Council weighs reinterviews and eligibility list after planning commissioner resigns

San Mateo City Council members on June 15 sought direction after an unscheduled vacancy opened on the Planning Commission when Commissioner James Horseman resigned, and residents packed both chambers and virtual comment to urge either re-interviewing candidates or confirming the existing alternate.

City clerk Martin McTagert told the council that Horseman, appointed June 1 to a four-year term, resigned on June 10 due to a newly discovered employment conflict. The council’s rules and procedures (chapter 11, §2.J) allow it either to appoint from an active eligibility list—currently naming Sema Patel as first priority and Thomas Brham as second—or to direct staff to launch a new recruitment. McTagert also reviewed state noticing requirements related to unscheduled vacancies and told the council no formal appointment could be finalized tonight; any appointment would appear at the next regular meeting after the required posting period.

Why it matters: the Planning Commission reviews development projects and other matters that shape San Mateo’s housing, infrastructure and growth. Residents said the choice between honoring a recently established eligibility list and reopening the process touches on transparency, fairness, and trust in local government.

Public speakers were sharply divided. Dozens urged reopening interviews or providing fuller disclosure about candidates’ availability, saying the public deserved confidence in the process. ‘‘Clearly, the process is broken,’’ resident Ashley Zerpa said, urging the council to re-evaluate candidates. Others described conduct they said was unbecoming of a commissioner and argued that the council should vet temperament and civility as well as qualifications.

At the same time, supporters of reappointing the alternate said the council had already followed a public process and that redoing interviews would waste staff time and undermine prior consensus. ‘‘Appointing Sema Patel will provide continuity, preserve institutional knowledge and ensure the Planning Commission can continue the important work without unnecessary delay,’’ Alexis Lewis said during public comment.

Council members split in public remarks. Deputy Mayor Fernandez and others emphasized the need for continuity and staff efficiency given the heavy pipeline of planning applications; Fernandez said using the existing eligibility list was an appropriate and lawful option. Council member Diaz Nash, who said she missed the June 1 interviews because she was out of service range, pressed staff on whether applicants had been asked about availability during interviews (staff said the application described meeting requirements but interviewers had not routinely asked the question) and said she was inclined to reopen the interviews to ensure the full council and public had complete information.

Several council members said they had learned procedural lessons—chief among them that scheduling availability should be confirmed during interviews—and debated whether the permissive language in the rules (‘may’ rather than ‘shall’) gave the council discretion to reopen recruitment. After discussion, staff sought a general direction and reported that most council members signaled they would bring back a recommendation to appoint Sema Patel to the vacancy at the July 20 regular meeting; one council member explicitly said she would like to reopen the process. The clerk clarified that any final appointment would follow state notice requirements and appear on a future consent calendar.

What was not decided: the council did not make a binding appointment tonight. City staff recorded mixed council direction but emphasized that the formal appointment requires compliance with noticing rules and appears at a subsequent meeting. The council paused the special meeting to proceed with the regular meeting and agreed to reconvene later for closed-session items.

Context and next steps: the eligibility list created on June 1 will remain active through Dec. 1, 2026. If the council opts to appoint from that list, staff said a posted recommendation would allow the body to place the appointment on the July 20 consent calendar after required notices. If the council directs a new recruitment, staff estimated a four-to-six-week application period, followed by screening and interviews before a future appointment.

Authorities and clarifications: staff cited the council’s chapter 11, §2.J and a state notice provision referenced in the presentation (transcribed as the MADI Act, government section 54974). The clerk told the council that the application materials include language about mandatory meeting attendance and schedule, though interviewers did not always ask availability questions during the prior review.

The council’s next procedural step will be for staff to return with the chosen path—either a posted recommendation to appoint the first alternate Sema Patel at the July 20 meeting, or a proposal to reopen recruitment—consistent with the state notice timeline discussed by staff.