Before Propositions D and E Appeared, SF’s Civil Grand Jury Offered Another Take on Commission Reform

Empty chairs at public meeting space inside San Francisco City Hall.

Nadia Mishkin/San Francisco Public Press

This November, voters will decide whether to potentially reform San Francisco City Hall’s many commissions and other public bodies through propositions D and E.

This article is adapted from an episode of our podcast “Civic.” Click the audio player below to hear the full story.


In the November 2024 election, San Francisco voters are being asked to decide how to reform the city’s commission system.

Proposition D would radically alter the system, cut half of the commissions and empower the mayor’s office. Proposition E would create a five-member task force to examine potential changes to the commission system over 18 months. If both secure support from more than 50% of voters, the one with the most votes will take effect.

Whether San Francisco voters approve one of the ballot measures or decline to approve either, commission reform is likely to be a major political issue in coming years.

San Francisco’s civil grand jury looked at the city’s commissions in a detailed report released in June 2024, “Commission Impossible,” which examined the system put in place 126 years ago.

In this “Civic” episode, John Monson, co-chair of the civil grand jury, talks about the origins of the city’s commission system.

The San Francisco Public Press interviewed John Monson,  co-chair of the civil grand jury, on Civic. Here are a few excerpts from that interview, which have been edited for clarity.

Mel Baker: What exactly is a civil grand jury?

John Monson: A civil grand jury in the state of California is a group of 19 jurors who are impaneled for a year-long term, and their goal is to identify opportunities for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government. Every county in California is required to have one.

Baker: In 1898, there were 21 commissions created under the charter of San Francisco. The charter, for those who don’t know, is the constitution for the city and county. How did that system begin, and what was their role in city governments?

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to better understand how governance works in San Francisco.

Monson: San Francisco County boundaries were consolidated to be the same as the city boundaries to create space for the County of San Mateo. So, from the Gold Rush until 1897, the city government was separate from the county government. There were constant tensions between the city government and the county government. So, this whole push-pull kind of tension between the Board of Supervisors and the mayor’s office has been in effect since the late 1800s.

In 1897, the new charter was voted on when residents consolidated the city and county governments into a single municipal government, and they created three branches. The mayor, which is the executive branch, and the Board of Supervisors, which is the legislative branch. They needed a system for providing mayoral oversight. That was really the motivation for putting the commission system in.

Baker: In your June grand jury report, you list 115 commissions.  In the literature for props D and E, they list 130. You point out that we don’t have a firm grasp on the number of commissions, advisory boards and other bodies that we have in the city. Why exactly is that?

Monson: There’s a variety of sources. The most official one is produced by the city attorney’s office. They’re basically producing a list that is all the appointive bodies that exist in the charter or some administrative code. But then the mayor’s office has their own list, because they need to make appointments, and the city administrator is supposed to have a list. The Board of Supervisors kind of has a list. Probably the biggest issue is that there is no single authoritative body that’s in charge of it.

Baker: What kind of work do these commissions and advisory boards do, and how does that help the city overall?

Monson: There are charter commissions, there are commissions in the administrative code and other kinds of codes. There are commissions that are required by the state government, the federal government. So, there’s a lot of different reasons for commissions. Some of them are decision-making bodies. Some of them are advisory.

Diane Livia / San Francisco Public Press

John Monson is the co-chair of the civil grand jury.

In general, the charter commissions, the decision-making bodies — the Planning Commission, the Fire Commission, Police Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Recreation and Park, things like that — they run pretty well. They’re essentially providing oversight, and they get to review budgets and sort of keep track of what is going on.

Some citizen advisory committees are basically collecting feedback from communities. They’re run much more informally.

The key to effective commissions, at least in my view, is the extent to which they connect the public with the business that is being overseen. The closer the people that are providing the services are to the public, the more effective the solutions are going to be.

Baker: One thing you did recommend in the commission report was that there be another commission created to oversee the commissions. You were pointing out that, yes, we understand how ironic this is, but we think we should add another commission to oversee the commissions. What would that do?

Monson: Going back to my comments about the lists. (The commissions) are just not tracked in any kind of regular and structured way. How many meetings are being missed? How many meetings are actually taking place? Vacancies on commissions, lack of quorums, etc.

There is no organization responsible for looking into that stuff.

Baker: Should this commission be created by appointees or should we be electing commissioners for the commission oversight body? Or how might that work?

Monson: Different city departments would be responsible for appointing people. We would have space for a couple residents of San Francisco as well.

Our goal was to keep the whole management of commissions as apolitical as possible. We felt that having residents would contribute to that.

Prop D and Prop E are both recommending temporary streamlining task forces, and they both outline who should be on those task forces and they’re slightly different.

There’s certainly commonality between our recommendations and both of those recommendations. I think it’s a challenging issue. And I think figuring out a way to do it so that everyone can get comfortable with making sure the system works, that’s what is needed.


Click here to listen to a panel discussion on propositions D and E, co-hosted by the San Francisco Public Press and KALW and featuring proponents of both measures, as well as John Monson.

Get our email newsletter
Don't miss out on our newest articles, episodes and events!