Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC pauses vote on Harlan Kelly Jr. employment contract after contract-text discrepancies
Summary
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission paused action on a proposed five-year employment contract for Harlan Kelly Jr. after commissioners found an apparent discrepancy in the posted contract text; staff said the version with a three‑year term appears to be an error and the item was continued for correction and legal review.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday declined to finalize an employment contract for Harlan Kelly Jr., pausing the vote after commissioners and staff found conflicting language in the posted contract.
Commission staff introduced agenda item 6A as a proposal to approve an employment agreement under the San Francisco Charter that would name Harlan Kelly Jr. as general manager with a five‑year term and a two‑year reopener tied to the MEA contract cycle. Staff told the commission the salary in the draft matches the outgoing general manager and that the contract contains a provision allowing Mr. Kelly to continue accruing sick pay during the term.
During discussion, a commissioner said the copy of the agreement before them showed a three‑year term rather than five. Commission staff acknowledged an apparent error in the version in some commissioners’ packets and said the posted version needed to be reconciled. A staff speaker summarized the procedural step, saying the contract “was posted with the secretary of the commission, 10 days prior to this meeting, pursuant to Charter.” Another staff comment reiterated the intended term: “What we agreed to was a 5 year term with a 2 year reopener, which gives us the option of making adjustments depending on what the MEA contract looks like.”
Because of the discrepancy and additional typographical mistakes identified in an exhibit, the commission agreed to defer the item. Staff committed to correct the contract exhibits and consult with the city attorney; the chair indicated the contract will be revisited after the closed‑session legal review.
No final action on the employment agreement was taken at the meeting.
