Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances amendments and continues debate on charter change to require special elections for supervisor vacancies
Summary
Supervisors debated a proposed charter amendment that would require special elections to fill Board of Supervisors vacancies, limit mayoral appointment time to 28 days and bar interim appointees from running; the committee accepted amendments and continued the item for further public review and finalization.
The Rules Committee discussed a fourth draft charter amendment on June 9 that would require the Department of Elections to hold a special election to fill a Board of Supervisors vacancy unless a regularly scheduled election will be held within 180 days, impose a 28‑day deadline for the mayor to appoint an interim supervisor (who would be ineligible to run in the subsequent election), and allow consolidation with other elections in certain circumstances.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin (item presented by Supervisor Avalos in the transcript) framed the proposal as a way to restore voters’ authority, limit incumbency advantage afforded by mayoral appointments, and align San Francisco’s vacancy process with other jurisdictions cited in a 2013 LAFCO study. He described technical amendments — including permitting consolidation with other special elections and extending the 28‑day appointment window to most elective vacancies — and said the measure aims to strengthen separation of powers and reduce opportunities for backroom dealmaking.
Deputy City Attorney John Givner advised the committee on necessary title edits to reflect the 28‑day window and explained that language allowing consolidation with other special elections would not require a title change. Public comment included support from civic‑good‑government advocates (Bruce Bowen, Karen Babbitt, Sue Vaughn and Friends of Ethics), who described the measure as more democratic and urged its passage; commenters also noted the measure could have political tradeoffs.
Supervisors discussed concerns that an interim appointee who cannot run may still cast decisive votes during a vacancy period and debated whether the proposal fully follows LAFCO findings about best practices. The committee accepted the proposed technical amendments and agreed to continue Item 5 to the next Rules Committee meeting (June 23) for additional public comment and final revision.
No final vote on the charter amendment was taken; the committee took the amendments by unanimous consent and set a continuation date.
