$8.5 Million to Reduce Citizen Oversight

Reject Prop. D Eliminating Transparent Oversight

Vote No on Prop. D and Yes on Prop. E on November 5
Prop. D Is a Power Grab to Hand Any Mayor Too Much Power
Proponent Kanishka Cheng Wants Health Commission Eliminated
Seven Former Elected Officials Call for Criminal Investigation
Supervisor Melgar Wrongly Opposed Placing Prop. E on the Ballot

Editor’s Note:The Westside Observer does not endorse candidates or issues, opinions of its authors and reporters are their own, not the Westside Observer.

by Patrick Monette-Shaw

• • • • • • • • • • October 15, 2024 • • • • • • • • • •

Late-Breaking News:

On Monday, October 7 an e-mail from the “Mark Farrell for Mayor” committee announced three former San Francisco mayors had accused Farrell of campaign finance violations involving Prop. D. That’s a strong reason to vote “No” on Prop. D.

Farrell downplayed the severity of the complaint. He neglected to include in his e-mail that the “accusation” involves his alleged criminal conduct and that the three mayors had requested a criminal investigation be expedited prior to the November 5 election.

The “accusation” to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins was an undated formal letter signed by former Mayors Art Agnos, Willie Brown, and Frank Jordan. Former City Attorney Louise Renne, former Supervisor Angela Alioto, former State Senator Mark Leno, Former Superior Court Judge and former Ethics Commissioner Quentin Kopp, and founding partner John Keker of the Keker, Van Nest, and Peters, LLP law firm co-signed. The letter was reportedly sent or delivered on Monday, October 7.

The letter alleges a prima facie case against Farrell involving funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop D” committee into his separate campaign for mayor. That criminal investigation could prove Farrell was the head of a private criminal plot as a candidate for mayor. As the saying goes, “Watch this space”!

Proponents and supporters of Prop. D have poured $8.5 million into two campaign committees backing former interim Mayor Mark Farrell’s ballot measure.

It’s a straightforward trojan horse because despite Prop. D’s claim that it would rid the City of excessive bureaucracy, its real intent: to hand Farrell additional “strong mayor” powers and simultaneously eviscerate citizen-involved oversight of City government should he win.

Prop. D will take a sledgehammer to decades of government reform initiated and approved by San Francisco voters. It will foster special-interest influence.

Farrell downplayed the severity of the three-mayor letter calling for a criminal investigation of Farrell’s ballot committee.
Venture capitalist Mark Moritz (who has donated $500,000), and Farrell’s well-healed millionaire and billionaire friends like Thomas Coates ($250,000) and Linda Coates ($250,000), John Pritzker ($200,000), Bill Oberndorf ($195,000 to perhaps $345,000), and other donors to Farrell’s candidate-controlled committee, will probably contribute another one or two million dollars before November 5.

Moritz also dropped at least another $2.5 million into a separate independent expenditure committee supporting Prop. D. With $8.5 million donated so far through September 21.

Prop. D creates a breeding ground for more corruption, eliminating accountability, transparency, and oversight.

As Steve Bennen recently noted in an MSNBC article, “Every good heist story invariably involves a crew.” Some of the worst heists involve politics and politicians. Heist crews set out to steal because they might not win on the merits. So, they assemble a team or two to pull off the political robbery. Nixon had his Watergate plumbers. Convicted felon Trump assembled his mob to attack the nation’s capital on January 6, 2021.

So former Interim Mayor Mark Farrell — who served just five months and 18 days in 2018 — assembled his heist team: Kanishka Cheng, Margaux Kelly, TogetherSF, another entity named TogetherSF Action, and, most of all, billionaire venture capitalist Michael Mortiz. This heist team’s target is important citizen-assisted oversight and participation in the City’s commission system.

Their broader goal is to hand Farrell a “strong-mayor system” coup, should he win.

Ms. Cheng and Ms. Kelly—both former legislative aides to then-Supervisor Farrell—and their teams hope to deliver to Farrell with exorbitant funding from Moritz.

That brings us to the deceptive November 2024 Prop. D, placed on the ballot after collecting almost 80,000 petition signatures.

Prop. D City Commissions and Mayoral Authority

Prop. D had a self-inflicted identity crisis. It struggled in December 2023 to name itself.

That’s when TogetherSF announced two ballot measures to reform the City Charter. One was titled “Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.” It was written to cut the number of city boards, commissions, and other advisory bodies in half. But it had a fatal flaw: eliminating certain commissions would kick oversight responsibilities over to the supervisors, not the mayor. The San Francisco Standard noted it was an “embarrassing blunder.” TogetherSF pulled it from the Elections Department within two weeks.

The San Francisco Standard reported that TogetherSF’s other proposed ballot measure — “We Need SF To Work Initiative” — would have given the mayor sole discretion to hire and fire department heads, strengthen the mayor’s ability to control commissions and allow for the creation of deputy mayor positions. Prop. D meant to hand the mayor more power under a “strong mayor” system of governance. In the past, voters haven’t been particularly fond of strong mayors usurping legislative and citizen-involved oversight.

On May 27, Mission Local star investigative reporter Joe Eskenazi reported that TogetherSF pulled the “We Need SF To Work Initiative” off the ballot (after obtaining the necessary number of petition signatures—probably at great signature-gathering expense) “because it looked like it was going to lose.”

That’s because (as Eskenazi noted) while voters bristle at the message behind “make San Francisco’s strong mayor even stronger,” voters like the idea of reducing this City’s clutter of commissions.

TogetherSF eventually managed to put a revised version of the “Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative” on the ballot after re-collecting the required number of signatures. Still, the City Attorney’s Office gave the final, single ballot measure a shiny new name, “City Commissions and Mayoral Authority.” Commonly called “Prop. D,” it contains much of the same stuff voters didn’t like in the strong mayor “We Need SF To Work Initiative.” TogetherSF’s two initial measures were rinsed off, dressed up, and given a single new name.

But it wasn’t just TogetherSF that had an identity crisis with what to name its ballot measure. On March 18, Farrell’s candidate-controlled expenditure committee first named itself “Mark Farrell for the Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.” That initial baptismal name was rapidly changed to the “Mark Farrell for the We Need SF to Work Initiative.” Which was then rechristened with a combination of the two, embarrassingly named the long-winded “Mark Farrell for the We Need SF to Work Initiative and the Cut the Dysfunctional Bureaucracy Initiative.”

Wow! Most birth certificates contain a first, middle, and last name (perhaps incorporating a hyphenated last name), followed by a “Junior” or “Senior.” How do you even fit a 17-word name onto a campaign donation check? What was Farrell thinking?

Realizing it had a way-too-long committee name, Farrell eventually renamed his committee for a fourth time to the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop D” committee. That at least can fit on a campaign donation check, or not cause ActBlue to choke processing contribution transactions. All four committees have all along shared the same Committee ID #1467847.

TogetherSF’s final version of Prop. D pulls the wool over voter’s eyes: Voters may not realize that if they pass Prop. D—thinking they are voting for the latter to reduce the number of boards and commissions—they’ll actually be doing the former, including enacting “strong mayor” enhancements.

“Prop. D’s” Chopping Block

The Ballot Simplification Committee official Digest in the voter guide summarizes what Prop. D proposes.

The digest notes Prop. D will limit the City to a total of 65 commissions, boards, task forces and other advisory bodies, essentially calling to remove 50 of the 115 current advisory bodies, absent any cost-benefit analysis at all beforehand. Prop. D will retain 20 Charter commissions, including Police, Fire, Recreation and Park, Municipal Transportation Agency, Public Utilities, and Ethics, and those overseeing City employee health benefits and retirement, along with commissions required by federal or state law.

However, it would remove 24 Charter commissions, including the Public Health Commission, Library Commission, Human Rights Commission, Human Services Commission, Arts Commission, and the Commission on the Environment, among others. Those 24 named Commissions face the immediate chopping block.

That also means that of the other potential 45 advisory bodies that might be re-authorized to fit in the artificial cap of just 65 bodies, the 24 Charter commissions being removed along with the other 71 current advisory bodies—for a total of 95 advisory bodies—will be pitted against one another for the 45 “seats” remaining in the artificial limit of 65 bodies.

Since Prop. D leaves it up to a five-member temporary task force to determine which advisory bodies will survive, voters will have no educated and informed guidance before voting for or against Prop. D. Voters will have no way of divining which of the 95 other advisory bodies will survive the chopping block.

That includes eliminating such bodies as the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (adjudicates disputes over access to public meetings and records), the Urban Forestry Council, the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee, the Small Business Commission (which is set for repeal), Juvenile Probation Commission, Health Commission, Children and Families Commission, Disability and Aging Commission, Mayor’s Disability Council, Veterans’ Affairs Commission, Open Space Advisory Committee, Capital Planning Committee, Behavioral Health Commission, Mayor’s Disaster Council, and the Commission on the Status of Women. They’ll all be pitted against one another for one of the 45 remaining seats.

And, to the extent these bodies conduct open public meetings and take testimony from members of the public, that venue will be closed off, forcing the public to deal with unresponsive City departments.

On July 8, the Mission Local noted:

“Farrell did not start the effort; it was initiated by TogetherSF, the big-money group that shares extensive ties with the Farrell campaign. TogetherSF is led by a former Farrell aide, and three members of his campaign team are former or current TogetherSF staff.”

An earlier Mission Local article on May 9 cited a text message from Farrell’s paid campaign consultant Margaux Kelly saying that Kanishka Cheng, was “guiding the ship.” Mission Local mentioned the term “guiding the ship” may lead to legal scrutiny about illegal campaign coordination between a candidate’s election committee and an “independent expenditure committee.” Will Attorney General Bonta will take notice?

Prop D’s Dubious Debut

Before getting to what’s in the Prop. D legal text, it’s instructive to look at the official “Proponent Argument” posted here. Kanishka Cheng authored it. It was date-time stamped as submitted to the Elections Department on August 15, 2024, at 10:11 a.m.

Her paid 289-word Proponent argument, which cost $778 to include in the Voter Guide, falsely claimed the City had “approximately” 130 Board, commissions, and other advisory bodies. Ms. Cheng appears to have taken that 130 number from the cover sheet accompanying her petition seeking Elections Department approval to begin collecting signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. That document, submitted on January 22 was date-time stamped as approved on January 25, 2024.

But between January 25 and August 15, San Francisco’s Civil Grand Jury released its report “Commission Impossible? on June 20, 2024. That report lists only 115 boards and commissions. It recommended abolishing 15 and retaining the other 100 bodies.

Ms. Cheng ‘s official Proponent argument, dated August 15, claimed there were 130 advisory bodies and commissions. That was not so. There were 115.

Prop D Text

The 74-page legal text of the Prop. D specifies “sixteen months after [passage of Prop. D] there shall be no more than 65 appointive boards or commissions in the City and County government.” So, what’s on the chopping block? We don’t know. The text only lists Commissions in the Charter on the chopping block, not other advisory bodies that may be enumerated in the City’s Administrative Code.

In addition, “Prop. D’s” legal text specifies:

The powers, duties, and functions of any appointive board or commission that is dissolved shall be transferred to the head of the department subject to the authority of that appointive board or commission or potentially to another executive agency. If the department head cannot legally assume those duties or functions, the Mayor, in consultation with the City Attorney, may transfer or eliminate an appointive board or commission’s powers, duties, or functions.

• Currently, the Mayor’s appointments to boards and commissions are generally subject to Board of Supervisors confirmation or rejection. However, Prop. D would allow all of the mayor’s appointments without board review.
• All adjudicatory functions exercised by appointive boards or commissions shall be performed by a hearing officer or Administrative Law Judges instead. The City Administrator shall coordinate the hiring or contracting for hearing officers or ALJ’s. There is no mention of what these new hires might cost annually.
• All references in the Charter to an appointive board or commission that is not created or otherwise renewed shall hereafter be transferred to the department having responsibility for the subject matter in question.
• No less than two-thirds of commission members shall be appointed by the Mayor. The Board of Supervisors would appoint up to one-third of the members. All appointees shall be subject to removal by their appointing officer without cause. This is the largest increase of “strong mayor” power.
• Currently, some commissions that oversee and set policy nominate three candidates to the mayor to serve as their department head, and the Mayor has authority to appoint the department head only from the candidates the commission nominates.

Prop D appears to remove that provision.

Currently, only a commission may remove its department head, and only for official misconduct. Prop. D may get rid of the “official misconduct” provision, allowing any mayor to remove a department head without cause.

• Except where required to comply with federal or state law, Prop D compels that all appointive boards and commissions established by ordinance shall only be advisory. They may not exercise any administrative, governmental, or management powers and have no decision-making authority — “strong mayor.”

The City Controller’s statement in the voter guide claims that eliminating 27 commissions could save $85,000 annually for each commission—a combined savings of $2.3 million annually. That may be low-balled since Health Commission Executive Secretary Mark Morewitz alone was paid $188,146, excluding fringe benefits.

Unfortunately, the City Controller buried the increase of adding Administrative Law Judges or hearing officers. That could cost between $450 and $2,000 per hearing. The other half of the equation: How many hearings are held annually across those 27 Commissions? For all we know, the hearing officers and Administrative Law judges may end up costing the city more than the dubious projected savings of $2.3 million!

In addition, the Ballot Simplification Digest in the voter guide notes Prop. D would remove 24 Charter commissions, but the Board of Supervisors could later reestablish these bodies by ordinance, but only as advisory commissions without any decision-making authority.

Prop. D is disguised as a good government measure to rid the City of waste, but it will undo vital community oversight, placing decisions behind closed backroom deals.

Eliminating the Health Commission

Prop. D eliminates the Health Commission entirely. And apparently, Supervisor Melgar’s vote on July 23 opposing placing Prop. E on the ballot signaled that she, too, might be OK with eliminating the Health Commission.

Prop D wrongly claims six “commissions” are related to the Public Health Department. That’s not so. The “Health Service Board” does notadvise the Department of Public Health; it advises the Health Service System about employee and retiree health benefits. The Civil Grand Jury made a major mistake asserting the Health Services Board is part of the “Public Health” category. It is not. It should have been listed in the “Government Employees” category.

• There are only two “commissions” in the “Public Health” category: The Behavioral Health Commission created in 1957 and the Health Commission created in 1984 — not the “six commissions related to the Public Health Department” Ms. Cheng alleged in her “Proponent Argument.” Both Commissions were created due to state and Federal laws in order for the City to access and receive federal funds, such as Medicare and Medi-Cal reimbursement. Do they want to risk losing federal funding without proper oversight?
• When Ms. Cheng filed her “Proponent Argument,” she neglected to tell voters Prop. D would eliminate the Health Commission entirely. She and Farrell (if not billionaire Moritz) must know that the Health Commission is the governing and policy-making body of the Department of Public Health (SFDPH). It’s charged with managing and controlling our two public hospitals (SF General and Laguna Honda); overseeing 15 primary care and behavioral health centers in the SF Health Network for adults, children and families; regulating emergency medical services; and overseeing all matters pertaining to the preservation, promotion, and protection of the lives, health, and mental health of San Francisco residents.

In addition, this commission oversees the Department of Public Health’s $2.2 billion budget, including over $600 million in contracts awarded to provide healthcare-related services, and its responsible for SFDPH’s 5,700 employees.
Could those oversight functions be transferred to and assumed by the Director of Public Health? Did Ms. Cheng think about the cost increase for additional SFDPH employees to assist the Director of Public Health in assuming the duties of the unpaid Health Commissioners, which might cost millions more annually?

• Ms. Cheng’s leap of logic asserts that despite having six “commissions” related to the SFDPH, the “raging fentanyl crisis” continues. Is this shameless intellectual dishonesty on her part and the part of TogetherSF?

Eliminating the Department of Public Health won’t end the City’s “fentanyl crisis.” It would just worsen the fentanyl crisis. But it’s not just the fentanyl crisis.

• The Civil Grand Jury recommended retaining — not abolishing — both the Behavioral Health Commission and the Health Commission. Ms. Cheng wants them both abolished.

Follow the Money: Two Committees Raised $8.5 Million—So Far

Campaign finance disclosure rules require candidates and ballot measure committees to report their contributions received and expenditures made periodically using online electronic submission forms. Revenue and expenses year-to-date reports due on September 26, 2024 were shockers.

The Form 460 for the “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on D” committee supporting Prop. D reported a staggering $2,262,251 in contributions year-to-date (January 1 to September 21). By October 6, an additional $158,500 reached $2,420,751).

For its part, the Form 460 for the long-winded independent expenditure committee named “Committee to Fix SF Government, Yes On D, No On E, A Coalition of Civic Organizations Dedicated to Improving the City’s Future” raised an even more staggering $6,301,720 in contributions.

That’s a combined total of $8.56 million contributed to get Prop. D passed by voters!

Show me the money: What has that money been spent on? Here’s a brief recap gleaned from the eight Ethics Commission Form 460 reports through September 26:

Of the $2.26 million Farrell’s “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on D” committee has raised, it has spent just $1.15 million through September 21 — just 50.7% of funds raised.

• Of the $1.15 million in Farrell’s candidate-controlled committee expenses, his committee claims $439,811 as “shared expenses” between his Prop. D ballot committee and his official candidate committee for his candidate race to be re-elected Mayor, ostensibly for shared office space and shared staff. That $439,811 in “creative accounting” translates to a whopping 38.4% of his $1.15 million.
• On August 16, the Mission Local reported Farrell’s team drew scrutiny for commingling his ballot committee’s expenses with those from his campaign for Mayor, racking up the so-called “shared expenses” for office occupancy. The San Francisco Chronicle paid a surprise visit to Farrell’s West Portal campaign headquarters because sharing expenses between a candidate committee and a ballot measure committee opens up a murky legal area ripe for exploitation and abuse.

During the Chronicle’s surprise visit, the reporter asked Farrell’s campaign manager, Jade Tu, if she had any Prop. D ballot measure campaign literature she could share with her. Tu reportedly asked, “What ballot measure?” When the Chronicle reporter pressed, Tu said no ballot measure-related material was at the office, and it may be “stored elsewhere.” When the astute reporter pressed again and asked if the office was used primarily for Farrell’s mayoral campaign, Jade apparently responded, “Pretty much.” It was a damning admission the “shared expenses” were largely a myth.
Using money from a ballot measure committee to subsidize a campaign for mayor is illegal and could result in another hefty fine from the Ethics Commission. The Chronicle reported also on August 16 that the breakdown of shared costs was suspicious.

• KQED reported on September 16 that San Francisco’s democratic party (known as the DCCC) had accused Farrell of potentially misleading voters in “Proposition D” ads and mailers, wrongly using the DCCC’s logo that had not been authorized to mislead voters that the DCCC had endorsed Prop. D. The DCCC’s complaint added to a growing list of ethics concerns raised about connections between Farrell’s mayoral campaign and his candidate-backed Prop. D ballot measure committee. KQED also provided a link to another September 13 Mission Local article that noted Farrell’s ads violate campaign law.

Three weeks earlier, the DCCC — on a stacked two-thirds vote — voted to support ‘Proposition D” on August 28. Did Farrell anticipate another Ethics Commission fine, like his $191,000 fine for a campaign finance violation in 2010, later reduced and eventually settled as a $25,000 penalty? Farrell has a record dating back over a decade-and-a-half of end-run dealings around campaign finance law, ethics experts have said. He’s doing it again, but it may take well into 2025 or 2026 before he’s held accountable.

• Given the volume of negative media reporting in the Mission Local, Chronicle, and other media outlets Farrell’s “Yes on D” committee turned around and subtracted $131,718 in so-called “shared expenses.” As far as the Form 460s show (without having training in forensic accounting), it appears that Farrell’s “Yes on D” committee finally settled on asserting it has only spent $308,093 on “shared expenses” — essentially “refunding” or converting back to “cash on hand” $131,718 of the $439,811 it had claimed were “shared expenses.” Nonetheless, the $308,093 still represents 26.9% of the “Yes on D” $1.15 million expenditures.

Will Attorney General Bonta launch the requested criminal investigation of Farrell’s so-called “shared expenses” sooner or later?

• Of Farrell’s “Yes on D” committee, another $284,079 of the $1.5 million was for campaign mailers. Many voters have received eight such mailers, two of which probably contain Ethics Commission violations for not mentioning Prop. D on both sides of the mailers. Four of them may not have listed the three-highest campaign contributors on the mailers (which may hinge on what date billionaire Moritz actually donated $500,000 to Farrell’s “Yes on D” committee).

Following the money—TogetherSF’s IRS Form 990 tax returns:

TogetherSF Action funded 22 paid arguments in support of Prop. D and 10 paid arguments against Prop. E in our voter guides, at approximately $16,000. But how much TogetherSF Action spent to collect the 78,063 signatures involving paid signature gatherers is cleverly hidden. At a couple of dollars at a pop for each paid signature gathered, those paid signatures could have easily cost another $150,000, if not more.

Many of the paid arguments supporting Prop. D assert it will stop public corruption. However, corruption cases in recent years have largely involved The appointment of mayors of department heads, not policy body commissioners.

All In the Family

TogetherSF claims it is a “volunteer” organization dedicated to “making it easier to understand what’s going on in San Francisco,” believing it “can change the way this city works.” According to the IRS Form 990’s for 2022 for both of the purportedly separate TogetherSF entities, TogetherSF and its sister entity TogetherSF Action, billionaire Moritz is an unpaid director/trustee of both entities.

It’s not yet known if Michael Morwitz is also a significant donor to, or principal benefactor of, either TogetherSF or TogetherSF Action, but to think he’s not, is probably naïve since he’s a Board Director of both organizations, according to their IRS Form 990 reports.

Of great interest, TogetherSF’sForm990 statement shows Mark Farrell’s wife, Liz Farrell, is an unpaid director of TogetherSF, while TogetherSF Action’s Form 990 statement reports Tony Winnicker — former Director of Communications for both former Mayor Gavin Newsom and former Mayor Ed Lee — is an unpaid director of TogetherSF Action.

The Form 990 reveals that TogetherSF’s Kanishka Cheng earned $201,636, and Margaux Kelly earned $168,700 in compensation in 2022. Kelly is reportedly on leave from TogetherSF, now serving as a consultant to Farrell’s mayoral election campaign.

Under Ms. Cheng’s leadership, both organizations have done everything they could to hide who they are. That’s the polar opposite of helping San Franciscans learn what’s going on in the City.

As for their finances, in 2022 TogetherSF reported $1.56 million in total revenue, while TogetherSF Action separately reported $1.74 million in total revenue. That’s a combined $3.3 million in total revenue. But between the two organizations, they had combined expenses of $2.68 million, a difference of $614,359 in net revenue after total expenses.

Their Form 990 for 2022 reports a total of $5,028,479 in combined net assets or fund balances at the end of the year. They continue to operate largely in secret, with little if any public transparency.

Is transparency about politics too important to be left to politicians who openly admit they want less public oversight? Is it too important to leave to politicians like Farrell, his former legislative aides Kanishka Cheng and Margaux Kelly, and billionaires like Moritz and John Pritzker?

Prop. E’s More Sensible Reform

You can read the Prop. E legal text online or in your Voter Guide.

Supervisors Matt Dorsey (D-6), Joel Engardio (D-4), Myrna Melgar (D-7), and Catherine Stefani (D-2) voted against putting it on the November ballot. Are they comfortable handing more powers to a “strong mayor”? Or TogetherSF’s deep pockets? Seven Supervisors placed it on the ballot in spite of the dissenters.

The preamble (“Findings”) of;Prop. E notes San Francisco has long been a place that values public service and civic engagement as part of our City’s system of participatory government. Hundreds of City residents volunteer their time to serve on City boards and commissions, leveraging the perspectives and expertise of the City’s residents to ensure important policy decisions are not made behind closed doors by a powerful few but through a public and participatory process.

According to the Ballot Simplification Committee’s “Digest” in the Voter Guide, Prop. E will establish a temporary five-member “Commission Streamlining Task Force” charged with making recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City’s appointive boards and commissions.

Prop. E requires the Board of Supervisors independent Budget and Legislative Analyst to prepare a cost-benefit report no later than September 1, 2025 analyzing the cost of the City’s current system of boards and commissions, as well as the projected financial impact of eliminating or consolidating commissions.

It also requires a Charter Amendment to implement the Task Force’s recommendations. The Board of Supervisors would be required to hold a public hearing no later than April 1, 2026 on the Task Force’s recommendations and voter approval at a future municipal election.

Prop. E is supported by Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Shamann Walton, Dean Preston, and Connie Chan, and perhaps other Supervisors. It is also supported by the San Francisco Labor Council, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, United Educators of San Francisco, former mayor Art Agnos, former City Controller Ed Harrington, the SF Bar Association, the ACLU, various merchant’s associations, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), former Supervisor Norman Yee, and many former commissioners.

Vote No on “Prop D” and Yes on “Prop. E”!

And while you’re at it, vote for anybody for San Francisco’s mayor, but not for Mark Farrell. The best ranked choice voting strategy option is not to list Farrell in any ranked choice position!

Rather than handing so much more “strong mayor” power grabs to Mark Farrell and TogetherSF, vote for Prop. E instead.

Also, see the Westside Observer’s accompanying article in this issue for the District 7 candidates’ ridiculous positions on Prop. D and Prop. E. All of their responses are irresponsible, and all fail to mention that:

Prop. D claims transferring oversight duties from commissioners to elected politicians, will make government more directly accountable to voters! It will not. That’s gaslighting. Indeed, those oversight duties will be transferred to even more inscrutable department heads and City employees, not transferred to elected officials.”

• Prop. D scandalously calls to eliminate the Health Commission completely.
• Over the past 30 years, many of these boards, commissions, and advisory bodies were created and approved at the ballot box by us, the voters.
• Prop. E will essentially perform a cost-benefit analysis, whereas Prop. D calls for wholesale elimination of oversight without any cost-benefit analysis.

And Martin-Pinto believes Prop. D doesn’t go far enough. He recommends wielding the meat cleaver even more brutally, by having 25 fewer commissions (recommending just 40) than the 65 maximum Prop. D calls for!

Melgar, Boschetto, and Martin-Pinto don’t mention why they support Prop. D eliminating Board of Supervisor approval over Department Head hiring decisions, and Board involvement in appointments to Commission seats.

Melgar’s claim that she “supports” Breed’s Charter reform ignores Breed pulled her support of Prop. D.

D-7 Voter Update: Given that Myrna Melgar voted against placing Prop. E on the ballot, and voted during the Board of Supervisor’s September 30 Land Use Committee against expanding rent control to the extent authorized if the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is repealed by Proposition 33 on November 5, D-7 voters — especially D-7 renters — should not vote for Melgar’s re-election as Supervisor. Don’t rank her or Martin-Pinto in any ranked position.

As well, Supervisor Ahsha Safai introduced a stalling tactic to delay the Board’s vote to strengthen San Francisco’s Rent Control Ordinance during the Board of Supervisors October 8 meeting after he was lobbied at the last minute that morning by the Building and Construction Trades unions to create a new committee including organized labor as so-called “technical advisors” in developing rent control legislation. Ironically, Safai called for the creation of another new advisory committee.
Rather than supporting the 65% of San Franciscans who are renters (hundreds of thousands of people), Safai was trying to gain influence for a couple of thousandconstruction workers represented by labor unions. Don’t cast any ranked choice vote for Safai in the mayoral election on November 5 ballot, either.

Melgar and Safai don’t get it: “You either support rent control, or you don’t”!

Monette-Shaw is a columnist for San Francisco’s Westside Observer newspaper, and a member of the California First Amendment Coalition (FAC) and the ACLU. He is a Childless (and catless) Cat Daddy, and voter for 50 years. He operates stopLHHdownsize.com. Contact him at monette-shaw@westsideobserver.com.

October 2024