No on Proposition E
May 12, 2008
On its face, San Francisco’s Proposition E, which will appear on the June 3 ballot, sounds like a good government measure: De-politicize the process of selecting the five members of the Public Utilities Commission by instituting specific categories for each commissioner — an environmental policy expert, a finance whiz, a public utilities or water systems specialist, a ratepayer or consumer advocate, and a general member of the public. The Mayor would still appoint all five commissioners, but he would be shackled to narrowly defined fields, and the Board of Supervisors, who put the measure on the ballot, could reject the appointments with a simple majority instead of the current two-thirds threshold.
This measure is not only bad public policy for San Franciscans, but, as is often the case in San Francisco, also exclusionary to Asian Americans wishing to participate in the City’s public commission process. We urge a strong and resounding “No” vote on Proposition E.
The Public Utilities Commission is one of San Francisco’s most important commissions. It not only oversees all power and utility issues, but is also responsible for the multi-billion dollar seismic retrofit of the Hetch Hetchy Dam, a critical source of water for San Francisco and the entire state.
But Proposition E would make it more difficult for Asian Americans to qualify for appointment to this key commission. How many Americans, much less those of Asian descent, fit these categories? These onerous conditions have a chilling effect on Asian Americans seeking to serve on the PUC by making it an elite and exclusive institution.
The proponents of Proposition E argue that the commission needs qualified members. But, as shown throughout San Francisco’s history, it is the blending of different people from varied backgrounds that makes public institutions function well. With Asian Americans now comprising more than one-third of the city’s population, it should be our turn to contribute to civic matters. Proposition E is looking to curb our opportunity.
Reject this power grab by the board of supervisors. Vote “No” on proposition E.
Comments
7 Responses to “No on Proposition E”
Got something to say?
Give us a break! You acknowledge that a third of SF’s population is Asian. Yet you claim that out of all those folks we can’t find at least one environmental policy expert, or one finance whiz, or one public utilities or water systems specialist, or one ratepayer or consumer advocate, or even a general member of the public. Or do you want all 5 slots to go to Asians? You claim Prop E will politicize the process. Exactly the opposite is true. The current situation politicizes the process. Historically mayors have appointed political and social buddies, not people qualified to oversee a multi-billion dollar utility. The same mayors have ripped off the revenues of the PUC resulting in the current need to spend $4.3 billion to fix the system.
Talk about playing the Race card! You’re advocating potentially unqualified Asians over qualified candidates?
That reflects poorly on you and your community. It’s also selfish and shortsighted.
Perhaps we should be looking more toward increasing Asian-Americans as experts in fields of environmental policy instead of merely appointing people who happen to be Asian to positions where expertise is needed.
what silly silly thinking.
oh, and dennis normandy a filipino american would still qualify for a seat.
Heyycckk, I thought asians were big fans of that meritocracy stuff. Especially Chinese… guess sometimes it depends on where you’re coming from, sometimes not!
Unfortuantely, Asian “interest groups” have taken a cue from the Sharpton/Jackon clique. Everyone wants a grubby hand in the racial spoils trough. If Hispanics or African-Americans get stuff on a non-meritorious basis, why can’t we?
It’s ugly and disgusts me. The most qualified applicant should be chosen, I don’t care if it doesn’t fill your stupid politically correct quotas. Why doesn’t the editorial board decry the underrepresentation of Asian in running? Who cares about inconvenient biology?
I don’t want to judge what you have said before I understand where you are coming from.
By what standard does creating categories for the commissioners limit Asian American’s (or any race for that matter) participation?
To simply make a racially charged statement without any reasoning, facts, or history makes me naturally believe the opposite of what you are claiming.
Sticks and stones may break bones, but your soundbites don’t affect me:)