By Sal Rodriguez, Pacific Research Institute
San Francisco has too many government commissions. Who could’ve guessed?
On January 30, the city’s Commission Streamlining Task Force issued a 134-page report on the 152 boards, commissions and similar bodies operating in the city under ordinance or voter initiatives.
While the complex demands of government sometimes justifies or necessitates various boards and commissions to engage the public on matters of local governance, there is such a thing as too many.
At their best, they can fulfill a practical function, meaningfully boost political participation and might help make the government better serve the people. But as revealed by this report, these things have a way of getting out of hand.
“At its worst, the commission system adds layers of bureaucracy that dilute public input, obscure lines of accountability, make government less transparent, and result in duplicative or ineffective processes,” the report notes.
The streamlining commission, itself established via Measure E in 2024, found that only 115 of the 152 boards on the books were actually active. In total, the commission recommended keeping 86 of them, consolidating two which had similar duties, eliminating 36 inactive boards, removing 24 from the city code and taking no action on four others. Among those in the latter category are those with sunset provisions, so they should self-terminate. That includes the Commission Streamlining Task Force.
If it still seems like too many commissions will be around, you’re probably right. The recommendation to keep so many of them is actually well above the cap of 65 commissions that a competing ballot initiative, Measure D, sought to impose. While Measure D was more of a buzz saw, Measure E is more of a scalpel. Still, in San Francisco, a win’s a win.
Among the inactive bodies tapped for elimination include the City-Operated Farmers’ Market Advisory Committees, Citizens Advisory Committee for Street Utility Construction, Delinquency Prevention Commission, a Graffiti Advisory Board, the Newsrack Advisory Committee and the impressively named Working Group on Local Business Enterprise Preference Program for City Leases and Concession Agreements.
Regarding the last one, the report notes, “the Task Force was unable to find information about the last time this body had met, suggesting it has likely been inactive for many years.”
Among the active boards flagged for elimination include the Bicycle Advisory Committee, which was established in 1990, predating the Municipal Transportation Agency, which is now fully capable of handling bicycle safety concerns.
“Today, the MTA has a dedicated Sustainable Streets Division with full-time bike planners and engineers who regularly engage the public on bicycle-related projects,” the streamlining committee notes. To underscore this, the Bicycle Advisory Committee was one of 80 groups the MTA engaged with in developing the 2025 San Francisco Biking and Rolling Plan.
Of course, the board thinks very highly of itself. Not only does it exist to advise on bike matters, but it also has a stated mission of the BAC “to prevent climate change,” which reflects a sweeping, ideological and perhaps unrealistic mission.
Unsurprisingly, the chair of the BAC has been quoted as saying of the streamlining commission’s recommendation to drop the BAC: “This recommendation shows zero vision and serves only to streamline the deaths of San Franciscans on our streets.”
Of course, the streamlining task force preserved some bodies with inherently political missions.
The 11-member Sweatfree Procurement Advisory Group, formed in 2005, was established to ensure city contractors “that supply textile apparel, garments, and corresponding accessories, materials, supplies, or equipment” don’t get them “from manufacturing or assembling those goods in sweatshop conditions, as defined by the ordinance.”
The task force reasoned that city staff by now had a good grasp on acquiring textiles and garments from businesses that met the city’s standards. And so it was inclined to recommend disbanding the group, but ultimately backed down.
The advisory group has been the center of more political heat than you’d imagine (or not, because it’s San Francisco). Supervisor Rafael Mandelman proposed eliminating the board last year as part of a move to streamline city contracting rules. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, “Previously, the city could only do business with companies that aligned with a wide-reaching set of ‘social policies,’” including the sweatshop ban.
While smaller vendors are now exempted from complying with the city’s social policy mandates, Mandelman expressed frustration at the time about the blowback to what he thought was a minor suggestion. “I am a little concerned about what it says about this city that we can’t eliminate this body, but that’s sort of a fight for another day,” Mandelman told the Chronicle.
San Francisco’s tendency toward more and more government, seemingly for the sake of it and regardless of outcomes, has been notorious. Beyond making San Francisco government a punch line for ineffective government, it’s had the effect of making government far more complicated than it needs to be.
San Franciscans know this, that’s why they approved Measure E to establish the streamlining commission. And it’s why San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has rightly made streamlining government a top priority of his administration.
However, amid public outcry it appears the board of supervisors is going to take a modest approach toward streamlining.Nevertheless, here’s to hoping as many unnecessary boards and commissions are abolished as possible.
Sal Rodriguez is opinion editor for the Southern California News Group and a senior fellow with the Pacific Research Institute.
