voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Francis Pounces
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Francis Pounces

Published: Thursday, September 6, 2007 5:33 PM PDT



During my conversation with Mayor Sanders, I asked him about his dismissal of land-use czar Jim Waring. I wondered why it came when it did, etc.

Here's what he had to say (the emphasis, of course, is mine):

I like Jim Waring. I think Jim Waring has done a lot of things. I gave Jim Waring the benefit of the doubt right to the end. I felt like it was important that I give Jim a reasonable way out. And I also felt that Jim came into public service with the right reasons. It's not like he needed a job. And I think he did a pretty good job in all the arenas. But what it amounted to is it kind of showed me that and I imagine that Jim would agree, that this is much more difficult than what it looks like from the outside. And what works in a business environment doesn't necessarily work in a political environment. And I think that's where we got crossways on the issues.

Again, the mayor highlighted that poison of experience in the business world. At this point, Sanders spokesman Fred Sainz (who was sitting with us) interjected, pointing out that Waring had succeeded as a lawyer, businessman and negotiator by not necessarily folding when someone in authority told him "no" on some issue. Sainz said Waring succeeded by finding ways around "no" and negotiating big deals that some might have thought were dead. And yet the mayor meant "no" when he said the Sunroad building had to come down 20 feet -- no exceptions. Waring continued to work on a solution.

I'll have to ask Waring about that take.

But aside from that, I, and many of you, were quite surprised at how much Sanders has soured on the idea that a person with experience in successful business ventures can succeed as a high-level manager and reformer at City Hall.

After my column went up, Steve Francis, the businessman who seems to be the main potential opponent to the mayor in next year's election, gave me a call. He was, he said, "shocked" by the mayor's comments in the piece that businesspeople and ex-military officers basically need not apply to be his next chief deputies.

"In regards to business people running city government, of course that's a good idea. The problem they've had is they've hired a few business people like Jim Waring with no adequate supervision," Francis said.

Francis pointed to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan as businessmen who have or are successfully managing municipalities.

"Sanders doesn't understand how you manage people in the private sector. It appears he believes you hire them, go spend all your time being a senior statesman and don't spend any time holding them accountable," Francis said.

And then the final twist. Francis turned on his own:

"Unfortunately everyone in the business community wants to let him off the hook because they fear that someone from the liberal left might beat him," Francis said.

But that brings us to you, readers, let's hash this out: Is Sanders correct that only a seasoned manager of big municipalities or government agencies can effectively handle San Diego's day-to-day operations and enact reforms?

-- SCOTT LEWIS




43 Comments so far on this story...

I still remember Francis when he filed his papers to run for Mayor - that weird, deer in the headlights, mute response to simple questions by reporters. He was so afraid of saying something wrong that he looked like a scared, bumbling fool. What would he do when the first real crisis hit him as Mayor? Well, I think we already know, just a thousand times worse, I'm sure. Francis may think he's the answer, but most of us don't, and won't, unless he quits looking like just another rich opportunist with as much time on his hands as personal ambition.

Posted by Funny | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 10:14 am

Sounds like the mayor wants Laurie Madigan for Ms. Froman's spot and Mike Madigan for Mr. Waring's position. Or, how about Al Bersin? Isn't there a couple of jobs left that he hasn't been able to pull a public pay check from? These three all meet Jerry's hiring formula. It was never about reforming anything. It is about maintaining the status quo.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 10:15 am

Scott, I love this philosophical question so I am gonna write a few posts… sorry for dominating. At the end of the day, the business community is all about results. You get promoted by being the smartest guy/gal, with the best ideas who contributes the most to the bottom line. Almost every decision is based on economics. In spite of all the rhetoric, I think 5 years from now were all gonna realize that Jim W’s solution was the best for the City’s bottom line. That being said, it was horrible for the City’s collective psyche.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 11:43 am

Funny that you should ask whether only a seasoned city managers can run a city of our size. That was one of the selling points and perhaps why the City voted to go to the "modern" professional city manager system back in 1931. We had a separation of powers or "mayor-council" system before then. It didn't work out very well. Nowadays, you have the public rights to access the group decision-making processes of the City, and the lack of access to the Mayor's [executive] decision-making processes doesn't sit so well with that. So-what is the Mayor saying --he should be part of the City Council again? That the professional City Manager form of governement is a better one? He did oppose Prop F. ... Or should we ask Sainz?

Posted by Historian | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 11:56 am

Of great relevance to this debate is the Mayor’s recognition that Government is not a business. While saying that you are gonna run it like a business makes a great campaign slogan, people often forget it isn’t about making money and beating your competitor. In government you don’t have a competitor. Government is about redistribution of wealth (bring it on libertarians) and fair process. In short it’s about fair and equal and making sure that a basic standard of living and the same rights are available to everyone.

Posted by Basic Civics #2 | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 12:32 pm

Jerry shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Business can infuse creative thinking into municipal government. Sounds like the problems at the city and in Sanders' office are way bigger than Waring.

Posted by good for business | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 12:32 pm

By there very nature governmental functions aren’t well served by competitive markets and economic decision models because there is no concept of fairness in economics. Economics recognize relative utility and efficiency. Bureaucracy (process) is farthest thing from that. This isn’t to say you can’t focus on efficiency but you have to recognize the benefits and cost of fairness in that equation. Business people who have excelled in government recognize this, and many whom I have seen have success in government come from highly regulated industries where process is imposed by the will of the people. Bloomberg was a financial guy, Riordan ran a toy company. Both of those guys ran huge companies with large bureaucracies which were created by a need to meet financial regulations, market disclosure practices and consumer products regulations.

Posted by Basic Civics #3 | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 12:33 pm

The sad part is that businesses typically only recognize the need for this when forced to by regulators and the public perception (e.g. Sarbanes Oxley and chinese toy mfgs. using led paint). Steve Francis may work well because he comes from a healthcare background and that equals regulation but it remains to be seen if he will get a chance. Real estate as an industry is the wild west, making deals and catch me if you can is what it is all about. In that sense, I think that Jim was disadvantaged. Its up to these business guys to recognize that the bureaucrats know a thing or too and to learn from it to be successful. Military and Government well that is another set of posts but the issue there is discourse and debate vs. autocratic management styles. Where military guys really excel in my experience is process though.

Posted by Basic Civics #4 | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 12:34 pm

Francis - 1 Sanders - 0

Posted by King Tone | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 12:47 pm

The way I read Sanders is this: municipal government is harder than it looks. It was arrogant to think that successful business skills would be a guarantee of success. Sometimes specific experience is needed. Kudos to him for admitting as much. There's a tired notion out there that CEOs are by definition great leaders and that government administrators are likewise mindless bureaucrats. Neither is true, though it's sometimes good campaign politics to play to that myth. I also don't hear in any of Sander's interview that he's blaming others for 'standing in the way of his agenda'. Again kudos. I think he's just being honest that there's no silver bullet. The City has a lot of needs and a lot of debt. About now, I'm sure he and his staff would rather just go run a business.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 1:03 pm

Larry Prior came into SD County Gov. (which was broke) wasn't a "seasoned manager" (only private sector work) and turned around the County and left with a big surplus. The Mayor isn't leading he is playing defense against Aguirre. There is a pending $40MM lawsuit against the City from Sunroad. Waring looks for ways to protect the taxpayors and he gets the boot! I hope he isn't looking for creative ideas from other employees. They will be afraid say a word. And I thought Dick Murphy was bad, what was I thinking?

Posted by Tax Paying | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 2:25 pm

For God's sake, bring back Jack McGrory. He is smart, tall and funny and doesn't call himself names. Fred Sainz could be his sidekick.

Posted by Thinking Outside the Box | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 2:51 pm

Basic Civics, shall I follow you into the abyss? Negative. Your understanding of civics is slothful, gluttonous, and COMMUNISTIC. How can something be "5 years from now...best for the City" yet simultaneously "...horrible for the City's psyche"? Are you so short-sighted as to be perfectly obtuse? You assert: government isn't "...about making money and beating your competitor." You are excused from forgetting what you never knew. In business you make money by depressing your costs, allowing you to lower your prices while maintaining quality. That, sir should be basic civics. Trim bureaucracy so that I may buy my services with lower taxes. Per competition's absence think again. If SD were run by you I would flee to greener pastures. How dare you presume to know better than I how to ensure my standard of living. How dare you judge a life's work by apartment size. Go be Cuban, sir.

Posted by Carmen Cham | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 4:21 pm

San Diego County brought in a business leader as Chief Administrative Officer, and their reengineering process went very well. The Board of Supervisors continued to do their job, i.e. superv ise their employee. The City of San Diego is flailing while trying to become more effective and more efficient. Of course the staff's motivation is to remain comfortable in their more than comfortable career slots, which in most cases is antithetical to effectiveness and efficiency. Of course business and military leaders can lead in the City government environment, but they must have the power to hold the staff accountable. Mayor Sanders actually firing people for their actions would do wonders. jim dodd

Posted by Jim Dodd | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 9:20 pm

I like the "Oaf article" by Scott and Kevin's comments, "I am not a crook -- Richard Nixon; I am not gay -- Larry Craig; I am not an oaf -- Jerry Sanders."

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 10:51 pm

The sad part about this entire thread is that, with the notable exception of Jim Warring (who came from the private sector but did not MANAGE a large private sector organization) the rest of the senior folks are from either the county, SDUSD, or the Navy. Check out link While there are differences between the public and private sectors, lets not say that Sanders has changed his ways when the facts on the ground say he has never tried. What we have is a team of senior PUBLIC sector bureaucrats being led by one.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 11:24 pm

On the one hand you've got guys like Larry Prior who was just named COO of SAIC that prove business people can be effective on government. On the other hand you've got guys like Sanders who at one time had that We've Never Made a Profit venture capital firm. In his election he pretends to have business experience and now he says its not necessary. Here's a new proposal to reduce the city's operating expenses: all city bureacrats from now on will be interns from local colleges. This way we can guarantee they have no real world experience that could hinder their ability to run a local government (into the ground!).

Posted by Sanders, LLC | reply to this comment
September 6, 2007 11:36 pm

I wonder if the mayor regrets asking all the managers to submit resignation letters when he took over as "strong mayor".

Posted by LC | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:04 am

As often happens in crisis mode, the pendulum is pushed too far the other way. There are some business principles that can be successfully implemented and executed in the public sector. By the same token, there are some functions, such as public safety -- police and fire -- that cannot be (both statutorily and practically) replicated in the private sector. Mayor Sanders, with all due respect, don't overreact to a couple of blunders and then convince yourself that some business practices can't be applied here or there in government...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:13 am

The problem isn't business people running government. As others have said, competent people applying good principles will be successful. even though government isn't business. However the organization is only as good as the leadership, and this is where we're failing. Sanders is not a leader. He's never run something of this size, cannot make good decisions, and surrounds himself with the wrong people. Just look at the holdovers from Golding's administration. Put in a truly strong and smart mayor and watch what happens.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:39 am

What's the difference? In San Diego we've got elected officials and bureaucrats with both business and labor pulling their strings.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:55 am

Great comments, Basic Civics. Very interesting perspective. Business experience wasn't a magical pill, but the idea of infusing business practices into government was worth a try and not entirely unsuccessful. Hopefully Sanders won't hire only from the public sector, because there are bright and talented people everywhere, and the govi types reigned for a very long time without doing any better than the business types who left his office. Success in turning the city around was not going to occur overnight, no matter who's in charge.

Posted by Random reader | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:57 am

Let's see: is the choice a self described Oaf; vs. a rich guy? I vote for the rich guy. maybe Francis has the cash to bail the city out. At least he wouldn't be Tom Shepard's puppet.

Posted by Surfobard Dude | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 12:59 am

There is nothing intrinsically good about business or bad about government. It is a question of competence and ethics. Sanders has neither. Competence - he understands neither business nor government. United Way and Red Cross are not businesses. And he simply does not understand representative government. A police chief is an autocrat. But all of those shortcomings could have been overcome if he had ethics. A successful strong mayor will have strong ethics and an acceptance that local government is a representative democracy not an autocracy. Waring was a top-down guy. So is Sanders. Autocracy has failed. Let's try democracy.

Posted by Pat Flannery | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 2:03 am

You know, as an employee of the City, you hear about all these changes and you watch your boss make announcements about how we're going to be like the private sector and you think to yourself, they just don't get it! I am not talking about the mayor, but about those in lower positions from the private sector hired to fix things. They try to make us like some company on the outside but don't realize that we don't do the work of a private business. We are a service organization. I think the Mayor is figuring that out. Perhaps the switch to strong mayor is not the solution and bringing back the City Manager form would be a good thing. Also, not everything in the City was broken but with so many people leaving for other organizations it is fast breaking.

Posted by City Worker | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 2:06 am

P.S. Steve Francis would be in over his head. The City is not a business. It is a government. I think Sanders is getting a handle on what works and what doesn't. Remember, he came in at a time when everyone wanted some sort of change and he did change things. Now he may be learning that not everything needed fixing or changing. He may also be learning that people with government experience may not be the "bureaucrats" that everyone thinks they are. There are very good administrators out there. Just find one and Sanders will have smooth sailing. Personally, I don't think Lamont Ewell had enough time in office to fix everything he was trying to fix.

Posted by City Worker | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 2:16 am

Basic Civics 3,4: As for your assertion that economics lacks fairness, think again. Spoils to the victors is most fair. Your inability to compete privately may lead you to conclude things unfair, but in truth, that you would conclude things unfair is the surest indication of your inability to compete. What sir are "the benefits and cost of fairness" other than nebulous gibberish? And what sir is "success in government"? I imagine to you it is reelection at the cost of fairness. But somehow I am sure I will get the benefit of fairness also. Who are you kidding? Your highlighting of aberrations is snide. Enron resulted from unethicality not the absence of regulation as evidenced by the millions of non-fraudulent public companies. Please continue to insult developers- taxpayers- that built the office you work from. Lastly, there is no need to apologize 'for dominating', trust me, you do not.

Posted by Carmen Cham | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 2:17 am

This is the most oblique voiceofsandiego.org dance on the head of a pin to date, positing "business practices" versus "government management." We all know what San Diego needs. San Diego needs a dependably smooth-functioning government that provides and is accountable for providing satisfactory universal public services. Good government requires good people who want to work on behalf of their community for less money than they could make in the world of commerce, and what "sector" they come from is irrelevant. Good governmment depends on elected and appointed government officials with intelligence and honesty, a sense of public service, a vision for the community and the courage to provide genuine leadership. Not ego, not self-advancement, not extreme ideology, not personal gain at the public's expense, not weathervanes, most especially not nice-oafs-in-office who allow themselves to be manipulated by behind-the-scenes special interests.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 3:02 am

Flannery's absolutely right. It has nothing to do with private v public. It has everything to do with simple ethics and competence. There are legions of ethical and competent people in both the public and private worlds. There are of course legions of the corrupt in both spheres too; the advantage the private sector has is that it is clearly more efficient at ridding itself of the merely incompetent.

Posted by Kevin | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 3:27 am

The goal of government is to protect the common good, so it clearly has a different goal than business. Of course, many skills are useful in both government and business. Problems begin when government is hijacked to benefit the powerful--which happens all too frequently in our current system. We need public financing of political campaigns.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 3:57 am

Wow Carmen, quite a response. I toyed with ignoring but after slicing through your rhetoric I find it odd that you at times agreed with my viewpoint and completely misunderstood my post in others. To this I can say: I would find it amusing to see how the quality of life in San Diego would be if we all had to hire our own personal security to keep us safe. Further amusing would be to see how your personal net worth would protect you from the disease and pestilence caused by a lack of health and social services. Oh and btw if Enron was all about personal ethics, then why did it cause the most sweeping regulatory reform of financial markets since the inception of the NYSE?

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 5:02 am

How about it is not either or but both. Certain functions, public safety being an obvious one, need to be managed in house. But basic civics will NEVER convince me that golf course operations, is some "public good" that requires public employees. This in light of the fact that the vast majority of San Diego's public golf courses (only torrey, balboa, and coronado being the exception) are maintained by private sector workers. Moreover, what "public good" is involved with printing the city council docket or maintaining the white fleet cars? Bolder still - is somehow things going to hell and and a handbasket in the 17 other cities in the region that have their trash picked up by contractors?

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 6:33 am

Carmen Cham - Just because you don't understand the concepts in Basic Civics' post doesn't mean you have to belittle it. Slow down, read, think, study a little history. Your posts sound like you haven't slept in days.

Posted by Random reader | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 6:58 am

Dear Fed Up: Very eloquent. That should be framed and hanging up in every elected official's office. And, maybe it should be read before every council meeting.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 7:41 am

Fed Up is All Wrong...Government workers DO NOT make less money than they could make in the world of commerce, in some cases they make 300%,400% and 500% MORE than they would in the private sector when you inlcude the ENTIRE compensation package (pay, Cadillac benefits and Cadillac pensions). But your comment that government workers make less is the common statement by gov workers. In fact Teachers today in So. Cal. make over $44 an hour in JUST cash compensation-not counting the Cadillac benefits and Cadillac pensions. The patently false assertion that gov workers are compensated less than the private sector just wont fly today-taxpayers and citizens know it is nothing more than a big crock to wring out even more money from the system, the system that is going bankrupt from such abuse, the system that lets gov workers retire at age 50 making more money than when theyworked.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 11:52 am

CMR I couldn't agree with you more about the golf courses, fleet maintenance, print shop, engineering and construction functions, and several other functions at the city. Not entirely sold on trash hauling because I see a risk in that theres not a ton of private sector competition in that area (they are kind of like little monopolies/oligopoli so I am not sure they are really as competitive as we all think. However, that being said, my posts were about management style and not the validity of managed comp. All I was trying to say is that business people tend to be decision makers and sometimes think that things like community input are irellevant.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 10:53 pm

I agree. 'Fed Up' states the case very, very well about the need for ethics, morality and pure service in government...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
September 7, 2007 11:14 pm

What is interesting is the business people I know are KEENLY aware of what both their customers and employees are thinking. Where business people sometimes have problems with government is how many STEPS are built into processes - in many cases inserted by interests so as to slow down things or give them leverage. But I really think it is a media driven myth to envision that modern american business leaders imperialiously rule over empires. The vast majority are walking the halls and talking to buyers/sellers. Those that try to shut the door and rule by memo (or press conference) usually fail.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
September 8, 2007 2:33 am

I start, somewhat unclear in the actual concern-It seems the mayor chose his words carefully when he said (Shown as a Quote In Scott Lewis' article) "--Doesn't necessarily work in a political Envirorment". Scott goes on to say, but I did not see it as a quote (from mayor) or any quote (from Mayor) to support it, (Scott's quote) "Highlighting that Poison of experince in the business world".. If the Mayor does feel that Business or Military experince is a deterrent to public service, "HE IS WRONG". The examples given by Scott of successful Mayor's from the business sector are but the tip of the iceberg of those who have chosen to serve in the public sector and found great success..From the Military there has been equal success--Locally General Penalton-a successful Marine---retired and became a successful Mayor---and---------

Posted by Peter Q. | reply to this comment
September 8, 2007 3:46 am

and --- Many feel without the Federal Funding General Penelton obtained, Lindbergh Field would not have been built, when it was, and where it was. Speaking personally, Redevelopment law was established to allow either the City Council and City staff, to act as the day to day leaders of a City's redevelopment efforts, or to establish an independant Board, from the Private sector, to serve in this capaicity. Our City uses the Private sector board, and I believe most feel that over the decades it has been successful in rebuilding our intercity, while developing such a strong cash flow, that many hands now reach out to share in these dollars- So for the Mayor to classify,if he did, an entire section of the community as unqualifed for Public Service would be very alarming and very disappointing, and very concerning..

Posted by Peter Q | reply to this comment
September 8, 2007 3:47 am

Francis will bring American values and free market solutions to San Diego. He will the corrupt unions and beat back the RINOism that pervading City Government. It's time that a real American take charge of this city again!

Posted by hannitized | reply to this comment
September 9, 2007 8:37 am

Hannitized: As far as I was aware, all the City of San Diego officials, the good, the bad, and the indifferent, were real Americans. Corruption is as American as apple pie, and this country has a long history of unionism. And if by "RINO" you mean "moderate," then we have a long history of those folks raging forth and grabbing power, too. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're American. But let me see if I can get my anterior cingulate cortex to quiet down, and then I'll probably see the light and agree with you.

Posted by Maura Larkins | reply to this comment
September 10, 2007 11:51 am

I am still looking for a plain ol' everyday honest person to take over a government post. Then appoint honest people to positions of authority. What a concept. NO MONEY involved. Just a living wage for doing a decent job.Can you find a person that can't be bought?????

Posted by Joan L. | reply to this comment
September 13, 2007 5:25 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
1ecc6db

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.