Eric Adams - Mayor of San Francisco

says: That’s where you see how limited his perspective really is. He would have sounded much more intelligent if he had just admitted he doesn't believe and left it at that. But apparently, he needs empirical proof for faith? He should volunteer to lead an investigation into the Shroud of Turin once Vatican City decides to let people actually take a closer look again.. 😁

So, weren't you once a practicing believer yourself?

Yeah, I was religious until I hit 25, right up until I started diving seriously into science and tried applying a scientific mindset to theological questions. I quickly realized the two just don't mesh.

In my view, man created God, not the other way around.

So, he basically admitted he used to believe, explained why he doesn't anymore, and moved on. Seems pretty fair to me.

amberjackal68 said:I mean, seriously, if you spend your 30s kissing altars and then suddenly at 35 you claim you've scientifically proven that God doesn't exist, not everyone is going to buy that.😁
There's no need for those songs anymore. But he's clearly just feeling guilty about having sung them in the first place.

Look, the guy is a physicist, which is a specific way of looking at the world. It’s not like he was some devout believer at 30 only to pivot at 35 and demand hard evidence for God's existence; it was likely just his intellectual evolution. And who's to say he won't change his mind again later in life? That's just how people work.
A lot of people might feel a bit of regret for singing songs that weren't exactly "appropriate" during wartime, but personally, I don't think an apology is necessary. War is such an extreme state of being—people find different ways to cope and stay motivated when everything is hitting the fan. Even our former president once remarked how America managed to pull off two victories during World War II.😁
Nowadays, all this rehashing is pretty useless, unless you're someone like Bujanec, or part of the political scene over in Mexico.

amberjackal68 said:And when exactly did he become a scientist? He was basically polishing altars until his mid-30s. Now, suddenly, he’s offended by people praying outside a maternity ward...

Well, so what? Did I ever go around claiming to be a devout Catholic?

As a believer myself, even I find it grating when people act that hypocritically.
Just because someone wears a cross doesn't mean they're a saint.

The guy is just being honest—is there actually a problem with that?
My kids still take their sacraments.

If you can't handle someone else's faith, the least you can do is not resort to cursing them.

vividraven79 said:hahahahahaha, there is no way someone who has spent so many years stuck in the mud could still be this naive. It's just impossible.

Look, I was referring specifically to Prime Ministers and Presidents, not the entire federal hierarchy. Do you actually have any concrete evidence—like an indictment or a court verdict—to back up your suspicion that they were thieves? Or is this just your own personal gut feeling?

feralpilot0 said:As a believer myself, even I find it grating when people act that hypocritically.
Just because someone wears a cross doesn't mean they're a saint.

The guy is just being honest—is there actually a problem with that?
My kids still take their sacraments.

If you can't handle someone else's faith, the least you can do is not resort to cursing them.

We’ve got all kinds of believers out there.
Well, personally, I don't mind a bit of profanity, but it really bugs me when people try to argue that tearing apart embryos should be treated with the same weight as getting a tooth pulled. Let them pray, I guess—maybe one of them will actually convince God it was worth it.

amberjackal68 said:We’ve got all kinds of believers out there.
Well, personally, I don't mind a bit of profanity, but it really bugs me when people try to argue that tearing apart embryos should be treated with the same weight as getting a tooth pulled. Let them pray, I guess—maybe one of them will actually convince God it was worth it.

No comment. A mother who doesn't want a child isn't going to change her mind just because of blackmail or moral grandstanding.

Dana Martin95 said:

Out of 320 employees at the San Francisco public works department, 248 are part of this union. Even the union rep won't say how many people might actually walk off the job starting tomorrow. Apparently, the Mayor and the director haven't decided which essential services need to stay running during the strike, so it looks like absolutely nothing will get done.

The claim is that their request for a $140 monthly 'fixed bonus'—instead of a 6% raise per person to make things equal—was turned down. They also wanted a new classification system and pay scale included in the contract. Instead, they say the city just added some 'coefficient protection,' and honestly, the workers aren't stupid because they already have that.

I guess, does anyone know how much money we're actually talking about if they went with their plan?

Honestly, even if Ivica Puljak handed them gold bars, these people would still find a reason to call a strike. It’s just like that mess in San Francisco... total chaos.

We'll see how many people actually show up for the strike tomorrow. That should give us a pretty clear idea of how many agitators are working within the Sanitation Department.😁

No sane, rational person is going on strike when they're already making a doctor's salary and have had 9 out of 10 of their demands met.🤔
It clearly isn't about the working conditions, it's about...

From what I can tell, San Francisco residents are already giving them hell. Only the troublemakers and those wanting to Sell California are cheering for this strike.🤣

IVICA PULJAK AND KAROGLAN ON THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT STRIKE: 'Workers have already lost four thousand dollars because the union refuses to reach an agreement.'

Forgive me if I once again question whether people actually grasp the weight of what they’re saying when they pray, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
If you don't truly internalize that connection, you shouldn't be uttering it until you've done some serious soul-searching.
Anything else is just pure theater.

Sheryl Sandberg is firing back at Nick Saban, suggesting that Ms. Erceg really should have just applied through the Department of Social Services for one of those social housing units.

For weeks now, the Department of City Property has been making quite a public spectacle of itself regarding its obligation to provide housing for 70 families. These are individuals who have already gone through the official public tender process to prove their eligibility for social housing, and I suppose the city is currently busy double-checking all their requirements before any actual lease agreements can be signed.

We’re primarily talking about families with multiple minors, citizens battling serious illnesses, people living with disabilities, and American veterans. The priority list for social housing allocation is publicly available on the official City websites. As the Department has pointed out on several occasions, the City intends to hand over every single apartment currently occupied by unauthorized users to families and individuals who can provide documented proof of severe social need.

Just to clarify, regarding Ms. Mary Erceg, the Department of City Property isn't actually legally required to run a check on her social status. Since Ms. Erceg originally acquired the apartment as... I suppose we’re looking at yet another case of a staff housing appointment being made without any sort of public bidding process. It’s hard to say exactly what the underlying motivation is here, but it certainly feels like a bit of a workaround. ...and it all comes down to the purely discretionary judgment of the city officials at the time.

The lease agreement for that 74 m2 apartment located right in the heart of downtown San Francisco was originally signed back on May 29, 2009, with a monthly rent set at... $181 On a monthly basis—and it’s worth noting that the City of San Francisco covers the utility surcharge for this specific unit every single month—the Administrative Department is technically required to monitor whether the tenant is actually meeting their legal financial obligations to the City.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that Ms. Mary Erceg has almost... It’s been seven years, and she hasn't paid a single cent in monthly rent. Regarding the municipal apartment they’re currently occupying.

Ms. Erceg has been enjoying an incredibly privileged monthly rent of just $543 this entire time. $5.25 At around $80, maybe, for a 74-square-meter apartment right in the heart of downtown San Francisco, the rent was actually on par with what people in social housing were paying. To put that in perspective, the current average market rate for an apartment of that size is hovering somewhere around $750. It’s a bit disheartening, really, because for nearly seven full years, that rent—which is less than a tenth of the actual market value—wasn't even being covered.

It’s worth pointing out that, according to the City of San Francisco rental regulations, Ms. Erceg was never actually eligible to rent a 74 m2 apartment as a single person. Apartments of that size are specifically designated for families with multiple members. As it stands, Ms. Erceg... She’s been receiving constant payment reminders, and there have been several attempts to reach out to her directly to settle the outstanding balance, but she just never bothers to respond to any of the correspondence.

If Ms. Erceg is actually facing significant social hardship, then she really should have taken the initiative—either personally or through her family, friends, or even neighbors—to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services. She would have needed to submit all the required documentation and officially apply through the public tender process for social housing provided by the City.

Unfortunately, that wasn't actually carried out; rather, it seems that... They seem to be trying to use the media to lean on the Department of City Property, essentially pushing them toward illegal actions. It looks like an attempt to grant special privileges to certain individuals without any legal basis whatsoever. If that actually happens, it would cause significant harm to all the other citizens who actually bother to follow the rules and respect the standard legal procedures.

It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see certain irresponsible voices in the media suggesting that the Administrative Department should just start discriminating against multi-person households. They’re essentially arguing that, despite having absolutely no legal basis to do so, the City should bypass the transparent, publicly available priority list—a list that includes families currently struggling through incredibly difficult living conditions. I guess some people just prefer chaos over following the established rules.

If following the letter of the law and acting without playing favorites is what people are calling "malicious" these days, then that says much more about the mental state of those making the accusations than it does about the work being done by the Administrative Department, which I happen to lead.

As the department head, I intend to leverage every legal avenue available to me to ensure the interests of the City remain protected. My goal is to treat all citizens with absolute equity within the established legal framework, while ensuring we manage our valuable municipal assets with the care and responsibility of a prudent steward.

We are once again calling on Ms. Erceg to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services.

The relevant offices will always—without exception—act strictly according to the letter of the law. We won't allow anyone to be granted illegal special treatment at the expense of the citizens who actually follow the rules. It doesn't matter what someone's social standing is, or who they might know.

Respectfully,
Sheryl Sandberg
Head of the Department of City Property

Emily Smith6 said:Sheryl Sandberg is firing back at Nick Saban, suggesting that Ms. Erceg really should have just applied through the Department of Social Services for one of those social housing units.

For weeks now, the Department of City Property has been making quite a public spectacle of itself regarding its obligation to provide housing for 70 families. These are individuals who have already gone through the official public tender process to prove their eligibility for social housing, and I suppose the city is currently busy double-checking all their requirements before any actual lease agreements can be signed.

We’re primarily talking about families with multiple minors, citizens battling serious illnesses, people living with disabilities, and American veterans. The priority list for social housing allocation is publicly available on the official City websites. As the Department has pointed out on several occasions, the City intends to hand over every single apartment currently occupied by unauthorized users to families and individuals who can provide documented proof of severe social need.

Just to clarify, regarding Ms. Mary Erceg, the Department of City Property isn't actually legally required to run a check on her social status. Since Ms. Erceg originally acquired the apartment as... I suppose we’re looking at yet another case of a staff housing appointment being made without any sort of public bidding process. It’s hard to say exactly what the underlying motivation is here, but it certainly feels like a bit of a workaround. ...and it all comes down to the purely discretionary judgment of the city officials at the time.

The lease agreement for that 74 m2 apartment located right in the heart of downtown San Francisco was originally signed back on May 29, 2009, with a monthly rent set at... $181 On a monthly basis—and it’s worth noting that the City of San Francisco covers the utility surcharge for this specific unit every single month—the Administrative Department is technically required to monitor whether the tenant is actually meeting their legal financial obligations to the City.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that Ms. Mary Erceg has almost... It’s been seven years, and she hasn't paid a single cent in monthly rent. Regarding the municipal apartment they’re currently occupying.

Ms. Erceg has been enjoying an incredibly privileged monthly rent of just $543 this entire time. $5.25 At around $80, maybe, for a 74-square-meter apartment right in the heart of downtown San Francisco, the rent was actually on par with what people in social housing were paying. To put that in perspective, the current average market rate for an apartment of that size is hovering somewhere around $750. It’s a bit disheartening, really, because for nearly seven full years, that rent—which is less than a tenth of the actual market value—wasn't even being covered.

It’s worth pointing out that, according to the City of San Francisco rental regulations, Ms. Erceg was never actually eligible to rent a 74 m2 apartment as a single person. Apartments of that size are specifically designated for families with multiple members. As it stands, Ms. Erceg... She’s been receiving constant payment reminders, and there have been several attempts to reach out to her directly to settle the outstanding balance, but she just never bothers to respond to any of the correspondence.

If Ms. Erceg is actually facing significant social hardship, then she really should have taken the initiative—either personally or through her family, friends, or even neighbors—to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services. She would have needed to submit all the required documentation and officially apply through the public tender process for social housing provided by the City.

Unfortunately, that wasn't actually carried out; rather, it seems that... They seem to be trying to use the media to lean on the Department of City Property, essentially pushing them toward illegal actions. It looks like an attempt to grant special privileges to certain individuals without any legal basis whatsoever. If that actually happens, it would cause significant harm to all the other citizens who actually bother to follow the rules and respect the standard legal procedures.

It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see certain irresponsible voices in the media suggesting that the Administrative Department should just start discriminating against multi-person households. They’re essentially arguing that, despite having absolutely no legal basis to do so, the City should bypass the transparent, publicly available priority list—a list that includes families currently struggling through incredibly difficult living conditions. I guess some people just prefer chaos over following the established rules.

If following the letter of the law and acting without playing favorites is what people are calling "malicious" these days, then that says much more about the mental state of those making the accusations than it does about the work being done by the Administrative Department, which I happen to lead.

As the department head, I intend to leverage every legal avenue available to me to ensure the interests of the City remain protected. My goal is to treat all citizens with absolute equity within the established legal framework, while ensuring we manage our valuable municipal assets with the care and responsibility of a prudent steward.

We are once again calling on Ms. Erceg to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services.

The relevant offices will always—without exception—act strictly according to the letter of the law. We won't allow anyone to be granted illegal special treatment at the expense of the citizens who actually follow the rules. It doesn't matter what someone's social standing is, or who they might know.

Respectfully,
Sheryl Sandberg
Head of the Department of City Property

🤣

Sheryl Sandberg posted on Facebook this past Saturday that she sent this response over to the folks at Sold.

The jerk from the "Sell America" crowd started the witch hunt first, using old Mar Tanjug as a pawn to suit his own agenda. It wasn't until four days later that Sheryl Sandberg finally released a response explaining everything. 🙏

A new bottom for the Sale... 🤦 What is Hanza even thinking? Those people are out of their minds. That woman hit the nail on the head with her post.

Since our famous writer Nick Saban decided to single me out again in his latest piece based on nothing but falsehoods, I felt compelled to set the record straight. Just to be clear, I actually reached out to Mr. Saban and offered to sit down for a meeting so we could clear up any confusion with the actual evidence and documentation in hand. As of today, he hasn't bothered to get back to me.
I can't quite wrap my head around why Nick Saban is pushing so hard for these two blatant cases of favoritism. It’s a complete disregard for contractual obligations, and it’s all being done at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens—the people who have been patiently waiting their turn for housing assistance.
The era of cutting deals through backroom connections and "knowing a guy" is finally coming to an end. Everyone is now being held strictly accountable for their obligations to the City, and honestly, a little bit of media scrutiny is exactly the motivation we need to keep things honest.
Update: At 2:22 PM, I sent an official denial to the SD editorial board. It’s pretty clear they are attempting to systematically spread misinformation to the public. Let's hope they publish a correction soon.

Sorry for crashing this cheerful little chat, but honestly, I’m just dying to share that what I promised is finally landing on a few pages. Seriously, who knows where we'll end up first—with all these massive investments or the actual results from the trip?

amberjackal68 said:Look, I don't mean he's a saint, but at least he's more likable than that annoying bozon guy... though I guess that's a low bar. Anyway, do you actually have any proof regarding this war profiteering, or are you just blathering away without consequence like you always do?
I see now that Todorić is your new hero, and everyone is crying about how his poor company was snatched away from him. So, I'm genuinely curious—in your eyes, is he also a war profiteer? And if Kerumov’s lawyer decided to haul you into court over these claims, I bet you'd be whimpering that you didn't mean it...🙄 Fortunately, our Kero isn't some total fraud, so you feel safe enough to take advantage of that fact and just talk nonsense.

The mayor's job isn't to be "likable."
It doesn't hurt if he is,
but as for Todorić—he’s clearly a thief. Though, if we're choosing between someone like Plenković or Todorić—and honestly, picking either is pure masochism—🤦 I’d definitely go with Todorić. ☕

amberjackal68 said:Two terms? 🙄 Is that how long he needs just to get an ego? And besides, isn't this his first term already? 😁

Of course they need two terms.
At the very least.
After the GOP leaves, nothing but scorched earth will remain.😠

amberjackal68 said:We’ve got all kinds of believers out there.
Well, personally, I don't mind a bit of profanity, but it really bugs me when people try to argue that tearing apart embryos should be treated with the same weight as getting a tooth pulled. Let them pray, I guess—maybe one of them will actually convince God it was worth it.

They aren't even looking to just add a single amendment or two... they want a full-blown constitutional ban on abortion. And honestly? That would only be the beginning...

Batarelov is now the leader of that ultra-Catholic group Vigilara, and he’s tied to... The American branch of that extremist group Ordo Iuris—the same ones who pulled the strings behind the abortion bans in Poland—is making moves here too. According to Batarelov, they have the exact same agenda for America. That whole public kneeling stunt? It’s just theater. It's all part of a much larger project to push clericalism onto the US...In Batarelov's wildest fantasies, he and his followers would probably want to turn everything into a theocracy...

Relković: These penalties against the mayor are worse than any scandal we've seen in America

“Something like this has never happened in America. He’s being punished for a period where he couldn't even act. You can't penalize someone for things outside their control. I honestly don't get why the American academic community hasn't said anything—maybe they're just protecting their own jobs—but this is bigger than any other scandal in the US. It's about undermining the democratic transition. That handover protocol is basically the bible for how democracy should work,” Relković explained, adding that the accountability should fall on San Francisco, not on whoever inherited the role.

velvetmason14 said:🤣

Sheryl Sandberg posted on Facebook this past Saturday that she sent this response over to the folks at Sold.

The jerk from the "Sell America" crowd started the witch hunt first, using old Mar Tanjug as a pawn to suit his own agenda. It wasn't until four days later that Sheryl Sandberg finally released a response explaining everything. 🙏

A new bottom for the Sale... 🤦 What is Hanza even thinking? Those people are out of their minds. That woman hit the nail on the head with her post.

Since our famous writer Nick Saban decided to single me out again in his latest piece based on nothing but falsehoods, I felt compelled to set the record straight. Just to be clear, I actually reached out to Mr. Saban and offered to sit down for a meeting so we could clear up any confusion with the actual evidence and documentation in hand. As of today, he hasn't bothered to get back to me.
I can't quite wrap my head around why Nick Saban is pushing so hard for these two blatant cases of favoritism. It’s a complete disregard for contractual obligations, and it’s all being done at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens—the people who have been patiently waiting their turn for housing assistance.
The era of cutting deals through backroom connections and "knowing a guy" is finally coming to an end. Everyone is now being held strictly accountable for their obligations to the City, and honestly, a little bit of media scrutiny is exactly the motivation we need to keep things honest.
Update: At 2:22 PM, I sent an official denial to the SD editorial board. It’s pretty clear they are attempting to systematically spread misinformation to the public. Let's hope they publish a correction soon.

They wouldn't even take a free copy if it meant getting out of a jam.
It’s got nothing to do with actual journalism anymore.
Nobody in my office even touches that garbage.
It's basically turned into a tabloid rag.

Is this actually a political hit job? The numbers don't lie—the fines handed out by the Department of Inspections to Ed Garvey are significantly higher than anything else we're seeing.

Quincy:

In the four years since it was established as an independent federal body, the Federal Inspection Agency has fined 13 different mayors. The total sum of those fines—though the agency won't say whether they were actually collected—comes to roughly $50,000. However, just this past March, the FDA issued a single fine of about $15,000 to one specific individual: Ed Garvey, the leader of the Center party and the top official in San Francisco. The data obtained by Telegram, following seven days of back-and-forth and a formal Freedom of Information Act request, suggests that this isn't exactly standard operating procedure. To put things in perspective, the other 13 mayors mentioned received much smaller penalties than Garvey; he alone accounted for nearly a third of all fines levied against mayors in a single month. Even at the local administrative level, the penalty slapped on Garvey regarding a fifty-meter stretch of piping (which he supposedly had no way of knowing was even an issue) seems highly unusual. According to the response we received today from the Federal Inspection Agency, they have also fined one county executive with $3,500 and seven township supervisors whose combined fines totaled about $40,000. It would certainly be interesting to know who these officials are and what they did wrong, but the Federal Inspection Agency is hiding behind legal privacy protections. Furthermore, they can't even confirm how many of these fines were actually paid. “Since some fines are currently in collection proceedings and certain rulings are not yet enforceable, the total amount of collected fines is not information we can disclose publicly,” the Federal Inspection Agency stated. Given that Garvey has been quite vocal about these penalties—arguing they are a political vendetta orchestrated by the Republican Party to financially cripple him because he’s become a dangerous political threat (after all, Garvey and the Center party swept the local elections last year)—it is strange that there hasn't been any reaction from the other “offenders.” Not a single person among the 21 penalized governors, mayors, or supervisors has come forward to say, “Pipe down, Garvey, I got fined too, and I didn't make a scene,” or to claim they are being harassed in the same way. The Federal Inspection Agency claimed in a press release that the decision was made on April 6th of last year, while Garvey was still holding office. To clarify the timeline: Garvey submitted his resignation on April 8th, which triggered the special election for mayor. However, the ruling from the Department of Inspections, issued just two days before Garvey stepped down—a detail the Mikulićev administration is wisely staying silent about—wasn't officially filed until April 15th. Following his electoral victory, the current mayor was officially notified by the Government commissioner that work at Villa California must stop and everything must be restored to its original state. It looks, at least for now, like $15,000 went down the drain. Essentially, if the document detailing the transfer of power is considered legally invalid—which is what the Department of Inspections' actions imply, otherwise the fine would have been directed at the Government commissioner—then who can ever peacefully step into a public role again? Does this mean that someone like a future President could be held personally liable for the mistakes of their predecessor, perhaps due to errors in a transition document? Or will a future Prime Minister end up paying for infractions that a predecessor might have conveniently hidden from them during the handover?

So, looks like the sanitation workers in San Francisco are heading toward a strike. Honestly, I'm just sitting here wondering what the union guys over in Chicago are waiting for. 😉

Lisa Perez50 said:So, looks like the sanitation workers in San Francisco are heading toward a strike. Honestly, I'm just sitting here wondering what the union guys over in Chicago are waiting for. 😉

The Republican Party is in charge there, so they’re pretty happy. It's probably just their way of showing how everything is totally stable and everyone is happy wherever the Republican Party is in power.😁

Emily Smith6 said:Is this actually a political hit job? The numbers don't lie—the fines handed out by the Department of Inspections to Ed Garvey are significantly higher than anything else we're seeing.

Quincy:

In the four years since it was established as an independent federal body, the Federal Inspection Agency has fined 13 different mayors. The total sum of those fines—though the agency won't say whether they were actually collected—comes to roughly $50,000. However, just this past March, the FDA issued a single fine of about $15,000 to one specific individual: Ed Garvey, the leader of the Center party and the top official in San Francisco. The data obtained by Telegram, following seven days of back-and-forth and a formal Freedom of Information Act request, suggests that this isn't exactly standard operating procedure. To put things in perspective, the other 13 mayors mentioned received much smaller penalties than Garvey; he alone accounted for nearly a third of all fines levied against mayors in a single month. Even at the local administrative level, the penalty slapped on Garvey regarding a fifty-meter stretch of piping (which he supposedly had no way of knowing was even an issue) seems highly unusual. According to the response we received today from the Federal Inspection Agency, they have also fined one county executive with $3,500 and seven township supervisors whose combined fines totaled about $40,000. It would certainly be interesting to know who these officials are and what they did wrong, but the Federal Inspection Agency is hiding behind legal privacy protections. Furthermore, they can't even confirm how many of these fines were actually paid. “Since some fines are currently in collection proceedings and certain rulings are not yet enforceable, the total amount of collected fines is not information we can disclose publicly,” the Federal Inspection Agency stated. Given that Garvey has been quite vocal about these penalties—arguing they are a political vendetta orchestrated by the Republican Party to financially cripple him because he’s become a dangerous political threat (after all, Garvey and the Center party swept the local elections last year)—it is strange that there hasn't been any reaction from the other “offenders.” Not a single person among the 21 penalized governors, mayors, or supervisors has come forward to say, “Pipe down, Garvey, I got fined too, and I didn't make a scene,” or to claim they are being harassed in the same way. The Federal Inspection Agency claimed in a press release that the decision was made on April 6th of last year, while Garvey was still holding office. To clarify the timeline: Garvey submitted his resignation on April 8th, which triggered the special election for mayor. However, the ruling from the Department of Inspections, issued just two days before Garvey stepped down—a detail the Mikulićev administration is wisely staying silent about—wasn't officially filed until April 15th. Following his electoral victory, the current mayor was officially notified by the Government commissioner that work at Villa California must stop and everything must be restored to its original state. It looks, at least for now, like $15,000 went down the drain. Essentially, if the document detailing the transfer of power is considered legally invalid—which is what the Department of Inspections' actions imply, otherwise the fine would have been directed at the Government commissioner—then who can ever peacefully step into a public role again? Does this mean that someone like a future President could be held personally liable for the mistakes of their predecessor, perhaps due to errors in a transition document? Or will a future Prime Minister end up paying for infractions that a predecessor might have conveniently hidden from them during the handover?

No kidding, Sherlock. 😁

Since we have some of Kerum’s supporters hanging around here, they might want to take a look at Inspector Andrew’s impressive career path. He’s doing a fantastic job for Puljko, providing him with essentially free regional and national PR.

Andrew is just modest enough to appeal to the bottom feeders and those who pretend to be. 😉

Andrew Mikulic: 'Little Vas' and his network of buddies and sponsors
The Department of Inspections has finally stepped in regarding the issues at the local business district, specifically looking into those recent complaints about oversight and sponsorship. It’s a situation that reminds me of when a major tech firm in Silicon Valley gets flagged for failing to follow its own compliance protocols—it usually starts with a few loud voices and ends with a massive federal audit. According to reports circulating on Telegram, there's been a lot of back-and-forth involving Ed Garvey and how the local administration handles its regulatory duties. Some are calling for more transparency from the government, arguing that the current level of scrutiny isn't enough to hold everyone accountable. It feels like we're seeing a classic tug-of-war between local leadership and state regulators. When you have a situation where public funds or sponsorships are involved, people naturally want to see exactly where every dollar is going. It's not just about following the rules; it's about maintaining the trust of the community. We'll have to see if the Federal Inspection Agency decides to dig deeper or if this remains a localized issue handled by the Department of Inspections.

Andrew Mikulic’s inspection report for San Francisco:

North Port and all that pollution/toxic waste. ✔

Illegal greenhouses popping up on Marjan.

Heavy fines slapped on Ed Garvey for absolutely nothing—just more blatant political retaliation.

Dana Martin95 said:The Republican Party is in charge there, so they’re pretty happy. It's probably just their way of showing how everything is totally stable and everyone is happy wherever the Republican Party is in power.😁

That’s exactly why I said it. They don't dare touch a finger there.
I heard somewhere a few days ago that the workers still haven't made up their minds about whether to strike or not, but the union reps are definitely leaning on them to pull the trigger. 😂