Rules Committee forwards recommendation rejecting Ruth Todd’s nomination to Historic Preservation Commission after conflict-of-interest debate

The Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 2–1 on Friday to forward a committee report recommending the rejection of Ruth Todd’s nomination to the Historic Preservation Commission, concluding the nomination raises recurring conflict‑of‑interest concerns tied to her role with Page & Turnbull.

Ruth Todd, the nominee, told the committee she has worked in historic preservation since 1973 and is a 15‑year San Francisco resident. She cited a city attorney memo (section 3.222 of the San Francisco Campaign and Government Conduct Code) and said the office concluded her firm’s contracts would not automatically bar her service but that recusals would be required when matters would have a foreseeable financial effect on her firm. “If the answer is yes to the question, does this case foreseeably affect the income of me or my firm, then in those situations I would recuse myself,” Todd said in response to questions about recusals.

The nomination drew sustained public comment from preservation professionals and neighborhood advocates. Several speakers urged rejection or greater scrutiny because Page & Turnbull has performed hundreds of historic resource surveys for the city and held what public commenters described as a substantial value of contracts. “Page & Turnbull has done about $700,000–$800,000 in contract work over the last four years,” a member of the public told the committee; Jay Turnbull, a principal at Page & Turnbull, replied the firm is a closely held corporation and said the company could make internal adjustments to address conflicts.

Supervisor David Campos led the argument for rejection on public‑policy grounds, saying the committee must weigh not only narrow legal compliance but the spirit of conflict‑of‑interest rules and the practical effect of frequent recusals. “I do have concerns about the fact that you have some financial interest in your current employer,” Campos said, pressing the distinction between form and substance where filings with the Secretary of State listed Todd as a director even as the firm’s bylaws—according to testimony—restrict officers and directors.

Michael Yarny of the Mayor’s Office urged the committee to consider the limited candidate pool available under the charter’s prescriptive seat definitions and framed Todd’s professional scope as an asset, noting similarly situated principals have served on commissions. The City Attorney’s written opinion, presented to the committee, said specific recusals could be required but did not disqualify Todd under the code on the facts provided.

After questions and debate the committee considered a motion by Supervisor Campos to table the approval motion (item 2) and to forward the committee report recommending rejection (item 3) to the full Board. The motion passed on a roll call with Supervisor Carmen Chu voting no and Supervisors Campos and Daley voting yes. The committee report will be included in the Rules Committee packet for the Board’s consideration on Tuesday, April 28.

The full Board will review the committee report and may accept or reject the committee’s recommendation; no final appointment decision was made at the Rules Committee meeting.