Proposition D, a San Francisco ballot measure that would scrap the City’s system of oversight boards, commissions, and committees, is antithetical to our local democracy.
First, Prop. D’s origin is sticky with the right wing’s fingerprints. As SPUR notes, Prop. D was drafted by TogetherSF, a political action committee heavily financed by the billionaire Michael Moritz, without input from existing commission members or community stakeholders. TogetherSF has run candidates who openly deride homeless people, support unfettered policing, and generally lean far to the right of San Francisco voters. Mission Local has reported that Prop. D is part of an attempt by TogetherSF to push progressive voices out of city government.
Second, the campaign for Prop. D appears to be functioning as a slush fund for Mark Farrell’s campaign. TogetherSF has funneled more than $7.8 million into Prop. D and put out multiple rounds of campaign mailers in which Farrell figures prominently. San Francisco law caps donations to mayoral candidates at $500 per person, but allows unlimited donations to ballot measures. As news sources across the Bay Area have reported, Prop. D fundraising appears to be supporting Farrell’s candidacy. This is potentially a criminal issue, with former SF mayors and others calling for the state’s attorney general to step in.
But Prop. D is not wrong because it was written and funded by a right-wing group. It is wrong because it would dismantle a cornerstone of San Francisco’s civilian oversight system, a vital component of our local democracy.
The city’s commissions oversee everything from our police department to the administration of our public hospitals. These bodies empower diverse voices—including youth, formerly and currently houseless people, transit riders and others—to give advice, and in some cases make impactful policy decisions, about how our city runs.
If it passes, Prop. D would arbitrarily limit the number of commissions in San Francisco to 65, eliminate several commissions without review and shift power away from the remaining commissioners to the mayor or department heads.
The Our City Our Home (OCOH) advisory committee is an example of all we have to lose. The advisory committee makes recommendations about the allocation of the funds generated by 2018’s Prop. C, which implemented a tax on wealthy businesses in San Francisco to support shelter, permanent housing, and behavioral health services for unhoused people.
The advisory committee, which includes formerly houseless people, is one of the few places in city government that solicits and respects the voices of poor and unhoused people. Its rigorously researched policy recommendations and publicly available reports help all San Franciscans understand how the city spends our tax dollars in fighting homelessness. The advisory committee holds mayors and city departments accountable to the goals set out by the voters who passed that measure.
Under Prop. D, the Police Commission would also lose the key power to set San Francisco Police Department policy, severely hampering any efforts to reform the department. Without the authority to set policy, the commission would be limited to holding officers to the standards set by the police chief.
Police departments around the country already set lax guidance for their officers on everything from use of force to developing reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop. If the Police Commission were unable to set policy guidelines for SFPD, its important oversight powers would be limited significantly and be reactive rather than proactive.
Though the power and scopes of these panels differ, they reflect the strength of the commission and advisory board system. Both ensure transparency in our city works and empower diverse, expert voices to challenge the status quo.
TogetherSF has said its goal is to make the city government run more efficiently. Commissioners are uninformed and self-serving, according to the organization. Also, the city has many more commissions than other comparable cities.
TogetherSF correctly points out that commissioners are unelected and that city government could and should run more efficiently. The group may even be right that some of our commissions should go. But Prop. D is sloppy, rushed, and antidemocratic.
TogetherSF is explicitly and implicitly opposed to civilian oversight of government. But we know that the most vulnerable San Franciscans rely on advocates and community members serving on boards overseeing areas as diverse as public transportation and community health, as well as the Youth Commission and the OCOH advisory committee, to advocate for their needs without concerns about their re-election.
Many groups and elected officials have come out opposing Prop. D, including Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Shamann Walton, Connie Chan and Rafael Mandelman; Assemblymember Phil Ting; the American Civil Liberties Union; and several labor organizations and Democratic clubs. Even Mayor London Breed rescinded her original endorsement.
Our commission system supports democracy.
A version of this story first ran in the Street Sheet.
