Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Appointments Rule Change topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board rules change lets many supervisor appointments go straight to full board; residency/age waivers kept out of shortcut

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee · March 22, 2021
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Rules Committee approved an amendment creating a process for many district supervisor nominations to be adopted by the full Board without committee reference while ensuring appointments that require residency or age waivers still go to committee. The committee voted unanimously to send the revised rule to the full Board.

The Rules Committee on March 22 advanced a change to the Board’s rules that will allow many supervisor‑nominated appointments to go directly to the full Board’s adoption‑without‑reference calendar, while preserving committee referral for cases that require residency or age waivers.

Chair Aaron Peskin said the change is intended to streamline “pro forma” appointments to advisory bodies — including seats on the Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee, the Bicycle Advisory Committee and the Childcare Planning and Advisory Council — provided a complete application and an attestation from the appointing supervisor are on file. Peskin also proposed a narrow amendment to ensure that any appointment requiring a residency waiver or an age waiver would still be referred to committee for review and public comment.

The amendment adding the words “and or age” to the waiver language was adopted by roll call. Vice Chair Rafael Mandelmann and Supervisor Connie Chan joined Peskin in voting Aye. Chair Peskin said counsel advised that the adoption‑without‑committee procedure remains subject to public comment at the full Board and is not inconsistent with local open‑meetings rules.

Public commenters spoke both for and against the change. Supporters said the modest revision would reduce backlog and encourage qualified applicants to serve; one opponent argued the rule would reduce opportunities for public input and raised Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance concerns. Chair Peskin responded that the public retains the opportunity to comment at the full Board when an item appears on the adoption‑without‑committee calendar.

The committee voted to send the amended rule to the full Board with a committee recommendation. The vote was unanimous among members present.