Most mainstream media outlets in town haven't been too thrilled with Supervisor Chris Daly's proposed Charter amendment to have the mayor of San Francisco appear before the Board of Supervisors once a month to report on what the mayor is doing and to answer questions from the Supervisors. A San Francisco Chronicle column by former Canadian Parliament aide Eric Schellhorn dismisses Daly's idea, calling it "a cheap political spectacle" while the Examiner's Ken Garcia called Daly's plan a "legislative ruse." Daly's proposal would require the Mayor's presence at a local version of the British Question Time, the raucous weekly hour long session of the British Parliament where the Prime Minister is peppered with questions on the issues of the day from supporters and opponents in the House of Commons. During Question Time, the Prime Minister had better be quick and accurate with answers, because while responses from supporters will be greeted with hurrahs and yeas, opponents will respond with boos and jeers that will grow louder the longer it takes to answer a question or to correct an obvious misstatement of fact. The Prime Minister is required to attend Question Time every Wednesday the British Parliament is in session.

(American residents can watch Question time live on C-SPAN or a recorded version from the Prime Minister's website.)

Most Americans who see Question Time for the first time are amazed and often ask "why don't we
have something like this in the United States?" Can you imagine President Bush having to answer questions weekly or even monthly from the likes of Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee or Russ Feingold?

Most of the local mainstream media comments about Daly's plan have
implied that Daly wants this measure passed to give him a monthly
soapbox to criticize current mayor Gavin Newsom, but are critics of
Daly's plan overlooking the prospect that a San Francisco version of
Question Time could give San Francisco residents a direct opportunity to
hear the mayor and the Supervisors answer questions from the public?

The mayor says there's no need for a Question Time-like session in The
City because Newsom says he has an open door policy with all of the
supervisors; but it's interesting to note that with the exception of the
mayor's State of the City speech and budget submission to the Board,
Newsom has not appeared before the supervisors, although he has the
right as mayor to address the board at any time when the supervisors or
board committees are in session.. While Newsom is very media savvy and
accessible to most of the press, he has held few public forums and has
been a no show at several Bayview and Western Addition meetings on crime
and violence in those communities.

One thing that the British Question Time does is to force the Prime
Minister to regularly appear in public to answer questions at times when
politicians would prefer to avoid the press, opposition party members
and the public. Unlike the British Prime Minister, there are few if any
requirements for US elected officials to meet with the public, press or
legislators outside of annual events such as the State of the Union,
State of the State or State of the City speeches. Elected officials in
the United States can go weeks or months without facing questions from
the press or the public.

Critics of Daly's idea act like requiring top elected officials to
answer questions in a public forum is some extreme, wacky or far out
idea, but in reality a form of Question Time was implemented by former
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who once a month held a public forum
on a Saturday morning where anyone who obtained a first come, first
issued ticket from the mayor's office could have 15 minutes in front of
the "Da Mayor" and his top aides to discuss anything on their minds.
While some of the people testifying wanted to invite the mayor on a date
or to meet space invaders, most people who attended Brown's Saturday
morning sessions had legitimate complaints about Muni, the police, the
parks and other city concerns. Brown said the sessions generated
innovative ideas and suggestions that resulted in action by city
agencies and changes in city policy. The monthly discussions also gave
the public the impression that Brown, who was already accessible to the
media and the public and who regularly appeared before Board meetings,
was willing to hear ideas and complaints from the public.

While an exact version of Question Time, as implemented in the UK,
might not be feasible in San Francisco, a modified version in The City
could feature a session where board members would be able to question
the mayor; and members of the public could question both the Mayor and
board members, with the Board President acting as moderator. Currently
there's no public forum for citizens to question the mayor and while the
public can make statements to the supervisors during the public comment
period of board meetings, there's no public forum where the public where
can ask supervisors questions.

Elected officials are supposed to be accessible to the public and while
some elected officials hold town hall sessions or regular meetings with
constituents, they are the exceptions rather than the rule. Many
constituents complain that the only time they have an opportunity to
pose questions to elected officials is on the campaign trail when those
elected officials are running for re-election.

Folks in the mainstream media should applaud any effort to require
elected officials to answer questions from the public but it seems that
local media pundits are more concerned with the soap opera type drama
between a certain supervisor and the current mayor instead of analyzing
the long term impact of requiring the mayor of San Francisco to answer
questions from either the Board of Supervisors or the public long after
Chris Daly and Gavin Newsom leave San Francisco City Hall.