Endorsements 2010: San Francisco candidates - Page 9


And since the moderate and conservative forces will never be comfortable with a public defender moving up in the political world, Adachi's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Which is fine. He's doing well at his day job. We wish he'd stuck to it and not taken on a divisive, expensive, and ill-conceived crusade to cut health care benefits for city employees.





To hear some of the brahmins of the local bench and bar tell it, the stakes in this election are immense — the independence of the judiciary hangs in the balance. If a sitting judge who is considered eminently qualified for the job and has committed no ethical or legal breaches can be challenged by an outsider who is seeking more diversity on the bench, it will open the floodgates to partisan hacks taking on good judges — and force judicial candidates to raise money from lawyers and special interests, thus undermining the credibility of the judiciary.

We are well aware of the problems of judicial elections around the country. In some states, big corporations that want to influence judges raise and spend vast sums on trial and appellate court races — and typically get their way. In Iowa, three judges who were willing to stand on principle and Constitutional law and declare same-sex marriage legal are facing what amounts to a well-funded recall effort. California is not immune — in more conservative counties, liberal judges face getting knocked off the bench by law-and-order types.

It's a serious issue. It's worth a series of hearings in the state Legislature, and it might be worth Constitutional change. Maybe trial-court elections should be eliminated. Maybe all judicial elections should have public campaign financing. But right now, it's an elected office — at least in theory.

In practice, the vast majority of the judicial slots in California are filled by appointment. Judges serve for four-year terms but tend to retire or step down in midterm, allowing the governor to fill the vacancy. Unless someone files specifically to challenge an incumbent, typically appointed judge, that race never even appears on the ballot.

The electoral process is messy and political, and raising money is unseemly for a judicial officer. But the appointment process is hardly pure, either — and governors in California have, over the past 30 years, appointed the vast majority of the judges from the ranks of big corporate law firms and district attorney's offices.

There are, of course, exceptions, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been better than his predecessor, Democrat Gray Davis. But overall, public interest lawyers, public defenders, and people with small community practices (and, of course, people who have no political strings to pull in Sacramento) have been frustrated. And it's no surprise that some have sought to run against incumbents.

That's what's happening here. Michael Nava, a gay Latino who has been working as a research attorney for California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, was going to run for a rare open seat this year, but the field quickly got crowded. So Nava challenged Richard Ulmer, a corporate lawyer appointed by Schwarzenegger who has been on the bench a little more than a year.

We will stipulate, as the lawyers say: Ulmer has done nothing wrong. From all accounts, he's a fine judge (and before taking the bench, he did some stellar pro bono work fighting for reforms in the juvenile detention system). So there are two questions here: Should Nava have even filed to run against Ulmer? And since he did, who is the better candidate?

It's important to understand this isn't a case of special interests and that big money wanting to oust a judge because of his politics or rulings. Nava isn't backed by any wealthy interest.


Debra Walker's going to make a great D6 supe.

Posted by Simba on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

who cares about 2nd place endorsements? If I vote the way you suggest Debra wins and the other two lose. While this political masturbation exercise makes you and Jane Kim staffer Luke Thomas feel good, in the end it is an empty gesture and will make no difference.

Posted by Endorsement fail on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:03 pm

I agreed with all yours endorsements. But Margaret Brodkin. Give me a break.
"One of the problems with the district under Ackerman was the blind support she got from school board members who hired her, it was almost as if her allies...."

Margaret Brodkin is part of the same group. She is so divisive, arrogant, and full of herself.

She keeps saying that she has more experience than all of the other candidates together; well maybe she needs to be our San Francisco Superintendent or maybe our California Superintendent.
Please Please do not endorse her.

This endorsement is so freaky scary!!!!

Posted by Guest You must be CRAZY on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:14 pm

Hey Guardian, thanks for your sensible, well-thought-out endorsements. I'm convinced Debra Walker will be a great supe for D6--progressive, effective, and accountable. Your 2nd and 3rd are good too. Let's make sure we elect a D6 Supe who's not only progressive, but experienced and dedicated and has the track record of commitment to the district.

Posted by Guest Christopher Cook on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

I'm a little perplexed by this fast and loose term of progressive in SF politics. Most of what I see from this group is about as far from progressive as you can get -- Theresa Sparks has way more legitimately progressive ideas for the district, but she gets pushed to the side and labeled conservative. Where by San Francisco would the transgender former head of Good Vibrations be a conservative?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

Somebodies orientation does not define how their ideological positions. Sparks is a nightmare, and extremely Conservative -- just look at her record with the Police Department.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

Every progressive insists that Sparks did nothing. Is that what you mean? That Sparks has the same record as David Campos?

Posted by matlock on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:09 am

Don't listen to the whispers . . . Margaret Brodkin is THE most qualified and experienced person to run for the school board in years. She will raise the bar significantly and do great work. Nice job. (I can't say the same for Kim-Shree Maufas, sadly, but two out of three aint at all bad).

Posted by SFUSD Parent on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

So if not Kim, who is your third choice?

Posted by Guest You must be CRAZY on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 7:36 am

Moss should be in shock that someone wants to combine non-profits, his whole scam would be gone and he'd have to get a real job like the rest of us, imagine that!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

Thank you for the kind comments about my friend Jim Meko whom I am helping to run for District 6 Supervisor.

However, Jim Meko has never wavered from opposing Proposition L, the so-called "Sit/Lie" ordinance. Jim Meko has consistently opposed Prop L on every candidate questionnaire, at every candidate forum where the issue arose, and in every interview at which I've been present. Forward to 1m25s on this video from 9/13/2010's South Beach/Rincon/Mission Bay Neighborhood Association District 6 Candidate Forum to get a factual review of his position on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tal3kF_xJvk

It is very unfortunate that such a profound inaccuracy is being printed in thousands of issues of the Guardian and I would hope the Guardian would at least print a correction in next week's issue.

In the meanwhile, I would hope that you guys and gals would correct the online version of this article to reflect Jim Meko's actual position of NO/OPPOSE the Sit/Lie Proposition (Prop L).

I also find the criticism about relationship with nighttime entertainment questionable. Many nightclubs should be thanking their lucky stars that Jim Meko helped broker a peace between them and their neighbors. To say otherwise is fictional.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

Dear SF Bay Guardian,

Jamie Whitaker raises some important concerns about the accuracy of your endorsement reporting process. If you can get Jim Meko's position on Civil Sidewalks so dead wrong, I can only wonder how many other factually incorrect statements have been published. Clearly there is a crying need for better fact checking and verification before going to print, whether on the web or to paper.

This sloppy journalism undermines my confidence in your reporting and commentary.

I look forward to quickly published retraction and correction. Thank you.

David Elliott Lewis, Ph.D.

Posted by David Elliott Lewis on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 3:55 am

A colleague of mine ran the restorative justice advisory group for SFUSD. Kim Shree-Maufas while espousing the tenants of restorative justice actively worked against the group by showing up late to meetings, disrupting the meeting, and setting up an ancillary group focusing on restorative justice to compete with the work that was happening, including trying to get people to move from the initial group the her group. Once she had her group set up, she regularly did not provide agendas or facilitate the meeting. Most times, it turned into bickering sessions about what to do with restorative justice.

I am tired of hearing politicians espouse social justice values while not actually practicing them. Kim Shree-Maufas asked a rep from the Boys and Girls Club, who is nationally recognized as a restorative justice guru, what she would do first, and she responded, "I would first start with practicing restorative justice here." The idea was laughed off.

Now, after over a years worth of work and planning there still is little to no movement on transforming the school district. If this is progressive, I want no part of it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 7:10 am

Then, Who are your three school board candidates?

Posted by Guest You must be CRAZY on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 7:35 am

Bill Barnes, Margaret Broadkin, and Hydra Mendoza.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 8:18 am

Shame on you. This quote from your (news?) paper is totally false and misleading, and should be retracted asap:

"Jim Meko . . . supports sit-lie and is awfully cranky about local bars and nightlife."

Duh, Jim was never for the sit-lie ordinance and was appointed to the Entertainment Commission to represent the neighbors' concerns relative to the nightclubs.

Though your damage is already done, retracting it may perhaps help a little.

Posted by Roy Carr on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:03 am

Shame on you. This quote from your (news?) paper is totally false and misleading, and should be retracted asap:

"Jim Meko . . . supports sit-lie and is awfully cranky about local bars and nightlife."

Duh, Jim was never for the sit-lie ordinance and was appointed to the Entertainment Commission to represent the neighbors' concerns relative to the nightclubs.

Though your damage is already done, retracting it may perhaps help a little.

Posted by Roy Carr on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:04 am

Jane Kim has also endorsed Glendon "Anna Conda" Hyde in this race. She held out till DW confirmed that she would not do an endorsement slate. We have endorsed Kim second and Walker third. Debra has been very helpful but we felt with the move by the DCCC to ONLY endorse Debra was a bad decision in a very tight race and there is no spirit of coalition building in a "me only stance." Our politics most resemble Debra's and we encourage you to make her one of your three choices. Since Jane would endorse us as well as James we were certainly going to get behind her coalition building and progressive out reach. Jane has been a great supporter of our team from when we had lunch in March at Tu Lan and we continue to thank her for her support and congratulate her on seeing beyond her own race.

Posted by Guest Anna Conda on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:34 am

This city and especially district 6 has become a filthy cesspool. I will vote for whoever is going to clean it up. Starting with scarping the losers up off the sidewalks and marching their behinds to the county line.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:37 am

Yo guest dude, it might be wiser not to look down on anybody unless you are helping them up!

Posted by Roy Carr on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 10:25 am


If you lived in District 6 you might feel differently.

I applaud Guest for his opinion and share it. I hate stepping over people sleeping on the sidewalk, and their piles of crap (sometimes literally crap) and having to pray for rain to clean the urine off the sidewalks.

D6 smells like a Parisian toilet in high summer.

Clean up the damned neighborhood....start with the lying/sleeping people....make them clean up after themselves, and for gods' sake stop turning this part of the City into an open cesspool.

And Roy...I'll help them up...right the hell out of town.

Posted by Ken Howard on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:40 am

"Stuff it, Roy"

That was rude, Ken?

I've live here since 1980, and guess what, it hasn't changed that much--except that the poor seem to be getting poorer and the rich, richer.

Take a listen. It might do you some good:


Posted by Roy Carr on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

Not impressed.

I hate YouTube at any rate. Get your ass out from in front of your computer and look at what the neighborhood is like now.

It's a DMZ. A cesspool.

Posted by Ken Howard on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

Not to mention the crime.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

I do live in district 6, and I do feel differently. I have lived in this district for 9 out of the 13 years I have been here. I have had to clean up the shit in front of my apartment many times. I have had to clean up after the people that have rummaged through my garbage looking for discarded food to eat and aluminum cans and glass to recycle. I have had to help mothers with their children and carry groceries for elderly women trying to get home from Safeway on Muni. I have taken phone calls on my personal cell from parents who's child has run away and had to find mental health support services for family reunification. I have helped do art instillations for galleries in District 6. I have purchased Street Sheets, meals for gaunt homeless youth, poetry collections from wandering poets. I have called the police because a homeless person many people had already passed was dead. I have mediated domestic violence situations spilling out on streets to a more calm and metered conversation.

And I don't believe that helping them up and out of town is going to help ANYONE. It won't help them. It won't help our city. It won't help me.

If you hate stepping over crap and waiting for the rain to clean urine, pick up a hose and wash it away. If you have contempt for the people sleeping on the street, take a moment and actually hear their story. There are many. They didn't get there by being lazy or stupid or whatever the myriad stereotypical reasons promulgated by those of means.

As I reminded a teen on a bus yesterday, being in public and living in a City means having compassion for everyone. That includes the people who live in gutters. In fact, they are the ones who need it most.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 8:15 am

Well said.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

I've lived in the TL for 16 years. I've seen it all....drunks, hookers, blood, urine, feces, fights, guns, knives, drugs...

I have no compassion for any of them.

How many hundreds of homeless vehemently refuse help when it is offered. Those types WANT to be there. Those are the ones we have to clean up after and who turn the district into an open sewer.

Get them out of the City. Send them to Oakland. In that town a few hundred extra morons won't even be noticed.

I don't care what their stories are. There have been enough services offered, up to and including tickets out of town for them and they refuse to take it; instead they tie up city services and turn the neighborhood into a toilet.

Why don't you pour more ashes on your head, Guest, and hitch up your sackcloth just a bit higher, eh? Your martyr complex is showing.

Posted by Ken Howard on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

My first question is how much have you donated to housing? Groups like Community Housing Partnership and Larkin Youth have a 98% success rate in keeping individuals off the streets and being housed. These individuals go on to run and help facilitate the buildings they were luck enough to find housing in or work at street fairs cutting the cost of running these important events running. Until we all take responsibility for the situation we have created around us then it will persist. When we create restorative justice we cut right through the problem and create solutions. Please donate to a housing service of your choice today.

Posted by Guest Anna Conda on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:11 am

I don't ever remember ordering someone to take that first hit of rock? I never told anyone to go off their meds and live on the street.

We could build two thousand rooms in the city, they would fill up in a day and we would be right back to where we are now in a month.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 2:06 pm

I didn't create the "situation around us" the poverty pimps created it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

I have to agree with those who question the endorsement of Kim Shree Maufas. Are you endorsing based on what people give lip service to or what they've actually achieved? I don't doubt that she has some good ideas-- but what has she actually done about any of them? I also have seen several times that her true depth of knowledge on the issues she purports to advocate for is laughably shallow. She is also arrogant and extremely difficult to work with. The same could definitely be said of Brodkin, but at least she has a track record of following through and getting results. This reeks of tokenism to me.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:06 am

Thanks Guest for your comment. Probably neither Kim nor Brodkin are the best options for school board. There are more candidates, and a few of them are also extremely qualified for this important position without being arrogant and difficult to work with. However, Kim protected thousands (?) of teachers from being laid off and her position saved our children education from being more severely affected.
Brodkin" has a track record of following through and getting results", but at the expenses of dividing people that are around her. She has burned a lot of bridges and a lot of people do not want to work with her.

I just hope that we, San Franciscans, pick three candidates that are willing to work with parents, teachers, children and of course the teachers' union.

Posted by Guest You must be CRAZY on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Posted by Kristine Enea on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 9:29 pm

Are you implying that Maufas isn't divisive? Seriously, how many board meetings have you attended? She has an incredible ability to derail, obfuscate, and divide. I agree with the above person, she's almost laughable.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 11:13 am

If you want to see Jim Meko's actual positions on some of the more controversial measures, Luke Thomas has a photo of Jim's positions (along with others) from the SF Young Democrats District 6 Supervisor Candidate forum held on June 23, 2010 - and please note that Jim Meko's positions have not changed one bit.


Still hoping to see a correction in the online version of this article ....

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:07 am

The commenters are correct, we made an error. Meko does not support sit-lie. He does, however, support Prop. B, the Adachi pension measure, which we oppose. This was not a central factor in our endorsement, and I have corrected it in the file and will run a correction this week in the paper.

Posted by tim on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:45 am

Had a huge Theresa Sparks banner across the front.

They want to go back to work.

The choice comes down to progressives who want to raise taxes and make the city their high tax hole, or actual working people going back to work.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

Janet is a nice woman and certainly has the polish for the seat. However, District 2 should never be sending a rubber stamp for labor (she is endorsed by all the major public employee unions). Let the other Districts do that.

1) Farrell 1) Simmons 3) Anderson

Posted by CJ Flowers on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

I agree. Biggest issue facing the city for the foreseeable future is pensions, and I don't think someone endorsed by all the public unions will be up to the job. To the contrary, she might make the problem worse.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 11:39 am

I'm confused about your issue with bringing nonprofits into parks to provide services given that you seem to support community schools, because that's exactly the way community schools work.

And unions support that when it comes to community schools. The current (Oct-Nov '10) issue of "American Teacher: The National Publication of the American Federation of Teachers" has an article praising community schools in St. Paul, which praises "...the types of partnerships that have generated a knock-your-socks-ff array of services for kids and families alike", lauds "public-private partners," and says: "The school combines foundation grants and public dollars with an offer of free space for organizations that bring their services to the school..."

So can you clarify the discrepancy here? I'm speaking as a supporter of Margaret Brodkin and of community schools, and a UESF family.

Posted by CarolineSF on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 6:41 am

I served on the Potrero Hill Merchant's Association board with Tony Kelly for a number of years. I have always found him to be thorough in his research, open-minded, thoughtful and balanced. He has worked tirelessly as an advocate for the neighborhood as long as I've known him. He'd be a terrific addition to the Board of Supervisors!

Posted by Meilnda Zarrett on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 9:03 am

ERIC SMITH is the best progressive choice in D-10.
It's also somewhat disappointing that with more than one top-notch African-American candidate in the D-10 race, you decided to choose another white guy. I've got nothing against Mr. Kelly, but San Francisco needs progressive people of color on it's elected board of supervisors, and D-10 is the most likely district to help ensure representation for the African American community.
I like Chris Jackson as well, but ERIC SMITH has the maturity, commitment and experience to be a great supervisor. Respectfully, he should receive everyone's serious consideration as first choice for D-10.

Posted by DannyK on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 10:57 am

there are really only four choices:


sweet is tainted.
moss is questionable.
jackson is not credible.
the remainder are, in some cases (including eric's) unfortunately, not in serious contention

Posted by D 10 voter on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:28 pm

D10 voter, think you are right on the mark.

Sweet is her own worst enemy and not straightforward, Moss is completely untrustworthy, that's obvious.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

enea is a nice person, but she's not viable. and if kelly is your number one, your whole list is off.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

Guest YOU MUST BE CRAZY said: "However, Kim protected thousands (?) of teachers from being laid off and her position saved our children education from being more severely affected."

Yes, Ms. Maufas was the ONLY member of the Board to vote against issuing layoff notices to teachers and paraprofessionals this year -- the year the district had to cut 20 percent of its budget to stay solvent. Other progressive (and SFBG-endorsed) board member--Mendoza, Fewer and Kim--voted for the layoffs. Maufas' "no" vote was nothing more than pandering to save her political life. This was not a principled stand -- it was the desperate act of a person who has no regard for the long-term fiscal health of the school district. When you see a 6-1 vote on this divided board, you have to pause and think hard about the motivations of the lone dissenter.

Posted by SFUSD Parent on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 10:01 pm

As usual I vote against all your endorsements. Thank you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

SFGOVTV has just posted the video of the October 7th League of Women Voters, Neighborhood Parks Council, and UCSF District 6 Supervisor Candidate Forum (pick it from the listing at the bottom ... ) http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=103

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 11:20 am

So lovely to hear all the suggestions that we round up the people on the street and ship them out of town. What does that solve? They'll just be shipped somewhere else and then shipped out of there too?

I got a better idea. Why don't we round up all the homeless, line them up against a wall, and SHOOT them!

OK, maybe that'd be too messy. And all the blood would lower our property values; can't have that. So we could give them special "delousing showers". We could then cremate them and use their bodies to fuel our PG&E plant; it's environmentally conscious. I think it would work great. Homeless gone! All the undesirables gone! Anyone who is not tall, blonde, and Ayran, gone!

Because that's what you're asking for, really. When you are considering humans to be disposable or beneath help, then you are quite frankly being a Nazi. These are people. We either help them, kill them, or leave them to die. I think only one of those options is worthy of us.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 11:01 am

If those are the choices, absolutely you kill them. Or we should. A LARGE number of these homeless people refuse help of any kind. ANY kind. They prefer to smell, panhandle, and sleep all over the sidewalks, using them for their toilet.

I don't feel we have to put up with it. Scoop em up, ship them to Oakland, or somewhere...an ice floe off Alaska would be even better, that way they eventually at least feed the crabs.

I'm tired of living in a neighborhood that's an open toilet and drug den. Time to clean it up. D6 is an embarrassment.

Posted by Ken Howard on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 11:37 am

Related articles


    Our voting guide to take to the polls for the June 3 election

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Also from this author

  • Arguments against minimum wage increase are out of touch

  • Housing ballot measures would weaken city policy

    With market-rate housing construction booming, Kim abandons effort to balance it with more affordability 

  • Appealing to San Francisco values