San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins is facing scrutiny after promoting a close friend, Monifa Willis, to the position of chief of staff within her office. The controversial decision has sparked accusations of nepotism, as Willis lacks legal experience and holds a second job as an assistant nursing professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing.
Willis, a Board Certified Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner, was initially hired by the DA’s office in 2022 to oversee the Victim’s Services Division. However, she was quietly elevated to the role of chief of staff in March, a position that pays approximately $289,000 annually. This move has raised concerns about the hiring of a friend for such a prominent position within the office.
In response to the criticism, Jenkins defended her decision, stating that Willis brings a wealth of experience in providing trauma-informed care to victims of crime and individuals impacted by the criminal justice system. She emphasized Willis’ role in overseeing the Victim Services Division, the policy team, grants, special projects, and programming. Jenkins also announced that Willis would spearhead new programs and initiatives focused on crime prevention and intervention efforts.
Despite Jenkins’ endorsement of Willis’ qualifications, Ryan Khojasteh, a former prosecutor running against Jenkins, condemned the appointment as nepotism. Khojasteh argued that Willis, who does not possess a law license, is not qualified to hold the second-highest position in a criminal law office. He expressed bewilderment at Jenkins’ decision to promote Willis, questioning the rationale behind her selection.
The chief of staff position within the DA’s office is exempt from requiring a law degree, according to Jenkins’ office. It mandates four years of managerial experience in a supervisory role in a legal, legislative, or clinical social environment. Additionally, the chief of staff does not oversee prosecutors, as that responsibility falls to the chief assistant district attorney.
Jenkins and Willis have a longstanding friendship that dates back to high school, where they were track-and-field teammates. Their close relationship has been documented through public Venmo transactions showing shared activities such as dining out, attending sports events, and visiting a waxing salon together. Despite their personal connection, Jenkins maintains that Willis’ appointment was based on her qualifications and expertise.
In light of the controversy surrounding Willis’ dual roles as chief of staff and nursing professor, the DA’s office clarified that Willis’ teaching responsibilities at UCSF do not interfere with her duties in the District Attorney’s Office. While employees are prohibited from engaging in outside activities that detract from their work obligations, Willis received approval for her secondary employment as a professor.
Critics of Jenkins, including former employees like Lexa Grayner, have accused her of prioritizing personal relationships over professional competence. Grayner, who transitioned to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, characterized Jenkins’ leadership as self-serving and detrimental to the criminal justice system in San Francisco. Jenkins’ office declined to comment on Grayner’s departure.
The San Francisco Ethics Commission, responsible for upholding ethical standards in city government, refrained from commenting on the situation involving Willis’ appointment. As the controversy continues to unfold, questions persist about the implications of nepotism and the impact on the integrity of the DA’s office under Jenkins’ leadership.
In the midst of these allegations, Jenkins’ tenure as District Attorney has been marked by significant turnover among staff members. Khojasteh highlighted the destabilizing effect of Jenkins’ personnel decisions, suggesting that her loyalty to friends and allies has come at the expense of office functionality.
As the debate over Willis’ promotion intensifies, the broader implications of nepotism and professional qualifications in public office are being scrutinized. The controversy surrounding Jenkins’ decision raises concerns about accountability, transparency, and ethical standards within the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.
