You can run, Gavin, but you can't hide -- the Board of Supervisors sees your "community forum" play, Mayor Newsom, and raises in response!
The BoS Rules Committee has placed an item on the agenda (item 2) for next week's board meeting, for a motion to convene a special board meeting on.... Saturday January 13, 2007 at 10 a.m. at the Richmond Recreation Center, 251 18th Ave. (between Clement and Geary). Why, what's happening there then?
If the motion's granted, it would require all board members to attend Gavin's community meeting, that all the procedures of board meetings be followed, and that the meeting be broadcast on SFGTV.
The board will introduce the motion on Tuesday and vote on it next Thursday. Gavin -- your move.
Stomp it out along with us: Ques-tion TIME! Ques-tion TIME! Ques-tion TIME! Ques-tion TIME!
Picture by Adam Aufdencamp (from the same event as the previous Question Time post, so no special significance in the reappearance of the blue tie.) And big thanks to the tipster who pointed this out to us!
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
AWESOME.
It'll be like a political junkie's American Gladiators.
I can't wait.
This is high comedy of the laugh-out-loud variety. What an amazing move (presumably by Ross)!
The mayor's community meetings are a joke. At the meeting depicted in the photograph, Newsom took screened questions, written on cards. Not all audience questions were presented. The mayor talked about, among other things, his tie, his hair, and city restaurants. When he bothered to talk about policy, he pretty much promised all things to all people and said nothing at all of substance.
And Bevan sat there in the back of the stage like Gavin's little bitch. Didn't say anything during the event.
Understand that there are ways this can backfire on the Supes. Most voters have never actually seen a BoS meeting, or even seen most of the Supes. So this will be their introduction to them.
When Newsom wants to, and when he's well-prepared, he can be an excellent public speaker - on message and engaging. Let's just say some of the Supes are, well, scattered.
What the voters may see are 7 or 8 people, appearing very angry and vindictive (remember again, most voters have no idea who these people are), ganging up on one person, it could actually help Newsom. People often route for the perceived underdog.
Keep in mind Newsom still has that 80%ish approval rating, and the Supes usually poll in the 20's and 30's. Many people will be pro-Newsom to begin with.
If you're going to this, what will be more interesting to watch than what will clearly be a circus is the voters reaction and who they pull for. If they come out liking Newsom better, it'll have implications for his re-election. Don't assume the Supes will lay waste to Newsom. He wins by looking more mature. And let's be honest, this is a win-loss game geared towards November 2007.
Mirkarimi will be the one to watch. See if he reigns in the Supes if they get frothy. he doesn't want to be tagged with the negativity of the Board if he's running next fall.
Still, it'd be cool to see them all go at it in those gyroballs.
This makes me hate the fact I'm going to be out of town on Jan. 13th. I would LOVE to be there to see this.
What would have made Newsom seem 'mature' would have been for him to embrace the "will of the voters" (a phrase that easily rolls off his tongue when convenient) and to attend the full board meeting to address board members face to face. Instead he pretends that it is a waste of time, props up his own community forum as a substitute and then gets chased down by the board of supervisors. It is embarrassing for Newsom and for San Francisco.
Current Newsom supporters might come out liking him more, but in my opinion he has egg on his face from this whole situation. He created this circus and now he has to perform, and perform well. If he were to simply show up at the BOS regularly scheduled meeting he would a) be complying with the "will of the voters" - his line not mine and b) have a better chance of convincing people he cares.
I will have ringside seats whatever the outcome...
Point taken Chris, but you're thinking like an insider. The 'will of the voters' is a straw man in most things, since most people vote and then fuggetaboutit. Newsom knows this, too. A lot of the work I do is the translation of the voters to the insiders, and vice versa.
Some stats:
There are about 5,000 people who follow politics closely in SF. This comes from hit rates for the online news sources, like Sfist, the (old) Sentinel, or the chatboards.
There are about 220,000 people who vote with any kind of regularity. Everyone else sets it and forgets it.
Under 3% of voters follow this stuff. And, meeting time has had nary a mention in the Chron, Ex, or TV news, which is what nearly everyone uses for their city news. Even if we're all influentials, that 3% may become 10% at best.
Therefore, hardly anyone follows this, or cares. While you may think Newsom botched this, it will have no impact on next November, and that's all any of them care about - re-election or building their name rec for the next race.
People will only know about this if the Chron or TV covers it. And then you're trusting they give an accurate account whatever happens.
For voters to change their mind about a candidate, it has to be a visceral issue that directly affects them, like MUNI or crime. Newsom, like it or not, is playing this one smartly, since it won't affect the 50%+1. I've seen many races where opponents play the "candidate x doesn't show up" card. It almost never works.
In politics, there's no such thing as 'the right thing'. It's what gets you elected. Sad, very sad, but true.
David,
I just posted a column to my blast itemizing Gavin's failures as a crib sheet for Lefty potential candidates. I was inspired by your piece here last night and Matier's this morning. Clearly, you boys are out early. I'd link the thing here but I don't know how and it's too long. If you write me at h@ludd.net, I'll send it to you. You'll be dealing with it for the next year (I hope).
Nice analysis, as always.
h.
Have to take issue with the nary a mention comment. Did you happen to see Ken Garcia's editorial on this topic? And the Examiner editorial in favor? Cecilia Vega's Chronicle article kicked off this current round of media attention. That looks like some coverage to me. What sort of coverage would it need to rise above the "nary a mention" Latterman standard?
You may be right, there's been a little more coverage than I give credit for. With a more contentious issue, there are a dozen articles on it. It usually takes at least 6-7 pieces for it to start to register with "average voters". A lot of issues get one-offs, but maybe this will indeed strike a nerve more than I have predicted that it will, and take on legs. But of all the issues that will come up next fall, I think this won't be a big deal.
Thanks, h.
The old aphorism, "It's not the scandal, it's the coverup" seems to apply here. Newsom's evasiveness is more the story than what he's evading.
I suppose he's expecting a lot of the crap he's been shoveling to come back to him. That strawman police budget request, for instance, disappeared from his agenda as soon as the polls closed. Gone like the snow jobs of yesteryear...
So the Rules Committee meets on Thursday. Let's assume they approve the special 1/13 meeting. When would the full board see the item?
Who is going to pay the bill to temporarily convert the Richmond rec center into City Hall? Wouldn't it just make more sense for Mayor Newsom to walk the few steps from his office to the BOS chambers?