In a dramatic move, Supervisor Hillary Ronen today tendered her immediate resignation as chair of the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee. In a public letter, she accused Board President Aaron Peskin of using procedural legerdemain to potentially resurrect legislation Ronen yesterday moved to kill.
The legislation in question would place a measure on the ballot, sponsored by Supervisor Matt Dorsey and co-sponsored by Peskin. It would give voters the chance to enact a police Deferred Retirement Option Plan. This controversial proposal would allow veteran cops to simultaneously earn salaries and pensions. Such plans have resulted in fiscal bloodbaths in other municipalities. San Francisco police enjoyed a voter-approved DROP from 2008 to 2011; while this plan was pitched to voters as revenue-neutral, a 2011 analysis found it added $52 million to pension costs in just three years. It was curtailed by the Board of Supervisors in 2011.
Peskin and Dorsey maintain that, this time, the measure is narrowly tailored enough that it will be an effective recruitment and retention tool and won’t bleed the city dry. Ronen is unconvinced; in her resignation letter, she said the DROP “would have allowed a small number of retirement-age police officers to more than double their salaries in exchange for delaying retirement for up to 5 years — a benefit no other City employee receives.”
She added that “neither the author of this proposed measure nor SFPD could provide basic data needed to assess whether an amended DROP program would work any better today.”
With the July 26 deadline looming for the supervisors to place measures on the November ballot, the resurrection of the DROP proposal would require pulling the matter out of committee and scheduling special meetings. While this would not violate any rules, Ronen in her letter characterized these “extraordinary lengths” as “undermining the credibility of the institution of the Board” and “reducing the role of Committee Chair to merely a symbolic post.”
Peskin, unsurprisingly, sees things differently. The proposal that Ronen yesterday moved to scuttle, he noted, is co-sponsored by most members of the Board of Supervisors.
“While I have great respect for Supervisor Ronen and am saddened by her decision,” he texted, “a majority of the board supports putting this measure on the ballot.”
Ronen last month appeared alongside Peskin in his quest for mayor. She acknowledged that the two “fight like cats and dogs,” and lauded his ability to avoid drama and do “the boring stuff.”
When asked how today’s not-boring developments affected her political backing of Peskin, Ronen texted back one word: “Unsure.”
Additional reporting by Oscar Palma.
good on Ronen for this. This would torpedo our budget and hurt everyone. The cops need accountability not even more of the budget shoveled into their hands.
it’s baffling groupthink how all the mayoral candidates are chasing the 54% to 58% of voters who seem to want more policing and jail. Well, that’s not everyone, and by doing that they fail to differentiate themselves and in Peskin’s case he alienates his own would-be base. I don’t get it, it’s not even good politics.
” 54% to 58% of voters who seem to want more policing and jail. Well, that’s not everyone”
— Have you heard of this new thing called “democracy”?
Increase the age of retirement for SF city employees. Someone has to say NO.
While I can see both sides of DROP, there is one thing I see clearly: Ronen is completely uninterested in governing — even more than usual now that she’s termed out. She has been completely ineffectual at representing D9. Sadly I’m pretty sure Fielder will be just as bad. The only thing they know how to do is play identity politics
This. She’s been flaky all over for a couple years now, this is just a noisy bit of her prorated exit.
I agree with Ronen here on the DROP policy, especially given the poop end of the law enforcement stick we get here in the Mission containment zone, but I wonder a bit at her decision to step down from the Rules committee because of this disagreement.
I think the more powerful move is to force Peskin to defenestrate her, which I’m guessing is what she’s avoiding by stepping down. Make him spend energy and political capital on it instead of letting him get away with it by moving aside for him.
Ronen seems to be energetically and emotionally spent by her role as supervisor. I don’t blame her; it’s a nasty gig. But it’s always a bit sad when someone goes out with a whimper instead of a wail.
Peskin continues to rub San Francisco the wrong way. With four months to the election, the DROP proposal is just his way of accessing some ‘tough-on-crime’ credibility.
I dunno, sounds like Peskin may need to jump back to Step 8 or 9 of the whole 12 step thing.
I respect them both. Here is a very difficult, nuanced and impactful decision. Hillary Ronen is right. I think and hope Aaron Peskin will likely reconsider and adjust.
Greeny,
Look a little further back and you’ll find that the actual author of the legislation (David Owen) started his City Hall Career as a member of Peskin’s staff where he rose to be Chief and cruised right on down the block to Hastings where he became an attorney and broke another of my friend’s hearts but that’s another story in the Fabulous Living Soap Opera that performs daily under Da Dome.
Hillary is a good and noble lady and will heal.
Who will replace her in D-9 do yuh think ?
lol
h.
I thought that Ronen said that the progressive and moderate thing was so 1990s/2000s that we’re beyond that and are all friends working together?
I differ with Peskin on this on the policy merits, just like I’ve differed with Ronen on many matters including what passes for objective truth.
The difference here is that when Aaron delivers, he brings it home. The cost of entry for that is the political payoffs for taking the policy hits on stuff like this.
When Ronen delivers, on the other hand, well, we we would not know anything about that, because she’s never put the numbers together to deliver on much of anything. Like Campos before her, Ronen has been a passive, docile, silent back bencher, wholly performative, not making any waves so as to not piss off the mayor and keep the nonprofit apparatus funded. At least she is not going to further embarrass herself with pathetic runs for higher office.
Ronen’s a lot like Biden, in so far over her head, she refuses to do the job she hates and refuses to step down while gesturing impotently from the sidelines. Liberalism has collapsed because it is non-responsive when compared to right populism, and instead of recalibrating, liberals just double down to their doom. Peskin is recalibrating without surrendering.
Mayoral campaigns always want to cast the widest net, but in this case, it might very well be that Ronen pulling her endorsement gains Peskin more votes than it costs.
I like Peskin over the others but he has made terrible decisions and partnering on anything with Dorsey is just bad news. Farrell and Bred are a no go, so I guess Safai and Lurie. Peskin has lost quite a few of my left friends so maybe the middle will pull it off. Also adding to the police budget is just irresponsible when Union Square is empty.
Marcos rules as usual,
When I can understand him and he’s clear here and I agree.
Aaron’s kinda like the ‘dollar’ and Biden here when they do bad things …
Whatcha alternative ?
I’m doubling down on the man cause once he is the Mayor I do believe that we are going to start seeing Foot Patrols all over San Francisco.
Peskin for Mayor !!
h.
Gotta admit it’s a guilty pleasure seeing two ineffectual leftie loonies taking each other down 😁.
SF politics are a circus. The City is drowning in Red Ink. Commerce is
fleeing. The Population is declining precipitously. And, to boot, the
departments are sandal ridden. 2024 election is not going to bring
about any hope. San Francisco has been heading downhill for at least
two generations. It will require at least 20 years to turn around.
Fiscal and social discipline. Otherwise, Baghdad By the Bay will
go the way of Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, St. Louis, et al.
I’m so glad Ronen is being termed out.
The argument against this on fiscal terms is interesting. The city should be hiring more police officers, not paying the ones we have double. How long would it take to do that? We need a cost-benefit analysis. It’s a serious issue for serious people.
Which Ronen is not. She’s opposing it because she STILL supports defunding the police. She’s pro-sideshow, in other words. Can’t wait ’til she’s out of office so she can go cheer on her constituents, especially those who shoplift.
Man, are you off. Ronen is not STILL trying to defund the police. And, per the FBI, SF has the most police per capita in the state and one of the highest in the US, with SFPD chief earning three times the national average.
Campers,
Y’all are missing the main point.
Which is, what kind of people are these ‘Progressives’ bending over backward to bring back at double the salary?
The answer is that they are mostly fascist/homophobic/sexist/racist graduates of local Catholic High Schools.
The DROP Program could accurately be renamed …
‘The Redneck Retention Plan’
Should be lotta high-fiving at Police Commission tonight.
If they can get a Quorum.
It’s all a Simulation.
lol
Go Niners !!
h.