By John Shanley

New District Attorney George Gascón stated that he did not attend the swearing in of New Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi because he was currently under investigation by the DA’s office and he feared the prospect of a conflict of interest.

A legal conflict is not like the concept of being in bounds or out of bounds on a basketball court. It is not about a physical space. But Gascón was correct in smelling that a conflict of interest may well arise in this situation. [Read more →]

This is a memorandum from a former long-time attorney for public defender Jeff Adachi, who is critical of her boss, but contains insightful information that the Argonaut thinks is important for readers considering voting for Adachi in his opportunistic run for mayor.

[Read more →]

By Warren Hinckle & Arlo Hale Smith, Jr.

An outrage of international impact apparently not reported except in Chinese language newspapers, has befallen San Francisco’s once proud progressive Democratic Party.
  We have to say it out loud, it is the fault of Aaron Peskin’s often outrageous manipulations and management of the local Democratic Party machinery. Peskin and his then handy man-former Sup. Chris Daly took over the Democratic party machinery a few years ago (see Argonaut November 2009) and proceeded by violation of the rules of the State Dem Party to devolve the coin of the once golden endorsement slate card of the party mailed to every resident Democrat in the city.
  Since the Argonaut exposed Peskin & Co’s shenanigans- “Hijacking the Democratic Party” (June 2010) Peskin’s party seemed unaware of the real world outside their ideological chamber, has been losing races to other candidates who ran against the official Democratic Party election–such as new Supervisor Scott Weiner (Castro) and Mark Farrell (Marina).
The latest and greatest misstep amounts to one outrage–with five major Asian American candidates running for mayor [Read more →]

Click on the cover to download your own issue of the Argonaut!

The Only Candidates With The Experience To Do The Job

There are two candidates in this election that the Argonaut enthusiastically endorses — Bill Fazio for District Attorney and Chris Cunnie for Sheriff. [Read more →]

The Argonaut recommends–as we are forced to comply with the city’s confusing and hideously expensive Ranked Choice Voting system–the following candidates and yea or nay on ballot propositions (We will explain our reasoning below):

Mayor:     Ed Lee, 2nd Choice: Michela Alioto-Pier, 3rd Choice: Bevan Dufty
DA:             Bill Fazio, 2nd Choice: George Gascon
Sheriff:     Chris Cunnie 2nd Choice: Paul Miyamoto

Proposition A    (School Bonds)                                       NO
Proposition B    (Street Repair Bonds)                           NO
Proposition C    (City Pension Benefits)                         YES
Proposition D    (City Pension Benefits)                         NO
Proposition E    (Amending Legislative Ordinances)   YES
Proposition F    (Campaign Consultants)                       YES
Proposition G    (Hiking Sales Tax)                                NO
Proposition H    (School District Assignments)            NO

Before we get to the candidates and issues on the overlong ballot, let us express our complete and unqualified contempt for the city’s system of ranked choice voting and taxpayer  financing of campaigns – to the current (already spent and still climbing to the highest mountain peak) whistle of over 14 million dollars of taxpayer financial  underwriting by a bone-broke city of candidates campaigns.  Many of them had no business running in the first place – but the city’s idiotic law makes it impossible for them to drop out of the rat race because if they do the practical thing and drop out of a race they know they have no chance of winning, the prudent candidate is has to pay the city back for the taxpayer money received, which most of them can’t afford to do. But if they wait and stay in the race and go ahead and lose as everyone in town including the candidate him (or her) self knows they will.
Just how stupid is that?  Very.

The Argonaut believes Ed Lee – who was picked by the Board of Supervisors to serve as Mayor for the remaining months in Gavin Newsom’s term of office after he climbed the Artic heights to the office of State Lt. Governor – has performed admirably in the job and deserves election to his own full term as Mayor. Lee put hands on the reigns of the city sleigh in the most difficult of times and got done what others could not do. The biggest crisis facing the city long and short term is its burgeoning pension and health care payments for past and current city employees which were granted in boom times but times as everyone knows are no longer booming. Ed Lee achieved what was once considered impossible – bringing both Big Labor and Big Business to the same table and getting all parties to agree on a realistic program to adjust city pension and benefit costs, both the immediate and long term. In this fractious city solving such a giant problem is politically impossible without cooperation and compromise – and Lee has proved himself to be the master of achieving compromise. He then worked successfully to bring together the parties another major issue to compromise on another major issue – the details of former Mayor Newsom’s universal health care plan, which had economic consequences that would have, bankrupt many San Francisco small businesses. Lee achieved all this in a cheerful and calm matter that put a good face on the city and improved the tone of civic civility. He is a natural born leader; his previous years of experience in city government have given him a well-tuned understanding of how the wheels-within-wheels of San Francisco government work; the taxpayer was lucky to get him in the mayor’s office by an accident of political succession and voters would be well-served by granting him his own term.

The shrill and semi-hysterical response by political opponents to Lee’s decision to seek a full term after originally planning to only fill out the remainder of Newsom’s term – the decision of an adult who realized that he would actually be a better mayor than those clamoring for the job who are size to small for the shoes he is filling – does a disservice to civil poitical discourse. We are particularly disappointed with the angry campaign run by City Attorney Dennis Herrera – under normal circumstances a very nice fellow – who has attacked both Mayor Lee and Board of Supervisors president David Chiu (another adult in the room) raises questions about how in hell Herrera after he returns to his day job will manage to deal with both men who because he is City Attorney are his clients. As to the over-the-top anti-Lee political mailers with which State Senator
Leland Yee is stuffing your mailbox, it can only be supposed that Leland is suffering from the sticker shock when Mayor Lee entered the race, but Yee’s low campaign is beneath the dignity of his office. (He overreached by producing a phony biography of Lee (See “The Pinocchio Candidate” p. 16) which is full of obvious lies, and attention to lying is something Yee can ill afford. He has made almost a habit of telling the opposite thing to opposite interest groups (during this campaign, Leland told the Tenants Union and a landlord organization the exact opposite positions on his stands on the Park Merced expansion and condo conversion.) Under the city’s ranked choice voting procedures, the Argonaut has given 2nd and 3rd choices for Mayor to Michaela Alioto-Pier and Bevan Dufty. We can only speak well of each and under the uncertain outcome of the ranked choice voting counting if either were to ascend to Room 200 they are the most able among the other mayoral candidates to hold the job and perform its duties.

Proposition A (School Bonds) – The Civil Grand Jury issued a report on the many surplus, unused and un-income producing real estate owned by the San Francisco Unified School District. While the Argonaut has supported school bonds in the past, we must in the face of the city’s looming financial crisis ask the proponents of Proposition A to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bond amount that clearly outlines the funds needed after the District finds a way to turn its unused properties into cash before the taxpayer is again asked for open pockets. After previous School Bond issues (anyprecise accounting for how that money was sent remains elusive to us). Bond issues are very expensive deals – once the interest to be paid over a length of years is added in, some amount to almost double cost stated on the ballot. NO on A

Proposition B (Street Repairs) – Here we go again. The City has no business paying for street repair through special bond issues because many billion-dollar city budget you pay your taxes to support includes budgeted funds for street maintaining and repair. Money set aside for street repairs has in the past been diverted by City Hall grandees to their favorite causes soaking up city dollars, including the non-profits whose functions are often provided by city workers but who do their master’s bidding and whose employees have been known to help out on political campaigns on the city’s dime.NO on B.

Proposition C (City Pension Benefits) This is the compromise measure brokered by Mayor Lee between unions and business interests that lowers pensions and benefit costs for city workers short and long-term. If the city is not to go in the fiscal tank over its pension obligations, continuing this collaborative process is the only way San Francisco can regain fiscal stability. YES on C

Proposition D (City Pension Benefits) This is Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s stand-alone Rather draconian proposal which Addachi seems to be spending a lot of time away from his public-defending of accused criminals responsibilities promoting. It was little wonder that the path of his advocating pension reform led to a run for mayor – it certainly gave him visibility. This is at the end of the day a partisan political proposition that whacks public employee unions (and given the enormity of the pension situation, does not save that much more money than Mayor Lee’s Proposition C. NO on D

Proposition F (Amending Legislative Ordinances) We have been of two minds on Proposition F, one being that although the current, more moderate Board of Supervisors might be trusted with the judgment to alter previous voter-approved ordinances when they become outdated or redundant, the same may not be true of giving such power to future Boards. Supervisor Scott Wiener has, for the moment, convinced us to give this a try, as it is clear that housecleaning and updating are in order on many ordinances and laws. Wiener believes this will lead to less proposition put on the ballot by the Board, which has clearly been packing the ballot with measures that Supervisors were elected to deal with by legislation, a way of ducking responsibility. If Weiner is right and Prop. F leads to less ballot measures, Glory Be. Otherwise, we reserve the right to change our mind. YES on E

Proposition F (Campaign Consultants) Considering the obscene amount of taxpayers’ money to fund candidates for elective office that is enriching the coffers of campaign consultants, it is becoming a matter of public interest to have that pack of charming scoundrels subject to public scrutiny. YES on F

Proposition G (Hiking S.F. Sales Tax Further) San Francisco already has one of the highest sales tax rates in the country, socking tourists with whopping hotel taxes and the like. Adding to the burden will only send more visitors to spend their money in South San Francisco and environs. Besides, we don’t trust the politicians who will figure how the additional funds will be spent. NO on G

Proposition H (School District Assignments) Enough already of fiddling with the school-assignment system. NO on H

Peskin Challenges Feinstein Reform Moves, Slurs Against Brown and Burton Family Included in Torrent of Invective – He  Defends Machine After Party’s Candidates Lost 4 Out of 4 Races in 2010 — “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It”

From Our Political Correspondent

The San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (DCCC) is made up of members elected from each of the city’s present two assembly districts and San Francisco Democrats elected to state and federal offices. Its meetings this spring have been flavored by the slurp of political wounds being licked and the balm of bravado to ease the pain of the devastating electoral defeat last year when the party’s top picks for supervisor unprecedently lost all four of the seats in play.

The  D-Triple C’s  monthly gatherings in the Milton Marks Auditorium in the cavernous basement of the State Building on Golden Gate Avenue have been distinguished by a palpable tension between Aaron Peskin’s occasional flirtations with resigning his position as party chair and his combative resistance to reforms pushed by senior party officials who wanted to stop Peskin from spending Democratic party funds to defeat fellow Democrats  running against his hand-picked candidates.

Peskin has peppered the meetings with increasingly strident public attacks on former San Francisco mayor, now California Lt. Governor, Gavin Newsom. The party boss’s unvarnished enmity toward Newsom is expected to surface again Wednesday night at the regularly scheduled meeting after Peskin last week questioned Newsom’s right to a vote on the DCCC because he is living outside the city with his family in Marin County for the summer.

Peskin’s move was read by some observers as a slam at the late Phil Burton who lived most of the year in Washington but was registered to vote in San Francisco at his mother’s house on Sloat Boulevard. Newsom plans to be out of town only during the summer and remains a registered voter in San Francisco.

Reform  motions from Newsom’s proxies on the DCCC have especially nettled the Chair and last month’s meeting degenerated into outbursts of political Tourette’s.  Peskin and his acolytes challenged the rectitude of Democrats such as Senator Dianne Feinstein to make motions affecting the way his committee conducts its dirty business.  Peskin led the charge by stating that “in the last quarter century, no ex-officio on this committee has ever made  a motion.” Democratic elected officials like Feinstein automatically become DCCC voting members. They rarely attend meetings in person and appoint official proxies to vote for them and are called in DCCC-talk as “ex-officio” members.

This upset visibly emotional Peskin loyalist Gabriel Holland  who said that because he had been “on the ballot” to be elected to the DCCC  his voting rights were superior to someone like  Dianne Feinstein who was only a United States Senator “No ex-officio members has a right to make a motion from the floor,” Holland said.

This brought a spirited rejoinder from George Broder, Feinstein’s proxy on the Committee. “I represent a person who was also on the ballot and was dully elected and as far as I know is a member in good standing who has the right to vote here ,” he said.

Broder, the son of George Broder, the late dean of Washington political, said that Peskin’s  DCCC allies appeared to be attempting to establish second-class citizenship for the voting rights of elected officials. “What is this, Upstairs, Downstairs?” he asked.

Peskin was particularly incensed by a Newson motion to amend the DCCC bylaws to conform to the state Democratic party standard requiring a 60% vote for an endorsement; the present San Francisco  rule of 50% plus one.

The local party has used this procedure for decades but it was never a matter of contention until then- Supervisor Chris Daly manipulated the more easily obtainable 50% plus one rule to electing Peskin the party chair in 2008.  Daly threatened DCCC members with never eating a Democratic lunch in this town again if they didn’t vote for Peskin, asserting in an e-mail that a DCCC member “would never receive the endorsement of the Bay Guardian or the Harvey Milk Club” if he didn’t vote for Peskin. This extortion-as-politics method was the subject of articles in The Argonaut raising public awareness of the Peskin machine’s methods. In the 2010 supervisorial elections, all of the Peskin machine’s main candidates were defeated.

Peskin nonetheless insisted that the party should not change its endorsement methods – “Don’t fix what ain’t broken,”  he said.

Peskin belittled Newsom’s suggested reform saying that he had nothing better to do, rather indelicately stating – “All the Lt. Governor has to do is get up in the morning and check to see if the governor is still alive.”  This remark was taken by many in the audience as insulting to Governor Brown.  A 60% endorsement standard in the upcoming mayoral election would have meant a No endorsement policy by the party and left a wide open field in an election without an incumbent where a confusing ranked choice system of voting was being effectively employed for the first time in mayoral race. Mayor Gavin Newsom had no significant opposition for re-election four years ago.

A no endorsement policy by the Committee would not have been without precedent. In 2000 the party decided to make no endorsements in the district elections for Supervisor where many qualified candidates – many of them DCCC members – were running.

John Shanley, Newsom’s proxy on the Committee, said the Lt. Governor favored official party neutrality in a mayoral race with more than a half dozen qualified Democrats running. He said that Peskin’s intra-party partisanship last year had diminished the coin of the party’s official endorsement, and a repeat this year could be disastrous for the party’s reputation.

Peskin’s reaction to Newsom’s plea for even-handedness was to turn on  the machine and go all-in attempting to make the next mayor,  ending the wide-open field in the mayor’s race by insisting that the party will officially pick favorites among equals.

The likely result will be two for the three candidates for mayor now leading in citywide polling – City Attorney Dennis Herrera snd Board of Supervisors president David Chiu – are unlikely to gain the Peskin machine’s endorsement and will campaign for mayor either ignoring, or attacking, their party’s official endorsement.

At this point, the likely beneficiaries of the Peskin power play are expected to be Supervisor John Avalos and State Senator Leland Yee, but more candidates could file before the August deadline.

During increasingly harsh debate Peskin was rebuked by former party chairs Scott Weiner and Matthew Rothschild for violating party rules and voting procedures and repeatedly making personal distasteful personal attacks on fellow Democrat Newsom.

At the end of the day, Aaron Peskin never misses an opportunity to bite the hand that isn’t feeding him.

By Warren Hinckle

San Francisco Democratic Party boss Aaron Peskin is the master of the strategic stall. Last week he managed to put off,  for the second month in a row, votes on two significant reform measures before the county central committee — including an effort by Senator Dianne Feinstein to send him to the party woodshed for a good spanking.

Feinstein’s proposal would bar Peskin from spending Democratic Party money against fellow Democrats, as he did last fall in supervisorial races involving Scott Weiner and Mark Farrell who were running against Peskin’s machine-picked candidates in Districts 5 (Rafael Mandelman) and 2 (Janet Reilly). Despite, or in spite of, Peskin’s brazen use of Democrat money against Democrats, both lost.

The other Peskin-stalled motion would amend the San Francisco county committee’s bylaws to change the requirement for endorsing candidates from the current 50% plus one and return to the California Democratic Party statewide standard of a 60% vote to endorse.

The fifty-fity+one deal was engineered into the bylaws by Chris Daly as recently as 2006, when then-Supervisor (now-termed-out-bar-owner )Daly played the role of D’Artagan to Peskin’s Cardinal Richelieu in the take-over of the Democratic Party machinery. The lower endorsement threshold made it easier for Peskin to gain power by electing Supervisors the left-leaning likes of John Avalos, David Campos and Eric Mar — the  electoral weapon was control over the endorsements on the all-powerful Official Democratic Party Slate Card received by all San Francisco registered Democrats before each election. (The slate card is almost invincible — in the last two decades, only three candidates in this exhaustively Democratic city have made it to the Board of Supervisors without the DCCC slate card endorsement.)

David Broder, the son of recently-deceased dean of the Washington press core  David Broder,  introduced in January the bar on Peskin freely spending party money against other Democrats who are not graced with his blessing. The by law change was proposed last month by this correspondent, doing his civic duty representing Newsom while the Lt. Governor’s regular DCCC proxy former Deputy City Attorney John Shanley was in Ireland taking the Irish bar exam.

The bylaw change motion and my comments — something to the effect that Peskin had used the narrow- track endorsement  process for divisive purposes, and its use in the ranked-choice voting  for Mayor this fall would turn the DCCC into the bloodiest  political battleground since Shiloh (before the voters get to have their say) — were dutifully recorded in the minutes. They were subsequently elided from the minutes, along with removing the original motion, by Peskin.  This ecclesiastical cleansing of the party minutes before they are distributed to the faithful is apparently routine  for Cardinal Peskin.

Peskin seemed to be in a hurry to adjourn last week’s meeting. Newsom proxy  Shanley rose in a wait-a-minute moment and asked why the by-law change Newsom’s  appointed representative proposed last month wasn’t on the night’s agenda. Peskin said he didn’t think  it had been a “serious” motion — as if asking his San Francisco Democratic central committee  to conform to the statewide rules of the California Democratic Party which had given the DCCC its charter was a notion beyond all credulity.

Shanley said that Newsom wished a timely vote on the possibility of a return to Demcoratic Party rules and procedures, and distributed copies of the proposed bylaw change.  Peskin said that if that was indeed the Lt. Governor’s wish, he would schedule a vote for the end-April meeting. Shanley assured him that it was thus so.

Feinstein representative Broder said he welcomed waiting until the April 27 meeting to vote because that would give him and the other proxies of  elected Democratic Party officials time to consult with their bosses, since they had not received prior notification of the bylaws change due to the DCCC’s busybody prelate’s editing wizardry . The proxies of elected officials usually keep their counsel and vote to abstain during most DCCC meetings, but the reps of Feinstein, Jackie Spier, Harris, Mark Leno and group were outspoken  in an unprecedented manner in January expressing outrage at Democrats throwing party money against other Democrats. If the proxies of the  ”electeds” as they are called in dccc-speak vote more or less en bloc for the reform measures on April 27,  Peskin’s machine-ensembled majority vote on the panel could be up for reformist grabs.

Members seemed to have some  questions about what in hell had been going on, but Peskin quickly adjourned the meeting in memory of Broder’s pundit father and flew out the door as fast a a red-crested bird in flight.

(It is not often that the Argonaut reprints another publication’s product, but the Rolling Stone’s exclusive on horror in Afghanistan deserves the widest possible readership, and thus we offer it here. – Editor)

• How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them. Plus: A look at the war crime photos censored by the Pentagon.

Read Here…