OPEN GOVERNMENT — One advantage of having an elected city attorney is the opportunity to tell him or her what improvements are expected at re-election time, such as in this op ed piece in SanFranciscoObserver.com, complaining about the lack of force in the city's sunshine ordinance:
City, its far from certain that we will get it. Many citizens are
learning the hard way that the law may be on their side, but
enforcement has been left to the good faith efforts of the Ethics
Commission. The commission, relying on advice from the City Attorney,
has dismissed every alleged violation since San Francisco voters passed
Prop G (Sunshine) in 1999 by a 16 point margin. In truth, the
enforcement of the law is based on decisions made behind the City
Attorneys closed doors. (More)
What? You expected something different from a City Attorney?
If the CA does comploy with the sunshine laws , the CA will see that his budget is adversely affected, and when have you ever seen an attorney do something that will adversely affect HIS budget?
On top of that the CA , being directly involved in directing the City work and the legal consequences is seldom going to say that the CA gave wrong advice1
And, even further, when the CA gets to fight the litigation the CA has a big pocket to tap!
What the City needs is a Omsbudman, but what politican wants someone around to challenge their position or operations!
Now, my goodness, that does sound like I am a radical of some sort , doesn’t it.
Don’t get me started!
Hah, Our city attorney just asked that the public contact the city manager for permission or instructions on how to contact the CA, as the CA is too busy to handle the public at the counter.