|
and Thereby, People with HIV/AIDS |
Mayor Axes Dunlop from CARE Council Mayor Brown's Pettiness The Letter of Unappointment |
|||
|
||||
| Mayor axes Dunlop from CARE Council Cover story, Bay Area Reporter,
June 12, 2003 by Zak Szymanski Reprint permission courtesy of the B.A.R. |
|
|
As the community group that oversees the prioritization and allocation of federal AIDS funding for the city, San Francisco's HIV Health Services Planning Council - often called the Care Council - is made up of a variety of representatives from different agencies and groups. One of the groups with a seat on the Care Council is the city's Redevelopment Commission, which oversees Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS grants. And as the Redevelopment Commission's only openly gay and HIV-positive member, it made sense that Commissioner Mark Dunlop would fill the commission's seat on the Care Council. Dunlop had been serving on the Care Council ever since his appointment to the Redevelopment Commission by Mayor Willie Brown in 1997. Brown had reappointed him to the Care Council twice, after two of his two-year terms expired. This year, however, when Dunlop's name was submitted by the Care Council for reappointment, Brown did not approve it. Even more strikingly, Brown's office told the Bay Area Reporter that the reason for not reappointing Dunlop was political, and personal. "This is a person who said he believed that the appointing authority for his very seat ought not to come from the person who appointed him in the first place," said P.J. Johnston, Brown's spokesman. "He has no confidence in, or respect for, the person appointing him, so it's unlikely he'll be winning respect in return." Johnston said Dunlop made the statement that the mayor should not be in charge of such appointments about two years ago, in the midst of a public battle between Dunlop and fellow Redevelopment Commissioner Leroy King. At that time, Dunlop had accused King of making homophobic and AIDSphobic remarks to him, and the community uproar that followed painted the conflict as a "black versus gay" divide. Dunlop, however, told the B.A.R. that the incident Johnston was referring to came shortly after the King debacle, when the Board of Supervisors wanted to hold a hearing to determine whether it should take control of the Redevelopment Commission. Dunlop said he simply spoke in favor of the board's right to have that hearing; he did not say that Brown should not make commissioner appointments. Regardless, it was the perceived personal affront that was behind Brown's refusal to reappoint Dunlop to the Care Council, said Johnston. "If the mayor is overseeing any particular appointment it's highly unlikely that Mark Dunlop is going to be at the top of that list," said Johnston. "Let's just say that the mayor's term is coming to an end and there are very few appointments left for him to make, but if I were Mark Dunlop, I wouldn't submit my name." Dunlop's reaction was one of shock, both for not being reappointed, and for Brown's reported reason for his decision. "Obviously this has nothing to do with HIV, the Care Council, or the Care Council's work," said Dunlop, who added that by law the mayor must submit a justification for not reappointing him. Additionally, said Dunlop, those not approved for reappointment instantly become inactive on the council, and as Dunlop was the only co-chair left on the council's membership committee, "Mayor Brown has left the membership committee chairless, until it meets again." "This decision hurts people with AIDS and hurts the people that I serve," said Dunlop. "It goes beyond affecting just me." On Wednesday morning, September 24, Brown reportedly agreed to meet with Dunlop, a meeting that Dunlop said was "awful." "Essentially he said I haven't been treating him with the respect he deserves, and there's no way he would reappoint me," said Dunlop. "This shows where his priorities are, and how care for people with AIDS rates over his ego. If he had any decency he'd be ashamed." At press time, the mayor's office was not
available to respond to the alleged details of the meeting. |
|
| Mayor Brown's Pettiness Letter-to-the-editor,
Bay Area Reporter, October 9, 2003 by Patrick Monette-Shaw |
|
|
The B.A.R. reported recently that Mayor Willie Brown's reason for not reappointing Mark Dunlop to the CARE Council was "political, and personal" (Mayor axes Dunlop from HIV Care Council, September 25). Brown's vindictiveness is an affront not only to those with HIV/AIDS, but to those who remain negative. The mayor's spinmeister, P.J. Johnston, claimed in the June 12 issue of the B.A.R. that the mayor had an "ardent commitment" to maintaining AIDS policy issues. Johnston, and the mayor, simply don't get it: if Brown is going to have a commitment to maintaining AIDS policy issues, he shouldn't have left the so-called AIDS-czar-to the-mayor position vacant for fully two years, and he shouldn't now be punishing both Dunlop and the AIDS communities Dunlop represents, because his ego has been bruised when Dunlop stood up to him over a mere affordable housing project in the South of Market. The mayor's pettiness that he hasn't been afforded a "sufficient" level of respect (which sufficiency level may rise or fall on any given day) is no reason to punish both Dunlop and those whom Dunlop represents. Johnston fans the flames citing the mayor's "perceived personal affront," but the difference between "perceived" and "real" personal affronts is an insufficient excuse for Brown to refuse reappointing Dunlop to the CARE Council. If Supervisor Tom Ammiano proves inept at brokering a resolution to have Dunlop reappointed to the council quickly, Ammiano has no business mounting another doomed race to become mayor. Patrick Monette-Shaw |
|
| The Letter of Unappointment | |
|
Despite having specifically requested that the Office of the Mayor provide me with the electronic version of Mayor Brown’s letter stripping Mark Dunlop from his appointment as a member of the CARE Council, the mayor’s press secretary sent me instead only a hardcopy of the letter. [To that extent, P.J. Johnston has still failed to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and California state statutes, and remains in non-compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force’s Order of Determination in which he was ordered to provide the public records I had sought.] Until I can follow up with the Task Force’s Compliance Committee to obtain the electronic record I had initially sought, you will have to take my word for this: Despite Johnston’s assertions to the Bay Area Reporter contained in the story above that Mayor Brown had felt Dunlop had provided an insufficient level of respect to suit the mayor’s ten-gallon Texas ego, the mayor appears not to have the courage of his convictions, since the letter that the mayor eventually released to the public indicated only “… I have decided to give someone new the opportunity to serve …" Can you believe the nerve of this mayor? If the mayor possessed the strength of his convictions, he would have noted in the letter stripping Dunlop of his membership that he had not been shown enough respect; instead, Willie dreamed up this “new opportunity to serve,” possibly because he lacked his own convictions. For starters, Duh Mayor is very upset with Supervisor Chris Daly, who dared to appoint two commissioners to another board in San Francisco when the mayor was taking a lame-duck trip to Tibet a few weeks ago. As Acting Mayor for a day, Daly did so precisely in order to “give someone new a chance,” and to keep another of Brown’s political hacks from being appointed during Brown’s waning days in office. So if “someone new” on the CARE Council is a good idea, why is Brown so upset with Daly for having done the same thing? Further, winding its way to Duh’s desk is a re-nomination recommendation of another long-term member of the CARE Council, one Catherine Geanuracos, who has served this CARE Council admirably as a Co-Chair of the full council, just as Dunlop had served as the Co-Chair, admirably, of the council’s Membership Committee, which was then left chairless, at least temporarily, owing to Brown’s pique. So to provide “equal protection under
the law,” will Brown also refuse to re-appoint Does Brown not realize that there is an extremely limited pool of candidates for these positions from which the Council can draw, precisely because many people with HIV/AIDS are unable to serve due to their health, and who may not possess the ability to attend multiple meetings each month that each last several hours at a time? And as far as that goes, why should Brown even care who serves on the CARE Council once he is termed out of office in just 60 days? Someone new will be given a chance to serve as mayor, someone who will hopefully restore City Hall’s tarnished reputation under Brown’s administration, which many local media have noted to be among the most corrupt in recent memory, and several candidates running for mayor have repeatedly indicated part of their platforms are to clean up corruption in City Hall. Where are Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Assemblyman Mark Leno, former assemblywoman Carol Migden, and House of Representative Nancy Pelosi when they are most needed to advocate with the mayor on behalf of Dunlop? Were each of these four people so inept at powers of persuasion that they could not get the mayor off of his pique-filled saddle? Particularly troubling is that Pelosi — who announced when she was first sworn into Congress years ago that she was there to fight AIDS — appears to hold zip in the way of persuasive powers in order to change Mayor Brown’s misguided hurt feelings! Clearly, Brown should be ashamed of his behavior.
But it’s hard to tuck shame under the same fedora
that has so much pique spilling out of it. |
|