i see vince courtney, other people that we have a lot of respect for, but i think you raise an important question about whether or not we should move forward with these appointments. i have to say, at this point, as much as i would like to support some of these individuals, i do not think it makes sense for us to do that. i believe the authority, the legitimacy of this board is at issue, and it is unfortunate that mayor newsom, a former member of this board, has chosen to question the legitimacy. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i just wanted to share my colleague's concerns for mayor newsom delaying his

swearing in ceremony, after making comments that he was sure he would not do so. as supervisor campos said, it throws into question the legitimacy of the board to make decisions on our own. i also the knowledge that every effort has been made to look at and an ally different candidates, nominees, and that these last minute nominees put us in a crunch. there are a number of people on the agenda today and i was prepared to support many of them, but also, with respect to the a number of the candidates who have so much experience in their field, but i wanted to ask cheryl adams, if we continue this item, our the could this come back to the rules committee? >> there are a number of

different types of appointments on the agenda today, so i will walk through the different consequences that would occur, if you were to continue. the appointments to the historical preservation commission, items one through six, those are appointments where the appointment is subject to board approval. if the board fails to act within 60 days of transmission, then the appointment is deemed approved. i notice from the agenda the transmittal date was december 1. so you have 60 days from december 1 to act before the appointment would go into effect. so you would not lose the ability to confirm or not if you continued those. a plug into the public utilities commission -- appointment to the public is utilities commission is subject to public approval. there is no consequence of failing to act, other than the

appointment does not become effective. you do not lose the ability to make or confirm after the expiration of any certain amount of time. the same is the case for numbers 12 and 13, the appointments to the port commission. for items nine, 10, 11, i think those are appointments at the mayor may make pursuant to 3100 of the charter. that goes into effect when the mayor exercises them. that is the default when there is no specified process for an appointment, which is the case for all of these others. the relocation appeals board, city hall preservation advisory, and mta. supervisor campos: what is the

deadline by which we would have to act on those three? >> they were received december 1 , so the clerk is showing me mta is subject to confirmation by the board. so there would be no consequence to not acting today. supervisor campos: what about nine and 10? >> they are subject to board approval without any date or dead line to rejection. in a sense, they all have slightly different moving parts, but for all of them, if the committee wanted to continue action on items, you would not lose the ability to take action

on them on another time. supervisor campos: so far none of them we would not be approving them defacto if we did not approve them today. >> correct. on the historic preservation committee, you would have a 60- day time line. supervisor campos: since you are up there, there is a legal question whether or not, when the mayor ceases to be mayor and becomes lieutenant governor, the california constitution makes clear that the person assuming the office of lieutenant governor does so on january 3. in light of that, you have a situation, notwithstanding what mayor newsom has indicated, that the board could choose an interim mayor prior to his being sworn in as a lieutenant governor. what happens in that situation

if a new mayor chooses to go in a different direction with respect to these appointments? >> if a new mayor decided to withdraw the appointments and make new ones? supervisor campos: yes. >> we have done some legal opinions on that. i want to go back and confirm what we have said in the past. supervisor campos: to your knowledge, if there is a new mayor coming in this week, a person decides to withdraw these appointments, that that is something that the individual would have authority to do? >> where subjects to the board approval and the appointment has not been made effective. yes, i think the mayor could pull those appointments. supervisor campos: does the city attorney's office have an opinion on when mayor newsom

becomes lieutenant governor? >> we have retained separate counsel for you on the mayoral questions because the city attorney has indicated there may be an appearance of a conflict to advise the board on succession and appointment of interim mayor. supervisor campos: i think that is something we are going to have to ask. if the constitution -- if what the constitution says is what governs, then as of noon on january 3, mayor newsom is the lieutenant governor of california. it would be good to know exactly, under the law, who would be the mayor for the city and county. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i am going to admit, i am a little

taken aback. i was not expecting this. the main questions i have in front of me stem around the people we are looking at and the appointment being made. quite frankly, the quality of the nominations, which are extremely high -- as you have all mentioned already. andrew wolfram for historic preservation, has been extremely helpful to me with ada-related issues. richard johns comes highly respected. karl hasz has done a fantastic job. vince courtney, as mentioned earlier, would be a great addition to the puc. henry kamm, herb cohn,

relocation. leona bridges, resonate and the call that we have got and show that she is a truly exceptional candidate. leslie katz for the port. these are great appointments and i find it difficult to sit and claimed that the mayor is not properly doing his job by letting us vote for interim mayor -- i understand that point. bear in mind, of the four of us, i am the only one who will not be able to participate in the interim mayor vote if it takes place in the new board. i will also be the only one nonparticipating in this particular committee.

the decision that are made here. so there is a bit of hypocrisy with the argument big as we could then place that argument back on ourselves and the rules committee not doing the job presented before them. of course, also, we did schedule a hearing. [applause] i think it is something that probably should be said. obviously, i will not be in support of not moving forward. i would like us to move forward because the nominations are good ones. i think they are a benefit to the city. at the end of the day, we need to look of what is best for san francisco and move these apartments forward is what is best for the city, regardless of the politics that the city is

going through. [applause] supervisor campos: supervisor avalos? >> i just want to be clear that i am in no way questioning the qualifications of the nominees today. there are many people on today's agenda that i intend to support and i will wholeheartedly supports, and it is not an argument about the current border supervisors. it is an argument about the mayor. -- current board of supervisors. if anyone is taken aback, i am taken aback that we are asked to approve these appointments but we are not allowed to make an interim mayoral appointment. the mayor is deliberately delaying his swearing in. the constitution seems pretty clear and the spirit is absolutely clear that january 3 is the day to be sworn in as lieutenant governor. to think that we are going to question the constitution to have a vote smacks of hypocrisy

at best. and shame on the "chronicle" editorial board for suggesting that the mayor should delay his swearing in. this is about the constitution of the united states. there would be an incredible precedents if we were to delay swearing in the lieutenant governor-elect. people all across the state would then be able to question when they should and should not serve office. that is a crisis of the constitution and we should not be aiding that in san francisco. i would encourage this committee not to reject anyone here -- that is not my intention -- but to continue the item to the next rules committee meeting to send a message. supervisor campos: supervisor dufty? we have been joined by supervisor dufty. >> happy new year, everybody.

i am not a member of this committee but i came to see several of the nominees. for two of us, it is our last week. i have loved doing this job, serving with my colleagues. i would just offer that i do not think we are fully certain as to the mayor's intentions. there is a process of dialogue and discussion that will take place in the next day or so. i am fairly agnostic as to whether i need to a vote on the next mayor, but i feel it should be an orderly process. i agree, there should be a bit more information. i think some of the people that have been grateful, and judging individuals on the content of their character, what they can contribute, and that is the purpose of this committee. to consider the individuals that come before us. the role of the commission is to

be citizen overseers. they are not specified under the charter to bring unique qualities to the job, other than they are san francisco citizens who can contribute to ensuring that our government is responsive and reflects the concerns of our citizens. i came today because i am interested in some of the people coming before the committee this morning. given the strong attendance here, we would do the people's business and consider their apartment based on their merits. as a non-voting supervisor, i would trust your decisions as to whether or not to forward these decisions, but i would hope that we could do so this morning. [applause] supervisor campos: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: thank you, colleagues. one other thing that is important to note, mayor newsom

is the elected mayor of san francisco. he was elected by the citizens of san francisco, by a pretty heavy percentage. the next interim mayor will not be someone who has been elected by the city, by the city and county. i think there is a distinction there. also, we do not know who the interim mayor is. we do not know then that person will come in and change these appointments. these are people we would like to vote for, but there is no guarantee the people before us today will be here at a couple weeks beforlater. i do believe the mayor is tying up his loose ends before he leaves, and one of them is ensuring the commissioners are

appointed by someone who has been elected by the people. i think that is a distinction we should be making here, that the interim mayor will not be elected by the people, and that they will be an interim period quite frankly, in this particular context, mayor newsom is finishing up his job before he moves on to another one. i do not think there is anything inappropriate about it. frankly, it does put the concerns of the city and county of san francisco once ahead ahead of politics, and that is an important thing we're doing here today. truthfully, i think these appointments should go forward and we should continue doing the job we were elected to do as well. [applause] supervisor campos: i do not want to belabor the point, but since we are talking about the people,

yes, mayor newsom was collected by the people of san francisco, but he was also elected by the people of california to be the lieutenant governor, who is meant to take office january 3. it is about the people, let's not lose sight of the people of california as well. let us remind ourselves that this whole situation happening in city hall the past few weeks was not something that we on the board of supervisors created. mayor newsom created this problem when he decided to run for lieutenant governor, when he decided to leave the job he was elected to perform to move on to another job. that is when this situation was created. we are simply trying to make the most of a situation, and the underlying problem here, as someone who has chaired the committee, but the items on the

agenda, following the agenda, has been questioning the legitimacy of this board. that is what i have a question over. the mayor is questioning the legitimacy of this board, and at the same time, asking the board to take action. so with that, let's call item one. >>motion approving the mayor's nomination for reappointment of andrew wolfram to the historical preservation commission, seat no. 2, for a four-year term ending december 31, 2014. would you like me to read item to as well? -- two as well? supervisor campos: this is a redeployment to the historical preservation commission. items one and two. >> item 2. motion rejecting the mayor's

nomination for reappointment of andrew wolfram to the historical preservation commission, seat no. 2, for a four-year term ending december 31, 2014. supervisor campos: is andrew here? >> i am not andrew wolfram. supervisors, my name is kathy simon. i am a design principle. i am here to represent andrew, who is out of town, has been on vacation for a couple of weeks in australia, but felt i could represent him. i would like to read a letter that he wrote in his own words about this commission, which has been very important to him. i would also like to preface this remark by saying he has worked with me for 12 years. one of our projects, which i hope you have enjoyed, is the ferry building.

that is when and duquesne to work with me. he was the project architect. he and i are spearheading within our company a reuse discipline. andrew is an architect with a tremendous intelligence, a tremendous talent, and a great moral rectitude. he is a tremendous friend of the city. i would like to read his letter. dear members of the rules committee, i am honored to be nominated for a second term on the historic preservation commission for seat number two, historic architect. as an historic architect, i have been involved in many complex historic preservation projects in the city, including the renovation of the ferry building. my background has given me a detailed understanding of the technical complexities and

challenges that must be addressed to carry out a successful preservation projects in the city. i have also been involved as an advocate for many of the city's lesser-known historic buildings. i believe it is important for the historic preservation commission to have a balanced approach that seeks to preserve our important landmarks but also recognizes that successful preservation allows for change as well. for the last nine and a half years on the commission, i have tried to be fair and partial and review terms that have come before us, and have also sought to be pro-active in our approach to preservation. this proactive approach included making recommendations to the planning code articles 10, 11, working with the planning department to undertake additional survey work, and looking to educate the public of the positive colon the historic preservation committee can have in our city. i look forward to advocating for proactive preservation issues in the city and developing programs

that will be a benefit to residents and visitors of san francisco. i take my role on the historic preservation commission seriously and would be honored if you would approve my apartment for a second term. supervisor campos: thank you. before we continue, i would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the presence of two individuals. former supervisor amos brown and leslie katz. it is great to see two former members of the board. i just wanted to welcome them to the committee. thank you to them for being here. colleagues, any questions? is there any public comment on items one and two? given that we have a large turnout, to make sure that we do not lose a quorum, we will limit public, to two minutes per

person. >> i am the executive director of the san francisco housing action coalition. i came before you when andrew wolfram was nominated the first time. i thought he would be an excellent addition to the historic preservation commission. by virtue of his background, training, work experience, we think he is an excellent member of the commission and he carefully balances something of key interest to us, which is what role does historic preservation play in a growing city? we think he has nailed it. he is open, accessible, a stellar member of the commission. i strongly urge you to appoint him. thank you. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> supervisors, i am supporting

the reappointment of andrew wolfram. i have known him for many years and i am impressed by his knowledge as an historic architect. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i just wanted to speak in reference to andrew wolfram and other commissioners. one thing i would like to know -- having gone to my first historic preservation and joint planning commission meeting -- there is talk about historic preservation within the realm of the commission but there is a big discussion missing about equity. i would like to know how our historic preservation commissioners are talking about how rich to low income communities of color, low english speakers. it was pretty clear that that needed to be part of the

discussion. there is talk that the historic preservation commission could be a forum where people could walk in to nominate new historic districts around town. i want to make sure there is out rich so that we protect communities of low income earners, color, a limited english speakers, so that there are options. i would like to know where the commissioners stand. certainly, for the other commissioners, the approach for moving equity through the historic preservation commission. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker please. >> mike beuhler, on behalf of san francisco architectural heritage. i just want to support the appointment of andrew wolfram.

having attended each and every one of the commission meetings over the past several months, i find commissioner andrew wolfram to be one of the most thoughtful and engaging commission is we have had. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> howard wong. the san francisco historical consortium supports the reappointment of andrew wolfram. he was confirmed by the board previously and that it went through a process where we looked at his qualifications. certainly, he had demonstrated the qualifications and expertise during his tenure. his projects as a preservation architect are quite wordy and commendable. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> gigi platt.

i am here to speak to the reappointment of the commissioner as well. he has added a great dimension to the commission. he brings a dimension that is especially of knowledge of the more modern architectural styles and movements. he is also an extraordinarily close reader and picks up on things that others may not. it is unfortunate that all of these positions have only been filled for a year-and-a-half and we are going through this again. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. nec's speaker please. -- next speaker please. >> peter warfield. library users association. we have had contact with the historical preservation commission when a number of libraries were considered for landmarking.

i do not want to speak about the specifics of this appointment as opposed to the others. i actually support the san francisco preservation consortium's position but want to say, that should you consider what was discussed at the beginning of this meeting -- the whole question of putting off a decision -- i think that would be extremely appropriate, not just in general, for the reason we are talking about, but also because these appointments, i believe, have had relatively little time to be reviewed by preservationists and others, whether or not the ultimate outcome would be support or not. i do intend to speak against one of the appointments from the mayor, which presents an issue of qualifications, and it is not this one.

so in this case, i would urge you, as with the other items, to postpone action, as was discussed earlier. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i would like to make a motion to move forward item one and table item two with recommendations. supervisor campos: we have a motion. for the reasons articulated earlier, even though i would be supportive of his appointment, reappointment, i am not prepared to move on that, at this point. supervisor eric mar. supervisor mar: i am just thinking, should we vote on the motion befor