Posts Tagged ‘office’

YOU MIGHT BE A GADFLY IF … the SF City Attorney’s Office Makes a Webpage Just for YOUR Records Requests

Tuesday, October 28th, 2014

Like this:

Capturefsffffs copy

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: “Vows Aggressive Defense of the Prop B Waterfront Development Voting Measure”

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

All right, it’s on, the defense of Prop B (2014) is on:

“San Francisco’s participatory waterfront land use decision-making has included voters, elected leaders and appointed commissioners for decades, City Attorney argues

SAN FRANCISCO (July 15, 2014) — The California State Lands Commission today sued San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, an initiative measure passed in the June 3 election that requires voter approval for waterfront development height increases on property owned or controlled by the Port of San Francisco.  The legal challenge filed in San Francisco Superior Court contends that the California legislature specifically intended to prohibit local voters from exercising authority over bay and coastal public trust lands, strictly limiting management of state tidelands to designated trustees.  In its legal action today, the State Lands Commission argues that the sole trustee responsible for sovereign tidelands in San Francisco is the city’s Port Commission.  The State Lands Commission is additionally seeking a preliminary injunction to bar San Francisco from enforcing Prop B.

In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement:

“For decades, land use decisions involving San Francisco’s waterfront have included voters, elected leaders and appointed members of our Planning and Port Commissions.  It’s a participatory process that enacted a comprehensive Waterfront Land Use Plan in 1990, developed a showplace ballpark for the Giants, and continues to protect an urban waterfront that is the envy of cities worldwide.  San Francisco’s deliberative decision-making process on waterfront land use has never been successfully challenged, and I intend to defend it aggressively.  With today’s lawsuit, the State Lands Commission seems to have embraced the notion that any local initiative — and, by extension, any land use regulation approved by a Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission — affecting port property is barred by state law, and therefore invalid.  That view represents a radical departure in law and practice from land use decision-making in San Francisco and elsewhere.  While the City must certainly honor its obligations as trustee in managing public trust property, it is a legally and practically untenable position to argue that San Francisco’s voters and elected officials have no direct say over how our city’s waterfront is developed.”

(more…)

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Workers at GMG Janitorial to Get $1.34 Million for “Healthy San Francisco” Violations

Monday, July 7th, 2014

This sounds fair enough:

“Cheated janitors to receive $1.34 million in restitution in healthcare benefits settlement –
Herrera negotiates agreement ending legal appeal; affirming administrative order and S.F. Superior Court ruling to benefit 275 current and former workers

SAN FRANCISCO (July 7, 2014) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today finalized a settlement agreement with GMG Janitorial, Inc., ending the local company’s legal appeal of an Oct. 16, 2013 San Francisco Superior Court ruling to pay some $1.34 million to 275 of its current and former employees who were denied health care benefit expenditures to which they were entitled under the City’s Health Care Security Ordinance, or HCSO.  Enacted in 2006, the HCSO established the popular “Healthy San Francisco” program and created an employer spending requirement to fund health care benefits for employees in the City.

Under terms of the stipulated amended judgment entered with the Superior Court this morning, GMG Janitorial will remain liable for the full amount of benefits owed to workers under the original administrative orders and court ruling.  The company is required to pay installments of at least $200,000 every six months to a third-party settlement administrator, who will disburse payments to eligible employees, most of whom are Latino.  Financial incentives included in the settlement to satisfy the debt sooner involve dollar amounts otherwise owed to the City, to ensure that workers receive their full compensation plus any interest accrued.  The agreement contains additional provisions governing former employees who can’t be located and securing the debt through liens on the owner’s personal assets.

“This agreement will fully compensate employees who were denied benefits, while also assuring law-abiding competitors that they’ll no longer be undercut by businesses that cheat,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera.  “I think this settlement reflects the strong ruling Judge Marla Miller issued last October, and I hope it sends an unmistakable message that our Health Care Security Ordinance has teeth, and that we’re committed to enforcing it aggressively.  As always on these kinds of cases, I’m grateful to everyone in the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement for their outstanding work.”

“When low-wage workers are denied their rightful health care benefits, the human consequences are incalculable,” said OLSE Manager Donna Levitt.  “Workers at GMG Janitorial weren’t getting their health care needs addressed when the case came to our attention, and it was gratifying to see GMG start providing their workers health care benefits after OLSE began its investigation.  The settlement finalized today will compensate these employees for what they were rightfully due in the first place.  The vast majority of San Francisco employers comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law, which is why it’s so important that violators are brought to justice.”

The court order issued by Judge Marla J. Miller last October found “substantial evidence” to support prior findings by San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and an administrative law judge that GMG Janitorial, Inc. failed to make the required expenditures on behalf of its workers for the period 2008 to 2010.  After losing its administrative appeal before the administrative law judge, GMG Janitorial filed suit in Superior Court on July 2, 2012, arguing that the OLSE exceeded its authority under local law by ordering full restitution, and that the administrative law judge’s findings were unsupported by the evidence.  Judge Miller’s ruling decisively rejected both contentions in ordering the company to pay $1,339,028 to its employees “in order to correct its failure to make the required expenditures.”  The order additionally allowed the City to recover its costs in the action in an amount to be determined.

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office played a key role in working with then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano and Mayor Gavin Newsom to craft the City’s groundbreaking universal health care law enacted in 2006.  Almost immediately thereafter, the office embarked on a four-year legal battle to defend the law from a challenge by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.  The ordinance was conclusively upheld when the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in the case on June 28, 2010.

San Francisco’s OLSE enforces labor laws adopted by San Francisco voters and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  In addition to investigating violations of the Health Care Security Ordinance, OLSE also enforces San Francisco’s Minimum Wage Ordinance; Paid Sick Leave Ordinance; Minimum Compensation Ordinance; Health Care Accountability Ordinance; and Sweatfree Contracting Ordinance.  Violations of the Health Care Security Ordinance may be reported to OLSE at (415) 554-7892 or HCSO@sfgov.org.  Its website ishttp://www.sfgov.org/olse.

The case is: GMG Janitorial, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 512328, filed July 2, 2012.”

Oh Ho! Move Over Jeff Adachi, There’s a New PUBLIC DEFENDER in Town – Here’s the University of California’s New Ad Campaign

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

Arresting:

Here’s the pitch from this new SFMTA MUNI DPT bus stop ad campaign:

In short, UC kicks ass.

That stupid logo proposal is still being defended for what reason I don’t know, but Life Goes On at the UC.

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Reaches $4.4 Million Settlement with California Art Institute – Students Getting Cash

Tuesday, June 17th, 2014

The News of the Day, re: Argosy University:

“Herrera reaches $4.4 million agreement in dispute over for-profit college’s marketing. California Art Institutes’ ownership to settle for $1.95 million; fund returning student and new student scholarships; and re-calculate graduation and job placement rates

SAN FRANCISCO (June 17, 2014) – City Attorney Dennis Herrera today settled an unlitigated claim against California Art Institutes’ parent company in a consumer protection dispute over marketing tactics that allegedly underestimated program costs for students and inflated job placement figures for graduates.

Under terms of the agreement with Educational Management Corporation, the Pittsburgh-based for-profit educational provider will pay San Francisco $1.95 million to settle the dispute; endow a $1.6 million scholarship fund for non-graduating California Art Institute students who wish to return to finish their studies; and offer $850,000 in general scholarships to new students.  The agreement—formally an “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance” that is legally binding and enforceable in court—includes provisions for a sweeping array of reforms to Educational Management Corporation’s marketing and reporting practices.  The accord, which avoids litigation, includes no admissions of wrongdoing.

“I hope this agreement is a bellwether for other for-profit colleges, highlighting the need to fully inform students about their education costs and job placement prospects,” said Herrera.  “In a workplace where so much depends on education and training, students deserve accurate information about the schools they attend—and that’s exactly what California law requires.  I applaud Educational Management Corporation for its industry leadership in working with us cooperatively and productively.  They’ve shown a commendable willingness to address concerns about their current and former students, and to avoid similar problems moving forward.”

The $1.6 million Returning Student Scholarship Fund will be distributed to students who withdrew from California Art Institute programs between 2009 and today, and will be available to returning students for five years or until it is exhausted.  EDMC and the City Attorney’s Office will work together to publicize the fund to reach out to eligible former students.  EDMC has also agreed to new methods of calculating the percentage of enrolling students that graduate with degrees, and the percentages of students that are employed and that are employed within their field of study; and to publicize those recalculated figures in their promotional materials.  The school also agreed to train advisors to counsel students on the long term effects of student loan debt and default.

As is common with Assurances of Voluntary Compliance reached outside of litigation, the agreement also includes enforcement provisions that compel EDMC to notify the City Attorney of any breaches of the agreement on its part, and a stipulation that a material violation by EDMC will be considered evidence of an unfair business practice that the City could make the subject of a future lawsuit.”

Ah, Triple-Five California Street, Where Everybody has a Corner Office – A Sawtooth Design = Happy Employees

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014

See how this works? Every office is a corner office:

Hurray!

Advice to Mouthy White Boys on How to Deal with the SFPD (WITHOUT Getting Arrested)

Monday, February 24th, 2014

1. This is just my experience, but I heard this story (see below) repeated by various people in various locations over the weekend. It could be that this one has gone viral IRL.

2. I’ll tell you, 99+% of the time when an SFPD officer asks people to clear an accident scene, people actually get up and clear the accident scene. By not clearing the scene, you’re basically saying that the peace officer you’re talking to doesn’t have the authoritah to do so. You’re making things personal.

3. If you want to hang about at an accident or crime scene, simply lie. Say, “I seen it, I seen it, I saw the whole thing!” Then you might get upgraded to Witness status and then you’ll actually have a reason for being on scene when the LT comes by to check on things, which happens sometimes.

4. Believe it or not Dude, there are situations where I myself might be asked to arrest you yourself. I’d be very unlikely to do that since I’m not a peace officer. If you sued me for false arrest, I’d have to take you seriously. OTOH, peace officers, such as the very ones you’re crusading against, do have broad powers to arrest people.Do you realize that, Dude?

5. If the SFPD is worried about getting sued, it might be over the privacy rights of those they are assisting. Did you ever think of that, Dude?

6. The SFPD has the highest-paid cops in the world. If officers don’t live in SF it’s because they choose not to live in SF. So yeah, they’ll say SF is “too expensive,” but what they mean is that SF is too expensive for what you get. Do you see the difference here, Dude?

7. You don’t know which parts of the story to omit, Dude. You win points for honesty, but you ended up digging your hole deeper.

8. What do you want, a medal for calling 911?

9. Your friends and family and employees might support your struggle, but here’s what most people are thinking, more or less:

…having read the story, if I were to put a percentage for who is at fault in this situation for ending up in jail I’d assign Mr. TechDudeBroDouche 70%, and 30% to over aggressive policing.”

All this means is that you didn’t explain yourself very well, Dude.

All the deets:

Good Samaritan Backfire or How I Ended Up in Solitary After Calling 911 for Help

“I identified myself as the caller to the half dozen police who poured out of squad cars and stepped back onto the sidewalk in front of Radius restaurant. Sgt. Espinoza, short,* stout,* grey and assertive, asked Ben and me whether we had witnessed the accident. We said that we hadn’t, but arrived shortly thereafter. I was standing 15 feet from the scene beside Officer Kaur, a stocky* female* of South Asian** complexion.** She turned to me and abruptly said that I was not needed as a witness and should leave immediately. I told her we were headed home,** just across the way,** when my friend and I encountered the accident;** and that I’d recently broken my elbow** in a similar bike accident** here** and deeply cared about the outcome.**”

*It’s payback time, bitches!

**OMG, TMI, too much information, objection, relevance. Why should the SFPD care about your elbow?

David Bellona’s Street Photo Wins the Internet So Far for 2014: “SF HUNGRY, MARIN DRUNK”

Friday, January 10th, 2014

[UPDATE: The car's name is REDACTED. REDACTED's owner is REDACTED  of the city of  REDACTED, CA. REDACTED is the publisher of REDACTED, per REDACTED.

Here's what REDACTED says about REDACTED's "DRUNK" license plate:

"I realize many people feel this says bad things about me. I feel that says bad things about them"

OK then.]

[UPDATE II: Alleged super-private personal information that was not actually super-private personal information but, in fact, was useful to prove to skeptical MSM-types that people can actually have a personalized license plate what spells out "DRUNK," REDACTED. Boy, aren't we touchy touchy! Awfully touchy for somebody having that on his license plate in fucking Marin, the world capital of drunk drivers. I guarantee that every cop that sees your plate does a double-take. And I thought you had posted a little ditty about your plate (because you had). But if you want to trade your exciting high-profile lifestyle ride for my boring, unnamed and aging Land Cruiser, well, let's do it, if it would help you out if your shame spiral.  In any event, REDACTED.  (In mitigation, REDACTED is NOT the publisher of Gannett Co Inc's The Bold Italic.)]

This shot from Mark DeVito has got it all.

From the streets of San Francisco, the current status of SF:

Click to expand

Indeed, this is no place for a convertible!

Let’s hope that this driver doesn’t wind up on the Marin County Sheriff’s Public Booking Log any more than the average Marinite driver…

Wow, the Uptown Tenderloin Housing Clinic’s Randy Shaw is Hopping Mad at the SF Chronicle – Let’s Take a Look

Friday, January 10th, 2014

All right, here we go:, with excerpts:

“Chronicle Gets No Stars for Falsehoods About All Star Hotel
by Randy Shaw‚ Jan. 10‚ 2014

The heart of the story—-and title of the sfgate.com version, “Slanted Floors Hotel”—blamed THC for hotel’s floors “slanted so badly that people were falling down. “ But the article does not reveal that the All Star has never been cited by the city for “slanted floors.”

ALL RIGHT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE ALL-STAR HAS NEVER BEEN CITED BY THE CITY, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ALL-STAR DOESN’T HAVE SLANTED FLOORS? THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FLOORS ARE SLANTED. SO, ARE THEY IRL? ALSO, WHO ARE YOU, RANDY SHAW, TO DETERMINE WHAT THE “HEART OF THE STORY” IS? _I_ DON’T THINK IT’S THE HEART OF THE STORY. AND I THINK THAT STATEMENT WAS ID’ED AS A STATEMENT IN THE RECORDS OF SFGOV. WELL, IS IT REALLY A STATEMENT IN THE RECORDS OF SFGOV?  THAT’S WHAT YOUR DEFAMATION ATTORNEY (HEH!) WILL ASK ABOUT, RANDY SHAW

“San Francisco has many buildings with outstanding code violations impacting tenants lives, but the only news hook for writing about the All Star— which does not have such violations—was to attack a nonprofit operator.”

NOW WHAT KIND OF NONPROFIT OPERATOR IS THE TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC – A GOOD ONE? I DON’T THINK SO. HERE’S SOME BACKGROUND, FROM A LONG TIME AGO: Randy Shaw’s Power Plays.

“I’ve seen a lot of bad reporting in my time, but the Chronicle’s attack on the THC (publisher of Beyond Chron) is among the worst.”

 IS THIS HOW YOU ARGUE, RANDY SHAW?

“A reporter with no concern with facts, and a city editor unwilling to promptly correct admitted falsehoods, resulted in a prominent article defaming the hard working janitors, desk clerks, maintenance workers, case managers and management staff at the All Star Hotel.”

WELL, THAT’S LIKE YOUR CONCLUSION, MAN. TAKE IT TO COURT RANDY! BUT YOU’LL LOSE.

“The Chronicle’s core problem was that there are no outstanding code violations impacting tenants at the All Star Hotel.”

RANDY, I THINK _YOUR_ THE ONE WITH _THE PROBLEM_, RIGHT? AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE HOTEL IN QUESTION DOESN’T HAVE ANY CODE VIOLATIONS ANY MORE? WHY DON’T WE SEND AN INSPECTION TEAM TO LOOK FOR SOME? OH, WHAT’S THAT, RANDY SHAW SAYS THAT ALL THAT MATTERS ARE CODE VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY “IMPACTING” TENANTS? WHO MAKES THAT CALL? IS IT YOU, RANDY SHAW? HOW DOES THAT WORK?

“Chronicle reporters all have my email address and most my cell phone number yet this reporter failed to contact the person at THC who deals with media inquiries.”

RANDY, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT _ALL_ REPORTERS AT THE CHRONICLE HAVE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS? THE REPORTER CONTACTED YOUR ORG AND HE DIDN’T GET A RESPONSE, RIGHT? WELL, THAT’S WE HE WROTE, RIGHT?

“Nothing in the story refutes the statement by THC’s manager that all violations were addressed.”

THE HEART OF THE STORY IS ABOUT _PAST_ VIOLATIONS THOUGH, RIGHT? AND HOW LONG DID THAT PROCESS TAKE?

But then the Chronicle allows Eldon Brown, who has no technical expertise and has likely filed more DBI complaints than all of THC’s over 1700 tenants combined (32 alone in 2012-13), to raise fears of tenant safety by making baseless claims about an unstable building.

DOES ONE NEED TO HAVE “TECHNICAL EXPERTISE” TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH DBI? THAT DOESN’T SOUND RIGHT. AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BUILDING IS UNSTABLE. WELL, IS IT? AND YOU ONLY HAVE 1700 TENANTS? AREN’T YOU THE LARGEST NONPROFIT IN SF? MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST STOP GIVING YOU MONEY, HUH RANDY SHAW?

“THC is reviewing its legal options.”

YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SUE ANYBODY, YOU BIG BLOWHARD.

HEY, RANDY SHAW. WHY DON’T YOU DO A BETTER JOB WITH THE MONEY WE GIVE YOUR ORG – HOW ABOUT THAT?

Calling BS on Jeff Adachi’s Public Defender’s Office: All the Dozens of Drug Court Graduates are “Drug-Free,” Really?

Tuesday, January 7th, 2014

Well, here’s the latest from San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi:

“Why should defense lawyers engage the media? http://modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/theres-no-such-thing-bad-press-

Do you want me to tick off about five reasons it just might possibly be a bad thing to issue a “hilarious” press release after the latest public defender “success,” about why taking a victory lap after every case might not be the best idea?

Well, I can do it, but I’ll save that for another day.

Today’s bidness, via Mission Local – a News Lab for Everyone, is the claim that 53 recent “Graduates” of “Drug Court” are currently drug -free, safely-housed, and with a legal source of income.

See?

Click to expand

Who on Gaia’s Green Earth is believing this?

Can you, Gentle Reader, name me a cohort of 53 people of any stripe who are “drug-free?” How about 53 random Yale professors, for instance?

See? You can’t do it.

I cry foul.