Getlin, Josh: Joseph Mazzola trial after Craft Strike

Getlin: …It has become very clear that the leader of the Plumbers Union, Joseph Mazzola, who is also an airport commissioner, certainly if he didn\u27t have direct knowledge of, may have even abetted acts of vandalism at the airport carried out by members of his union to sort of you know, you know increase the sense of aggravation in the city. In addition to the fact that it was like an outrageous thing that they had done and it caused tremendous damage to the city. George was irate and a lot of his anger was directed personally at Joe Mazzola, who was this very contentious, belligerent, you know, old school labor leader who was still smarting from the passage of Proposition B. Still very angry that his salary negotiating parameters been so grossly restricted by this kind of a measure and basically thumbed his nose at the city, and in particular, at the mayor. Who had basically tried to be a friend to labor, had bent over backwards trying to sort of bring some kind and decent settlement about that would, that labor could live with. I think George felt betrayed by Joseph Mazzola. He was angered at him in a civic, public sense for what he had done. And so very soon thereafter, George launched a proceeding to remove him from the airports commission in what was called an “impeachment proceeding.

Getlin, Josh: No on A and B

Getlin: There in 1976, it was the first time that it\u27s been approved and it was quite, quite a landmark moment. Almost immediately, a number of people who politically opposed to district elections and in many cases were also bitterly opposed to George Moscone and his administration, came up with an idea that, first of all, they were going to put on the ballot a measure that would invalidate the passage of district elections. They were gonna say, “well folks, you really weren\u27t paying that close attention. Obviously you had other things on your mind, there was a president being elected. Now you do have time to pay attention and we\u27re sure you didn\u27t mean to do this, because here\u27s why it\u27s a terrible idea. We\u27re sure you\u27ll agree with us.” That would have been controversial enough and it certainly did generate its share of controversy, but at the exact same time John Barbagelata, still clearly smarting from his defeat at George\u27s hands two years before, also put on the ballot measure which essentially would have recalled George. It would basically cut his term in half, ended right there force him to run for reelection, and it alleged that there was a need to do this because of the fact that a number of issues were engulfing the city and it showed the George was not a good enough mayor. I think one of the best examples was crime. Somehow crime had become such a terrible problem facing San Francisco according to Barbagelata and his supporters that it necessitated the immediate removal of the incumbent mayor. This was extremely controversial, but owing to the very lax guidelines for getting something on the local ballot if you had enough signatures, if you could get enough people lined up to do it. Suddenly in the summer of 1977, I believe it was either in July or August, there were going to be these two measures on the ballot in San Francisco. One of which would overturn the creation of district elections and the other which was going to immediately end the mayor\u27s term. He was going to force him to run for reelection and recall him from office. It basically set off a civil war politically in San Francisco and I hate to say all over again, because it\u27s not as if the first one ever stopped, but this certainly heightened the tensions even more. George was plunged into this, obviously, as an opponent of the effort to recall him from office, but he also joined forces with a great many people who said you can\u27t just arbitrarily knock off district elections either. That this is something whose time had come, this is something that the city wanted. Certainly reflected the feelings of a lot of George\u27s supporters. And although George did not campaign as intensely on behalf of district elections as his own ballot measure, and that\u27s to be expected, it was clear that, you know, the people who supported the mayor, who supported the changes they felt were necessary in San Francisco where were bitterly opposed to both of these measures, which were known as A and B. So the no on A and B campaign consumed George in the summer of 1977. What I thought was remarkable about it was that he did not couch it as yet another grudge match between himself and John Barbagelata. It would\u27ve been very easy to do that, it would have been very easy to paint Barbagelata as this freakish fringe character who was once again, you know, bringing the city to a halt for one reason or another. I\u27m sure a lot of people would\u27ve been all too happy to vote based on that. George’s approach in this, which was I thought brilliant, was to basically say, “This is a question for all San Franciscans in terms of the stability and the integrity and the respectability of San Francisco. What kind of city image are we projecting to the outside world at a time when we need more business, we want more conventions, we want to grow and be taken seriously. Here we are, yet again, plunged into this kind of you know third world banana Republic election battle over whether the mayor and I have are gonna have a two year term or a four year term or whatever is going to be the case. This is not good for business. It would create massive instability in the way San Francisco was perceived, it was not good fiscally.” In other words, a whole set of concerns tailor made for the people who were not necessarily George \u27s strongest supporters, but who could be theoretically approaching this kind of election and who could be persuaded that this was nothing that was good for the city. And so I remember very distinctly, at the time, that as George campaigned that summer, of course he wanted to certain parts of the city where you\u27d expect him to go. He campaigned in black and Asian and Latino neighborhoods, he went into the gay community, he campaigned in neighborhoods where he was strong and quite popular. But George also made a point of campaigning very intensely in parts of Pacific Heights, in Republican gatherings, in moderate places where people might not have necessarily have supported him to begin with but were willing to listen to him. And I remember, time after time, George would go into these coffee fundraisers or these coffee discussions with people who in many cases were clearly, if they weren\u27t Republicans, they were very conservative. But he appealed to them in terms of what\u27s good for the city and it was a powerful appeal, it was extremely persuasive. I can\u27t remember one meeting where people walk out of there saying, “you know I think the city is going to hell in a handbasket and this mayor needs to be removed.” It was exactly the opposite. They had finally had a chance to sort of think about it calmly said, “Well of course we\u27re not going to support these things, of course we\u27re not going to.” I thought it was the beginning of a movement that George was going to be able to parlay it into a very successful reelection campaign two years later. I always felt that the No on A and B campaign, however sickening and absurd a distraction it was, was almost like a bizarre gift from Barbagelata to George. Because it allowed him and gave him the basis to approach people and say, “Look, we all want what\u27s best for the city. I\u27m the mayor. Lets stay the course. Anything other than that is unthinkable at this point.” And he made his point. George is very persuasive when you get in a room with people, he was able to persuade them. He was calm, he was his usual genial self, very likable person and also very intelligent. The result was a smashing victory for him on that August night in 1977. District elections was definitely enshrined and the result was that the following year, the entire Board of Supervisors was going to have to run for reelection or election based on the new district alignment. A year from it was basically going to take effect and of course more importantly for George the effort to recall him had been beaten back. What was one of the great upshots, I thought of this, was almost immediately after the district elections was approved was a surge of people who had been either malcontents or strong opponents of George, with one glaring exception, offered their, not their resignations, but said they were not going to run as district supervisors. John Barbagelata announced that he was stepping down from the board, Al Nelder announced he was stepping down from the board, as did Peter Tamaras. All these names, it was it was a victory that kept on echoing after the ballots had been counted and it was a matter of great satisfaction at City Hall in the mayor\u27s office, that there was going to be this new change. And that I think people were looking for to district elections with great, great anticipation

Getlin, Josh: No on A and B

Getlin: There in 1976, it was the first time that it\u27s been approved and it was quite, quite a landmark moment. Almost immediately, a number of people who politically opposed to district elections and in many cases were also bitterly opposed to George Moscone and his administration, came up with an idea that, first of all, they were going to put on the ballot a measure that would invalidate the passage of district elections. They were gonna say, “well folks, you really weren\u27t paying that close attention. Obviously you had other things on your mind, there was a president being elected. Now you do have time to pay attention and we\u27re sure you didn\u27t mean to do this, because here\u27s why it\u27s a terrible idea. We\u27re sure you\u27ll agree with us.” That would have been controversial enough and it certainly did generate its share of controversy, but at the exact same time John Barbagelata, still clearly smarting from his defeat at George\u27s hands two years before, also put on the ballot measure which essentially would have recalled George. It would basically cut his term in half, ended right there force him to run for reelection, and it alleged that there was a need to do this because of the fact that a number of issues were engulfing the city and it showed the George was not a good enough mayor. I think one of the best examples was crime. Somehow crime had become such a terrible problem facing San Francisco according to Barbagelata and his supporters that it necessitated the immediate removal of the incumbent mayor. This was extremely controversial, but owing to the very lax guidelines for getting something on the local ballot if you had enough signatures, if you could get enough people lined up to do it. Suddenly in the summer of 1977, I believe it was either in July or August, there were going to be these two measures on the ballot in San Francisco. One of which would overturn the creation of district elections and the other which was going to immediately end the mayor\u27s term. He was going to force him to run for reelection and recall him from office. It basically set off a civil war politically in San Francisco and I hate to say all over again, because it\u27s not as if the first one ever stopped, but this certainly heightened the tensions even more. George was plunged into this, obviously, as an opponent of the effort to recall him from office, but he also joined forces with a great many people who said you can\u27t just arbitrarily knock off district elections either. That this is something whose time had come, this is something that the city wanted. Certainly reflected the feelings of a lot of George\u27s supporters. And although George did not campaign as intensely on behalf of district elections as his own ballot measure, and that\u27s to be expected, it was clear that, you know, the people who supported the mayor, who supported the changes they felt were necessary in San Francisco where were bitterly opposed to both of these measures, which were known as A and B. So the no on A and B campaign consumed George in the summer of 1977. What I thought was remarkable about it was that he did not couch it as yet another grudge match between himself and John Barbagelata. It would\u27ve been very easy to do that, it would have been very easy to paint Barbagelata as this freakish fringe character who was once again, you know, bringing the city to a halt for one reason or another. I\u27m sure a lot of people would\u27ve been all too happy to vote based on that. George’s approach in this, which was I thought brilliant, was to basically say, “This is a question for all San Franciscans in terms of the stability and the integrity and the respectability of San Francisco. What kind of city image are we projecting to the outside world at a time when we need more business, we want more conventions, we want to grow and be taken seriously. Here we are, yet again, plunged into this kind of you know third world banana Republic election battle over whether the mayor and I have are gonna have a two year term or a four year term or whatever is going to be the case. This is not good for business. It would create massive instability in the way San Francisco was perceived, it was not good fiscally.” In other words, a whole set of concerns tailor made for the people who were not necessarily George \u27s strongest supporters, but who could be theoretically approaching this kind of election and who could be persuaded that this was nothing that was good for the city. And so I remember very distinctly, at the time, that as George campaigned that summer, of course he wanted to certain parts of the city where you\u27d expect him to go. He campaigned in black and Asian and Latino neighborhoods, he went into the gay community, he campaigned in neighborhoods where he was strong and quite popular. But George also made a point of campaigning very intensely in parts of Pacific Heights, in Republican gatherings, in moderate places where people might not have necessarily have supported him to begin with but were willing to listen to him. And I remember, time after time, George would go into these coffee fundraisers or these coffee discussions with people who in many cases were clearly, if they weren\u27t Republicans, they were very conservative. But he appealed to them in terms of what\u27s good for the city and it was a powerful appeal, it was extremely persuasive. I can\u27t remember one meeting where people walk out of there saying, “you know I think the city is going to hell in a handbasket and this mayor needs to be removed.” It was exactly the opposite. They had finally had a chance to sort of think about it calmly said, “Well of course we\u27re not going to support these things, of course we\u27re not going to.” I thought it was the beginning of a movement that George was going to be able to parlay it into a very successful reelection campaign two years later. I always felt that the No on A and B campaign, however sickening and absurd a distraction it was, was almost like a bizarre gift from Barbagelata to George. Because it allowed him and gave him the basis to approach people and say, “Look, we all want what\u27s best for the city. I\u27m the mayor. Lets stay the course. Anything other than that is unthinkable at this point.” And he made his point. George is very persuasive when you get in a room with people, he was able to persuade them. He was calm, he was his usual genial self, very likable person and also very intelligent. The result was a smashing victory for him on that August night in 1977. District elections was definitely enshrined and the result was that the following year, the entire Board of Supervisors was going to have to run for reelection or election based on the new district alignment. A year from it was basically going to take effect and of course more importantly for George the effort to recall him had been beaten back. What was one of the great upshots, I thought of this, was almost immediately after the district elections was approved was a surge of people who had been either malcontents or strong opponents of George, with one glaring exception, offered their, not their resignations, but said they were not going to run as district supervisors. John Barbagelata announced that he was stepping down from the board, Al Nelder announced he was stepping down from the board, as did Peter Tamaras. All these names, it was it was a victory that kept on echoing after the ballots had been counted and it was a matter of great satisfaction at City Hall in the mayor\u27s office, that there was going to be this new change. And that I think people were looking for to district elections with great, great anticipation

Getlin, Josh: Moscone and waste water management

Getlin: Yeah I thought it was a model example of what a smart mayor would do faced with a genuine crisis his very first hour in office. He recruited a very capable person from the outside, Richard Sklar, who had dealt with waste water issues in Cleveland and other cities. He was well known to him politically through various acquaintances. He was brought immediately into the mayor\u27s office and what was good to see was that as much as George was determined to act quickly on this, Richard Sklar understood the issue. He spoke the language, he talked the talk, in what was a, I think, you know, important politically, not substantially for the issue itself, but I think Dianne Feinstein was perhaps the only member of the board sensed the gravity of what was at stake, was very impressed with him at least initially. That they had a simpatico, they were able to talk about the various issues and I think it was important for her to sense that, you know, somebody had been appointed immediately who was going to grab the bulls by the horn, the bull by the horn, and really almost from the get go, set in motion what had to be done. Which was to show, as I recall, that a waste water unit had to be constituted, that had to be taken away from Myron Tatarian and the Department of Public Works. It was a free standing unit that had to be traded somewhere within the bureaucracy. It was very much under the auspices of the mayor\u27s office because Sklar was a political creature who was answering directly to George, at least in the initial stages of his responsibilities. You couldn\u27t ask for a better response and the proof is in the pudding, because I think very quickly the Feds backed off. What had become a Draconian threat to just prevent any building permits anywhere in the city from being granted and eventually what had to happen was, if I\u27m not mistaken, a ballot measure was approved which basically institutionalized, not only waste water standards, but how the city was going to deal with in the future. Lines of communication, bureaucratic responsibility, it was a complete overhaul of the way the city had approached the issue. It was a model of how an enlightened mayoral administration would respond, and I thought that was one of the finest things that George was identified with in the beginning. The problem I think for people who are his close political advisors was it was not the sexiest issue in the world, I mean, people don\u27t realize how serious a threat that was to the city and, you know, if you certainly can no longer have a building permit, very soon it would be a domino ripple effect and it would be a calamity for San Francisco. But the mere fact that you said “well we\u27re not polluting the water as much as we used to and we have a we\u27ve hired some smart bureaucrats”, you know, while it might not play out on the hustings is the greatest political thing in the world, in reality it was a major thing that he did on behalf of the city. I think a handful of people on the inside gave him credit for it and that he deserved it

Getlin, Josh: First impressions of Moscone

Getlin: [George] was a very charismatic man. In addition to the fact that he, well yes, he had great political pedigree. He was, he had been in, was the Majority Leader of the state Senate, he\u27s running for mayor, was thought to be a front runner, well-respected by a lot of people in the city. I was just getting introduced, not just to San Francisco politics, but to politics in general. I had been a writer before, journalism student, but this was involvement in politics on the inside, which was for me the first time. And here I had come face to face with the man himself. In fact, I remember the first time I met George, I heard his voice in the state Senate office before I actually met him and I could have sworn that Marlon Brando had walked in the door, because he was doing a Godfather impersonation with several people on the Senate staff. And I remember cracking up because I wasn\u27t quite sure whether that was him or not but somebody was doing one hell of a Marlon Brando and an impression and it turned out to be George, who I was then introduced to. And I really liked George a lot in addition to his great intelligence and his acumen, he instantly impressed himself on you as a really warm human being. And that was one of the things about him that would prove to be true for the entire time that I knew him. That in addition to everything else, he one of those rare persons in life who is truly decent to the people who work for him. And there are not too many people like that

Getlin, Josh: Political climate during Moscone\u27s mayoral race

Getlin: I think there were two things. I think I remember very much that George was leading a coalition of people who were clamoring, if that\u27s the best word, for a seat at the table, in terms of the power in San Francisco and how the city was going to be governed. And by that I meant the gay community, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, certainly lots of people in the neighborhoods who felt that in the planning process of San Francisco, they\u27d been utterly excluded by the people who\u27ve been running City Hall. Before, under the previous mayor Joseph Alioto, strong, you know, alliance backing him of the labor and the downtown business interests. And on one sense, George\u27s whole campaign was predicated on the idea that that insiders group was no longer going to continue running the city. The whole process was going to be opened up. A whole bunch of new people we\u27re gonna be given truly important positions of responsibility and that\u27s one of his more enduring campaign themes wherever he went and it applied to many different groups and neighborhoods. It\u27s quite effective. So I remember that as being a real strong imperative in his campaign, but at the same time political events were buffeting the city. And if you remember what was going on at that time in the year leading up to the mayoral race there was this unbelievable police and fire strike in San Francisco. An unheard of thing, great labor unrest. And beyond that, the experience of New York City flirting with bankruptcy and the idea of the nation\u27s largest city spending and living well beyond its means and corruption on urban level, this had an unusually strong repercussion in San Francisco. And a lot of people who might not have been normally energized to get involved in politics from a concern over that were involved, and they became involved and on behalf of candidates like John Barbagelata and others in the race. There were a great many conflicting concerns and suddenly what might have just seemed like a campaign to you know fill the shoes of Joseph Alioto had become something far, far different much more complicated, There was a lot riding on that election for a number of people and they have become increasingly polarized as the election wore on

Getlin, Josh: Polarized politics in the election of 1975

Getlin: My feeling about that is that, I think there was no question, there was a polarization in San Francisco. I\u27ve always thought though that it was never as extreme as it was represented at the ballot box in that 1975 race. I thought that was driven by some unusually extreme factors, political events that genuinely had people freaked out. I think you just can\u27t underestimate what it must have been like to have been a middle class homeowner in San Francisco, let\u27s say living west of Twin Peaks, and suddenly the police department goes on strike and the fire department goes on strike. And in that kind of climate, again, against the backdrop of the fact that ‘gee, the big city seemed to be going bankrupt and labor is probably a reason for that.’ In that particular moment in time, a lot of people are going to be scared. They\u27re going to say the, “What\u27s going on? We\u27ve lost control.” I don\u27t know if that presupposes a permanent shift to the right for people who prior to that were in the middle. I think the unique circumstances of that election made it far closer than a lot of people thought it was going to be. I think you see proof of that, because several years later when the recall initiative was launched by Barbagelata and his allies, and basically George Moscone had to campaign and go into the into the homes in the neighborhoods of people who perhaps didn\u27t support him two years before and had made the race unusually close and said, “Look in terms of the stability of the city, the future integrity of the city, our financial health, and what\u27s fair and common sense you can\u27t keep voting for everything this guy puts on the ballot and make the city, you know, this polarized laughing stock.” And, you know, I forget the exact figure, but he won a smashing victory in beating that back and that was a vote of more than just the left in San Francisco. I think that was an example of George recapturing a portion of the center two years later that was not apparent in ’75. But my personal feeling is that it\u27s because of the unique confluence of events in that particular election year. I think people a lot of people were scared and concerned and I think that\u27s where the race was as close as it was

Getlin, Josh: Political climate during Moscone\u27s mayoral race

Getlin: I think there were two things. I think I remember very much that George was leading a coalition of people who were clamoring, if that\u27s the best word, for a seat at the table, in terms of the power in San Francisco and how the city was going to be governed. And by that I meant the gay community, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, certainly lots of people in the neighborhoods who felt that in the planning process of San Francisco, they\u27d been utterly excluded by the people who\u27ve been running City Hall. Before, under the previous mayor Joseph Alioto, strong, you know, alliance backing him of the labor and the downtown business interests. And on one sense, George\u27s whole campaign was predicated on the idea that that insiders group was no longer going to continue running the city. The whole process was going to be opened up. A whole bunch of new people we\u27re gonna be given truly important positions of responsibility and that\u27s one of his more enduring campaign themes wherever he went and it applied to many different groups and neighborhoods. It\u27s quite effective. So I remember that as being a real strong imperative in his campaign, but at the same time political events were buffeting the city. And if you remember what was going on at that time in the year leading up to the mayoral race there was this unbelievable police and fire strike in San Francisco. An unheard of thing, great labor unrest. And beyond that, the experience of New York City flirting with bankruptcy and the idea of the nation\u27s largest city spending and living well beyond its means and corruption on urban level, this had an unusually strong repercussion in San Francisco. And a lot of people who might not have been normally energized to get involved in politics from a concern over that were involved, and they became involved and on behalf of candidates like John Barbagelata and others in the race. There were a great many conflicting concerns and suddenly what might have just seemed like a campaign to you know fill the shoes of Joseph Alioto had become something far, far different much more complicated, There was a lot riding on that election for a number of people and they have become increasingly polarized as the election wore on

Getlin, Josh: After election voter fraud allegations

Getlin: …stop you right there and I would say that an extraordinary event took place forty eight hours after the election, which I\u27ve never forgotten and which, really, set the theme for what was going to be George\u27s, you know, series of challenges as mayor. Because I remember, I think it was the Saturday after the election, you know, it, for all intents and purposes, it was a warm day in San Francisco for December and I was taking the day off and, you know, looking forward to a day off, took a walk through North Beach where I lived in the morning. I came back in the phone was ringing and it was it was Corey Busch calling me on the phone saying, “you have to get down to City Hall immediately, you\u27re not gonna believe what\u27s going on. But Barbagelata\u27s people have invaded the registrar\u27s office and they\u27re going through ballots, they’re physically handling ballots and they\u27re claiming that there\u27s massive voter fraud in the election, is you know questionable if not tainted et cetera.” And I think that basically established a period of less than forty eight hours of any relative calm on the part of the winning side in that election. It sort of set the tone, it was hugely symbolic, I thought in later years, that this would be the real, for me, inaugural event for what George\u27s mayoralty would have to become. Which was this constant struggle with the one, and then ultimately two antagonists who were who were relentless in their opposition to everything he tried to get accomplished at city hall. And by that I mean John Barbagelata, obviously and of course, Quentin Kopp