Reject Eleanor Johns

RIGHT FROM THE start, there was something wrong about Mayor Willie Brown's appointment of Eleanor Johns, his chief of staff, to a slot on the San Francisco Airport Commission.

The San Francisco City Charter – an admittedly cumbersome, often confusing document that creates a cumbersome, often confusing system of local government – has a very strong philosophical underpinning: it was designed to decentralize power. The commissions, which actually run city agencies, are supposed to be at least somewhat independent of the mayor.

Under Brown, that's never come close to being the reality – most commissioners do exactly what the mayor says. But even so, directly appointing to a commission post a paid, full-time senior mayoral staffer, someone who works at the pleasure of and reports directly to the mayor, is a direct and arrogant assault on the spirit of the charter. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors ought to reject it on that basis alone. (Before Sup. Barbara Kaufman's charter "reform" passed in 1995, Brown's move would have been illegal: the previous charter barred city employees from serving as commissioners.)

But that's just one argument. There are plenty of other reasons to reject Johns, who has been an aide to Brown for most of the past 30 years. The airport is a terrible mess: The runway office has wasted $70 million and has nothing to show for it. Airport commissioners are facing a huge public debacle over the Tutor-Saliba contract. The whole place has become a sinkhole for public money, a gold mine for private contractors and consultants friendly to the mayor – and Brown is determined to keep friendly people on the commission, so the money keeps flowing and the scandals are never cleaned up, even after he's left office.

Johns, as a close associate of the mayor, lacks the independence the Airport Commission so desperately needs.

It will take two-thirds of the supervisors (eight votes) to reject her appointment, and that's always a tall order. But this one crosses liberal-conservative lines, and comes down to a basic question of good government: should the people who oversee SFO be directly dependent on Willie Brown for their livelihoods?

Meanwhile, the supervisors should prepare a charter amendment for the fall ballot barring city employees who report directly to the mayor – and, perhaps, all city employees – from holding commission posts. The potential for conflict is too clear and obvious.