LPSF Political Activity proposal

Mike,

  Thanks for keeping us posted about attorney consultations, including
the name of the attorney you're talking with. Aiming to get a measure
on the ballot for the November 2009 election, rather than this
November's, would extend the signature-filing deadline to July 30
(that's the deadline we initially thought we had for the prostitution
measure, but then realized that the deadline to get on for the
presidential election was July 7). Personally I don't think either
deadline is achievable for a new initiative at this point. The
Elections Department shows the next election as scheduled for
November 3, 2009 (see http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?
id=61062), but one could be added before that. The next mayoral
election is November 2011. FYI, they also have a chart showing
historical SF voter turnout here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/
elections_index.asp?id=61511 .

  I've often stated that a measure related to city employee pay would
be an excellent choice for an LPSF ballot initiative, and I like the
populist appeal of your idea of tying official salaries to the income
of average San Franciscans not working in government. One powerful
criticism that would almost certainly be leveled against such a
measure however is that it would give officials an incentive to cater
to the wealthy, or drive poor people out of the city, in order to
boost the average income of residents. For this reason, a strict
salary cap at $99,999 (as well as a cap on pensions and other
benefits), automatically adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price
Index and adjusted by that mechanism *only*, might be a better
approach. Governments tends to want to understate the CPI in order to
make inflation look lower than it actually is, so tying compensation
to this index should be fairly tamper-proof.

  In the meantime, I strongly feel we should devote our efforts to
passing the initiative decriminalizing prostitution. It's very hard
to effect substantive political change without building coalitions.
Working with other groups that are actively engaged in the political
process is not only a way to "make sure that people know we're out
there" as you put it, but can also earn us political chits so that
when we in turn ask other groups for support when we have a measure
of our own we're trying to qualify down the road, our appeals will be
more likely to receive a favorable reception.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

I support the general idea of limiting the salaries of city employees, but
I definitely don't think an absolute $100K cap is a very wise policy.
Especially if you consider university professors or senior administrators,
or other types of highly skilled technical/science type positions, $100K
is far below the market rate for such jobs. If someone could be a
research scientist at Pfizer for $500K, why would they take a $100K job to
run the oncology lab at the hospital? Unfortunately many public sector
jobs compete with private sector jobs and do need to offer somewhat
commensurate salaries, otherwise you'll only be able to hire from the
bottom of the barrel, and we'll end up with an even more incompetent
administration than we have now!

Jeremy