Newsom defends his staff payroll again
Article History
There are updates to this article.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - After being scrutinized for using hundreds of thousands of Muni dollars to pay for staff positions, Mayor Gavin Newsom went on the defense Friday, saying a new audit claiming that $900,000 in salaries for mayoral staff that is being paid for by more than a handful departments is misleading.

“This report comes out — it’s going to make it look like we’re spending $800,000 more [on positions] — that is just simply false,” Newsom said.

A draft copy of the audit, obtained by The Examiner, says eight positions within the Mayor’s Office are paid for with money from the Public Utilities Commission, the Municipal Transportation Agency, the Planning Department and the Human Services Agency. The costs of the eight positions total $959,903, according to the report. The completed report is scheduled for release on Monday.

The audit was conducted by Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst Harvey Rose, at the request of Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, after the mayor announced a multitude of staff changes and promotions in January and concerns began to swirl about the funding for the positions.

The audit also came a week after it was revealed that the mayor was funding positions with dollars from cash-strapped Muni.

The Board of Supervisors could consider rescinding the funding for positions, but on Friday, McGoldrick and board President Aaron Peskin, who has publicly criticized the mayor for the staff spending, told The Examiner that they could not comment on the audit because they had not reviewed it.

The mayor’s chief of staff, Phil Ginsberg, said Friday only two new positions were added — Climate Protection Initiatives Director Wade Crowfoot and Homelessness Policy Director Dariush Kayhan — and the remaining were existing positions that had already passed through budget approval.

“It’s just bulls---,” Ginsberg said of the report.

The mayor justified spending the money on the positions, saying they were related to the departments from where they were funded. Additionally, one of the eight positions is now vacant, Ginsberg said.

Stuart Sunshine, the mayor’s deputy chief of staff focusing on transit, whose $217,000 annual salary is 60 percent funded by Muni, has resigned to pursue a job in the private sector. His position will not be filled until the summer, Newsom said.

The report was not supposed to be released until it was finalized, said a notably irate Rose, who said it was “unprecedented” for a mayor to publicly comment on a draft report.

“I can assure that this report was prepared in a totally professional and objective manner,” Rose said. “What is false and wrong is for the mayor to hold a press conference” on the report, he said.

dsmith@examiner.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

1:59 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 23, 2008 re: "Political sects duke it out"

Examiner Reader said:
I didn't know the progressive effort had the exclusive on tyrannical behavior. Have you been paying attention to the conservatives at the federal level for the last 8 years?

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:33 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Political sects duke it out"

Examiner Reader said:
"Daly has candidly stated that the progressive effort has much to do with November’s Board of Supervisors election, in which seven of the board’s 11 seats are up for grabs." Whoever this guy endorses for Supervisor in November I plan to vote against, within my District. Daly typifies the tyranny of the progressives. Definition fits to a tee "1: oppressive power form of tyranny over the mind of man, oppressive power exerted by government." Forget it if you want to do your own thing because Daly has already decided for you what you will be doing, and that is what he wants.

4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:17 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Slow pace irks bike-plan fans"

Keenplanner said:
Spiteful Cyclists? I'm a cyclist who attended the rally and I was happy that the SFBC is pressing this issue. Some (really spiteful)car-obsessed nobody sues the city and it takes 2 years to discredit his Charges? How Environmentally damaging is getting people on bikes?

6 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:30 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Political sects duke it out"

San Francisco Paul said:
Let's hope that Scott Weiner is re-elected as DCCC Chair in spite of the PC thuggery of Chris Daly! Scott is a sensible progressive leader and not an ideological zealot like Daly and his puppet candidate Aaron Peskin. Do we really want the DCCC to be led by the guy who leads the current Board of Supervisors? Enough said!

0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:56 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Slow pace irks bike-plan fans"

Examiner Reader said:
I attended my very first City Hall meeting yesterday in support of safer bicycling in San Francisco. With a few exceptions, I found the dialogue to be sincere and useful, despite the characterization on his blog by Rob Anderson, the individual who spearheaded the movement which has paralyzed the development of safer streets. Regardless of one's view of the SF Bicycle Coalition's efforts (which I personally see as a constructive force), an increase in bicycle transportation is a positive development on many fronts: each bicycle is one less car, one less body on crowded and unpleasant MUNI vehicles, and an individual who will most likely be healthier, happier and less of a taxpayer burden where soaring health care expenditures are concerned. Lastly, I am dismayed by the Examiner's choice of captions for the photo accompanying this article: "Spiteful cyclists" is a wholly inaccurate representation of those who offered public comment and begs the question of journalistic objectivity.

3 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:19 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Slow pace irks bike-plan fans"

Examiner Reader said:
Funny how bike riders constantly complain about being disrespected by cars but they do the very same things to pedestrians.

2 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:40 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 22, 2008 re: "Slow pace irks bike-plan fans"

Examiner Reader said:
''Leah Shahum, executive director for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, said “We’re not a special-interest group The City can just brush off,” “There are 125,000 of us out there, regularly biking." LOL well I am one of the 125,000 you mention, I am on my bike 5 days a week but I do not consider the "Coalition for Adequate Review" my spokesman. I was a member of the Bike Coalition but NOT since I found out my annual dues went for supporting Chis Daly in his re-election. This comment is not directed at Leah as an individual but at the Bike Coalition Board who have shanghaied a once fine group and turned the organization into "bike nazis" who are non accepting of anyone's view one degree removed from theirs. Bike Nazis term may seem harsh but to be honest to hear the way the Coalition now represents itself really is reactionary one world view. Change will come, and dust ups are part of it, but the "regime change" politics is pure BS. Concentrate on bike air stations!

5 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:18 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 17, 2008 re: "Supe proposes ban on tobacco promotions"

Examiner Reader said:
"In a 7-4 vote, a proposal to end the practice of using union-backed security guards at San Francisco General Hospital and other medical clinics and instead contract them out to save money was rejected. Supervisors Jake McGoldrick, Michela Alioto-Pier, Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd supported privatizing the security guards. McGoldrick noted that by not outsourcing, the board will now have to make $5 million in cuts to The City’s proposed $6.5 billion budget. The board is scheduled to take a first vote on the budget next week. Leave it to the seven real Stupervisors who take a pass at saving $5M. Now that is stupid. To top it off the same meeting they vote to make it harder for a voter recall of Stupervisors, please put me out of my pain this legislative board is out of control.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:11 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 17, 2008 re: "Supe proposes ban on tobacco promotions"

Examiner Reader said:
""Another proposal, introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly, would expand on the public areas that prohibit smoking to include such areas as 20 feet from any entrance, exit or operable window of private nonresidential buildings, outdoor eating areas and in lines for such services as event tickets."" How about private residential buildings period, and expand it to 50 feet since I live like that close to a club and its smoke city. I can't even open my windows for fresh air.

4 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:24 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 17, 2008 re: "Supe proposes ban on tobacco promotions"

Examiner Reader said:
Many of us a quite capable of fending off advertising ploys by tobacco companies and saying no to free samples. How about the board of supervisors doing something about paving our decaying streets?

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:44 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 17, 2008 re: "Supe proposes ban on tobacco promotions"

Yet More Stupidity/Cupidity from City Officials said:
Of course the Supes reject the notion of the Community Courty, which is vigorously supported by residents throughout SF. They're completely and utterly out of touch with the real concerns of their supposed constituents. Witness their new hare-brained idea to ban the sale of cigarettes at drugstores but all it continue at other establishments. More importantly, the poverty pimps that thwart any attempt to address the crimes (including public intoxication, urination, defecation, agressive panhandling) committed by the ostenisble homeless in San Francisco are the comrades of Chris Daly. Former anti-gentrification "activist" (read: poseur) Daly ostensibly represents District 6, though he himself lives in a condo on South Van Ness. Talk about hypocrisy! While I'm frequently at odds with Newsom, whose arrogance and defensiveness drive me up the wall, I support this proposal, as I'm sure will the vast majority of SF voters come November.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:51 AM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008 re: "Error leads to supervisors meeting delay"

Examiner Reader said:
Hey if this is all it takes to stop the Board of Stupervisors from meeting then more power to the Ex. Hey think of all the money that this has saved the tax payers by not having the Bored Board trying to figure out ways to spend...

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:57 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Plastic bag ban may apply to newspapers"

Richmond Paul said:
So my newspaper won't be in plastic when it's delivered in the rain? Will this new law also require my paper delivery person to place my paper in a dry place??????? STUPID!

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:14 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
My spiteful neighbor chain smokes in an enclosed common area of our building directly outside our apartment exit and our windows, filling up our home with smoke all day. It is very scary to be denied the basic right to breathe clean air, in your own home, every day, while a person like this says it's his "absolute right" to smoke there. Every year thousands of Americans that don't smoke cigarettes are killed from exposure to secondhand smoke. This law would stop people like me from being poisoned by smokers who live in their building. Smokers would have to go to an open, unenclosed area, or do it within their own apartment. Sure, you have an absolute right to be reckless with your own health, but you don't have a right to be reckless with MY HEALTH. All we're asking is that smokers smoke somewhere that doesn't expose us, too. It's not such a hardship to walk a few feet away to respect someone's health. Gasping in San Francisco THEN MOVE.HE HAS THAT RIGHT TO SMOKE IN HOME IF H

4 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:22 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Plastic bag ban may apply to newspapers"

livinintheloin.com said:
I agree that the environment is an important issue. But, shouldn't the Board of Supervisors prioritize The City's most urgent matter? Crime, homelessness, coal burning power plants...

5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:22 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Plastic bag ban may apply to newspapers"

Examiner Reader said:
I think banning plastic bags in supermarkets and pharmacies is a great idea (though a bag tax, rather than a ban, would have encouraged greater use of reusable bags). I fear, however, that the Supervisors risk jumping the shark on this one.

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:36 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 25, 2008 re: "City Hall Watch: Plastic bag ban may apply to newspapers"

Examiner Reader said:
As a consumer: Now knowing that the compostable bag about eight cents or more, I can see why businesses have such a hard time operating in San Francisco, remember all the other taxes and other peices of legislation the Board of Supervisor have established in recent years. Even the Mayor wants liquor stores to sell boozes in clear plastic bags...

18 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:48 PM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Raises doled out amid budget woes"

Examiner Reader said:
""The data on The City’s public and government relations officers was requested by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who told The Examiner he was concerned about government efficiency and performance. “It’s a question of explaining the justification of why we have to have 89 [public information officers],” Mirkarimi said."" Ross, while your at it lets consider cutting Supervior's paid staff in half and Supervior's slaries by a third. There was a time in the City when being a Supervisor was a part time "job" and paid $13k a year. Believe me things were a whole lot better in the city then...seems the more you jokers get involved the worse things get.

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:34 AM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Raises doled out amid budget woes"

Examiner Reader said:
There's no reason to track the Mayor's salary to that of surrounding areas. In the era of term limits, being the Mayor of SF is an investment in ones personal, professional, and political future -- these are not career executives but social risers. I think all seven should give their raises back this year.

5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:16 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "Power, police may go to voters"

Examiner Reader said:
"Supervisor Chris Daly introduced one charter amendment that would allow the Board of Supervisors to approve large-scale redevelopment plans without sending the legislation to the Mayor for final approval. EXAMINER.COM RELATED ARTICLES Community funds to bridge economic gaps in SoMa Decision on Potrero power plant delayed CitiApartments’ conduct comes under fire — again New blue lines touted to streamline force Plastic bags on their way out of The City Daly is currently backing a June ballot measure requiring the redevelopment of the Bayview-Hunters Point area to include 50 percent below market rate housing, a measure that the developer and city officials, including Mayor Gavin Newsom said will not pencil out financially and would kill the project." This Supervisor is transparent. How did he ever get elected? Geeze the people there must be dumb.

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:18 PM MST on Wed., May. 14, 2008 re: "City introduces $887.4 million bond"

Carl said:
When SFFD lowers the "noise" level of their sirens I can park on my street without waiting an hour to get a spot because DPT wont enforce area I then maybe you'll get my vote.. Ahh Who we kidding. City govt in SF won't change. I have health insurance and I've been to SFGH one time in ten years. Tell my why again I should give SFGH one dollar? Better yet-- Put SFGH in the hands of private business. They seem to have a better idea about where their money is going.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:01 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 26, 2008 re: "Property leases costing millions"

Examiner Reader said:
Josh, good article. Would you please do a follow up article and let your readers know who the property/building owners are? Thanks.

6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:54 PM MST on Fri., Apr. 25, 2008 re: "Property leases costing millions"

Examiner Reader said:
stop free parking for police and fire. The DPH employees are forced to pay for their parking, who note police and fire?

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:26 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 15, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Once again the citizens of San Francisco have to deal with yet another Board comprised mostly of people like Peskin - reactionary, vain, unfocused, tempermental autocrats. And these very same citizens need to take a long hard look at why they keep electing incompetent politicians like this.

4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:30 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
In March, Peskin said he was looking to ax city workers "who earn more than $150,000 annually in base pay." heheheh Mr. Peskin please sharpen your No.2 pencil and check the Board of Stupervisors too...how much are tax payers on the hook for, for you lot?

6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:44 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Well maybe the Board of Stupidvisors can give up their assistants (I think they have 2 or 3?) in the name of closing up the budget? Really they don't need 3 people for a part time job anyway. While they're at it, they can also cut their salary in half. The voters were stupid to give them that $90K+ raise.

7 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:19 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
Peskin is a hypocrite and an idiot. Early in the article it states "In March, Peskin said he was looking to ax city workers who earn more than $150,000 annually in base pay. This week, Peskin introduced his legislation, which, if approved, would send 84 city workers packing." Then he is quoted as saying that the cost cutting from within The City’s legal offices “doesn’t have to come in the form of bodies.” except for police. Here is where Peskin is an idiot. When they pink slip the cops, they will still get at least 90% of their salary plus benefits in the form of pension. So where is the savings? Peskin is as naive as Newsom. He envisions himself as "Da Mayor" of North Beach, next in line to be "Da Mayor" of SF. Another idiot.

7 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:26 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 10, 2008 re: "High-ranking face slashing under new Peskin legislation"

Examiner Reader said:
I have never once have agreeded with Peskin, but do give him credit for cutting from the top. Good Job

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:42 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 2, 2008 re: "Cap proposed for city overtime"

Examiner Reader said:
So its the smoking and not the drinking that is unhealthy in bars? Who goes to a bar because they are seeking a "healthy" enviroment? Come on people.

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:35 PM MST on Wed., Apr. 2, 2008 re: "Cap proposed for city overtime"

Born, Raised and Educated in San Francisco said:
Instead of just eliminating 300 jobs why not start by reducing the number of Board of Supervisors we have. Lets be real. Does it take 11 members plus a mayor to run this small City? In order to justify large expenses such as wages and number of employees, the City will compare itself with other Cities. Well how about the County of San Francisco comparing itself with other Counties in the State? How many Board members does San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin County have? Lets take a look and start from there. Lets reduce excessive spending by starting at the top and work our way down. That'll take care of some of the problem.

8 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:31 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Bonfiglioli Alberto pipemaker of the world. said:
Is very bad for us. In Italy with the streets narrow we have the incredible smoke of cars busses and bikes,but we can't smoke in peace our pipes and cigars,things they coming from the earth,means natural. Take a conclusion with these my words. The Lobby of Cars and trucks are more and more power then Tobacco's companies. Is my opinion. Sincerely Alberto Bonfiglioli pipemaker of the world.

3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:24 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 31, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Grant's Tobacconists said:
I am an owner of a tobacco shop (not head shop), this is not an issue of "seconded hand smoke", anti's, this is an issue of "Your Civil Rights and your Freedom of Personal Choice". Its the governments responsibility to protect the interest of there citizens, but not control there behavior, especially when they are trying as far as banning smoking in a tobacco shop (if you are not a Premium Cigar smoker or Pipe smoker you will not be visiting a tobacco shop, right…right!). It would be the same if you were a wine shop owner and was told that you could not have a wine tasting in your own store. We feel we are Honest, Hardworking, Tax Paying Small Business owners and some of the locations listed in this new proposal is a outrageous violation of freedom that is based on distorted claims and inconclusive evidence perpetuated by a “Emotional Political Topic”. Is this still America?

6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:08 PM MST on Sat., Mar. 29, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
My spiteful neighbor chain smokes in an enclosed common area of our building directly outside our apartment exit and our windows, filling up our home with smoke all day. It is very scary to be denied the basic right to breathe clean air, in your own home, every day, while a person like this says it's his "absolute right" to smoke there. Every year thousands of Americans that don't smoke cigarettes are killed from exposure to secondhand smoke. This law would stop people like me from being poisoned by smokers who live in their building. Smokers would have to go to an open, unenclosed area, or do it within their own apartment. Sure, you have an absolute right to be reckless with your own health, but you don't have a right to be reckless with MY HEALTH. All we're asking is that smokers smoke somewhere that doesn't expose us, too. It's not such a hardship to walk a few feet away to respect someone's health. Gasping in San Francisco

5 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:07 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 29, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

rfkolbe said:
Smoking bans in California it is important to note were legislated to protect the workers of those establishments. I worked in restaurants for years and was very thankful when Pete Wilson signed it into law. These new ideas sound good too. I am tired of breathing foolish smoker fumes.

4 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:58 PM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
You people in California are frickin NUTS!

6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:47 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Seven said:
San Francisco didn't eliminate smoking in bars; that's a myth. There's a bar owner smoking loophole in the law that's easy to exploit. On the west side, you'll always find plenty of smokers at Boomerang, Eagle's, Shannon Arms, and CyBar.

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:55 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 28, 2008 re: "Smoking ban expected to balloon"

Examiner Reader said:
This is too much. Stop with the smoking hysteria. If secondhand smoke in public areas (not workplaces or homes) killed as much as these lobbies and bans imply it does, everyone born before 1980 would be dead. Seriously. People who dislike smoke need to treat it as what it really is to them: a temporary annoyance. The correct behavior in that instance is to ask people to stop or move away from them. It's really easy and doesn't involve legislation, police, courts, fines, etc.

8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:38 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

Examiner Reader said:
They do this in many cities around the world including some in the East Coast have laws preventing owners for putting cement in front of their homes. If you talk to real estate brokers, neighborhoods with beautification in front of the homes have better rate in selling than having no beautification in front of the homes. The neighborhood value also goes up with lawns and trees but without, property value does not go up.

3 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:42 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Supes approve fine for paving over front yard"

L. Amiot said:
Who is Sandoval to tell property owners not to pave their patch of soil or lawn in front of their homes, on THEIR OWN PROPERTY? We already pay sky high property taxes. Maybe he would like to order us, by official supervisory fiat, to quarter homeless in our houses now, too. Is he the face of the new Green Nazis? These supervisors are absolutely ridiculous. They seem more like selfish, idealistic children then government leaders.

6 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:35 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
How about cutting the number of Supervisors!

9 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:08 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
Agree - there are plenty of cuts to make, especially at the top. The bigger the problem, the higher up the chain you must go to find the source, and solution.

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:42 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Examiner Reader said:
Shouldn't new hires be the first to be let go? Then Gavin's stable of "boys" with six figure incomes should be shown the door no?

7 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:49 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 19, 2008 re: "Mayor calls for another round of job cuts"

Dorothy said:
SF Employees 27,000 people? This is not a country its a big town in a 49 sq. mile! CUT THE PAYROLLS NOW. They probably have 3 people doing the work 1 can do!!

6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:51 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
The only reason for the $1.75 million ramp was to keep the overpaid, union workers on the city payroll, nothing else.

7 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:18 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Unreal said:
I dont expect any of them to read this - but if you do... how can anyone in their right mind think a $1.75million dollar 10ft ramp is a step in the right direction? We elect idiots.

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:05 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
I have no problem with "reasonable" access for anyone and everyone and, in fact, its the law. However, the only possible option to create "access" is a 1 million dollar ramp?

5 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:11 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Examiner Reader said:
$1m wheelchair ramp: How much time and and how many tax dollars are being spent even discussing this? What about options? Why can't presidents sit in a normal seat instead of on a podium? Or, why can't a couple of strong people boost a wheelchair onto the podium? Is this all about show? I'd admire a person who insists on equal access in the most low-cost, un-grand manner possible. I can't admire a person who doesn't recognise that the more other people have to pay, the less "equal" that access is.

4 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:46 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008 re: "Board rejects call for $1M wheelchair ramp"

Fed Up said:
I'm fed up with the outrageous demands of disabled people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on access. Let's use some common sense. Remember the hundreds of millions we wasted across the U.S. on disabled access voting machines that were hardly ever used. I'm all for "reasonable" access, not "unreasonable" access.

9 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:19 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 3, 2008 re: "Should lobbyists receive a label?"

M.S. Jackson said:
If most lobbyists were not such sneaky, sleazy, oily, lying cheating representatives of some of the worst companies and groups (enron, anybody? - christian coaltion, chevron, pfizer, etc) then I would agree that the badge would suffice. But things being as rotten as they are, I am afraid nothing less than an orange bag with holes cut out for the eyes, nose and mouth will be enough to protect the citizenry from the Axes of Evil (aka lobbyists)! As time goes by, Chris Daly is starting to seem like a decent guy who no longer cusses and screams his sometimes very good ideas in to view. He seems to be growing up, if slowly... and, very surreptitiously, his respectability is beginning to bloom, who knew?

31 agree | 21 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:14 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 3, 2008 re: "Should lobbyists receive a label?"

Paul said:
Yes, let's put a scarlet "A" on their backs. Whatever happened to free speech! Thank God Daly is term-limited, though SF is stuck with his asanine ideas for the next 2 1/2 years. Recall Daly!

17 agree | 25 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree