Sweet Melissa

Why Sarah Palin's Autobiography is a Bestseller

Frightening.

How can you miss something called a "Death Match"? - UPDATE

UPDATE: BETH WON!!!

I mean [straightening skirt and composing self] of course she did. I like to think I helped by (a) saving a seat that resulted in a fight with a friend of one of the judges, (b) yelling at her father for not cheering loudly enough, and (c) physically assaulting her mother, Joanne, when she tried to politely clap for the other finalist. (In my defense, it was an applause-o-meter decision.)

It's the little things, ya know?

Anyway, Beth is in Reno at some weird WT Santa thing, so when she gets back, I assume she'll write all about the contest. Just know that she won. Handily.

-Melissa

Constant Readers,

Tonight I'll be at the Literary Death Match watching my BFF Beth Spotswood dash the dreams of other hopeful candidates. Actually, "watching" isn't really the right word...more like yelling "WOOOOOO!!!" and "YEAH!!!!" and high-five-ing strangers like a frat boy in a sports bar.

Come on down and join the fun! Here are the details: 

Where: The Elbo Room, 647 Valencia (map)
When: Doors, 6:30, show 7:15
Cost: FREE

-Melissa

Sanctuary Update: Can Mistermayor Refuse the Law?

On Nov. 10, the Board of Supervisors overrode Mistermayor’s veto of a new sanctuary policy that protects undocumented juveniles who are arrested on suspicion of felonies from federal immigration authorities. As of today — 30 days later — that law is officially in effect.

The Juvenile Probation Department now has 60 days (until Feb. 8) to “modify its policies and practices to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance to the extent permitted by state and federal law.”

In the meantime, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s position hasn’t changed: Because federal law prohibits shielding undocumented juveniles from federal authorities, no change in policy is expected anytime soon. Campos maintains that the mayor does not get to decide whether the ordinance conflicts with federal law. According to Campos, state law requires that the mayor fully enforce any local law that is not illegal on its face, and this one is not because it’s legally defensible.

Ultimately, this dispute has landed in the office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Matt Dorsey, press secretary for the city attorney, told me Herrera “is working cooperatively with attorneys from the immigrant rights community to forge a legal strategy to enable the law’s fullest possible force and effect.” Now that’s all very neighborly, but unless Mistermayor changes his mind, Herrera will eventually have to address the legality of Newsom’s approach to the sanctuary ordinance.

I asked mayoral spokesman Joe Arellano whether Mistermayor would follow Herrera’s advice if it meant enforcing the new law. His answer? “We’ll cross that bridge when and if we see a memo from the City Attorney’s Office.”

City Technology is (hand-dragging down face) Embarrassing

"The worst idea is to go out there, pick winners and losers, and say, ‘Here’s what we’re gonna do: Go through a three- or four-year procurement process, spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money,’ only to find out that once you go that system, 150 other competitors are out there and all of a sudden, it’s obsolete. And that’s what’s happened in government in the past.”

Mayor Gavin Newsom recently made that statement to Fritz Nelson of InformationWeek magazine. The men were discussing The City’s move to open-source government. (Dear Mom: “Open-source government” means that we make a bunch of data available and let the nerds of the world sort it out — using it to create maps, databases and drinking games — at no cost to The City.) Capitalizing on the fact that some people have a twisted idea of fun [writes the woman who watches government hearings on purpose] seems like a natural way to save money on our notoriously degenerate technology systems, but there are still plenty of glitches.

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor David Campos (visibly giddy to be talking about something besides the sanctuary policy) grilled representatives from the Department of Technology, who showed up to ask for a computer consulting contract extension (it was the eighth extension request in as many years).

Campos demanded to know why the consultants from Owens Systems are so darn special that they keep getting their contract extended. Because — explained John Walton, director of the Committee on Information Technology — they are the only people who know how to run the Court Management System, which The City’s criminal justice departments currently use to share and track information. Oh, and the system was created in 1974 (I think I actually gasped when I heard that — both happy and sad that the year 1974 was before I was born).

Because it’s hard to end the Owens contract when it has the only people skilled enough to operate the Speak & Spell that contains all our criminal justice information, Campos did what we do here in San Francisco: He ordered a study from the Department of Technology, which may or may not be presented on a Lite-Brite.

According to the budget analyst’s report on the matter, The City decided in 1997 to move to a system called the Justice Information Tracking System (JUSTIS). (Here's the report, attached to the ordinance: Download Owens System.) At a projected cost of $15.5 million, it was supposed to be implemented by 2001.

In 2000, The City approved a contract to pay Owens about $1 million to handle the old system until 2001, when the transition to the new system would be complete. In retrospect, those estimates were downright adorable. The JUSTIS system project is now expected to be 10 years late and $6 million over budget — set to be complete in 2011 at a cost of $22 million. Reports examining the causes of this fiasco cite expanded expectations for the new system and the fact that for years the project “lacked a single person or entity that [was] accountable” for the program’s completion.

With the JUSTIS project delayed, we’ve had to keep relying on the old system and the folks at Owens Systems who know how to run it. What began as a $1 million contract ending in 2001 is now an $8 million contract set to expire in 2015. (Though we are cheerfully — if delusionally — reminded by the Department of Technology that if the JUSTIS system goes online earlier than 2015, the contract can be terminated.)

The good news, according to one Department of Technology representative, is that the Sheriff’s Department is set to go live with the JUSTIS system “in a few weeks.” Here’s hoping the 1997 technology won’t be obsolete.

Clearly, when it comes to technology, San Francisco has not fully escaped the pitiful practices of “government in the past.”

Palmer: Court case may affect SF rental housing requirements

Developers of rental housing in California had a little something extra to be thankful for Nov. 26. A recent court case — Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles — likely invalidated certain below market rental requirements in more than 100 localities across the state, including San Francisco. (DOC of case here: Download Palmer case.)

In the Palmer case, Los Angeles did something similar to what we do here in San Francisco: require that new rental developments include a certain number of units for low-income households and declare a maximum amount that can be charged to rent those units.

Palmer (a developer) sued on the grounds that the local low-rental requirement violated a state law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, that says landlords get to set initial rental rates. A state appellate court agreed with Palmer and struck down the Los Angeles requirement. In the court’s opinion, it did not matter that (as is the case in San Francisco) a landlord could choose to pay a fee to the city in lieu of providing the low-rate units.

(Note: The Costa-Hawkins Act only applies to rental units, not condos, and does not apply to rental developments that receive government assistance.)

The appellate court decision came down in July, but the California Supreme Court only recently refused to rehear the case. Now that we are stuck with the July ruling, freaking out may officially commence in San Francisco because our below market rental requirements are similar to (though not exactly like) the ones declared unlawful in Los Angeles.

Already, organizations like Tenants Together are calling for the state Legislature to amend the Costa-Hawkins Act to allow for low-rate rental set-asides.

One San Francisco developer, who asked not to be named, told me that no one knows how the Palmer case may affect rental projects currently being negotiated. His company plans to consult with its own lawyers, stay in communication with the Planning Department and see what the city attorney advises. I asked the City Attorney’s Office for a copy of anything it had written on the Palmer case and was told that there is a memorandum, but it’s confidential.

Obviously, I haven’t seen the memo, but “everything is fine” is rarely a secret worth keeping.

BONUS MATERIAL:

From the City Attorney's Office:

It's no secret that the Palmer decision has potential implications for inclusionary housing policies in California that involve rentals. Nothing in Palmer, however, should implicate inclusionary policies for ownership projects, or projects that receive direct, public sector financial contributions.

I can't compromise attorney-client confidentiality by discussing our office's legal advice. But I think it's safe to say that city attorneys and county counsels across the state are working with their clients to assess how Palmer may affect their own local ordinances.

As part of those discussions, it's often the case that options are presented to address potential impacts -- including pursuing legislative fixes. Courts make decisions every day that have potential impacts on local governments. It's our job is to inform our clients about what those are, and to make sure that their policy decisions are fully informed of the legal risks and options.

From Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's Office:

We are aware and are looking at the Palmer case with regards to inclusionary housing and are in discussions with housing advocates and nonprofit housing developers about the best course of action given the ramifications of the decision.

How a fight becomes a law: Security Reimbursement Ordinance

In July 2008, Mistermayor got married in Montana. And instead of springing for a diamond-encrusted meat thermometer, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi offered up a different kind of probe: he demanded to know how much it had cost The City for two police officers to drive to Montana and provide security detail for the mayor. Met with a resounding “Whatever, dude ... that’s classified” from both the Mayor’s Office and the Police Department, Mirkarimi was never able to get to the bottom of his request.

By February, Mistermayor’s campaign to be the captain of the Titanic (read: governor of California) was in full swing, so Mirkarimi requested the price of security for gubernatorial campaign events in locations such as Donner Pass Road in Truckee. Once again, the answer was no, accompanied by an eye roll.

Undeterred, Mirkarimi introduced legislation in August aimed at making sure elected officials who campaign for themselves or others outside San Francisco while employing “dignitary security” provided by taxpayers disclose and pay back the cost of providing that detail. (PDF of ordinance here: Download Security Reimbursement.)

Once you recover from the giggles that inevitably ensue when one imagines the word “dignitary” being connected to any city elected official, please note that the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee will consider this proposed law at 10 a.m. today.

Of course, now that Mistermayor has ceased his statewide campaign, this law looks a lot less necessary. But Mirkarimi maintains that the law is still important because, while “Mayor Newsom’s practices certainly highlighted the need for reform,” the issue is one of transparency and saving taxpayer money. “There have got to be some larger strategies [to deal with The City’s constant deficit],” Mirkarimi said, “but it doesn’t mean we should ignore the smaller ones.”

Indeed, the immediate savings for taxpayers is likely to be very, very small. District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is provided security in her capacity as The City’s top prosecutor and is campaigning to be the next California attorney general, is the only local official to whom this law may currently apply. Harris’ office could not be reached for comment. (Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is running for state insurance commissioner, but is not entitled to a security detail.)

One person who’s not happy with the proposal is President Gary Delagnes of the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association. “This is just politics as usual in San Francisco,” he told me. “If Mirkarimi and the mayor want to play their stupid games, fine. But leave my people out of it.”

If this law passes, future city officials campaigning outside San Francisco probably will.

Lessons From The Muni Crime Hearing

Supervisor Bevan Dufty invited all persons who have been a victim of crime on Muni to speak at Monday’s meeting of the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee.

Eager to hear the sad yet fascinating stories of Muni crime victims, I hustled on down to City Hall to hear the testimony. Here is what I learned:

1. Teenage girls are the most fearsome creatures on Muni. Of the six stories of assault, three involved middle school to high school-age girls. My mother can verify that I, too, was possessed by the devil from the ages of 14 to 18. Incidentally, this phenomenon might explain the Salem witch trials.

2. Bus drivers will not stop the bus and help you. Take your pitiful pillaged pleas elsewhere. The most a driver can do is press a button to alert Central Command, an institution which is at worst, completely fake, and at best is a windowless room sporadically staffed by stuffed animals. But hey, the driver gets to say, “Central Command has been notified.” (Note that Central Command doesn’t help when drivers are attacked either, which may explain the antihero button policy.)

3. Police hate to ride Muni. Probably for the same reason I do: It’s dangerous! In an effort akin to forcing doctors to go to a hospital, district station captains are now requiring police to ride Muni bus and train lines where the most incidents occur and during peak crime times, like right after school lets out. (See Observation 1.)

At the hearing, new MTA Deputy Chief John Murphy explained a new policy of using statistics to make Muni patrolling efforts more effective. Of course, after years of nonexistent to lame law enforcement on Muni, crime is likely underreported, which affects the reliability of those statistics.

And so it is incumbent upon Muni riders to make a leap of faith and once again attempt to report crimes. Apparently, calling 911 from a cell phone in San Francisco gets you a police station in Vallejo (I’m not making this up) so program these SFPD numbers into your phone: (415) 575-4444 for calls and 847-411 for texts. (Type “SFPD” then the tip.)

SFUSD Playing Hookey When It Comes To Truancy

"If nothing changes, about 20 percent of our children will continue to drop out of school,” begins a recent civil grand jury report on San Francisco’s truancy problem. The report goes on to excoriate the administration of the San Francisco Unified School District (not to be confused with the Board of Education) under the leadership of Superintendent Carlos Garcia. (PDF of report here: Download Truancy Report.)

According to the report, territorial government employees, sloppy or nonexistent data gathering and zero centralized efforts are just some of the pillars that make up our Kafkaesque, impotent “system” of dealing with truancy. Of the 56,000 public school students in San Francisco, about 4,900 will be absent without an excuse for 20 or more days in the school year — which, according to the report, is “chronic truancy.”

The most damaging finding in the report is that no one at the district seems to understand that this is an emergency. “Public outrage is in order here!” juror Abraham Simmons said at a hearing before the Board of Supervisors Committee on Government Audits and Oversight.

Actually, there were two hearings on the truancy report: one on Oct. 22 and the other on Nov. 16. Having basically been called lazy and bureaucratic by the report, the district apparently saw no irony in sending zero people to the first hearing and five people to the second hearing.

“Defend yourself,” Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi demanded at the second hearing when it was the district team’s turn to speak.

Associate Superintendent Trish Bascom tried to explain that a number of changes are in the works at the district level. Where “student support services” used to be addressed by 11 separate departments, there are now three “areas.” Apparently, this constitutes progress.

When pressed by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell as to why the district’s efforts appear to be happening only recently, Executive Director of Support Services, Meyla Ruwin answered, “I hear your concern. We feel it deeply. We have felt it deeply. I have to say that also, as time has progressed, we have learned where some of the issues have been occurring, and we are working more collaboratively in partnership to answer those questions.”

Huh?

Boxing such babble proved too much for even the motivated supervisors, who, like the jurors, gave up on understanding the current “system.” Instead, committee members Maxwell and Mirkarimi voted to give the district three months to submit a comprehensive plan to combat truancy. (PDF of the Board's action Download Truancy Resolution.)

For the district’s sake, I hope that plan is stellar. The City gives millions to the district each year, some of which is used to deal with truancy. Now that we’re desperate to cut spending, yesterday’s pork will soon resemble today’s dead turkey.

SEIU Protest and Budget Update - Updated!

Constant Readers,

I was at City Hall yesterday to watch the Muni Crime hearing, and stuck around for some others. At 5 p.m., I moseyed out to see the SEIU budget protest.

Carlos Rivera, (adorable) media dude for the SEIU and I chatted as I soaked up the excitement in the air. Rivera said there were 1000 people in attendance - I actually figured it at 500 - but an impressive showing nonetheless. 

After a few fiery speeches by Campos, Daly and Avalos, the purple clad mass, armed with kazoos (really!) and SEIU signs lined up behind a truck, on whose flatbed a man with a bullhorn stood.

The purple people leader chanted, "They say go away, we say no way!" "Go away" (Crowd: "No way!") "Go away!" ("No way!").

"Get up, stand up," played loudly from the truck. Then "We are Family." The mood was upbeat and festive. Movie file here: Download SEIU march Nov 23.

I turned to Rivera, "You realize Sophie Maxwell is not going to change her vote, right?"

"We are hopeful she'll change her mind," he smiled.

Uh-huh. "And even if she does, the mayor is not going to spend the money," I added.

"You never know," he said.

Yeah, I do. It was a good show, but a futile one. 

UPDATE: At the Board meeting, Campos proposed that we change the $8 million to save the jobs to almost $2 million to buy 2 extra months while we...I dunno...pray...push coal together real hard in the hopes that a diamond will appear... check the cookie jar one more time...

Elsbernd pointed out that everyone in the room knows Mistermayor won't spend that  $2 million and said it's not right to give false hope to folks about to lose their jobs. 

Nevertheless, Maxwell agreed to the temporary measure so it got 8 votes, with Elsbernd, Chu and Alioto-Pier voting against.

UPDATE AGAIN: The fine folks over at SFWeekly got confirmation from Mayoral spokesman Joe Arellano that the Mayor will not authorize the $2 million expenditure. 

-Melissa

Monday Q&A: Sanctuary City, Healthy San Francisco and Friday Vids

Constant Readers,

Don't forget that today is Muni Crime Story Day down at City Hall. Also, there will be a rally in support of saving SEIU City jobs at 5 p.m.  According to this morning's email on the demonstration, "Last week we took over the Mayors’ office, on Monday, Nov. 23, 2009 we take it to the next level..."

Whoa! Should be interesting.

I try to answer your questions as emails come in, but sometimes I get the same questions over and over again. I figured it might be worth answering some right here.  

1) What is the status of new Sanctuary City law?

The law was finally passed over Mistermayor's veto on November 10. It takes 30 days to go into effect. (December 10) In the meantime, City Attorney Herrera has asked that the United States Attorney for Northern California, Joseph Russoniello, promise not to prosecute any law enforcement officials who fail to report undocumented juveniles at the time of arrest. Herrera's letter asks for a response by December 7. 

Despite the fact that Russoniello said he would give no assurances, he has not answered Herrera's letter in writing (note that he does not have to). In the meantime, the Herrera's office is waiting until December 7 to see how and if Russoniello formally responds. 

2) What is the status of Healthy San Francisco?

Right now the lawsuit claiming that the employer contribution requirement violates federal law is pending at the United States Supreme Court. On October 5, the Supremes asked the United States Solicitor General to weigh in on whether the Supreme Court should hear the case

While there is no time limit on how long the Solicitor General can take to get back to the court, usually such opinions are dispatched withing 30 days. It has been longer than 30 days, of course, so the opinion could come at any time.

My guess is that the battle over federal health care system changes has muddied the water on this issue, so we probably won't see the letter until after the final reform bill can be examined by the Solicitor General. 

3) What happened to Friday videos?

Having so many videos on the screen was slowing down people's mobile devices, so I'm working on a separate tab that will open up to a page of videos.

So, there you go.

Feel free to send your political questions to melissagriff@gmail.com

Also, constructive criticism about the new page design is welcome. I'm still tweaking it.

Happy Monday!

-Melissa