San Francisco’s Political Machine Gears Up for an Ed Lee Campaign

Run Ed Run sign though @MayorEdLee says he won't run #sfmayorDespite an earlier commitment that he would not run for Mayor, Ed Lee looks set to launch a campaign

by Brian Leubitz

Ed Lee wasn’t ever really in the running to be interim Mayor of San Francisco after Gavin Newsom moved on (and up?) to Sacramento. He kind of appeared from nowhere.  Lee was actually in Asia during the time of the selection, and seemed more concerned with keeping his position as City Administrator than becoming Mayor.  And besides, he said he had no interest in running a political campaign.  He had never been that kind of political creature. The Board of Supervisors had no choice but to take him at his word.  They were getting a lot of pressure from all quarters to select Lee rather than Sheriff Mike Hennessey.

And at every opportunity since then, Lee has denied that he’s running for Mayor.  But, as I am sitting here right now, there can be very little doubt that Lee will run for Mayor.  And he’ll likely win.

To understand how Ed Lee became Mayor, you have to understand the political machine in San Francisco.  Of course, we probably don’t have time to explain the entire scope of that machine, but I suppose the underlying statement would be to never underestimate Willie Brown.  Despite the vision of the elder statesman and observer that he puts on in his “Willie’s World” column and his public appearances, Brown is still a shrewd participant in the political process.  More than anybody else in the City, he knows how to make things happen.  

Together with Chinatown power broker Rose Pak, Brown pushed the so-called moderate supervisors to block any progressive candidate for mayor, somebody like former Mayor Art Agnos.  And while Sheriff Hennessey is very well respected throughout the City, he was never really part of the apparatus of state.  Pak and Brown weren’t sure what to expect from him.  On the other hand, not only did they know they had a capable administrator in Lee, they also knew that he was both affable and moderate.  Somebody who through his personal connections could reach out to a number of communities in the City.  And they knew they could get him re-elected in November.

All that is not to say that Lee was lying at the beginning of the year when he said he wasn’t going to run.  I have complete faith that he believed it at the time.  Political campaigns in San Francisco are bloodsport, and Ed Lee circa January very likely had no interest in going through that wringer.  But time can change things, Brown knew as much.  San Francisco is used to the bloody politics, but still hopes for something different.  Lee is clearly competent, and has been able to build consensus. He hasn’t been rigid in ways that Gavin Newsom was, but still was able to build a budget that he could believe in.  With this consensus, a feeling of harmony developed at City Hall and all of sudden Lee was getting comfortable in Room 200.

And then there is the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign.  Run by a few powerful consultants, including David Ho, who had worked on several progressive campaigns in the past, but had been central to a growing rift in the progressive community, the campaign became omnipresent.  You can now hardly walk down a street in the City without seeing the stylized drawing of Lee’s moustache. It now has quite the list of supporters, but it was hardly a grassroots movement.  The campaign is an astroturf project that has now been there long enough that some grass has grown on top of it.  To be sure, Lee has a good deal of supporters, and by all means they should encourage him to run.  But an Ed Lee run for mayor will necessarily change the atmosphere in City Hall.

At this point, there can be few questions left as to whether Lee is considering a run, something he said that he was not doing a few weeks back.  Months ago when the Run, Ed, Run signs began appearing, Lee could have stifled that conversation, but did not.  He kept his options open, and now he is seriously considering it before the filing papers are due in mid-August.  Lee has been rumored to making calls, and those rumors are now public:

Lee has been talking to all the people you would expect him to talk to over the past few days, my sources tell me, letting them know that he’s seriously considering it and looking for support. It’s a little late to be lining up big endorsements; a lot of people have already signed on with one of the other candidates. But he’ll be happy with co-endorsements and second-place endorsements — and given his connections, he’ll be able to raise substantial amounts of money quickly. (SF Bay Guardian

There are certainly reasons for Lee to consider running.  As Tim Redmond points out, many people, especially moderates and those close to Lee, are saying that the strongest candidates now are Lee and SF Sen. Leland Yee.  And a Yee mayorship is something that would be unacceptable to many in the City.  Redmond, the Bay Guardian’s executive editor, is also right that Lee won’t garner many first choice endorsements having entered so late, but he’ll have the name ID, money, and just enough on the endorsement front to be competitive.

And today, Sen. Feinstein weighed in:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is calling on Mayor Ed Lee to run for a full four-year term, saying she believes “San Francisco needs his steady leadership and unifying presence in City Hall.”

In a statement released to us late Tuesday, Feinstein said that despite Lee’s earlier pledge not to run, “his responsibility is to the people of San Francisco, and the voters alone should determine whether this talented public servant should continue on the job.”

Feinstein cited the former city administrator’s success with both the budget and pension reform, and her own “unusual circumstances” in becoming mayor after the 1978 assassination of Mayor George Moscone.(SF Chronicle)

Feinstein has spoken to Lee about this privately over the past few months as well.  The Chronicle has been quietly rooting along in its news section, though editorializing against a run.  And Pak makes no bones about her intentions:

“When this is all done, I’m going to send a box of chocolates to Chronicle Editorial Editor John Diaz,” said Lee booster Rose Pak, referring to an editorial a week ago Sunday urging Lee not to run.(SF Chronicle)

Lee is a good Mayor, and there are far more objectionable candidates, both credible and not so credible than him.  Yet, as the Chronicle editorial points out, a campaign would drastically change the atmosphere in City Hall.  This is, after all, San Francisco politics.  Nothing is easy.

Lee has stated his intention not to run, but he still has time before the deadline.  If he intends to go back on previous statements, he should do so as soon as possible to let the City honestly evaluate all candidates. I suppose it may just be time to resume the blood sport.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

Or close the wall up with our English dead.

In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility;

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger. . . .

–Shakespeare, Henry the Fifth

Art Pulaski: Workers are Left in the Dark with Fast Track

by Rachel Johnson

There’s trouble brewing in Washington D.C. for American workers. In the coming weeks, our congress will decide whether or not to pass Fast Track legislation that will allow trade deals to be made behind closed doors and without any oversight from the people most impacted: American workers.

In a recent opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee Art Pulaski, Executive-Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, cautioned against turning a blind eye to Fast Track:

In the case of pending legislation authorizing fast-track authority for trade agreements, politicians and corporate lobbyists are pushing to eliminate transparency in favor of expediency. That’s a dangerous course with major implications for our economy. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority has resulted in secretly negotiated agreements that benefit big corporations at the expense of workers and their families.

Fast Track legislation will allow trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) to be negotiated by a select few, without any attempt to represent the people who may lose their livelihoods as a result. If we’ve learned anything from history, similar deals have created more harm than good for generations of American workers. Pulaski emphasizes:

The job-loss numbers directly related to seriously flawed trade deals are staggering. Between 2000 and 2014, American manufacturing employment dropped by 4 million jobs. And these were family-supporting jobs that strengthened communities. Since Congress approved permanent normal trade relations with China, the growth in the U.S. trade deficit with China has resulted in the net loss of more than 3.2 million jobs, including nearly 600,000 in California, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

That’s 3.2 million hardworking Americans who, through no fault of their own, found themselves ripped from the middle class and forced into low-wage jobs or, even worse, long-term joblessness.

It’s imperative for our representatives in Congress to withstand significant political pressure to pass Fast Track and uphold their duty to the represent hard working families who voted them into office. Pulaski underscores the need to reach out to your elected representative and insist they vote no on Fast Track:


We must do better. Stopping the outsourcing of good, American jobs should be a top priority for our nation’s leaders. It’s time to reform trade negotiations so that workers in California and around the country are no longer getting the short end of the stick. Fast track needs to be replaced with a new process for negotiating and approving trade deals that increases congressional and public oversight so we can harvest the benefits of expanded trade without gutting the middle class and undermining basic tenets of American democracy.

We urge Reps. Doris Matsui and Ami Bera and all members of Congress to reject fast-track authority so that future trade deals help, not harm, California’s economy.

Click here to tell your member of the House of Representatives you oppose Fast Track, or dial 855-712-8441 and we’ll connect you. Learn more about Fast Track here.

Speaker Atkins Unveils Critical Plan to Rebuild Transportation Infrastructure, Create Good Jobs

by Steve Smith, California Labor Federation

About 1/3 of all the bridges and overpasses in our state are showing signs of deterioration (i.e. crumbling). Seventy percent of our urban roads and highways are congested. California has the second-highest share of roads in “poor condition” in the nation.

Given the amount of commuting and traveling Californians do, these are pretty alarming stats. But you get what you pay for. And, quite frankly, California’s lack of infrastructure funding is embarrassing, and downright dangerous to all of us who spend so much time on the road every week.

Today California Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) announced a long-overdue proposal to rebuild our run-down roads and bridges, ease traffic congestion and create a lot of good, middle-class jobs doing it.

Speaker Atkins:

California cannot have a strong middle class or a thriving economy if our roadways are congested and people and goods cannot move efficiently throughout the state. The Assembly is stepping up and proposing $10 billion for transportation infrastructure-$2 billion per year over the next 5 years-starting in 2015-16.

Labor has long been sounding the alarm on the need to fix our eroding infrastructure. It’s a no-brainer. We can create tens of thousands of jobs by upgrading our roads, bridges and transportation system. And fixing our infrastructure makes California more competitive, which creates even more jobs.

California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski:

Years of neglect have rendered many of our roads and bridges unsafe, leaving California families at risk. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure would create good jobs that strengthen our middle class and spark our economy. It’s time we invest in a transportation system that makes us safer while supporting workers, small businesses and all California families.

Robbie Hunter, President of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California:

California is paying a heavy price for having underfunded highway and bridge infrastructure for decades. Years of massive budget deficits resulted in billions of transportation dollars being diverted elsewhere. California’s growing population and economy depends on the efficient movement of people and goods from our factories and ports throughout the state.  Investment in repairing and re-building our roads is critical to our economy and quality of life and also creates tens of thousands of good new construction jobs.

The Assembly plan includes:

• $1 billion per year by returning truck Weight Fees to transportation instead of using them to repay general obligation debt.

• $200 million per year for transportation funding by accelerating repayment of transportation loans.

• $800 million per year in new net funds for transportation by establishing a new Road User Charge.

The Road User Charge is estimated to be only about $1 per week for most drivers. A pretty small price to pay for keeping our families safe on the roadways.

Speaker Atkins:

This is the right proposal at the right time. California has overcome a dangerous recession in our very recent past, the present is fiscally stable and looking stronger every day, so now we need to look ahead and help fix the future. And addressing transportation funding so we can have better, safer, and faster infrastructure is a key part of fixing the future.

The Speaker has shown real leadership in proposing this bold plan.  If we’re at all concerned about the future, we need to turn this proposal into reality.

California Judges barred from Boy Scouts

According to an article in today’s (26 Jan) Los Angeles Daily Journal, the California Supreme Court has voted unanimously to bar judges and justices in the state from being a part of the Boy Scouts, because of that organization’s discriminatory practices and policies.

The article (behind a paywall,of course), notes that this was first suggested some 13 years ago, but the idea went down in flames.  It has been raised several times since then, but has always had opposition from the far right. And more opposition is expected to this latest ruling. No statement or rationale accompanies the ruling.  The chair of the Ethics committee,Justice Richard Fybel of the 4th District, who recommended the measure, said it was “the right thing to do.”

The right wing, of course, has slammed the decision as ‘tyrannical’.  they are the same ones that claim this will forbid judges from being members of churches.  Purest hyperbole, though, has not won this time, and it’s about time.

California Judges barred from Boy Scouts

According to an article in today’s (26 Jan) Los Angeles Daily Journal, the California Supreme Court has voted unanimously to bar judges and justices in the state from being a part of the Boy Scouts, because of that organization’s discriminatory practices and policies.

The article (behind a paywall,of course), notes that this was first suggested some 13 years ago, but the idea went down in flames.  It has been raised several times since then, but has always had opposition from the far right. And more opposition is expected to this latest ruling. No statement or rationale accompanies the ruling.  The chair of the Ethics committee,Justice Richard Fybel of the 4th District, who recommended the measure, said it was “the right thing to do.”

The right wing, of course, has slammed the decision as ‘tyrannical’.  they are the same ones that claim this will forbid judges from being members of churches.  Purest hyperbole, though, has not won this time, and it’s about time.

New Economic Policy Institute Report Details Economic Challenges Facing UC Workers

By Jason Rabinowitz, Secretary-Treasurer, Teamsters Local 2010

More than 80 percent of University of California (UC) support staff employees are paid wages too low to provide the basic necessities of life in the areas where they live and work, according to preliminary findings of a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute.  

As Governor Brown and UC President Janet Napolitano meet to discuss the financial future of the UC, it’s imperative that they recognize the dire financial situation of many UC employees. The UC is the third largest employer in California, employing nearly 200,000 workers, directly creating 1 in 46 jobs in the state, and generating $46.3 billion in economic activity annually. The 14,000 administrative and essential support services workers in the UC system are 81% female and over 50% people of color, and include administrative assistants, collection representatives, childcare assistants, and 911 dispatchers.  

Between 2007 and 2011 these essential support workers received no pay increases, while student tuition skyrocketed. The workers have also fallen behind due to substantial increases in costs for retirement and healthcare, parking fees, and inflation.  During the same period, the state slashed funding to UC, and currently contributes $460 million less per year in funding than it did in 2007. On a per-student basis, state funding for UC has decreased by more than half since 1991.

“Our voices have been silenced for too long, and need to be heard,” said Catherine Cobb, President of Local 2010 and former employee at UC Irvine. “The answer is not more pay-cuts and tuition increases. The time has come for the state to fund the University of California.”

Elise Gould, Senior Economist with EPI explains:

The Economic Policy Institute has calculated basic family budgets for every area of the United States for over a decade now. Our methodology is so respected that the family budget data has been used and cited by groups ranging from living wage advocates to private employers to academics to policymakers. These basic family budgets measure how much it costs various representative family types to have an adequate but modest standard of living in over 600 local areas across the country. Applying the basic family budget data to the reported wages of University of California union workers indicates that 82.5 percent of University of California support employees in the clerical and related classifications would not earn enough from their wages, even if they worked full-time, to exceed the basic family budget for a family with one adult and one child in their respective metropolitan areas.

It’s unfortunate that the University is contributing to the national problem of declining middle-class wages and increased income inequality. The UC is one of the leading economic forces in California, and has a tremendous impact on the economy of our state.  We need UC to be a force for good jobs in our communities and a fair economy. The Legislature and the Governor must renew California’s commitment to adequately fund higher education.

Let the Boxer retirement discussions commence

Barbara BoxerHer term is up in 2016, will she run again?

by Brian Leubitz

With Senator Boxer’s term expiring in 2016, now is the time to talk about the future. With all the time required to build a strong campaign in California, prospective candidates are anxious for word, not wanting to step on any toes before making any moves. But, the chatter is that a decision could come soon:

Sources close to Boxer, 74, say the outspoken liberal senator will decide over the holidays whether to seek reelection in 2016 and will announce her plans shortly after the new year. Few of her friends believe she will run for a fifth term. Boxer has stopped raising money and is not taking steps to assemble a campaign. With Republicans taking over the Senate, she is about to relinquish her chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.(Politico)

The article goes on to point out the parade of candidates, but you can probably guess at the names. Harris, Newsom, Garcetti, Villaraigosa, and a slew of Congressional Democrats. Plus, there is always the discussion of whether Tom Steyer wants to put his millions on a candidacy of his own.

With the Democratic lean of the state, a Republican challenge would have to be something of the superstar variety, one that wouldn’t require vast support of the Republican crazy-base. I’m not sure who that would be, but with an open seat, you would have to expect at least some sort of well funded Republican.

But, until Sen. Boxer says something, one would have to expect at least Democrats to lay low. After an announcement, who knows?

Speaker Atkins Appoints Committee Chairs

Most Democrats have a committee chair

by Brian Leubitz

Below the fold you will find the full list of committee chairs. All in all, given the big number of committees, most Democratic legislators who aren’t in leadership get a chair. I think the exceptions were Lorena Gonzalez, who is the vice-chair of the Local Government committee with Republican Brian Maienschein getting the chair, and Nora Campos, who is on rules. And Rob Bonta has two chairs, keeping PERS and getting the Health Committee this year.

Accountability and Administrative Review

Assemblymember Rudy Salas, Jr. (D-Bakersfield), Chair

Aging and Long-Term Care

Assemblymember Cheryl R. Brown (D-San Bernardino), Chair

Agriculture

Assemblymember Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno), Chair

Appropriations

Assemblymember Jimmy Gomez (D-Northeast Los Angeles), Chair

Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media

Assemblymember Ian C. Calderon (D-Whittier), Chair

Banking and Finance

Assemblymember Matthew Dababneh (D-Encino), Chair

Budget

Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services

Assemblymember Tony Thurmond (D-Richmond), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Resources and Transportation

Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on State Administration

Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-Sherman Oaks), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety

Assemblymember Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. (D-Los Angeles), Chair

Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Budget Process, Oversight and Program Evaluation

Assemblymember Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego), Chair

Business and Professions

Assemblymember Susan A. Bonilla (D-Concord), Chair

Education

Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach), Chair

Elections and Redistricting

Assemblymember Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D-Culver City), Chair

Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

Assemblymember Luis A. Alejo (D-Salinas), Chair

Governmental Organization

Assemblymember Adam C. Gray (D-Merced), Chair

Health

Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), Chair

Higher Education

Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside), Chair

Housing and Community Development

Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), Chair

Human Services

Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D-San Jose), Chair

Insurance

Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), Chair

Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy

Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D-Riverside), Chair

Judiciary

Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Monterey Bay), Chair

Labor and Employment

Assemblymember Roger Hernández (D-West Covina), Chair

Local Government

Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (R-San Diego), Chair

Assemblymember Lorena S. Gonzalez (D-San Diego), Vice Chair

Natural Resources

Assemblymember Das Williams (D-Carpinteria), Chair

Privacy and Consumer Protection

Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), Chair

Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security

Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland), Chair

Public Safety

Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), Chair

Revenue and Taxation

Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco), Chair

Rules

Assemblymember Richard S. Gordon (D-Menlo Park), Chair

Assemblymember Autumn R. Burke (D-Inglewood)

Assemblymember Nora Campos (D-San Jose)

Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova)

Assemblymember Bill Dodd (D-Napa)

Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona)

Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-North Coast)

Assemblymember Patty Lopez (D-San Fernando), Democratic Alternate

Transportation

Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Oakley), Chair

Utilities and Commerce

Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood), Chair

Veterans Affairs

Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Chair

Water, Parks and Wildlife

Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-San Rafael), Chair

Joint Legislative Audit

Assemblymember Mike A. Gipson (D-Carson), Chair

Joint Legislative Committee on Emergency Management

Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona), Chair

Legislative Ethics

Assemblymember Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova), Co-Chair

Your New Legislators: The Term Limits Dance Shifts

New term limits mean more changes now, more stability later

by Brian Leubitz

With the new term limits structure amendments of a few years ago, Sacramento is seeing a lot of change. Lots and lots and lots of change. In the Legislature convening today, 72 of the 120 legislators have less than two years of experience at the state level. That’s a staggeringly high number, and rather frightening for the institutional memory of both chambers. If you look at the new leadership team in the Assembly, you’ll find freshmen legislators David Chiu, Evan Low (Both pictured to the right), Jim Cooper and Miguel Santiago all in prominent positions.

“When the voters approved term limits they voted to limit the amount of experience the Legislature had,” said former Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, D-Los Angeles. “Institutional memory is found outside of the building and the staff, which is not the best thing for democracy.”

*** **** ***

In the past, new members looked to their veteran colleagues to ease an initiation process that Kathy Dresslar, who was chief of staff to former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, likened to a “drink from the fire hose.” As term limits force those more seasoned members from the Legislature, Dresslar said, newer members are increasingly taking their cues from staff or from lobbyists.

“The new legislators today are still learning from the former members, but the former members are more likely to be lobbyists here in town,” Dresslar said. “So that perspective is passed down from the former members’ clients.” (SacBee)

Not to say that there aren’t great staff in the Legislature, but they weren’t elected to anything. And certainly the lobbyists that are crawling all over Sacramento were never elected. And for the next few years, staff and lobbyists will have an outsized role in governance.

But, all that being said, we have the opportunity for something of a “Pax Sacramento” where a Legislature will, for the most part, remain consistent for the better part of a decade. The new term limits allow for twelve year terms in either chamber, and those 72 members will be joined by another big class in 2016. After that, the changes will dwindle to a trickle for the better part of a decade. Now, that isn’t to say that all will go swimmingly, but the merry go-round will certainly decrease. I tend to be a bit skeptical that stability alone can create real change.

But with strong Democratic majorities for the foreseeable future, one could hold out hope for a functional Legislature.