San Francisco’s corruption issues are not only rampant and structural, they’re downright creative. If not theatrical. A lot of corrupt water has flowed under the corrupt bridge, but let no one forget that San Francisco State Sen. Leland Yee was popped by FBI agents posing as mafiosos who roped him in on a bogus scheme to run guns to jihadis in the Philippines.
These jihadis went by the name “Moro Islamic Liberation Front” — yes, the MILFs.
So, that’s creative. San Francisco’s FBI field office must be full of ambitious up-and-comers who may or may not have had experience in summer stock. But the city’s ensuing decade of corruption has done its best to top L’affaire Leland Yee, often making up for quality with quantity. Yes, a tractor was involved.
The overarching feature of San Francisco’s years-long corruption tour has been federal agents and prosecutors swooping in to nail local officials that everybody long knew to be rotten, with local law-enforcement then belatedly making the case that there was gambling in the casino.
This was what was ostensibly in the back of Board President Aaron Peskin’s mind when he shocked, shocked gatherers at his April 6 mayoral launch with the announcement that he’d establish “a new tool for fighting corruption and cleaning up City Hall: An Inspector General, under the Controller, with the power of subpoena and investigation.”
An inspector general? That’s a very dramatic title; surely others also envisioned Russell Crowe glowering in an ill-fitting period costume. But that’s not what Peskin is envisioning. Rather, his proposal is, literally, cribbed from “best practices” reports for “promotion of the public trust.”
That would make it neither creative nor theatrical. And, if Peskin can persuade five of his Board colleagues to get to yes, we’ll all be voting on this come November.
What would an inspector general do that San Francisco can’t already do? Perhaps the best analogy for a California audience is to think of it as the In-N-Out Burger of anticorruption. The menu at In-N-Out is, essentially, burgers and fries — and that’s it. This is the singular place to go for a very specific thing.
An inspector general would be a centralized entity focusing on waste, fraud and corruption — and that’s it. The position would have broad powers, but limited scope. This is the singular place to go for a very specific thing.
That’s not how San Francisco does it now. A number of city offices can (and do) deal with municipal corruption as part of their much larger missions: The controller (which would house a potential inspector general), the Ethics Commission, the city attorney, district attorney and the Civil Grand Jury.
“It seems to me that someone ought to be at the head of this train,” sums up Jennifer Rodgers, a former federal prosecutor and director of Columbia University’s Center for the Advancement of Public Integrity who now teaches anticorruption courses at Columbia University and and the New York University School of Law.
Whether it’s waiting for rampaging feds to kick down doors, or follow-through by San Francisco’s diffuse set of anticorruption agencies, Rodgers notes that the city appears to take a reactive approach to municipal wrongdoing. An inspector general, she says, could change that.
“The truth is, it’s not great for any prosecutors to be the only way to find corruption. Prosecutors are, inherently, reactive in nature,” she says. “It’s not nearly as good as finding fraud and waste and abuse on the front end and training workers to do the right thing and speak up if they see something wrong. It’s not just who is doing this — but how.”
And that “how,” in Peskin’s envisioning, would include more power than non-law-enforcement officials now possess. His proposal would give a future inspector general expanded subpoena power: City investigators can already compel cooperation from city employees. But a voter-approved inspector general could additionally lean on government contractors and subcontractors receiving city funds.
Yes, that means nonprofits.
“Let’s use SF SAFE as an example,” Peskin says, referring to the disgraced police-adjacent nonprofit that “folded like a Ponzi scheme” after a controller audit in January found it misspent upwards of $79,000. Peskin claims he’d been pushing for that audit for a year. But, under an inspector general, it could’ve gone deeper: The controller “can audit the general ledger, if SF SAFE gives it to them, but they can’t go and verify it vs. bank records. You’d need the power of subpoena,” Peskin continues.
“If you look at the bank records, it probably tells a much larger story than $79,000.”
Under Peskin’s forthcoming proposal, the inspector general would be appointed by the mayor to a five-year term, require approval of eight supervisors, and could only be removed for cause.
Giving an independent anticorruption officer his or her free run in this city would be like releasing a bloodhound into a blood bank; the low-hanging fruit in San Francisco can be harvested with a shovel.
Federal agents arrested ex-Public Works boss Mohammed Nuru in January 2020, setting in motion this city’s most recent federal anticorruption scourge. But Nuru had been in city government for 20 years, “and we knew he was a crook when the mayor hired him,” pointed out former controller Ed Harrington.
In 2004, Nuru’s former nonprofit was barred from receiving city grants following an audit by Harrington’s controller’s office. When Mayor Ed Lee elevated Nuru to the head of Public Works in 2011, mayoral candidate and then-City Attorney Dennis Herrera pilloried the move: “For ten years, Nuru’s questionable ethics and repeated misappropriation of taxpayer dollars didn’t seem to merit a slap on the wrist from Ed Lee. Now, as Mayor, Ed Lee thinks it merits a promotion.”
Lee, you will recall, won that election. And, until the feds saw fit to intervene nine years later, Nuru did as he pleased in this city. Yes, a tractor was involved.
“We had said you can’t even give him a contract, and then we hired the man. Once he was there, why didn’t we watch him better?” says Harrington. “If managers aren’t doing it, an inspector general who is more aggressive would’ve filled a different role. The controller’s auditing function is not that aggressive. It’s not going out and looking for wrongdoing as an inspector general might.”
Harrington also liked that the position would be appointed, rather than elected, like “public advocate” propositions of the past. Elected officials, he said, “find fault and publicize it so they get elected again.” Rodgers, the subject-matter expert, says that an appointed official would be “someone more qualified than whatever dude happens to get himself elected.” Unlike a public advocate responding to a “one-off situation,” an inspector general is tasked to root out deep-seated government inefficiencies and corruption.
Rodgers’ list of best-practices would call for a separate office for the inspector general. Peskin isn’t calling for that; rather, the role would be housed within the controller’s office. This is a bottom-line move for a city facing a fiscal reckoning: It would be folly to ask voters to fund a wholly new layer of government bureaucracy. A well-oiled inspector general can be revenue neutral or somewhat close to it, and Peskin is selling this as a case of resources being repurposed more than enhanced.
This will, invariably, induce institutional backlash among the government entities that stand to have their resources repurposed. But they aren’t voting on this. You will be, though.
“Voters like anticorruption measures,” says Rodgers. “People realize they’re not the ones in the crosshairs of a newly appointed powerful person rooting out corruption. Opponents can spin it as a waste of dollars, but if you tell voters what it is and that message gets through, then they approve it overwhelmingly.”
Did we mention there’s an election in November, and Aaron Peskin is running for mayor? Because there is, and he is.
It is also neither creative nor theatrical for a mayoral contender to, simultaneously, launch a ballot measure as a publicity engine, storyline generator and soft-money conduit. Peskin wouldn’t even be the first candidate to do so in this cycle: Mark Farrell established a candidate-controlled committee last month to run on the two TogetherSF measures to enhance mayoral reach.
Do voters like Peskin’s proposal? Well, they kinda do! January polling obtained by Mission Local shows that 57 percent of San Franciscans are positively inclined toward the inspector-general measure. Not great, not terrible. But, after hearing pro and con arguments, that figure swells to 63 percent.
Could some benefactors, perhaps public sector unions, see fit to donate to a ballot proposition that could reveal waste, fraud and inefficiency in the city’s practice of contracting out labor to non-union nonprofits? Yes, that’s a possibility.
Could it benefit Peskin to make corruption a discussion topic — joining crime, filth and economic woe — and remind voters who was mayor while the feds were rampaging through town and arresting that mayor’s friends and colleagues? Yes, that’s a possibility too.
If Aaron Peskin proposed inhaling oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, a goodly portion of the city establishment would call for asphyxiation. That’s the nature of politics. There is a political risk in enabling Peskin’s political vehicle. But there is also a risk in opposing a municipal anticorruption measure.
There are many interesting decisions to be made. And, surely, creative and theatrical ones.
I’m all for more oversight to root out corruption but at some point we gotta acknowledge every layer of human involvement via boards/approvals/committees/permit expeditors opens the whole process to corruption.
In my opinion the more we can make our city rules clear and not subject to human approval the less likely someone is going to be able to wedge themselves into the process and abuse it. As long as there is this subjective process there will be humans that will abuse it.
Expand SF bureaucracy even more? It’s a no-brainer, hell no. We need to trim the incompetence, starting at the top.
No. That’s concentrating too much power into fewer hands, a recipe for corruption.
Jackie Fielder must be happy with the above photo from Peskin’s campaign launch.
RLE,
Don’t forget my Party Saturday cause I’ll be 80 !!
Jackie is following Nikita Khrushchev’s advice to be front row center for all photos as to how to be Party Secretary (and, excell at dancing that Russian squat dance and hanging out w/Svetlana)
I was in the U.S. Navy and I’d say Fielder’s Sleeve Stripes say she’s an Admiral in a Star Trek Fleet.
You like her or Roberto ?
Manny has them both scheduled and says he’ll give all 9 D-9 candidates equal time.
He’s got Peskin too w/Eskenazi on the interview I think.
h.
All talk and a quick passing of the buck. If Peskin is serious about this he would have gone after those who violated his own policy like Tom Hui and his son Jason Hui who ignored the Slope Side Protection Act the Peskin crafted as Supervisor. His office was well informed of this issue and he chose to ignore their actions most likely to embrace the strong Asian community and all their votes. Isn’t this a form of corruption in itself. Peskin, you know what I’m talking about! I brought it before you in your office and you looked the other way. How dare you.
@City Sideliner: Was the violation in District 3? No. Did Mayor Breed do anything about it? No. Did the City Attorney or DA? No. But it is Peskin’s fault, right?
And presumably, Peskin’s proposed Inspector General would be empowered to adjudicate issues like these.
Aaron Peskin is the best mayoral candidate in years for San Francisco. Some people will scoff at his extended terms on the Board of Supervisors, as I once did, but he knows the City inside and out. He is level-headed, fair, and is the only candidate who has a platform that makes common sense. Citizens are tired of seeing our city in national news for the doom-loop narrative. We’re tired of sidewalk shantytowns in the Tenderloin/Civic Center/SOMA, rampant crime, and empty promises from elected officials with zero solutions. I hope he wins and kicks Breed out.
What a crock! This isn’t a one person job. So just how many staff and with what abilities are expected to be needed. And since this job will be an appointee does anyone really expect the people hired won’t be ones with political connections to the appointer and represent political power brokers who control voter blocs? BTW what is its expected budget and who will oversee this IG to deter its corruption? I see “training” jaunts to seminars at resorts/conventions and necessary foreign travel to see how IGs in other countries operate.
The bottom line, like every other City enforcement effort it will be complaint and whistleblower driven. Nothing else is practical given the size and byzantine complexity of City departments and their overlapping duties. The actual day to day “investigation” will be administratively checking department paper work filings are filled out with a checked box that “no one in this office is corrupt”.
And this is how he will run the mayors office
“ Can I have more please?”
The first question is why have existing whistle blower facilities failed to address corruption?
– Controller
– City Attorney
– Ethics Commission
– District Attorney
The fix might very well be an inspector general. But we need to know what’s broken and why before advancing a fix.
An impediment to efficient, honest government is the zeitgeist of the
San Francisco citizenry. They want to have government take care of
all their lives problems. This causes a sacrifice of independence,
being dependent and thus fearful of self determination which
involves acceptance of and accountability for the consequences.
Thus, the Ruling Regime has no incentive to govern efficiency and
honestly. In effect, the citizenry now has to sleep in the messed up
bed it made.
Give me break!! This is FOS! All talk and no action. He is a fake vote hound and turn his back to his own policy. Please ignore this man and whatever you don’t vote for him as he is never going to follow through on settling corruption just like he hasn’t as President of the Board of Supervisors. He is a fraud.
An inspector general will have little effect. Keep in mind that the
Nuru scandals were uncovered by the Feds. The Governor, as well
as the Board of Supervisors, the City Administrator, the City Attorney,
et al, are beholden to the Burton/Pelosi Demo regime. Until there is
a change of zeitgeist on the part of the electorate, and a viable two
party system, the corruption will metastasize to the point that
San Francisco goes down the path of Detroit, Stockton, et al.
Oh, and don’t depend on the California State AG. He is in the same
boat as the aforementioned erstwhile Burton/Pelosi puppets.
A brilliant, no-brainer proposal by Peskin. An inspector general for corruption is severely long-overdue. Mark my words, this will pass with close to 90% of the vote on the ballot, just like Prop D.
That said. A few questions:
1) Peskin has been in SF government for 3 decades. Better late than never, but why the long wait on this?
2) Are SF Progressives willing to confront their own policies with regards to the nonprofit industrial complex, commissions and endless advisory committees, and acknowledge that these may be part of the culture of corruption at City Hall?
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front is an actual militant group in the Philippines. The FBI wasn’t ripping off puns from Stifler.
Sir or madam —
Thanks! I, too, can use Google. While the MILFs are real, this arms deal was fake. And, of all the jihadist militant groups the undercover agents could’ve chosen in their fake arms sale, they chose this one.
So, yes, it’s still funny.
JE
Politicians falling for fake MILFs? Where have we not heard this one before?
Lydia,
I’m grateful you’ve been allowing longer comments and if you’ll allow I’ll add some institutional knowledge from my years watching the scene …
Ed Lee began as a crusading People’s Rights Lawyer in Chinatown outta Law School.
He signed on with City and rejected a contract for a just-outta-the Slammer for Fronting as Minority Owner or Part Owner to get preference or whatever …
Willie tells Ed that he approves the contract or he’s out.
Ed approves that contract and everything else Willie put in front of him for years all the way to being City Administrator.
He took a step down to run DPW cause Nuru was such a bully that he wasn’t allowed into meeting with Senior Staff and no one could handle him.
…
On personal Level ?
After 2 fabulous years as teacher of ‘Severely Disturbed’ at OJ Simpson’s old Potrero Hill Middle School during which the Board sent a Nobel Prize Winner from Cal to watch our ‘Student Court’ …
Crossed wires with guy named, Napoleon who headed ‘Department of Integration’ and I was informed that the Board had voted not to renew my contract in a Secret Vote in a Closed Session hearing to which I was not invited.
I went to the President of the School Board and we had words and he was from the SF Public Projects and I am from the St. Louis Public Projects and we danced macho but no one believed it when I told them.
Guy was and is Keith Jackson who is in Prison w/Nuru and Leland before for ???
Agreeing to arrange Contract Murderers.
Now, tell me we aren’t living in a Simulation.
Y’all can’t make this up but …
AGI can.
lol
Go Niners !!
h.
Joe,
I suggested a new ‘San Francisco Cyber Filter’ to Screen all Applicants for Employment or Contracts of any kind.
In response to Lydia’s Week 4 of queries to D-9 Supe candidates.
As I commented elsewhere:
“Give me 5 pieces of data and I’ll tell you if your client farted on a Subway in Tokyo.”
Chat Gpt’s Free 3.5 won’t tell me much but the City has legal connects to NCIC and Interpol and … Facebook and Tik Tok.
Put that in your Inspector General’s In Box when She arrives.
h.
Aaron Peskin has been on the Board of Supervisors for 20 of the last 24 years (by far the longest tenure of any Supervisor in the history of SF) and just now — like Renault in Casablanca — he’s all-of-a-sudden “shocked” into action by the rampant corruption permeating SF Government and (so-called) Non-Profit Sector that feeds off of it.
Right.
Karl,
Aaron’s a Preservationist not a Visionary.
For Visionary see Matt Gonzalez.
Did you realize that from 1850 til Aaron became a Supe in 2000 that the ‘City Fathers’ filled in 40% of San Fancisco Bay and that Aaron went toe to toe with Willie Brown’s plans to fill in more Bay for more SFO runways.
Aaron won.
He’s a Preservationist.
He’s honest and faithful as a Boy Scout and an egalitarian.
Other than Gonzalez, Peskin is the most qualified Mayoral candidate I’ve seen in 45 years of watching San Francisco Politics.
This will be the first time he’s had any Real power and do not expect him to do anything flashy but for the coming budget deficit the new Mayor will have to deal with right off the bat, Aaron is the one who knows where the fat is and is a good enough diplomat and endurance swimmer to handle the temporary downswing better than anyone in the City.
He’s known every department head and developer and Real Estate lawyer and FD and PD command staff and NGO chief and …
He won’t give you Tidal Power under the Bridge or combine the Police and Sheriff’s department as Gonzalez planned but he’s smooth enough to kick someone’s ass and make them think he kissed it.
I choose Daniel Lurie second cause he’s hell of a nice guy.
Go Niners !!
h.