San Francisco’s system of boards, commissions, and advisory bodies allows residents, often appointed by the mayor or the Board of Supervisors, to weigh in on specific policy areas such as health, policing, and planning. Most are advisory bodies that hold public meetings, gather community input, and issue recommendations. Others have real authority, overseeing department operations or approving permits, rates, and contracts. When they work well, commissions bring diverse perspectives into city decision-making, promote transparency, and help ensure public services are fair and accountable. But San Francisco’s commission system has grown unusually large and unwieldy compared to other cities’, with inconsistent procedures across bodies, leading to poorer outcomes.
The 152 bodies, comprising more than 1,200 commissioners, consume significant staff time and resources. In fiscal year 2024 alone, city staff supported 1,560 commission meetings. Departments routinely present the same information to multiple commissions, diverting resources from other work. The system dates to 1898, and while individual bodies have come and gone over the decades, no comprehensive review of the system has been conducted until now. In our August 2024 report Designed to Serve, SPUR recommended that the city define the purpose and role of its commissions and reduce their overall number.
Voters approved the City of San Francisco’s Commission Streamlining Task Force, which recently made a variety of recommendations, including moving most commissions from the city charter to the administrative code to give the city greater flexibility to deal with evolving circumstances. This change aligns with a broader charter reform effort aimed in part at moving more provisions from the charter into the administrative code. The Board of Supervisors and San Francisco voters will have the opportunity to enact some or all of the task force’s recommendations this year.
How We Got Here
In November 2024, San Francisco voters considered two competing ballot measures to address San Francisco’s unwieldy and inefficient system of boards, commissions, and advisory bodies. Proposition D proposed immediate cuts. Proposition E argued for a review of all the commissions first. Prop E won.
Prop E created the Commission Streamlining Task Force, which was charged with recommending to the mayor and Board of Supervisors how to modify, consolidate, or eliminate boards and commissions. In February, the task force published its final report, the first thorough review of San Francisco’s commission system in the city’s history.
The Task Force Process
The task force had one year to evaluate each board and commission through a public process. It began by cataloguing all 152 bodies, including their functions, meeting frequency, legal authorities, staffing costs, vacancy rates, and levels of public participation. It then developed evaluation criteria and decision-making templates for different types of bodies: advisory committees, governance commissions, and appeals boards. Finally, the task force assessed each body against its relevant template.
Public engagement was substantial. More than 320 people spoke at task force meetings, offering 556 comments in total; another 667 written comments were submitted. Advocates turned out in force for the Ethics Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, and commissions focused on homeless services, arguing that their elimination or restructuring would reduce accountability where it matters most.
The Task Force’s Recommendations
The task force released its final report in February. It found that only 115 of San Francisco’s 152 boards and commissions are currently active. Its central recommendation is to pare the system down to 87 bodies by eliminating 36 inactive bodies, merging duplicative bodies, and eliminating those that have outlived their purpose.
Eliminate Fragmentation
The task force report highlights fragmentation: five bodies advise the city on homelessness, and 10 on housing and community development, potentially producing narrow recommendations that are disconnected from broader policy, strategy, and funding decisions. It calls for consolidation to concentrate public input in forums with clearer authority and scope and to use public resources efficiently and effectively.
Increase Adaptability
The task force recommends moving most commissions from the city charter to the administrative code, reducing charter-established bodies from 42 to 24. Because charter changes require voter approval, outdated or dormant commissions tend to persist simply because it’s easier to leave them than to return to the ballot. The Sanitation and Streets Commission oversees a department that no longer exists. The Special Strike Committee no longer complies with state law. The Employee Relations Board has never met. All continue to exist in the charter. Many effective bodies, including the Rent Board, the Children and Families First Commission, and the Film Commission, already operate successfully in the administrative code.
The most contested moves from the charter to the administrative code involve the Human Rights Commission, the Environment Commission, and the Commission on the Status of Women. At public meetings, advocates argued that charter status is not merely a technical designation but an expression of the city’s commitment to larger social values and that the lower threshold for amendment in the administrative code leaves these three bodies more vulnerable to political rollback. The task force’s view is that the moves give the city flexibility to update these bodies as conditions change, without diminishing their actual functions. The disagreement between advocates and the task force remains unresolved.
Several high-profile bodies would remain in the charter, including the Police Commission, Planning Commission, Fire Commission, Health Commission, and Ethics Commission, reflecting their core decision-making roles.
Improve Governance
The task force made two recommendations regarding governance. First, standardize commission operations so that residents’ experiences of engagement with one commission are similar to those with another, improving civic participation. Second, shift hiring and firing authority for most department heads to the mayor. Currently, most commissions hold that power, creating what the task force calls a “dual chain of command” that makes it hard for the public, and sometimes city staff, to know who is actually accountable. Exceptions would be made for bodies whose independence is essential to their function, including the Ethics, Election, and Civil Service commissions and the Retirement Board. SPUR made a similar recommendation in its Designed to Serve and Charter for Change reports.
Improve Operations
The task force also calls for operational improvements, including onboarding and training for commissioners, closer collaboration between departments and their oversight bodies, clearer mission statements, and a centralized public list of all active bodies; the city does not currently maintain such a list in any consistent form. The task force also recommends lobbying the state to allow virtual participation in public meetings, a change that would require amending the Brown Act and is not within the city’s power to accomplish on its own.
What the Proposed Changes Would Mean
Consolidating public input into fewer, better-resourced bodies with clear mandates should produce more coherent advocacy and more consequential participation than the current system of fragmented, overlapping forums. Giving the mayor direct authority over most department heads creates a cleaner line of accountability. When a department fails, voters can hold someone responsible. Standardizing structures, appointment processes, and scopes of authority makes government more legible to residents, who currently have to invest significant time just figuring out which body does what. And eliminating duplication frees up staff time currently consumed by administering bodies that rarely meet, redirecting those resources to actual service delivery.
What Comes Next
Based on the report, the task force has submitted proposed legislation to the Board of Supervisors. This legislation makes changes to bodies established in the municipal code and will take effect automatically within 90 days of introduction unless a two-thirds supermajority of the board votes to disapprove them. Task force recommendations involving charter amendments will require a measure on the 2026 ballot. Through the legislative process this spring, the Board of Supervisors will determine the contents of the measure, and San Francisco voters will have the final say in November.
The task force’s work lands at a moment when the city’s charter is under broader review. Commission streamlining is one thread in a larger conversation that also includes questions about mayoral accountability, modernizing city contracting, and moving more provisions from the charter into the administrative code. SPUR made related recommendations in Charter for Change, and the mayor and the Board of Supervisors are now working to advance some of them to the November 2026 ballot.