The Commission Streamlining Task Force in San Francisco is under pressure as it approaches its February 2026 deadline to make recommendations about the city’s 131 commissions. Once seen as a means to simplify the convoluted commission system, the Task Force’s activities have sparked concern among supporters of Proposition E, who fear it is deviating from its original mission.
Opponents of Proposition D, a rival measure backed by billionaire Michael Moritz, have accused the Task Force of making changes that reflect the very changes they sought to avoid. Proposition D not only aimed to reduce the number of city commissions, but it also sought to consolidate power in the mayor’s office, weakening the police commission in the process.
The Task Force has already recommended significant alterations, suggesting modifications to over half of the existing commissions, including proposals to strip the Police Commission of its authority to hire and fire the police chief, transferring that power directly to the mayor. Furthermore, they recommend granting the mayor the exclusive power to appoint and terminate the four mayoral appointees on the Police Commission.
Supporters of Proposition E initially envisioned it as a method to prune the city’s extensive commission system rather than to usurp powers from those commissions. The Task Force’s actions have contradicted this vision, with many supporters now questioning how it could have happened.
A key factor lies in the vagueness of Proposition E’s language. The measure empowered the Task Force to recommend changes, eliminations, or combinations of commissions, which paved the way for modifications that some see as detrimental to the commission system. Ed Harrington, the former controller and chair of the Task Force, acknowledges that the interpreted intentions of Proposition E could be seen as allowing the Task Force to weaken commissions similarly to what Proposition D proposed.
However, Harrington points out that the Task Force operates through a public process, rather than unilaterally handing over power to the mayor, a significant distinction from the failed Proposition D.
Among the challengers of the Task Force’s direction is Doug Engmann, a former planning commissioner. He reflects on the lack of focus by the Proposition E campaign concerning the implementation process at the time of voting. Engmann admits that preserving power for commissions against a strong mayor is not at the forefront of many Task Force members’ minds.
Harrington has attempted to remind fellow Task Force members of the voters’ intentions with Proposition E, but reports that his perspective is met with resistance. “Their response is, ‘You can’t tell us why people voted for D versus E or E versus D,’” he shared.
The Task Force consists of representatives from various city departments, including organized labor, the City Attorney’s Office, the Controller’s Office, and the City Administrator’s Office, all of which are committed to following the intent of Proposition E, according to their respective spokespeople.
Angela Yip, spokesperson for the City Administrator’s Office, conveyed that the Task Force approaches its recommendations with care, aiming to align with the objectives established by Proposition E. Similarly, Jen Kwart of the City Attorney’s Office emphasized commitment to the stated purpose of the task force’s work.
Despite assurances of objectivity, there’s concern that the inclination of the Task Force may lean towards enhancing mayoral power, as observed by Engmann. This trend extends beyond the Police Commission, with proposals that could see other commissions, including the Fire Commission and the Recreation and Park Commission, cede their hiring and firing powers to the mayor as well.
The future of these recommendations remains uncertain. For any changes to materialize, the proposals must first navigate the legislative process, including potential placement on a ballot measure before ultimately needing the approval of voters.
Jim Stearns, a political strategist associated with the Proposition E campaign, voiced his hope that the Task Force remains focused on its original intent rather than embarking on a path that could lead to voter disapproval. In his view, Proposition E should have served as a mechanism to eliminate redundancies and inefficiencies within the commission system without jeopardizing its overall integrity.
Sunny Angulo, one of the co-authors of Proposition E, echoed similar sentiments, arguing for a comprehensive reevaluation of the commission system that would enhance oversight and reduce staff costs while ensuring that commissions remain effective and valuable to the community.
Angulo expressed her concerns that failing to appropriately address these issues could curtail the opportunity for reform in the future.
Aaron Peskin, another proponent of Proposition E, highlighted the benefit of the Task Force’s current public engagement process. He contended that public discussions allow voters to weigh in on the modifications proposed by the Task Force, giving them a chance to voice their support or disapproval before any final decisions are enacted.
“Prop. E said that whatever the Task Force comes up with, the voters get to vote on it,” Peskin noted. He acknowledged the imperfections inherent in any democratic process but maintained that public dialogue is essential for ensuring transparency and accountability in the Task Force’s recommendations.
Ultimately, the outcome of the Task Force’s recommendations will rely heavily on whether they resonate with the citizens of San Francisco, who will have the final say when they cast their votes.
For now, the path forward is laden with uncertainty, and many are closely watching how this unfolding situation will impact San Francisco’s political landscape and governance structure in the coming years.
image source from：missionlocal
