Supes Aim for Driver’s Seat in Mid-Year Cuts

by Paul Hogarth, 2008-12-15

When Mayor Gavin Newsom addressed the Supervisors on December 9th about mid-year budget cuts, he offered few details and said there would be no supplemental de-appropriation – relegating the Board to being mere bystanders. The December 12th hearing at the Board’s Government Audit Committee tried to change that, as Supervisor Aaron Peskin proposed $8.5 million in cuts to the Opera, Police, Fire and Newsom’s press office. The story here isn’t that those affected by the Mayor’s health cuts got their chance to speak at a public forum. Nor was it just a remarkable dialogue about competing budget priorities – and the need to have “sliding-scale” cuts during hard economic times (adding teeth to the Mayor’s YouTube rhetoric about helping those “most in need.”) At this hearing, we got to learn more from Health Director Mitch Katz about what the Mayor’s cuts entail – with details that weren’t available at Newsom’s press conference. Away from the Mayor’s lofty talk about “mid-year solutions,” we got to learn the cold truth – and it’s these numbers that will guide us to an equitable solution.

The Department of Public Health serves the most vulnerable people in San Francisco. Knowing the record deficit means nobody would be spared the axe, groups reliant on DPH were understandably nervous and wanted details – as they already had to go to the Health Commission to demand getting spared. So when Newsom told the Board last week “there are some $13.5 million in cuts to health and human services that I could not take” and the bulk of concern was around DPH, there was hope that it won’t be so bad.

The trouble is, Newsom didn’t hand out any hard numbers to the Supervisors. While telling the Board they wouldn’t get an up-or-down vote on these cuts through the normal legislative process (he added that necessary “public input” came from Commissions that are comprised of mayoral appointees), Newsom said his Budget Director would make the numbers public “in about an hour.” Two hours later, while the Board was still in session, the Mayor’s Office had a press conference in Room 200 with a handout – where the list of $118 million “mid-year solutions” was summarized in four pages.

The four-page budget summary was vague, and wasn’t all that helpful if you had little background on the different City Departments (which were simply referenced in their abbreviation.) I had to ask Budget Director Nani Coloretti at the press conference to decipher for us what each abbreviation meant – so that all reporters could understand where the cuts specifically came from, and we could ask her substantive questions. But even the Health Department (DPH) cuts were summarized in just two paragraphs. While a few specific programs were cited, other cuts were hidden behind broad categories.

It wasn’t until last Friday, at Supervisor Aaron Peskin’s hearing on his $8.5 million cut proposal, that DPH Director Mitch Katz handed out a complete list of what the health cuts involve – cuts the Mayor had said are unilateral, and the Board would be powerless to stop. Only then could we see Newsom had “saved” just $3.4 million in public health cuts – not the $13.5 million figure he had quoted to the Board on Tuesday. Only then could we also see $245,000 in cuts to Jail Health, $77,000 to the Asthma Task Force and $148,000 to the SRO Collaboratives – none of which were spelled out in the public handout that members of the press received on December 9th.

Moreover, Dr. Katz’s list showed that some of the numbers handed out on Tuesday were inaccurate. The Health Department won’t “save” $9.15 million by suspending vacant positions – it was $8.90 million (a $250,000 discrepancy.) Delaying the start of programs would only net about $1.815 million – or $125,000 less than what the press release trumpeted. Are these major discrepancies? Not in the large scheme of the whole budget, but it could make a real impact for some non-profits that receive comparable amounts of money to provide front-line health services to the indigent – and are currently in limbo.

What did the Mayor spare from the axe in the DPH budget originally slated for mid-year cuts? $554,000 in mental health services, half the cuts in HIV prevention, the 21 psychiatric beds at San Francisco General Hospital, the “Health at Home” program, and security guards at SFGH (who won’t be outsourced.) Altogether, that adds up to $3.39 million. While the $13.5 million figure that Newsom quoted to the Board also included human services, that’s still a ten million dollar discrepancy – and DPH is the largest City Department.

When Newsom did his 7½-hour “State of the City” address on YouTube (a stunt to generate media attention and boost his gubernatorial ambitions in 2010), he barely mentioned the budget crisis at all – or the mid-year cuts that are inevitable. All he said (in passing) was that the City would be there “for those most in need,” which he stressed is “more difficult to prove” and “easier to assert.” His recent move suggests it was all rhetoric.

As the legislative branch of government, the Board of Supervisors control the purse strings – which means they can appropriate (or de-appropriate) funds. But because the Mayor spends the appropriated money, he can unilaterally impose mid-year cuts when we’re in a financial crisis – although the respectful thing to do would be to treat the Board as co-equal partners, and formally ask for their approval. The Supervisors, however, can force Newsom not to spend money by de-appropriating funds – which is how the Board’s Government Audit Committee could take action on Friday.

Nobody likes to slash funding, and Aaron Peskin’s proposal – which includes cutting the Small Business Assistance Center (an agency that helps small businesses navigate City bureaucracy), along with subsidies to the Ballet, Symphony and Opera – elicited howls of protest. But those complaints were vastly outnumbered by the people protesting health care cuts. Peskin framed the issue appropriately. “We need a sliding scale on the sharing of the pain,” he said, “where the highest wage earners get a larger share of the pain.”

At Friday’s hearing, SF Ballet Education Director Charles McNeil said they provide many free services for the City’s public schools – in contrast to the Ballet’s perception as elitist. “These schools can lose their funding because of this cut,” he protested. Of course, this suggests that the City isn’t really getting these services for free – and the Ballet’s only doing it because they get a City subsidy. Peskin lauded the Ballet for what they do, but said, “I’ve come to the conclusion that your patrons are more likely to be able to fill this need. Rich people aren’t going to write checks to S.F. General Hospital.”

The SF Opera also gets a subsidy. If Peskin’s proposal passes, they could absorb losses by raising ticket prices by $1.75. John Finck, Director of Public Affairs for the Opera, protested during public comment: “Opera tickets are reasonably priced at ten dollars,” he said. “It’s more affordable than paying your Comcast bill.” Replied Peskin: “you’re giving me the argument why we should raise your ticket prices.” Given the unpalatable options, it’s better to raise ticket prices than cut health care services.

After hours and hours of public comment on Aaron Peskin’s $8.5 million cut package, I found it interesting that not one person spoke out against two line items in his proposal: (a) $83,955 to delete two press people in the Mayor’s Office, and (b) $52,468 to delete a P.R. flak in the Mayor’s Emergency Management Department. It’s no secret at City Hall that Newsom has inflated his P.R. operation since becoming Mayor. But while cutting the Small Business Center, the Opera, the Symphony and the Ballet have elicited some controversy, no one passionately wants the City to keep funding these jobs.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Beyond Chron is published by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, whose Central City SRO Collaborative (funded by the Department of Public Health) is facing a mid-year budget cut.