Does it have to be a bloodbath?
Hey friends, Will you sign the pledge? Best, Robert
Does it have to be a bloodbath?
By Tim Redmond
Already, I’m hearing whispers from both sides of the Leno-Migden contest, and already, they’re getting nasty. Mark Leno told me this week that he will run an upbeat campaign, and that any negative attacks on Midgen “won’t come from me.” I suspect I will hear the same from Migden. But it’s common in campaigns for elected officials to try to take the high road and let others — their allies and supporters — do the dirty work.
So queer/labor activist Robert Haaland is asking not only the candidates, but their supporters in the queer and progressive communities, to pledge to keep this fight out of the gutter. Here’s a piece he sent me; I think everyone ought to read it, take it seriously, and sign on.
To sign, please email Robert at robert_haaland [at] hotmail [dot] comOur community was divided. Our LGBT clubs were separated. The streets of the Castro were full of opposing forces and consternation. During the 2001-2002 campaign for the 13th Assembly District seat, we were split and it was a difficult time.
Following that election campaign, we made a decision to begin the process of healing those divisions. The leaders of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club and the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club, and the leaders of the campaigns, met together to salve these wounds and form a new alliance. This was not easy. It took years and much work within each to heal, listen, understand, and move forward together.
In the years since that election, our community has been in a renaissance. Our two LGBT Democratic Clubs have worked together like never before. We have seen tremendous and amazing accomplishments through those efforts. Our coordinated efforts as a community in opposition to the statewide Special Election in 2005 are an astounding example of what we can do when we work together.
Additionally, as efforts have moved forward in the LGBT community on issues such as marriage equality on the stairs of our City Hall, opposing racial discrimination in the Castro, speaking out against anti-LGBT commentary from the news media about our LGBT families, supporting statewide efforts for the advancement of our LGBT rights, and stopping attacks from the right-wing on our community, we have been able to work side-by-side in a way that was unthinkable during the 2001-2002 campaign.
This newfound coordination and organization between our Clubs and within our community has been crucial in working for the betterment and strength of our community as a whole. And we will not allow this community to be torn asunder again. Our friendships are too strong now. Our knowledge of the power of our coordinated efforts and their success is too deep. And our realization that we can move beyond minor disagreements and continue forward as friends and colleagues and community brothers and sisters is definite.
As our community begins the process of working on the upcoming state Senate campaign for June of 2008, we will not allow this to break our bonds. We demand that the candidates in the race do the following:
–Pledge that there will be no negative campaigning, against each other or supporters on any side
–Pledge that they individually will work to strengthen our community’s ties with one another
–Pledge that they will not work to form wedges and divisions among us as a community
–Pledge that they will regularly form bonds with all sides in the campaign
–Pledge respect, honor, decency, and above all, civility, towards all partiesWe also urge our community’s leaders to pledge that they do the same. Regardless of anyone’s personal affiliations during this campaign, we will continue to form our alliances and friendships and move this community forward together. We are not going back. We have too much to gain by moving forward together.

March 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I would also urge friends and allies of the LGBT community to sign the pledge.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Agreed. I hope this means you are signing on Malik? Nicole Derse just signed on. I hope you do too.
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:42 pm
David Campos signed on too.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I think Mark Leno should sign on by dropping out of the race. He told me he didn’t want to run for Mayor, because it would cause too much dissension in the LGBT community.
At the very least Leno should dump BMWL, who has perfected the book on negatitive campaigning.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4105
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Where and how can people sign on? Happy to spread the word too.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Thanks Malik. I’ll send you a copy of the pledge that you can send out.
March 4th, 2007 at 6:55 am
This is, if I may say, ridiculous. The queer community is already deeply divided. When I was out campaigning for Krissy Keefer last year, two gay man (a white couple) walked by me and said “enjoy your rabble rousing”. I said “enjoy your million dollar home”, and they said “we will”. I also left Equality California (as a volunteer) last year after they refused to be supportive of me in the aftermath of an emergency move-out that was the result of anti-gay bias. Let the queer community break into as many separate slices as needed in order to achieve full equality.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Instead of signing pledges, why not demand that Mark and Carol not campaign in San Francisco until 2008?
Not a word, not a sign, not a mailer until 1 January 2008.
In the interim, demand that they both stay in Sacramento doing their job as legislators, competing to see who can pass as much creative, innovative progressive legislation as possible. Extra credit for helping your opponent move legislation.
Both of these candidates have plusses and minuses. They both have progressive politics, they differ on independence and on personal style.
Once 2008 rolls around, both Carole and Mark can come back to San Francisco with a session worth of accomplishments, and it would be by their record in this legislative session that Democratic primary voters should decide our next Senator, not personalities or other mundanity.
Willie L. Brown Jr. said in 1999: “Democracy is not well served by my having an opponent for reelection.” But Mark Leno said at his campaign kickoff, “Democracy is well served by contested elections, when voters have a choice.”
That said and being true, who is going to run against Tom Ammiano for the AD 13 seat so that the voters have a choice?
March 4th, 2007 at 8:03 am
The points you raised Liam are good but they are issues that are worth talking about in the queer community and I would suggest that they would not be negative campaigning. In fact, I would argue that talking about the issues you raised would unite us, not divide us.
Talking about racism in the Castro and confronting it made us stronger as a community. So I think I and others are addressing something else here.
A principled conversation about the issues makes us a stronger community but personal attacks and innuendo does not. Unfortunately, I could see a scenario where supporters spend much of their time attacking the candidates on behalf of their preferred candidate. I and others are concerned about this scenario.
March 4th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Interesting suggestion Marc. I would argue though that they could go off to Sacramento and there would still be a bloodbath here without any campaigning from them.
As for challengers, Joe Alioto-Veranesee seems to be shoppiing for a race, or so the pollsters say. I don’t think he could go up against Tom and win. I would be surprised if he did after he gets the poll back. A poll was done last year and Tom was the clear winner in the pack with many names mentioned. Positives high with Dems in the 13th AD. But what do I know?
March 4th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Yeah, I got the poll last Saturday. It was a 20 min poll on the June (?) 2008 Democratic primary.
Note that I do not vote in the Democratic primary for obvious reasons, nor do I endorse in other party’s primaries. Learned in 2002 that was a bad idea, and if a Green ends up running, local party officials like myself should not be compromised by endorsing in the Democrat primary.
The poll was basically conducted on AD13 and SEN3. Joe Alioto-Veronese was put up against Migden, Leno, Ammiano and Peskin, round robin in groups of 1 on 1, one on 3 and so forth.
As the poll fucker that I am, I always said I’d vote for anyone but JAV, generally preferring Ammiano and Peskin. But when it came time for any of the Migden/Leno contests, I’d defer saying it was too complex this early out.
The poll was not cheap.
A far as Ammiano and AD13 goes, I was wondering if someone with some standing and experience other than being in the lucky sperm club was going to consider making a run in AD13 so that the voters had a choice over the machine candidate?
AD13 succession is the machine flip side of the SEN3 free-for-all. Tom has many plusses and minuses. Perhaps voters deserve a choice between Tom’s plusses and minuses and someone with the flip side of Tom’s attributes, just as they deserve a choice in SEN3.
I know that the voters will have a progressive choice in D9 next year, what with David Campos having voted for crime cameras but not addressed the issue of crime displacement from BART plazas into surrounding residential neighborhoods in the Mission, supporting Louise Renne to keep the POA running the SFPD, and singing off on Ackerman’s illegal lame duck platinum parachute in 2004. Is pointing out Campos’ moderate record as incompatible with Mission progressivism negative campaigning?
If Campos is the local Democrats’ best progressive hope, if he is Tom Ammiano’s heir apparent, then we need to go back to el pozo for D9 and probably AD13 while we’re there.
I really cannot distinguish Campos’ politics from Leslie Katz’ politics.
Voters should also have progressive options for the Assembly just as they should for the Senate, Supervisor and all races for that matter.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Hey Marc,
I disagreed with David on that vote and spent some time trying to convince him to do otherwise, mostly because my experience of him is that he is a consistent progressive vote at the DCCC. As someone who sits on the DCCC, I watch his votes and Leslie’s votes pretty carefully and I would say that it isn’t fair to say they are the same.
Unfortunately there isn’t a camera at the DCCC meetings.
I do think an issue based discussion is fair but I don’t think that judging David on one issue alone is fair either. Any number of people that you and I have either jointly or seperately supported, including Ross, have differing opinions on cameras. Moreover, any number of candidates would fail if you judged them on one issue alone. David has, for example, consistently stood up to the POA.
I appreciate that District 9 will be hard for some. I have a closer relationship to David, but I respect, like, and honor the other candidates in the race. No bullshit here. I really do.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:52 am
As one who lives 1/2 block from 16th BART, the issue is not academic for me.
If we are to set aside the civil liberties concerns as well as the evidence so that political reality trumps reality, then we’d better be careful to do no harm as we cater to the politically powerful yet irrational policy demands of the people.
Displacement of crime is an issue, and is an issue that was not contemplated by the MOCJ, SFPD or Police Commission as cameras were approved by the commission.
From what I see, D9 is going to be easy, not difficult.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Marc,
you’re right that Ammiano’s attempt to designate a successor has not been looked upon particularly well by many folks in the district.
I am pretty sure Campos will not be the only progressive in the race by a long shot, and I am not sure how much Tom’s attempt to pass the torch will matter.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Sasha,
One reason why I tend to oppose ending term limits (with RCV in place, at least) is contesting elections keeps us on our toes and in fighting shape. All too often people get comfortable with power and complacent, as is one dynamic in the SEN3 race.
Contested elections are the political gym. There is no entitlement to political buffess, it has to be worked for and kept toned.
It was a good thing that BMWL, in order to line their pockets, floated fake polls saying Rob Black had a chance of winning. It made us work harder and buff up our skills. I’ve thought about approaching them for a 10% share of their revenues, so that they can further empower us to challenge them, so that we pose a greater threat to their candidates, so that they can bill them 10 times that amount. Everyone wins in that case, except for their candidates, but I digress.
I’d really question whether Campos qualifies as a progressive, as the DCCC votes are generally throw aways, my attention turns to Campos ample public record, which looks much like Leslie Katz’.
Would Arlene Ackerman have hired a progressive as her lawyer?
Would a progressive have supported Louise Renne for Police Commission President?
Part of the reason why some have such a difficult time with contested elections on the progressive side is that friendships eclipse politics, and challenging someone’s friend’s politics is equated to attacking the person. David is a nice guy, but his record speaks for itself.
There are two distinct and divergent political paths facing us, a paternalistic one where few risks are taken, the ruling class is generally appeased and incremental liberal reforms are taken, and another participatory model where a sense of urgency at stemming the loss of a San Francisco that is being sold out from under us raises the stakes in politics, and broad participation drives it all. There is one side which has been present for 20 years and seen the problems outstrip their solutions. The other comes into this fresher and is able to put together the electoral and policy coalitions to begin to define the progressive agenda with greater, broader appeal.
The former tends to be older and better off folks who came out in the 60s and 70s and identify primarily as LGBT. The latter tends to be younger, less financially established and identifying as progressive before LGBT.
The energies raised by the progressive electoral collaborative since 2003 have favored the latter approach. Few of the collaborative members are queers, but many are of an age where it makes no difference, where het white folks help out a queer candidates as they would a woman or candidate of color because they value diversity.
We’ve taken it to a level where one omnivalent political consultant told me “you all are playing for keeps, aren’t you?”
March 4th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Hey Marc,
Sometimes things look different from far away, and the same set of facts have a different look to me. I can only say that David will be strong progressive supervisor, and if he wins, you will learn that he is playing for keeps. I know I am.
I know that you believe it so I would just suggest that it is possible that there are other realities then the one you suggested.
As for term limits, Dan Kelly is an argument against term limits.
As for whether David was a progressive as the lawyer for the school district, ask Mark Sanchez or the union for the teachers. I was repeatedly told by both of them during many of the school district struggles that they respected him and felt like he was not a tool for Arlene. If they have changed their mind, I would be surprised
March 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
BTW, from what I understand, the POA paid for the poll for Veronese. Makes me wonder what is going on there.
From the articles that I have read in the Bay Guardian, David has consistently stood up to the POA on everything which speaks well of him if you ask me. I think it is a distortion to suggest that David is a moderate. I agree with you that on the camera vote he was wrong, but didn’t Ross support cameras too? Are you going to support to Ross? I know I am.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’m really glad to read and hear about Robert’s call for a political activism that is respectful and requires a higher sense of integrity among progressives. We all hope to win, but as progressives, we should be committed to winning in a progressive and honorable manner as well. Our campaigns - the candidates as well as the supporters - are a reflection of us. We don’t change the world with single elections, but with the movements that are consolidated during the campaigns. If our campaigns are nasty, there is no movement and it really does become “politics as usual.” Nice going, Robert. I’m proud to add my name to this pledge.
On Marc’s suggestion re: Carole and Mark, I think there are already volumes of information on the records, accountability, and community responsiveness of both of these legislators. I don’t know that what they do during campaign season is as important to me as what they do all the rest of the time. It should be a wild ride!
As for the D9 race, I don’t think the school board attorney is responsible for the behavior of the school board or Ackerman, just as the City Attorney is not responsible for the actions of the mayor or BOS. I understand that this position is obligated to provide legal advice, not policy or other recommendations.
Nevertheless, this will be a really unique race. I’ve known both candidates for a long time, and think very highly of them. I’d love for both to give it their best shot. I have full faith that they will each conduct themselves with the kind of integrity that their communities can be proud of. I just want their campaigns to also be reflective of the respect that D9 deserves.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Esperanza for signing on to the pledge. I think we can hold people accountable for their votes but not distort them either.
I do think that the next two years will be hard if we don’t make good faith efforts to ensure that supporters of candidates don’t carry water for the candidate so that the candidate can say, “Well, I can’t control my supporters” but they secretly delight in whatever shitty thing gets said about their opponent, even when it is unfair.
The names I am hearing for D9 include David, Eric, and Mark. All of them bring very important styles of leadership, all of them have strong progressive credentials, and I think D9 would be well-served by any of them.
I do think we need to figure out in more detail how to evaluate what is negative campaigning. Do I think an impassioned speech on behalf of a candidate is negative campaigning? No. Do I think a constant effort to distort people’s record is negative campaigning? Yes. Do I think the candidate needs to be held accountable for their supporters? Yes. Inherently what I am saying is that when someone writes a letter to the editor of the B.A.R. trashing the opponent, that’s a problem.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I have to admit that I have been surprised at the hesitancy of certain progressives to sign on. I am starting to wonder if people think it is a necessary evil of politics and therefore are reluctant to sign on.
I just got an email from Mark Leno saying he would sign on to the pledge though. Most people I approached that were his supporters were willing to sign on though. I hope the same is true for Carole and her supporters.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I don’t see how a single issue like crime cameras disqualifies one as a progressive. London is more progressive than SF in many ways, like the congestion fees for driving in central London, yet every square inch of that city is covered by CCTV. One could characterize Marc’s statement in opposition to crime cameras– that it could drive crime into his neighborhood– as NIMBYism rather than progressivism.
16th and Mission was ranked the highest-crime corner in SF last year– I don’t think advocating crime cameras there will lose anyone the election.
I agree that neither Campos nor any other candidate should be prematurely crowned the next D9 supervisor. I’m eager to hear what each candidate for Assembly will have to say once the campaign gets under way.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hmm .. Yes, I do think negative campaigning is sometimes a necessary evil. How else to compare and contrast? I’m not talking, personally, about ad hominem or distortion. Some things that a politician has done in his or her career, he/she needs to be held accountable for. Saying, or thinking, that a candidate (such as Barack Obama), could control what a supporter (such as David Geffen), says to, or through, the media, seems to me a difficult proposition. Certainly the candidate can set the tone, and can encourage his/her supporters in a certain direction, but control seems too much to ask for in a democratic process.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Interesting discussion.
Both Leno and Midgen are great politicians, in my view, so why not let them do battle? It’s a win-win situation.
Unlike the Republican Party, which annoints its candidates based on lineage (Reagan begat Bush I, who begat Dole, who begat Bush II), the Democratic Party has always let its candidates air their petty differences and let the voters decide. That’s healthy democracy.
So to answer Chris Daly, the OP’s, famous question he once asked during a rather poity shit-fit during a board meeting: Where is the love?
I think the love is coming from all sides here.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:59 am
This is the dumbest thing that I’ve ever seen and isn’t based in reality. People should be signing a pledge to convince Leno to run for something where we would gain an LGBT/Progressive seat (how about Insurance Commissioner?). Instead, all of the money that would have gone into taking the McClintock Senate seat, preserving our majority and recruiting minorities into the party will now get dumped into San Francisco to feed the fat pockets of a few political consultants. Migden has probably raised more money for LGBT/women/progressive candidates than anyone in California. To waste those resources on a race that will divide SF for decades to come is absurd. And how do you keep independent expenditures from sticking to a pledge? Look how it backfired on Aimee Allison in Oakland.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Hey Michael,
I disagree. I know you have been a long time supporter of Carole and I respect that, but I think you should rethink how you are expressing that support. I genuinely believe you think you are helping her, but I would respectfully suggest that your kiddie porn post was incredibly offensive to many and may have hurt Carole.
I think you should consider supporting the pledge.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Michael & Chris
Why do we have this theory that primaries are bad things? Why does Carole have any more right to the Senate seat than Mark does, or Robert, or me, or well, pretty much anybody. Primaries are the voters chance to really talk about the issues in SF. We all know Carole is not going to have a challenger in the general, so why shouldn’t there be a primary challenge?
I think we, as Americans in general, have allowed incumbency to become far too powerful. This is partly due to the economics, but partly due to our own complacency. We should expect accountability from our elected officials, and in a democracy, that happens through elections. The good Sen. has a duty to earn the vote.
On resources, the notion that there is a finite level of resources is really a bunch of hooey. First of all, are the people who are going to give to a SD-19 Dem challenger (Hannah-Beth Jackson…i’m looking at you) really the same people who are concerned about an SF skirmish? But I addressed all of the issues why I support primaries in my Capitol Weekly op-ed.
So, yeah, I’m supporting Mark, partly because I like Mark, and partly because I like primaries. And sure, I’ll sign that pledge, because I want to see a genuine discussion of the issues. Not some B.S. about NAMBLA.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Robert, Mark Leno is the guy who went on national TV and said that going after child pornographers is the “New McCarthyism,” not me. If he’s going to attack an icon of our community, he’s going to be subjected to a review of his record. His poll threw out some pretty disgusting claims against CM. It’s interesting to me that Mark can toss the crap around, but as soon as he’s under scrutiny, everyone starts calling for a clean campaign. No one plays dirtier than John Whitehurst who is running Mark’s campaign (look at what he did to Chris Daly and Ellen Corbett). If Mark is serious about a clean campaign, then he should hire a campaign manager with a history of clean campaigns, not a consummate mud slinger. And, yes, I’ve been a loyal supporter of Carole’s because she has earned my support and the support of our community. Let’s not forget that she was the main person and the most effective advocate in the fight for AIDS funding and care, as well as the early legislative battles for LGBT rights.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hey Michael, I guess I find you calling Mark a Kiddie Porn King to be one of the most offensive, gay-baiting homophobic remarks in recent memory in SF. Using kids against gay men reminds me of the Briggs initiative and by using the Republican rhetoric, you are coming off like Ann Coulter.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Brian, the Hannah-Beth argument is a different beast, as she’s been a questionable progressive vote (including one really bad LGBT vote). In SF, you have two progressives with basically the same record. You can argue that the resources argument is hooey, but even if you accept your claim about the money (which I don’t) it doesn’t apply at all to human resources. This race will now have progressives working against each other in a Senate primary, when they could be helping us win races elsewhere. Just look across the Bay to our success in knocking off Pombo. If the fleet of progressives who worked that race were working in a Senate primary instead, we would have lost that race.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Umm, well, the primary is in June. General elections are in November. I think we are capable of working in both the spring and the summer/fall.
And so if they have the same record, then why would anybody possibly write that “the thought of Mark Leno standing in those chambers defending child pornographers must be making our California 49er founding families role in their graves.”
Nobody HAS to go negative. Nobody HAS to get out of the race. And both those things can be true…at the same time.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Ooops, that Capitol Weekly link didn’t work. Here it is:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/opinion/article.html?article_id=1287.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:22 am
When I said playing for keeps, a downtown big moneyed consultant said that of us. Others can try to play or keeps to.
My main question about Campos’ conduct as counsel at the SFUSD had to do with the Ackerman raise meeting. The meeting was called after the election, where Heather Hiles was defeated by Mark Sanchez after years of blistering attacks on Mark by corporate San Francisco and the Chronicle.
Ackerman and President Kelly determined that they wanted to agendize and act on amendemnts to AA’s contract before they lost their majority.
In noticing that meeting, the question must have come up on the Brown act requirements for timely noticing.
Commissioner Sanchez testified that he received his notification 22 hourrs prior to the meeting. Members of the public were left to fend for themselves to discover the special meeting.
Counselor Campos’ position was that since the commissioners all made it to the meeting, that Brown act notification requirements were met.
There is nothing particularly illegal about this, just as there is nothing particularly illegal about entitling million dollar condos to cover the industrial areas of D6,9 and 10.
But progressives like to think that we hold our selves to higher standards.
Did Ackerman and/or Kelly ask Campos to opine on the legality of this meeting?
Did Campos affirmatively inform his clients that notification could be deemed problematic?
Did Campos not “get” that a lame duck majority, rejected decisively by the voters, was trying to pull a fast one under his legal auspices?
Would a progressive counselor not advise his client to err on the side of caution and greater public disclosure to do the notification correctly?
Would a progressive counselor who is paid by the taxpayers put the interests of a lame duck majority and an administrator who was angling for a fight to the death before the interests of the public, citizens, taxpayers, residents, teachers and parents?
These are the acts of someone who springs from the Alice B. Toklas wing of LGBT activism who has ingratiated himself into the Milk Club as part of a LGBT fusion/unity effort, and is now trying to put on progressive lipstick.
There are more examples of my concerns with Campos’ effort to recast himself as a progressive, but this one is the most egregious.
Others relate to the cirrcumstances in The Mission over the past 10 years. Where was David?
I’m no fan of Eric Quesada, but Eric’s politics are in the same book as mine, where David’s are in a different volume altogether.
-marrc
March 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Marc,
I understand why you are upset about the Board giving Ackerman a golden parachute. I couldn’t agree more with you and I think David said the same. In fact, David himself has said that had he been on the Board, he would never have voted for it. As far as what happened on the night of the vote, I would recommend you ask around more about what happened. If you check you the record, you will see that it wasn’t David but another attorney who provided the Board advice on the issues you raised. David was not there. He was actually getting an award from the American Immigration Law Foundation that night, for his accomplishment as an LGBT immigrant. What David did opine on is the fact that even though we all detest (and rightly so) the fact that a lameduck Board gave Ackerman a golden parachute,unfortunately, under the law, the lame duck Board had the power to do that. If you ask people who know what went on between Ackerman and the Board the last couple of years, they will tell you that David was always a straight shooter. He always did his job as the Board’s lawyer, and called it as he saw it. Just ask the Teacher’s Union, which disliked Ackerman as much as anyone. During David’s last campaign for Democratic Central Committee, the Teacher’s Union spoke on David’s behalf during the Labor Council endorsement meeting. In fact, you should ask Arlene Ackerman, who to this day, is mad at David because of David’s opinion that the Board and the Bay Guardianhad the right to get copies of Arlene’s expenses on the District’s dime. As far as where David was the last few years before that, he was in the City Attorney’s Office handling the City’s litigation against PG&E, he was working on the City’s lawsuit against the gun industry, and he was helping the School District’s with its desegregation efforts.