Posts Tagged ‘contract’

Sign of the Times – Former Mayor Willie Brown’s Unused 17-Foot Tall Newspaper Kiosks Still Littering Our Streets

Monday, August 5th, 2013

Oh, there’s a super-long contract that binds us to have these sidewalk cylinders about for a loooong time because that’s the way Willie Brown wanted it?

An that’s why these hulking monoliths must remain, whether they’re used or not?

Thusly. This is in betwixt the new COFFEE CULTURES and the occasional parking space of the most popular food truck in San Francisco. It really does get in the way

Click to expand

I ask of you, Gentle Reader, has SFGov ever made a good deal?

Ever made a public-private contract where the public didn’t get the short end of the stick?

I know not.

OMG, Are the San Francisco Giants Unloading T-Shirts for $5 at ConocoPhillips 76 Gas Stations All Over Town?

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

Via Kevin “KevMo” Montgomery‘s always unique and (never deriv-ativeUptown Almanac comes some news that leaves me saying uh oh, now this is getting spooky – why is it that the Giants T-shirts you can buy for just $5 are sold at ConocoPhillips 76 gas stations (and at ConocoPhillips 76 gas stations only) in San Francisco and the Sunset District?

For example, how about these 76 stations at 19th Ave. and Judah and 24th and Valencia and Lombard and Divisadero and Potrero and 17th?

Here’s a shot from Google Maps Street View way out in the West Bay* from a while back…

Click to expand

So, can anybody check to see if these shirts are the real deal?

Seems as if somebody has a contract to sell these shirts at all these gas stations?

Did shirtmakers way, way, way overestimate demand for Giants merch?

How can they make money selling at just $5?

Is sales tax included?

Is said tax getting forwarded to the Board of Equalization?

What else can you sell at gas stations – can I get in on the taco truck craze and start selling, you know, after I get my own deal with whomever operates these stations?

This is a Grade A Class One Mystery. 

 

And, for your pleasure, here’s a retread post from a few days back:

[Area resident M. has the deets:

"Ha. I live on 19th right across Judah from this. It's totally an ongoing business, it's been there every day, all day since right after the world series last year and I have no idea how they haven't gotten busted just because it's so brazen and regular. I've actually seen a water department truck blocking the 28 bus stop in front of the gas station while the two dudes were shopping for t-shirts and the bus was trying to find a way to pull over and pick people up. It does tend to screw up traffic right there with so many people trying to pull over/pull in, so it's definitely a bit annoying. I have to assume the gas station owner gets a cut or something."]

This sure seems to be a good place to buy Giants shirts for cheap.

Now, I’m talking about the 76 gas station what’s on the east side of 19th Ave. on Judah (and not the carbon copy 76 on the west side of 19th.)

And my buddy showed me a shirt he got there that wasn’t licensed.

And yesterday, they had a sign up what said, “$5 T-Shirts.”

And here’s the scene from early August 2011.

(Is this an ongoing bidness? Does the gas station owner get a piece of this action as well?)

Now I didn’t stop to check things out or nothing, but, well, you tell me if you think I’m jumping to conclusions.

*You know, the Sunset District, but I’ve heard 19th Ave. being described part of the Inner Sunset, the Middle Sunset, and the Outer Sunset so I don’t know…>

OMG, Is Costco Basically Giving Away Samsung Galaxy S 4G Android Phones This Month?

Thursday, March 10th, 2011

[UPDATE: Whoops. The good phones are $479 - so take away $430 and you're paying $50 for the phone (assuming you're signing up for a two-year contract) plus The Man takes close to $50 in sales tax away from you. I guess that's close to being free. Unlimited data, two phones = something like $100/mo before taxes.]

I don’t know, but there’s some coupon you members got in the mail that says “up to $430 off” or whatnot – it runs through April 3, 2011.

(I don’t know, does T Mobile work as well as the all-time-grand-champion Sprint network in the 415? Signs point to no, so far. But your phone will switch over to WiFi seamlessly at home so that’s half the battle right there. And outdoors, T Mobile’s doing A-OK with wicked fast performance.*)

Go see manager Nick in the kiosk at the SoMA Costco** and then, You Make The Call over whether this is a good deal or not.

*Not that that matters too much. I’ll tell you, my old-school Sprint smart phone never dropped a call and always worked everywhere all the time (except for the basement of the State Building and your typical elevator). Until that traffic accident, it was doing fine – RIP, Palm 900-something with free unlimited data plan. Maybe I got spoiled with the Sprint network.

**They have more than just T Mobile, of course, but I don’t know all which ones.

Chinatown’s Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation Gets a 40-Year Lease for the Great Garage of Kearny Street

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Our 3.5-star-rated Portsmouth Square Plaza Garage has a new 40-year lease. Hurray?

Is this arrangement a “Transit First” kind of deal?

Sure, why not.

Will this arrangement please Mayor of Chinatown Rose Pak?

Only Time Will Tell.

Anyway, all the deets, below.

“Board of Supervisors Approves New Lease with Community non-profit Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation for the Portsmouth Square Garage - Chinatown based non-profit will operate the Portsmouth Square garage for the next 40 years.

SAN FRANCISCO – The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a 40-year lease with the Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation, Chinatown based non-profit for the operation of the Portsmouth Square Garage.

The lease, which was sponsored by Board of Supervisors President and Supervisor for Chinatown, David Chiu, will ensure that the garage will continue to be overseen by Chinatown community leaders. Under the terms of the lease, the Recreation and Park Department will receive all operating profit from the garage while the Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation operates the garage without receiving a management fee or share of the profits.

“In 1962, the Chinatown community banded together to build the Portsmouth Square Garage,” said Recreation and Park Department General Manager Phil Ginsburg. “Today’s approval means that this neighborhood asset will remain in the hands of the residents and businesses that it serves for generations to come.”

The Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation was founded by Chinatown business and community leaders in 1960 in response to the growing need for a parking garage in the neighborhood. Since that time the non-profit Board of Directors has constructed, financed and operated the garage for nearly five decades, all without ever receiving any compensation.

“For 50 years the Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation has served the Chinatown community both in operating this garage and in providing small grants to other community based non-profits,” said President Chiu. “For the next forty years, this community non-profit will provide high quality local jobs, help develop the Chinatown and San Francisco economies and support the numerous non-profits that provide services to Chinatown.”

Built in 1962, the Portsmouth Square Garage has 504 parking spaces and generates approximately $1.3 million annually to support the Recreation and Park Department. The Garage is one of five City owned garages operated by non-profit Boards including the City’s two largest Garages, the Fifth and Mission and Sutter-Stockton Garages.

“Our Board and the entire Chinese Community are pleased that the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the new 40 year lease,” said Jerry Lee Chinatown based Attorney and Treasurer of the Portsmouth Plaza Parking Corporation. “Now comes the challenge of updating the garage to increase parking, energy efficiency and revenues to benefit both the City and community.”

San Jose Mercury News Work Rules: Photographers Can’t Write and Writers Can’t Take Photographs?

Monday, November 15th, 2010

From the California Media Workers Guild, comes news of negotiations at the San Jose Mercury News concerning our “changing, online media world.”

Check out a clause from the current contract below – it explains a lot.

Meanwhile, up in San Francisco, writer John King seems to be doing a fine job taking photos to illustrates his points.

Ask yourself, how do these rules serve the reader?

Anyway, welcome to the 20th century:

“ARTICLE VI — JOB LIMITATION

(a)     A reporter shall not do the work of a photographer, and a photographer shall not do the work of a reporter, nor shall the members of the editorial department perform duties outside the editorial department, nor shall employees of other departments do editorial and news work. This shall not be construed to prevent the employment of reporter-photographers for special work after agreement with the Guild, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Provided:

(b)     Combination reporter-photographers may be employed outside Santa Clara County, but shall be limited to no more than two (2) in any one bureau. Within Santa Clara County, combination reporter-photographers may be employed only as follows:

1.      Two designated combination reporter-photographers may be assigned to the South County bureau, and may use cameras only south of Coyote.

2.      One designated Venture (outdoors) section reporter, including the wildlife writer, may use a camera south of Coyote on subjects to appear only in the Venture section.

3.      The Inquiring Reporter may use a camera for head shots which may be reproduced only in the Inquiring Reporter column.

4.      On a voluntary basis, cameras for the purposes of head shots only may be used by reporters when outside of the main office. Application of this subsection shall not be a direct cause of a reduction in force of staff photographers.

(c)     The Travel Editor may use a camera outside of the counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey; to illustrate travel articles only.

(d)     In the graphics department, graphic editors and photographers may be interchanged for temporary periods; provided that their competency shall be judged only on their designated primary skill, and that they shall not do the work of reporters or other newsroom employees.

(e)     A combination reporter-photographer shall not be required to be proficient in both skills. Competency shall be judged only on the designated primary skill.

(f)     Online outside salespeople (online sales team and one (1) online classified recruitment sales representative) only may carry lightweight point-and-shoot digital cameras.  Their photographic work shall only be used in online publications.  Affected employees shall not be judged by their photographic skills.”

Sarah Palin’s Contract with CSU Stanislaus Revealed

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Well, at long last, here it is – the much-discussed document has just been released: 

Contract (.pdf)

Judge: CSU Violated State Law in Palin Case. University violated the California Public Records Act, Must Pay CalAware Attorney Fees
 
SACRAMENTO – Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne has ruled that California State University Stanislaus violated the California Public Records Act when they refused to disclose the contract that brought Sarah Palin to the campus in June.  The judge ordered CSU Stanislaus to release the speaking contract and also awarded payment of attorney fees to the prevailing party – the non-partisan, non-profit, open government organization Californians Aware (CalAware).
 
Despite being fully staffed by taxpayer-funded employees, the foundation and the university refused to disclose her compensation for the gala, which was not open to students but only well-heeled donors. 
 
After Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and CalAware were denied a public records request for the Palin contract and any correspondence regarding the visit, emails by administrators were uncovered and students found pages 4 through 9 of the Palin contract in the administration’s Dumpster.  The incomplete contract showed Palin would receive a hotel suite, first class airfare or a private Lear jet, pre-screened questions, and “bendable straws.”  It has since been reported that Palin received $75,000 plus expenses to speak.
 
“This is a great day for transparency and government accountability,” said Yee.  “However, it is also a sad day when a public institution so grossly violates state law and when their legal counsel is ignorant of the public records statute.  It is even worse, that university administrators attempted to blame students for their own negligence and misconduct.”
 
Judge Beauchesne issued the declaratory judgment sought by CalAware and concluded:
 
·        “the University failed to produce any public records called for by (CalAware’s) request until after the initiation and service of the instant lawsuit, which records established that the University did possess public records responsive to the request as of . . . April 6 . . .
 
·        “the University’s failures to follow the California Public Records Act, and to produce records when and as requested, whether deliberate, negligent or inadvertent, constitute violations of its obligations under the California Public Records Act, which contains no requirement that bad faith or a similar mens rea be proven in order to establish an actionable violation. . .
 
·        “the reasonable inference from the evidence produced is that the University, in its official capacity, has ‘used’ the contract between the Washington Speaker’s Bureau (with Ms. Palin and the CSU Foundation) in the conduct of the public’s business; therefore, said contract is also a public record and should have been produced to Petitioner.”
 
According to CalAware, the judge also issued a writ of mandate requiring the University to release the contract as well as any so far unreleased “documentation related to the use of University property, personnel, facilities or services provided in connection with the Gala for which the University sought or will seek reimbursement from the Foundation.” 
 
Finally, the judge ordered the university to pay CalAware the costs and attorney’s fees it incurred in bringing the lawsuit.
 
CalAware’s attorneys Kelly Aviles, Dennis Winston, and Terry Francke, issued the following joint statement:
 
“We are very pleased with the decision.  Judge Beauchesne, who had taken the matter under submission on August 2nd, carefully considered the arguments of all the parties.  Ultimately, he correctly sided with the public’s right to be informed about how its money is being spent. This ruling upholds California citizens’ right to maintain oversight and control of their government.  Public oversight is the only way that citizens are assured that public money is handled in an appropriate matter.  We are hopeful that this will prompt CSU to reevaluate the way in which it handles public records requests in the future.”
 
The judge correctly ruled that the Foundation itself is not currently subject to the California Public Records Act.  SB 330 authored by Senator Yee, which would subject campus auxiliary organizations and foundations to the public records law, is currently pending before the Governor.
 
“It is time for CSU to embrace commonsense transparency policies instead of spending taxpayer dollars fighting to keep the public in the dark,” said Yee.

Dennis Herrera Throws Down – Office Depot Audit Reveals Millions in Overcharges

Monday, December 21st, 2009

San Francisco’s recent audit of office materials supplier Office Depot has prompted City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera to take action today. See the deets below and the .pdf after the jump.

And follow all the action on the Twitter.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior certainly is unhappy with the Office Depot today.

Herrera Issues Demand Letter to Office Depot in Wake of S.F. Controller’s Audit

City Attorney prepared to ‘vigorously pursue’ $5.75 million in overcharges plus interest, costs and attorney’s fees

City Attorney Dennis Herrera has issued a demand letter to Office Depot expressing his intention to “vigorously pursue” at least $5.75 million in overcharges together with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs incurred by the City in conducting the audit. The demand letter follows the release of an exhaustive audit report by the Office of City Controller Ben Rosenfield. The Controller’s 96-page audit concluded that, among other overcharges, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based office products supplier failed to provide the City with contractually mandated discounts for items covered by the 5-year contract, which was valued at some $18 million.

Wrote Herrera: “Any resolution of this matter must include compensation to the City for the costs of the audit, and for attorney’s fees, as well as full reimbursement for price overcharges, with interest…If the City is unable to obtain a satisfactory informal resolution of this matter, I will not hesitate to pursue the matter in court. Further, if court action becomes necessary, rest assured that my office will vigorously pursue the City’s claims to the fullest, including seeking civil penalties and debarment, if appropriate.”

(more…)