City and County of SAN Francisco*

No up-to-date, accurate list of active appointed bodies exists, which impedes government transparency....................................

R2.7 Commission Impossible Methodology To prepare this report, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury: Created an up-to-date, accurate list of commissions and boards largely derived from the following sources: Office of the City Attorney, "List of City Boards, Commissions, and Advisory 0 Bodies Created by Charter, Ordinance or Statute," dated May 7, 202433 Office of the City Attorney, Memorandum re: "Mayoral Appointments to and Seats 0 on Boards, Commissions, and Other Bodies," dated May 7, 202434 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, "2024 Annual Listing of Active Boards, 0 Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces with Requirements for Membership, Qualifications, Appointment and Term Dates, and Terms Expiring in 2023," dated December 29, 2023 San Francisco Boards & Commissions website35 0 Jury discussions with the Office of the Mayor, San Francisco. Conducted interviews with nearly 100 city officials and employees including various commissioners and board members. Submitted and reviewed surveys provided to city employees in order to assess the costs of administering commissions. City and County of San Francisco, "List of City Boards, Commissions, and Advisory Bodies Created by Charter, Ordinance, or Statute," City Attorney of San Francisco, Accessed May 7, 2024. https://www.sfcityattorney.org/good-government/list-of-commissions-boards/. Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner to Mayor London N. Breed, "Mayoral Appointments to and Seats on Boards, Commissions, and Other Bodies," May 7, 2024. City and County of San Francisco, "Boards," Granicus. April 15, 2024. Commission Impossible • Reviewed commission meeting videos, agendas, and minutes. Reviewed the websites and related Municipal Code for all commissions and for the city • departments that they oversee or advise. Obtained from the Ethics Commission itemized political campaign donations for each • commissioner over a 10-year period. Analyzed data from peer cities San José, San Diego, and Los Angeles. • Commission Impossible Appendix A: Active San Francisco Commissions and Boards The Civil Grand Jury compiled an up-to-date list of what we believe to be all active commissions and other appointed bodies whose exclusive purview is the City and County of San Francisco. About this list, please note: We excluded bodies whose jurisdiction is not limited to the city (for example, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission). We excluded bodies that govern agencies distinct from the city (Housing Authority Commission). We excluded bodies in the Municipal Code and in the City Attorney's 2024 list of boards and commissions that we determined to be inactive (see Appendix C: Inactive Bodies). We excluded all elective bodies (San Francisco Board of Supervisors). In addition to bodies created by ordinance or charter, we included advisory bodies approved through executive authority rather than legislation (Mayor's Disability Council). For commissions that constitute more than one body, we included the total number of bodies (the Assessment Appeals Board consists of three separate boards). In the Appointed By column, some entries for Mayoral appointments are marked with asterisks to denote conditions for approval: * Each appointment is effective immediately unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors within 30 days following the transmittal of the Notice of Appointment to the Clerk of the Board. Commission Impossible ** Each appointment is subject to approval by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board does not act on the nomination within 60 days following the transmittal of the Notice of Appointment to the Clerk of the Board, the nominee is deemed approved and the appointment becomes effective. *** Each appointment is subject to approval by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board does not act within 30 days following the transmittal of the Notice of Appointment to the Clerk of the Board, the nominee is deemed approved and the appointment becomes effective. **** Each appointment is subject to approval by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. These appointments are not effective until the Board approves them. Commission Impossible Active San Francisco commissions and boards Decision / Charter Start Required City Affiliation Authorization Sunset Date Mtgs /Yr Members Name Purpose Appointed By Advisory Commission Date Animal Care Commission of Board of San Francisco Ν Health Code 1973 11 1 Holds hearings and makes Α None 11 Animal Control and Animal Care and

The high number of advisory bodies creates unnecessary administrative burdens......40

Unfilled seats can result in canceled meetings, which imposes extra costs and delays decision-making.......40

Most appointed bodies have no sunset dates, which affects their relevance and accountability.......41

The descriptors for commissions are varied and confusing....................................

Annual reports vary in content and availability, which greatly undermines their value............. 42

The appointment process lacks visibility into appointee political activities.......43

A lack of training and performance reviews hampers commissioner effectiveness.......44 Required and Requested Responses................................... Methodology................................... Appendix A: Active San Francisco Commissions and Boards.................................... Appendix B: Abolish or Retain.................................... Appendix C: Inactive Bodies.................................... Appendix D: Annual Report Requirements.................................... Commission Impossible Background Several media stories have asserted that San Francisco's many commissions - more than Los Angeles, more than San Diego, all unelected - add a layer of bureaucracy that constrains the city's ability to address our most pressing problems.2 In interviews with the Jury, city officials and employees shared similar concerns. We interviewed nearly 100 of them as we sought to learn how commissions originate, how they operate, and whether they are effective. The results of that work follow in this report. A Brief History of San Francisco's Commissions The California state constitution was ratified in November 1849. In February 1850, the state legislature divided California into counties, including San Francisco. In April of the same year, the City of San Francisco was established by the state and in September statehood was granted by the US Congress. Six years later, in April 1856, the state legislature passed the Consolidation Act, which consolidated the county and city government of San Francisco and established the physical boundaries that we have today.3 San Francisco voters passed our first city charter in 1898 (the 1898 Charter), which became law in 1900. The Charter establishes "home rule" authority, whereby San Francisco is able to make its own laws at the local level, and exercise wide-ranging authority in municipal matters. The 1898 Charter embodied a "strong mayor" model: the Mayor was the presiding officer of the Board of Supervisors, had veto power over legislation and the budget, and had sole appointment authority for commissioners. City government consisted of an executive branch (Mayor), 2 Josh Koehn, "Only 1 Person at SF City Hall Knows the Answer to This Simple Question," The San Francisco Standard, July 6, 2023. Adam Lashinsky, "Why Creating a Homeless Accountability Commission is the Epitome of What's Wrong with San Francisco," San Francisco Examiner, October 14, 2022. The Consolidation Act and Other Acts Relating to the Government of the City and County of San Francisco, (United States: Wm. M. Hinton & Company, 1887). Commission Impossible legislative body (Board of Supervisors or Board), and 21 charter boards and commissions to provide oversight of core city departments.4 A revised City Charter approved by voters in 1932 gave voters the power to create policy by amending the Charter through ballot measures, and the Board of Supervisors the power to create boards and commissions by ordinance which must be signed by the Mayor.5 San Francisco's 1996 Charter, enacted as November 1995's Proposition E, took effect on July 1, 1996.6 Since then a number of new commissions have been added to the Charter by amendment, and the Charter has also been amended to incorporate changes to existing commissions including changes as to which elected officials make appointments. San Francisco Has Many Commissions San Francisco has 115 active commissions. That's more than the cities of San José (27),7 Los Angeles (48),8 and San Diego (49).9 Even on a county basis, with the exception of Los Angeles, San Francisco has more commissions: Santa Clara (70), 10 Los Angeles (151) 11 and San Diego (96).^{12} The growth in San Francisco commissions started in earnest in the 1970s, increasing nearly four-fold between 1970 and 2020. Not surprisingly, the proliferation of commissions has outpaced the city's ability to keep track of them. The Jury compared numerous lists of 4 William Issel and Robert Cherny, "San Francisco City Charters 1916-1932," FoundSF. San Francisco Charter Commission, San Francisco Charter Commission Records, 1931-1980, San Francisco Public Library SFH 25. San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst, "Analysis of City Commissions, Boards, Task Forces and other Oversight and Advisory Bodies (Project 100152.2)." 6 San Francisco City Charter. City of San José, "Boards & Commissions," City of San José, Accessed May 8, 2024. City of Los Angeles, "Boards and Commissions," City of Los Angeles, Accessed May 8, 2024. City of San Diego, "Boards and Commissions," City of San Diego, Accessed May 8, 2024. Santa Clara County Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs, "Maddy Report (Local Appointments List)," Accessed May 21, 2024. County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, "Membership Roster," Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Accessed May 8, 2024. San Diego County, "Committees," PrimeGov Portal, Accessed May 8, 2024. commissions and boards provided by various city departments - and found none of them to be complete, or fully consistent with one another. Accordingly, we conducted an extensive review of these lists and other sources to produce Appendix A: Active San Francisco Commissions and Boards, a compilation of every active appointed body that we discovered during our investigation. The Jury also collected information about each commission, including its purpose, statutory basis, sunset date, frequency of meetings, vacancies and much more. Throughout this process, we gathered insights and information from a large number of city employees and officials familiar with commissions, as well as a number of commissioners themselves. This process required constant vetting, as new commissions are created and sunset dates for existing commissions are extended on a regular basis. In addition, some commissions are difficult to find in the Municipal Code. This list does not include appointed bodies that we determined to be inactive – or possibly so – but that still appear in the Charter or Municipal Code and often in lists provided by city departments. For a discussion of these apparently inactive bodies, see Appendix C: Inactive Bodies. Commissions Go By Many Names Appointed bodies established by the city employ an astounding array of descriptors, including commission, board, committee, task force, council, working group, and so on. In fact, the Jury found 25 different permutations of these terms. Commission Impossible Table 1: Permutations of names for appointed bodies in San Francisco Different Names of San Francisco Boards, Commissions and other Bodies Advisory Board Coordinating Council Advisory Committee Council Advisory Council District Advisory Group Executive Committee Authority Group Authority Board Oversight and Advisory Committee Board Oversight Board Board of Directors Oversight Committee Board of Trustees Partnership Commission Public Authority Task Force Committee Working Group Coordinating Board Coordinating Committee Other than the use of commission to refer to the appointed bodies outlined in Article IV of the San Francisco Charter, we could not find consistent naming standards. (What's more, there are non-Article IV bodies called commissions.) It's unclear what criteria, if any, define a commission as opposed to a board or a council. In this report we use the terms commissions and boards, commissions and other appointed bodies, and sometimes simply commissions to refer collectively to the appointed bodies whose purview includes one or more of the following responsibilities: Overseeing city departments, with the power to approve budgets and in some cases hire and remove department heads Advising city departments and/or the Mayor's Office Adjudicating issues (appeals boards) Advising the Board of Supervisors Advising other commissions. For example, a citizens advisory committee may advise a commission that oversees a city department. Commission Impossible We also refer to commissions and boards as being either "decision-making" or "advisory." This is largely based on classifications from the Office of the City Attorney and the Jury's research. Decision-making bodies exercise the sovereign powers of the city and others are advisory. Not All Commissions Are Alike Nearly all commissions are authorized by either the San Francisco Charter13 or the Municipal Code. Within the Municipal Code, most commissions are authorized by the Administrative Code, although some are authorized by the Planning Code, Building Code, Health Code, and Police Code. Some commissions are created by the Charter but with composition or responsibilities defined by an ordinance. Their roles, authority, size, and requirements for membership vary greatly. This report delves into these differences in an attempt to classify and evaluate San Francisco's myriad commissions. San Francisco City Charter, Article IV: Executive Branch—Boards, Commissions and Departments. Analysis The Jury found it useful to distinguish commissions based on their statutory origin and authority, which among other things reveals how much power - or how little - a particular body has. We developed this approach from commission lists provided by the City Attorney's Office and other city entities, provisions in the City Charter and Municipal Code, and interviews with city officials and employees who work with or regularly appear before commissions. Commissions Created by Charter Charter commissions are created by and derive their authority from the City Charter. The oldest existing commissions - some of the most powerful - were created by Charters adopted in 1898 and 1932. For example, the predecessors for the current Recreation and Park, Fire and Police commissions were established in 1898. Out of the 115 commissions we identified, 42 are charter commissions. Most charter commissions oversee major components of the city's executive branch — the Mayor, city departments, and other units of government. Although the Board of Supervisors cannot directly engage city departments regarding day-to-day operations, the board can have an oversight role in investigating departmental operations. Only through voter approval of a charter amendment or adoption of a new Charter can a charter commission be created, dissolved, or modified. The Board of Supervisors can place a charter amendment on the ballot with a simple majority (6 out of 11 votes), while citizens can do so with signatures from at least 10% of the total number of voters in the most recent election.14 14 City of San Francisco, "Guide to Qualifying San Francisco Initiative Measures," City of San Francisco, Accessed May 21, 2024. Commission Impossible Depending on the requirements outlined in the Charter, members of a charter commission may be appointed exclusively by the Mayor (for example, the Health Commission, Human Rights Commission), jointly by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors (Planning Commission, Police Commission), or jointly by the Mayor, Board, and other entities (Elections Commission, Ethics Commission). There are important caveats, however. Certain mayoral appointments to charter commissions take effect immediately and the Board of Supervisors has 30 days to reject such appointments by a supermajority of 8 out of 11 votes (Airport Commission, Civil Service Commission) or a simple majority (Police Commission, Public Utilities Commission). In some cases, the Mayor's choice is limited to the Commission's own nominees (Asian Art Commission). The Mayor, on the other hand, has no power to approve or reject appointments made by the Board of Supervisors. This imbalance means that the Board of Supervisors generally has more power than the Mayor over who is appointed to charter commissions. Commissions Created by Ordinance An ordinance is a law that either has been passed by the Board of Supervisors with a simple majority, with presentation to the Mayor for signature, non-signature, or veto, or has been adopted by the voters at an election. Most commissions created by ordinance are authorized in the Administrative Code, such as the Immigrant Rights Commission, Ballot Simplification Committee, and the Film Commission. A few are established by other municipal codes like the Building Code (Access Appeals Commission) and the Health Code (Commission of Animal Control and Welfare). Out of the 115 commissions we identified, 73 were created by ordinance. Depending on the commission, members may be appointed: i) solely by the Mayor; ii) solely by the Board of Supervisors; iii) jointly by the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, or other entities such as the Controller's Office; or iv) jointly or solely by other entities other than the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. Commission Impossible Commissions created by ordinance are generally easier to establish, amend, or abolish, than charter commissions because they don't require voter approval unless the commission had originally been established by the voters. Commissions Associated with State or Federal Law The city has created commissions to meet requirements for receiving state and federal funds, or to otherwise implement state or federal legislation. For example, the Children and Families Commission (formerly First 5 of San Francisco) is authorized by the administrative code to guide the local distribution of Prop 10 funding, which uses monies from a statewide tobacco tax. Decision-Making Commissions Decision-making commissions oversee the department or agency with which they're associated. They can create, revise, and approve department policies, programs, and proposed budgets. Depending on their purview, they can also hear testimony and conduct investigations into departmental operations, and they can recommend for appointment or remove department heads. Out of the 115 commissions we identified, 52 are decision-making. Nearly all charter commissions are decision-making, although a few, like the Youth Commission and the Public Utilities Rate Fairness Board, are advisory. In addition, while some commissions created by ordinance are decision-making, such as the Film Commission and Assessment Appeals Board, most are advisory. Quasi-Judicial Commissions Some decision-making commissions have a quasi-judicial function, meaning they can hear evidence, make findings, and issue rulings based on evidence and applicable law. Quasi-judicial functions include issuing and revoking permits, and adjudicating matters between the city and Commission Impossible its employees, and between the city and private parties. Out of the 115 commissions we identified, 26 have quasi-judicial authority. For example, the Police Commission, in addition to overseeing the Police Department, has a quasi-judicial role, specifically: [T]he chief of the police department ... may temporarily suspend a member of the department pending a hearing before the police commission on disciplinary charges against the member....15 As noted, this provision gives the Police Commission authority to adjudicate employee discipline matters through a hearing process. Similarly, the Planning Commission oversees the Planning Department and issues development permits through its quasi-judicial hearings. The Board of Appeals, on the other hand, is an example of a quasi-judicial commission with no oversight power — its only role is to hear and decide appeals on licenses and permits that have been denied by city agencies or departments. Advisory Commissions In contrast to decision-making commissions, advisory bodies have no real authority or oversight power. Typically they are created to provide broader and deeper opportunities for community engagement, such as to collect feedback and make recommendations for matters being considered by the Board of Supervisors, city departments, and the Mayor. These bodies often have a narrow focus and connections to specific city constituencies. For the most part, advisory bodies did not come into existence until the 1970s - decades after the first decision-making commissions were created under the 1898 Charter. Out of the 115 commissions we identified, 63 are advisory. While most advisory commissions were created through the Administrative Code, a few, like the Youth Commission, are charter commissions. San Francisco Charter, Appendix A, § A8.343, "Fine, Suspension, and Dismissal in Police and Fire Departments." Does San Francisco Have Too Many Commissions? The Jury reviewed the historical growth of commissions. We identified all commissions in several cities and counties in California of similar size and character, and compared these to San Francisco's commissions. We also analyzed the benefits and costs of commissions. San Francisco has 115 Active Commissions The proliferation of San Francisco's appointed bodies began in earnest in the 1970s, when the city had about 30 of them, and has grown nearly fourfold, to 115 active commissions today. (For the criteria we used to include or exclude appointed bodies from our list, see Appendix A: Active San Francisco Commissions and Boards.) Growth in Commissions Figure 1 shows the number of San Francisco commissions beginning to increase in the early 1970s. This growth was largely driven by the introduction of advisory boards into the Municipal Code. Commission Impossible Figure 1: Growth of advisory and decision-making bodies in San Francisco16 Advisory Decision 125 100 75 50 25 0 1930 - 1960 1970 1980 2000 2020 1990 2010 Today, San Francisco has more advisory boards (63) than decision-making commissions (52). In addition, the number of advisory boards and other types of bodies (73) now greatly exceeds the number of charter commissions (42). Growth in Charter Commissions Several charter commissions have been added in recent years: Public Works Commission (newly formed in 2020), Sanitation and Streets Commission (2020), Sheriff's Department Oversight Board (2020), and Homelessness Oversight Commission (2022). Other charter commissions added since the 1970s include the Youth Commission, Asian Art Commission (previously an advisory body), Airport Commission, Human Rights Commission, Commission on the Status on Women, Health Commission, Small Business Commission, Ethics Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and Building Inspection Commission. See Methodology for a description of the Jury's use of historical commissions documents. Commission Impossible Growth in Advisory Boards Beginning in the 1970s, the Board of Supervisors got into the practice of creating new advisory boards to address specific issues. Although Section 2.21 of the Board of Supervisors Rules of Order provides that advisory boards should sunset after three years, many advisory bodies have been in existence for decades. Repeatedly, many of these bodies have been legislatively reviewed and renewed by the Board. Among the changes introduced by the 1996 City Charter was a transfer of the power to appoint certain department heads from their related commissions to the Mayor. In the ensuing years, however, the Board of Supervisors has endeavored to take some of this new authority away from the Mayor by initiating legislation that gives the Board more power to appoint commissioners. For example, starting in 2000, the Board created several ballot measures, subsequently approved by voters, that gave them more power over a number of important commissions including the Planning Commission, Board of Appeals, and Police Commission. One critical change approved by the voters: the threshold by which the Board can reject certain mayoral commission appointments was reduced from a supermajority to a simple majority. Veteran city officials and employees indicated to the Jury that these changes accelerated the creation of more advisory bodies, such as the Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee (2000) and the Public Utilities Commission Citizens Advisory Committee (2004). since these bodies provided more opportunities for departmental oversight. Comparison to Peer Cities and Counties To put the total number of San Francisco's commissions in context, the Jury compared San Francisco's commissions to those in metropolitan Los Angeles, San Diego, and San José. This analysis was not without a few challenges. Because San Francisco is unique in its status as a city and county, it was necessary to analyze peer cities and their surrounding counties. Certain types of commissions exist on a city-only basis (for example, police), some cover city and county (health, airport) and others are county-only (sheriff). Second, because commissions with similar functions had varying names, we had to develop a system of classifying these commissions to facilitate an apples-to-apples comparison. Third, counties spanning large geographical areas often had many commissions of the same type across the county. For example, Los Angeles County has 48 water commissions. Fourth, the cities and counties we selected have much larger populations. This difference required us to compare both the absolute number of commissions as well as the number of commissions per capita. The analysis was quite revealing: although San Francisco has the smallest population compared to its peers, the city has about one and a half times as many commissions and, if we adjust for population, about five times as many commissions. Table 2: Number of San Francisco commissions as compared to peer cities and counties Peer Comparison—Cities City San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego San José Number of Residents 848,000 4,050,000 1,420,000 1,078,000 Number of Commissions 48 49 27 115 Peer Comparison—Counties County San Francisco Los Angeles San Diego Santa Clara Number of Residents 9,539,730 3,298,000 1,840,000 848,000 Number of Commissions Benefits of Commissions However challenging a commission-counting exercise may be, their absolute number is less important than their value to citizens and the city entities that they oversee or advise. We conducted interviews with about 100 city officials and employees familiar with the workings of specific commissions. Given the number of commissions, it was not practical to speak with representatives from each of them, but we believe our large sample set made it possible to apply what we learned to all of San Francisco's appointed bodies. Commissions Are Valuable Checks and Balances When San Francisco's commission structure was created in the first Charter, its objective was to oversee the office of a strong mayor. The power that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor wield in regard to commissions has see-sawed over the years, yet commissions continue to provide important checks and balances by preventing the Board or the Mayor from having undue influence over city departments. The greatest benefits of our commissions and boards are the opportunity for the public to learn what their government is doing and to provide forums for inquiry and feedback, through a body that is largely independent of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. Commissions Provide Citizen Engagement San Franciscans are notably vocal and involved in local politics. Commissions are a primary means by which they can engage directly with the government. Nearly all commissioners are residents of San Francisco and together reflect the wide variety of constituencies that make up the city. Most commissions hold regular public meetings and engage in public outreach to connect people to their elected and appointed officials. Ideally, these officials then make more informed decisions. Commission Impossible Commissions Foster Transparency The primary benefits of citizen engagement are transparency and accountability. By soliciting public feedback and encouraging public inquiry, departments know that the citizens they serve are paying attention. Many commissions work directly with the departments they oversee to create policies and operating plans that are presented to the public. As a result, the public can see department goals, proposed budgets, and programs. By preparing annual reports, commissions also enable citizens to evaluate departments' effectiveness and oversight. Commissions Promote Accountability Accountability flows from transparency. Because decision-making commissions often have responsibilities for approving budgets and contracts and conducting department heads' performance evaluations, these commissions' very existence communicates to elected and other city officials that the public is paying attention, ideally leading to more careful decisions by these officials. Commissions Provide Oversight The commissions in the 1898 Charter were created to provide an important oversight role in the "strong mayor" model. Today, when a department has an oversight commission, the department head reports to both the Mayor and the commission. With few exceptions, decision-making commissions have the power to approve contracts, approve department budgets for submission to the Mayor, conduct the performance evaluation of the department head and, if necessary, remove the department head. Because it's not feasible for the Board of Supervisors to manage the day-to-day operations of departments, commissions provide a certain level of scrutiny and oversight that would otherwise not happen. However, notwithstanding the buffer that commissions provide between the Mayor and department heads, veteran city officials let us know that if the Mayor were determined to remove a department head, the effort would likely be successful. Commissions Contribute Expertise Commissioners contribute a wide range of knowledge, experience, and community connections. Many are experts in fields related to the departments they oversee, bring decades of other relevant experience, and are deeply connected to communities that benefit from their commissions' work. Commissioners, who are essentially part-time volunteers, can't be expected to have as deep and nuanced understanding of day-to-day issues facing departments as full-time departmental staff. However, we learned from many higher-level department figures that there is a general appreciation for the guidance commissioners provide to departments. Costs of Commissions As volunteers, members of decision-making bodies generally receive small stipends for attending meetings, and some commissioners are also entitled to San Francisco health insurance benefits, although very few take advantage of it. In the context of the San Francisco budget, these costs are insignificant. Costs come in the form of time and effort spent by administrative and department management staff to support commissions. Other costs, harder to gauge but real enough, include decisions deferred and programs delayed as a result of the Board of Supervisors appointing a board to study an issue and make recommendations, rather than the Board or the appropriate city department taking action themselves. Administrative Costs For nearly every commission, one or more employees of the department that the commission oversees or advises is responsible for scheduling meetings, preparing and circulating meeting materials, exchanging documents with the City Attorney's office, and coordinating public meeting broadcasts with SFGovTV. In part, their work is mandated by San Francisco's Sunshine Ordinance17 and California's Brown Act, 18 which require that meetings be open to public comment and that related materials be publicly available. The Jury determined that the average advisory board required 0.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff, while the average decision-making commission required double the staffing resources, or 1.5 FTE. In the case of a few advisory bodies, a member of the body performed administrative tasks, but for most advisory and all decision-making bodies, the role is typically filled by a commission secretary or other administrative staff who are city employees. In addition to administrative staff, many commissions also require assistance from the City Attorney's Office for tasks such as preparing and reviewing contracts. Although the Office does not precisely track how much time their attorneys spend supporting commissions, it was clear, from discussions with the Office, that their assistance adds up to a significant amount of time. Department Management Costs In addition to their day-to-day job, city department heads, senior department staff, and analysts must also work to support the city's commissions. They routinely prepare presentations and reports for commission meetings - and often must present similar reporting to multiple appointed bodies. From interviews, the Jury found that these tasks consume about 8% of senior department staff time, with decision-making commissions requiring an average of 10% and advisory commissions an average of 6.5%. We also learned that the preparation and presentation of departmental reports to commissions can be a major distraction from the department's focus on the delivery of city services. This time spent supporting commissions represents the most significant driver of commissions' cost. SF Admin. Code Chapter 67. Cal. Government Code § 54950 et seg. Commission Impossible Appointment Costs and Vacancies Approximately 1,200 seats are authorized for San Francisco commissions. The process for recruiting, vetting, and approving so many commissioners is arduous, time-consuming - and inadequate. The Jury obtained data on both required and actual membership of 110 commissions and advisory bodies. In nearly a quarter of cases, these bodies had less than three fourths of their required members. We researched the number of expired terms among all seats on 98 commissions, and found 228, representing over 15% of commission seats. Members of non-charter commissions with expired terms often continue in their roles until they are replaced,19 but the volume of holdovers is evidence that the city's appointment processes struggle to keep up. Table 3: Commission metrics for advisory and decision-making bodies Vacancies Meetings Canceled Members Advisory Bodies 25% 20% 13.0 Decision-Making Bodies 10% 11% 8.2 To navigate the many and varied requirements governing the commissioner appointment process, a full-time staffer in the Mayor's Office manages mayoral appointments to commissions, while the Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee and the Clerk of the Board spend significant time managing that body's appointments and approvals. After each potential commissioner is recruited, a Notice of Appointment is submitted to the Rules Committee for approval. The Jury determined that if the number of commissions were reduced from 115 to 100, and the average number of seats per commission decreased from 12 to 10, then the number of commissioners would decrease by almost 20%. Cal. Gov't Code § 1302. Commission Impossible In addition to decreased appointment costs, the benefits of fewer commissions seats would be more fully-staffed commissions, more selective appointment of commissioners, and fewer meetings canceled for lack of quorum — resulting in more work performed. Nearly 20 Percent of Meetings Canceled in 2023 In 2023, almost 20% of commission and board meetings were canceled. Advisory boards were more likely to have canceled meetings (25%) than decision-making boards (10%). In addition to wasted administrative resources and inconvenience to members of the public who may have traveled to attend the meeting, canceled meetings are particularly problematic when a commission is responsible for approving contracts. Delayed contract approvals can result in late payments to organizations that furnish vital services to the city's most vulnerable residents. Deferred Decisions, Delayed Policies and Programs Several city officials cited a perception that officials tend to refer difficult decisions to commissions instead of taking action directly, resulting in delays. Through resolution and ordinance, the Board of Supervisors has created task forces to address a myriad of issues in which decisions might have proven politically controversial or unpopular. We found more than 40 resolutions and ordinances to establish task forces or advisory bodies to study, provide input, and make recommendations. A typical resolution created a committee "to supervise a consultant study to develop policy criteria and recommendations." Annual Reports Required But Not Readily Available Nearly all San Francisco commissions are required to provide annual reports. Per the City Charter, annual reports for charter commissions must document the commission's activities, areas of jurisdiction, authority, purpose, and goals. The Administrative Code requires reports to provide a general summary of commission services, programs, and achievements.20 20 San Francisco Administrative Code § 1.56, "Annual Reports." San Francisco City Charter, § 4.103, "Boards and Commissions - Annual Report." Crucially, however, the Jury found no consistent or simple means of obtaining this reporting. We observed that some commissions post reports on their website, some append them to annual budget proposals, and some furnish them to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the Board meeting agenda - although we did not find evidence that the Board discussed or acted on these reports. Links to some reports, but not all, are available on a San Francisco Public Library webpage.21 The reports themselves varied greatly in their composition and reporting depth. These ranged from two simple paragraphs to glossy reports of many pages. Because of the effort required to obtain these reports, they provide little to no benefit for monitoring the performance of commissions, nor do they furnish transparency for the public. The Jury believes the city would be well served by having clear requirements for comprehensive annual reports. Such reporting ought to include statements of purpose, areas of jurisdiction, authorities, goals, summaries of services and programs, highlights of achievements, commission/body members, commissioner attendance, history of vacant seats, meeting frequency, canceled meetings, support staff, other costs and more. Evaluating Commission Performance To evaluate the effectiveness of commissions and boards, the Jury collected data on each commission, including its purpose, statutory basis, corresponding city department, number of seats and vacancies, meeting requirements, and actual meetings. We also reviewed meeting agendas, minutes to assess each body's accomplishments and level of public comment and participation. This research was supplemented by over 100 interviews with officials, commission members, and city employees. San Francisco Public Library, "Annual Reports of City Agencies," SFPL.org, Accessed May 21, 2024. Commission Impossible Charter Commissions The City Charter has a total of 42 commissions of which a majority, 23, are established in Article IV. The remaining commissions are established in other articles, including Article V (for example, the Arts Commission), Articles VIIIA (Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors) and VIIIB (Public Utilities Commission), Article X (Civil Service Commission), Article XII (Retirement Board), Article XIII (Elections Commission), and Article XV (Ethics Commission). The decision-making charter commissions are essential oversight bodies for key departments and agencies. In general, the Jury found these commissions to be professionally run and to perform their oversight roles adequately; that is, the benefits of nearly all these commissions exceeded their costs. That said, we encourage these commissions to consider the Jury's