One of the principal reasons I ran for supervisor in 2010 was out of a desire to change the incredibly negative perception many San Franciscans had about the Board of Supervisors. In the years preceding my election, the Board of Supervisors had rightfully been the subject of massive ridicule. The full board passed a number of eye-popping pieces of legislation, such as the “Happy Meal” legislation that garnered the attention of national media outlets – including an embarrassing video on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. Meanwhile, individual supervisors had made a mockery of the board, most notably Supervisor Daly and his commitment to using the f-word at every board meeting during his last year in office.

Personally, I wanted San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors to be respected, not the subject of jokes. I don’t find it humorous when people view San Francisco as a social experiment or test case for their ideas; San Francisco is our home, and I believe we should want our local government to be taken seriously. Since being sworn in on Jan. 8, 2011 (along with three new supervisors), I do believe the Board of Supervisors has changed for the better. We still disagree on issues, have debates, and occasionally the questionable piece of legislation makes it through the board, but as of now, by and large, we’re moving in the right direction.

Nevertheless, there is one area which continues to plague the Board of Supervisors: pointless nonbinding resolutions. Any high school civics class or Political Science 101 course in college most certainly outlines the difference between our local, state and federal governments. It is a distinction, however, that often seems lost on our board. Here are a few stark examples from the past few years:

• In February 2006, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution, sponsored by then-Supervisor Chris Daly, calling for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It passed on a 7–3 vote. Supervisor Sophie Maxwell cast one of the dissenting votes, stating later to a reporter that she felt “it was too easy to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney while African-Americans in San Francisco are being shot with illegal assault weapons and while children are achieving low grade-point averages in schools as a direct result of being forced to live in combat zones.”

• In June 2010, when San Francisco was facing one of its largest budget deficits in recent years (approximately $438 million), the Board of Supervisors conducted five hours of debate on whether to pass a resolution denouncing Israel over the raid of Gaza-bound aid flotillas. The text of the resolution urged President Obama and Congress “to actively seek an end to the Gaza blockade,” and to “call for an independent investigation into the events surrounding the raid on the Freedom Flotilla and, in particular, into the raid itself, the use of force and rules of engagement by the Israeli Defense Forces.” The debate on this nonbinding resolution was extremely divisive and instead of bringing San Franciscans together, it tore apart communities already at odds. In the end, absolutely nothing was gained.

• In 2011, just when everything was looking brighter, the Board of Supervisors passed another nonbinding resolution in their latest stab at foreign policy, urging the United States government to reduce the military budget and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution passed 8–3. Needless to say, I was one of the three dissenting votes.

Whether or not I agree with any of these resolutions is not the point. We have plenty to do here at home in San Francisco, plenty of issues to tackle in our neighborhoods, plenty of jobs to create in these rough economic times, and plenty of injustices to address. These resolutions concern me for two reasons: not only do we waste time debating them, but these resolutions inevitably make their way into the newspapers and further the public’s perception that the Board of Supervisors isn’t focused on solving real problems in San Francisco. Exactly the perception I believe needs to change.

Of course I have opinions about national and international issues, and I speak about them often. Anyone running for state or federal office, including sitting supervisors, should absolutely talk about these issues – it’s part of the job description. However, I believe the focus of legislation and debate at the Board of Supervisors should be on local issues – from economic development, neighborhood vitality and public safety, to quality of life issues that affect all San Franciscans. The bottom line: we have a laundry list of issues that need to be addressed in San Francisco.

That’s what we were elected to handle.