In San Francisco, great policy still isn’t always enough. Sometimes we need public support to help our friends and colleagues in city government make the right choices.

That’s why the Sierra Club and many others are rallying this morning at San Francisco City Hall at 9:30 AM today (Thursday, May 18) in support of GoSolarSF – the pioneering local solar incentive program that has helped more than quadruple the number of solar roofs in San Francisco in just three short years.

GoSolarSF is creating green jobs, attracting new green industries, helping fight climate change and helping to make our nation more energy independent.

All of that – and a new study that shows adding solar pays for itself by increasing the value of homes. That means that the GoSolarSF program is more than paying for itself in the long run with higher tax revenues captured from the higher valuations of solar homes (once the homes are sold, assessments don’t go up for those who install solar).

So what’s the catch?

Beats me.

But for some reason the SF Public Utilities bureaucracy is digging in their heels – trying to dramatically cut one of San Francisco’s most effective environment efforts and economic development initiatives.

Part of the resistance might just be cultural. The SFPUC is the old water department and its focus is still mostly on tunnels and trenches – not renewables.

But whatever is motivating the resistance – we need to spread the word that San Francisco should continue to fully fund this important and highly regarded program. Just a few facts to consider:

• GoSolarSF has helped Increase the number of rooftop solar energy systems installed in San Francisco from approximately 500 to 2385
• It has helped drive down the installed cost of solar power by 25% by creating more competition and scale in the solar installation sector
• The program attracted over 30 solar companies and organizations to San Francisco and established the City as a solar power leader.
• GoSolarSF has created or retained hundreds of new jobs
• And the solar projects promoted by GoSolarSF are installed at about 10% of the cost of what it would otherwise be if the City had to own the systems outright (a small GoSolarSF incentive unlocks a much larger private customer investment in the SF economy)

With all of the clear-cut benefits associated with the program, it shouldn’t be anywhere near the SFPUC chopping block. GoSolarSF has clearly demonstrated an ability to get San Francisco more while paying less – and that’s the type of program we should be supporting during these challenging fiscal times. Eliminating or reducing a program that is paying for itself in the long run just doesn’t make sense.

If you are in San Francisco this morning – come support this important program at City Hall. Or sign our petition in support of GoSolarSF.

Former San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón’s “conflict of interest challenge” continues to grow with yet another allegation of police misconduct by officers serving under his command.

The latest allegation stems from a video showing officers allegedly improperly searching a  residential hotel room and taking property from the room that was not marked into evidence – and then allegedly lying about it under oath.

These serious allegations of police misconduct require a serious response – and Interim District Attorney George Gascón can’t be serious if he proposes to investigate officers who were under his command at the time of the alleged misconduct.

When similar allegations arose last month, Gascón said he was under no obligation to recuse his office from any potential criminal prosecution. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in to review the allegations of misconduct, Gascón said he was stepping away from investigating those earlier allegations because of “resource” issues while continuing to insist that he had no conflict of interest. He has not defined what resources he was lacking.

From day one, Gascón had the clear obligation to recuse himself from investigating the Police Department he so recently led. And that obligation only becomes more pressing as the number and scope of allegations of police misconduct during Gascón’s tenure as police chief widens.  

The National District Attorneys Association’s National Prosecution Standards clearly states:

“The prosecutor should excuse himself or herself from any investigation…where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude that the prosecutor’s neutrality, judgment, or ability to administer the law in an objective manner may be compromised.”

In my career as a criminal justice expert I have learned that our community is safest when the police and prosecutors earn – and keep – the public’s trust. Our appointed District Attorney undermines years of progress in building trust when he refuses to acknowledge his clear conflict of interest.

Gascón’s failure to address conflict of interest issues was also highlighted by recent disclosures that his former campaign consultant potentially violated city ethics laws by lobbying him on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association, the police union. The campaign consultant also potentially violated the same ethics rules in lobbying another former client, San Francisco’s City Attorney. The City Attorney acted quickly to recuse himself from any investigation regarding the matter. Gascón has taken no action to recuse himself, despite the nearly identical fact set.

The people of San Francisco deserve and demand a District Attorney who will avoid clear conflicts of interest as a matter of policy – rather than personal whim. Gascón must recuse himself as a matter of policy from police misconduct cases of officers who served under his command. And Gascón is under an ethical obligation to develop and publish a clear conflict of interest policy.

–

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at Berkeley Law School, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.

We’ve got a lot going on at Yee campaign headquarters these days with our official kick-off event this Saturday, May 7 at 10:30 AM. Click here to RSVP.

Our social media question time topic this week is small business.  What do you think we should do to improve the climate for small business growth in San Francisco?  What questions do you have for Leland about his policy positions on small business?

Enter your questions or ideas in the comment thread and we’ll respond to three of the questions next week.

Last September, the San Francisco Police Department – under the command of former chief George Gascón – submitted a proposal responding to the uptick in violence outside a handful of San Francisco nightclubs.

The proposal was supposed to be heard this week by the city’s Entertainment Commission, but Mayor Ed Lee appropriately delayed the hearing for more debate.

The violence outside of nightclubs is a serious problem that must be addressed in a thoughtful way. But the SFPD’s flawed proposal is a knee-jerk response that will not make us safer and will violate our privacy rights. We need to understand why a city as progressive on policy as San Francisco is being offered flawed political solutions to serious public safety challenges.

A Plan Likely to Backfire

The SFPD proposal mandates venues to swipe patrons’ identification cards and keep this personal information on record for subsequent police review and to place metal detectors at some venues with occupancy levels exceeding 100, among other requirements.

This proposal is extremely problematic on a number of levels – the first of which is that it will likely backfire. Most nightclub violence takes place outside, not inside the clubs. Creating bottlenecks and barriers to entry will have the effect of keeping more trouble outside. And creating an environment so unwelcoming that many law-abiding people will stay home or go to other cities, while some potential troublemakers will simply go to unregulated clubs, could make our streets more dangerous at night.

The police proposal has been rightly criticized by the California Music and Culture Association (CMAC), which is proposing more sensible reforms. The SFPD proposal has also come under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, which has weighed in on very real First Amendment and privacy concerns. Choices of art and music venues often reflect private political and personal preferences; requiring that venues store patrons’ identification information thus raises serious constitutional issues.

As the father of two young daughters, I don’t make it out to clubs as much as I used to. But I know what a vital role nighttime venues play in our culture, our identity and our economy.

We don’t want to put responsible club owners out of business with costly proposals that do not improve public safety. Instead, we should be working collaboratively with these responsible owners on real solutions, such as enhanced training of security personnel, improved lighting and better coordination with the SFPD. I also believe we should look more closely at the licensing status of clubs where crime patterns emerge – and be more aggressive about revoking the permits of those operators who don’t provide a safe environment for their patrons and neighbors.

These are practical steps that would make us safer by targeting the problem clubs, not every venue, and they are steps that would not violate the First Amendment and privacy rights of people who patronize San Francisco’s clubs.

A Political Proposal

But instead of practical solutions, the nightclub plan exemplifies the reactive “do something – do anything” mentality that so often creates “safety” policies that actually make us less safe. If it is adopted in anything like its current form, it will be yet another example of knee-jerk responses beating out thoughtful policies.

Our police chief at the time – George Gascón – was under pressure to “do something.” But instead of a reasoned and collaborative solution, what was proposed was simply more politics. The public and the politicians demanded action – so the police proposed action even though their proposals would not make us safer, would violate our constitutional rights and would be tied up in the courts for years.

The best tool to create a safer community is not to violate the privacy rights of San Franciscans who contribute to our culture and economy by patronizing our clubs, but to enlist club owners and the broader community to work collaboratively with law enforcement to support a safer environment around the clubs.

We need to reduce the violence outside of nightclubs. But let’s do so with thoughtful policies – not knee-jerk, political responses.

–

David Onek is a senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast and a former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.

Last week, we started social media question time, taking your questions on health care for Senator Yee to answer. Below, you’ll find three questions from our community this past week and Senator Yee’s response. Thanks to everyone for submitting questions. We’ll post a new topic next week!

Joanne M. Maerklen – Why is it so hard to find a doctor to take Medi-Cal?

ANSWER:  You’re right, Joanne, it’s incredibly difficult.  It’s mostly because reimbursement rates are often lower than the cost of providing services, so the number of doctors that take Medi-Cal patients is low.  That’s why a single-payer universal health care system is still such an important goal in the long term.  And that’s why we must look at ways to expand our health care network in San Francisco – HealthySF is a great model to provide services for the uninsured, but we also need to provide a robust network for patients who use Medi-Cal, Healthy Families and Healthy Kids.

Cesar Manuel Escobar – Why are the hospitals that make outrageous mistakes not liable for their shortcomings?  Meaning: Why is everything so hush-hush?  Shouldn’t their mistakes be public record?

ANSWER:  I agree. I’ve been a staunch advocate for open records and transparency for years – I’ve worked hard to improve transparency at the UC, and have supported efforts to increase transparency in hospitals. I’ve authored and passed legislation that requires public release of audits, a bill which stemmed from a problem at UCSF Medical Center in which the University tried to hide the results of the audit to the public. But there’s more we can do, and I’m already talking with the Nurses about how we can improve transparency in San Francisco’s health care system.

Tamara Ching – Please bless the public health clinics … without them, S.F. would be a doomed city. remembers getting her polio shots in Chinatown, and vaccinations from DPH to travel oversees. Plus our immigrants get their initial checkup and medications through our public health clinics.

ANSWER:  San Francisco has been a leader in providing safety net healthcare services – our public health clinics are absolutely essential to providing services through HeathySF, Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.  City funding keeps them afloat, and in these tough budget times we cannot sustain any further cuts to these essential services. That’s why I helped save funding for non-profit community health centers like the Women’s Community Clinic when I was Finance Chair on the Board of Supervisors; it’s why I’ve stood against these types of cuts at the state level; and it’s why I’ll make funding public health clinics a priority as Mayor.

In honor of the Mayor meeting with the Board of Supervisors for the first-ever question time this week, the Yee campaign has decided to start social media question time.  Each week, we’ll post one topic for Senator Yee to take questions on from our social media community!

Leland and the campaign team will select three questions to answer from the questions submitted and we’ll post the answers to those questions the following week.

This week’s topic is health care.

So it’s time to submit your questions!

Here’s what to do.  We will be taking questions in three places:

1.  On our Facebook page.  Make sure to like our Facebook page and look for the appropriate comment thread.

2.  On Twitter.  Make sure to hashtag your question with #LelandYee.  You can direct the question @LelandYee if you want.  But they MUST have hashtag #LelandYee.

3.  On our Calitics and DailyKos blog.  These will be the only posts that we’re taking questions in, so if you post it in the forums or comment another blog post, we won’t consider it.

We close for questions on Friday, April 15th at 6:00 PM (PDT).

Six months ago, I walked into City Hall with my family and announced my exploratory campaign for Mayor of San Francisco.

Today, I’m making my campaign for Mayor of San Francisco official.

You’re invited to join me at our special launch event on Saturday, May 7th at 10:30 AM. RSVP.

Since that day six months ago, I have held 37 coffee conversations and attended hundreds of community meetings in neighborhoods across the city to hear your ideas for our shared future together in San Francisco.   We’ve heard from thousands of San Franciscans eager to see our city continue its leadership on health care policy, economic innovation and the environment.  And people have asked the hard questions of how we will reform education, make it easier to raise a family in the city and improve Muni.

My commitment to you is no will work harder to help San Francisco reach its full potential but I need your help.

Will you join me at our special launch event on Saturday, May 7th at 10:30 AM? RSVP.

Everything I am today, I owe to San Francisco.  I came here as an immigrant at the age of 3, went to local public schools and got a chance to go to college.

I raised my family in San Francisco.  I want my kids to raise their families in San Francisco.  But most of all, I wan to make sure we leave them a San Francisco that reaches its full potential and leads the nation.  Together, I know we can do this.

I hope you will join me out our special launch event on Saturday, May 7th at 10:30 AM. RSVP.

Sincerely,

Leland Yee

When San Francisco’s sitting police chief was chosen to become San Francisco’s district attorney, there were two clear schools of thought on such an unprecedented move.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union and others wrote to underscore the conflict of interest inherent in elevating a sitting police chief to district attorney in the same city. They predicted that new District Attorney George Gascón would be terribly challenged by the conflict of interest posed by his tenure as police chief.

Other San Francisco leaders took a different view. They argued that Gascón had shown signs of being a reformer as police chief and that this was the same spirit necessary in the district attorney’s office. Conflict of interest issues, these thinkers argued, could be identified and isolated.

But the events of the past few months have highlighted just how significant the conflict of interest challenges faced by former chief Gascón are going to be. And his responses have not been encouraging.

San Francisco police officers have been accused of allegedly conducting illegal searches and committing perjury – incidents that occurred while they were under Gascón’s command as chief. Most of these cases occurred at Southern Station – the one station located in the Hall of Justice, the same building where Gascón worked as chief (and where he works today as district attorney). As chief, Gascón was responsible for the training and supervision of the involved officers.

When confronted with these facts, the former chief insisted he was perfectly capable of handling the investigation in his new office. He maintained he could fairly investigate the San Francisco Police Department for conduct that occurred when he led the agency.

Gascón maintained this position for nearly a week. Finally, after lawyers for the accused officers met with the police officer’s union, Gascón announced he was turning over the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office – but insisted that it was due to unspecified “resource” issues, not because of a conflict.

His decision to turn over these cases to a third party, regardless of the motive, is a correct step. Yet something absolutely foundational is still missing – Gascón has not made it a policy to recuse himself from investigations relating to his own tenure as chief.

Gascón’s decision to continue – as a matter of policy – to investigate incidents involving police officers when they were under his command is fundamentally flawed on at least two basic levels. First, every suspect is entitled to a fair, objective investigation. When Gascón sits in judgment of his own service as police chief, this foundational principle of the law is undermined.

The second flaw underscores a management principle rather than a legal principle, but is vitally important if you are an advocate of reform in San Francisco or elsewhere.

When Gascón makes the decision to investigate the officers who served under his command, he is saying clearly that he himself holds no responsibility for their behavior. Such a position of inoculating the leader from the behavior of his agency undermines the basic tenets of reform – and frankly, the basic principles of sound management.

In the not too distant past, San Francisco saw the bulk of the police department command staff criminally indicted for allegedly covering up an incident involving off-duty officers on the street. Those charges were dismissed, but the underlying culture of top command looking the other way rather than embracing oversight and responsibility was identified as a problem that needed to be fixed.

The new chief after that incident was Heather Fong, who embraced a culture of responsibility starting at the top.

If former chief Gascón is now saying that he was not responsible for the actions of his own officers – he is saying he does not understand the foundational principles of how to lead a reform movement.

For the sake of justice – and for the sake of reform – former chief Gascón needs to implement a clear conflict of interest policy that would recuse him and the office he now leads from investigating the San Francisco Police Department.

David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission and candidate for San Francisco District Attorney.

I wanted to give you a quick updated from the campaign trail.

Help us build our online community – share this note on Facebook with your friends

Nurses Endorse Yee

Leland received the sole endorsement of the California Nurses Association – the bigges endorsement in the race to date.  “His record in areas such as mental health service, HIV funding, children’s health and hospital disclosure should make every San Francisco proud.”  Press release. Bay Citizen Story.

Building a clear vision for San Francisco’s future

And having a lot of coffee along the way!  This week, we held our 35th 20/20 coffee conversation about our shared future in San Francisco.  It feels great to see so many of you out on the campaign trail so early.  If you have not joined us for a 20/20 coffee conversation – come meet Leland and share your thoughts.  Upcoming coffee conversations.

Showing our civic pride…Go Giants!

We’re excited for the Giants season and really enjoyed being able to connect with other Giant fans and show our civic pride through the campaign.  Congratulations to our winners Zach Austin, Katrina Lezcano and Jonathan Louie and a special thanks to everyone who participated in our Facebook sweepstakes.  Join Leland on Facebook.

New team members

We’re pleased to announce several new members of the Yee campaign team – Anthony (Field Director), Laura (Field Organizer), Nate (Field Organizer) and Vince (Volunteer Coordinator)!  Help keep the campfires burning late at the Yee headquarters.  Donate.

Thanks

Campaigns – especially in San Francisco – are won with an army of volunteers and supporters.  If you want to lend a hand, we would love your help.  We need phone bankers, canvassers and folks to answer the phone, Facebook captains, food for volunteers and staff working late and more. Can you lend a hand?

Sincerely,

Jim Stearns

Campaign Manager

Take a look at the Redistricting commission’s schedule. Specifically, look at the end of June, where you will find the final Sunday’s meeting is in San Francisco.  If you happen to know much about San Francisco, you’ll also think to yourself, isn’t there some big event in the Civic Center that weekend?

Well, you are a pretty sharp cookie.  Because June 26 happens to the San Francisco Pride event which attracts hundreds of thousands of LGBT locals, visitors, and their friends, to the Civic Center.  Note that the Civic Center also happens to be where meetings like the redistricting commission typically meet. So, it is even doubtful that people could get into the building.  All in all, probably not the best time for a meeting.

The Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club sent a letter to the commission noting the issue, and pointing out both the importance of SF Pride and of the openness of the redistricting commission’s hearing.  The latest update is that the Commission is now working to reschedule the meeting (likely to the following Monday, 6/27).

So, hooray for local Democratic clubs who pay attention to redistricting.