Posts Tagged ‘commission’

The Real Cost of Renaming SFO as Harvey Milk International Airport is Much More Than $250K – It’s Billions and Billions

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

The real cost of renaming SFO for Harvey Milk would be the losing the equity of the highly-recognized SFO “brand.”

What’s it worth? IDK, but it’s on a par with the annual budget of the City and County of San Francisco.

Check out the effort those crazy kids down in Millbrae make in order to curate SFO’s brand identity. To wit:

Click to expand

Like, go around the world and show people the letters SFO and they’ll tell you what it means.

SFO is a “world-class” IATA code, right up there with LAX and JFK, right?

Also, what if we kick-off an SFO renaming campaign for Harvey and the process gets hijacked by San Francisco Shadow Mayor Willie L Brown Jr.?

You know he wants something like that, right?

Real bad.

Just saying.

PS: Oh, and what would the new IATA code be? MLK? Well, that code is already taken, by someplace in Montana. And also, well, MLK, just don’t go there, girlfriend. If you wanted to say something like “SFO, An International Airport from Harvey Milk” or something like that, the damage would be lessened.

Here It Is: The First Ever S.F. Sheriff’s Newsletter – From Ross Mirkarimi – Poor Andrea Shorter! – Poor Ron Conway!

Tuesday, December 18th, 2012

Let me tell you, there are two kinds of commission heads in the 415.

There’s the kind what graduates from real Harvard and actually shows some backbone and…

…the kind what goes to fake* Harvard and, actually, appears to be invertebrate.

Just saying.

Hey, speaking of Ross Mirkarimi, guess who’s settling into his new job.

See?

I’d give you a link to this newsletter but I don’t know how.

This guy might know tho:

© 2012 San Francisco Sheriff’s Department 
Information Technology Support and Services  
Questions and comments to 

david.hardy@sfgov.org

Now, what’s left. Or should I say, what’s right, what’s a right-wing Republican billionaire like Ron Conway doing trying to make San Francisco bidness-friendly?

But oh no, now it appears he’s grown tried of politics?

Say it isn’t so!

Things, allegedly, were working out so well before, back when naive Ron Conway was spending money to elect and unelect Christina Olague AT THE SAME TIME. You’re not that politically astute, are you, Ron Conway?

Ah memories.

I’m sure Andrea Shorter the spineless jellyfish and Ron Conway the Decline To State Republican can figure something out over the coming weeks, months, years or decades.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to make do with Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. 

*You make the call on this one. If you, a government functionary, sign up for and attend a 19-day course at Hahvard, would you later put the experience on your Linked In? I wouldn’t.

And if you, the high-level worker at Equality, labored there during that controversial period, would you put it on your Linked In? I wouldn’t relish doing that neither.

Anyway, have at it:

“Harvard University Kennedy School of Government
Senior Executive Education
2009 – 2009

Activities and Societies: David Bohnett Fellow

Education
Senior Executive Education at Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

 Atlas Leadership Strategies is a political coaching and consulting firm specializing in client specific advanced political leadership skill development by providing discreet, highly confidential one-to-one support to:Chief Executive Political Coach and Consultant

Atlas Leadership Strategies
January 2011 – Present (2 years)

- persons considering running for office – for the first time or following a defeat

- newly elected and appointed officials to help set their agenda for the first few months in office

- experienced elected and appointed officials considering running for another office or transitioning out of public office (retiring)

Chief Executive Political Coach and Consultant Andrea Shorter, brings 25 years as an accomplished public official, cutting edge public policy leader, political strategist, and civil and human rights advocate. She has developed a results oriented one-on-one political leadership coaching style sought by state and local government officials. She continues to provide public policy, messaging strategies, and crisis management consultation to candidates, non-profit and political organization leaders, and key elected officials including Mayors, District Attorneys, State Legislators, County Supervisors, School Board Commissioners, Trustees, and the California Attorney General.

In 2009, Andrea was awarded the prestigious David Bohnett Fellowship at the Harvard-Kennedy School’s Executive Education Program in State and Local Government”

Prop B, That Massive $200 Million General Obligation Bond, Has Zero (0) Chance of Winning Next Month – Vote NO

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

Check out this recent bit from Will Reisman over at the San Francisco Examiner.

Simply, Prop B of November 2012 is a way to give money to a mismanaged department without any requirement of reform, and without any promise of reform.

Oh well.

Let’s put this household down as a tentative NO on PROP B.

Click to expand

Leave us begin:

“Mark Buell, president of the Recreation and Park Commission, said opposition to the bond is based on personal slights, and not on the content of the measure.”

UH, NO. IT’S BASED ON THE CONTENT.

“The fact of the matter is that there are people who didn’t get what they wanted from the department and they’re coalescing around this measure,” said Buell.

UH, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DON’T LIKE THE WAY RPD HAS BEEN HEADING LATELY.

He said that due to The City’s capital priorities and the upcoming election schedule, another parks bond measure wouldn’t be realistic until 2020.

PERHAPS THE ABOVE STATEMENT ISN’T AS EXTORTIONATE AS “DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT OR EVERYBODY DIES!!!” BUT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LITTLE EXTORTIONATE, DON”T YOU THINK?

Peskin said the parks bond was originally scheduled for 2014, and could easily be placed on a ballot before 2020.

YEP.

Supervisor Scott Wiener said any criticism against the bond measure would be short-sighted, particularly given the immense needs of the department.

NOPE. WE SHOULD STARVE OUT THIS DEPARTMENT WHILE WE’RE WAITING FOR A NEW DEPARTMENT.

“I think the opposition to this is incredibly cynical and irresponsible, because they are taking the position that, ‘We don’t like Phil Ginsburg, we don’t like some of these operational decisions,” Wiener said.

OH NO, IT’S LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY HATES PHIL GINSBURG. IT’S JUST THAT PEOPLE DON’T LIKE MOST OF WHAT HE DOES. VOTING FOR PROP B WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE HIM. IN FACT, PROP B _IS_ PHIL GINSBURG, MORE OR LESS.

“‘So therefore kids should continue to play on broken-down playgrounds, people should continue to sit in puddles even when it is dry out because the irrigation systems in these parks are broken, we should continue to have substandard pools.’”

YES! YES YES YES. AND IT’LL BE PHIL GINSBURG’S FAULT.

Unbiased Report Concludes That CA State Film Credit Program Benefits are Exaggerated – What About SF’s?

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

Does the “Scene in San Francisco” program work? I’m sure it does for some people, but does it succeed overall, you know, for the Commonweal?

No.

It’s the same deal with the CA state film subsidy program, which was recently looked at by the CA State Legislative Analyst’s Office.

See below.

Did San Francisco subsidize the horrible NBC non-hit show Trauma? Yes. Should it have? No. 

Click to expand

All the deets:

Net Credit Benefit Likely Much Less Than Reported.

We have discussed five issues that could affect the results of the LAEDC and/or UCLA-IRLE studies:

 Unknown assumptions embedded in the LAEDC economic models and their failure to consider the benefits of alternative public or private uses of tax credit funds (which could result in the credit program having significantly less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 In-state film activity that would occur in California without any tax credit (which results in the credit program having less economic and tax net benefits than shown in the LAEDC study).

 In-state economic and employment activity resulting from out-of-state productions (which results in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies).

 Crowding out effects (which result in the credit program having less net benefit than shown in the studies in at least some years).

 Effects of film-related tourism (which would likely not result in significant changes in net benefits in most years).

While the total effects of these issues are impossible to quantify, their combined effects are likely to be negative in any given fiscal year—that is, resulting in the net benefit of the credit program being less than shown in both the LAEDC and UCLA-IRLE studies.

Given the conclusion that the net benefit of the credit program is likely less than shown in the LAEDC study, the LAEDC’s finding that the output-to-credit ratio was about 20-to-1 is likely overstated, as is its estimate of job gains resulting from the credit program. Moreover, given that UCLA-IRLE adjusted downward to $1.04 the projected state and local tax revenue return from every credit dollar and given that we find that this also was overstated, we believe it is likely that the state and local tax revenue return would be under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar—perhaps well under $1.00 for every tax credit dollar in many years.

In any event, even if the combined state and local tax revenue return is right around $1.00 for every tax credit dollar, the state government’s tax revenue return would by definition be less than $1.00 for every tax credit dollar. The credit program, therefore, appears to result in a net decline in state revenues.”

Davis Street, Bookended By OccupySF, Hosts an Elaborate Film Shoot for the BMW 740 Li, a Car for the Two Percent

Monday, December 12th, 2011

So here are the bocce ball courts at Justin Herman Plaza, which used to host OccupySF until recently. (Our City Family now regards the place as something worse than a toxic waste dump. Anyway, expect new grass to be rolled out anytime. Believe it or not, getting this Eurocentric playing field installed was a major priority for our asinine former Mayor.)

Tons and tons of SFPD are still on the scene, keeping busy not doing whatever they used to be doing. So gang task force officers from the Bayview, seen camera left, get to stand around for hours and hours on the lookout for anyone with a tent:

Anyway, the Occupiers, some of them, moved on to 101 Market, until they get kicked out of there as well. But nothing’s stopping this crew from just milling about in the daylight hours so that’s just what they did. This was the scene yesterday AM, with lots of cops and a few newsbabes on hand. This is the foot of Davis, where it meets Market:

But Davis Street was rented out to BMW this past weekend, I surmise. Here’s a small, red, 3-series chase car and a large, black 740 Li sedan a bit up Davis at the staging area yesterday:

And here’s the scene from last night betwixt Embarcaderos 2 and 3. (Note matte black Porsche Cayenne minivan light car camera left.)

Well guess what, the other end of Davis, starting at the 400 block, was where a good dozen or so Ocuppiers ended up last night, having been chased away from their temporary Market Street digs.

Anwway, and this is news to me, the 740 Li is a recession-special of sorts, offering the 2 percent* a small 3.0 litre six-banger** engine in a large sedan instead of the expected 4.0-litre V8.

So there’s your weekend in the Financh, with scores of cops just hanging out collecting mad OT for doing basically nothing. And, hopefully, San Francisco scoring some coin from BMW (unless, of course, the Film Commission is subsidizing the entire shoot. I honestly don’t know how much taxpayers spend paying cops on these gigs. Ostensibly, the makers of the commercials pay the cops but then maybe get some kind of kick-back as a make-up, typically.)

On It Goes…

*The 1% would go for a V8 or V12, Great Recession or no.

** A quarter century ago, BMW pulled with same trick with the “745i,” which had a turbocharged six-cylinder engine displacing either 3.2 or 3.4 litres. You do the math to figure out whether BMW was lying more then or now.

I Don’t Know, Supervisor Scott Wiener’s Plan to Rein-In NIMBYish Historic Districts Sounds All Right to Me

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

Here’s what showed up in the email, below.

Is this like preaching to the converted or something? I mean, why on Earth would we want more historic districts in San Francisco? Aren’t they, and their boosters, part of the problem?

Anyway, here’s the spiel, choose or lose:

“SPEAK UP NOW FOR PRESERVATION IN SAN FRANCISCO!

On Thursday, December 8, the Planning Commission will consider comprehensive revisions to Articles 10 and 11 of the Planning Code recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, in addition to a series of controversial amendments introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener.

Attend the Planning Commission hearing:

When: Thursday, December 8, 12:00 p.m. (Agenda Item #9)
Where: City Hall, Commission Chambers, Room 400
Why: To voice concern over Supervisor Wiener’s proposed amendments that would roll back protections for historic resources in San Francisco.

Email the Planning Commission: If you are unable to attend the hearing, please email the Commissioners (with a copy to Desiree Smith at dsmith@sfheritage.org):

Christina Olague c_olague@yahoo.com
Ron Miguel rm@well.com
Michael J. Antonini Wordweaver21@aol.com
Gwyneth Borden plangsf@gmail.com
Kathrin Moore mooreurban@aol.com
Hisashi Sugaya hs.commish@yahoo.com
Rodney Fong rodney@waxmuseum.com

KEY POINTS

OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendments that would impose unique procedural hurdles on the designation of historic districts:

 Although only 11 local historic districts have been created in 45 years, Supervisor Wiener would require 66% owner support before community groups can nominate a historic district.

 The intent of Proposition J was to update Articles 10 and 11 to reflect best practices nationwide; the 66% owner consent threshold is a relic of the original ordinance adopted in 1967 and is out of step with widely-recognized preservation practice today.

 Other procedural hoops proposed by Supervisor Wiener, including a mandatory written vote or survey of all property owners, would make the process more costly and time-consuming.

 No other zoning changes in San Francisco are subject to similar owner consent requirements; historic districts should be treated the same as other neighborhood planning initiatives. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to make compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards optional:

 The proposed language would effectively eliminate any minimum standards for the treatment of historic buildings in San Francisco. OPPOSE Supervisor Wiener’s amendment to exempt large classes of projects from historic review altogether, including downtown housing development projects:

 The proposed language is a misguided attempt to exempt an entire class of projects from historic review, clearing the path for demolition, insensitive alterations and new construction regardless of the significance of the structure or the surrounding historic district.

For further backgroud and to read Heritage’s past comment letters, go to sfheritage.org”

“FURLINED” is the Latest Film Project to Hit North Beach: A Different Kind of Shooting on Broadway

Monday, December 5th, 2011

They’re shooting a film or a video or a television show or something up on Broadway in North Beach these days.

See? (Not even one machine pistol in sight on Broadway near Front)

Click to expand

FYI.

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ: More Money Laundering Found in Ed Lee Campaign – Meet CitiApartments’ “Eviction Goon”

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

[UPDATE: Senator Leland Yee is on the case this AM - he's doing a presser involving this latest allegation. (I guess it's too late to call this an October Surprise, and frankly, it's not all that surprising neither. Let's call it a November Expectation. Brace yourself for more.) Oh, and Leland is onto some Chinatown voting sting operation as well.

And there's this: "Statement from Chiu Campaign on Money Laundering Allegations - SAN FRANCISCO (November 2, 2011): Addisu Demissie, spokesman for the David Chiu for Mayor campaign, released the following statement about a San Francisco Chronicle report of potential money laundering by supporters of Mayor Ed Lee:

"This is now the fourth allegation of illegal conduct by Mayor Lee's supporters, and it should be investigated fully by the District Attorney and appropriate authorities,” Demissie said. “With six days to go before Election Day, it will be up to the voters to decide whether this kind of bullying, pay-to-play politics is what they want to see at City Hall for the next 4 years. David is going to spend the last 6 days of this race talking about why he represents a new generation of leadership for San Francisco that will stand tough against the special interests and shake things up at City Hall."

Paid for by David Chiu for Mayor 2011, P.O. Box 641541, San Francisco, CA 94164, FPPC##1337108]

Well, it looks like early-rising City Attorney Dennis Jose Herrera is the first one out of the gates to follow up on today’s piece from San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writers John Coté and Heather Knight.

Testify, DJH:

“Too many of Ed Lee’s supporters act as though they’re above the law — on money laundering, on ballot tampering, and more – and Ed Lee isn’t strong enough to stop it.

Amen.

Earlier this year, Ed Lee was picked unanimously to be an Interim Mayor. He wasn’t picked to be a Reformer. He’ll never be a Reformer.

In Ed Lee’s world, the notorious Willie Brown Administration deserves an A+, Rose Pak is not a cancer on Chinatown, and corner-cutting PG&E (“KABOOM!“) is simply “a great local corporation” and a “great company that gets it.”

Oh well.

Is Ed Lee Breaking Bad? Has the City Family corrupted him? Or has he corrupted the City Family? A little of both?

Click to expand

All the deets:

“Herrera calls on FPPC to join D.A. in investigating new Ed Lee campaign money laundering charge - CitiApartments’ former eviction goon led reimbursement-for-donation scheme, suggesting political payback for City Attorney’s 2006 tenant-protection lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 2, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera this morning called on the state Fair Political Practices Commission to join District Attorney George Gascón in reviewing new allegations reported in today’s San Francisco Chronicle that Ed Lee’s mayoral campaign received donations that appear to have been illegally laundered to skirt San Francisco $500 per donor contribution maximum.[1] Andrew Hawkins, a property services manager whose harrowing tenant intimidation tactics were central to Herrera’s lawsuit five years ago against the Lembi Group landlords’ once high-rolling CitiApartments empire, promised reimbursements to at least sixteen employees in exchange for maximum contributions to Ed Lee’s mayoral campaign at an Oct. 18, 2011 fundraiser, according to the Chronicle.

It is the second major allegation of campaign money laundering to benefit Ed Lee’s campaign. The first, involving GO Lorrie’s airport shuttle, is the subject of separate investigations by Gascón’s office and the FPPC, the state commission responsible to investigate and impose penalties for violations of the California Political Reform Act. Such schemes have been prosecuted as felonies in California for conspiring to evade campaign contribution limits, and for making campaign contributions under false names.

I think San Franciscans have now seen enough,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “Too many of Ed Lee’s supporters act as though they’re above the law — on money laundering, on ballot tampering, and more — and Ed Lee isn’t strong enough to stop it. If this is how they behave before an election, just imagine how they’ll behave after the election, if Ed Lee wins. This scheme is clearly a bid for political payback by CitiApartments henchmen for my litigation to protect tenants five years ago. It is patently illegal, and I call on the FPPC to join the District Attorney in investigating.”

Hawkins is listed in Ed Lee’s campaign disclosures as the owner of Archway Property Services. As the one-time head of CitiApartments’ “tenant relocation program,” the gun-carrying Hawkins is reported to have coerced more than 2,500 tenants out of their rent-controlled units, and once boasted in civil court testimony, “I run people out of their apartments for a living. It’s what I do.

Several recipients of Hawkins’ email invitation to an Oct. 18 event on Russian Hill made contributions to Ed Lee’s campaign on the same date. All contributed the maximum $500.

Herrera sued the CitiApartments residential rental property behemoth in Aug. 2006 for an array of unlawful business and tenant harassment practices, which sought to dispossess long-term residents of their rent-controlled apartments. The coerced vacancies freed the company to make often-unpermitted renovations to units, and then re-rent them to new tenants at dramatically increased market rates. The illegal business model enabled CitiApartments, Skyline Realty and other entities under the sway of real estate family patriarch Frank Lembi to aggressively outbid competitors for residential properties throughout San Francisco for several years — before lawsuits and a sharp economic downturn forced the aspiring empire into bankruptcies, foreclosures and receiverships.

A 2009 San Francisco Magazine feature story on the Lembi real estate empire[2] described Andrew Hawkins as “a burly former nightclub bouncer who headed up CitiApartments’ relocation program.” Hawkins reportedly led teams as large as 14 full-time employees, according to the report, and the company estimated that “Hawkins relocated more than 2,500 tenants.” An earlier exposé in 2006 by the San Francisco Bay Guardian[3] cited civil court testimony in which Hawkins boasted to one tenant’s family member, “I run people out of their apartments for a living. It’s what I do.”

# # #

SOURCES:
[1] Source: “Ed Lee donors face money-laundering allegations” by John Coté and Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 2, 2011, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/02/MNKJ1LOMB7.DTL
[2] Source: “War of values” by Danelle Morton, San Francisco Magazine, Nov. 19, 2009, http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/war-of-values
[3] Source: “The Scumlords: Part One of a Three-Part Series” by G.W. Schulz, San Francisco Bay Guardian, March 8, 2006, http://www.sfbg.com/40/23/news_skyline.html

Oh No, Ed Lee! Rose Pak and Willie Brown Throw Down Against SF Ethics Commission in Sing Tao Daily!

Monday, August 8th, 2011

I don’t know what to make of this image below.

Is it a portion of yesterday’s Sing Tao Daily? (And, if so, wouldn’t that please Caroline Chen of the SF Weekly?)

And does it have some bons mots from Chinatown ward healer Rose Pak and former Mayor Willie Brown?

And does it concern their reactions to the San Francisco Ethics Commission coming down hard on defunct (or maybe not-so-defunct after allRun Ed Run and area attorney Enrique Pearce?

As always, You Make The Call.

Exhibit A, from Rose Pak, on the topic of the recent statements from San Francisco Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix:

“He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Snap!

And Exhibit B, from His Willieness*:

 ”Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.”

(Keep in mind when you hear allegations of constitutionality and whatnot, that Willie Brown went to UC Hastings School of Law and Enrique Pearce and Mayor Ed Lee both attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.)

See? Read it for yourself:

Oh, how about this crude translation? It’s the best I can do right now:

“In response to the letter from San Francisco Ethics Commission Director John St. Croix, supporters of Ed Lee for Mayor reprimanded St. Croix for actions being based on nothing. They also questioned his qualification for the position. 

Chinese Chamber of Commerce consultant Rose Pak described it the biggest joke of the world. She said it is full of nonsense. He didn’t know what he’s talking about. “He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.

Enrique Pearce had consulted St. Croix. However, the latter said differently afterwards. Besides, he didn’t provide written replies to questions that Progress for All raised or gave explanations, said Rose Pak. “I will be the first one not to comply. You don’t have the authority to formulate the law, which is not free to go by your interpretation.”

 Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.

Hey, what do you think? Is this an accurate translation? Tell me, tell me if you think the translation isn’t good.

*Speaking of Willie Brown (who still writes for the San Francisco Chronicle) and Rose Pak (who used to write for the San Francisco Chronicle), here’s a bit (in the San Francisco Chronicle) from Willie on Rose circa April 2011:

Holding court at the party for the opening of the new airport terminal, Rose was seated at the table with interim Mayor Ed Lee and his wife, Anita, and a host of other local officials.

“I want every one of you to call his office and tell him he should run for mayor,” Rose told the table. “And do it right away so that there’s no misunderstanding.”

Then she turned to the architect David Gensler.

“Didn’t you do this terminal?” she asked.

“Yes,” he said.

“Didn’t you remodel this terminal before?”

“Yes,” he said.

“Then your firm should raise a million dollars for his election campaign.”

Poor Gensler, he didn’t know what hit him.”

Oh No, Ed Lee! Bogus “Run Ed Run” Committee to Get Called On The Carpet on August 8th, 2011

Friday, August 5th, 2011

Oh, it’s on. It’s on the agenda for the next meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission:

Consideration of the Status of “Progress for All,” an entity registered as a General Purpose Committee in San Francisco. This organization is responsible for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign and claims its primary purpose is to convince Mayor Ed Lee to run for election to the office that he currently holds. The Executive Director has instructed Progress for All to refile as a “Primarily Formed Committee” as its independent expenditures have the effect of promoting an Ed Lee candidacy to the voters. As a matter of policy, the Commission will discuss the status of Progress for All and possibly determine what, if any, policy and regulatory changes are necessary to address similar situations in the future. The Commission may also discuss whether to redraft, withdraw or update a prior informal advice letter to the Progress for All Committee. (Discussion and possible action.)”

It turns out that some of these unenthusiastic people were getting paid $11 an hour? That would explain a lot:

Click to expand

The gritty nitty:

“During the current Mayoral election cycle, two committees formed with the stated
intention of convincing Mayor Ed Lee to run for the office which he now holds. The
first, called “Progress for All” registered as a committee on May 18, 2011 (and refiled
on June 23) and is the sponsor of the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. The second, called
“Support Drafting Ed Lee for Mayor 2011” registered as a committee on July 19. A
third group was also formed, but reportedly did not raise or spend any money and
therefore did not qualify as a committee.

State and local law provide definitions of types of committees and their filing
responsibilities. Initially, the scope of the activities of these committees was unclear.
In an informal advice letter date May 17, 2011, the Commission answered a
hypothetical question from Enrique Pearce, who would become a hired consultant for
Progress for All. However, the question posed in that letter is only tangential to the
policy question before the Commission. While it is clear that the citizens expect
political activity, particularly fundraising and spending, to be regulated, under which
state and local regulations are committees such as the two mentioned above most
appropriately placed?”

It goes on and on…

(more…)