Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays resolution on elections director after commission decision draws criticism, schedules follow-up
Summary
Facing a contested decision by the Elections Commission not to reappoint the director of elections, the Board of Supervisors voted to continue consideration of a resolution urging reappointment while calling for a special meeting of the commission to discuss next steps.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Dec. 6 deferred action on a resolution urging the Elections Commission to reappoint the incumbent director of elections and declared the board's intent not to appropriate funds for an executive recruitment firm. After extended discussion and extensive public comment from elections staff and outside advocates, the board voted unanimously to continue the matter one week to Dec. 13 to permit the Elections Commission to meet and further clarify its position.
The commission had announced it would pursue a national search rather than immediately reappoint the director, a decision that prompted public testimony from current and former department employees, elections volunteers and election-security advocates. Supporters of the director described his 20 years of service overseeing multiple election cycles, including four elections in one year and improvements to accessibility and voting operations.
Why this matters: The director of elections is responsible for administering San Francisco's elections, including ranked-choice voting and multilingual outreach. Decisions about the director's tenure affect department continuity, procurement choices and potential moves to open-source voting systems.
Board action and next steps Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced a resolution declaring the board's intent not to fund an executive recruitment search and urging the commission to reappoint the incumbent. After members of the commission asked for time to convene a special meeting, the board voted 11-0 to continue the item until Dec. 13, asking the commission to meet next Monday and report back.
Public comment and controversy Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. A UC Hastings law professor and other local voting-rights advocates called for a public hearing and greater transparency about the commission's decision. At the same time, numerous Elections Department employees and volunteers spoke in support of the director and asked the board to back reappointment rather than fund a national search. The debate also touched on technical issues such as vendor contracts, open-source piloting and prior contracts with a proprietary vendor.
What supporters and critics said Supporters argued the director's leadership had produced secure, accessible and efficient elections. Critics and open-source advocates said the director had impeded or delayed pilots of open-source voting technology and raised concerns about procurement and vendor relationships.
Ending By continuing the resolution to Dec. 13, the board created a short timeline for the Elections Commission to meet, respond to supervisors and provide additional context before the board decides whether to withhold funds for a recruitment search or urge reappointment.
