Olague also observed that only four of commission’s seven members—President Dwight Alexander and commissioners Sue Lee, William Lee and Michael Antonini—were Newsom appointees and thus subject to his mass resignation request, while the Commission’s three other members—Olague, Kathrin Moore and Hisashi Sugaya—were Board of Supervisors' appointees, and therefore weren't affected by it.

“So, we are in the configuration we’ll be in on February 7, 2008,” Olague observed.

Sources have told the Guardian that Dwight Alexander got a call from Phil Ginsburg on January 6, saying that the Mayor was firing him, but then got called back a few days later, asking him to serve until February 2008.

The alleged reason for Alexander's call back was fear at the Mayor's Office of Housing that they otherwise wouldn't have the votes to pass UC's proposal for 55 Laguna, a project where MOH has been scrambling to increase affordability, in a last ditch effort to nail down an agreement in face of mounting criticism about the project's lack of affordable housing units, public use and historic preservation.

The way things currently stand at the Planning Commission, the Mayor nominates four members, and the President of the Board of Supervisors nominates the other three, with the Mayor traditionally nominating the President, while the Supervisors nominate the Vice President,

This configuration has been in place since the passage of Proposition D, a March 2002 charter amendment that voters passed by 55.5 percent, transforming the Planning Commission from a system in which all seven commissioners were appointed by the Mayor.

The official ballot argument for Prop. D, which also similarly modified the San Francisco Board of Appeals, stated that this charter amendment would “restore balance and accountability to local development decisions.”

Prop. D was placed on the ballot in November 2001 by Sups. Tom Ammiano, Chris Daly, Matt Gonzalez, Tony Hall, Mark Leno, Sophie Maxwell, Jake McGoldrick, Aaron Peskin and Geraldo Sandoval.

But the then Supervisor Gavin Newsom, along with then hen Sup. Leland Yee, voted against the charter amendment. And the official ballot argument against Prop. D claimed that, "Prop. D us a reaction to a particular Mayor's development policies. If you don't like the policies, get rid of the Mayor, not our City's Charter."

The following year, 2003, Newsom first ran for Mayor of San Francisco and was inaugurated in January 2004.

Vice President Olague, who was appointed to the Planning Commission by Sup. Matt Gonzales, told her fellow commissioners, January 17, that she’d, “heard that there has been unusual pressure from certain staffers at the Mayor’s Office to change the configuration of which officers are at the commission.”

“For the past three and a half years, we’ve had a nice arrangement, in which the Mayor picked the President and the Board picked the Vice President, and it’s worked,” Olague observed. “It’s helped us to keep the peace and open up a rapport. Ultimately, we don’t serve anyone’s personal agenda. That doesn’t mean we don’t respect what the Mayor of the Board of Supervisors say, but ultimately, we are responsible to the citizens of San Francisco and that should go outside the political realm.”

Olague also told the Commission, January 17, that she had spoken to Mayor Gavin Newsom directly.

“He seemed very interested in keeping the rapport, though I’m not sure about Department heads or others,” Olague said of Newsom's response, as she went onto express her support for “keeping the status quo,” on the Commission--meaning that she would continue to serve as the Vice President, with Dwight Alexander continuing as President.

Commissioner Kathrin Moore asked who had requested that the election be continued, and Commission Secretary Linda Avery revealed that it had come from Newsom appointee and Commission President Dwight Alexander.

But Avery did not explain why the request was made, and as the meeting progressed it seemed increasingly likely that Alexander did so thanks to external meddling, and not a personal wish to step down, since he joined Olague in requesting that the election go forward on January 17, as originally planned.

By evening's end, Alexander, Olague and Board of Supervisor appointed commissioners Moore and Sugaya had voted to maintain the status quo, with Antonini, William Lee and Sue Lee, Newsom appointees all, in opposition. And once Alexander had participated in the vote, he took off, allegedly to dodge requests that he move to rescind the election vote, a request he could only have legally made that same day.

Newsom spokesperson Nathan Ballard denied, to the Guardian, that any such requests were made, and Alexander did not return our calls.

To understand what is going on at the Planning Commission, (and allegedly on several other city commissions, including the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Municipal Transportation Authority and the Building Inspections Commission, ) it helps to turn back the clock to Fall 2007, when Newsom, foreseeing an easy cruise to reelection, made his mass resignation request.

Planning Commission President Alexander and his fellow commissioned Antonini submitted their resignation letters on the same day, September 14, and both waxed positive about the idea of four more years of Newsom as Mayor.

But the tone of their letters differed considerably.

“I look forward to a new day of no more business as usual in our treasured city,” wrote Alexander, whose attendance on the Commission had been spotty, at best, adding that he remained ready to serve in his capacity of Planning Commission President, “or in any other official or unofficial capacity as you may deem appropriate.”

But Antonini, observing that his own attendance record was "nearly perfect," struck a more subservient tone.

Noting that his service on the Commission was only made possible because of the support of “my family and the staff at my dental office” and that his term on the Commission only lasts until June 30, 2008, Antonini added, “I would hope to be reappointed by you to another four-year term, if, as expected, you are reelected as Mayor. I am always there to help in any way needed. I welcome the challenge of rezoning the Eastern Neighborhoods, Transbay Redevelopment, a new Housing Element and serving with our recently named Planning Director, John Rahaim.”

Antonini’s stated loyalty versus Alexander's request for a "new day" may explain why behind the scenes efforts have been underway to oust Alexander, especially as Olague serves as de facto President, any time Alexander is absent.

“I’m not entirely sure if the composition of the commission is in flux, “ Antonini told the Commission prior to the Jan. 17 election vote, as he tried to postpone the election, claiming that he wasn't prepared to vote, since he thought that matter was going to be continued to February.

But as Commission Secretary Avery pointed out, in a case that affects all the commissioners and in which all the commissioners are present (which they might not have been, come Feb. 7), there was nothing to stop them from going ahead with the Election, which was exactly what happened.

Newsom spokesperson Nathan Ballard denied, in today’s Examiner, that Newsom staffers pressured Commission members. But sources told the Guardian that the pressure was coming from Dean Macris, who wanted to install Sue Lee and Antonini,as President and Vice President, and still maintains an office at the Planning Department, as a liasion to the Mayor, since he stepped down as Planning Department executive director,

As Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, who was appointed by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, stated after the vote that kept Alexander and Olague at the Commission's helm, “We all know what is happening here, not that it’s being made public, but it’s coming from the Mayor’s Office.”

Meanwhile, questions are being raised about the legality of the Mayor demanding and accepting the resignation of Alexander, whose term ends June 2008, given that Prop. D states that members of the Planning Commission (and Board of Appeals) can only be removed for "official misconduct."

And there are growing rumblings that the Mayor's Office is trying to control other supposedly independent commissions.
The Mayor has asked the Board of Supervisors to delay consideration of three new MTA appointments. (MTA Chair James McCray is still in power, after that vote was delayed, possibly because of the fallout from the mayoral staffers scandal , which the Chronicle has reported, but in which it now appears was linked to the MTA budget)

Over at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, executive director Susan Leal is still in power, though she has been on medical leave since being hit by a van outside City Hall. And now comes word that the Board of Supervisors is trying to muster 8 votes to block the reappointment of PUC board commissioners Dick Sklar and Ryan Brooks, and do split appointments, instead.

To add to the intrigue, the PUC just got word from the Bay Area Water Users Association, refusing to pay Leal's $500,000 severance, which she is due, if she is let go before her term ends in 2009.

As Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin told the Guardian, "This is a ratepayer lawsuit in the making."