Board of Supervisors asks City Attorney for guidance, moves to seek outside counsel as charter proceedings loom

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Oct. 2 asked the City Attorney to provide written guidance on procedures and evidence standards for potential Charter proceedings against a member of the board and announced plans to seek outside counsel.

The request, made during the roll-call period by Supervisor Sandoval, asks the City Attorney to confirm in writing whether a conflict of interest exists and, if so, to describe the procedures for selecting alternate counsel, whether a prequalified list of law firms exists, and what role the City Attorney’s office would play if it remained involved. Sandoval also asked for clarity on procedural matters including whether the board could take oral testimony, call and cross-examine witnesses, issue subpoenas, or review deposition transcripts and other documentary evidence.

Supervisor Ellsburn and Supervisor Peskin said the board needed counsel to advise on standards of proof and protocols before undertaking what they described as “uncharted waters.” Ellsburn and Peskin introduced a motion directing the clerk to advertise for outside counsel and said they would follow an open selection process; Deputy City Attorney Adams confirmed the City Attorney had advised the board that it should obtain outside counsel if a conflict existed.

The board members debated timetables and participation. Supervisor Sandoval said he wanted any process to include full participation by all board members and said he would not participate in any vote for which he was not fully informed about procedures, standards, or legal rights. Other supervisors said the only way to obtain answers was to retain counsel to advise the board on procedural and evidentiary questions.

No formal vote on retaining outside counsel was recorded in the transcript. The motion to advertise for outside counsel was introduced during roll call and noted publicly; the board also approved a separate written request to the City Attorney asking for the procedural guidance outlined above.

The item drew extended discussion about the board’s rights and responsibilities and what staff and outside counsel should provide in writing, including timelines, standards of proof, subpoena power and whether transcripts or additional evidence would be admissible. The discussion concluded with supervisors asking the City Attorney to address the board’s questions in writing and with motion language introduced to begin advertising for outside counsel.

The board did not take a final vote on the selection of outside counsel or on any specific procedural rule on Oct. 2; supervisors asked for written legal guidance and began a process that would include advertising for outside counsel if the City Attorney’s office confirms a conflict.

Looking ahead, the board’s next steps will depend on the City Attorney’s written response and on whether outside counsel is retained; supervisors said they expect those answers before any formal adjudicative steps are taken.