Protect San Francisco’s Open Government During Board and Commission Reform
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
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 30. 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
Petition by
To:
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
From:
[Your Name]
The Board of Supervisors needs to take meaningful action by rejecting many of the recommendations for board and commission reform the Commission Streamlining Task Force submitted in its “Final Report” now before the Board for your consideration.
Ed Harrington, who led the “Prop. E” campaign for former Board President Aaron 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.”
“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%.
San Francisco voters did so because we wanted to preserve participatory governance of our democracy in San Francisco, to protect “San Francisco Values.” We did not want, and did NOT vote for, an Elon Musk “chainsaw” approach taken to radically overhaul and alter our local participatory boards and commissions structures in the name of “efficiency.”
Streamlining Task Force Chair Harrington had 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. They recommended radical changes, and took the same meat ax to our City government.
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, handing us “Prop. D”-style reforms, rather than “Prop. E”-style nuanced reform.
Had the Task Force stopped at just eliminating the 37 inactive bodies it had identified, that would have been enough. But the Task Force waded much deeper, and in many decisions appear to have gone way beyond its legislated remit.
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 recommended for removal or being drastically changed.
During it’s year-long meetings, the Task Force took testimony from 572 public speakers during 18 of its meetings, and received written letters and petition signatures from 824 San Franciscans, almost all of which opposed preliminary decisions the Streamlining Task Force was making as they went along, and have been included in its “Final Report” submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
That combined opposition from 1,396 San Franciscans to the Task Force essentially fell on deaf ears.
Rather than “Prop. E”-style reforms voters expected, the “Prop. E” Streamlining Task Force incorporated “Prop. D”-inspired recommendations in its “Final Report” submitted to the Board of Supervisors!
At a minimum, we ask that the Board of Supervisors carefully “duplicate” both the Proposed Charter Amendment and initial proposed Ordinance for your review. And we ask that you schedule your own round of hearings to reconsider recommendations in the duplicated files that were made by this five-member Task Force of appointed members who are not held accountable to San Franciscans, or to San Francisco’s voters. We ask that the Board of Supervisors continue to take and consider additional public testimony before approving an Ordinance or placing the proposed ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot.
After all, during a Town Hall event on March 11, 2026 sponsored by “Real Reform SF,” and the League of Women Voters SF, Streamlining Chairperson Ed Harrington stated that now that the Streamlining Task Force’s “Final Report” and associated legislation is now under consideration by the Board of Supervisors, topics for possible changes the Supervisors can consider, but aren’t limited to, include: the Commission on the Status of Women, Human Rights Commission, Entertainment Commission, Youth Commission, and various Children’s, Seniors, and Homeless Commissions. Harrington added the Supervisors could also make changes to the Task Force’s recommendations concerning the Mayoral authority to remove Commissioners “At Will,” Mayoral authority to hire and fire City Department Heads, and Police Department discipline of police officers.
In reality, the Board of Supervisors can amend, or reject, any or all of the 800-plus recommendations the Task Force submitted, including, for example, the recommendation regarding Sunshine Task Force nominating-body authority; restoring seat-level requirements for all bodies that have them as required qualifications, not “desirable” qualifications; and restoring the Ethics Commission’s full authority to place Ballot Measures on the ballot without requiring Board of Supervisors approval.
Board of Supervisors Rule §3.22, the “30-Day Rule” specifically states that measures introduced to the Board of Supervisors that would create or revise major City policy, the committee to which the measure is assigned shall not consider the measure until at least 30 days after the day of introduction of the legislation. That Rule is meant to ensure that major policy legislation is not rushed, allowing time for public review, committee scrutiny, and analysis before a hearing. It prevents immediate action on significant City policies by mandating a 30-day waiting period.
We expect the Board of Supervisors to carefully review, and reject, many of the Task Force’s recommendations — or face widespread voter rejection of any Board and Commission Charter Amendments placed on the November 2026 ballot!
Failure by the Board of Supervisors to reject many of the Streamlining Task Force’s recommendations will be sufficient grounds to oppose your proposed Charter amendment. We expect robust Board of Supervisors revisions to the Streamlining Task Force’s recommendations and proposed Charter Amendment be heard in detailed Rules Committee public hearings!