Hi All. Just a really short one this time. I turned in the second check
at the DOE yesterday, and I still think the amount was wrong this time, but
I did point it out ("Ned Stark") and the Mr. Know It All in charge didn't
want to hear any objections, so I'm pretty sure we underpaid on Prop V, but
I think the County of San Francisco with its almost $10 billion budget will
survive with a few sheckels less.
Then I went over to the SF Ethics Commission to talk to the folks there.
They were pleasant enough but a total waste of time. Apparently the Ethics
people aren't really that interested in real ethical problems--and if this
wasn't one, then I'll eat my hat. The lady I had the conversation with was
totally sympathetic to what happened to us, but she basically told me that
the commission has no jurisdiction in a case like this. They mostly work
on things like if you didn't file the correct paperwork or folks at City
Hall voting when there's a conflict of interest and stuff like that. She
pushed it back to the Department of Elections, but I had already spoken to
Gregory (Know It All) there the day after the lottery, and he already told
me that Peskin broke no law as long as he didn't sign the obligatory
paperwork certifying that you're not opposing when you're really a
proponent and vice versa (the Gollinger incident is now part of the
required paperwork). Since Peskin didn't submit anything, we know he
didn't sign anything that might get him in trouble. She recommended a good
letter to the DOE to change their procedure for future elections, which
makes good horse sense. So, in the end, this is just another useless
government club that is no help when you need help. What was I thinking
when I thought they might actually be helpful? I must have been on drugs!
OK, so now it's time for action, and by the way I never did hear back from
Peskin, so after all this time, I think it's safe to assume that he will
not bother to answer for anything. I will write the Department of
Elections a letter regarding the incident and request that the procedure be
changed for future elections so that there's a real deadline for
pre-empters to withdraw a pre-emption so the public has advance notice that
there's an opening. I think it's going to look really weird in the Voters
Handbook on B that all the voters will see on the first 2 pages of
arguments is a proponent argument for B, no rebuttal, and no opposing
argument or rebuttal on the adjoining page. We know now that was by
design. Hopefully the voters will turn the page and see Les' sound
argument against and at least read it.
I'm also going to fire off an email to Michael Howerton (Editorial VP) and
Laura Dudnick (City Editor) at the Examiner about the incident and ask them
to investigate. Marcy and I met with them last year in an interview about
the ballot measures, and they seemed genuine enough, though the Examiner's
final recommendations for the election were completely the opposite on
almost everything. Let's see if they are interested in pursuing what is
obviously a dirty political trick.
Les, I think it's OK to fire off your letter to the editor and whatever
else you were working on now that we know the Ethics folks are useless.
Also anyone else who is outraged--let's make a big stink!
Thanks!
Aubrey
P.S. Thanks, Francoise, for dropping off the door hangers. You must have
earned your wings by now!