“Let’s Elect Our Elected Officials” rejected at the Board of Supes

|
(87)
Mayor Ed Lee was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in 2011 after then-Mayor Gavin Newsom was elected to state office.

At today’s (Tue/15) Board of Supervisors’ meeting, members of the board voted 6-5 against placing a proposal on the November ballot that would create special elections when vacancies arise on the Board or in the Mayor’s Office.

If approved by voters, the measure would have immediate impacts on San Francisco’s political landscape. Board President David Chiu is vying for a seat in the California Assembly against Sup. David Campos, which will leave a vacancy on the board one way or another. 

But Sup. John Avalos, who authored the charter amendment proposal, noted that “this measure is not about any existing mayor or any existing supervisor.” Instead, Avalos described the measure as a bid to make city policy more democratic. 

“It will allow voters to decide who fills vacancies in special elections,” Avalos said.

As things stand, when a supervisor’s seat is vacated, it’s up to the mayor to appoint that official’s replacement. When a mayor’s seat is vacated, a much more rare occurrence, it’s up to “a small minority of people – us,” to appoint the city’s top elected official, Avalos said. “This shapes how decisions are made, often behind closed doors.”

Taking this question to voters via special election would ultimately be more democratic, he added. “If you are on the fence on this measure, I hope you can still send this ballot measure over to the voters,” Avalos told his colleagues.

Sups. London Breed, Katy Tang, and Scott Wiener each spoke in opposition to the idea.

“It’s not a perfect system, but no system ever is,” Breed said. “I’m not sure what problem we’re trying to solve with changing the charter.”

Wiener sounded a similar note. “There are various ways you can do it, and no way is necessarily better or worse,” he said of the current system for appointing vacancies. “I don’t see how the system that we have is in any way broken.”

But Sup. David Campos chimed in to challenge that framing. “The question before this board is not, what is the best system? … The question is a lot simpler than that,” Campos said, “Since we are talking about democracy. The question is: Will we give voters in SF the opportunity to decide for themselves what the best system is? Let’s not you and I pre-judge what the voters are going to say.”

In the end the measure failed six to five, with Sups. Mar, Avalos, Campos, Chiu, and Jane Kim voting in favor.

Comments

Posted by MARK FARRELL DOES NOT WIN D2 WITHOUT RANKED CHOICE VOTING on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 8:11 pm

But somehow you only whine when whites are over-represented

Posted by Guest on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 9:36 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:59 am
Posted by PajorosdCymn on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 12:20 am
Posted by PajorosdCymn on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 12:22 am

But Sup. John Avalos, who authored the charter amendment proposal, noted that “this measure is not about any existing mayor or any existing supervisor.” Instead, Avalos described the measure as a bid to make city policy more democratic.

Avalos and Campos wanted to get "one of their own" into the mayors office against the history of the voters preference.

Now those two buffoons are worried what the voters may or may not want?

What a costly, cynical, veneer thin, and conniving antic by these two. What separates these two from conniving Nixionian right wingers is a mystery.

Posted by Comrade eg on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 9:46 pm

replacement supervisor and yet had no problem with progressive Supervisors appointing a replacement mayor.

Luckily for the people, they were so fragmented that they couldn't pull it off. I still laugh about that.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 12:06 am

“Is this a joke?”

Democracy’s not a joke. Wars have been fought over this right, a right you think little of as you label it a joke.

“Avalos and Campos wanted to get "one of their own" into the mayors office against the history of the voters preference.”

Like you, they were and are allowed to advocate for whoever they want to be mayor. Why you bring that up is a mystery since it has nothing to do with what’s being discussed. If you want to play the "what hypocrites!" angle, find an instance where they advocated for the ppl of an area not to have the right to vote for who gets elected to open seats. I imagine a lot of cricket noise in waiting for you to provide such an instance.

“Now those two buffoons are worried what the voters may or may not want?”

No it’s you that’s worried about what the voters might want. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be fighting a proposal for voters to elect who should represent them when there's an open seat. What u want is for one person to get to play king for a day - voters be damned. It's a huge and undemocratic system now for once a person is the incumbent, he or she has a huge advantage over all those who would challenge that incumbent.

“What a costly, cynical, veneer thin, and conniving antic by these two. What separates these two from conniving Nixionian right wingers is a mystery.”

Having elections does cost $ but it’s an excellent investment. You’re in the tiny minority of ppl who want to have the right of the ppl of SF to get to vote on who represents them. The only one acting Nixonian between you, Avalos, and Campos is you. Like Nixon, you don't think much of elections.

You sir, are a piece of shit. And your little game of acting like Richard Nixon as you accuse those acting the opposite of how tricky Dick would act won't fly with most readers here who can easily spot a phony like you. I'll bet Nixon was one of your heroes.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:28 pm

only one month to the regular election anyway?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It's a TEMPORARY appointment only. Non issue.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:38 pm

If you don't think so, you should realize Gavin Newsom wouldn't be a huge favorite to be the next governor of the largest state in the most powerful country after Jerry Brown's 2nd term is over without getting the huge gift of being appointed supe from then-mayor Willie Brown. Once he got that gift appointment, he had the huge advantage that incumbency brings.

Doesn't matter whether it's one month or one day, these things should always be elections not appointments. As a practical matter (which seems to be your chief concern), if the time before the next election was too short, it's probable that an agreement would be worked out to extend the period to at least 3 months before the election took place.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:53 pm

Oh, and Newsom was elected to that post.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:23 pm

I didn't realize that an incumbent could lose. Now that you've pointed out that an incumbent can lose, that totally negates the point about incumbency advantage. Sorry, never realized that there has actually been a case in history where an incumbent lost. Thanks for pointing that out. You just demolished the argument that incumbents have any advantage whatsoever by showing one example when an incumbent lost.

One minor point, oh wise one... Newsom was, in fact, appointed to D2 Supe by Willie Brown.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:42 pm

they were originally elected.

Oh, and I think he meant that Newsom was elected to deputy governor. Being appointed to D2 doesn't make you governor last time I checked

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:00 pm

In fact, they rarely lose. Short of a calamity, a big scandal, an opponent with big money and the incumbent little money, or death, the incumbent wins - the stats show that clearly. There's a reason that most US Senators are close to 80 yo and that reason is incumbency, NOT that they get more brilliant and bright the more elderly and frail they get.

There's a reason Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein are basically impossible to beat and that's incumbency - the same reason GWB could be the worst president in probably a 100 yrs, start a calamitous war, and still get elected.

As for Newsom, no one said - besides you - that being appointed supe makes one governor. The pt is that he - all things being equal - would not be in the position to win the governor's election after JB if he had not been appointed to a very powerful position in a very powerful city in a very powerful state in a very powerful country. Combine that with all that Greg said in his brilliant post on Gavin and Gavin was almost guaranteed to be gov at some pt.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:35 pm

incumbents never lose?

Wrong again, I guess.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:54 pm

as in every single time. He said that it is commonplace for incumbents to lose, even when they were elected and have served several years.

So a few months as an interim Supe is a non-issue, as Olague discovered.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:01 am

The exception of course. What wasn't the exception in that race was those with the most money determined who won. Unfortunately for her, she was the enemy of the man with the big money (Ron Conway). Incumbency is a huge advantage - but only up to a point - when big money is opposing the incumbent and the incumbent doesn't have big money (which was the case with Olague) to fight it, then incumbency may not be enough.

As for Newsom, as someone else pointed out, Newsom wasn't elected to his first supe position, he was appointed by Willie "Mr. Corruption" Brown. Then being the good-looking, smooth politician he is, and with the big advantage of being the incumbent, it would be hard to defeat him after that - even when he got caught screwing his aide's wife (while being married) and got caught as part of it giving big (taxpayer) money to the aide so the aide wouldn't cause more problems for him.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:12 pm

Which is why all losers lose. Incumbency didn't help her.

And elected incumbents lose all the time, so appointed incumbents certainly do.

But if your proposal is that the Supes should not have the power to appoint an interim mayor, then we can talk.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:56 pm

Wow. That's amazing! Newsom won elections as Supervisor, then Mayor, wasn't even challenged for re-election.

Won the democratic primary for Lt Gov by 22 points and beat Maldonado by 11 points in November.

Maldonado was the, um, incumbent, btw. Slight hole in your thesis there but who's counting?

But thanks for the info that ALL of that was because Willie Brown appointed him to the BOS and otherwise Newsom would be running a restaurant right now.

I learn something every day here!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

He managed a C-average in a third rate university that accepts anyone who can pay the tuition. If not for his father's connections to the billionaire Getty family as well prominent SF politicians, Newsom would be destined to be some mid-level corporate sales flunkie.

Or running a restaurant. I've seen plenty of guys like him managing some Applebee's or Pizza Hut, dutifully licking the boots of the comparatively well-bred regional managers who periodically come around and strut around in business suits, while guys like Newsom wear an apron and say "yessir."

But instead, due to daddy's connections, Newsom was destined for greater things. Daddy got Gordon Getty to invest in all of Newsom's businesses, so he could claim to be a great businessman. All it takes is access to Getty money, and you too can be a self-made millionaire like Gavvy. Gavvy starts them, Gordon fronts the cash... heads, Gavvy wins, tails... he wins. With that setup you can't go wrong.

Then daddy's connections with the political elite helped him get appointed to a plum position in City Hall, and then Willie Brown realized that this guy's pedigree is perfect for a mindless lackey to represent the interests of the city elites. Put a suit on him, slap on some hair gel, and this guy will be the second coming of John Tunney.

And so away he went. Now the sky's the limit for this nobody.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:29 pm

strewn rants on an anonymous chatroom read by about ten people.

So ask me who's the winner and the loser.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:41 pm

I'm doing just fine, thank you. We're talking about Gavin, not me, and everything I just said about him is true. Hell, even his backers know it.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:02 pm

You have to realize...in Greg's mind Newsom has a remarkable record of winning elections only because voters are stupid. Statewide.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:20 pm

It's not that voters are stupid that explains Newsom's success in politics. Packaging (looks, sound of voice, dress, etc) and press are huge factors in a politician's success. Just like great packaging and lots of advertising can make shitty products sell well, it can do the same for politicians.

That doesn't mean ppl are stupid - it means they're human. One of Greg's pts I believe was Newsom's wins weren't because he did great things for the future of SF or California, he won because he was good at playing the game of politics. Just like the purveyors of shitty products can get lots of sales if they blanket viewers with good ads.

You apparently don't think advertising or style plays any role in a politician's success when the fact is, as Greg realizes and you don't, it plays the major role just like it does for products too. If advertising didn't work, corps wouldn't spend billions on it each year. It does work and that doesn't mean ppl r stupid.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:56 pm

because he achieved little but because he achieved a lot of things that progressives don't like.

And while progressives might not like what he did, Newsom did deliver what he was elected to approve. It's endlessly fascinating to me that progressives think that winning moderate politicians should somehow reject their election platform and instead adopt the very policies that lost at the polls.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 4:50 am

him, and then they are suddenly not stupid.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 am

Greg rights a beautiful post that completely nails it and instead of complementing him on nailing it 100%, you post this, "well if I kiss ass to the rich corrupt people and get nice material comfort in return, that means I've won" crap.

No it just means you are a spineless wannabe with the integrity backbone of your average corrupt politician ala Chris Christie. So to answer your question: you are the loser for you give away your integrity to get the pat on the back from those whose ass you kiss the best.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:23 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:59 pm

Yeah Newsome should be more like Chris Daly. Daly flunked out of a 2nd rate school and used daddy's money to become an activist, small time city politician, failed small business owner (which he bought with family money), owner of two foreclosed homes (which he bought with family money), and now an SEIU flunky.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 11:25 pm

Greg saves his ravings for Newsom, while Greg is a sloven worshiper of people like Daly.

Greg is the manager of Applebees waiting around for the district manager Daly to come by and throw him a bone. How second raters like Daly and Newsom rise through the chum is often a mystery.

Greg's selective chum filter is what is funny here.

Posted by comarade X on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 4:12 am

Changing one ranters mind at a time.

Posted by comarade X on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:43 pm

win when they should have lost, and otherwise not.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:01 pm

The members who opposed letting the voters vote on voting for replacement elected officials should be voted out of office.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 10:09 pm

Because people are incapable of thinking for themselves and need you to tell them how to vote.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:46 am

Why do you mention voters??? What you are advocating for is a system where voters aren't needed - just let the mayor appoint all the supes (I'll bet you want the mayor to be appointed by someone too).

Apparently it's you who doesn't think ppl are capable of thinking for themselves for it's you who advocates they not get to vote on who represents them when there's an open seat.

Did you think readers here wouldn't see thru your advocating an anti-democratic position as you accuse the person you're responding to of being anti-democratic??? You like going around living a fake life?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:44 pm

Apparently Weiner, Tang, Breed, Farrell, Yee, & Cohen don't think much of the voters of SF - the voters of SF should return the favor by never electing them again to represent them.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:03 pm

Progressives supervisors thought so little of voters they wanted to install a progressive as mayor after, even though none had been elected for decades.

Your position is that citizens should elect their representatives as long as things go your way?

Posted by gust on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:17 pm

Progressive supervisors never tried to take away the right of the ppl to elect who represents them like those 6 supervisors just did. Did you even read the article? Do you realize what's being discussed here? If you have ADD, then take your meds before posting here.

"Your position is that citizens should elect their representatives as long as things go your way?"

Uh, yeah - yeah that's exactly what I said and meant. Like I said, your reading comprehension is either zero or you're acting like it is. If it's a case of ADD, then take the meds. If you don't have meds, get to a doc fast because you have a bad case of ADD because you can't follow a discussion without going way off the deep end.

To summarize for you, this is not about progressives or tea partiers or liberals or conservatives or dems or repubs, it's about democracy. One either believes in it or one doesn't, you, like the 6 supes above don't believe in it, I and the 5 other supes do.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:35 pm

What "right" are you talking about?

You are just making up shit now to fit your agenda.

I read your post and responded to it, this one is even more batty.

Posted by comarade X on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:00 pm

argument is zero. No wonder you advocate for voters not having the right to elect their reps since you apparently assume most ppl are as unqualified as yourself in making that decision. Well you're wrong.

To answer your question, I'll repeat what I said verbatim in the hopes that this time you will be able to follow the simple sentence:
"Progressive supervisors never tried to take away the right of the ppl to elect who represents them like those 6 supervisors just did."

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:20 pm

The mayor appoints a replacement Supe and the Supes appoint a replacement mayor.

Why change one without the other?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

The progressive may be able to scheme in a progressive mayor although thats not the will of the people, short of that, districts should have a person who represents the voters will.

It's about "rights," the "right" to get over.

The "right to get over" is in the constitution, next to the right to studies classes and the right to run stop signs on your bicycle.

Posted by comarade X on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:42 pm

Your view on this is somewhere in the constitution? The supreme court has ruled on this at some point? If you have a "right" around this then please post some cites.

It would seem the constitution has allowed for jurisdictions to make their own laws around this, if there is something in the constitution, bill of rights, and amendments around this issue please post it.

In the past the people who you seem to agree with around this subject wanted to null the "rights" (hahahahahahaha) of the voters by appointing a type of mayor that the voters have rejected, thus ignoring the "rights" (hahahahahahahah) of the common voter. This is of course taking into account your views on rights (hahahahahahaahhhahahahah).

Thanks for the laugh rights man.

Posted by comarade X on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:35 pm
Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 6:00 am

more democracy! We wont be happy until every single decision put before the supervisors is put to a popular vote! Anyone who opposes such a plan is an enemy of democracy!

Posted by Oh Irony on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 6:56 am

That is an obvious paper tiger argument which implicitly carries its own corrollary: you won't be satisified until no decisions are made democratically other than electing some plenipotentiary who can then faithfully serve the interests of developer and other wealthy interests.

If you are against small-d democracy, you are against the interests of the vast majority of people. That actually *isn't* hyperbole.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 8:23 am

I've seen no evidence that supports that claim

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:47 am

If you actually did, you would be taking the side of the 5 who wanted to put it before the voters so the voters would provide that evidence you imply you want to see. If they vote for it, there's your evidence. As long as they can't vote for it (thx to the 6 supes who think little of democracy), you won't see that evidence.

Yet you imply you want to see that evidence. Then why are you advocating against the evidence being seen???

Lotta fake ppl here today.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

elections. I have never seen that claim substantiated.

People want to vote for permanent representatives but not for short-term interim fixes. At least that is what I routinely hear.

Do you support taking away the right of Supes to appoint an interim mayor? Why not?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 9:26 pm

"I was addressing the claim made that the voters want more elections. I have never seen that claim substantiated."

Elections per se isn't the point - the point is ppl having the right to choose who represents them. Once a person is made supe by the mayor and not the ppl, that person has a huge incumbency advantage so, in a practical and real manner, the rights of the ppl to elect their own rep is taken away from them when its the mayor choosing who the incumbent is.

As for "never seen that claim substantiated" well do you want to see it substantiated or not??? If you do, then support getting it on the ballot. In a real way, that's the only way to know what voters want.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 10:20 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Revitalized

    Zendesk's new corporate headquarters shows dramatic transformation of mid-Market, while bitter eviction battles drag on down the street

  • City will turn Francisco Reservoir into a park, with no affordable housing

  • Elder care facility under pressure not to move forward with evictions