The case to stay the course

There is no perfect solution to filling the vacancy in City Hall until San Francisco voters choose a successor to the late Mayor Ed Lee. At the moment, London Breed, president of the Board of Supervisors, is serving as acting mayor.

But the 11-member board has the option of replacing her with an interim, or “caretaker,” mayor until the election. The movement to do so has picked up steam since Breed announced that she would be on the ballot in June to fill out the remaining 18 months of Lee’s term.

Here is the case for allowing Breed to stay in the mayor’s office:

The arguments to replace her are not without merit. There are concerns about separation of powers and conflicting loyalties, since she would simultaneously serve as mayor of the city and supervisor of a district that includes the Fillmore, Haight and Western Addition. There is also a legitimate question about whether her attention would be stretched too thin as a mayor, board president and candidate. And her opponents worry that her presence in the mayor’s office, and the stature and attention it bestows, would give her an unfair advantage at the ballot box.

Those apprehensions cannot be dismissed outright, but they should be considered in context. Breed is acting mayor not by accident, but because she was placed in the line of succession by her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, who selected her as their leader. Among the separation of powers concerns: Both the mayor and president of the board make appointments to city commissions, giving undue influence to one person. One reasonable remedy would be for the board to appoint Breed as interim mayor, which would require her to step down from her supervisor’s seat — and she then would be allowed to appoint her successor, so the ideological balance of the board could remain intact.

Without question, Breed will have her hands full adjusting to her expanded role as mayor, but she will have a considerable legion of appointed aides and career bureaucrats to keep the government rolling.

The incumbency advantage should be the least of the city’s worries. Sitting in the mayor’s office can be a blessing and a curse for political standing: Yes, mayors have abundant opportunities for ribbon cuttings and framing the agenda, but they also tend to get blamed for everything that irks the citizenry, from car break-ins to homeless encampments to the pangs of development. Also, it must be noted that one of her main opponents, former state Sen. Mark Leno, has raised about $400,000 in anticipation of a 2019 election — and no one expects him to voluntarily relinquish the edge that gives him in a suddenly compressed race.

The problems with the alternatives to keeping Breed on the job as mayor are more troubling. It would be wrong to allow progressives who want to steer city policy to the left to seize the moment to install one of their own in City Hall’s Room 200. Voters will decide for themselves in fewer than six short months, and after a robust debate among four experienced politicians, whether they want to change course. A caretaker with government experience but no political aspirations has an appealing ring, but it would be far preferable to have a mayor with accountability to the voters.

If Breed keeps her word — an early test of her leadership — she will exercise her authority as board president to schedule a special meeting Tuesday for the supervisors to consider their options.

The supervisors should keep London Breed on the job until San Francisco voters can deliver their verdict on the course of the city and which candidate would be best to achieve it.