Ex-Supervisor Ed Jew receives additional year of state-sponsored vacation

Ed Jew is headed to jail. Again.

Actually, Jew, the former San Francisco Supervisor, won’t start serving his sentence until July 1, when he is scheduled to surrender to police. The one-year jail sentence Jew received Wednesday, for lying about living in San Francisco when he ran for Supervisor in 2006, adds an additional year to the five-years-four-months he is sentenced to spend in federal prison for extortion.

Jew’s extortion conviction stemmed from an FBI sting in 2007. FBI surveillance video captured footage of Jew accepting $40,000 from the owner of a fast food restaurant in Jew’s district. The money was half of an $80,000 bribe Jew admitted to demanding from the District 4 business owner. In exchange for the cash, Jew promised his help in smoothing out the restaurant’s permitting issues.

With two convictions for what amounts to unethical behavior, Jew’s reputation as an upstanding citizen or honorable civic leader is shot. He deserves to be punished for abusing the power of his position and assaulting the public’s trust. But, logically, sending Jew to jail for up-to six years (though he’ll likely only serve four, at most) makes little fiscal sense.

Traditionally, in the U.S., removing individuals from society—the adult version of a “time-out”—is how we punish those who violate societal rules. Yet, this time-out technique is costly and teaches little to improve the character or societal contributions of the incarcerated. Those locked-up by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in the U.S., cost taxpayers, in 2001 [the last date for which data was available], $22,632 per inmate, per day. If Jew served even six years of his initial sentence, his incarnation would cost taxpayers well over $100,000—twenty thousand more than the $80,000 the FBI caught Jew exhorting from the restaurant owner.

Jew’s lawyer complained about the harsh nature of the charges: "Between the federal and state systems, this punishment is serious. Most politicians don't receive sentences like this." He’s right; usually politicians get off with a slap on the wrist. And in that light this is a serious sentence, but mail fraud, bribery and extortion are serious crimes. Still, Jew will spend most of his time in the sort of facility where Martha Stewart spent a few months, on a so-called federally sponsored vacation – and possibly another eight months in country jail.

What’s the point of jailing Jew? To teach Jew a lesson for a crime he won't likely have the opportunity to commit again, even after serving his sentence? Why spend the money incarcerating a non-violent offender?

Maybe he should experience what it’s like not to have recourse to hot water or consistent electricity and live surrounded by garbage. Who is he to judge? No water use, garbage activity or power showed up for the Sunset District house where Jew claimed he lived when her ran for Supervisor.

Let’s slap a tracking bracelet on the ousted-supervisor and relegate him to pay his debt to society by serving his time in a shelter or one of the city’s single-resident-occupancy hotels. Make him spend the next five years volunteering in the neighborhood he represented, but never lived. His lesson may be long, but it should not be unnecessarily costly.

Amy Kniss SF Law and Politics Examiner

Sentient Supervisor settles score: Labor left seatless on Golden Gate Bridge Board

By Amy Kniss

Supervisor Chris Daly doesn’t much care for Larry Mazzola, Jr., nor does he have much reason to. The Local 38 Plumbers Union, of which Mazzola, Jr., is the assistant business manager, supported Rob Black against Daly in 2006. According to Daly, Local 38 set the tone to what Daly described as the “nastiest political race in San Francisco history" and spent $15,000 on an attack mailer that directed recipients to www.dumpdaly.com.

Daly prevailed in the 2006 race, despite Local 38’s opposition.

“This is what politics is about,” according to Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier. Political campaigns are brutal. “It’s part of what we do,” she continued, “it’s our job essentially.” Alioto-Pier acknowledges that Daly’s election bid was rough, but said, “Come on, get over it. Grow up.”

She believes once you prevail in an election you forget the sting and harsh encounters you endured in the campaign, or at least you should if you’re going to fairly and effectively serve the city and the residents of San Francisco. “The fact that he is still brooding about it really shows something about his character,” said Alioto-Pier.

Daly would agree and he doesn’t think that’s a bad thing. As a ‘sentient being,’ Daly says, “Sure, yes, absolutely, my personal experiences influence my political decisions.” He thinks this is true for us all, including Alioto-Pier: the personal-is-political and all that.

Mazzola, Jr., threw his wrench into the ring in his bid for the number-two seat on the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District Board (GGTD), knowing it was a seat traditionally, but not legislatively, reserved for a Labor representative. Perhaps Mazzola, Jr., thought Labor’s endorsement would provide mitigating circumstances powerful enough to pressure Daly into forgetting their bad blood, or at least approving Mazzola, Jr.’s, appointment to the GGTD. No such luck.

During the Rules Committee hearing to fill empty seats on the GGTD, March 5, the sentient Supervisor revealed that time had yet to heal the wounds he suffered at the hands of Local 38 back in 2006. Daly told Mazzola, Jr., flat out: "You’re not going to get my support.” Daly actually seemed surprised that Mazzola, Jr., would have such a sense of entitlement to appear before the Committee. “If I were you,” Daly said, “I wouldn't be standing in front of me asking for this position." To which Mazzola, Jr., replied, “I don’t want your support.”

With the hope that the matter could be settled eventually, the Rules Committee held off on filling the seats. When the Board of Supervisors revisited the GGTD appointments on March 31, Mazzola, Jr., was still the unanimous choice of Labor. Again the decision was postponed. Board President and Supervisor Daly both urged Labor to choose a candidate “more qualified” and informed on transportation issues to represent Labor on the GGTD.

Few believe this was an argument about personal qualifications, despite Daly’s assurance that the Board chose the most qualified candidate for the position when it appointed David Snyder the GGTD on Tuesday, April 14, 2009. Perhaps that is because, ironically, Supervisor Daly actually supported Mr. Mazzola, Jr., during an earlier bid for the GGTD seat — pre-2006 obviously. Daly said as much during the March 5 Rules Committee hearing. So, his claim that Mr. Mazzola, Jr., was “patently unqualified for the position” with the bridge transportation district appears somewhat disingenuous.

Supervisor Daly, however, says that his vote for Mazzola, Jr., in 2001, Daly’s first year in office, was a mistake. “In the last eight years,” Daly said, “it is one of five or six votes I regret.” When Daly took charge of the Rules Committee he vowed to limit such mistakes by making sure that candidates for all boards and committees were thoroughly vetted and qualified for positions before appointing them to serve.

Despite voting for Mazzola, Jr., in 2001, Daly maintains that his vote this week, against the Labor representative, was not motivated by Mazzola. Jr.’s ties to Local 38 or the union’s contributions to Rob Black’s 2006 campaign against Daly. Daly admits that Mazzola, Jr., was not qualified for the position on the GGTD in 2001: saying, “My standards have gone up as my career has gone forward. I shouldn’t have voted for him then.” Daly didn’t want to make the same mistake twice.

While he maintains his commitment to elevated standards, Daly also says he’s able to let go of political bad blood. “I have the ability to work through things with people who are willing to move forward,” said Daly. He points to Burke Strunsky in 2002, an earlier opponent that Daly says ran a “mean-spirited” campaign. Daly worked with Strunsky on Proposition H. According to Daly, Strunsky basically authored the bill banning handguns in San Francisco. “So you see,” said Daly, “ I am capable of working with people who’ve opposed me.” He maintains, that the Mazzola, Jr., matter is less about Daly’s naive vote in 2001 for an under-qualified candidate or Local 38’s political tactics during the 2006 race than it is about the higher standards that Daly says the Rules Committee now holds appointment candidates.

For more info: Check out Fog City Journal's play-by-play coverage of the final appointment hearing during the Board of Supervisors' Meeting April 14, 2009

Oops she did it again: Background-check anyone?

Tamara Hofmann, 48, isn’t charged with a crime. Her 20-year-old boyfriend is. Sixto Balbuena, Hoffman’s former student, is charged with stabbing Samuel Valdivia, Hoffman’s 18-year-old student-lover, to death upon finding them together Hoffman’s bedroom.

With one lover dead and another jailed Ms. Hofmann may find herself lonely. She is not subject to criminal charges for sleeping with Valdivia, technically an adult at 18. Nor was Hoffman charged for engaging in a “suspected” sexual relationship with Balbuena, only 17 at the time, according to a 2006 Chandler police report.

Hofmann will likely face disciplinary action at El Dorado High School in Chandler, Az., where she was Valdivia’s math teacher. But what is to stop her from taking another student under her tutelage? Taking on young male students appears to be a pattern for Hofmann: one that causes her few consequences. After all, she secured a position in the Math Department of El Dorado High School after leaving her teaching position at Marcos de Niza High School in Tempe, Az. when allegations surfaced that she was sleeping with Balbuena, a 17-year-old student.

Background-check anyone?

According to Sgt. Joe Favazzo, of the Chandler Police Department, Hofmann is under investigation for “potential misconduct” regarding her inappropriate relationship with Valdivia. However, since Valdivia was 18 when they were together, it is unlikely that Hafmann can be charged with criminal conduct – after all violating workplace prohibitions, like “No Sex with Students,” will only get you fired if no law is broken in the process.

Here's hoping the 48-year-old seductress finds herself with early-onset menopause. Perhaps that would curb her predatory appetite for her young male students. Until then, the Arizona Department of Education may want to consider revoking her teaching credential for “moral turpitude” or some such offense.

ABC Power Trip: SF Clubs Face Financial Ruin

By Amy Kniss

California is a fairly lax state when it comes to regulating the sale of alcohol – we sell hard liquor in supermarkets, we sell it on Sundays, we sell it until 2:00 a.m. and in many places we begin selling it again at 6:00 a.m. Businesses make money when people drink. No big deal.

That laid-back attitude may be changing, in San Francisco of all places!

California’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is taking a closer look at local music venues that host shows without age restrictions. Venues like Slim’s, Bottom of the Hill, the Great American Music Hall, Cafe du Nord and the Fillmore are all at risk, according to an article in today’s SF Gate: State goes after legendary all-ages music clubs.

At issue is a seemingly obscure enforcement power claimed by the ABC, which if you want to get technical isn’t actually a matter of “law.” Despite the absence of a statute requiring clubs that hold music events open to minors, the ABC is insisting that half of such establishments’ revenue come from food sales – rather than (disproportionate) alcohol sales.

Fans and promoters of the local music scene are understandably concerned that ABC’s new “rules” will negatively affect emerging talent and clubs’ ability to preserve their livelihoods by attracting large audiences.

"Without these businesses, there's no local music scene - it's that simple," said Jordan Kurland, co-owner of San Francisco's Noise Pop music festival in an interview with The Chronicle. "It's such a special experience when you are young to see a band you love in an intimate place ... where they are able to charge a more reasonable ticket price. These small-capacity venues are very generous about paying bands, and, like any club in the world, they predominantly make their money off the bar, not off ticket sales."

What the ABC isn’t acknowledging is that California law explicitly permits minors to enter establishments licensed to sell liquor, so long as the establishment has the capacity to serve meals (California Business & Professions Code §§ 23787, 25665). Such establishments may maintain bars on the premises and function more as nightclubs, particularly late at night. According to California Business & Professional Code (§§ 23787): “The operation of such premises is limited solely to the service of meals and beverages at prearranged events of a social or business nature and where admission is by ticket only.” Notice the code mentions no age restriction on ticket purchasers, nor does the code specify any ratio requirement for food-to-alcohol-sales for venues providing ticketed admission.

Serving food allows bay area and California clubs to host as all-age events. This continues to be the case. The San Francisco Entertainment Commission doesn’t take kindly to assaults on its businesses, especially when it comes in the form of enforcing non-legislated “rules” (requiring equal sales of alcohol and food at all-age events) targeting revenue and limiting the operating conditions.

Look for this fight to continue as a legal battle arises over the ABC’s authority to impose restrictions that are not a matter of law.

Obama Subverts Congressional Oversight

Seriously? We need to persuade companies "to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion" bailout? The White House thinks so.

Why? Well these "poor" companies "desperate" for government money only want the handouts if they don't come with restrictions about how they may squander the money. Perhaps they're reluctant to take any greater restrictions than those Congress saddled on AIG,: none. It seems financial oversight, like restrictions on lavish executive pay, is a deal-breaker for organizations otherwise willing to accept tax payer cash.

The accommodating Obama administration agrees and has added more bureaucracy to circumvent Congress' attempt at oversight and satisfy the financial demands of companies in need of federal funds. How now brown cow.

Silly me. I thought when a company needs to borrow money than the lender sets the terms and regulates how the money is spend. If a homeowner seeks a home loan, the money can't then be used to buy a car, send a kid to college or pay for fertility treatment. Money borrowed has use restrictions. Why should companies that need bailout bucks get a pass, especially when their only recourse is refusing to accept the money?

President Obama, using "a special-purpose vehicle" to blatantly ignore the terms of Congressional oversight is ingeniousness and insulting. Even the Bush administration decided to apply executive-pay limits to firms participating in the bailout program.

The Ethics of Outsourcing Academics

Reading "The Dark Side of Freelancing," on a Harvard Business Review blog, got me thinking about the author's final question: Is there "something inherently lazy and unaccountable about outsourced intellectual labor"?

As a freelancer myself I want to say no. That it is just a byproduct of the pace and connectedness of our world. While I do believe that when it comes to corporate communications outsourcing intellectual labor, when transparent and fairly compensated, is perfectly ethical. However, I can't say the same when it comes to academics and the so-called "essay mills" that lurk in the Far East and many nations notorious for permissive sweat-shop cultures.

Working at UVA in graduate school showed me that too many students are ill prepared for any sort of robust academic/intellectual endeavor — most would rather rip their own teeth out than write an essay on Hobbes' State of Nature. Those from affluent means were more than willing to buy a pass on course requirements, even if that meant cheating. Despite the Jeffersonian "Honor Code," we found students desperate to "clear the academic bar" were willing to risk expulsion rather than put time and effort into writing a decent paper themselves. Students' willingness to "outsource" work and claim credit for the product points to grave ethical problems ahead (not to mention decreasing intellectual standards).

Commuter Nightmare: Woman Jumps Into Oncoming Traffic

When a woman jumps off an Interstate connector onto oncoming traffic, it's fair to say she may be taking her life in a new direction.When it happened today, ERIC S. PAGE, of NBC's San Diego affiliate station 7/39, posted a news article on station's website. Detailing the event, Page described the situation as "creating a commuters [sic] nightmare." Lack of appropriate apostrophe aside, Page is an idiot.

The woman, who leaped approximately 50 from the edge of the freeway connector into oncoming traffic on Interstate 8, wasn't even hit, despite the taking the plunge near the start of rush hour. Yes, the fall left her pretty banged up ("seriously injured"). Hitting asphalt at 50 feet usually has that effect. But Page's claim that the situation created a "commuters [sic] nightmare" is a little far-fetched. A body splattering on your windshield or a toxic spill or terrorists taking out a bridge, those are situations of which commuters' nightmares are made.

Rubber-neckers slowed down traffic for approximately half an hour. The CHP had cleared up the situation and had her all scooped up and carted off by 3:45. Talk about service, the report of her jump came in at 3:15.