In San Francisco, the conversation surrounding the city’s numerous advisory committees, boards, and commissions is increasingly contentious, as advocates question their efficiency and relevance in governance.
Among those voicing concern is Post, a member of the Public Works Commission, who believes the city has an abundance of democratic processes that may impede effective decision-making.
Post remarked, with a mix of affection and frustration, that many residents feel entitled to influence government decisions, suggesting that citizens must ultimately trust their elected officials to perform their duties.
“At some point, you have to trust your government is doing its job. And if it’s not, then you un-elect them. You throw them out,” she stated.
Post’s experience in public service lends credibility to her views on the proposed reforms underway in the city, particularly as debates are scheduled for next year regarding the future of various advisory bodies.
Since her appointment, she claims the Public Works Commission has contributed positively by addressing employee morale and promoting accountability metrics, yet she argues that the commission has outlived its usefulness.
“Many of these commissions just distract city personnel, who spend time responding to their requests instead of focusing on service delivery,” Post noted, emphasizing the significant demands placed on staff to prepare for commission meetings.
According to Post, every meeting necessitates considerable staff involvement from project managers, financial officials, legal liaisons, and senior management, time that could be utilized for direct city services.
Moreover, she reflected on her commission’s search for a new director, claiming that a parallel process by the Mayor’s office would have sufficed without the commission’s intervention, implying inefficiencies in the commission’s operations.
The financial implications of San Francisco’s commissions cannot be overlooked, especially considering the findings from Prop E, which was approved by voters last year.
The Budget and Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that the city’s advisory bodies, numbering around 130, collectively cost taxpayers nearly $34 million annually, equivalent to over $300,000 per commission.
The Prop E initiative was designed to address concerns about the growing number of commissions, especially following a competing measure, Prop D, which sought to eliminate many advisory groups outright.
The passing of Prop E led to the establishment of a Commission Streamlining Task Force tasked with evaluating and potentially consolidating these advisory bodies, and early reports reveal that the task force has made surprising progress in its mission.
As the task force convenes, it is anticipated to recommend the elimination of 36 volunteer bodies, many of which are inactive, thus addressing issues relating to inefficiency and redundancy in city governance.
This includes inactive groups like the San Francisco Residential Hotel Operators Advisory Committee, as well as others whose functions have become obsolete since associated state agencies have dissolved.
The ongoing discussions within the task force have not been straightforward, reflecting a divide in perspectives between those who believe that oversight bodies serve vital roles and others advocating for their dissolution.
It is noteworthy that the task force, while pushing for reforms, is also considering a substantial shift in governance structure, specifically proposing that the mayor be granted exclusive authority to appoint and remove commissioners.
This change would enable the mayor to streamline the decision-making process and eliminate factions created by previous appointments, although the Police Commission would remain an exception to this proposal.
Despite the contentious nature of the discussions, Task Force Chair Ed Harrington expressed frustration regarding disagreements among members, emphasizing a need to recognize the potential value of commissions while also acknowledging their challenges.
Returning to the ethos behind Prop E, it is evident that there was a desire from voters for more efficient governance, without sacrificing public engagement and transparency in decision-making processes.
Harrington noted that voters rejected the notion of completely eliminating commissions, while opting for a balancing act that would allow for the removal of redundant bodies without dismissing the principle of public input.
The ongoing work of the task force aligns with these expectations, focusing on making recommendations to the city’s leadership about removing, consolidating, or limiting the scope of various advisory panels.
As the task force begins to define its recommendations clearer, it must contend with the reality that any proposed amendments to the city charter will require both the Board of Supervisors’ approval and, potentially, a subsequent ballot initiative.
Recent experiences show that community pushback is inevitable, especially regarding efforts to disband or alter well-established groups, as seen in the recent tensions surrounding the Sweatfree Procurement Advisory Group.
Nonetheless, the emerging discussions highlight a collective recognition among San Francisco voters of the necessity for a leaner and more efficient governance structure, one that responds more effectively to the needs of its constituents.
Ultimately, opinions like Post’s reflect a growing chorus of voices advocating for accountability and pragmatism in city governance, a sentiment likely to shape the upcoming decisions on the future of San Francisco’s commission landscape.
image source from：sfstandard
