Most Charter Amendments Strike Out at Board Meeting

by Alison Stevens Rodrigues, 2005-07-20

San Francisco voters will not see much in the way of charter amendments on this November's ballot. Of nine proposed amendments that were voted on at yesterday's Board of Supervisors meeting, only two passed - one having to do with appointments to the Municipal Transportation Authority's Board of Directors, and the other to do with the city's Ethics Commission. The other seven amendments either were voted down or tabled without objection.

A proposal by Supervisor Tom Ammiano to amend the charter by dividing appointments to the MTA's Board of Directors between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors was the first charter amendment on yesterday's agenda, and one of the only ones to pass. Prior to the meeting, Tomas Lee, legislative aid to Ammiano, said the supervisor was confident he had enough support for the proposal.

Under the existing law each of the seven MTA directors is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed after public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. A member of the MTA board whose term has expired may continue to carry out their duties as a "holdover" until they are re-appointed or replaced. If voters pass Ammiano's amendment in November, the Mayor would nominate four members to the board and the president of the Board of Supervisors would nominate the other three. Each member's term would terminate upon expiration of their term and no holdover appointments would be permitted.

Also, as Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier requested, at least one MTA director nominated by the president of the Board of Supervisors would be a person with a physical disability who also is a regular rider of the Municipal Railway.

"I think this could work for the common good," he said of the amendment, adding that he feels it has staying power.

The other proposed charter amendment that voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on come November is one proposed by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi that would create a budget process for the Ethics Commission based on staffing terms at comparable agencies in other jurisdictions. It also would allow for the hiring of outside counsel for certain conflicts. Mirkarimi said the amendment is necessary if there is to be an ethics commission with teeth.

On the other hand, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the only dissenter of this proposed amendment, said that because the amendment would allow for the Board to cut the budget, "it already lacks teeth."

"I don't see what problem this is addressing," Elsbernd said.
This was not the first time during the meeting that Elsbernd butted heads with one of his colleagues. Earlier yesterday afternoon Elsbernd proposed a charter amendment that would require one-time revenues, such as proceeds from surplus property sales to be spent only of one-time uses, such as infrastructure improvements. San Francisco's Controller would certify that the proposed uses were one-time uses.
The board needs to start addressing the city's debt, Elsbernd said, and this amendment would prevent the Board from exacerbating deficits in out years.

"It's a good solid proposal," he insisted. Supervisor Chris Daly was quick to dissent. "The Controller is not an elected official," said Daly, explaining that the Controller does not have the same accountability the Board does.

The theory of one-time revenues for one-time uses might be a good one, Daly admitted. "But I think it should be the 11 of us who determines that," he said.

Daly's main concern was that Elsbernd's amendment would give more power to the administration, taking it from legislation. The Board needs to continue normalizing the balance between the legislative and executive branches, he encouraged.

"Passing the buck and tying our hands is not something we want to do," Supervisor Gerardo Sandovol agreed. "We need to find the right people to do the right jobs and to make the right decisions."

Sandovol's was another proposed amendment that failed to pass. Under the current charter, neither the Board nor the Mayor may change the MTA's budget. His proposal would have given them the same control over the MTA's budget that they have over the budgets of other city departments. It also would retract MTA's exclusive jurisdiction over its assets and other operations so that "either the Board or voters could adopt ordinances telling the MTA what to do," according to the legislation. Whereas now the charter provides that the director's compensation be comparable to the compensation of heads of similar public transportation systems, based on a survey of similar agencies, the proposal would have required that the Controller, rather than the MTA, survey similar public transportation systems. Finally, the proposal would have provided that the Controller and not the MTA administer the review of MTA's operations.

The proposal was tabled without objection after Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said he did not think it ready to go forward.
Two other proposed amendments, one by Daly and the other by Alioto-Pier, also were tabled without objection. Daly's amendment would increase the fiscal authority for the Health Commission and establish a baseline funding level for the Department of Public Health. Since the Emergency Health Care Services Fund, established under the amendment, would include funds received by the city from any source, including a dedicated local source such as a sales tax, Daly asked for a continuance of the proposal until the fait of a particular sales tax measure was decided.

Meanwhile Aliato-Pier asked that her proposal, concerning a neighborhood beautification initiative, be tabled after she heard it did not have enough support from the rest of the Board. She was disappointed, she said, as she felt the amendment would have given neighbors and small business owners some control.
Another of Aliato-Pier's proposed amendments, which would have created "minimum qualifications for members of the City bodies that oversee and administer election, campaign finance, lobbying, conflict of interest, open meeting and public records laws" also did not pass.

Of the remaining two proposed amendments, one authorizing the board to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency, and the other imposing term limits for members of city boards and commissions and limiting holdover appointments, only the latter caused a bit of a stir. McGoldrick said he did not believe in term limits. "I'm not a believer of eliminating people who have wisdom, knowledge and experience," he said.

"To exclude them is to lose them. To give them up or limit them is to limit the strength of our government," he said.
The majority of his colleagues agreed, and this proposed charter amendment went the way of most others yesterday - it struck out.