Supes roll over for Brown's budget
S.F.'s spending plan preys on the city's most vulnerable.

By Camille T. Taiara

THROUGH SOME CREATIVE maneuvering, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors managed to free up enough spare change July 22 to save a handful of the laundry worker and nursing jobs at Laguna Honda Hospital that have come to symbolize activists' complaints about what is wrong with Mayor Willie Brown's proposed fiscal year 2002-03 budget. But service providers say the supervisors could have done a whole lot more to ensure the $4.9 billion budget would not be balanced on the backs of the city's most vulnerable residents.

"The supervisors aren't taking advantage of the power they actually have," laments Rebecca Vilkomerson of the People's Budget Collaborative, which issues yearly alternative city spending plans. "They haven't been as bold about attacking some of the sacred cows in the budget. They haven't looked seriously at revenue-generating options."

Prior to approving the multibillion-dollar budget by a 10-1 vote, the board approved a measure sponsored by Sup. Chris Daly that increases emergency response fees by 25 percent. The move is expected to add an extra $2 million to the General Fund this coming fiscal year. (Sups. Gavin Newsom, Leland Yee, and Tony Hall voted against the measure.) The proceeds, with an extra $900,000 to be generated by Countywide Overhead Cost Plan administrative fees, should be enough money to restore payroll funds equaling the salaries of 27 out of the 46 full-time laundry workers and 6 out of the 28 nurses at Laguna Honda Hospital who faced the budget axe, while adding back $641,000 to the beleaguered In Home Supportive Services for the elderly, paying for the training of civilian 911 dispatchers who will replace higher-paid uniformed personnel, and providing for several other services.

The supervisors' Budget Committee also managed to cut enough extra expenses from individual departments' budgets and to increase fees to redirect $9.9 million back into crucial social service programs.

But, critics say, the cumulative $12.8 million in add-backs is still a pittance when compared with, say, the Police, Sheriff's, and Fire Department budgets. Budget analyst audits have found tens of millions of dollars in waste – including abuse in the use of overtime, upkeep of virtually unused equipment, a large number of high-level administrators in relation to line staff, and failures to charge administrative overhead fees to organizations that use police personnel at events – that could be cut without jeopardizing public safety.

Still, even after the Board of Supervisors' cuts, the Fire, Police, and Sheriff's Departments will enjoy a combined $56.6 million more than last year. Much of these funds will pay for two years' worth of salary hikes and, in the case of the Police and Sheriff's Departments, overtime increases.

The supervisors are set to consider two measures in the next few weeks that could help generate extra funds: a temporary amnesty on interest payments to encourage businesses that owe back taxes to pay up and a business-tax proposal sponsored by Sup. Aaron Peskin that would have to go to the voters in November.

Advocates with the San Francisco Coalition for a Fair Budget say the board could have done more to cut the fat from favored city departments and mitigate the increasing gap between rich and poor in the city. Many supervisors, after all, were ushered into office in November 2000 having pledged to rein in Brown's misplaced priorities.

"Questions about how government has been expanded under Willie Brown haven't been addressed," said Sup. Matt Gonzalez, the only board member who voted against the budget. The board is expected to have a final vote on the budget July 29. "I think fundamentally we haven't figured out, as supervisors, how to do the budget."

The mayor's initial budget included close to $100 million in cuts to health and social services, which would affect substance-abuse education and treatment programs, the Department of Public Health, and homeless and housing programs, among dozens of others.

"It should be the city's priority to support the economic stability of working people in San Francisco, especially during recession year," John Avalos of Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth said. "There are a lot of families that are suffering, and the worst thing you can do is cut back on services when they need them."

E-mail Camille T. Taiara at camille@sfbg.com.