I would disagree that this was a good day for Newsom at the Board. A rejection by the Board of any appointment is very significant, and the rejection of Ryan Brooks is a really big deal.

In 7 years, I have voted against more Mayoral appointments at the Board than any other Supervisor (and perhaps in the modern history of San Francisco) and continued that trend by opposing 3 of the 5 appointments on today's calendar. With that said, I never "flipped" my vote on Sklar, because I never committed to vote against Sklar. I also didn't cut a deal with any Sklar supporters -- I quickly terminated the only call I received from a Sklar supporter. (Sklar did write to me about his support for Maxwell's Charter Amendment to provide greater checks and balances to the PUC.)

Not that it wasn't a very difficult vote, especially considering the company I had on the vote at the Board.

I am strongly against the removal of Leal and the associated $400,000 payout and have expressed my concerns about the Mayor's meddling in Commission affairs. When I brought this up, Sklar admitted to me that he did not handle this well. But on other subjects, Sklar has shown independence from Newsom -- most notably on the issue of the peaker plants and the Charter Amendment. I also believe Commissioner Sklar when he says he's not against public power.

So, here I am looking at a Commissioner that is clearly qualified and has shown some independence, but with whom I've disagreed on a number issues. I just don't think that rises to the level of meriting a rejection. That also doesn't rise to the level of deserving an appointment if I was the appointing authority.

I plan to publicly explain my vote at Roll Call for introductions which is appropriate pursuant to Board rules.

Dear Supervisors & Commissioners

I wish to remind you as you consider the reappointment of Richard Sklar of the ginormous failure and embarassing Municipal Wi-Fi initiative which was forcefully advocated for by Mr. Sklar in the face of overwhelming evidence that it would crash and burn. Many early public records show his intimate involvment in the deal.

As we now know, I and other advocates, ACLU, EFF and others showed this solution, (a franchinse in disguise), was privacy invading, didn't work indoors, didn't solve the digital divide and had a business model that was an utter fantasy. Nationwide, Muni Wi-Fi initiatives continue to fail and the current news is that it is very likely that EarthLink will pull out of the Philadelphia solution only 75% complete. In the aftermath, let's not forget, EarthLink fired 50% of their staff - 900 people, - 100 positions in San Francisco. The Mayor's office, DTIS and PUC spend untold amounts of staff time and additional time on Controller reports, Legislative Analyst reports, 10+ public hearings and internal and external legal resources on an initiative that lasted over two years - with ultimately nothing to show for it.

For Mr. Sklar to stick his head in the sand and like a bull in a china shop bulldoze a soluiton - even advocating for passage of the pole agreement by SFPUC, I feel is a serious mark against him and his ability to research and understand complex issues.

San Francisco and it's citizens deserver much better, Please do not reappoint this man.

Steve,

On this issue alone, you have lost all credibility as an objective publication. I have asked for any explanation down to one single issue for weeks as to just what the hell specific objection you had to Sklar. Brugmann evades. Redmond evades. You evade. Can you now, after you've lost the vote provide for any of the public what your objection to Dick Sklar was?

Just answer. One problem with the man? One specific fact? One incident? One anything? So far, you have failed to deliver.

You call this journalism?

h.

Let me turn this around on you, H: name one good, public interest thing this SFPUC board has done, ever? Until Leal took over as GM, it's been openly hostile to public power, even though the Raker Act has long required it. It has not been willing to make developers pay their fair share for sewer and water fees. It has allowed the continued environmental injustices that have stuck the southeast part of town with all our messes. And at a time when most of the world has woken up to the realities of global warming, the SFPUC is proposing to draw more water out of Hetch Hetchy.
Yet you're running around town pimping for Sklar, who has led this shameful mismanagement both as a board member and former general manager. I told all of this to your boss, Luke Thomas, when he called me about it. And the Guardian has a long history of laying out our case for SFPUC mismanagement, consisting of dozens of articles and editorials, including the one I listed to twice in this blog post. So it's a ridiculous accusation to say that that we're evading explaining ourselves.
Now why don't you explain your affinity for Sklar and why we should trust him to continue leading this agency?