Hall Monitor

CLINGING TO BECHTEL ? When the Board of Supervisors voted to phase out the city's $45 million contract with the Bechtel Infrastructure Corp.'s San Francisco Water Alliance, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission general manager Pat Martel asked for a little more time to ensure a smooth transition. The supervisors conceded, voting to release enough cash for the SFPUC to pay the Water Alliance for just six more months.

Yet at a lunchtime policy briefing with the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Dec. 12, Martel strongly hinted that she's working to keep the partnership intact – permanently. "I have a plan to improve the Bechtel contract," she told an assemblage of local officials, lobbyists, and business leaders, including several Bechtel employees. "My plan has been put into place, and it is working effectively."

Martel later told the Bay Guardian she isn't really trying to keep the contract, but she implied she may try to convince the board that it's working out. "If the contract is for four months, I want it to be the best we can. If I go back to the [supervisors'] Finance Committee, and I can convince them that we can use the Water Alliance's services, then [the contract will continue]," she said.

The controversial deal was originally blasted as an attempt to open the door to privatizing the SFPUC. A recent report by engineering company Malcolm Pirnie said that unless the SFPUC's management and oversight of the contract is significantly improved and more staff is added, the partnership would be ineffective. The supervisors voted Nov. 5 to end the deal by March 2002 (see "Bye-Bye Bechtel," 11/7/01). (Rachel Brahinsky)

McGoldrick v. McInerney: All it took was a little socioeconomic baiting from Sup. Jake McGoldrick at the board's Dec. 10 meeting for Board of Appeals member and friend to developers John McInerney to beat a fast retreat from what likely was going to become one hell of an ugly public relations battle.

The Board of Appeals was considering changing its policy to reduce the time and space allotted to appellants whenever they come before the board to appeal decisions by the Planning Commission. (In many cases, the appeals pit neighborhood activists against developers.)

The initial proposal would have shortened the appellant's opening statement from seven minutes to five minutes and shaved off a minute from the appellant's three-minute rebuttal. And it wasn't going to stop there; the plan would have cut the allowable length of an appellant's written brief from 12 pages with unlimited exhibits to 6 pages with six pages of exhibits.

Currently, individual appellants have until one week prior to the public hearing–usually months after their original appeal–to rebut the government's response to their appeal. But the proposal would have moved up the date of rebuttal to just within three weeks of the date of appeal. So without a high-priced attorney, the people appealing development decisions would be out of luck.

McGoldrick sharply pointed that out Dec. 10. "This will make it impossible for people who aren't rich to use [the appeals process],'' he said. "That means the process will no longer be open to average persons.''

Activist Sue Hestor, who works to protect the public's right to appeal, was the one who tipped McGoldrick off to the issue. She charged that, even without the mean-spirited proposal, "there's already an awful lot of flexibility on the development side."

But right when the new restrictions seemed imminent, McInerney – who many suspect was behind the proposed changes – suddenly started sounding like, well, Jake McGoldrick. At a Board of Appeals meeting Dec. 12 he noted, "I think the appellants deserve more time." When commissioner Allam El Qadah remarked, "Sounds like John is moving to the left," McInerney retorted, "I had an epiphany. I'm switching sides like the Afghan guys." Boos and hisses followed what many perceived to be an inappropriate ethnic joke. (Pauli Wai)

Ward's story: We ran an item Dec. 12 about John Farrell's claim that Assessor Doris Ward stripped him of his "Assistant Assessor" title in an effort to trip him up in his bid for her seat. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get Ward's response in time for our deadline.

So here's her side: Ward said that Farrell had never held the title "Assistant Assessor" and that she informed him of his exact title upon learning that he was inaccurately referring to his job in this manner. She told us she checked with the Department of Human Services, and his title should be "Principle Administrative Analyst."

Interesting that she did not feel the urge to iron the issue out until she saw him walk into the Department of Elections and take out papers to run against her. (Savannah Blackwell)