By Rachel Brahinsky

At a carefully orchestrated press conference in the Gallileo High School library June 1, Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that his financial advisors have devised a way to cut some $307 million out of next year's city budget with relatively little impact on direct services.

"We will submit a budget," Newsom said, "that will protect those who need government the most."

Indeed, it seems the mayor has succeeded in avoiding a major bloodbath in any single department. Even advocates who traditionally are the loudest opponents of proposed cuts said it appears he's done a good job of minimizing the pain during a particularly tough year.

It comes as a bit of a surprise in the wake of months of dire predictions. But as more detailed documents trickle out of the Mayor's Office, and as people across the city scour the mayor's proposal, budget watchers say more is likely to become known about how program cuts and staff reductions will impact city services.

"[Newsom's] fundamental policy notion – prioritizing and saving services – is good," Sup. Aaron Peskin told the Bay Guardian. "But there are a lot of things we don't know about. I'm not down with closing the [San Francisco General Hospital] dialysis unit or the [Laguna Honda Hospital] laundry. And there's more. I've been getting calls all day, saying, 'Did you know this has been eliminated or that has been?' All this stuff is going to come out in the next couple of weeks."

Even without all the details, a review of the budget reveals a few trends that will be important to watch as the Board of Supervisors weighs in over the next two months. The move that's likely to provoke the loudest opposition is the mayor's heavy reliance on outside contractors, which would represent a privatization of many city services. Also, in an effort to preserve front-line staffers who provide services to the poor, Newsom proposes cutting administrators and folding some departments together. And though he has promised not to slash homeless services, health cuts at some of the city's urgent care clinics will affect thousands of homeless.

In addition, while it appears that Newsom would minimize service cuts in many cases, certain agencies would receive generous budget boosts – such as the San Francisco Police Department, which would receive an extra $14 million under the plan.

• • •

We know that an estimated 550 workers would lose their jobs under the budget, which was only balanced after workers agreed to a benefit cut, but the full impact of cuts to the $3.98 billion budget won't be understood until the Board of Supervisors – which must approve the plan – begins its series of hearings June 16.

"We're really looking forward to taking a department-by-department look," Judson True, legislative aide to Budget Committee chair Gerardo Sandoval, told us. "I think we will find a lot of smaller cuts that will nevertheless hit people hard, and we want to do everything we can at the board to minimize that pain."

Some of the toughest cuts, even with restored funding, would be in the realm of public health, where Newsom's reliance on outsourcing is the most evident. And although the mayor has promised not to cut homeless services, there's no question the many public health cuts will affect the homeless.

Originally Newsom had proposed restructuring four community mental health programs. In each case some of the patients would have been funneled into nonprofit care; others would have been transferred to other public clinics.

"This feels a lot like the dismantling of the public health system, this privatization," one clinic staffer told us as word of the pending cuts first got out. "When, during the election, I saw those posters with Newsom's face next to Bush's, I got mad. But this [proposal] smacks of Karl Rove."

The public outcry over these proposals was loud enough that Newsom preserved two programs in his final budget. But the Glen Park Team II and the Southeast Geriatric mental health programs are still slated for consolidation, though it's not clear exactly how that will unfold.

The planned closure of the Renal Center at San Francisco General would effectively be a privatization, because it would force patients receiving dialysis at the hospital into units run by for-profit companies. Health care workers worry that the most severe cases wouldn't get the same level of care at these units, which are often criticized for cutting corners in an effort to save money (see "Kidney Punch," 6/7/02).

"The department and the Mayor's Office have been very skillful in saying there aren't any cuts. But there are," said Ruben Garcia, a field representative with the Service Employees International Union Local 790, which represents city workers.

Garcia cited potential cuts at the Tom Waddell Health Center. "It shows how the mayor gives with one hand and takes with another, because he says he wants good homeless services," but, as he pointed out, Tom Waddell's urgent care clinics slated for cuts serve some 8,000 people annually, about half of whom are homeless. On the whole, about half of Tom Waddell's General Fund dollars that pay for services in city shelters, in the streets, and in residential hotels would be lost under Newsom's budget.

Another proposal that's likely to be met with loud opposition is the potential outsourcing of medical services at the county jail (see "Doctors in Jail," page 13). There's also the plan to privatize the Randall Museum and to permanently outsource Laguna Honda laundry services. Privatized laundries have been criticized for cutting wages and benefits for workers, for producing dirtier linens, and for causing employee injuries because of sped-up work times.

The mayor insists contracting out is a wise move. "It's a policy pursued only when it makes sense and is a logical reform," Peter Ragone, the mayor's spokesperson, told us.

• • •

Meanwhile, details on several proposed department mergers remain to be explained and may face some resistance. Although the Commission on Aging voted June 2 to remain independent, for example, Newsom's budget would move its programs under a new agency that would share costs with the Department of Human Services.

"We're concerned our issues will just get lost – it's a big year with lots of changes for homeless and families," Marie Jobling of senior advocacy group Planning for Elders said. "As long as there are committed dollars for seniors and disabled services, nobody cares, but we just want to know."

To his credit, Newsom is the first mayor in recent memory to target the San Francisco Fire Department for cuts. But although a coalition of reformers had called for fire department cuts of more than $50 million, Newsom only proposes to cut $2.6 million, just over 1 percent of the department's budget. Again there was little information on how the department would achieve these savings, frustrating those who have criticized excessive premium pay for fire personnel and called for the closure of stations that respond to few calls.

The sense that the unpleasant details have been shrouded for now lingers among longtime budget watchers.

"In the past, with Willie Brown, even with Frank Jordon, the cuts were laid out. We knew what was being proposed," said Martha Hawthorne, who has been a public health nurse at the Castro-Mission Health Clinic for 16 years. "This time, there's very little detail."

Mayor Gavin Newsom presents his proposed budget to the Board of Supervisors' Budget Committee June 14. The committee holds hearings starting June 16. The board's Budget Analyst produces publicly available reports on each department. A complete schedule can be obtained at www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp or by calling the board clerk at (415) 554-5184.

Additional reporting by Tali Woodward and Steven T. Jones.

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky.