CHANGE MY LOCATION
Use of public finance dollars raises concerns
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Mayor Gavin Newsom’s plan to balance the city budget by dipping into a $5 million fund set aside to finance political campaigns could leave nothing for candidates, critics said Wednesday.
However both Phil Ginsburg, Newsom’s chief of staff, and Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said Wednesday there will be more than enough money in the fund for those running this November and in 2011.
McGoldrick, in cooperation with the Mayor’s Office, amended the proposal Wednesday during the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee meeting to require that if the Ethics Commission finds there are insufficient funds for the 2011 mayoral race, The City will sink $5 million into the fund.
“We’re all supportive of public financing. You can put your trust in the fact that that money will be there,” McGoldrick said.
However, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who proposed public financing for mayoral races, noted that “Oakland endured a similar desire and motivation to usurp public funds … but those funds were not replenished.”
Newsom’s budget proposal used the $5 million to help close a projected $338 million deficit. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on the $6.5 billion budget July 22.
Advocates of public campaign financing were worried the money would not be there for candidates in future years.
“You are setting a precedent of making this a slush fund to fund your favorite projects,” said Steven Hill, director of political reform at the nonprofit New America Foundation.
Voters adopted The City’s first public campaign finance program for candidates for the Board of Supervisors in November 2000. The board’s budget committee will vote next week whether to send the proposal to the full Board of Supervisors.
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:40 AM MST on Fri., Aug. 22, 2008 re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
2:59 PM MST on Thu., Aug. 14, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
5:16 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
2:33 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
10:47 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
10:46 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
10:16 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
9:49 AM MST on Wed., Aug. 13, 2008
re: "Newsom takes scalpel to budgetMayor’s Office says $4.8 million"
Report as inappropriate
5:15 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
2:45 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
10:51 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
9:27 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
12:50 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
10:21 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"
Report as inappropriate
9:43 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"
Report as inappropriate
10:25 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
6:22 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
6:11 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
5:32 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008
re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"
Report as inappropriate
2:07 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008
re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"
Report as inappropriate
9:52 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008
re: "OT costing city millions"
Report as inappropriate
2:11 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
10:54 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 22, 2008
re: "Budget deficit balloons $100 million in latest projections"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Well i am a city worker, to be more specific a museum worker , and i dont beleive anyone who lives in SF thinks that the city would allow us to work 35 hours and get paid for 40 YEAH RIGHT!!! if there is some missing money its not going to the people on the low end of the stick and that fa sure so do an audit and find that money !!!!
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I don't suppose the mayor de-funded any of the recent, expensive positions added to his inner circle of staff which make recommendations to him?
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
""Almost $5 million in city services — from homeless outreach services to child care — will not receive funding this fiscal year, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s office announced Tuesday." The city devotes more than one-quarter of the billion dollars to homeless and housing issues alone. Thats billion with a B. This is such a small amount given the earmarks, set-asides, and other pork which the Stupervisors, in the wisdom, have perpetrated against everyone. The special earmarks that reoccur every year and need to be funded have hamstrung the City budget. Time to get rid of the tyrannical progressives who see it one way, their way!
8 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The overtime is a red herring. If the City filled the necessary jobs with permanent people, overtime would be minimmized but permanent employees cost more.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So now the homeless wont get funding but the "executive assistants" and the firemen on overtime will keep their paychecks. Did no one see that there were"security guards' at museums that were working 35 hours but being paid for 40??!! I want that job. Maybe if the mayor took a pay cut and cut half of his private 'assistants' we could fill the potholes, make Muni an acceptable alternative to driving and get the cops out of the cars and on to the streets. Oh and CUT OUT OVERTIME FOR ANYONE!!!
1 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mark Winshel said:
A 6.5 billion dollar budget based on SF's population of about 750,000 people comes to a per capita of approximately nine thousand dollars spending per resident just for city services, and that does not even include the additional taxes residents pay to the state and federal govt. While I realize the real goal of local, state, amd federal governments everywhere is to spend and waste as much money as possible, however I think this is just one more item in the idiocy, insanity, and outrageousness categories in which San Francisco, and again, has decided to be the clearcut leader and number one.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The city is over staffed and very inefficient. New rules should be set to streamline and fire those who don't work efficiently with in the organization. SF County workers are a bunch of freeloaders eating up tax payers money. I know for a fact so many of you city workers always slacking, and doing side business on city time. Especially those that have off site position, you know who you are. If we target those people we can clean out a lot of fat within our city. The onsite workers are just as bad, drinking coffee and doing nothing, and building on the pension. You can fire these city worker and the city still be running fine, they do nothing and take up resources.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
newsom needs to ARNOLD the city and county of san francisco. reduce all city employees to minimum wage. especially all big department heads. also, reduce all sexual activities between employees to a bare minimum, down to the bone.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Supervisor Chris Daly has asked the city attorney to draft an amendment to a charter amendment that would provide voters with the opportunity to eliminate all The City’s set-asides." If this guy is "for it" then I would vote against it.
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Francisco Paul said:
Daly finally has a good idea to get rid of set-asides in the budget but then proposes a new one? Typical!
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
“If [Newsom] is serious about taking on set-asides, then he will join me in the effort. If he isn’t, then he should back off,” Daly said. Conversely, if Daly was serious about taking on set-asides, he wouldn't be proposing one.
5 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ahh of course it makes perfect sense, keep voting on set asides until Daly gets it the way he wants. It is human nature, unless of course you remember that he won re-election by like 1,200 votes a few percentage points and now runs all of the city. Yes makes perfect sense to me. But hey how about this idea how about fixing the crime in District 6 so that people are not killed on the average of 1 every 3 months. I totally agree that affordable housing is important but the city is out of control I never hear Supervisor Daly talk it. Providing Affordable Housing will not stop crime.
6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Keepa' your hands off the campaign funds! One of the biggest problems in politics today is the extraordinary amounts of private money which slush around in the public political process; as we continue to hear how there's no influence peddling going on.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Public financing guarantees no such insulation from those who would put "political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions." To navigate the City's political machine takes either a lot of money or a lot of free time -- just to get to the point of being considered for office. Because of term limits, most of our politicians must look ahead 8 years toward their next job. Public financing of elections does nothing to prevent that.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco does not have the highest taxes by any measure. The Mayor is using the City's budget as a personal slush fund, as a trampoline for his political ambitions to the extent that he is not delivering services. Public financing is critical to the prospect of electing a Mayor who will put the needs of San Franciscans first, before those of political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Perhaps this is one of the reasons the city can't adequately fund MUNI?
3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
property owners have been receiving less service from fewer service personal as a result of this. so if EVERY property owner were to write return to sender on their tax bills and refused to pay it until the citys gets their S&%t together THAT WOULD SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WERE TIRED OF LIP SERVICE FROM MANAGEMENT OUTPACING. California has the highest taxes and the poorest conditions
16 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
To many chiefs and not enought indians ! Take for example the city of san carlos has only corrupt and incompetent people from building department idiots to a mayor that was guilty of money theft. save the tax payers the cost of these fools and turn back control of the city to the COUNTY !!!!
32 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How about getting rid of the whole Bored of Supervisors, that would save over $5M right off the bat, and then $100's of Millions because they won't be there to keep spending tax payers hard earned dollars.
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
We have eleven Supervisors - way too many for a city the size of SF. I remember when they worked part time and made $20K a year. Now they make what? Close to $100K? And they now have assistants. It's time - past time - to rethink the role of the Board of Supervisors. I recommend that there be a maximum of seven Supervisors and that they be broken into two groups - four Supervisors that are from districts and three supervisors that are elected at large and represent the whole city. Reducing the number of Supervisors from eleven to seven would eliminate four positions and eliminate the expense of their salaries, would eliminate their staff, would eliminate the cost of their offices and infrastructure. Easily a $1,000,000 savings per year.
7 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Some people are forced to work overtime while other people can't find good work. Can't laws and policies be adjusted to make bringing in new people (full-time, part-time, job-sharing, temporary, etc.) cost less than mandating overtime?
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Do the Stupervisors make over $150K? If not maybe they can lower the limit and get rid of themselves.
9 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I believe this when its actually implemented. Between employee uninons and civil service status, it makes it difficult to terminate anyone at city hall.
5 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why doesnt the mayor ask his good friends the Gettys to help him close the deficit? Or better yet all of the wealthy eliteists in this city who help push the liberal programs that get us into this mess.Dont put measures on the ballot unless you can provide the funds to pay for them. Lets stop the madness and start running our govt more like a business and not a non profit org!
7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree