The Associated Press reported on January 20:
Amid a tough reelection fight, Mayor London Breed has declined to veto a non-binding resolution from the San Francisco supervisors calling for an extended cease-fire in Gaza, a measure she blamed for inflaming tensions in the city.
Similar language about Breed "declining to veto" or "refusing to veto" the resolution was used in articles by the San Francisco Chronicle and Fox News. All three articles describe Breed as being critical of the resolution, using verbs like "slam", "criticize" and "fault".
But I am not so sure if it is accurate that Breed did not "veto" the resolution. Here's what actually happened:
On January 9 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a resolution "calling for an extended cease-fire in Gaza". (See this AP report.)
On January 19 Mayor Breed issued a statement on this resolution in which she criticizes the Board of Supervisors for passing it, explaining the reasons why she finds it problematic. See the statement on Breed's X account: link. The statement is a formal letter addressed to the Board of Supervisors. The letter ends with the words: "I return this resolution without my signature."
The issue here is that as far as I understand, in US politics in general, and San Francisco city politics in particular, there is no legal distinction between "vetoing" a resolution and "returning it without [the executive office-holder's] signature". Here is the relevant section of the San Francisco city charter, titled "veto power":
(I added emphasis on a part of it that seems relevant)
SEC. 3.103. VETO POWER.
Any ordinance or resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors shall be promptly delivered to the Mayor for consideration. If the Mayor approves the ordinance or resolution, the Mayor shall sign it and it shall become effective as provided in Section 2.105 of this Charter. If the Mayor disapproves the ordinance or resolution, the Mayor shall promptly return it to the Board of Supervisors without the Mayor's signature, accompanied by a statement indicating the reasons for disapproval and any recommendations which the Mayor may have. Any ordinance or resolution so disapproved by the Mayor shall become effective only if, subsequent to its return, it shall be passed by a vote of the Board of Supervisors required by Section 2.106 of this Charter. Any ordinance or resolution shall become effective, with or without the Mayor's signature, unless it is disapproved by the Mayor and returned to the Board of Supervisors not more than ten days after the date the ordinance or resolution was delivered to the Mayor's Office for consideration.
On the counter-argument side, Mayor Breed's statement on the resolution does contain several passages in which she appears to create the impression that she does not want to veto the resolution, or even that she has decided not to veto it. However, nowhere does she explicitly state that she is "declining" or "refusing" to veto the statement, or is "refraining from vetoing" it, "not vetoing it", etc - the language she uses when discussing a "veto" is suggestive but vague. The only explicit action she is describing herself as taking is "returning the resolution without her signature". Per the city charter, that appears to constitute a veto.
Were the news articles correct in saying that London Breed "declined to veto" or "refused to veto" the resolution?