SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Other city departments contribute 28 percent of the cost of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s staff members — more than $1.3 million — a review of documents provided by the Mayor’s Office reveals.

With The City facing a projected $233 million budget deficit next fiscal year, Newsom has fielded criticism in recent weeks for funding newly created and previously existing positions in his senior staff with money from other departments while placing a hiring freeze on vacant city jobs in other departments and calling for across-the-board belt-tightening proposals.

Newsom has deemed the criticism — some of which has come from members of the Board of Supervisors and legislative staff — politically motivated.

“Those individuals are doing work on behalf of the departments funding the positions,” Newsom’s chief of staff, Phil Ginsburg, said, noting its contribution to “interdepartmental collaboration and communication.”

“This is a very standard practice,” he said.

Last week, a budget analyst’s report said the Board of Supervisors should consider rescinding funding for 10 positions otherwise funded by other departments, but Newsom has blasted the report.

“It’s myth-making,” Newsom said, adding that “all of those new hires in the Mayor’s Office were existing, approved, budgeted positions where people had moved” with the exception of two newly created positions.

The total number of filled positions in the Mayor’s Office that are paid in part or full by other departments actually totals 19, according to documents his Communications Office provided to The Examiner.

Nancy Kirschner Rodriguez, the director of Government Affairs, and deputy chief of staff Catherine Dodd — both salaried at $143,123 — are funded by the Public Health, Economic and Workforce Development, and Human Services departments, among others. The newly appointed director of the Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice, Kevin Ryan, has a $160,862 salary — 10 percent of which comes from the Police Department. The mayor’s education advisor, Hydra Mendoza, receives her $112,000 salary from the Department of Children, Youth and Families. All of these positions are noted within a list of 55 staff members — five of which are currently unfilled — provided by the Mayor’s Office.

Not listed among the 55 positions are three positions that were included in a Jan. 4 press release from the Mayor’s Office announcing Newsom’s “new team”: the Mayor’s Climate Protection Initiatives Director Wade Crowfoot, City Homelessness Policy Director Dariush Kayhan and Greening Director Astrid Haryati.

Crowfoot’s and Kayhan’s positions are newly created, and they earn $160,720 and $220,511 respectively, according to the budget analyst’s report. Haryati earns $140,856, according to the report.

The salaries of the 53 filled positions total more than $4.6 million, but of that total, $1,309,896 — or 28 percent — is funded through departments other than the Mayor’s Office or work orders (a contract from one department to another for an employee’s work).

The five vacancies in Newsom’s office include a deputy director of the Mayor’s Budget Office, deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, a data analyst, an account clerk and an office manager, according to documents provided by his office.

dsmith@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

11:47 AM MST on Tue., Apr. 22, 2008 re: "Newsom uses radio gig to move beyond City Hall"

Examiner Reader said:
The jerk completely forget that he was elected to focus on SF not "something much bigger than who�s up and who�s down at City Hall" Resign and start running for governor now and let us have someone to run SF.

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

2:29 PM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008 re: "Vacant city positions given the ax"

Examiner Reader said:
I had posted a comment regarding reducing the number of SF Board of Supervisors as a start. But somehow the post is no longer there. So here it is again. Eliminate some positions at the Board. there is no need for 11 Board members plus a mayor to run this City. And the excuse that SF is a "City/County" wont fly. We only need about 5 people to efectivly run this town.

5 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:54 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008 re: "Newsom mum about governor run"

Examiner Reader said:
Can one say Rebulicans? They will have a field day with this loser if he runs.

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

Report as inappropriate

12:24 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
Why no photo of the ex-con MORON who was arrested? Laughable. Never, never trust an ex-con.

31 agree | 27 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:19 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
We, the voters, need to develop & place on the ballot via an initiative some sort of State Constitutional mandate that funds paid into any City, County, or the State Treasury be used for specific budgets. The State until recently, as we all recall, had been diverting "transportation funds from transportation taxes" to NONtransportation budget items. i.e. funds diverted to the pork projects of slick and manipulative politicians. If the Mayor cannot do his job on his own, he should resign. The so called public "services" have obviously been damaged by taking funds from the departments w/o alerting the public.

37 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:34 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
Well thanks to this article for telling everyone in the world where we can find Newsom's car at 9am. Let's hope there are more acts of vandalism.

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

Report as inappropriate

10:33 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
When facing a 220 million dollar shortfall the mayor should be the first one to sacrifice and set a good example but obviously he just wants to put the blame some place else and call it politically motivated. Well gee, when the residents in your city are calling for you to set a good example and not hire your buddies to senior positions which pull money from already cash strapped programs I do not think that is politically motivated. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.

24 agree | 28 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:24 AM MST on Tue., Feb. 26, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
So the price tag for a homeless czar is the same as paying 311 homeless CAAP recipients $59/mo for a year or 53 housed CAAP recipients $345/mo. Running guvmint like a bidness, huh?

37 agree | 30 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:21 PM MST on Mon., Feb. 25, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
Yep, I'm afraid we must live with the fact we put Mayor Newsom in office and must now endure this mayor for 4 more years.

33 agree | 26 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:00 PM MST on Sun., Feb. 24, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

fred said:
who is stupider -him or us for electing him in the first place? How do we get this idiot out of office?

36 agree | 26 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:05 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
These salaries are outrageous for government service.

41 agree | 31 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:40 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 22, 2008 re: "More than one-fourth of mayor�s payroll funded by other departments"

Examiner Reader said:
Can't that Mayor do ANYthing himself?

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

Report as inappropriate

4:57 PM MST on Sat., Jan. 12, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
i saw the resulting arrest. There was some 'resistance' that's certain. And there were about ten cop cars and a couple unmarked ones all over the place. It was like they thought they'd caught a terrorist!!!! Go sfpd!!!

67 agree | 61 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:06 AM MST on Sat., Jan. 12, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
But if the cops actually saw the person doing it like they did in this story I'll bet they would respond exactly the same way -- even if it had been the vehicle or home of any "anonymous taxpayer."

63 agree | 50 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:44 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 11, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
The only reason the cops did anything is because this is Newsom's car. Had it been the vehicle or home of any anonymous taxpayer, the cops would have laughed at requests to investigate--do you think this is an episode of Dragnet or something?--and gone back to eating their donuts.

61 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:53 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
It�s amazing how a story about a parolee vandalizing Newsom's car and resisting arrest devolves into people berating him for things that have nothing to do with the story, and embellishing it with expressions of jealousy about SF cloaked in disparaging comments. Of course if this happened to any of you it would be a huge issue and you�d be happy to see the guy arrested and charged with a felony.

57 agree | 56 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:00 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
Mr. Burgos, who is probably a bi-polar street person needs an ACLU attorney who could plead the San Francisco twinkie defense previously used by Dan White. Frisco unfortunately has earned the reputation for being the weirdest city in America and not wholesome & family friendly. How sad.

67 agree | 53 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:18 PM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Newsom�s car vandalized"

Examiner Reader said:
If the damage is over $400, it is a felony. This amount is a drop in the bucket and anyone who's had so much as parking lot dings can tell you what a body shop charges for repairs.

64 agree | 40 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:54 AM MST on Thu., Jan. 10, 2008 re: "Man vandalizes Newsom�s car near apartment"

Examiner Reader said:
A felony for vandalism? Is that because it was Newsom's car? Welcome to the city.

58 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:03 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 31, 2007 re: "Newsom gets engaged"

Examiner Reader said:
After Gavin spent all this time campaigning for same-sex marriage, why is he marrying a woman? If he thinks marrying another man is the same as marrying a woman, he should practice what he preaches...

60 agree | 73 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:58 AM MST on Sun., Dec. 30, 2007 re: "Newsom pitches idea of an open office"

Examiner Reader said:
Settling "homeless" people in full-service centers is arguably a "different" approach to this on-going problem. I'm not sure how that necessarily equates to "courageous." Other cities/states were already in the forefront when it came to same-sex marriage before our mayor endorsed it. Our State Supreme Court invalidated the mayor's decision and will, if history proves true, line up against same-sex marriage, too. So it would seem while the mayor's decision might leave him with a black eye for not correctly reading the political winds in California, it likely ingratiated him to a considerable portion of the gay community, which is a major voting block in San Francisco. "courageous?" maybe, politicaly smart, absolutely.

68 agree | 81 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:15 PM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Newsom pitches idea of an open office"

sickofrisco said:
I will give Newsom grudging respect for attempting to do take on the entrenched homeless advocacy establishment when he showed up. As far as pushing for same-sex marriage, that doesn't strike me as being especially "courageous" in a city where people think that being sexually confused elevates you to the status of "protected species"...

75 agree | 83 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 AM MST on Sat., Dec. 29, 2007 re: "Newsom: Second term as daring as first"

James, San Francisco said:
Mayor Newsom's first term implemented the project for homeless that placed many of them in full-service residential centers. His first term was also marked by his courageous stand for same-sex marriage. Granted, both of these initiatives require a commitment for the long-term, which he has demonstrated. These were both daring moves and his first term can be therefore described as such.

62 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:58 PM MST on Sun., Nov. 11, 2007 re: "Newsom: Second term as daring as first"

Examiner Reader said:
Mayor Newsom's first term was daring? How so?

95 agree | 87 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:59 PM MST on Thu., Nov. 8, 2007 re: "Newsom: Second term as daring as first"

Examiner Reader said:
Who would want to be Mayor of Sin Fransico ,still a beautiful city run by no brainers. Newsence can keep it.

84 agree | 89 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate