I can't believe the mayor answers any questions from anyone associated with the Guardian at all - ever. Your never-ending adversarial coverage of him should be reason enough for this rag to be banished from City Hall for the rest of his tenure. And the pathetically transparent attempts to whip up a non-controversy over an ordinance which will jeopardize the city's federal funding is sadly par-for-the-course for this paper.

can you link to the chronicle article please?

It's time to get real. CA memos have been leaked by Mayors and members of the Board of Supervisors to advance or derail the particular interest of the day for decades. This is not a new practice, and this is a non-story. Without leaks reading the news gets dull. Information about legislation should be available for the many, not the few.

San Francisco pays the salary of all those involved here, and CA opinions about pending legislation should be publicly available. Campos comeback to the "story" was fine, when has there been a time when the City pursued controversial legislation that has been a legal slam dunk? Such facts are too tough for a sophisticated electorate to handle? Please.

I thought everyone on this site supports open government and the Sunshine law?

John,

It's like when the liberals started ranting about national security with the Valarie Plame thing, an utter joke.

It was a terrible leak but still a laugher coming from the goofy left who have forgot all about Iraq since around, January or so I guess.

John,

It's like when the liberals started ranting about national security with the Valarie Plame thing, an utter joke.

It was a terrible leak but still a laugher coming from the goofy left who have forgot all about Iraq since around, oh, January or so I guess?

Wow, we must have touched a nerve because you pro-Newsom sock puppets are out in force.
To Lucretia (or whoever you really are), maybe you're not familiar with the First Amendment, but it was created precisely to protect and empower journalists who are critical of elected officials, and public servants have an obligation to be accountable to newspapers like the Guardian, a 43-year-old paper with a large and politically engaged base of readers. Democracy would be doomed if politicians followed your advice and only spoke to journalists who didn't feel an adversarial relationship to those in power.
And to the rest of you, while we're not criticizing the journalists who published this memo (except for Jaxon van Derbeken's cozy and compromised relationship with nativist groups, which we've already written extensively about), there's a reason for attorney-client confidentiality in matters like this. Decision-makers need a candid assessment of legal risks before making a decision, which involves then weighing that risk against the benefits, such as protecting due process for SF residents (or, in an example favored by Newsom, promoting marriage equality, a decision that has resulted in far higher legal bills than this one will). But if that assessment is forwarded to the very people who have signaled an intent to sue the city, attorneys won't be free to give candid advice for fear of offering ammo to opponents.
Gavin Newsom took an oath to protect this city and obey its laws. And now, simply for political expediency, he has admitted to an improper action that exposes the city to more legal risk.

Jason Grant Garza ... here isn't that interesting that Avalos should state "“Disclosure of confidential information can be official misconduct,” Avalos said. “It exposes the City to liability and undermines the legal integrity of our City Attorney’s work. While I welcome the issuance of the City Attorney’s legal guidance reminding the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors of their obligation to keep attorney-client privileged information confidential, a thorough investigation is needed to hold those responsible accountable.” When I went to him about a thorough investigation in order to hold the responsible accountable (read the article in the Bay Guardian reagrding the city's lawbreaking activity towards me and the signed confesion admitting fault and guilt ... type my name into a google search engine) I was denied by Avalos office. Since he is the CHAIR of the budget committee I was going to prove that his very own (others in city government) broke the law, were unaccountable, had shown no contrition nor humanity and that for PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH the TRUTH was needed just to show how rigged the game IS. So I guess that a leaked memo is much worse than a SIGNED CONFESSION ADMITTING FAULT AND GUILT YET NO CONTRITION AND HAVING LEFT THEIR VICTIM TO DIE! However, since I signed NO confidentiality agreement nor got any remedy, restitution, contrition, etc (oh, they will try to tell you that they paid a fine to the government - ask them what the victim got except lies to have his case thrown out of federal court and then a signed confession - didn't they know they were lying in federal court ... was it a MEDICAL DECISION TO LIE IN FEDERAL COURT?) and by the way WHY IS NO ONE LOOKING INTO THIS? Ah, the game continues ... oh, and while were on the subject of the ethics commission ... is that 14 times the ethics commission failed as per the article in May's Bay Guardian? Ha, ha, ha. Oh, and you could call the city attorney and ask what was stated by their expert witness in federal court that had my lawsuit thrown out while signing a confession later on ...

Steven you need to re-read the Constitution. The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to speak to a politician nor does it require that they answer you. It specifically states that government shall not infringe on the freedom of the press. Last I checked your paper was available around town, filled with the usual dribble and without any government official preventing you from publishing it.

Public servants have an obligation to be accountable to voters, not to fringe-left newspapers which consistently operate with a giant chip on their shoulder and which refuse to report on both sides of a story if it reflects badly on them or their views. Acting as if the Guardian is the conscience of this city is as pathetic as the NY Post saying that it speaks for most Manhattanites. Neither do but both are so caught up in jousting with lions of their own imagination that they long ago stopped doing what they're supposed to do - report the NEWS and not spin it to their narrow ideological bases.

LS,
I think John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine -- whose ideas led to the First Amendment -- would have vehemently disagreed with your definition of a free press. And Guardian readers are also voters, voters who expect us to ask tough questions and for the city's elected officials to answer them.

Who cares what Heather Fong was wearing? That sounds shallow and sexist. What is this, Entertainment Tonight?

Lecretia Snapples, do you REALLY think members of the press who have an adversarial relationship with an elected official should be banned from City Hall? Even setting aside questions about the letter of the First Amendment, do you really think that's a good idea for democracy?

Paul - no, I don't think that would be a good idea and I spoke too quickly when I wrote that.

Just as President Obama doesn't call on FOX News as often as Bush did so too do I think the mayor has a right to provide information and develop a relationship with news organizations which show that they're not going to operate from a willfully misleading and adversarial relationship.

The Guardian has shown repeatdely since before Newsom was inaugurated that it was going to act as a cheerleader for Matt Gonzalez (and now Chris Daly). Their obsession with the mayor is never-ending as is their campaign to raise objections to every part of his agenda - an agenda which has been repeatedly endorsed by the voters of San Francisco (Care not Cash being one example.)

And the Guardian mentioning what Heather Fong was wearing IS sexist - yet another double-standard from a newspaper which loathes and condemns sexism - except when they don't.

Paul Hogarth's piece in today's BeyondChron is instructive. He includes a direct link to the City Attorney's memo of 8/20.
This section from the memo is illuminating:
"...when the City Attorney provides confidential written advice directly to an individual Board member or to the Mayor, that individual recipient may waive the privilege on behalf of the City."

GM and Lucretia: Can you please explain why you thought the reference to Fong's outfit was sexist? I didn't discuss this with the reporter, but my interpretation of it was that the detail served to underscore the point that Fong appeared in civilians' clothing, in contrast to the uniform she wore as police chief, a subtle way of illustrating to readers that a transition of power has been made. Just my read. Did you react so strongly because the description included the color "pink?" If so, why?

it is pathetic that Jones has to call anyone who disagrees with him a sock puppet - news flash Jones, there's diversity of opinion and not everyone shares in your bitter, angry, full of holes "reporting" that makes you look like a fool. Some people actually support the Hairdo, and just because they don't agree with your Stalinist bullshit doesn't mean they're part of some fucking conspiracy.

Plus, you sucked off Daly and the progressives every chance you got so the idea you're adversarial is a fucking joke. You side with one faction of progressives and work to boost their fortunes. You're a CW Nevius of the left.

That said, Hairdo is a do - nothing dumbass, regardless of what a pack of dying partisan hacks on the left say, let's hope the new Chief will clean house and kick ass. Which should be the point of all of this bullshit.