Upcoming Events:


Community Meetings:

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Steve Moss Responds to Latest SFBG Article

Most of the candidates in this election are newbies, and I'm not sure that they appreciated when getting into the race just how much media attention and investigation could or would be heaped upon them. It really makes one think twice about choosing to serve the public by running for office.

In response to recent articles in the SF Bay Guardian, I received this yesterday from Mr. Moss, who asked me to post it here on his behalf. These are his words, not mine, but because of the importance of this issue to the election, I felt it important to allow him to express his side of the story here. Please leave comments below if you feel so inclined, and please continue to be respectful in your language used toward the candidates and one another.

Steve Moss writes:
"M.Cubed, a policy consulting firm in which I'm a partner, submitted the original $1.5 million funding proposal to the San Francisco Department of the Environment to start SF Power in 2001. SF Environment awarded the contract to M.Cubed. After this contracted ended in 2004 M.Cubed and SF Power continued to collaborate together, under the auspices of SF Power's board, as a means to address a number of organizational issues. First, M.Cubed staff -- almost entirely me -- served as development directors for SF Power on a performance basis. That is, M.Cubed wasn't paid unless it actually secured project funding, which we did, quite successfully. Many of these projects resulted from regulatory interventions at the California Public Utility Commission, a time-intensive endeavor that requires a specific skill set that I've developed over the years.

"Second, SF Power wasn't creditworthy, and, even after it started to secure contracts in its own name in its fourth year of existence, did not have adequate cash flow to support staff or purchase the energy efficient equipment it was distributing. In that respect M.Cubed served as SF Power's bank, and was repaid for the labor and equipment it supported. Third, M.Cubed provided insurance coverage, workers compensation and health care benefits to its staff, something SF Power developed over time. In that respect M.Cubed acted as an employment agent for SF Power, including for energy auditors and installers.

"This arrangement put M.Cubed at some financial risk, but the partnership was ultimately paid back for staff time and materials. I have never drawn a salary to serve as SF Power's executive director, but instead have always been paid on an hourly basis. This enabled SF Power to avoid overhead, and provided me with flexibility to pursue other work opportunities. This model, while not ubiquitous, has been employed by other nonprofit organizations, particularly in the energy policy arena. Likewise, in every case the funds invested were used to accomplish a specific outcome, with results evaluated or audited by the funder.

"Lost in all of this is that the M.Cubed/SF Power collaboration has resulted in significant benefits to the community. Although I haven't done the math, the collaboration resulted in upwards of $8 million of energy and water conservation investments in Southeast San Francisco, in the form of energy and water-saving devices and cash payments to program participants, which leveraged millions more in energy and water utility bill reductions for working families and small businesses. We've distributed or installed tens of thousands of water saving toilets and energy efficient lighting, refrigerators, thermostats, heaters, and other devices, and trained and employed dozens of community members. M.Cubed staff dedicated to this effort, including me, were paid for our time, but I don't think anyone was unduely rewarded.

"Other models could have been employed, but the collaboration was successful in what it set out to do: close power plants, employ community members, and provide significant energy and water conservation services to a hard-pressed community."

24 comments:

  1. Here are the holes, and they are large and he still leaves everything out as he can't answer we are sure.

    He somehow forgets to mention that he also created "San Francisco Power Cooperative" a for profit that disappeared in 2005, suspended by the state. What was that and why did it exist ?

    The whole workman's comp issue and insurance is total BS. If you hire from agencies the workman's comp is covered and anyone can take out insurance, what financial risk?

    He ran M-Cubed from his home as well as SF Power, explain that?

    Why did he intervene in?, and how, in PUC matters and why was this not the stated goal of the grant? Why would the city not just contract directly or perform the task through the Department of Environment?

    It took a month to put this letter out and still missing major details?

    What exactly did M-Cubed do and which projects? Nothing even close to benefiting Hunters Point / Bayview residents is listed on their projects page.

    If Moss was doing the work entirely then why does every tax return have the name M-Cube and an Oakland residential address listed? M-Cubed's name wrongly spelled?

    He doesn't address the costs that SF Power pays the Potrero View for space,2004 through 2010, or exactly how much he was paid.

    Tax returns and his postings show that he paid himself at least $1.5 to $1.7 million alone that can be documented, no mention in his letter.

    It was over 60% taxpayer money, how much was he paid and what were the projects?

    I'd love to see the list for each year on the toilets and everything else he said they performed, tens of thousands, prove it?

    SF Power says they received hundreds of local donations, prove it?

    Provide exactly how many people were employed, paid or unpaid? How can anyone decide if Mr. Moss was unduely rewarded when he won't state what he was paid?

    The statement, "I haven't done the math" is amazing. How can you take millions in taxpayer money and you haven't done the calculations, truly incredible. The energy program that he keeps touting was available to any member of the public or business, you can't take credit for that.

    Any private contract would require exacting details on services performed, why are there no details if Mr. Moss had such amazing results?

    I would pay anything for Mr. Moss to sit in front of two or three journalists and answer specifics.

    Why do none of his websites match what he states and contradict everything, guess he never thought anyone would ask.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why didnt steve put out a press release?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't understand why Moss did not give his response to the Guardian?

    I find his actions confusing, which equals troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Most of the candidates in this election are newbies"

    fine choice of words. so it turns out to be a negative campaign afterall. those that get the most recognition have tax problems, residential issues, disclosure conflicts, questionable practices, etc.

    being that they all say the same thing (create jobs, fix public housing, stop crime, resolve the budget, etc.) and claim to be important, the only way to distinguish one from the other is to expose the bad ones.

    d10canwatch is instrumental thus far in exposing the scum of moss, cohen, sweet, and kelly. hopefully d10canwatch will unearth a few more dbags before election day, and bring the number of qualified candidates to a realistic level.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pokerface, you aren't far off the mark.

    Certainly has changed my vote, twice!

    ReplyDelete
  6. all of this intrigue led me to review SF Power's 990s to see if there was indeed anything strange going on. And despite Mr. Moss' response, this non-partisan D10 voter who was considering Mr. Moss for one the three available votes continues to have questions, some of which are left hanging from the issues raised so far and some raised by Mr. Moss' response.

    1. What did M-Cube(d) report as accomplishments to the Dept. of Environment? Will Mr. Moss provide us with the reports submitted to SFE?

    2. How many employees has SF Power had since its founding? How much did they work and how much were they paid? What is Mr. Moss' hourly rate charged by M. Cube(d)?

    3. Did SF Power issue Requests for Proposals for the contracts granted to M.Cube(d)?

    4. What proportion of M Cube(d)'s revenues and profits came directly from SF Power related contracts?

    5. What other non-profits employ the staffing model used by SF Power/M. Cube(d). Do these other organizations have similar overlapping personnel relationships?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm happy to sit down with anyone who wants to, including multiple journalists, to talk through these issues. Email or call me directly: steven@moss.net; 643.9578

    A few more answers to what has been presented by unnamed folks.

    I did run M.Cubed's San Francisco office out of my Kansas Street home, and that's where we secured the original SF Environment grant. We initially intended to establish SF Power as a cooperative, not a nonprofit, but found that state and federal laws conflicted in this area, making it difficult to create a cooperative serving low-income families and small businesses. So, we voluntarily terminated the cooperative, and switched to a pure 501c3 model. Note that the original grant was secured and implemented by M.Cubed; the very origin of SF Power was as created by a for-profit partnership. Perhaps this is the original sin, but it's certainly been an effective model in serving a hard-pressed community.

    Without access to specialized skills - economists, statisticians, and the like - SF Power would never have been able to secure California Public Utility Commission funds, which were derived by intervening in regulatory proceedings. The Commission orders that triggered funding for multiple innovative programs oriented towards low-income families and small businesses inn Southeast San Francisco are a matter of public record, under the dynamic pricing and demand-response proceedings, which can be found on the CPUC's website.

    The rent on the offices is more like $16,000 a year. The View has one dedicated desk and computer, which it owns, as well as storage
    space, at SF Power's office. The paper pays rent, though that's typically been through inkind services (e.g., ad space; arranging for office and computer repair services and the like). SF Power runs a communications-heavy demand-response
    program for small businesses, among other activities.

    I used SF Power's office as a mail drop. I never held meetings, used the telephone, or the like related to campaign activities there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Mr. Moss,

    Thanks for responding. So how many jobs have you created and what are they (and are you hiring!). What specifically (in $$ amounts) has the 1.5M gone toward in the Bayview.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh one other question - why didn't you use your home address as a mail drop? Seems like a conflict of interest that could have been easily avoided.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr. Moss it gets better by the day.

    It is closer to $4m, actually you got and what did D10 residents get, a few light bulbs, one fridge and $1.3 m in fees for your fabulous services.

    Your own excel sheet says SF power paid $22k to $24K, can't you get your own numbers straight.

    You state in your recorded interview at the SFBG that the View makes no money, "typically inkind services" so you get advertising dollars per your own website and of course we don't know how much the View actually paid.

    Agsin, you mange to be off again, SF Community Power Cooperative, you state ended, actually suspended by the state in 2005, wrong again.

    Please provide:

    1. Who leased Dolores Park mansion and when?
    2. Utility bills, Dolores and 18th Street.
    3. All expenses for your non profit including those $50 per hour helpers.
    4. All the jobs you created and where they are now. List them all.
    5. Exactly what you paid yourself?
    6. SF Power Cooperative finances?
    7. Workmans comp and insurance payments out of M-Cube"d".
    8. The list of hundreds of donations you list?

    As you have nothing to hide and you are such an upstanding honest man, this all should be easy, and not require and expert like yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why does everything you now state contradict your own websites?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Folks, I appreciate you asking all these questions of Mr. Moss. He has made his email address and phone number available to all above in order for you to ask him these questions directly.

    steven@moss.net; 643.9578

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chris/

    With all due respect, he knows the questions, why not just post the answers?

    ReplyDelete
  14. FYI Moss.net and the number is paid by the non-profit.

    $100 he doesn't sit with the SFBG who have the details!

    ReplyDelete
  15. We replaced many commercial refrigerators on Third Street and elsewhere -- including at Sam Jordan's, Super Save, and the late Dago Mary's -- distributed more than 100 residential refrigerators, installed several heating systems, and replaced thousands of thermostats, inefficient lighting, and other old technology at small businesses and homes throughout Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero.

    Over the years we've trained and employed dozens of individuals. We are not currently hiring.

    All of SF Power's projects have been audited or evaluated by our funders.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Moss. 100 refrigerators and a few commercial units account for less than 7% of the funds you received from State PUC in 2008 alone.

    How do we get hold of your lists to verify and see what a deal the taxpayer got?

    Can you provide exact numbers for how many you trained and hired. 940's and 941's are produced by QB's in a few seconds and you have a bookkeeper listed, who is paid out of taxpayer funds, should not be very difficult to provide employee records and names, trust you wouldn't have a problem with that?

    Please provide who evaluated your projects from the City and State PUC boards as you received millions. That should be really easy and wouldn't think you'd have a problem, correct?

    You stated mission to one non profit was a community newswire, they have it posted on their page as grants awarded, I am sure you know that. However on your newsire I can only count 45 articles, and many I believe were written by interns and not paid. Many of the articles are from the View, true? You received in excess of $400K (alone) in non profit money, at $10K an article where did that money go exactly?

    You state above that the View had one dedicated desk. The offices were originally the View's offices on third street? How come they had 1033 square feet for one PC? You state the rent is $1300 per month which includes utilities per the building owner, we checked, and SF Power is paying $22k to $24K plus utilities for the same very space. Can you explain how? Also, who's name is the office lease under?

    As a supervisor I am sure D10 residents would really appreciate someone who can answer very specific questions with ease. You state that you paid yourself into the millions with taxpayer funds as you have learned that exact skill set. These questions should be super easy I presume?

    Nothing negative against you, just a request for exact answers on taxpayer used funds.

    Tony Kelly, I am not a supporter, very quickly came back with specifics, trust you'll do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are asking for a decade's worth of data, some of which, like wage records, are confidential.

    That said, I'm happy to meet anyone who is truly interested in this topic and go through SF Power's record of accomplishments, much of which is reflected on our website. I think you'll be quite impressed. Contact me directly at 415.643.9578; steven@moss.net.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good reply, Steve. Now you can put this tiring issue to rest. I don't know about the others who read this blog but I'm expecting a full, objective report written by the person who asked the questions. That is, if they actually contact you. If they don't, you should let us know. That would lead them to being banned from this site, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Moss, the reason we want you to reply on here is that you do anything it seems but give specific answers.

    Unless you can be very specific and answer very serious allegations nobody will believe you, obviously this is the talk of the hill.

    Please just post on here a very simple answer. How many jobs did you create with taxpayer money, or is that confidential as well?

    Your supporter above wants us banned for asking straightforward questions that any private company could easily answer and you refuse to answer on the record and you took taxpayer money, where are we North Korea?

    Give us the straight facts Steve and check in the baffle. Your records and statements don't match.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ohmygodtherunonsentenceguyisbackwithhispoorgrammarandrantingaboutgettingbannedbuthemissedthepointaboutamatureconversationeitherinpublicorprivateinwhichyouwillanswerhispsychoticoutburstswhichmakehimthinkwearelivinginnorthkoreawheretheysaycheckinthebaffleandothernonidiomaticstatementsandwherethetalkofthehillasitwereisnotstevesgoodintentionsbutnuclearproliferationandifievermeetthispillockinpublici'lltellhimtoshuthispieholeinperson.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obviously he doesn't want to go on the record with any facts, and everyone knows he's reading this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Mr Moss,
    Thanks for answering some of the questions. I guess I am a little frustrated that you won't answer specifics. I know this is a lot of date to know - but it is the same kind of information you would be handling as Supervisor of D10.

    What is the budget? What was it spent on? Which funds went to which project etc. If you cannot answer that with your own business and projects, I guess I have to say I am not comfortable handing over my districts checkbook to you.

    Also in the same light, I think it is really important to have clear answers and answer to everyone. Not just - call my office. I don't know it just seems a little off putting. And like Maxwell, I would be concerned that if in the D10 office - you would never be available.

    So I get my vote I need the following. Clear answers about your budget from SF Power, Potrero View and MCubed. Then I will feel confident in voting for you to hold D10's check book.

    Thank you for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Take him up on his offer to talk directly or back off. The level of detail you're asking for is pretty extreme. "All expenses for your non profit including those $50 per hour helpers." ? Really?

    If Mr. Moss can fit a decades worth of expenses into a comment on a blog post then I for one will vote for him, because clearly he is magic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't agree on the last comment.

    How about that he just answers how much money he took from taxpayers + how many jobs he created in 10 years with that money?

    ReplyDelete

Although you can post anonymously, I encourage you to post as yourself or under a pseudonym in case other readers would like to respond to your comments. Thanks!