After the recent election I wrote this op-ed, which ran in the San Francisco Examiner I thought you might find it of interest.
S.F. stops chipping away at its mayors
BY Jim Ross
Published: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:44 PM PST
The election in San Francisco on Nov. 8 marked the end of an era. Since 1998, 11 measures that took power from the mayor and increased the power of the Board of Supervisors have been placed before the voters of San Francisco. This trend began after the 1997 special election and reached its high point with the supervisors brought to office in the 2000 election. Of those 11 measures, none failed until Tuesday.
This trend has been so pervasive that it has become commonplace for any new proposed municipal board or commission to have a power-sharing arrangement, in terms of appointments, between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Splitting appointments to commissions between the mayor and the Board of Supervisors is a relatively new trend in San Francisco, rare before 1998.
With the rejection of Proposition C and Proposition D last week, San Francisco is entering a new era. Proposition C would have taken budgetary control of the Ethics Commission away from the mayor and Proposition D would have given appointments to the Transportation Authority to the Board of Supervisors. If either had passed, there would have been a significant erosion of power from the Mayor’s Office and an increase in power for the Board of Supervisors.
No longer will voters automatically vote to take power from the mayor and give more power to the Board of Supervisors. The reasons:
The end of Mayor Willie Brown’s term in office. Many in San Francisco perceived his two terms, rightly or wrongly, to be rife with corruption and influence peddling.
The election of a popular mayor. Mayor Gavin Newsom has some of the highest popularity ratings of any politician in San Francisco history.
District elections. While district elections brought the current board into existence, it is difficult for district supervisors to create citywide support for their programs.
No unified group consistently opposed to the mayor. Currently, no group is consistently opposed to Newsom. The mayor has also done a good job of not allowing a group to become entrenched against him or his policies.
The question now is: Will voters give the mayor additional power? We know that the voters do not want to take power from the mayor, but the next challenge will be whether he can persuade voters to support his programs and plans. With the exception of his tax measures in 2004, Newsom has had great success going directly to San Francisco’s voters.
In 2002 he passed Proposition N, Care Not Cash, when in 2000 a similar, if flawed, measure failed. In 2003 he passed a measure to limit aggressive panhandling — and even before these two measures, he was instrumental in passing a Muni reform measure and the Neighborhood Parks Bond. All of these measures are in a pragmatic, good-government model. Since his election, however, the mayor has strongly backed only one policy-oriented ballot measure of any substance: a housing measure, which lost.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has a unique opportunity to shape San Francisco with policies that will affect the lives of San Franciscans for decades to come. Those of us who supported the mayor’s election look forward to seeing what he will do with this opportunity and what his agenda for San Francisco will be.
Jim Ross is a political consultant based in San Francisco.