tv [untitled] July 16, 2010 9:30am-10:00am PST
argue. everybody believes it, and that's one of the reasons i objected so greatly the first time. i was having my guy taken away from me, and i had just one. so we are excited for the people we can get. these are different things, even though we are talking about the same topic. very different pieces of legislation. this is an example of voters saying, wait a minute, why did that come to the ballot? why didn't they just pass it at the board? it could be passed at the board, and i am saying that as part of a different side than my extreme colleague.
so i applaud supervisor mirkarimi's efforts and do not think there is a person on the body who would not support a robust police foot patrol program. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor alioto-pier. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: it is important to provide a little bit of reference. i was the one who instigated a lot of what supervisor alioto- pier was talking about. this was a highly-charged period of time when i made it clear i wasn't going to accept the level of violence in the jurisdiction of northern station, and supervisor alioto-pier is right that we had the honor of sharing
northern station. when 7 people were shot at the housing complex at friendship village, 4 were children, and i was not seeing attention rerouted to our district. i made it clear that if there are other areas that are receiving a level of attention that are not as highly-charged and violent, i would have liked to believe th epolice department and captain at the time would have made the right call and been able to bring in the cavalry that we had at that time. when we went to the police chief at the time, we were seen as to be pushing buttons, asking them to make executive decisions that
were not made. ergo, in the absence of having institutionalized expectation that the police department or mayor would do the rigtht thing, having a baseline recognition by san francisco voters that they would like to see foot beats, no matter if we are talking about a toney area of the city that is free from violent crimes and other circumstances, versus another mixed-use quarter, there should not be discrimination between these areas. but what led to that legislation the mayor had vetoed, we proved
then that there was a bias in where beats were placed and that seemed to be a district-by- district level, with more affluent areas benefiting from beats, and other areas were creating districts that could afford a foot-beat, how is it that areas were not as affluent and toney and were not receiving the same level of benefit? it never should have been that we would have to fight over a beat. it was absurd the police department would put us in this position, when i have had 7 people shot in the same area. it creates a tension between the area that doesn't want their
beat gone, and a severe situation. that never should have happened, and yet it did, and that is why we have to follow through on strategies. and it absolutely worked. we insisted the police department post a decoy car for 24 hours in the area where there had been a gang fight near webster street and they were going after each other, the police department were nowhere. so we had to call the highway patrol just to get them in there to post a car so there would be some level of decoy. none of that happened. so i appreciate the
distinctions, but the distinctions of what is going out in foot beats, that is what i am not doing. i get this out to the caption and chief, and we trust they will do the right thing. i would like to believe the situation from 4 years ago should never happen again, but i also want to believe the voters have a way of basnig that believe on this being memorialized by a voter mandate. >> i am troubled to hear you had those issues 4 years ago. i can tell you captain lazar, we don't have enough time in the day to describe what they are
going through, but if i have a captain that allows that many to occur, you won't need to call me because we will have an unemployed captain. i don't want to belabour the point, but we will continue to work with the community to make this place the saffest big -- safest big city in the u.s. we are on the same page. i do want foot beats. it is a piece of the pie as far as everything we have to do. you have my personal phone and can call me with any issues. my sense around here is "do nothing, do nothing wrong." yes, we have to givet officers
out of the cars. they have to be engaged in the community, and we will do that. i don't think we need legislation. if you give me the time and opporutunity, it can be done. i am sorry i came back at the end of the game and you are at the point where people have talked and promised and not delivered. it is unfortunate. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. i want to say, you know, through supervisor mirkarimi, no one will argue what was going on.
here i am, my neighborhood is toney and affluent. that does not seem overindulgent. we all have our violent times. i had a 23-year-old shot down point blank at the marina. we have had 3 violent attacks against women. 3 of them at 10:00 with 30 minutes, all within walking distance to our own beat cops. the idea my district should not deserve a beat cop, those are not the kind of conversations
that should be taking place. granted, what happened in the western edition was awful. it should have been dealt with by the police department. they did not need to take resources out of other communities, but it is their job to shift them around. there is a big difference between san francisco and the legislation in front of us. the only point i am trying to make is something that in my opinion could easily get through the board of supervisors. i don't think there would be a big problem trying to pass a foot beat program or adapting a solution policy. to make sure san francisco backs
this, we have already done that. we have put money towards the evaluation report, and we find 30% of respondents believe foot patrols are necessary -- that was 90%. public safety and quality of life issues, 74%. they believe foot patrols are a viable strategy, and we have other polling numbers and data we could look to that says everyone wants this in san francisco. what we have in front of us is something we could take care of even more quickly than a ballot
measure. so i do think the public allows us to do our job. we should pass it as a board, not use it as a tool to gain headway with voters when we already know how they feel about foot patrols and legislation. i would be very interested in getting somewhere i could support this as a legislative agenda item. supervisor campos: thank you. there are times when elected officials in city hall decide to take things to the voters. i personally think you try to solve issues without doing that, and times you do.
the issue of foot patrols is something that is replete with reasons why there was the need to go to the ballot in terms of not playing political games with the voters,. that is something that should also be asked. the item here is one where he chose to not go the legislative route even though he began the process of going after supervisors, he decided not to engage when he decided his people were not able to make the case he wanted to make. the same would apply to him, and with that in mind, colleagues, we need a motion on this item. >> mr. --
supervisor mar: this is called community policing and beat patrol. it does not mislead, and is the solution to creating more stability and safe communities, as well. so supervisor chu had said to split the file and incorporate the language provided, and this would go to the july 20 rules committee meeting. supervisor campos: ok, we are going to have a roll-call on that motion. clerk: bill going to the committee report on july 20. supervisor campos: it is a possibility that happens. it's coming back, right, to this
committee? we have to have this come back to committee, but it is possible those items go to the board. that is a possibility. clerk: supervisor alioto-pier. no. mar aye. campos aye. to ayes -- two ayes, one no. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkarimi, do you want to add anything? supervisor mirkarimi: i didn't hear you. supervisor campos: at this point, we would need a motion to continue. so if you have a motion by supervisor mar, if we can take that without objection. thank you.
thanks. continued to the next rules committee meeting. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: i appreciate the conversation that has taken place up here. supervisor alioto-pier and i agree on certain outcomes and intentions. the whole lesson learned should never have happened, and we would want any other district stations to go through what we have experienced years ago, even though they may have been extraordinary circumstances. if there are judgment calls being made at the time where it is not addressing needs of that
type, both reactive and preventative, this is why it is important that we have something on record speaking to the popularity of beat patrols. 90% wanted it, 79% polled. so i think that this is important. we shored this up with a level of commitment, and let us not forget, many laws have been passed that are not necessarily well-enforced, and this tactic, putting lawo n the ballot helps ensure we will see another series of commitments that have not been on the ballot previously. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to thank all the memebrs
of the public that have come out, the police chief and assistant chief, thank you for your comments. we look forward to working with you. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi, for your leadership. please call the next item. clerk: item number 5, promoting good government by prohibiting dual office holding in a city elective office and elected board of a political party county central committee. >> thank you. the proposal is an ordinance to prohibit city office holders
from also serving on members of political party county central committees. this does not impact ex oficio members at the state or federal level, commissioners, or department head. the proposal states one individual that holds city office cannot hold party office at the same time. these two entities are already separated by law in several ways, and this will ensure they don't overlap. you are bound by strong ethics laws, electronic reporting requirements, no corporate contributions, and strict rules on what we cannot door say in
-- do or say in this building. the purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the potential for conflict among individuals who hold city elected office and political party office. there is a way to do this that i am trying to staet. -- state. in the drafting process, the mayor's office worked to craft a proposal for ethics goals without running foul of these constitutional protections. i just say with the current supreme court having a recent ruling allowing limitless participation by corporations,
it is not best to try and get in front of ourselves, so we opted for the city attorney's advice to go for this prohibition on office holding. there are 3 ongoing cases in the country establishing an arc, an establishment of the legality of these prohibitions on dual office-holding. there is a "legitimate interest" in protecting integrity with these prohibitions. we have agreed with the ethics law revision, and that in turn makes city government more transparent and fair. by prohibiting elected
officials from holding political party office will help foster stronger government. supervisor campos: with clear requirements under the law an official has to take seriously, i'm trying to proposal, what the mayor is trying to do is not only address the issue of conflict of interest but even the appearance of a conflict of interest. i mean, isn't there an inconsistency here because you have a mayor who is introducing this measure as he himself is about to hold a seat on the very same body that he is
trying to keep members of the board of supervisors from serving on. does that mean that for purposes of consistency that mayor newsom will not accept the seat that is given to him as the democratic party nominee for lieutenant governor so that he as a local elected official doesn't also fall in the same predicament that his measure is trying to avoid, where you have a situation where the mayor of san francisco, an elected local official would have a seat on the party committee? does that mean that he will not accept that seat? >> thank you for the question. the short answer is that the city family decides to forgo those seats that he would be willing to forgo his seat as well. supervisor campos: so that means that -- well, presumably, this will be on the ballot in november, right? >> yes. supervisor campos: so while this item goes to ballot, will
he take a seat on the democratic county central committee? >> i don't know the process by which he is seated on the democratic, if that has occurred or not. supervisor campos: my understanding is that automatically gets a seat and he will be able to take a seat at the first meeting of the democratic county central committee which i think is happening in a matter of days. so will he be sitting at that meeting? will he himself or a proxy be sitting at that meeting? >> supervisor, the mayor has made clear that if other elected officials that are currently elected officials in the city and county of san francisco, chose to honor the spirit of this mohammed, he would hold himself to the same standard. supervisor campos: i reason i ask you ask -- the reason i ask you sir, the others aren't proposing dual service by local elected officials. if i were proposing something
that says that no elected local official shall have a seat on the central committee along the lines that the mayor is doing and i, myself, were given a seat on that county central committee while remaining a local elected official so that i'm not inconsent, i would not accept that seat because here i am proposing a policy change, if i really believe in that poll, i'm going to be consent with that policy. so that's why i ask you, because the other local elected officials are not making this policy change proposal. the mayor is. so i want to make sure that on the record we are clear about whether or not mayor newsom having proposed this measure that probets officials on a county central committee, will he take that seat in the matter of a few days? >> i will repeat my answer which will probably frustrate you simply because i am a member of the mayor's staff
here at city hall. i am not part of his campaign for lieutenant governor, which is the vehicle by which he has is afforded a seat. i simply will say that if the rest of the city family decides, those people that will be impacted by the spirit of law, the mayor as well. i apologize. supervisor campos: i understand. do you think it's consent for the mayor to say local elected officials should not serve on a county central committee and then to at the same time turn around as a locality elected official, which he remains, then at that same time take a seat on the county central committee? do you think that's consistent? >> i certainly hear you are implying that you don't think that it's not appropriate one way or another for me to judge that or make a statement about that. i represent the mayor here and i am conveying that message. supervisor campos: i would say that it is inconsent. if i had a measure like this on
the ballot, the way that mayor newsom is doing, i would be consent with that measure and i would not sit on the county central committee. >> and again, i just reiterate that there is a path where he would choose to forgo that seat if there was consensus among the city family. i'm just saying the same thing over and over again. supervisor campos: i think you can't have it both ways. that's the first question. >> ok. supervisor campos: the second question is, you know, there were a number of comments that the mayor made in the press about the concern with ethics and potential conflicts of interest and specifically the issue of members, elected, local elected officials taking contributions, certain contributions for people who might be doing business before the city, the board, and i don't know if you're an attorney, but as an attorney, you know that there are specific requirements that govern when you can actually take a political contribution
and you started your presentation by making it very clear that those requirements are very strict and they have to be enforced. and to my knowledge, the mayor is not in any way saying that any of the local elected officials who are about -- who are elected to the democratic county central committee have failed to fly with those legal requirements, or is he saying -- >> i appreciate you pointing that out. we in no way impugn the actions of any elected official in the city. we make no accusations explicit or imply sit and i appreciate that you give me the opportunity to say that. supervisor campos: that's good. it's an issue about the potential appearance, is that the -- >> appearance, potential for ability for, all those qualifiers. supervisor campos: given that appearance is a concern with respect to that, let's talk about appearance. the mayor as you know, as you noted is running for lieutenant
governor and there is nothing wrong with a sitting elected official running for lieutenant governor. i have indicated to him my own personal view that he would be a hell of a lot better a choice than the republican opponent. >> i'm sure he appreciates that. supervisor campos: in that election. he is running for lieutenant governor. and to the extent that appearances that concern, as you know, he has taken a number of donations as a candidate for lieutenant governor. so to your knowledge, has he taken any donations as a candidate for lieutenant governor from people who have business before the city and county of san francisco? >> let me preface my answer by saying that i am not an attorney. i have not been to law school. i have never practiced law. i am not the expert in this city in this room on cap