Proposition D

Today we have Proposition D.

Proposition D is fairly straightforward: should City policy be that city agencies "reflect the interests and contributions of both men and women of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientation and types of disabilities" and should the city officers and agencies "support the nomination, appointment or confirmation of female, minority and disabled candidates to fill seats on those bodies"?

That's from the ballot description. What that description does not mention is that the Commission on the Status of Women "shall conduct an analysis of appointments to appointive boards, commissions, and advisory bodies ... to track the diversity of appointments to such bodies. This analysis, to be based on voluntary disclosures, shall include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and any other relevant demographic qualities."

So, let's take this piece by piece.

First, I have no idea what the first clause is supposed to mean. The City Charter already states that boards and agency membership "be broadly representative of the communities of interest," so, this takes it one step farther to include interests and contributions of the make-up of the population. So, the first clause would appear to me to be redundant.

Moving on to the second clause, which advocates for the inclusion of anyone except able-bodied, white males. Now I'm having problems. First off, diversity for diversity's sake doesn't seem to me to be a good policy goal. Just because someone is not an able-bodied, white male shouldn't place them at the top of the list; rather, there should be qualified applicants for these positions. Putting unqualified applicants onto boards and agencies increases the likelihood of government waste and inaction. If there are qualified applicants, then current federal and state law already make discrimination illegal. To make it city policy to openly advocate for these preferences is bad policy.

The third part of this proposition asks the Department on the Status of Women to monitor the progress of city boards and agencies in installing non-able-bodied, white males into boards and agencies, but only using "voluntary disclosures." Who will be doing the disclosing? Individuals? The boards and agencies? What will be the cost to do the survey and prepare the report? It doesn't say. Basically, the Department will be collecting diversity-based data in attempt to show how progressive this city is. If this city was truly progressive, then city boards and agencies, and those responsible for installing people on boards and agencies, wouldn't need to be forced or encouraged to do it- they would just do it. Having a department come counting the make-up of boards and agencies every two years will do wonders for morale and composition, I'm sure.

There is a legitimate societal goal in play here, and that's to increase the membership of non-able-bodied, white males on boards and agencies, but by advocating for preferences and set asides is not the way to accomplish this. Having another city department checking up on other parts of city government does not encourage thoughtful hiring. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Board of Supervisors and those in the Mayor's Office really need a city charter amendment to do this. As I opined above, if this city truly is progressive, it's already hiring these folks, and this proposition is unnecessary (except to make people feel better about themselves and show how progressive they are).

In short, this is an unnecessary and potentially wasteful measure. Vote No on D.