rich 1.0 Action Network https://actionnetwork.org <link href='https://actionnetwork.org/css/style-embed-v3.css' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css' /><script src='https://actionnetwork.org/widgets/v6/petition/Save-San-Francisco-Participatory-Governance?format=js&source=widget'></script><div id='can-petition-area-Save-San-Francisco-Participatory-Governance' style='width: 100%'><!-- this div is the target for our HTML insertion --></div> Patrick Monette-Shaw https://actionnetwork.org/users/patrick-monette-shaw/profile https://can2-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/petitions/photos/000/742/727/normal/Protect_San_Francisco's_Democacy.jpg In November 2024, San Francisco voters were faced with dueling ballot measures at the ballot box concerning so-called “reform” of San Francisco’s boards and commissions. “Prop. D” — sponsored by “TogertherSF” and its sister organization “TogethSF Action” led by Kanishka Cheng, along with other Astrofurf groups funded primarily by billionaire Michael Moritz and by Mayoral candidate Mark Farrell — wanted to hand the Mayor stronger powers. They set out to eliminate half of the City’s citizen-directed oversight boards, commissions, and policy bodies. By contrast, “Prop. E” was put on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, led by then-Board President Aaron Peskin, who was alarmed by the blatant attack on San Francisco values that the City is well known for. Prop. E proposed a more gradual approach to commission reform: Rather than mandating immediate cuts, it would establish a five-member task force to study the issue and make recommendations by early 2026 after studying the commission system thoroughly for a full year. “Prop. D” was rejected by a 13% margin of voters, when 56.7% of voters (207,604) voted “Hell No” on their ballots, prevailing 56.7% to 43.3%. By contrast, “Prop. E” passed by a 6% margin of voters, when 192,540 San Franciscans voted “Yes” to pass “Prop .E” by 53% to 47%. Spending by “Prop. D’s” backers totaled a whopping $9.5 million, but was defeated David-and-Goliath style by “Prop. E” backers who had raised approximately just $62,000. Ed Harrington, who led the “Prop. E” campaign for Peskin and the Board of Supervisors, said back in 2024 that Prop. D was the “wrong way” to reform because the public deserves an open process to discuss commission reform. He emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and openness in city government by allowing citizen oversight. Harrington said then, “Prop. D takes a meat ax to our city government.” But as soon as Harrington was appointed Chairperson of the “Commission Streamlining Task Force” that “Prop. E” created, he turned around and swung that meat ax against the boards and commissions, anyway. That’s because he, and Jean Fraser, the Presidio Trust’s CEO initially appointed as Vice Chair of the Task Force are both board members of the ultra-conservative real estate-backed “San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association,” also known as “SPUR.” SPUR already had underway its own commission reform agenda, and presented its first report “Designed to Serve: Resetting the City's Governance Structure to Better Meet the Needs of San Franciscans” at an early meeting of the Streamlining Task Force. SPUR followed up by releasing its second report “Charter for Change” on November 10, 2025, just as the Task Force was nearing the end of its deliberations to sway the Task Force members. All five of the Streamlining Task Force members are unelected political appointees who are not accountable to members of the public or San Franciscans at all. At least two of the five member Task Force were appointed without required membership qualifications. Task Chair Ed Harrington wrongly occupies Task Force Seat 4, which required qualifications as an organized public-sector labor union representative; Harrington has no such qualifications. Similarly, Task Force member Sophia Kittler occupies Seat 5, reserved for an Open Government expert; Kittler similarly has no such qualifications in open and accountable government. Kittler’s education and expertise is in private sector development. As Mayor Lurie’s Budget Director, Kittler’s City job experience is in public-sector government budgeting, not open government. A key component of “Proposition E” on the November 2024 ballot required that a financial cost analysis of the City’s boards and Commissions be prepared and submitted by September 1, 2025. The Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analysts’ “Financial Analysis” report documented that 112 boards and commissions cost a combined $33.9 million annually, but didn’t assess the costs of the 40 other bodies at all, which had been excluded from the BLA’s remit. That $33.9 million represents just 0.2132% of the City’s $15.9 billion annual City budget. Yes, just twenty-one hundredths of one percent — a ridiculously small cost for promoting participatory, open government. Throughout the Task Force’s 14-month deliberations, their decisions were made by unqualified people, lessening validity of all decisions the Task Force made. Their major decisions and recommendations are disastrous. By it’s own admission, the Task Force acknowledged the BLA’s Financial Analysis “lacked relevance for its decision-making.” In fact, the Task Force never discussed costs — or cost vs. benefit — of any of the 152 bodies it evaluated. Task Force Chair Harrington cautioned the Task Force on June 4 against dramatically altering the City’s commission structure, stating that “ ‘Proposition E’ was about streamlining, not radically overhauling public governance,” but by the end of the Task Force’s decision-making deliberations on January 28, 2026 — that’s what the Task Force ultimately did. Of the 152 bodies the Task Force assessed, it recommended keeping 86 boards, commissions, and advisory bodies; eliminating 60 bodies; combining two bodies with either another body or City staff; and making no recommendation on the remaining four bodies, leaving that to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. On top of eliminating 60 bodies, an additional 16 bodies are having date-specific “sunset” dates applied when they are moved from the City Charter into the Administrative Code, so those 16 bodies will soon face having to defend their ongoing retention and re-certification from the Board of Supervisors during the next three years. That totals 76 bodies facing Harrington’s ax, making the “Prop. D” backers proud. But that’s not what San Franciscans voted for. The Task Force recommended that of the 86 bodies being kept: · 18 bodies be moved from the City Charter to the Administrative Code. · 25 bodies have their Member Qualifications changed or eliminated, or made merely “desirable.” This is a major deal breaker. · 26 bodies have their Department Head hiring and firing authorities removed. · 24 bodies be changed from “For-Cause” to “At-Will” member removal In addition, budget and contract authority of some boards and commission’s over their respective City Departments is being removed or drastically changed. There are other drastic changes included in the Streamlining Task Force’s 134-page Final Report submitted to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors on January 28. As well, the 166-page Charter Amendment proposed for the November 2026 ballot, and a 308-page Ordinance proposed for Board of Supervisor action and implementation within 90 days were also transmitted to the Board of Supervisors on February 27. It is now up to San Franciscans to lobby the Board of Supervisors and urge them to overturn many of the Streamlining Task Fore’s recommendations, by amending the proposed Charter Amendment and the proposed first Ordinancce. Before we lose our participatory form of governance in San Francisco! https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/save-san-francisco-participatory-governance