SF’s Prop D is Wrong Approach
San Francisco’s Proposition D, which will be on the November ballot, is the worst piece of local public policy San Francisco has seen in at least the last 4 decades. As our former Controller Ed Harrington has said, “It represents the largest transfer of power from the people to the bureaucracy in the history of the city.”
No surprise that this is such a flawed measure. It will forever be a model of the worst kind of policymaking: Writing a major overhaul of the civic infrastructure in secret. Spending millions to place it on the ballot through a process that ensures no one has read its 72 pages. Then, spending more money than has ever been spent on a ballot measure to misrepresent what it does and what it can accomplish.
Everyone in San Francisco wants to find better ways to meet the challenges we are facing – homelessness, fentanyl, car break-ins, etc. Proposition D’s “solution” to our problems seems almost laughable – reduce and weaken our forums for public participation and oversight.
Proposition D proponents claim that our commissions, task forces and advisory bodies waste time and prevent work from being done. Yet a recent Grand Jury report states the opposite.
It points out that our civic infrastructure of commissions and other official bodies serve many important functions: fostering transparency, promoting accountability, providing oversight, leveraging the skills and talents of regular San Franciscans, and providing balance in considering important policies. These official commissions and other bodies debate options and often offer new models for programs and services.
They are our city government’s major forums for public participation, hearing from thousands of stakeholders each year. Contrary to the assertions of the Proposition D proponents, these official bodies help our elected officials and administrators do their jobs better. And very significantly, many are required to exist in order to receive federal and state funding.
Fixing problems requires leadership, creative ideas, hard work, adequate resources, and understanding what problems can and can’t be solved at the local level. Proposition D creates the illusion that something meaningful is being done, but it actually distracts from serious efforts and the hard work involved in solving problems.
Proposition D’s major assertion is that San Francisco has more commissions (and other official bodies) than any other city in the state and therefore that number should be cut in half – going from 130 to 65.
First of all, the assertion ignores the fact that San Francisco is the only city in the state that is also a county, as well as a city with a major port, international airport, and its own water and power system. When we take that into account, the numbers are very different. For instance, between the city and the county of San Diego, there are 145 commissions and official bodies.
Secondly, the proponents of Proposition D say the proposal to cut our official bodies in half is based on “intensive research.” But it must be secret research since they have divulged it to no one. The proponents regularly cite a report they commissioned by a Southern California think tank.
But the report in question doesn’t recommend any cap at all. It clearly states that there must be a “thorough study” before we can know how many commissions and official bodies are ideal for San Francisco. In other words, the 65 number cap in Measure D is completely arbitrary.
Thirdly, there is little rationale for the specific commissions Proposition D will eliminate from the charter. For instance, the measure removes the Health Commission from the charter. Yet the Department of Public Health is almost 20% of the city’s budget; and the Commission is the required official oversight body for SF General and for Laguna Honda. Before the Health Commission existed, the Department of Public Health was known to both those inside and outside as “the Kremlin.” The Health Commission changed that completely. Other commissions removed from the charter include Arts, Library, Status of Women, Immigrant Rights, and Youth.
I know what it is to identify a serious issue, such as the abuse of youth in the Juvenile Hall and spend years alongside hundreds of San Franciscans bringing it to public attention, fighting to get a transparent public forum for input and accountability, and finally getting a commission in the charter. The Juvenile Probation Commission has made a huge difference in improving the treatment of young people. Like the Juvenile Probation Commission, all the commissions in the charter reflect years of tireless advocacy and were placed there over decades. They were all voted on by the public convinced of the importance of the issues they addressed.
Another major problem with Proposition D is the dramatic change it proposes in the Police Commission. Proposition D takes away all the Police Commission’s power to make policy that impacts the behavior of the officers. The Chief of Police would have the sole authority to determine such things as the use of force, bias in policing and diversion practices. This flies in the face of recommendations for civilian oversight by the U.S. and California Departments of justice, as well as our own Bar Association, the ACLU, and the direction of cities around the country.
Yes, San Francisco’s commission system needs some restructuring and improvement. There are some legitimate concerns raised by the proponents of Proposition D. But there is no excuse to fail to thoroughly analyze all of our various types of commissions, task forces, and advisory boards.
In fact, the option for that debate is also on the ballot. It is called Proposition E – and it is a rational approach to the issue of commissions and a sound alternative to Proposition D. Measure E says: Study the issue first, and then put needed changes on the ballot so the people can decide what is best. It is the approach we would expect from our government.
We are at a very scary moment in San Francisco’s civic life that goes beyond this terrible piece of legislation. The process by which this came to the ballot is a window on how the billionaire backers and their subsidiary, Together SF (claiming to be the “largest network of engaged residents in the history of San Francisco”) actually operate. They intend to continue taking over more and more of our civic life – all in the name of reform and moderation.
But this is not reform – it is a sledgehammer approach to public policy. And there is nothing moderate about it. It is indeed quite radical.
The billionaires and astro-turf groups behind Proposition D claim that they are the ones who know how to solve San Francisco’s problems. Yet they have been disrespectful of the public, secretive, autocratic, misinformed and unwilling to do the hard homework involved in crafting true reform. Sadly, they are able to literally buy the governance of the city.
They have raised almost $8 million dollars to get Proposition D passed. That is obscene. I say: Look at what they have actually done here, and not what they say they are doing.
And Beware.
Margaret Brodkin has been involved in SF policymaking since 1978 when she became Executive Director of Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, a position she held for 26 years when Coleman sponsored 3 ballot measures that created city commissions. She then spent 5 years as the director of the city’s Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. She is now President of the Juvenile Probation Commission.* *for identification purposes only.
