In a surprising twist, members of San Francisco’s Planning Commission recently found themselves at the center of an unexpected maneuver regarding the appointment of the next planning director. On the morning of a special Planning Commission meeting, Ned Segal, Mayor Daniel Lurie’s policy chief for housing and development, made calls urging commissioners to support Sarah Dennis Phillips for the role.
The move confused many commissioners, who were unfamiliar with both Phillips and Segal prior to their sudden involvement. Their awareness quickly changed as both figures appeared at the meeting to engage with the commission.
Ahead of a closed session, the three commissioners appointed by the Board of Supervisors exited the meeting room, thereby allowing the four mayoral appointees to converse with Phillips and likely cast their votes without the board representatives.
After more than three hours in closed session, the commission acknowledged taking an action but refrained from revealing details about the decision or the identity of the candidate. Both Segal and Phillips remained in the room during the discussions, and Phillips confirmed that she fielded questions from the other commissioners.
Following the meeting, it was revealed that Phillips’ name would be put forward to Mayor Lurie. This information was later confirmed by the mayor’s office, which also noted new appointments for Ann Taupier and Liz Watty in other key roles.
The day’s events were unexpected for many on the commission. Some had anticipated the meeting would serve as a preliminary step in selecting a successor to outgoing planning director Rich Hillis, who had undergone a lengthy selection process encompassing extensive interviews and a nationwide search back in 2020.
However, this time around, a mere 13 hours before the 9 a.m. meeting, some commissioners received Phillips’ resume for the first time — clearly a stark contrast to the rigorous process previously undertaken for Hillis’ appointment. It raised uncomfortable questions about the transparency and legitimacy of the decision-making process.
According to the city charter, the Planning Commission is responsible for providing the Mayor with at least three qualified candidates for the Director of Planning based on their administrative and technical qualifications. This did not happen in this instance.
The three board-appointed commissioners — Theresa Imperial, Kathrin Moore, and Gilbert Williams — expressed their discontent by walking out of the meeting just over an hour in. When asked for a statement, Williams commented, “We just walked out of the hearing so that will let you know how we feel about it.”
Despite the questionable process, there seems to be broad agreement on Phillips’ qualifications. Notably, she is highly respected within the city, having previously served as head of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and as a knowledgeable city planner.
Senator Scott Wiener praised Phillips, stating, “She’s really good. She’s thoughtful, knowledgeable, politically savvy — she just wants to get things done. I think it’s a really powerful choice.” Former planning commissioner Dennis Richards echoed this sentiment, complimenting Phillips’ transparency, accessibility, and profound knowledge of city planning.
Aaron Peskin, often seen as a political rival, also acknowledged Phillips’ qualifications, stating, “There’s no question she has a background in city planning and development and is qualified for the job.” These endorsements from diverse political backgrounds highlight the consensus on Phillips’ ability to lead.
However, the critical issue remains the manner in which the appointment process unfolded. The commissioners, acting not as independent overseers but rather as conduits of the mayor’s preferences, undermined the very purpose of their roles. It painted a troubling picture of governance where commissioners act like automatons rather than functioning independently, which is detrimental to public trust and accountability.
This latest incident is reminiscent of past occurrences that highlight an ongoing struggle within the city’s planning department concerning transparency and fairness in hiring practices. In Hillis’ appointment, a clear search process had been established, and commissioners felt appropriately involved. This current situation starkly contrasts with that precedent, raising questions about whether the process serves public interests or merely political ends.
The lack of a transparent hiring process this time around invokes significant questions about the efficacy and independence of such commissions. Without competitive searches and multiple candidates, the city risks defaulting to internal choices that, while potentially qualified, lack the rigor of broad scrutiny.
Notably, this situation reflects a larger conversation surrounding governance in San Francisco. Voters recently faced dueling propositions aimed at changing how commissions operate and the extent of the mayor’s hiring and firing powers. Proposition D, which aimed to enhance mayoral control, ultimately lost, while Proposition E, promoting a more cautious approach to commission reforms, passed.
However unclear the voters’ sentiments, they did elect to retain some level of oversight concerning mayoral hiring within commissions. Many will question whether the current structure, in which mayors navigate appointed commissioners, serves the city’s best interests or prioritizes political expediency.
More intriguing is whether future hiring processes, such as that for a new police chief, will follow this same trend of bypassing rigorous selection standards in favor of expediency.
Critics argue that the intentional avoidance of competitive hiring processes makes a mockery of accountability and insulates decision-makers from public scrutiny. While there may be practical arguments for the mayor to retain significant influence over department heads, the current approach risks eroding public trust and agency commitment.
Ultimately, while Sarah Dennis Phillips is undeniably qualified for the position, the means by which she arrived at this potential appointment raises critical concerns about governance practices. Without a proper search process, the city may stagnate in its hiring practices, denying opportunities for diverse candidates who could potentially bring fresh ideas and perspectives.
It is vital for San Francisco to pivot towards a more open competitive hiring landscape that allows for broader access to qualified candidates. Such shifts are necessary to foster a culture of accountability and continuous improvement within municipal departments.
In sum, while optimism exists for Phillips’ leadership, the path taken to reach this point demonstrates a troubling trend within San Francisco’s governance that deserves close scrutiny.
Going forward, the city must grapple with these issues seriously to ensure that the best candidates can emerge through transparent and fair processes that reflect the needs of the community.
image source from：missionlocal
