Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Nomination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Preservation group urges review of Ruth Todd nomination; Rules Committee pauses decision
Summary
Public commenters raised conflict-of-interest concerns about Ruth Todd’s position at Page & Turnbull and the committee agreed to continue consideration so the city attorney and clerk can review timelines and potential conflicts.
The Rules Committee paused action on the mayor’s nomination of Ruth Todd to the Historic Preservation Commission after members of the San Francisco Preservation Consortium urged the panel to examine whether Todd’s financial ties to Page & Turnbull would disqualify her.
Cynthia Sturdan, speaking for the Preservation Consortium, told the committee the organization ‘‘unanimously acknowledges the excellent qualifications of Ruth Todd’’ but opposed the nomination because of potential conflicts tied to Todd’s role as a principal at Page & Turnbull. Sturdan cited the San Francisco Campaign and Government Conduct Code, Article 3, §3.222(b), which restricts contracting with the city by certain officials, and said the firm had received city contracts totaling about $435,000 in fiscal year 2007–08. ‘‘We believe she is conflicted out based on that section of the code,’’ Sturdan said.
Jay Turnbull, representing Page & Turnbull, asked the committee to note that ownership thresholds matter and said Todd’s shareholding is below the 10 percent threshold that would trigger automatic disqualification under the specific rule cited. Other public commenters including architect Joe Butler urged the commission to select non-conflicted members.
After discussing deadlines (the transmittal date, a 60-day window for action and committee calendar options) and the need for legal guidance, committee members including Supervisor Hsu said they wanted time to review the claims and hear a response from the nominee. Supervisor Hsu moved to continue the item for two weeks so he could better understand the conflict-of-interest arguments. Supervisor Campos said the issue ‘‘goes beyond legal technicalities’’ and urged a city-attorney review of the ethics questions.
The committee agreed to continue consideration, allowing staff and counsel time to advise and giving the nominee an opportunity to respond, while preserving the board’s option to forward or reject the nomination after that review.
