How SF Can Make the Most of Its Opportunity to Streamline Boards and Commissions

This year, San Francisco voters considered two competing ballot measures to address the city’s sprawling boards and commissions system. The measure that passed, Proposition E, establishes the Commission Streamlining Task Force, which will make recommendations to the mayor and San Francisco Board of Supervisors on ways to modify, eliminate, or combine boards and commissions.

SPUR did not endorse either of these measures in our November 2024 Voter Guide, but we do believe that a comprehensive evidence-based review of San Francisco’s commission system is needed, and the passage of Prop. E provides a path for that review. In our report Designed to Serve, we detailed the case for assessing commissions and their overall relation to mayoral and departmental authority. For this work to be successful, the task force that will be created under Prop. E will need to stick to the timeline that the measure outlined to get board- and commission-related city charter revisions to the ballot in 2026.

Timeline for Getting Board- and Commission-Related City Charter Revisions to the Ballot in 2026

Five Steps to a Successful Process

The Commission Streamlining Task Force has about a year to determine which commissions should remain and which should be eliminated. However, it doesn’t need to start from scratch. It can build on foundational work by SPUR and by the Rose Institute of State and Local Government and the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, which also developed reports with ideas for streamlining the commission system. Based on this work, SPUR suggests five steps for successfully completing the task force’s work.

Step 1: Determine how many commissions there actually are.

SPUR, the Rose Institute, and the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury each arrived at a different count of commissions. Using the most recent list uploaded to the San Francisco City Attorney’s website, SPUR counted 126 commissions. The Rose Institute counted 130 commissions. The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury reviewed numerous lists and found none of them to be accurate, so it developed its own list, counting 115 active commissions in the City and County of San Francisco. Its report stated that “the proliferation of commissions has outpaced the city’s ability to keep track of them.” The first thing that the task force will need to do is determine which list it will use. SPUR recommends combining the lists on the San Francisco City Attorney’s website and in the Rose Institute and grand jury reports as well as looking for other lists of commissions to catch any outliers.

Step 2: Develop criteria for assessing commissions.

The task force will need to develop a set of criteria to evaluate the commissions. SPUR encourages it to evaluate each appointed board and commission based on the following questions:

• Does this body serve similar constituents/customers as other bodies?
• Is this body one of two or more in a department, policy area, or both? Where is there duplication or a good rationale for consolidation?
• Is this body related to one specific funding source or one small interest group?
• Is this body facilitating public engagement, providing transparency, and helping hold the city accountable for providing equitable access to public services?
• Is public engagement facilitated by this body reflective of the communities that the body serves?
• Does this body help drive positive outcomes for the city?

In addition, the task force should look at how active the commissions are and how critical they are to city operations. Finally, the task force must determine whether the commissions are required by state or federal law. The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury published a list of these commissions, but the City Attorney’s Office must verify this list.

Step 3: Assess the commissions.

The task force should apply one set of criteria to all boards and commissions as well as consider the cost analysis that the budget and legislative analyst will prepare. In addition, it should interview the staff of boards and commissions to understand the operational impacts of changes to their bodies.

Step 4: Publish the findings.

The task force should publish its findings in advance of the hearing that the Board of Supervisors will hold on April 1, 2026. Doing so will give the public, staff, and commissioners the opportunity to weigh in with feedback and concerns.

Step 5: Update the charter.

To implement the task force recommendations to reform the charter, voters will need to approve another ballot measure. The City Attorney will draft the measure, and a member of the Board of Supervisors will need to initiate the process with a majority vote. Any changes to non-charter commissions can be accomplished through ordinances drafted by the task force.

More Than Just a Number

Determining the number of commissions and which ones should continue to exist is only one part of the process. As the task force conducts its review, it should consider the roles and responsibilities of each commission and clarify whether each is serving in a governance role that helps shape how a department is executing its mission; a regulatory role with responsibility for upholding and enforcing existing law; or an advisory role providing technical assistance, policy guidance, and best thinking on policy areas. The roles of the commissions should be clarified and defined in any charter or legislative changes.

In addition, the task force should develop a rational and standard member appointment process, reflective of bodies’ defined roles and responsibilities. The current process is not clearly mapped to function and can fall under the purview of the mayor or the Board of Supervisors or other entities. A less opaque process could be helpful in recruiting new commissioners. SPUR proposes the following:

• Governance and regulatory bodies: Because the duties of these bodies are aligned with the management and day-to-day operations of the city, appointments to these bodies should be made by the mayor. Exceptions include commissions that should be independent from mayoral oversight, such as the Elections Commission and the Ethics Commission.
• Advisory bodies: The legislative and executive branches of government should each make half of the appointments to these bodies.
• All appointments: Appointing authorities should directly appoint and remove their own commissioners, with no approvals required.

Any charter changes should restore the mayor’s authority to hire and fire most department heads. The mayor’s ability to appoint department heads is clearly stated in the charter; however, this direct line of accountability has been diffused through the creation of commissions that have been given this responsibility. As the city’s chief executive, the mayor needs this management tool to ensure the performance and vision alignment of city leadership.

Finally, recognizing that more commissions will be created, the city should proactively establish a regular review by a trusted nonpolitical authority. If the initial streamlining project works well, the city should learn from and build on it. The initial task force should decide who takes on this long-term task. When appropriate, sunset dates should be identified for any new commission.

Boards and commissions can consume significant city resources and complicate decision-making. But when structured well, they can support better policymaking and government service delivery as well as expand the chief executive’s management capacity. A data-driven, deliberative public process for commission streamlining could ensure these outcomes.