Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appointments And Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board confirms two Police Commission nominees after extended rules committee hearing and debate over ethics, LGBTQ representation and conflicts
Summary
The Board of Supervisors confirmed two mayoral appointees to the Police Commission on June 5 following lengthy floor debate and calls for a continuance over a potential conflict of interest for one nominee; the council ultimately voted to approve the appointments unanimously.
SAN FRANCISCO — After extended discussion and a contested effort to divide the file, the Board of Supervisors confirmed two mayoral appointees to the Police Commission during its June 5 meeting, concluding a multi-hour rules committee vetting process and a set of floor remarks focused on conflicts of interest, representation and vetting.
The nominations were for Cindy Elias (term ending 04/30/2019) and John Hamazaki (term ending 04/30/2022), transmitted to the board as a combined motion. Supervisor Sheehy asked to divide the file and continue the Elias nomination for one week so she could meet the nominee — citing publicity in the San Francisco Chronicle and questions about a possible conflict of interest tied to Elias— spouse — and asked to move forward immediately with the Hamazaki appointment.
City Attorney John Givner explained the mechanics: division of the question requires the board to duplicate the file so it could act separately on each nominee. A motion to duplicate and divide the file failed on a roll call (2 ayes, 9 nos). After further discussion, Supervisor Sheehy withdrew the motion to duplicate, and the board then proceeded to vote on the underlying motion to confirm the nominees.
Supervisor Cohen, a rules committee chair, and other committee members said both nominees had been thoroughly vetted during a lengthy, 7½-hour rules committee hearing and that the committee had taken the time to question the candidates closely. Several supervisors objected to focusing on a nominee—s spouse in public debate, calling such scrutiny sexist. Others, including Supervisor Peskin, said they had checked with the deputy city attorney on potential ethics matters and that both nominees had sought review.
On the final roll call the board approved the confirmation motion by unanimous vote (11 ayes).
Action summary
- Motion to duplicate/divide the file and continue one nominee: moved by Supervisor Sheehy; failed on roll call (2 ayes, 9 nos). - Underlying confirmation motion (both nominees): passed by roll call (11 ayes).
Ending
With the confirmations, the Police Commission gained the two appointees who had been vetted at a long rules committee hearing. Supervisors urged the commission to resume meetings and noted the importance of diversity, vetting and timely appointments.
