When the mayor asked practically everyone in the City and County of San Francisco to submit letters of resignation, he created a minor firestorm. Now, we learn from the SF Bay Guardian that he didn’t check with the city attorney’s office prior to issuing his grandiose proclamation. Before anyone could catch a breath, the minor firestorm became a full-fledged brush fire, further fueled by Fog City Journal’s revelation that Newsom’s Communications Director Nathan Ballard had originally announced that Newsom had in fact checked his decision through the city attorney’s office.
The flap now is about the legal ramifications of the mayor’s precipitous action. Chris Daly had asked the city attorney for an opinion on the matter, pointing out correctly that some of the individuals who have been asked to submit letters are not under the jurisdiction of the mayor for purposes of firing. And a few individuals have worded their letters so awkwardly that they appear to have submitted binding resignations though their letters should have been conditioned on the mayor’s final approval after the election. Result: the city might face liabilities. Moreover, the morale around city hall must be pretty low. How many times during this administration has city hall been shaken to its foundations by the mayor’s rash decisions?
If history doesn’t repeat itself, the Newsom administration is doing its best to make it look that way. The city attorney’s office is now looking into the matter just as it looked into the timesheet caper, but in the end the present flap will also probably come to nothing. A few mayoral candidates will keep it afloat until November’s Election Day. After that? Nada. Political firestorms come and go. Most are extinguished not by the fire starter but by a whole bunch of worker bees who labor mightily to make things right, or at least to make them look right.
I’ve seen this scenario played out before in other venues. A decision-maker, usually an influential individual, makes an arbitrary decision clearly ill-advised if not outright prohibited in whole or in part by a rule, a regulation, an ordinance, or some other sort of directive that applies only to ordinary people who lack influence. Imagine what might have happened in this case had one of the mayor’s third tier minions issued such a decree without clearing it with Newsom. Perhaps it’s to Newsom’s credit that he did the deed himself rather than ask the old suggestive question, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome man?”
But all of my conjecture is irrelevant. The relevant issue here is the mayor’s continued insistence on operating in a vacuum. He seems determined to avoid counsel and advice on even the most important matters. Sure, he has his inner circle, and I am certain they are fine people, but do they proffer hard advice and warnings? Or do they remain silent until they are certain of his desires before advising him to do what he has already made up his mind to do anyway? The latter is a classic political survival technique.
In the meantime, the city attorney’s office and probably other offices as well will pour a few tax dollars down the drain doing their damndest to straighten up the mess. If I were advising the mayor, this is what I would say:
Hire Sweet Melissa. She’ll not only give you good advice, she’ll be, as her name suggests, sweet until it’s time not to be sweet. I have a hunch she would be a ferocious defense attorney, a Steel Magnolia personified.
SF Bay Area 