Proposition E | San Francisco Voter Information

Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating, or Combining City Commissions

Shall the City amend the Charter to create a Task Force with authority to make recommendations by February 1, 2026, on ways the City could change, eliminate, or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of City government; require a financial report on the City’s commissions; and give the Task Force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations, and if required provide for the City Attorney to draft Charter amendments to submit to voters at a future election?

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now:

The City currently has about 130 boards, commissions and advisory bodies (commissions) that make policy and other decisions for the City or provide nonbinding advice to City officials and departments. Most City commissions that are created by ordinance do not have the authority to make City decisions and instead provide nonbinding advice to City departments and officials.

Members of the Board of Supervisors (Board), the Mayor and City departments have authority to introduce an ordinance, which must be approved by a majority of the Board. The Mayor has authority to veto it. Voters may also approve an ordinance and require their approval for any change to a voter-approved ordinance.

Other commissions are established by Charter amendment. Only voters may amend the Charter. Most of these Charter commissions oversee City departments and have authority to set City policy and make binding decisions.

The Proposal:

Proposition E is a Charter amendment that would create a Commission Streamlining Task Force (Task Force) to review the structure of the City’s commissions and recommend to the Mayor and the Board by February 1, 2026, how the City could change, eliminate or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of City government.

The Task Force would include five members:

the City Administrator or a designated employee of their department;
the Controller or a designated employee of their department;
the City Attorney or a designated employee of their department;
a public sector organized labor representative appointed by the President of the Board; and
a person with expertise in open and accountable government appointed by the Mayor.

Proposition E would also require the Board’s Budget and Legislative Analyst to prepare a report on how much it costs the City to support each current commission, and how much it would save if certain commissions were eliminated or consolidated.

Proposition E would authorize the Task Force to implement its recommendations in these ways:

If the Task Force recommends changes to commissions established by ordinance, the Task Force may introduce ordinances to make those changes.
Any ordinance the Task Force introduces would take effect 90 days after introduction unless the Board rejects it by supermajority vote of at least eight members.
If the Task Force recommends changes to commissions established by voter-approved ordinance, those changes may also require voter approval at a future election before the City may implement them.
If the Task Force recommends changes to commissions established by Charter amendment, the City Attorney would be required to prepare a Charter amendment implementing these recommendations for the Board to consider placing on the ballot for a future election.

The Task Force will end 24 months after its first meeting.

If Proposition E passes with more votes than Proposition D, then Proposition D would have no legal effect.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to create a Task Force with authority to make recommendations by February 1, 2026, on ways the City could change, eliminate or consolidate commissions to improve the administration of City government; require a financial report on the City’s commissions; and give the Task Force authority to introduce ordinances to implement its recommendations, and if necessary, require the City Attorney to draft Charter amendments to submit to voters at a future election.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "E"

City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a minimal impact on the cost of government. To the extent the Task Force recommends changes to existing Commissions, the cost of government may be reduced, depending on future decisions made by the Board of Supervisors or voters.

The proposed Charter amendment would establish a five-member Commission Streamlining Task Force to make recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors on changing, eliminating, or consolidating the City’s appointive boards and commissions.

Certain appointive boards and commissions pay stipends to the commissioners on a per meeting basis ranging from $25 to $500 per meeting, while some commissioners are paid between $100 and $500 per month. Not all commissioners receive stipends. For context, in FY 2022-23 the City paid approximately a total of $350,000 for stipends and health benefits for 180 commissioners.

In addition to commissioner stipends and health insurance, commissions also require staff time from City employees who support commissions’ operations and prepare briefing materials to present at hearings. The amount of staff time needed to support commissions would decrease if the City changed, eliminated, or combined commissions – freeing staff to work on other government functions, although at a level that cannot be determined at this time. Finally, to the extent the City hires additional staff to run the Commission Streamlining Task Force, the cost to government may increase.

How "E" Got on the Ballot

On July 23, 2024, the Board of Supervisors voted 7 to 4 to place Proposition E on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Mandelman, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton.

No: Dorsey, Engardio, Melgar, Stefani.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Arguments for and against this measure immediately follow. The full text can be found under Legal Text. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained in Words You Need to Know.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

There are two Charter Amendments that will change San Francisco's commission system. Vote Yes on E to reform our commissions the right way:

Crafted in public, with citizen input and full public hearings
Placed on ballot by public vote after open debate and review
Retains Arts, Library, Health, Small Business and other critical charter commissions that improve city services and provide effective oversight and accountability
Ensures citizen oversight over police conduct policies
Keeps checks and balances in City Charter
Gives voters power to maintain government oversight and accountability and to determine the appropriate number and function of commissions
Maintains and improves sunshine, transparency, and openness of city government
Lets voters decide the future structure of our city government

Then there is the wrong way to reform our commissions, Prop D, which was written in secret without a single public hearing.

Prop D takes a meat ax to our city government. It eliminates without a cost-benefit analysis essential and effective commissions like the Arts, Library, Health, Youth, Small Business and Environment Commissions. It removes citizen oversight over police conduct policies such as the use of deadly force, sets an arbitrary cap on commissions that will handcuff future generations, and puts the work of our city government back in the shadows, undermining transparency and accountability and creating a breeding ground for abuse and corruption.

Please join us in voting Yes on E and No on D.

Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

San Francisco League of Conservation Voters

San Francisco Labor Council

Coleman Advocates for Children & Youth

United Educators of San Francisco

Small Business Forward

San Francisco Tenants Union

Affordable Housing Alliance

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Assemblymember Phil Ting

Mayor Art Agnos (ret)

State Senator Mark Leno (ret)

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (ret)

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell (ret)

San Francisco Controller Ed Harrington (ret)

Judge Ellen Chaitin (ret)

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E

Proposition E proponents want you to believe it preserves "citizen oversight" and "critical commissions." But the truth is, Proposition E locks in the bloated bureaucracy that has crippled San Francisco for years.

They argue Proposition E was crafted with "transparency," but hide the fact it keeps over 100 commissions—many of which overlap, waste resources, and undermine effective governance. They stoke fear of change in order to build a wall around San Francisco's bureaucratic elite.

The alternative, Proposition D is the measure that cuts through red tape and makes San Francisco more efficient. Yes, it reduces commissions, but only where duplicative or unnecessary. Proposition D strengthens transparency by focusing resources where they are most needed.

Why can't they be honest? Proposition E favors commissions that serve as bureaucratic roadblocks, prevent progress and waste taxpayer money. San Francisco deserves better than more pointless studies and delay.

Vote NO on Proposition E and support real reform with Proposition D.

Larry Marso, Esq.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition E

Proposition E is Supervisor Aaron Peskin's attempt to sabotage stronger Proposition D—real commission reform in San Francisco.

Peskin proposes a weak, watered-down approach to address the city's overgrown commission structure. But its true purpose is to halt meaningful change.

Only one can prevail, and Proposition D is the clear choice.

Proposition E maintains the status quo. It creates endless "task forces" and "studies" that do nothing but delay. Meanwhile, San Francisco continues to suffocate in bureaucracy, with over 100 commissions that overlap and waste resources.

Proposition E fails to reduce the number of commissions or to eliminate those that are unnecessary or duplicative. Instead, it multiplies bureaucracy. It's a deliberate attempt to keep the government bloated and unaccountable.

San Francisco doesn't need more task forces or committees. Proposition E is a "poison pill" designed to defeat Proposition D, so that nothing meaningful gets done.

San Francisco deserves a government that is leaner, more transparent, and more accountable. Vote NO on Proposition E and demand real reform.

Larry Marso

Mr. Marso is a technology executive, M&A advisor and attorney. A staunch advocate for fiscal responsibility, he authored a ballot measure to regulate San Francisco navigation/linkage centers, has fought corruption and fraud in our political parties and nonprofits, and as a member and former executive of the local Republican Party committee, has offered principled opposition.

Stop the Big Fraud on San Francisco voters! visit: https://bigfraud.com

Larry S. Marso

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E

San Francisco needs the right kind of reform. Vote No on D and Yes on E.

Prop D was written by one organization, new to the city, funded by a billionaire outsider with an extremely conservative agenda. It takes a meat ax to our city government to further its own political agenda:

Prop D DISMANTLES vital and effective commissions like our Arts, Library, Health, Youth, Environment and Women's Commissions.

Prop D DESTROYS civilian oversight of police department policies such as use of deadly force.

Prop D DIMINISHES our American system of checks and balances, giving future Mayors unchecked power — and taking it away from voters.

There's a better way. Vote Yes on E to streamline city government while keeping voters in control. Yes on E mandates a public review, with cost and benefit analysis, of every San Francisco commission, to determine how to consolidate and streamline city government while preserving citizen engagement.

Don't put the government back behind closed doors and create a new breeding ground for abuse and corruption.

Join us and vote No on D and Yes on E.

Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

San Francisco League of Conservation Voters

San Francisco Labor Council

Coleman Advocates for Children & Youth

United Educators of San Francisco

Small Business Forward

San Francisco Tenants Union

Affordable Housing Alliance

Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin

Mayor Art Agnos (ret)

Senator Mark Leno (ret)

Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (ret)

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell (ret)

San Francisco Controller Ed Harrington (ret)

Judge Ellen Chaitin (ret)

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition E

YES ON PROP E

VOTE YES FOR OPEN DEMOCRACY AND NO TO BACK ROOM GOVERNMENT

Unlike the meat axe Proposition D that will kill open government and public oversight of crucial City departments, like the Public Health Commission and Human Rights Commission, Proposition E will carefully evaluate all such city oversight bodies to determine which are actually needed and how they can be made more efficient.

YES ON E LET'S KEEP OPEN GOVERNMENT AT CITY HALL!

Build Affordable Faster California

John Elberling

Peter Stevens

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Tenants and Owners Development Corporation.

Small businesses say Yes on E, No on D!

As small business owners, we strongly support the Small Business Commission's leadership on cutting red tape and making it easier to open and operate our shops. We absolutely oppose Prop D because it ELIMINATES the Small Business Commission and makes it tougher for struggling businesses to survive. We support Yes on E because it keeps the Small Business Commission in our Charter, preserving its role as an independent voice for all small businesses. Small business owners agree: Yes on E, No on D!

Small Business Forward

El Rio

Booksmith

Mercury Cafe

VERA Skin Studio

No Shop

Happy House

Gravel & Gold

Bottle Bacchanal

Day Moon

Yo También Cantina

Stephen Cornell Former President, Small Business Commission*

David Heller, Geary Blvd. Merchants Association*

Sang Baek Kim, Geary Blvd. Merchants Association*

Daniel Macchiarini, North Beach Business Association*

Henry Karnilowicz, SOMA Business Association*

Bill Barnickel, Outer Sunset Merchant and Professional Association*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Don't destroy the Arts Commission: Yes on E, No on D.

San Francisco's vibrant arts community is crucial to our city's identity and economy. The Arts Commission (SFAC) drives this success by securing state and federal funding and providing essential grants and resources to artists, arts organizations, and community projects, while also ensuring that new public buildings and spaces meet high standards of design and aesthetic quality. This support sustains the local arts ecosystem by fueling job creation in creative sectors and related industries, enhancing public spaces, and making arts programming available to all. As arts and culture are essential for San Francisco's economic recovery, SFAC's role is more critical than ever. SFAC's investment in the arts attracts millions of visitors who come to experience our city's unique cultural offerings creating significant economic returns. Yes on E will keep SFAC as a leading force for arts, culture and equity. Prop D would dismantle SFAC by removing it from the Charter, stripping it of its power to oversee arts funding, and promote equity and access. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

Community Arts Stabilization Trust (CAST)

Chinatown Media and Arts Collaborative

Arts for a Better Bay Area

SomARTS

111 Minna Gallery

Jon Moscone, Art Consultant

Deborah Cullinan, Former CEO

Joaquín Torres, SF Assessor Recorder*

Joen Madonna, Executive Director*

Julie Phelps, Executive Director*

Raquel Redondiez, Director*

Mabel Teng, Former Supervisor

Patrick Johnston, Former Arts Commission President

Dorka Keehn, Former Arts Commissioner

Roberto Ordeñana, Former Arts Commissioner

Lex Leifheit, Former Arts Commission staff

Ani Rivera, Film Commissioner

Joanne Lee, Executive Director*

Ed Decker, Artistic Director

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Maintain citizen oversight of police conduct: Yes on E, No on D

The Police Commission plays a critical role ensuring that our police department is transparent and accountable. Prop D will gut the Police Commission and remove all civilian oversight regarding police conduct policies including the use of deadly force, when body cameras must be activated, and the process for obtaining and executing a search warrant. The Police Department, with the oversight and guidance of the Police Commission, recently submitted 272 reforms to fulfill Department of Justice recommendations. Let's not go backwards on criminal justice reform and accountability. Yes on E, No on D!

ACLU Northern California

Judge Ellen Chaitin (ret)

Judge Julie Tang (ret)

Mano Raju, Public Defender*

Paul Melbostad, Former San Francisco Ethics Commission President

Jesus G. Yáñez San Francisco Police Dept. Commissioner*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Children, youth and families deserve a voice in government: Yes on E, No on D

Vote YES on Prop E because it enables an open, public process to streamline commissions while not sacrificing the rights of children, youth and families. Youth make up 13.7% of San Francisco's population and should have a voice in our democracy. Youth and families deserve a seat at the table to shape policies that impact their futures.

Vote Yes on E, No on D!

Coleman Advocates for Children & Youth

SF Childcare Policy and Advisory Council

United Educators of San Francisco

Mission Graduates

School Board Vice President Matt Alexander

Community College Trustee Susan Solomon

Margaret Brodkin, Former Director, Dept. of Children, Youth and their Families*

Douglas Styles, CEO Huckleberry Youth Programs*

Kevin Hickey, Chief Program Officer New Door Ventures*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yensing Sihapanya.

Now is not the time to abolish the Commission on the Status of Women: Yes on E, No on D

Across the country, right-wing MAGA Republicans have banned abortion and attacked women's health care, seeking to defund vital health care organizations like Planned Parenthood. This is the wrong time for San Francisco to go backwards on equal rights for women by dismantling our long-standing Commission on the Status of Women. Yes on E preserves this crucial commission which serves as the city's watchdog for gender parity and advocates for equity in city services, employment, and leadership. Prop E joins with the right-wing battle against women, abolishing the Commission on the Status of Women and weakening the fight for women's rights here in San Francisco. Yes on E, No on D!

Sophia Andary, Commission on the Status of Women*

Community College Trustee Susan Solomon

Supervisor Connie Chan

Former Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

Esther Marks, Former Planning Commissioner*

Jackie Fielder, Community Advocate

Hene Kelly, Democratic Party leader

Sandra Mori, Japantown Community Leader

Meagan Levitan, Former Recreation and Parks Commissioner

Maria Marily Mondejar, CEO of Filipina Women's Network*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Save our neighborhood voices! Yes on E, No on D.

Commissions are the main avenue in San Francisco for public participation, oversight, and accountability. They provide checks and balances in government, citizen engagement, and transparency. Neighborhood groups actively participate in Commissions to help guide city policy on issues in their neighborhoods. Yes on E preserves the commissions that are crucial to our neighborhoods such as the Library Commission. Historic Preservation Commission and the Small Business Commission. Prop D abolishes these voter-approved commissions and gives the Mayor unchecked power over every aspect of city government and policy-such as rezoning- in our neighborhoods without meaningful involvement of the public in the Commission structure. Please vote Yes on E, No on D and preserve the rights of neighborhood citizens to participate in the policies affecting our neighborhoods.

Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

Neighborhoods United SF

Planning Association of the Richmond

Telegraph Hill Dwellers

Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council

Richard Grosboll, North Beach Leader

David Osgood, President, Rincon Point Neighbors Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

DON'T DISMANTLE DECADES OF WORK

We who recognize the importance of oversight bodies that protect our most vulnerable youth in the juvenile justice system believe there is a right way and a wrong way to determine which commissions are working and how to improve the commission system.

Let's study the issue before we make decisions that could tear apart decades of work to improve our city by San Franciscans. Vote Yes on E

Doug Styles, CEO Huckleberry Youth Programs*

Reverend Dawn Stueckle, Executive Director, Sunset Youth Services*

Margaret Brodkin, Juvenile Probation Commissioner*

Dinky Enty, Deputy Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice*

Julie Traun, Director, Indigent Defense Administration, Bar Association of San Francisco*

Richard Ybarra, CEO Mission Neighborhood Centers Inspiring Success*

Manuel Rodriguez, Juvenile Probation Commissioner*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Margaret Brodkin.

Yes on E: clear choice for more effective city government

Yes on E mandates an independent, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of every San Francisco commission to determine how we can streamline government while maintaining transparency, accountability and effectiveness. It then lets voters decide on the final plan in a public election. Vote Yes on E!

San Francisco Rising Action Fund

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Former Mayor Art Agnos

Former State Senator Mark Leno

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

Assemblymember Phil Ting

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Yes on E, No on D: the right prescription for San Francisco healthcare

Public oversight of the Dept. of Public Health is a matter of life and death. Prop D threatens the quality of our hospitals, emergency and mental health services by ELIMINATING the Health Commission. Without a Health Commission, the important voices of medical experts, doctors, and patients will be silenced. Yes on E preserves the Health Commission in the Charter to provide citizen oversight and transparency for our hospitals, emergency medical services, and other health care services. Save lives. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

National Union of Health Care Workers (NUHW)

San Francisco Human Services Network

Anni Chung, Self Help for the Elderly*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

San Francisco labor unions are proud to endorse Yes on E, No on D

The San Francisco Labor Council, representing thousands of San Francisco workers, strongly opposes Prop D and supports Yes on E. Prop D is an anti-Democratic effort designed to silence the voices of everyday workers and citizens. Yes on E is the thoughtful and responsible approach to making city government more effective. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

San Francisco Labor Council

United Educators of San Francisco

LiUNA Laborers' Local 261

National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Fight discrimination against Asian and immigrant communities. Yes on E, No on D.

San Francisco is a sanctuary home to a diverse Asian American population, often raised in immigrant families or who are immigrants themselves. In this era of rising discrimination, we need to empower immigrant communities - not weaken them. Yes on E continues to provide civic engagement for immigrant families and empowers immigrants against racial violence through the Immigrants Right Commission. Prop D completely eliminates this commission, along with other commissions that tackle discrimination and racial inequity. Yes on E, No on D!

Chinese for Affirmative Action

Raquel Redondiez SOMA Pilipinas Director

Chinatown Media and Arts Collaborative

Anni Chung, Self Help for Elderly*

Supervisor Connie Chan

Former Supervisor Norman Yee

Former Supervisor Sandra Lee

Former Supervisor Mabel Teng

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

A clear choice for Democrats: Yes on E, No on D

At the national level, Project 2025 is a MAGA project to dismantle democracy. Here in San Francisco, we face a similar stark choice. Yes on E, the democratic streamlining measure, preserves voter-approved, crucial commissions which give everyday citizens the power to hold the government accountable for results. Prop D, the Together SF ballot measure, demolishes our voter-approved City Charter. It was crafted in secret without a single public hearing, funded by right-wing Republicans, and will put our city government once again in the hands of those who deal behind closed doors and out of reach of most San Franciscans. At a time when dark money in politics and voter disinformation is at an all-time high, independent commissions are a crucial tool to empower San Franciscans to participate in democracy. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

Supervisor Shamann Walton

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Dean Preston

Bart Board President Bevan Dufty

Former Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

California Democratic Party Vice Chair David Campos*

Former Supervisor John Avalos

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Forwards, not backwards, on addressing homelessness: Yes on E, No on D.

San Francisco's Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing has a budget of over $600 million every year. Yet until 2023, there was ZERO oversight or accountability. VOTERS CREATED the Homeless Oversight Commission in 2022 to provide oversight, solicit audits, establish performance standards and assess effectiveness. Prop D bolishes this commission just two years after it was created, and puts management of our vital homelessness programs back into darkness. Yes on E retains this vital commission in our charter while initiating a public process to determine how to make it, and other commissions, more effective. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

Hospitality House

San Francisco Human Services Network

Catherine Jane Ross, Shelter Monitor Committee*

Roma P. Guy, Social Justice Advocate

Danielle McVay, Local Homeless Coordinating Board*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Don't eliminate San Francisco entertainment, a key to revitalization. Yes on E, No on D!

Entertainment, live music and street fairs in downtown and our neighborhoods are key to the revitalization of our city. The Entertainment Commission is responsible for setting policies and reviewing and approving permits for places of live entertainment, after hours music, street fairs, outdoor events and amplified music. Citizens and neighbors can appear before the Commission to support or express concerns about permitting these activities in their neighborhood.

Prop D ELIMINATES this important commission which is the vehicle for public review and approval of entertainment in san francisco. VOTE Yes on E, No on D!

El Rio

Lexington Club

Bar Part Time

Mothership

Lion's Den Bar and Lounge

Barbarossa Lounge

Jolene's Bar

Steven Lee, Former Entertainment Commissioner

Stephen Torres, Former Entertainment Commissioner

Laura Thomas, Entertainment Commissioner*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Support the Dignity Fund. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

The Dignity Fund was developed with grassroot community involvement and garnered over 110 organizational endorsements. It generated strong and enthusiastic support at the ballot box. A key feature was the inclusion of the Dignity Fund Oversight and Advisory Board. Over the years, this body has assured transparency and stakeholder input in the process of legally required planning and funding decisions. The Together SF measure would eliminate this body from the Charter, along with other key policy bodies important to older adults, people with disabilities—the Health Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Library and so many more. We urge you to vote Yes on E and No on D!

Marie Jobling, Co-chair, Dignity Fund Coalition*

Tony Fazio, Dignity Fund ordinance co-author*

Sandra Mori, member, Dignity Fund Coalition*

Ramona Davies, member, Dignity Fund Coalition*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Protect our environment. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

In 2024 San Francisco was named The Cleanest Energy City in America because of its energy efficiency and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which have dropped 48% since 1990. The Environment Commission was created by the voters in 1995 and provides oversight and adopts regulations on environmental issues like waste and toxics reduction, green building, urban forestry, unused drug disposal, pesticide use, green business practices and many other climate change programs operated by the Department of the Environment. These issues affect all San Franciscans in every neighborhood who can express their concerns and recommendations directly to the Environment Commission. Prop D would abolish the Environment Commission and severely harm our city's great efforts to preserve the environment. Yes on E will preserve it.

Don't throw away our reputation as the best American city to battle climate change. VOTE Yes on E AND No on D!

San Francisco League of Conservation Voters

Sarah Wan, Commission on the Environment*

Johanna Wald, Former Commission on the Environment

Jackie Fielder, Climate Advocate

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Save the Historic Preservation Commission. Yes on E, No on D.

Our architectural, historical, and cultural heritage makes San Francisco a unique and wonderful city. The Historic Preservation Commission was created by the voters in 2008 to guide the city in preserving historic structures and areas while ensuring that preservation is used as a tool to promote growth, revitalization, and the appreciation of our diverse neighborhoods.

Appointed by the Mayor, the Commission consists of citizens who are knowledgeable in the historic, architectural, aesthetic, and cultural traditions of the City. The Commission recommends buildings and places that are historically or culturally significant to the heritage of San Francisco for designation by the Board of Supervisors. Once designated, the Commission helps regulate those resources during the permit review and entitlement process to protect our heritage.

Protecting the special places of San Francisco is too important to leave to chance. Keep the Commission that preserves San Francisco's heritage. Vote Yes on E, No on D!

San Francisco Heritage

Hisashi Sugaya, Former Historic Preservation Commissioner

David Wessel, Former Historic Preservation Commissioner

Courtney Damkroger, Former Historic Preservation Commissioner

Professor Robert Cherny, Former member, Landmarks Board

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Real Reform, Yes on C, No on D, Yes on E, Coalition of Small Business, Neighbors, and Aaron Peskin.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Douglas Engmann, 2. Robert Anderson, 3. Christin Evans.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition E

The measure lacks safeguards to hold unelected commissioners accountable, even though some commissioners have engaged in corrupt and unethical behavior.

This lack of oversight is unacceptable. We need real accountability for unelected commissioners and government.

Instead, this measure creates a task force composed mostly of un-elected City bureaucrats who can create laws that fundamentally restructure our government without input from residents.

This is flagrantly undemocratic! Can we really trust bureaucrats to reduce bureaucracy in government?

Don't fall for this measure. Vote NO on Prop E.

Cyn Wang

Vice President, SF Entertainment Commission*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

This charter amendment is a sneaky attempt by the current members and leadership of the Board of Supervisors to maintain maximum control by circumventing the will of the voters in the current election in multiple ways.

Let's look at some of the details of what this measure proposes to see how it tricks voters into not allowing their other decisions in this election to be represented.

The current President of the Board of Supervisors would have appointing power - even though more than half of the Supervisors are on the ballot in November, and the current President of the Board of Supervisors is guaranteed to be replaced next year. The will of the voters is thwarted - the new Supervisors voted into office in this election would get no say!

The appointed members of this new commission could propose legislation, which could only be blocked by a vote of the Board of Supervisors. The will of the voters is thwarted - whoever is chosen as mayor in this election has absolutely no power to block or change the legislation of this new commission!

Prop E was introduced only after Prop D was submitted to the ballot by voters. If Prop E passes with more votes, Prop D is made completely void: but even if Prop D passes with more votes than Prop E, Prop E still takes effect to maximum extent permitted by law. The will of the voters is thwarted - even if Prop D gets more votes, Prop E might still override it!

This measure is a cynical attempt to hijack the growing consensus that San Francisco needs authentic reform of its commissions.

Don't let City Hall trick you. Vote no on this sham measure!

Patrick Wolff

Founder, Families for San Francisco*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

This is a terrible measure that would have unintended consequences. This measure creates an un-elected "Commission on Commissions" that has the power to make laws without input from the people impacted by these laws.

This measure would make City Hall less transparent, and less democratic. The last thing we need is unelected bureaucrats creating laws for the rest of us in backroom deals.

Vote No on this deceitful measure.

Lily Ho

Founder, Delta Chinatown Initiative

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

San Francisco city government has become incredibly dysfunctional. We have one of the largest city budgets in the country, but our city population has shrunk and we have been rated the worst-run city in the United States.

So why should we trust the people who got us into this mess to fix it?

Don't be fooled by this highly misleading measure authored by a career politician who benefits from the current status quo.

This measure does not have any safeguards to hold un-elected commissioners accountable despite multiple commissioners engaging in corrupt and unethical behavior.

Outrageously, this measure creates an un-elected commission that has the power to make laws without public input. This is completely un-democratic and takes power away from voters to determine how our City government should be reformed.

City Hall can't be trusted to fix itself. Don't fall for this deceitful measure.

Vote No on Measure E

Lucy Junus

Vice President, Inner Mission Neighborhood Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

Creating an unelected commission with the power to make laws without public input is undemocratic. This measure takes away the power of voters to influence how our city government should be reformed.

This is completely the wrong way to change our government. We residents want to take power away from unelected bureaucrats, not give them more.

Don't fall for this bogus measure. Vote No on Prop E!

Cedric Akbar

Co-Founder, Positive Directions Equals Change*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

Despite having one of the largest City budgets in the country, San Francisco was rated as one of the worst-run cities in the US. Our government is failing us.

So why trust the same people who've caused this mess to fix it?

This measure was created by politicians who've benefited from the status quo as a cynical attempt to trick us residents who want actual change in government.

This measure doesn't do anything to hold un-elected commissioners accountable for corrupt behavior. This measure also does nothing to limit the power of un-elected commissioners to make big policy decisions behind the scenes on issues like public safety without resident input.

Don't be tricked by failed leadership. Vote No on Prop E.

Marjan Philhour

Small Business and Community Advocate

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

This highly misleading measure was cooked up by a career politician who benefits from the status quo. It doesn't offer any real solutions and instead perpetuates the existing issues in our city government.

This measure does not create any mechanisms to hold unelected commissioners accountable. In fact, this measure creates an unelected commission that can create laws to change the structure of our government with little to no input from us residents.

This is wrong.

Don't fall for City Hall's deceit. Vote No on Prop E!

Chinese American Democratic Club

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

So why should we trust the people who got us into this mess to fix it?

Don't be fooled by this highly misleading measure authored by a career politician who benefits from the current status quo.

This measure does not have any safeguards to hold un-elected commissioners accountable despite multiple commissioners engaging in corrupt and unethical behavior.

City Hall can't be trusted to fix itself. Don't fall for this deceitful measure.

Vote No on Prop E!

Parag Gupta

Member, SF Democratic County Central Committee*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

San Francisco needs a genuine overhaul of its commission structure to get back on track. This measure, however, does not provide the necessary changes and only serves to maintain the current dysfunctional system.

This measure has no guarantee that it will actually reduce the number of commissions San Francisco has. This measure also does nothing to hold un-elected and unethical commissioners accountable.

This is yet another fake "solution" from the same politicians who caused this mess in the first place.

Don't be fooled. Vote no on this measure.

Lanier Coles

SF Democratic County Central Committee Member*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

This incredibly deceitful measure was created through backroom deals at City Hall.

This measure creates an un-elected "Commission on Commissions" that has the unprecedented power to create laws without input from residents. Furthermore, there is nothing in this measure that creates accountability for un-elected commissioners, many of whom have been caught in corruption scandals in the past.

Don't fall for this un-democratic and misleading measure. Vote NO on Prop E.

Jade Tu

Member, SF Democratic County Central Committee*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: TogetherSF Action.

Legal Text

Proposition “Creating a Task Force to Recommend Changing, Eliminating or Combining City Commissions”

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the Commission Streamlining Task Force charged with making recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine the City’s appointive boards and commissions to improve the administration of City government; require the City Attorney to prepare a Charter Amendment to implement the Task Force’s recommendations relating to Charter commissions, for consideration by the Board of Supervisors; and authorize the Task Force to introduce an ordinance to effectuate its recommendations relating to appointive boards and commissions codified in the Municipal Code, which ordinance shall go into effect within 90 days unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors.

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

(a) The City and County of San Francisco has long been a place that values public service, creativity, political activism, and civic engagement. And the City’s system of participatory government reflects those values. San Francisco is led not only by elected officials and professional City staff, but also by hundreds of City residents who volunteer their time to serve on City boards and commissions (together referred to in this Section as “commissions”), such as the Planning Commission, the Disability and Aging Services Commission, and the Human Rights Commission.

(b) San Francisco’s commissions leverage the perspectives, lived experiences, and expertise of the City’s residents, and ensure that important policy decisions are not made behind closed doors by a powerful few, but through a public and participatory process that is informed by the very people whom those decisions will impact.

(c) San Francisco’s commissions have been in existence as long as the City has had a Charter. The first commission – the Police Commission – was established in 1878, followed by the Civil Service Commission in 1900, and the Public Utilities Commission in 1932. Since then, the voters have amended the City Charter numerous times to establish policy and oversight bodies that have helped shape city policies and programs.

(d) In addition to providing policy guidance, many commissions perform essential government functions that are required by law. For example, the Historic Preservation Commission acts as the City’s local historic preservation review commission for the purposes of the federal Certified Local Government Program; the Health Commission serves as the governing body of General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital; the Board of Appeals affords due process to permit applicants wishing to appeal a permit decision; and the Building Inspection Commission helps to craft and enforce the safety standards of the Building Code. These and other functions performed by commissions cannot be summarily eliminated without creating significant uncertainty and disorder.

(e) Currently, there are over 100 commissions that perform work on behalf of the City or provide non-binding guidance to City officials and departments. Many of these bodies have existed for decades, without review or evaluation of their efficacy, or updates to maximize their utility. Some commissions have fulfilled their original mandate; some have outlived their useful purpose; and others perform work that duplicates the efforts of other City bodies. As the City enters a period in which it will have to make difficult budget choices, it is time to undertake a comprehensive, evidence-based review of the City’s commissions to identify those bodies that add value to the City, those that can be consolidated, streamlined, or improved, and those whose time has passed.

(f) This measure establishes a clear pathway for that review, starting with a study conducted by the Budget and Legislative Analyst of the annual financial cost of supporting the City’s commissions. The measure will also establish a Task Force of experts in City management and operations. This Task Force will not only have the authority to make recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors about how to change the current commission system, but will also have the power to introduce legislation to effectuate those recommendations. Recommendations could include changes to the structure, staffing, and meeting requirements of individual commissions, with the goal of improving the commissions’ efficacy.

(g) This measure’s creation of an expert Task Force to analyze and make recommendations to optimize the number, functions, and structure of City commissions, is consistent with recommendations from the 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report, entitled “Commission Impossible,” as well as the Rose Institute of State and Local Government’s “Re-Assessing San Francisco’s Government Design,” which concluded it is not possible to determine the optimal number of City commissions without an exhaustive review, and encouraged the City to “[c]onsider a system-wide evaluation of the City’s commission system” as its main recommendation.

(h) Making significant changes to a system of government is no easy feat. And it cannot be done effectively by establishing arbitrary limits on the number of citizen-led commissions. But it is time for San Francisco to make tough choices, which requires looking at which parts of our current system of government work, and which don’t. This measure provides a roadmap for that inquiry, and an expedited path to effective change.

SECTION 2. CHARTER AMENDMENT.

The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 5, 2024, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County, to read as follows:

NOTE: Unchanged Charter text is in plain font.

Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions are ~~strike-through italics Times New Roman font~~.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter subsections.

The Charter of the City and County of San Francisco is hereby amended by revising Sections 2.105, 4.100, and adding new Section 4.100.1, to read as follows:

SEC. 2.105. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.

The Board of Supervisors shall meet and transact its business according to rules which it shall adopt.

The Board of Supervisors shall act only by written ordinance or resolution, except that it may act by motion on matters over which the Board of Supervisors has exclusive jurisdiction. All legislative acts shall be by ordinance. An ordinance or resolution may be introduced before the Board of Supervisors by a member of the Board, a committee of the Board or, the Mayor, or the Commission Streamlining Task Force subject to the limitations set forth in Section 4.100.1, and shall be referred to and reported upon by an appropriate committee of the Board. An ordinance or resolution may be prepared in committee and reported out to the full Board for action, consistent with the public notice laws of the City. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, passage of an ordinance or a resolution shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board.

* * * *

SEC. 4.100. GENERAL.

In addition to the office of the Mayor, the executive branch of the City and County shall be composed of departments, appointive boards, commissions, and other units of government that perform the sovereign powers of the City and County. To the extent law permits, each appointive board, commission, or other unit of government of the City and County established by State or Federal law shall be subject to the provisions of this Article IV and this Charter.

SEC. 4.100.1. COMMISSION STREAMLINING TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment of the Task Force. By no later than February 1, 2025, a Commission Streamlining Task Force (“Streamlining Task Force”) shall be convened for the purpose of advising the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors on ways to eliminate, consolidate, or limit the powers and duties of appointive boards and commissions for the more effective, efficient, and economical administration of City and County government, and introducing one or more ordinances to effectuate its recommendations. The Streamlining Task Force shall have the powers and duties set forth herein, and shall expire by operation of law 24 months after its first meeting.

The City Administrator shall provide administrative support to the Streamlining Task Force. The Controller and the City Administrator shall provide professional and technical assistance to the Streamlining Task Force. All City and County officials, departments, and other agencies, and all appointive boards and commissions, shall cooperate with the Streamlining Task Force as it performs its responsibilities under this Section 4.100.1.

For purposes of this Section 4.100.1, an “appointive board” or “commission” includes any body that meets the definition of a “legislative body,” under California Government Code § 54952, whether denominated a “board,” “commission,” “council,” “committee,” “task force,” “advisory body,” or otherwise.

(b) Composition of the Streamlining Task Force. The Streamlining Task Force shall consist of five members. Seat 1 shall be held by the City Administrator or the City Administrator’s designee, who must be an employee of the Office of the City Administrator. Seat 2 shall be held by the Controller or the Controller’s designee, who must be an employee of the Office of the Controller. Seat 3 shall be held by the City Attorney or the City Attorney’s designee, who must be an employee of the Office of the City Attorney. Seat 4 shall be held by a representative of organized labor representing the public sector, appointed by the President of the Board of Supervisors. Seat 5 shall be held by an individual with expertise in open and accountable government, appointed by the Mayor. The Mayor’s appointment shall not be subject to rejection by the Board of Supervisors under Charter Section 3.100(18). Members in seats 4 and 5 shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority.

(c) Budget and Legislative Analyst Report. The Streamlining Task Force shall undertake a comprehensive review of the City and County’s appointive boards and commissions, including those created by voter-approved ordinance. To inform that review, by no later than September 1, 2025, the Budget and Legislative Analyst shall prepare and submit to the Streamlining Task Force, the Mayor, and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a report that assesses for each appointive board or commission established in the Charter (1) the annual financial cost to the City to operate the body, including but not limited to the costs of City staff time spent to support, brief, meet with, develop materials for, or otherwise enable the functioning of the body; and (2) the projected financial impact of eliminating the appointive board or commission, or consolidating it with another body. The report shall also include an estimate of the average annual financial cost to the City of operating an appointive board or commission that is established by ordinance for the purpose of providing non-binding advice to City officials on a given topic.

(d) Streamlining Task Force Report and Recommendations. By no later than February 1, 2026, the Streamlining Task Force shall prepare and submit to the Mayor and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors a report containing the Streamlining Task Force’s recommendations as to which existing appointive boards and commissions, if any, should be eliminated in their entirety, consolidated, revised to limit their powers and/or duties, or revised to expand their powers and/or duties as a result of a consolidation.

For each recommendation made pursuant to this subsection (d), the Streamlining Task Force shall provide a rationale; analyze whether any function(s) performed by the appointive board or commission that is recommended to be eliminated, consolidated, or revised are required by law or essential to the effective operation of City and County government; and identify the City and County officers, departments, or other units of government that could assume responsibility for any legally required or essential function(s).

(e) Effectuation of Recommendations.

By no later than March 1, 2026, the City Attorney shall prepare a draft Charter Amendment to implement the Streamlining Task Force’s recommendations relating to commissions established in the Charter, and shall submit such draft to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. By no later than April 1, 2026, the Streamlining Task Force’s report and recommendations and the draft Charter Amendment shall be the subject of a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Any Supervisors(s) wishing to seek voter approval of the draft Charter Amendment, or a modified version thereof, shall be required to introduce the Charter Amendment for consideration by the Board of Supervisors, consistent with the process and deadlines set forth in the Municipal Elections Code and the Board’s Rules of Order at that time.

During its tenure, the Streamlining Task Force shall have the authority to introduce one or more ordinances to effectuate its recommendations relating to the elimination, consolidation, or revision of any appointive board or commission established by ordinance, other than any appointive board or commission that was established or amended by the adoption of an ordinance approved by the voters and cannot be amended or rescinded without voter approval. Such ordinance(s) shall go into effect 90 days after the date of introduction unless before the expiration of the 90-day period two-thirds of all members of the Board of Supervisors vote to disapprove the ordinance.

(f) Expiration. This Section 4.100.1 shall expire by operation of law on January 31, 2027, and the City Attorney shall cause it to be removed the Charter thereafter.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this measure, or part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable. The voters declare that this measure, and each section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub-sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part, or portion is found to be invalid. If any provision of this measure is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application of this measure that can be given effect without the invalid application.

SECTION 4. CONFLICTING BALLOT MEASURES.

This measure is intended as the voters’ only decision in this election on the composition of City appointive boards and commissions. In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to the structure and powers of appointive commissions and advisory bodies shall appear on the same municipal election ballot, the provisions of such other measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and each and every provision of the other measure or measures that conflict, in whole or in part, with this measure shall be null and void in their entirety. In the event that the other measure or measures shall receive a greater number of affirmative votes than this measure, the provisions of this measure shall take effect to the maximum extent permitted by law.