I find it hard to believe that a measure granting the Supervisors the ability to appoint people (let alone a majority) to the PUC and the MTA would succeed. Ichabod is popular and they aren't.

Is there a comprehensive list somewhere of all the commissioners that are gone? Everyone knows about the 3 who were removed from the MTA Board.

I think it's also important to watch very carefully to the Taxi Commission. Will it be dissolved and folded into the MTA? Will cab companies get the increases in gate fees that they wanted?

The only reason why MTA directors have been replaced is because they'd resigned. Any MTA director who resigned has demonstrated by resigning that they are not independent of Gavin Newsom. Progressives and liberals should remember that when working with MTA directors who did not have to but did resign and whose resignations were accepted by Newsom.

Newsom might be popular, but in higher turnout elections, generally, Whatever coat tails Mayors might enjoy tend to not extend to ballot measures.

In lower turnout elections such as November of 2007 (Question Time) and 2005 (Ethics and MTA reform), the more conservative electorate scuttled several reforms that impinged on Newsom's power.

In 2006 voters passed Prop F, sick time when the electorate came out to elect supervisors in the even districts.

I'd doubt that Newsom can successfully scuttle the Affordable Housing Charter Amendment this November because on the fundamentals, the electorate is inclined to support affordable housing.

Also, Prop D of 2005 did a neo-traditional 4/3 split, mayor to board appointments. Am I to understand from this posting that Maxwell's PUC measure would reverse that split?

And that Maxwell is proposing this hints at a broader coalition than McGoldrick's recent efforts.

-marc

It is no surprise that the Taxi Commission (which Newsome authored the ballot measure to create, then later abandoned) is going to be folded into the MTA. It was part of Measure A and the Mayor already announced legislations to do so. In other words, "no duh."

As for the ousters on the MTA commission - does it not make sense that 2 commissioners from the old Taxi Commission now serve on the board of the agency taking over its functions? Maybe. Perhaps if this had been discussed more DURING the Measure A campaign, instead of having the Guardian relentlessly cheerlead it as some part of a "progressive resurgence", well maybe it'd be worth whining about now.

As for Ms. Shahum - she was in a tough spot. As the head of a faction in city politics, she was obligated to stick up for that faction, right or wrong. Unfortunately, as a Mayoral appointee (who happily signed her resignation letter!) and was expected to support the Mayor that appointed her.

When things got sticky with rogue cyclists and critical mass, she had to choose between the two, and it was clear her loyalty was for the advocate's role she enjoyed. It should be no surprise that a Mayor looking to run for another office does not have time for perceived disloyalty. Again, "No Duh."

and pardon my spell checker for mis-spelling "Newsom". As someone might say, no duh.

Do commissioners, directors and task force members take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Mayor, or do they swear allegiance to the US and CA Constitution as well as the City Charter?

The voters enacted Prop E in 1999 which was specifically intended to insulate MTA directors from politics of this sort.

Shahum is the head of a nonprofit, the SFBC, not of any faction in SF politics. Given the glacial pace of bike policy implementation, much of which is due to poor strategic choices made by the SFBC leadership and staff, I'm not sure that as a cyclist I feel "stuck up for."

I came across a copy of Maxwell's legislation and it would allow the same split as the Board of Appeals, 3 for the Mayor and 2 for the Board of Supervisors.

We have learned that it only takes one commissioner who is on the ball to make a difference. We can conclude, therefore, that there was not one member of the MTA Board who was on the ball as no difference was made there during Newsom's first term.

-marc

1999's Prop E had a clause allowing the taxi commission to get merged into the MTA. Newsom just chose now to do it.

The merging of the taxi commission with the MTA has nothing to do with Prop A. This power has always been embedded in Prop E. The specific clause states:

"(e) The Board of Supervisors shall have the power, by ordinance, to abolish the Taxi Commission created in Section 4.133, and to transfer the powers and duties of that commission to the Agency's Board of Directors."

I know that Maxwell floated the idea of having a June ballot initiative to grant the Supervisors the ability to appoint two PUC commissioners. That seems counter-intuitive because, as Marc points out, November might be a more advantagious time to make such a proposal to voters for reasons aforementioned.

Where did anyone hear that the Supervisors planned to place an initiative on the ballot that would grant them the ability to appoint three (thus, a majority) PUC commissioners?

Maxwell floated the idea of having a June ballot measure that would allow the Supervisors the right to pick two PUC members -- not a majority. Who heard that the Supervisors would be able to pick a majority? Also, as Marc points out, November might be a better time to place such a proposal on the ballot.

I'm in a minority amongst progressives as I believe that June will be the more progressive electorate, the inverse of the Ma/Reilly race where we got creamed in 2006. My read is that the November election will be more liberal in comparison.

We will also have our hands full with candidate races in November which will cut both ways on ballot campaigns--more folks focused on candidate campaigns which can help carry lit for ballot campaigns, but fewer folks working on those ballot campaigns nonetheless.

The last time they tried for split appointments it was to the MTA Board in 2005 when only the City Attorney was on the ballot in an uncontested race. Both Prop D and Prop C, Ethics Reform, went down. That was the first Ethics measure to ever fail as well as the first split appointments measure to fail. One might conclude that both went down because the electorate was not mobilized rather than the electorate rallied to Newsom.

It should be interesting to test that theory this year, with both the PUC per Maxwell's CA and the MTA, where McGoldrick proposes electing the MTA Directors.

-marc

Actually, more than anything, I think that the first failure of the split-appointments proposal had more to do with the fact that it was splitting appointments with Ichabod and not Willie Brown who, by many accounts, was and is very unpopular. All the previous split-appointment measures were enacted during the Brown administration.

On a different note, I have to say that it would be of the utmost importance if the Supervisors resurrected the Ethics Reform measure, sooner rather than later, due to the burden that is put on it with regard to his recently-passed campaign reform measures. Chris has been kicking around this idea, as he mentioned on his blog.

What is really needed at Ethics, aside from budgetary independence, is for Ethics to divorce the City Attorney as its counsel.

Marc,

How does the City Attorney negatively affect the Ethics Commission?

In most cases, lawyers give their clients a range of options and a corresponding range of consequences and allow for the client to make the call.

The City Attorney, as practiced by Renne and now Herrera, provides an option to their clients, at least those clients that we see, which is tantamount to giving policy directives.

As the CA serves the interests of the entire city, there are numerous conflicts between the CA advising Ethics and exposing their other clients.

Further, the role of the CA should constrained to advising commissions and departments (excluding Ethics and Elections) leaving the Mayor and Board of Supervisors free to hire executive and legislative counsel in their own interests.

Other levels of government do not entail counsel that is all things to all branches. We should follow that model rather than the model that centralizes conflicting legal requirements in one office that has a history of carrying water for corporate interests and protecting the most powerful.

Ethics and Elections are process departments that demand complete independence from political interference. We should also remove the CA and DA as appointing authorities for the commissions that oversee both deparments, as the conflicts there are legion.

-marc