A San Francisco planning commissioner is contesting the legality of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s recent appointment of Sarah Dennis Phillips as the new planning director.
Kathrin Moore, the vice president of the planning commission, raised concerns in an email to the city attorney’s office, alleging that Lydia So, the commission president, violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by communicating with a majority of the commissioners regarding the appointment outside of a formal meeting.
Moore claimed that So privately urged her and two other commissioners, Gilbert Williams and Theresa Imperial, to support the Mayor’s recommendation for Dennis Phillips, just prior to the June 18 vote.
According to the Brown Act, it is unlawful for a legislative body, comprising a majority of its members, to discuss or deliberate on official matters outside of scheduled meetings.
“Deliberation outside of the meeting with the majority of the members — that alone is a violation of the Brown Act. Period,” stated attorney Jim Wheaton, founder and counsel at the First Amendment Project, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged infraction.
The Planning Commission consists of seven members, making the purported private discussions by So particularly significant as they involve a majority of the commission.
In response to the allegations, city attorney’s spokesperson Alex Barrett-Shorter indicated that the city cannot comment, stating, “Any potential legal advice and analysis on this topic would be privileged attorney-client communication.”
Moore did not disclose the complete email correspondence to Mission Local and also did not respond to requests for comment.
After the publication of the initial report, Planning Department spokesperson Dan Sider defended the appointment, stating that a majority of the Planning Commission supported Phillips and highlighted her contributions to the city’s economic recovery alongside Mayor Lurie’s upzoning plan.
On the day of the vote, the Planning Commission conducted interviews and recommended Dennis Phillips without comprehensive review, as commissioners received her resume just the evening before.
In protest of the rapid proceedings, Moore, Williams, and Imperial exited the June 18 closed session meeting.
Moore’s email urged the city attorney to rectify what she regarded as unlawful actions by So, which could imply that the appointment of Dennis Phillips may need to be rescinded and re-evaluated, according to Sean McMorris of California Common Cause.
“If Moore’s allegations hold weight, So would need to publicly acknowledge the Brown Act violation and specify the nature of that violation during a Planning Commission hearing,” McMorris noted, suggesting that a new vote might be necessary.
Wheaton characterized Moore’s challenge as an unusual occurrence, asserting, “Generally speaking, the members of the board don’t take each other on over Brown Act violations.”
While some conflicts between city council members are inevitable, Wheaton expressed his sympathies for Dennis Phillips, asserting that she has done nothing wrong but now faces uncertainty surrounding her appointment.
It has been observed by numerous City Hall veterans that Phillips, who previously served as the director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development as well as a city planner, is considered highly qualified for the role.
Wheaton went on to highlight the essential purpose of laws like the Brown Act: to ensure transparency and encourage legitimate governance, stating, “The whole purpose of these laws … is transparency. It’s to try as much as we can to wring the politics out of politics.”
The unfolding situation not only raises questions about the appointment of the new planning director but also emphasizes the importance of adherence to proper procedures within governmental bodies.
As the determination regarding the allegations progresses, the implications for both the Planning Commission and the newly appointed planning director remain to be seen.
image source from：missionlocal
