Archive for 2009

Richie Ross: iWar on eMeg on eBay is Big Fun

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

By Richie Ross800px-EBay_Logo.svg
Special to Calbuzz

There aren’t many people having fun in politics anymore.

Just when I was resigning myself to this terrible reality along comes a group of women lawyers who represent women who get injured at work.

True, that’s an unlikely source of a genuinely fun idea.

But they saw a great irony in the campaign for governor: Meg Whitman, the only woman running, only praises the current Governor (of her own party) for his only achievement – workers compensation reform. The irony is that Arnold’s big achievement legalized discrimination against women with any sign of osteoporosis or any genetic predisposition to things like hypertension.

So what’s funny about that?

eMeg says her eBay auctions have empowered thousands of women who sell stuff for their own kitchen-table businesses. So why not raise money from women to help a Democratic candidate who will undo Arnold’s gender discrimination that the only woman candidate thinks is great?

But where’s the fiwarun?

The attorney group named their fundraising effort “Injured Women After Reform” and shortened it to “iWar on eBay.”

Clever name. Nice logo. Are we having fun yet?

The group has begun collecting items for their eBay auction site, starting with a copy of voter registrar’s documents showing eMeg’s famous non-registration record, along with a nice narrative of her spotty voting habit.

Bids open at $250 for this historical document. C’mon, that’s serious fun. You can bid onrichieross it.

iWar on eBay.com.

Richie Ross’s proposal for baseball arbitration to solve Calfornia’s budget wars is looking really, really good.

Press Clips Meets Calbuzz Haiku Contest Winners

Friday, October 16th, 2009

jerryclosenoiseThe Calbuzz Content Preparation, Generation and Presentation Division was overwhelmed by the terrific submissions of  Jerry Brown haikus from readers and we had a difficult decision picking the winners.

Such smart readers — remembering Jacques Barzaghi, the Plymouth and so much more of the atmospherics that make Crusty the General such a delight to have as a candidate, whether he wins or loses.

The team of Cone ansiciliad Sicilia, however, offered the best bribes and since Mike is a Phillies fan and is constantly overshadowed by his talented wife, we were full of pity and mercy.

1. Gavin does not smile
when he reads about the polls.
The Old Man’s got legs.
—  Lucinda Cone and Michael Sicilia

2. In his winter years
the old lone wolf hunts again,
seeking a new pack
Hap Freund

3. Barzaghi no more.
Can a Gust blow strong enough?
Paddle our canoe.

4. Thirty years later,
“This time I will get it right,”
should be his slogan.
—  Rob Feraru

5. What’s my legacy?
Moonbeam to Metamucil?
Tune up the Plymouth.
Rob Gunnison

6. Governor Moonbeam:
Remembering the old days.
Wanna try again?
Deborah Zimmer

Special suck-up award:

All things Brown and Prince,
eMeg, Dudley and Commish.
Calbuzz is the link.
Steve Glazer

All we can say is:
Calbuzz Haiku posts
Poets of politics bloom
Fine lines here and now

Read all the rest of the wonderful haikus that were entered here.


Press Clips: Kudos to Rob Hotakainen of the B- for a heads-up story noting that Dianne Feinstein has angered California labor groups with her refusal to back the Employee Free Choice Act, the top priority for unions across the nation. But what’s with the copy desk tagging her a “Labor Stalwart” in the hed? Our online dictionary defines stalwart as “one who steadfastly supports an organization or cause” and, as we’ve reported, Senator DiFi  has a looong history of placating business on issues involving her purported friends in labor, hanging out there in the middle of the road, along with the yellow stripes and furry squished varmints.

boxershadesBoxer rebellion: Over at Red County conservative blogger Eric Ingemunson previews a Republican line of attack against Barbara Boxer, namely her dismal record in getting anything actually passed in the Senate. Which may explain why Babs rolled out everything but blaring trumpets at a flag-festooned press conference about cap-and-trade climate change legislation this week.

But wait: the Boxer bill, once the defining measure of her alleged, um, Senate agenda,  somewhere along the way became the Kerry-Boxer bill. And the Massachusetts Senator joined South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham to pen a high-profile NYT op-ed promoting a bipartisan solution on the issue, which seemed to shunt aside Boxer’s trademark, left-handed  take-no-prisoners approach to all things political.  And while we’re at it: What’s with the celebrity shades Senator Babs? Has your latest literary effort made you so famous you need to duck the unruly,  autograph seeking hordes of hoi polloi ?

Republican Senate wannabe Chuck DeVore, still reveling in his Bash Carly Fiorina Tour, meanwhile offers a novel rationale for his candidacy, in a great quote captured by wily Padres veteran John Marelius:

“Would you rather lose on principle or would you rather lose when the public doesn’t even know why there’s a race, where there are no clarifying principles?”

Pencil Press Backs Campbell: Quite a week for what you call your GOP gubernatorial hopeful Tom Campbell. Dudley Do Right would win unanimously if voter registration was limited to pundits and reporters, as evidenced here, here and here.

Norwegian good: Among the millions of trees murdered so commentators could hold forth on Obama’s Nobel Prize, the funniest take was a crisp little faux acceptance speech by screenwriter Yoni Brenner. Among other things, he offers a terrific vamp on fjords, and notes that Big O won the Cy Young award a few months after throwing out the first pitch at the All-Star game while  first daughter Sasha captured the Nobel in Zoology shortly after petting a reindeer in Norway.

Why we love the internets and its self-correcting mechanism: This week’s “If it’s news, it’s news to us” goes to Calbuzz for the shameless “Excloo” screamer hed on our expose about email traffic showing apparent Bagley-Keene Act violations by members of the Parsky tax commission. As duly noted in our asterisk-laden updates of the post, Laura Mahoney of the Bureau of National Affairs got there first with some substantive reporting on the issue.

This just in to Calbuzz:
“Michael Jackson reported missing, sources say.”
“Military insiders hint Union troops hold edge on Confederacy.”
“African-American said to eye presidency.”
“Generalissimo Francisco Franco still dead.”
“Pope is Catholic, according to insiders.”

Touching the Bases: Gavin, Nancy, Harvey & eMeg

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

016-932Let’s get this straight: What Gavin Newsom is calling “the first spot of the Democratic gubernatorial primary” is being narrowcast via email, Facebook and Twitter, and is not designed to capture a broad audience. It’s worth taking a close look at, however, especially for its not-so-subtle contrast with Attorney General Jerry Brown and the bold sounding proposals which – on closer examination – go “poof.”

“We’re Californians. We’re not a state of memories, we’re a state of dreams,” Newsom says, opening the spot. Message: Jerry’s the old guy from the past, I’m the new guy for the future.

“Will we nominate a candidate who knows Sacramento or leaders who know how to change it?” Gavin asks. OK, as we’ve said before, Newsom is going to try to be the “change” candidate, hoping he can cast Brown as the status quo contender. Good luck with that.

“This is the race that will shake the system,” the ad intones. And the written message later is: “If you want to change the state we need to change the system.” Followed by: “Don’t just change governors. Change California.”

Change, change, change. We get it. With the governor’s approval rating at 27%, Gavin wants to be the candidate of change. But what change is he really proposing?

“Change the state constitution.” To do what? “Lower the 2/3 majority.” To do what? To pass the budget? Or to raise taxes? We’re betting it’s the former, not the latter.

He also wants to: Pass the budget. Fund the schools. Create jobs. Provide health care. Ooooh, risky agenda there. Nice package, Prince. Excellent production values, nice use of music, black and white photography and smart, emotive language.  Content? Weak sauce. Can’t believe our friends over at Calitics were so impressed.


Take that: After weeks in Steve Poizner’s free fire zone, Meg Whitman counter-attacked Wednesday with a pretty slick web video whacking the Commish as “The Perfect Politician,” reprising his contributions to Democratic pols and causes back in the day when he was still a Zauschist moderate, and before he morphed into the Attila the Hun. Very nice production values.

Meanwhile, eMeg has finally settled on a story about why she neglected to vote for most of her adult life and now is strutting around, fatuously trashing the Sacramento Bee piece that disclosed the extent of her lifelong disdain for the democratic process, while making brash pronouncements about her political betters.

Moving to shore up her support in the Fred Barnes Primary, she phoned up Chris Cilliza, the WashPo’s ace political blogger, and unctuously explained how Gov. Arnold badly fumbled his efforts to push political reform in California:

“While she is loath to meg-whitmancriticize the man she is seeking to replace — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) –– it’s apparent Whitman believes that a lack of focus on his major priorities is what has hamstrung him. She cites his decision to push four ballot measures in 2005 — all four of which were defeated by California voters. ‘If he had done one at a time — set ’em up, knock ’em down,’ he would have been more successful, she explained.”

Excuse us while we build a ballpark big enough to hold our laughter.

Yo! Ms. Lemme Show How It’s Done eMegness! If you’re so smart, why didn’t you, uh, you know, VOTE on Schwarzmuscle’s reforms when you had the chance?

Pelo-Nights 035

Driving Ms. Pelosi: A few days after Nancy Pelosi won her first race for Congress in 1987, she was driving to a thank-you luncheon for supporters, accompanied by a future Calbuzzer interviewing her for a post-election column. Passionately making a long-forgotten point with full, wide open eye contact, she accidentally made a wrong turn and was suddenly heading the wrong way on a busy avenue near San Francisco’s Lake Merced.

Realizing her mistake, Pelosi lurched back to the right side of the road in, oh say, a minute or so. By then the reporter lay whimpering, curled in the fetal position on the floor; a few days later, he wrote a throwaway item in a throwaway column recounting how he’d cheated death with Pelosi at the wheel.

The kicker on the column offered tongue-in-cheek advice to the newly-elected House member – that her first official act should be to hire a driver. Whereupon Rep. Pelosi phoned him up and chewed him out for taking a cheap shot.

Fast forward 20 years: Pelosi, now a few months into her historic speakership, gave a speech at a Democratic fundraiser in Santa Barbara, the political epicenter of California.

The aging reporter, who’d grown much wider, if not wiser, hadn’t seen her for several years and greeted her cheerfully  after the speech. Without a second’s hesitation, Pelosi flashed a triumphant grin at him and said, “You know, I have a driver now.”

Madame Speaker’s instant recall of that long-ago perceived slight, coupled with her toldja payback line, offered a glimpse at the old pol side of Pelosi, a street-smart toughness often concealed beneath the well-heeled, deceptively charming Pacific Heights style that made many in her hometown underestimate her back in the day (we name no names).

As she prepares for the looming epic battle over health reform, the Speaker’s keen political instincts and hardball skills were closely examined in “Pelosi reaches her defining moment,” a fine piece of reportage by Carolyn Lochhead, the Chron’s seasoned Washington hand and a veteran Nancy watcher:

“For a politician of her stature she is remarkably authentic, retaining the earnest relentlessness she brought to Washington as a back-bencher two decades ago. A study in contradictions, she combines a street politics forged in Baltimore and tutorials from the late Democratic Rep. Phil Burton, a San Francisco political legend, with the drive of a moral calling informed by a deep Catholicism.

Considered the most powerful Democratic House speaker in memory, Pelosi’s path is littered with those who underestimated the intelligence and toughness beneath the pearls and polite smiles.

Did we mention she’s got a driver, too?

harveymilkStop the presses – Governator does the right thing: Speaking of history making San Francisco politicians, we could almost hear Harvey Milk’s famous cackle at the news that Gov. Arnold pumped up his courage and signed legislation to honor the late gay supervisor every May 22, his birthday, with an official state day of recognition.

The sweeping artistic paens to Milk – in film, biography, documentary and operatic forms – justly celebrate his breakthrough political achievement as the first prominent, out-of-the-closet gay elected official in California.

But what made Harvey Harvey often gets ignored: it wasn’t grandeur, but his ward heeler’s instinctive sensibility for what made a practical difference in the day-to-day lives of his constituents. That’s why improving Muni service  was a centerpiece of his platform, and why he made headlines as the first San Francisco pol to advocate pooper-scooper legislatiCalifornia poppy imageon – “Anybody who solves the dog shit problem can be mayor,” he famously said. And that’s how Calbuzz will remember him every year on Harvey Milk Day.

Not known for his modesty, Harvey would be delighted that his is only the state’s fourth such day of special recognition, and that he’s in the elite company of John Muir, California teachers and, most all, the California poppy.

CB Excloo*: Did Tax Panel Break Open Meeting Law?

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

chrisedleySince its passage in 1967**, California’s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act has required that “the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”

But Calbuzz has learned that a key member of the Commission on the 21st Century Economy, the panel appointed to revamp California’s tax code, sent out a series of emails to other commissioners privately soliciting support for changes in the group’s publicly-presented recommendations – two days after the commission’s last open meeting and 13 days before it released its final report.

Commissioner Christopher Edley, dean of UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, emailed two liberal members of the panel stating that he was “working with” five other commissioners on possible changes to the panel’s recommendations, including a reduction in the “flattening” of rates for the state personal income tax system; he also urged them to “take another look at” their opposition to commission recommendations.

This means that Edley’s behind-the-scenes communications (not posted on the commission’s web site) apparently involved at least eight –- a majority and a quorum -– of the 14-member, state financed panel. The Bagley-Keene act specifically states that “members of state bodies should avoid serial communications of a substantive nature that involve a quorum of the body.”

fred keeley_0102On Sept. 16, Edley sent an email to fellow commissioner Fred Keeley, who had opposed the income tax recommendation two days earlier, urging him to “take another look at it if we make some progress” in changing what was publicly discussed. After receiving the email, Keeley responded that “any further negotiations of any substantive issues before (the commission) should be conducted in public at properly noticed meetings” and suggested that Edley consult the panel’s lawyer to ensure his communication did not violate the open meeting act.

Edley sent back a sharply-worded response, citing his legal bona fides, insisting that he was not violating Bagley-Keene, and attacking Keeley for allegedly making threats to “blow up” the commission’s work.

Here are some of the emails; we’ve inserted numbers next to the names of commissioners to track how many members of the tax panel were referenced by Edley as being involved in private negotiations over the final recommendations.

From: Christopher Edley(1)
To: Fred Keeley(2)
CC: Richard Pomp(3)
Sent: Wed Sep 16 17:36:02 2009
Subject: More developments

Fred —
Sorry I didn’t get to say goodbye and shake your hand on Monday. I was of course very disappointed in your decision with respect to the package.  You made some good points, needless to say. I’ve been working with Jennifer(4), Ed(5) and Monica(6), and I am negotiating with Gerry(7) and John(8) to reduce the flattening of the PIT and do some other things that will make the package more attractive to the four of us. I hope you’ll be willing to take another look at it if we make some progress.

PS: Richard, unless you tell me otherwise, I will just assume you are just ungettable under any conditions.

Christopher Edley, Jr.
Dean and Orrick Professor of Law
Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley

To which Keeley, a former Assemblyman and current Treasurer of Santa Cruz County, responded:

From: Fred Keeley
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:06 PM
To: Christopher Edley (email address)
Cc: Richard Pomp (email address)
Subject: Re: More developments


Thank you for your continued good and hard work. It is an honor to serve with you.

My decision was based on the state of affairs at the end of the scheduled time in our last public meeting. In my view, any further negotiations of any substantive issues before COTCE should be conducted in public at properly noticed meetings.

Chris, I truly admire you and your public service work product. I am not trying to be overly restrictive in how I read the Bagley-Keene Act, but I would suggest that you seek advice from the Commission’s counsel on the process you are engaged in following the last public meeting. Again thank you for your fine work

Fred Keeley

To which Edley replied:

From: Christopher Edley
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:03 PM
To: Fred Keeley; Richard Pomp
Subject: BS secret discussions


Perhaps I am confused about Bagley-Keene.  See the staff memo attached.  Is it wrong?  The law refers to a “quorum”, including serial conversations amounting to a quorum.  The law does not prohibit communicating with each other.  Nor does the law require that all thinking and talking and negotiating be done in public meetings.  And unless this is completely different from federal statutes, which I know well and have taught, it doesn’t prohibit less-than-quorum sized groups from figuring out something they can jointly present to the full group.  I’d be very interested in case law or citations to the contrary.

I read the not-so-thinly veiled threat to “blow up” the Commission’s work based on procedural objections.  I understand better and better why the state is so screwed up.  After the hours the members of the Commission spent giving a full hearing to Fred’s proposals, which ultimately had zero — ZERO — support from the rest of the Commission, and created untold anxiety among members of the public who waited to berate all of (sic) during the comment period . . .. . the notion that he would make threats about process is mind-boggling.

Fred and Richard, it would be entertaining in the extreme if you want to launch a big public furor about who has or hasn’t been constructive through this process; or who has or hasn’t searched for pragmatic compromise rather than ideological or professional purity.  Can’t for the life of me figure out why you agreed to serve.

Christopher Edley, Jr.
Dean and Orrick Professor of Law
Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley

A key question about Edley’s emails, as regards a possible Bagley-Keene violation, is whether or not they involved a “quorum” of commissioners.

Here’s what Bagley-Keene says, according to the Attorney General’s guide:

The Act expressly prohibits the use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that are employed by a majority of the members of the state body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the state body outside of an open meeting. (§ 11122.5(b).)

Typically, a serial meeting is a series of communications, each of which involves less than a quorum of the legislative body, but which taken as a whole involves a majority of the body’s members. For example, a chain of communications involving contact from member A to member B who then communicates with member C would constitute a serial meeting in the case of a five-person body. Similarly, when a person acts as the hub of a wheel (member A) and communicates individually with the various spokes (members B and C), a serial meeting has occurred…

The prohibition applies only to communications employed by a quorum to develop a collective concurrence concerning action to be taken by the body. Conversations that advance or clarify a member’s understanding of an issue, or facilitate an agreement or compromise among members, or advance the ultimate resolution of an issue, are all examples of communications that contribute to the development of a concurrence as to action to be taken by the body. Accordingly, with respect to items that have been placed on an agenda or that are likely to be placed upon an agenda, members of state bodies should avoid serial communications of a substantive nature that involve a quorum of the body. (emphasis ours).

In a follow-up email, an apparently angry Edley insisted to Keeley that his actions conformed to Bagley-Keene because he did not involve a quorum of the commission:

“Of course “decisions” must be made in public. Duh.  But what’s a “decision”, and what’s ‘deliberation’?

“Answer: a quorum gets together and thinks.  As far as I know, that’s not happening.  Having different conversations with different people on different issues is not a serial meeting.  I’m a lawyer, too.  I’ve read the statute. Can’t for the life of me imagine the basis for your accusing me or others of crossing some line — a line that just isn’t in the statute. I’d be grateful — truly — if there’s case law I don’t know about.  (My job requires me to obey state law. Or face furloughs.) “

Calbuzz counts eight commissioners whom Edley references in urging Keeley and Pomp to reconsider their positions: The three of them, plus Jennifer Ito, Ed De La Rosa, Monica Lozano, Gerry Parsky and John Cogan.

We’re not big-time lawyers like Dean Christopher Edley Jr. Esq, so WTF do we know? Just because it looks and smells like a skunk doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a skunk. Or does it? Hey Mr. Attorney General Brown: Inquiring minds want to know.

* We learned, after the fact, that Laura Mahoney, a Sacramento writer for the Bureau of National Affairs, published details of the probable Bagley-Keene violation even before we posted our story. Hers is available here.

**Note: The initial version of this post said the Bagley-Keene Act was passed in 1967. Our Department of Legislative History and Musty Factoids was informed this may be wrong (since Barry Keene wasn’t in the Legislature then) so, for a while, we removed the date. Further checking (beyond the Wiki that provided the initial reference) found 1967 as the passage date in several other places, including herehere and here. For those still not convinced, a footnote on p. 188 of Barry Keene’s oral history in the state archive says the bill passed in 1967.

How Union Helped New Bay Area News Project

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

warren_hellman_2_03By Cliff Barney
Special to Calbuzz

San Francisco philanthropist/financier Warren Hellman grabbed most of the ink, and pixels, after the announcement last month that he would provide $5 million in seed money to help UC Berkeley and KQED sponsor a nonprofit multimedia local news website. Pretty much ignored in the press coverage was the role of the local Media Workers Guild in creating the Bay Area News Project (BANP) – the current informal name of the embryonic news enterprise.

But the Guild has been involved from the beginning. Backed against the wall by the Chronicle’s demand for substantial layoffs and other contract changes last February, it proposed a right of first refusal to purchase the Chron. That was declined by Hearst, and the union then appealed to the community; it asked local politicians and business leaders – including Hellman – to find a way to resuscitate Bay Area journalism.

Hellman convened a score of interested SF power barons in March, when the idea of taking the Chron nonprofit was floated. That notion quickly sank, but Hellman persevered, commissioning a local research firm to coordinate hundreds of interviews with interested parties to determine what kind of new organization could work. The new news project was the result.

Assisting throughout these events was Carl Hall, onetime Chronicle hall_carlscience writer (he took a buyout in August) and current Guild field rep. Hall made the first phone call to Hellman; and from an ensuing breakfast meeting, Hellman has said, came the idea of creating a local nonprofit news organization.

KQED and the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, both nonprofits, jumped at the chance to take part in the new venture, and will dominate BANP’s board, when it gets one. But now that the project is under way, the Guild has held back; all it wants, Hall says, is the chance to organize the newsroom.

“We were an instigator, now we’re advisers and cheerleaders, hoping to make it a success.” Hall says. There is no legal reason, he adds, why a union cannot have a board seat. Still, he says, “I trust the individuals at KQED and Berkeley. They are really remarkable people. I would rather have a bargaining unit.”

The Guild, according to Hall, is trying to change along with the industry it depends on. “We want to represent newspaper workers and their new media evolutions – we do that all over country. We look for alternative ownership strategies. The Guild will organize anything.” It has even, he notes, created a freelancers’ unit for the hundreds of laid-off Bay Area journalists.

Hall says the Guild urged a nonprofit business model for BANP in order to preserve the core of journalism, the local and investigative news that is sacrificed when, as now, newspaper revenues are falling. In the nonprofit world, a mission, such as this one, is primary; in the profit world, it may be sacrificed.

Nonprofit ownership is one of many experiments being carried out by today’s wandering journalists. Propublica uses the structure to fund investigative journalism. The Voice of San Diego takes the same route for local coverage. The model is not universally esteemed, however, and many promoters of online journalism think it’s simply a blind alley lined with begging bowls. But it was a key element in attracting the participation of KQED and Berkeley.

At the moment, Hall has nothing to organize; BANP has no employees, nor is there even a hiring schedule yet. Nevertheless, the founders have said that they hope to begin operations early next year.

henryThe new organization will be independent of its sponsors, except indirectly through its board. It will not use J-School students as reporters, as earlier news stories suggested. Rather, says J-School Dean Neil Henry, the school will provide coverage through its own hyperlocal sites (in San Francisco’s Mission, Oakland, and Richmond), and assist BANP through multimedia training for the journalistic retreads it hires. BANP plans to put a heavy emphasis on hiring professional journalists, few of whom have much training in multimedia skills.

Henry also wants to enlist other Berkeley departments, such as business, engineering, and information technology, to provide guidance and research.

KQED will increase its own attention to local news and coordinate coverage with BANP and Berkeley. It will participate in setting editorial guidelines for the new entity. Managerially, it will reportedly have power to appoint a majority of the board (although the actual makeup of the board has not yet been set; BANP is still operating informally).

KQED will also lend its considerable experience in nonprofit fundraising. Hellman’s money will eaten up quickly and one of BANF’s first tasks will be to figure out what to do then.

One avenue will be in selling its product, and BANP is already in talks with the New York Times to provide print content for the Times’s planned San Francisco edition. (Last week the Times announced that it plans a similar local edition, similarly fed, in Chicago.) The Times would be a customer of, not a partner in, the new enterprise.

The announcement of BANP has provoked local speculation, fueled by Hellman, about whether it might be the final nail in the coffin of the financially struggling Chronicle. Hall doesn’t think so. BANP will have only a couple of dozen reporters and editors, he points out; while the decimated Chron still musters 141 newsroom staffers. Its website, SFGate, is extremely popular and it has its own relationship with the Berkeley J-School MissionLoc@l site.

audrey cooperAudrey Cooper, the Chron’s Metro editor, recently sent out an ebullient internal memo threatening to “smash” any newcomers who try to poach in the local market. The Chronicle, at least on its editorial side, is not giving up just yet.

That’s fine with Hall and the Guild, which doesn’t care to trade the paper’s 141 members for a few dozen prospects on an untested news site. Hall acknowledges that BANP will definitely apply some pressure on the traditional newsroom. But, he adds, “The Chronicle won’t go away – it will get better.”