Mar takes on cronyismBy Tim Redmond
I'm glad to see the entire progressive bloc on the Board of Supervisors stepping up to crack down on Newsom administration cronyism. The measure, of course, is a response to Newsom's move to appoint Police Commission President Theresa Sparks to a juicy city job as the head of the Human Rights Commission.
I'm not here to say anything bad about Sparks; The HRC deals with discrimination, and Lord knows Sparks has experienced her share. She's also been a business executive and is a smart and talented person.
But she played a key role with Newsom in choosing the new police chief -- and suddenly, she's rewarded with a city job. It certainly looks funky. And it hurts everyone's reputation -- Newsom looks as if he's repaying a political debt with hihg-paying job. Sparks looks like someone who played ball with the mayor and got a reward. The new police chief -- who by all accounts is a straight shooter -- comes out looking awful, too; I have no real reason to suspect a shabby deal here, but it sure gives what one calls the "appearance of inpropriety."
Mar's bill is cosponsored by Ross Mirarimi, David Chiu, David Campos and Chris Daly. I dare Newsom to veto it.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
Dear reader,
The mayor will used anybody he can just to get he's way. I know theresa very well but this is wrong for her to do. And all the hell that transgender people put up with. Gavin don't care he just want be govenor of our state and that's all that matter to him.
Posted by jazzie collins | August 4, 2009 02:32 PM
With all due respect, Teresa Sparks is over qualified for the HRC post. She's been one of the more effective police commissioners the City has had in years (backed by Ammiano and Leno), and the reality is it takes political skills for any City department head to do their job effectively.
There are effective ways for progressives on the Board to challenge the Newsom administration than this. This Board should have fought for a more progressive budget outcome, rather than give away the goods to the Mayor's office/Newsom 2010 committee -- 311-24/7 & CJC.
Posted by john | August 4, 2009 03:08 PM
Dear Tim: If you don't think Theresa Sparks cut a deal with the Mayor, and I'm certain she didn't, why repeat Mar's unsubstantiated concerns about the "appearance of impropriety"? The fact is, Sparks resisted pressure from all quarters--the Mayor, the Board,the good ol' boys of the SFPD , and successfully preserved the integrity of the search process.
Thankfully, the most qualified candidate (Gascon) was endorsed by the Police Commission, and I can't imagine that Newsom was initially pleased when presented with, OMG, an Outsider. Fact is, as President of the PC, Sparks has battled Newsom's attempt's to undermine the independence of the Commission for years! To claim she's a crony of the Mayor's is ludicrous! Give credit where credit is due!
Posted by leveller | August 4, 2009 11:10 PM
Tim -
I'm a big fan of Eric's, but I am skeptical of the need for this legislation. Based on the information available thus far, the legislation seems to be in response to the expected above-board offer of a job to an incredibly well qualified candidate for a vital city position. Unless either you or Eric has a better example of impropriety (and I couldn't find one through a google search), this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
As you know, Theresa spent years as a Human Rights Commissioner followed by years as a Police Commissioner. Every hour she spent on both time consuming commissions was donated to the people of San Francisco. These hours were also ones during which she gained incredibly valuable experience in successfully making things happen in a city where lots of people with good ideas can never get them off the ground. And she is someone who happens to be looking for a job right now -- something that is unlikely to be true a year from now.
As a resident, I want outstanding people filling important roles in our agencies. If that sometimes means we recruit people who are volunteering on our commissions, I don't have a problem with that unless someone can point to actual instances of unethical behavior connected to this practice (in which case, Mar's legislation is just very poorly timed). Until then, this legislation should be shelved so that we can continue to count on a vibrant pool of commissioners who, if they are qualified, can put their experience as commissioners to use in even more important city roles.
Posted by Chris Daley | August 5, 2009 01:21 PM
Sparks' record in the private sector is not exactly a ringing endorsement upon which hiring her on as a department head should be made, unless running a dildo operation into the ground is the kind of job experience which qualifies one to manage a department.
And Sparks' record on the Police Commission has been fair to midland evaluated over time, however the Gascon appointment might bump her up a notch or three, depending on how that plays out.
Sparks' appointment to the Police Commission originated as political chit trading and appears to be ending the same way. Politicized chit trading when it comes to transparency and equitable contracting is a toxic mix.
Zula Jones still works at the SF HRC. Remember when Jones' case was thrown out because--get this--Jones was entitled to privacy in her city office, and that it was improper for the City Attorney to grant the FBI access to her office.
I am also concerned that commissioners with say over entitlements, such as Sue Lee previosuly, could serve on the Planning Commission right before they run for office, where they wheel and deal in entitlements that get translated into campaign contributions down the road. Had Lee not served on Planning, the the margin in D1 last November, in my estimation, would have been much wider.
-marc
Posted by marcos | August 5, 2009 01:50 PM