CHANGE MY LOCATION
Mayor turns up heat on Prop. I
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
Mayor Gavin Newsom
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - As city supervisors deliberated Thursday on a voter-backed policy to have the mayor attend monthly board meetings, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that his counterproposal would be implemented Jan. 13, further straining relations between him and the board.
The latest political spat between the Board of Supervisors and Newsom is centered around the implementation of Proposition I, a nonbinding policy statement — which was backed by 56 percent of the voters Nov. 7 — that said the mayor should appear once a month at a Board of Supervisors meeting.
In a Tuesday letter to the board, Newsom said he had plans already under way to implement the spirit of Prop. I: Instead of appearing before the Board of Supervisors in legislative chambers, he would hold monthly public policy meetings in the community beginning this January, and city supervisors are invited to attend.
While the proposal circumvents the will of the voters, Newsom said in the letter that it avoids “political theater” and fosters better communication with the public.
The letter came two days before the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee was scheduled to vote on a board policy requesting the mayor to attend a Board of Supervisors meeting every third Tuesday of the month to discuss policy issues. Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin drafted the policy in response to the voters’ approval of Prop. I.
During the Rules Committee hearing Thursday, city supervisors put off the vote on the proposed policy until next Thursday, saying they wanted to work collaboratively with the Mayor’s Office to come to an agreement about how to implement the will of the voters. It was during this meeting that an announcement came from the Mayor’s Office that the “first policy town hall meeting” would take place Jan. 13 in the Richmond — Supervisor Jake McGoldrick’s district.
McGoldrick said he was “never consulted” about the meeting, was critical of Newsom’s plan and that Newsom should talk about implementation of Prop. I with the members of the board.
“It’s kind of sad that [Newsom] decided to continue to create a circus environment around this Prop. I,” McGoldrick said. When asked if he would attend, McGoldrick said he was indifferent, adding, “I don’t jump into circus routines.”
In a statement Thursday, Newsom said, “I look forward to discussing homelessness with the residents of the Richmond and the Board of Supervisors in the community on Jan. 13.”
Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who is generally supportive of Newsom, said the mayor’s proposal “was kind of an executive fiat” and lacked the “spirit of collaboration.”
Neither the mayor’s proposal nor Peskin’s were ready for prime time, as more details needed to be worked out, Elsbernd said.
If approved by the Rules Committee next week, the policy could come before the full board for adoption as early as Jan. 9, the first board meeting of the new year.
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:59 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 19, 2007 re: "S.F. supes send ‘question time’ to ballot again"
Report as inappropriate
3:26 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 18, 2007
re: "S.F. supes send ‘question time’ to ballot again"
Report as inappropriate
4:05 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 12, 2007
re: "Newsom, board sessions may go back to ballot"
Report as inappropriate
12:49 PM MST on Wed., May. 30, 2007
re: "Newsom, board sessions may go back to ballot"
Report as inappropriate
11:14 AM MST on Wed., May. 30, 2007
re: "Newsom, board sessions may go back to ballot"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
This is a chartered amendment for the future. So if all the comments end up talking about Newsom and Daly well I guess you all are short sited.
147 agree | 135 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Newsome "defying the will of the voters" cried the supervisors. How about the sanctimonious members of the board of supervisor closing streets in Golden Gate Park on Saturdays after the voters said to keep them open. Hypocrites!
128 agree | 127 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
If Daly and his cronies have time to waste on silly squabbles such as this it only means they don't have enough real work to keep them busy. Why do we have 11 supervisors? We only need about 5. Maybe it made sense to have 11 back when they only earned $30K a year, worked part time, and didn't have aides. Now they work full time and have 2 aides each but the population of SF is about the same. Time to revisit what is needed to run the city. Maybe if there were fewer supervisors each would have enough to keep him/herself busy with real work and not time enough to play childish games at the taxpayers' expense as many of them do today.
153 agree | 149 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think town hall meetings are better than going to the Board of Supervisors for the Mayor because of many reasons, 1) at least the board can get things done instead of holding off important issues that need to be discussed and voted on, 2) more opportunity for the citizens of San Francisco to ask questions at a town hall meeting than at the board where time constrants will occur, 3) if members of the board come to the town hall meeting as well, they can explain to the citizens of their districts what is going on as well as the Mayor, and both can explain what is going on in their legislation processes and city function. Have more productive time for both sides if town hall meeting than in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors.
153 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SF Richmond Gay Dem said:
This waste of time charter amendment is yet another antic from the childish tantrum-thrower Chris Daly. I DARE him to run for Mayor and get crushed by Gavin Newsom in November, and then be term-limited back to the anonymity he so richly deserves. Somehow he will squak by on his trust fund I'm sure!
176 agree | 169 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree