Two competing ballot measures this November will ask San Francisco voters to reduce the number of citizen commissions operating in the city, but the propositions have major differences that has divided the Democratic field for mayor.
The two propositions, D and E, both seek to reduce the number of commissions that make policy decisions for the city/county government, but the two measures differ on how they would do so, whether there should be a hard cap on the number, and whether some decision-making authority that lies with the commissions should be transferred to department heads.
Proposition D also includes expanded authority for the mayor to hire and fire department heads, whereas Proposition E does not.
If both propositions pass, the one with more yes votes will take effect.
Prop D has gained mixed support from mayoral candidates and the Democratic County Central Committee of San Francisco, which voted 18-8 in favor of supporting the proposition at its meeting in August, with five members abstaining.
The campaign in support of the proposition has also drawn scrutiny from some mayoral candidates because of the involvement and expenditures of Mark Farrell, who is himself a candidate for mayor, but has raised more money for the Prop D campaign than his mayoral bid and has used a dual headquarters for both campaigns.
Proposition E would accomplish a similar goal of reducing the number of commissions through a different process, primarily by first setting up a “commission streamlining task force” to determine which commissions to keep before making recommendations to the mayor and Board of Supervisors.
Prop E is supported by mayoral candidate Aaron Peskin, president of the Board of Supervisors.
The city currently has about 130 city commissions, including 44 that are established through the city charter and can only be changed by voters. Prop D would limit the overall number to 65, including 20 in the city charter.
Dozens of commissions other than those in the charter were created by lawmakers by ordinance. Some are advisory, while others have decision-making authority to set or apply policy for departments such as the Police Department. Other commissions decide appeals or conduct administrative proceedings, according to the report prepared by the volunteer Ballot Simplification Committee.
Prop D would create a two-step process for paring the number of commissions down, first by eliminating about half of them, including 24 from the city charter. Then, a five-person task force would determine which commissions to reauthorize or eliminate within nine months.
The Human Rights Commission and Public Health Commission are examples of commissions that could be eliminated if the proposition passes. The task force could later recommend reinstating them.
Mayor London Breed initially supported Prop D but changed her position, citing in part the support the measure had received from Farrell, a former San Francisco supervisor who also led a campaign in support of the proposition called “Mayor Mark Farrell for Yes on Prop. D,” which references his time as interim mayor in 2018.
Breed said in an email that the city needed comprehensive charter reform. She said she generally supported commission reform and worked with the group campaigning for Prop D, Together SF, on a previous version of the proposition.
“However, I am concerned that Prop D has become tainted and is just a vehicle to help Mark Farrell funnel unlimited amounts of contributions to his campaign,” Breed said.
Farrell’s Yes on D campaign committee has reported raising over $2.1 million, compared to about $1.8 million for his mayoral campaign. Mayoral candidates have limitations on individual donations, whereas campaigns for propositions have no limit for individual donors.
Another committee campaigning for Prop D and more actively against Prop E is the Committee to Fix San Francisco Government, which has raised over $5.6 million as of Friday, according to campaign finance records.
The ballot proponent’s argument was written by Kanishka Cheng, CEO of the political action committee TogetherSF Action.
The group says on its website that it supports the idea of city commissions, but that San Francisco has too many. It contends the ability for the mayor to directly hire and fire department heads will lead to greater accountability from them.
“Our government is dysfunctional and has failed to solve the challenges San Francisco faces from open air markets and homelessness,” Cheng wrote in the ballot proponent argument. “A major reason why are hidden layers of bureaucracy and a bloated commission system.”
The group contends that Prop E would not accomplish the same goal because it would not cap the number of commissions and would not remove the power of commissions to hire department heads.
Peskin wrote the ballot opposition argument to Prop D and separately wrote the ballot statement in support of Prop E.
He objected to the task force that would be empowered to take stock of which commissions should ultimately be kept or eliminated and said the measure would remove voter oversight of the Police Department. He was also critical that Prop D was written without public hearings and has received sizable financial contributions.
“This November, we have a choice between 2 measures: Prop E, which provides real governmental reform that promotes effective & accountable government and Prop D, which reduces citizen participation, eliminates the Arts, Library, Small Business and Public Health Commissions, and undermines democracy,” Peskin said in an email.
City Controller Greg Wagner wrote in his analysis of Proposition D that the measure could save between $350,000 to $630,000, or about $85,000 per commission that was cut.
His analysis for Prop E said the measure’s passage would not have an immediate impact on city finances but could ultimately lead to savings depending on what the task force established by the proposition recommends cutting.