Following Mayor’s Resignation-gate Scandal, Board of Supervisors Approves Legislation to Protect Independence of City Commissioners
SAN FRANCISCO — On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved Supervisor Dean Preston’s ordinance to ban the Mayor and other City leaders from requiring their appointed commissioners to submit undated resignation letters. The legislation responded to revelations that Mayor London Breed required undated resignation letters from appointees as a condition of their appointment to various Commissions, a practice that threatened to undermine their independence.
“This is common sense, good government legislation, and I hope it restores some of the public trust that the Mayor squandered through the unethical, backroom practices that made this Ordinance necessary,” said Supervisor Preston. “I appreciate my colleagues’ support in this effort to protect the independence of our City’s commissioners, present and future.”
The Ordinance makes clear that the practice of requiring undated resignation letters is against City policy, and that the decision whether to resign is solely the commissioner’s and cannot be delegated to the appointing authority. This ordinance will apply equally to all appointing authorities, including the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, the Controller, the Public Defender, the District Attorney, and any other city official who has the power to appoint commissioners. The ordinance does not prevent any appointing authority from removing a commissioner through the process outlined in the Charter.
The Mayor’s use of undated resignation letters came to light after Police Commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone blew the whistle on the practice following a series of tense exchanges with mayoral staff regarding his support and advocacy for changes to the San Francisco Police Department’s use of “pretextual stops,” which have allowed police to stop people for low-level offenses as a pretext to investigate other matters based on only a hunch. Pretext stops are a major driver of persistent racial disparities in policing in San Francisco. Per Carter-Oberstone, the Mayor’s staff threatened him as a result of his support for eliminating pretext stops, telling him that he would face “serious consequences” if he did not make an “impassioned speech” accusing the Police Commission of rushing the pretext stop policy without adequate community input. Carter-Oberstone understood the threat to be a reference to using his undated resignation letter, and subsequently rescinded it. Preston’s inquiry into the matter, including a formal Letter of Inquiry and a hearing at the Government Audit and Oversight (GAO) Committee held on October 11, 2022, revealed that the practice affected dozens of Mayoral appointees at the Mayor’s sole discretion.
In the wake of the scandal, the City Attorney acknowledged that the undated resignation letters are “inconsistent with the purposes underlying the Charter’s removal provisions and could threaten the independence of appointed officials from undue influence,” and that the letters would likely be unenforceable in court. Nevertheless, the City Attorney ultimately concluded that the Charter “does not prohibit appointing authorities from requesting preappointment letters of resignation.” The ordinance will clarify unequivocally that the practice is a violation of city policy, thereby preventing appointing authorities from requiring or using such letters to control appointed commissioners.
The passage of the ordinance comes only weeks after the Police Commission voted to implement broad changes to the SFPD’s policy on pretextual stops– something that may not have been possible without Carter-Oberstone’s ability to exercise his independent judgment in crafting the policy in partnership with stakeholders and community.
###