformed and truly appreciate your blog and all the effort that goes to producing it. Please keep up the good work.

I didn't realize I was messing with Beth, I have nothing against her, I just don't often find myself in agreement with some of her opinions. I'll tread more lightly in the future.

For the record, I'm neither an attorney nor do I have a robust social life.