{"id":464549,"date":"2026-09-15T14:56:09","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T14:56:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/464549\/"},"modified":"2026-09-15T14:56:09","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T14:56:09","slug":"what-transparency-luries-sunny-disposition-masks-his-offices-opaque-behavior","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/464549\/","title":{"rendered":"What transparency? Lurie\u2019s sunny disposition masks his office\u2019s opaque behavior"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not quite a year ago, Mayor Daniel Lurie hired Jessica MacLeod to a newly created position, chief of strategy and performance. With much pomp<\/a>, Lurie said in his official announcement (opens in new tab)<\/a> that MacLeod would \u201clead a citywide effort to set clear goals, track clear progress, and deliver results San Franciscans can see and feel.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the ensuing 12 months, little was heard from or about MacLeod \u2014 until she stepped down Sept. 2. And even then, the mayor\u2019s office said goodbye quietly, by planting a story about her departure in the San Francisco Chronicle, which duly published an article (opens in new tab)<\/a> around 6 p.m. on the Friday before Labor Day weekend, when the citizenry\u2019s thoughts had mostly turned to cookouts and walks on the beach. The Chron, with all the critical rigor of Soviet-era Pravda, quoted amply from MacLeod\u2019s word-salad of a resignation letter as well as canned statements from Lurie and a single department head.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a heap of irony here. MacLeod\u2019s role was to make good on one of the mayor\u2019s chief campaign promises: to hold San Francisco\u2019s government accountable. You\u2019d think that when the administration\u2019s chief transparency officer flames out, the transparent thing would be to give an account of what actually happened.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s not how Team Lurie rolls. When it comes to carrying out his agenda, our chipper and ubiquitous mayor has his own definition of forthrightness. If he has good news to share, he shouts it to the algorithmic masses. If the news is not so flattering, he seeks to bury it. The dismissal of a high-profile appointee who exited less than a year after her hiring is only one example.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Consider what happened recently when Supervisor Jackie Fielder invited Ned Segal, the policy chief responsible for the city\u2019s problematic OpenGov permitting software project, to appear <\/a>before a Sept. 2 Board of Supervisors committee hearing<\/a> about renewing OpenGov\u2019s contract. He snubbed her by declining to appear.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Then there was the list of questions Supervisor Bilal Mahmood sent to several department heads and the mayor\u2019s office about <\/a>the July 4 Waymo fiasco<\/a>. The mayor\u2019s office failed to respond.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When Lurie last week reached a <\/a>shockingly early conclusion to contract negotiations<\/a> with much of the unionized workforce, he shared next to no detail about how the deal would affect the city\u2019s alarmingly strained budget.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And of course, there is The Standard\u2019s recent discovery that Lurie and his deputies pick and choose when to turn over records or communications, as they are required by law to do. The headline says it all: \u201cNew evidence suggests Lurie\u2019s office is concealing or destroying public records<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n

If only all that missing information could fit on an (opens in new tab)<\/a>Instagram Reel (opens in new tab)<\/a>!<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

By any measure, MacLeod\u2019s hiring was a big deal. She had cofounded the U.S. Digital Response, (opens in new tab)<\/a> which connected technologists with governments during the pandemic, and Lurie named her a fifth \u201cchief\u201d \u2014 one of the powerful, deputy-mayor-like positions<\/a> he created to help oversee the city\u2019s sprawling bureaucracy. The new position was significant for its potential to deliver on the technocratic, get-shit-done posture that is Lurie\u2019s whole brand. But MacLeod didn\u2019t have the power or the resources of the other chiefs. I\u2019m told that she instead was a jargon-spewing martinet, fond of referring to meetings as \u201cpods,\u201d who never quite got the hang of how the city works.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An example: In June, MacLeod invited every department head, their deputies, and the mayor\u2019s leadership team to a virtual seminar on \u201chow to craft a theory of change.\u201d Problematically, she called the meeting for June 18, the same day many department officials planned to present their budgets to the Board of Supervisors. She quickly proposed an alternate date.<\/p>\n

I reached out to MacLeod, who referred me to her resignation letter, which, she texted, \u201ccaptures the details of my decision to depart and a few of the accomplishments I\u2019m proud will continue.\u201d She declined further comment. The mayor\u2019s office informed me that MacLeod\u2019s position had been temporary and that she would not be replaced. This was a fact not provided in the news release (opens in new tab)<\/a> announcing her arrival, which dubbed her the \u201cfirst chief of strategy and performance.\u201d She turned out to have been the last too.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The deck was stacked against MacLeod from the beginning in that no departments were in her remit. Early this year, she took over responsibility for the Mayor\u2019s Office of Innovation, a technological SWAT team funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies since Mayor London Breed\u2019s administration. But sources tell me MacLeod quickly clashed with that office, then pushed out its highly credentialed head, Florence Simon, who landed on her feet at Google (opens in new tab)<\/a>. In June, the mayor shifted control of the innovation team from MacLeod to Kunal Modi, the health and human services chief, who installed one of his deputies, Eufern Pan (opens in new tab)<\/a>, to run it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

You won\u2019t hear any of this from the mayor\u2019s office, of course, which is as loath to air its own dirty laundry as any political operation. Nor will the mayor\u2019s office have anything to say \u2014 at least publicly, while the cameras are rolling \u2014 to the Board of Supervisors about OpenGov. Lurie\u2019s team seems to think that because Segal, the chief of economic development and housing, is not involved with the day-to-day implementation of OpenGov software, it\u2019s fine for the mayor to defer to Liz Watty<\/a>, the Planning Department official overseeing the rejiggering of Permit SF, to represent the city.<\/p>\n

But that\u2019s a gesture of arrogance from a mayor who claims to be proud of the collegial relations he has maintained with his legislative partners. When the people\u2019s representatives request that an official who was the driving force behind a high-profile mayoral initiative appear to answer questions about that program, the official (in this case, Segal) should walk to the other side of the building and comply. (Not for nothing, Lurie is missing an opportunity: The loquacious and persuasive Segal, a former executive at Twitter, might make the case on the mayor\u2019s behalf better than a career civil servant like Watty ever could.)\u00a0<\/p>\n

Segal\u2019s snub is this administration\u2019s standard practice. Lurie\u2019s office consistently deflects questioning by supervisors to departmental pooh-bahs. That is in contrast to how past administrations have taken their lumps, such as when Breed\u2019s chief of staff, Sean Elsbernd, faced the board to discuss resignation-gate, the 2022 kerfuffle over Breed\u2019s request<\/a> that every member of the Police Commission submit an undated resignation letter.<\/p>\n

The mayor\u2019s office under Lurie declines to answer other types of questions from the legislative branch. As The Standard <\/a>reported this summer<\/a>, Mahmood asked three departments \u2014 as well as the relevant member of the mayor\u2019s office, Ellie Schafer, director of large special events \u2014 to answer written queries about the traffic screwup after the July 4 fireworks show. The heads of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Department of Emergency Management, and Fire Department all responded; Schafer did not. Mahmood told me the mayor\u2019s office believed DEM\u2019s responses were sufficient. But Mahmood had questions about the office\u2019s planning for crowd expectations and its coordination with SFMTA. It isn\u2019t the mayor\u2019s prerogative to blow off questions he doesn\u2019t feel like answering.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The mayor\u2019s lack of transparency and unwillingness to face tough questions will also be tested by his recent deal with public-sector labor unions, and what it means for the city budget. That deal would give most workers a 12% pay increase from 2027 to 2031 and a no-layoff promise through mid-2029. The controller\u2019s office isn\u2019t expected to release its analysis until December.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Before then, Lurie will have an important message to communicate: why he is promising not to lay off a single employee until 2029 at the same time he is facing down a budget deficit that year of about $450 million. (opens in new tab)<\/a>If he\u2019s going to ask voters to open their wallets to bail out Muni this November, it\u2019s fair for him to explain how he plans to balance the city\u2019s checkbook.<\/p>\n

For now, though, we\u2019re in the dark about Lurie\u2019s fiscal plans. That, despite the mayor\u2019s sunny disposition, seems to be how he likes it.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

By the way, yes, I\u2019m back! After eight months of book leave, I\u2019ve returned to my regular routine of writing The Lash every week. If you have feedback on my columns, or thoughts for what I should be writing about next, please email me at [email\u00a0protected]<\/a> or just leave them in the comments.\u00a0<\/p>\n