No other level of government allows the executive to appoint legislators. The president doesn’t fill vacancies in Congress. The governor can’t appoint members of the Assembly or state Senate. (Yes, governors can fill vacancies in the US Senate, but they aren’t appointing members of their own legislature.)
So why should the mayor of San Francisco be able to appoint district supervisors?
There are two options under discussion, I’m told: One would allow for mayoral appointments – but only until the next election, and the person appointed would not be allowed to run for a full term. The “caretaker” option would keep someone in that seat – but limit the power of the mayor to control board seats for more than a brief period of time.
(You could add to that by doing the same for the board appointment of an interim mayor: Make it law that the person who fills a vacancy in the top office can only serve until the next election – the way Mayor Ed Lee promised – and can’t go back on his or her word.)
The other, simpler option is to fill all board vacancies with a special election – the process used for Congressional and state Legislative seats. Remember: These are district seats, the population of each is small and geographically concentrated, and the cost of a special election would be relatively modest.
Jon Golinger, who is heading up the campaign against outside employment, told me that changes in the way board seats are filled is “part of the discussion.”
He noted: “There is a huge disconnect between the people at City Hall and the voters,” noting that two-thirds of the supervisors supported the 8 Washington condo project while nearly two-thirds of the voters rejected it.
An initiative to curtail mayoral appointment power “could be one of a potential number of ideas” to restore the balance in local government.
It’s a particularly significant issue right now, since in November, 2014, either Sup. David Campos or Sup. David Chiu will likely win election to the state Assembly seat now held by Tom Ammiano – giving the mayor an appointment to either District 9 or District 3.
Campos, in D9, is often in opposition to the mayor and provides a critical check from the left. Chiu, while more of a centrist, isn’t a call-up vote for Lee, either (witness his staunch opposition to 8 Washington). Replacing either one with a Lee loyalist would change the dynamics on the board.
The progressives and reformers aren’t the only ones looking at changes to the City Charter. I’m told the Chamber of Commerce is also polling – on the issue of allowing the mayor to appoint all members of the City College board.
And there’s also talk of reconstituting the Public Utilities Commission, which caved in to PG&E (and the mayor) and is trying to stop CleanPower SF.
So we could have a referendum on mayoral power in November – at a time when the voters are not at all happy with the state of the city.
