San Francisco Rules Committee Meeting – July 9, 2026
San Francisco Rules Committee Meeting – July 9, 2026
Note: The raw transcript lists the meeting date as April 13, 2026, but the provided meeting date is July 9, 2026. This summary uses the latter as instructed.
This meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee, chaired by Supervisor Shamann Walton, with Vice Chair Stephen Sherrill and President Rafael Mandelman, addressed two items: a resolution on police commission oversight and an ordinance on hotel worker enforcement. Key decisions included forwarding the amended resolution to the full board and continuing the hotel ordinance while also voting to recommend it.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2 (Hotel Ordinance): No public speakers initially. After the continuance motion, two speakers testified:
- Cynthia Gomez (Unite Here Local 2) expressed support for the amendments, arguing they are necessary to enforce the Healthy Buildings Ordinance and ensure hotel cleanliness, helping tourism recovery. She stated that some hotels evade enforcement and that a private right of action would level the playing field.
- Alex Bastian (CEO, Hotel Council of San Francisco) opposed the amendments, stating that the original ordinance was pandemic-era and that hotels are now exceptionally clean. He argued that the legislation would harm hotel recovery and the city's tax base.
Discussion Items
- Item 1 – Resolution on Police Commission Oversight: Chair Walton introduced a resolution affirming the importance of independent civilian oversight of the San Francisco Police Commission. President Mandelman expressed concerns about language opposing the mayor's authority over the chief of police and proposed amendments to remove that language. After debate, Mandelman moved his amendments, which passed 2-1 (Sherrill and Mandelman in favor, Walton opposed). The amended resolution was then forwarded to the full Board of Supervisors with a recommendation, passing 3-0.
- Item 2 – Ordinance on Hotel Worker Lawsuits: The ordinance would allow employees of tourist hotels or their union to file civil lawsuits for violations of cleaning and disease prevention standards. Chair Walton initially called for a continuance to the next rules committee. After public comment, he moved to continue the item to the call of the chair, which passed unanimously. Subsequently, he moved to recommend the item to the full board, which also passed unanimously. (Note: The transcript shows two successive motions on the same item—first a continuance, then a recommendation to the full board. This appears contradictory; the official outcome likely includes both actions, but the exact disposition is unclear.)
Key Outcomes
- Item 1: The committee voted 2-1 to adopt President Mandelman's amendments, then voted 3-0 to forward the amended resolution to the full Board of Supervisors with a recommendation.
- Item 2: The committee voted unanimously to continue the ordinance to the call of the chair and also voted unanimously to recommend it to the full board. The item is expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of April 21, 2026, unless otherwise stated (per the clerk's initial announcements).
Other Announcements
- Clerk Victor Young noted that items acted upon are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of April 21, 2026, unless otherwise stated.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the April 13th, 2026 rules committee meeting. I am your chair, Supervisor Shaman Watson, joined by Vice Chair Stephen Sherrow and President Rafael Mandelman. Today's clerk is Victor Young, and I want to thank Seuss Inhos from SFGov TV for making sure that this meeting is publicized and available to the public. Mr. Clerk, you have any announcements? Yes, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called. Please line up speak on your right. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. Email them to myself, the rules committee clerk at VICTOR.yo N G at SFgov.org. If you submit public comment by email, it will be included as part of the file. San Francisco, California, 94102. Please make sure to sign us all cell phones and electronic devices. Items to act upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of April 21st, unless otherwise stated. That completes my initial announcements. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Please call item number one. Item number one is a resolution affirming the importance of keeping the independence civilian oversight of the San Francisco Police Commission. Thank you. And colleagues, you know, this item was forwarded and continued to this week to discuss amendments and concerns that colleagues had about the resolution. This resolution is in place to really affirm that this board of supervisors supports independent oversight of the police department, which is really in line with what the field is even across the country. I know there were concerns from uh President Mandelman, and I don't agree with supporting his amendments. I would love to move this forward without recommendation, like we always have when this body doesn't necessarily agree. There are five co-sponsors for this. We only have 10 members who are currently actively serving on the board, and I don't think it's fair that we don't allow this to go to the board and let everyone say how they feel about independent oversight. And my colleagues may support the amendments and may want to move them forward, and that can definitely happen at a full board of supervisors meeting. President Mandelman. Thank you for your consideration of my amendments. What I take to be the main point of this resolution. And I absolutely can vote for and support a resolution for that. And as I said at our last meeting, insofar as we are contemplating uh amendments to the charter this year, I have no intention of including in those the uh proposed changes to the disciplinary process that uh was recommended by the Proppy Task Force. So I think there's consensus around that. Um there are some things in this resolution that particularly as we are working through charter reform this year, as the mayor has three measures out in the field that his supporters are trying to get signatures for, and as we think about the additional, frankly, I think modest but important um uh proposals that I'm gonna be putting forward. Um, I am not okay voting for or encouraging the board of supervisors to uh to say that we do not support the mayor having higher fire authority over the chief of police. Um I think that uh in light of the history of the last few years, um it is a quirk of our of our existing charter that the uh mayor of the city and county of San Francisco, who is the chief executive, can lose the ability to sit to uh direct policy uh and can have a majority of the police commission not agreeing with that person's position, and a not be able to do anything about that, or that body's positions, not be able to do anything about that, and not be able to be sure that if a vacancy arises in the position of the chief, that the mayor is gonna have people put forward for his or her consideration that are someone he that include at least one person that he or she would want to hire as chief. There is language in here that suggests that uh this board opposes that change in the mayor's um in the in the mayor's proposed charter amendment, and I don't support that, can't vote for it, can't put it forward. Um that is the main disagreement that I have. There's also lurking in here a little conversation. I mean, as I said, absolutely independent, disciplinary disciplinary authority. Uh I can agree with not making changes uh that would transfer or compromise anything about that or oversight without a lot of process that we're certainly not going to be able to do this year, can support all of that. But that was sort of the nature of the changes. I generally don't believe in trying to like co-opt my colleagues legislative I mean, not that I'm promising to never do this, but if if the author would rather have this voted down here, um I I don't need to introduce these amendments and make them and try to make them over the author's objections. I'm not gonna do that. Um, but I'm not gonna vote to forward this as is. Thank you, President Mandelman. I will say that one, there are three members on this committee. Um if you want to vote on these amendments, I I would take that better as, because you're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't want to force the amendments on me, but you won't let me send it out without recommendation. So you have options to do. Um, President Mandelman, I'm sorry.
openpublica.com