{"id":36901,"date":"2024-10-10T13:38:33","date_gmt":"2024-10-10T20:38:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=36901"},"modified":"2024-10-10T13:38:34","modified_gmt":"2024-10-10T20:38:34","slug":"sf-think-tank-gives-thumbs-down-to-commission-reform-ballot-measures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/10\/10\/sf-think-tank-gives-thumbs-down-to-commission-reform-ballot-measures\/","title":{"rendered":"SF think tank gives thumbs down to commission-reform ballot measures"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/users\/profile\/Patrick_Hoge\">By Patrick Hoge | Examiner staff writer |<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Oct 8, 2024\u00a0Updated\u00a020 hrs ago (SFExaminer.com)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com\/sfexaminer.com\/content\/tncms\/assets\/v3\/editorial\/b\/4a\/b4a7a8bc-85d6-11ef-836a-db0e32fd939d\/6705d07e76abd.image.jpg?resize=400%2C285\" alt=\"Aaron Peskin and Mark Farrell\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Aaron Peskin and Mark Farrell during the mayoral debate at the Julia Morgan Ballroom in San Francisco on Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2024.Craig Lee\/The Examiner<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>SPUR, a prominent urban-affairs think tank, came out in opposition Tuesday to two competing, bitterly contested ballot measures aiming to reform The City\u2019s sprawling commission system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The organization, also known as the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, gave thumbs-down recommendations for p<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/2024-sf-voter-guide-local-propositions-measures-on-ballot\/article_97615262-7776-11ef-913a-ebf36660f047.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ropositions D and E<\/a>. The former&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/sf-prop-d-attracts-multimillion-dollar-fundraising-disparity\/article_7725c83c-7acf-11ef-9ba4-a3656613a558.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a richly funded initiative<\/a>&nbsp;that would slash the number of commissions roughly in half, the latter its thinly financed competitor. Prop. D supporters had raised $8.7 million as of Tuesday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ironically, supporters of both measures had\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/how-bay-area-nonprofit-spur-would-overhaul-sf-government\/article_3f772be4-56a1-11ef-b17f-bf41db0829b4.html\" target=\"_blank\">found support for their causes in a SPUR report<\/a>\u00a0released in August that called for various government reforms, including the culling of city commissions, which came on the heels of a June civil grand jury report that also said there were too many commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>SPUR said Prop. D would make large-scale changes without enough of a public process, while Prop. E \u201cwould not guarantee the desired streamlining of commissions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prop. D was introduced by TogetherSF Action, a group backed by billionaire tech investor Michael Moritz, who has donated almost $3 million to two campaign committees that are supporting the measure. One of those is run by mayoral candidate Mark Farrell and has raised $2.4 million.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The controversial measure would roughly cut about half the number of city commissions, boards and advisory bodies to a maximum of 65.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Advocates say it would help trim a bloated and inefficient system that diffuses mayoral authority and accountability for voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prop. E\u2019s backers, who have raised a mere $27,404, say Prop. D would harm civic engagement and oversight of government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>SPUR said Tuesday it was opposing Prop. D in part because TogetherSF Action had not made public the research supporting its rationale for its cap and for removing specific commissions from the charter so that \u201cit\u2019s hard to know whether the cap of 65 commissions is warranted.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cProp. 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,\u201d SPUR wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe believe that a charter revision of this magnitude should include a deliberative public process with a shared framework and set of criteria that includes an equity analysis to determine which commissions should continue to exist,\u201d it wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"4\" height=\"3\" src=\"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-57.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-36903\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Kanishka Cheng, founder and CEO of TogetherSF, pictured in the Presidio in San Francisco on Thursday, March 21, 2024.Craig Lee\/The Examiner<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>TogetherSF Action CEO Kanishka Cheng said her group developed Prop. D with widespread input and called it \u201cunfortunate that SPUR wants to continue their pattern of letting the status quo incumbents prevent real reforms.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mayor London Breed, who&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/san-francisco-proposition-e-backers-have-raised-millions\/article_c842cc8a-61a5-11ef-811e-a7a0059e765b.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">withdrew support for Prop. D in August<\/a>&nbsp;after her office helped TogetherSF Action fix a flawed earlier version, last month&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/sf-mayor-london-breed-pushes-good-governance-reform-actions\/article_81a0f438-6726-11ef-9833-33b274d741d6.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">initiated a comprehensive City Charter reform effort<\/a>&nbsp;to include commissions, and she asked SPUR to help in preparing a measure for the November 2026 ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIt appears that SPUR is choosing to kick commission reform down the road two years to their preferred timeline and process instead of delivering the change that San Franciscans deserve now,\u201d Cheng said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In backing away from TogetherSF Action\u2019s measure, Breed said that she was concerned in part by Farrell\u2019s use of his Prop. D committee to raise unlimited donations, which are capped at $500 per individual in the mayoral race.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/politics\/former-sf-mayors-say-mark-farrell-breaking-election-law\/article_29ab4aca-8504-11ef-a700-2fef8aa6dfd1.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Former Mayors Willie Brown, Art Agnos and Frank Jorda<\/a>n on Monday together called for a criminal investigation of Farrell\u2019s use of campaign money from his Prop. D committee, which Farrell defended as legal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cheng said the commission limit in the measure was derived in consultation with community members and the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College in Los Angeles County, which Ken Miller, that think tank\u2019s director, confirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Rose Institute in August 2023 produced a public report for Cheng\u2019s group examining a wide range of San Francisco governmental structures and recommending possible reforms. It then conducted further research specifically on San Francisco commissions, which Cheng said supported the proposed limit of 65 \u2014 but which has not been made public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Cheng said in an interview Monday that the material has not been distributed to avoid unduly influencing the public process that would follow passage of Prop. D, in which a five-member task force would recommend to the mayor and the Board of Supervisors which commissions should be kept, dissolved, consolidated or restructured so as to meet the limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Supervisors could reestablish some commissions, but only within that limit and only as advisory bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThat research is not public because we want this to be a public process that the public and city officials engage in, and how we get to that, what 65 looks like,\u201d Cheng said. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to be driving what those 65 are.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"4\" height=\"3\" src=\"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/image-59.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-36905\"\/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Former City Controller Ed Harrington, a member of the SPUR board, is helping lead the campaign in opposition to Prop. D.Examiner File<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Opponents counter that the public process should occur before voters cast their ballots on a measure that will result in the elimination of so many civic bodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThat\u2019s kind of like saying, \u2018Well, nothing really happens on Nov. 5, the new president doesn\u2019t come until Jan. 20,\u201d said an exasperated Ed Harrington, the former city controller and former general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who is helping lead the campaign in opposition to Prop. D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe election happens that day,\u201d Harrington said. \u201cThe decision happens that day. Everything after that is just working out the details.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Harrington is a board member of SPUR, and while he said he did not participate in the initial evaluation of Prop. D, he did cast a vote concerning the endorsement, though he would not say what it was because the process is confidential. He said he disclosed his anti-Prop. D campaign role to SPUR in accordance with the organization\u2019s policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prop. D would remove 24 out of 44 commissions from the City Charter, including the public-health, library, human-rights, human-services, arts, environment, small-business, entertainment and juvenile-probation commissions, SPUR said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It would keep 20 charter commissions, including those affecting police and fire services, recreation and parks, public utilities and public ethics, as well as commissions overseeing employee health and retirement benefits and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. An estimated 26 commissions that are required by federal or state law would be retained, it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Any commissions not reauthorized or restructured by the Board of Supervisors within 16 months would be dissolved. Any reauthorized or new commissions, including those that once had decision-making power through the charter, could be advisory only, except as mandated by state or federal law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Decision-making authority would also transfer from commissions to department heads. The authority to decide appeals and other proceedings would transfer to hearing officers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In addition, Prop. D would significantly increase the mayor\u2019s authority in various ways, including by transferring power to appoint and remove city department heads from commissions to the mayor and by allowing the mayor to appoint and remove two-thirds of members of many commissions without approval of the Board of Supervisors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The measure would also remove the Police Commission\u2019s authority to adopt rules, regulations, or policies that impose any requirement or prohibition on the conduct of employees of the Police Department, SPUR said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Prop. E, sponsored by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin in opposition to Prop. D, similarly would set up a five-person task force to recommend by Feb. 1, 2026, to the mayor and supervisors ways to modify, eliminate, or combine appointive boards and commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The measure would require a report on costs of the commission system and of eliminating or consolidating commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It would also allow the task force to introduce ordinances to make changes to noncharter commissions that would automatically go into effect after 90 days unless the Board of Supervisors rejects them by a supermajority, SPUR said. A ballot measure would be needed to change charter commissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Advocates say Prop. E provides for a comprehensive, evidence-based process. Critics say it gives new powers to an unelected task force to create ordinances and might not lead to streamlining of the commission system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Peskin on Tuesday said SPUR rightly had concerns about Prop. D, \u201cas should every San Franciscan who believes in the fundamentals of democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And then Peskin found something to like for his measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cOne of SPUR\u2019s government reform recommendations was to analyze the cost-benefits of culling and streamlining our city\u2019s commissions system, which is exactly what Prop E proposes to do: the right way, with voter input,\u201d Peskin said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SPUR, a prominent urban-affairs think tank, came out in opposition Tuesday to two competing, bitterly contested ballot measures aiming to reform The City\u2019s sprawling commission system. The organization, also known as the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, gave thumbs-down recommendations for propositions D and E. The&#8230; <a class=\"continue-reading-link\" href=\"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2024\/10\/10\/sf-think-tank-gives-thumbs-down-to-commission-reform-ballot-measures\/\"> Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr; <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36901"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36901"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36907,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36901\/revisions\/36907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}