Establishes a task force charged with making recommendations to the mayor and Board of Supervisors on reforming San Francisco’s boards and commissions.
Proposition E would amend the City Charter to establish the Commission Streamlining Task Force to make recommendations to the mayor and Board of Supervisors on ways to modify, eliminate, or combine appointive boards and commissions.
The task force would be made up of five members:
The measure would require the Board of Supervisors budget and legislative analyst to prepare a report by September 2025 that would outline the costs required to support the city’s current board and commission system, as well as the projected financial impact of eliminating or consolidating commissions. The task force’s recommendations about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the city’s appointive boards and commissions would be due to the mayor and the Board of Supervisors by February 1, 2026.
For commissions that are not in the City Charter, the task force would be authorized to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations. Ordinances that the task force puts forward would automatically go into effect unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors within 90 days of introduction.
The city attorney would be required through this measure to prepare a charter amendment to implement the task force’s recommendations related to commissions established in the City Charter. The Board of Supervisors would be required to hold a hearing no later than April 1, 2026, on the recommendations and draft charter amendments. Any board member could then initiate the process to send the charter amendments (or a modified version of them) to the ballot. Any charter amendments would need to be approved by voters in a following election.
San Francisco has 126 commissions, boards, and advisory bodies (also known as “commissions”) made up of 1,200-plus residents who provide input to public officials in specific issue areas, such as health, policing, and planning. The Rose Institute of State and Local Government, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, and SPUR have all come out with reports calling for a comprehensive review of San Francisco’s commission system with the goals of defining the purpose of commissions and reducing their overall number.
This year, two competing measures made it onto the ballot to address commission reform, but they go about this reform in different ways. Prop. E was introduced by Supervisor Aaron Peskin and co-sponsored by supervisors Ronen, Preston, and Mandelman as an alternative to Prop. D, City Commissions and Mayoral Authority, a voter initiative sponsored by TogetherSF. Prop. E proponents argue that the city should undertake a comprehensive, evidence-based review of commissions before making decisions about which ones can be consolidated, streamlined, improved, or eliminated. Opponents argue that the measure was only put on the ballot to prevent Prop. D from succeeding and that it gives new powers to an unelected task force to create ordinances that may or may not lead to a streamlining of the commission system.
To pass, Prop. E requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) and must get more votes than the competing charter amendment, Prop. D.
Prop. D and Prop. E both aim to streamline city commissions and mayoral authority, but they go about it in different ways. Prop. E was put on the ballot to defeat Prop. D.
| Prop. D Prop. D would make sweeping changes to the city’s commission system. The measure would cap the number of commissions that the city can have at 65 (half of the current number), eliminate many commissions from the City Charter, realign mayoral authority to appoint and dismiss department heads, and change the powers of the Police Commission. Any commissions that the measure eliminates from the charter could be re-established by the Board of Supervisors through an ordinance, but these commissions would need to be advisory only and to fall under the 65-commission limit. | Prop. E Prop. E would set up a short-term task force to conduct a comprehensive review of the city’s commissions. It would require a budget analysis outlining how much it costs the city to support each current commission and would allow the task force to draft ordinances to make changes to non-charter commissions that would automatically go into effect 90 days later unless the Board of Supervisors rejects them by a supermajority. To make changes to commissions established by the charter, a future ballot measure would need to go to voters. |
| Opportunity: Prop. D would make significant and immediate changes to the City Charter that could help create clear lines of authority and accountability while reducing the overall administrative burden associated with managing commissions. | Opportunity: Prop. E would create a process for conducting a comprehensive evidence-based review of San Francisco’s commission structure before making reforms to avoid unintended consequences. |
| Risk: Prop. D would dissolve or force a restructuring of voter-approved decision-making bodies into advisory boards without public research, dialogue, or a clear impacts assessment, which could result in unintended consequences. | Risk: Even if this measure were to pass and be enacted, it would not guarantee the desired streamlining of commissions. |
Prop. E would enable the creation of a process to reform the structure and function of commissions, including how appointments are made. Until the recommendations of the task force are completed, it’s not possible to evaluate the equity impacts of this measure.
SPUR believes that a comprehensive evidence-based review of San Francisco’s commission system is needed and that this proposition provides a path for that review. However, the bulk of this measure could have been enacted legislatively rather than through the ballot box. Additionally, it’s unclear whether the measure would result in a meaningful reform of the city’s commissions or would restore mayoral authority due to the lack of a mechanism to ensure timely action by the Board of Supervisors. SPUR believes that commissions and their overall relation to mayoral and departmental authority should be assessed. Only after a rigorous and transparent review is completed would it make sense to put a charter amendment on the ballot to implement the review’s recommendations.