San Francisco supervisors probe mayoral use of undated resignation letters for some appointees

SAN FRANCISCO — The Government Audit & Oversight Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a special hearing Oct. 11 to examine the mayor’s practice of soliciting undated resignation letters from some commission appointees and whether the practice undermines charter protections.

Supervisor Dean Preston, chair of the committee, opened the hearing by saying reporting and records produced in response to letters of inquiry show the mayor’s office had obtained undated resignation letters from ‘‘many’’ sitting commissioners and that the practice ‘‘is fundamentally inconsistent with city law and specifically our city charter.’’ The city attorney issued a public memorandum, Preston said, ‘‘finding that the use of undated resignation letters for appointees is inconsistent with the charter.’’

The committee called as its principal witnesses Sean Ellsburn, identified in the hearing as the mayor’s chief of staff, and Police Commissioner Carter Overstone, who rescinded an offered resignation he had been asked to sign. Ellsburn told the committee that ‘‘this was an idea that came from the mayor’’ and said the mayor directed staff early in her tenure to seek such letters. He described the stated purpose as giving the mayor an option to address ‘‘extreme’’ situations such as incapacitation, dereliction of duty or other serious ethical misconduct and said the letters were not intended for policy disagreements.

Ellsburn acknowledged that in responses to the committee’s inquiry the mayor’s office reported that roughly 48 commissioners were asked to provide undated resignation letters. He described the decision to request a letter as discretionary and applied on a ‘‘case-by-case’’ basis and said he could not explain why some appointees were asked to sign and others were not.

Commissioner Carter Overstone described being told in late April that he would be renominated only if he submitted an undated resignation letter. Overstone told the committee he was ‘‘caught off guard’’ by the request, rescinded any offered resignation on Aug. 1, and said the letters functioned as a tool that could influence commissioners’ behavior. He described an August phone exchange with a mayoral policy director asking him to undercut a planned working group and recalled the staffer warned that there could be ‘‘serious consequences’’ if he did not comply; Overstone said he assumed the resignation letter was the likely instrument of consequence.

Vice Chair Connie Chan and other supervisors repeatedly pressed Ellsburn on whether the mayor’s office sought legal advice before implementing the practice and whether that advice was privileged. Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson told the committee members they could ask any question and that witnesses could decline to answer where they believed communications were privileged.

Public comment included callers who called the practice ‘‘bullying’’ and urged an ethics inquiry. Multiple callers praised Commissioner Overstone’s decision to rescind his resignation and asked the committee to pursue greater transparency and potential accountability.

The committee’s own members emphasized the potential consequences for the independence of charter commissions. Preston said the apparent selective application of the request (a small portion of the roughly 400 mayoral appointments, by the committee’s estimate) suggested the letters were being used to exert control. The mayor, in a public interview cited during the hearing, said she wanted ‘‘a level of control,’’ a line committee members said undermined the mayor’s explanation that letters were reserved for rare, extreme cases.

Procedurally, the committee voted to excuse Supervisor Mandelmann from the special hearing (three ayes) and later voted to continue the hearing to the call of the chair while some responses to the committee’s letters remain outstanding. The committee did not adopt substantive remedial action at the end of the session.

What’s next: Supervisors said they will review outstanding responses to their letters of inquiry and may reconvene the hearing after receiving additional materials and testimony. The city attorney’s memorandum and the mayor’s public statements remain central documentary and factual references for any further action.