From commissions, to appeals, to discretionary review - the Mayor of San Francisco lacks the power to actually act as an executive, leaving City departments to flounder under the mismanagement of the Board of Supervisors. What once was a "strong Mayor" city is now controlled by the Board of Supervisors. And there is no person more responsible for this sabotage than Aaron Peskin.

The Mayor can't hire the Police Chief, can't direct land use and zoning, doesn't control the MTA or Public Works, and has no recourse against a DPW director that can't keep streets clean. San Francisco doesn't have an executive that is allowed to execute, instead it's rule-by-committee, and those committees are controlled by the Board.

How San Francisco is run

The San Francisco government is divided into three main areas: Executive (the Mayor), Legislative (the Board of Supervisors), and Administrative (the City Departments). While the Executive and Legislative branches are elected, the administrative side of government is led by appointed bureaucrats.

The Board of Supervisors is the legislative body of San Francisco and has the power to change the laws which govern our city. The Board may propose Charter amendments (akin to Constitutional amendments) with a simple majority (six of the eleven Supervisors), which must always be confirmed by voters at the ballot. For a simple law (not a Charter amendment) there are two paths to getting it passed: the Board can pass a law with a simple majority, or four of the eleven Supervisors may put a law change on the ballot.

This is the first step in understanding how our city runs: everything the Mayor can or can't do, everything City Departments can or can't do, is determined and limited by the laws passed by the Board of Supervisors.

The Mayor's main role is in defining the budget and overseeing Department heads. But the Mayor's power is not absolute. The Mayor proposes a budget, but it's then negotiated with and approved by the Board of Supervisors, per the City Charter. The Mayor may oversee City Departments and give directives to Department heads but the Mayor doesn't hire department heads and the Mayor's directives do not carry the force of law: ultimately the Departments can do what they like within the bounds set by the laws created by the Board of Supervisors or by the commissions that oversee them.

Commissions are the true seat of power in San Francisco. These bodies are not elected, but are appointed by a combination of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. It is these unelected commissions which control the behavior and policies of City Departments, not the Mayor. Department heads are also selected by the commissions, (more specifically, the commissions choose a set of a few nominees which the Mayor must pick from; the Mayor does not get to pick anyone they want to run a department). This effectively gives all of the power to the commissions, since they may only nominate candidates who adhere to their partisan perspective.

While the Board of Supervisors may choose whomever they want to serve on commissions, almost all of the Mayor's appointees must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. To recap: the Mayor cannot hire department heads, cannot set departmental policy, and cannot choose their own commissioners without Board interference. All of this combines to give the Board of Supervisors full control over the commissions and, by extension, the department heads and departments themselves.

A consequence of this structure bears calling out clearly: the Police Commission, not the Mayor, picks the Police Chief and defines the "use of force" policy that the police must operate under. The Mayor may fire the Police Chief, but if the Mayor believes the Police Commission will recommend a worse replacement, there is effectively no credible threat to force the Police to do a better job. (As of August 2023, the Police Commission is controlled by defund-the-police supporters, appointed by the Board of Supervisors.)

This complex interaction of Board of Supervisors control over Mayoral action has rendered the Mayor's office unable to perform the basic functions of government. One can compare the gridlock in San Francisco to the gridlock in Washington, DC when the President is a Democrat and Congress or the Senate are controlled by Republicans -- but worse.

How did San Francisco become a weak Mayor city?

Over the past two decades, a gradual power shift has taken place within San Francisco's political landscape. While these changes have occurred across many years and many Boards of Supervisors, one person had their name on all of them: Supervisor Aaron Peskin. Throughout his tenure, he has consistently aimed to reduce Mayoral authority and enhance the Board of Supervisors' influence.

In November 1995, San Francisco voters adopted a new City Charter alongside the election of Willie Brown, ushering in the "strong Mayor" era. Mayor Brown was granted sweeping new powers over city departments and nearly two dozen commissions. Many of these powers were formerly held by the Chief Administrative Officer or by various commissions. 1995's Charter reform gave the Mayor "more authority over the departments that [were] under the Chief Administrative Officer" and "more authority over departments that [were] under City boards and commissions." Most importantly, the Mayor gained the power to "appoint the department head, and the department head, instead of the commission, would run the department."

These changes gave Willie Brown unprecedented power during his eight years in office. Perhaps Mayor Brown's most enduring legacy is the idea of San Francisco as a strong Mayor city. But almost as soon as these powers were granted by the People, the Board of Supervisors started whittling them away.

During Brown's first term, the Mayor had control over 19 departments, and the Board of Supervisors had control over 3. But the London Breed era is different: now Mayor Breed controls a minority of departments: just 12, and the Board of Supervisors controls 16.

Aaron Peskin's attack on Mayoral power

Aaron Peskin was first elected to the Board of Supervisors in the November 2000 election, the first after the switch from citywide to district elections. His election is seen by many as the harbinger of the death of the strong Mayor system. Indeed, within two years he had a role in ending Mayoral control over the Planning Commission (Prop D, March 2002), Board of Appeals (Prop D, March 2002), and the Entertainment & nightlife (Prop F, November 2002).

This trend continued in quick succession, with the Police Commission (Prop H, November 2003), Department of Police Accountability (Prop H, November 2003), Public Utilities Commission (Prop E, June 2008), and the Historic Preservation Commission (Prop J, November 2008) all shifting from Mayoral control to the Board of Supervisors.

Prior to these Charter amendments, the Mayor had authority to appoint a majority of the commissioners and could only be blocked with a 2/3 supermajority of the Board. But Peskin and his allies on the Board changed all of these vitally important commissions, requiring that the Mayor's appointees be confirmed or rejected by a simple majority. This seemingly innocuous change ended the delicate balance of power between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, leading us to the political gridlock that San Francisco experiences today.

During his time away from public office from 2009 to 2016, these attacks on functional government ceased. But as soon as Peskin held office again in 2017 he continued on his conquest with the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board (Prop D, November 2020), the Sanitation and Streets Commission (Prop B, November 2020), and the Public Works Commission (Prop B, November 2020) all meeting the same fate. Finally, he gained control over the Building Inspection Commission (Prop C, November 2022) and created the Homelessness Oversight Commission in November 2022 (Prop C, November 2022) to move control of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing to the Board of Supervisors.

When did the Mayor lose control?

What does the Mayor control?

As of 2023, the Mayor of San Francisco only has control over the Human Rights Commission, the Fire Commision, the Health & Human Services Commissions, Recreation & Park Commission, the Airport Commission, Environment Commission, Status of Women, the Disability and Aging Services Commission, the Small Business Commission, Arts Commission, and the Library. Notably, these are the Departments that seem to work the best.

But the Board of Supervisors controls the most important commissions: the Police Commission, Planning Commission, MTA, Police Accountability, and Public Works (street cleanliness). All of these Commissions oversee Departments that have been mired in controversy, corruption, incompetence, and gridlock.

If you're unhappy with high crime, dirty streets, and poor bus service don't blame the Mayor, blame Aaron Peskin and his allies.

Citations

1995: New City Charter

On July 24, 1995 the Board of Supervisors voted 9-1 to place Proposition E on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Alioto, Ammiano, Hallinan, Hsieh, Kaufman, Leal, Migden, Shelley, and Teng.
No: Supervisor Bierman.
Absent: Supervisor Kennedy.

Prop E, Nov 1995 (passed 58.02%) created a new City Charter that would give mayor and BOS "greater authority over how most City departments are run. The commissioners and the Administrator would have less independence." Also, "The Mayor would appoint the department head[s], and the department head[s], instead of the commission[s], would run the department[s]."

This also came with more BOS control over some things: "The BOS would also gain a greater voice in the administration of City business. The Board could now adopt legislation directing department operations except for personnel and contract matters. The Board could, by two-thirds vote, reject commission appointments made by the Mayor. The Board would also have approval power over changes to the City's general plan (master plan)."

1999: MTA Board

On June 21, 1999 the Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to place Proposition E on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Becerril, Brown, Katz, Kaufman, Leno, Newsom, Teng, Yaki, Yee
No: Supervisor Bierman

Prop E passed with 61.00% of the vote.

Prior to Prop E: The Public Transportation Commission had 5 members appointed by the Mayor.

After Prop E: The Public Transportation Commission was replaced with the MTA Board, commissioners were expanded from 5 to 7 members nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by majority BOS approval vote.

2002: Planning Commission and Board of Appeals

On November 19, 2001 the Board of Supervisors voted 9 to 2 to place Proposition D on the ballot.

Yes: Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Hall, Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, Sandoval
No: Newsom, Yee

Prop D, Mar 2002 passed with 57.15% of the vote.

Prior to Prop D: Mayor appointed all Planning Commission and Board of Appeals members, and required a 2/3 vote of the Board of Supervisors to reject.

After Prop D: Split nominations (4 Mayor, 3 BOS), and required majority BOS approval vote to confirm Mayoral nominees.

2002: Entertainment Commission

On July 22, 2002 the Board of Supervisors voted 8 to 3 to place Proposition F on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Leno, McGoldrick, Newsom, Peskin, and Sandoval.
No: Supervisors Hall, Maxwell, and Yee.

Prop F passed with 56.71% of the vote.

Prior to Prop F: The Entertainment Commission was just created, and all 7 commissioners would be appointed by the Mayor.

After to Prop F: Split appointments (4 Mayor, 3 BOS), and required majority BOS approval vote to confirm Mayoral nominees.

2003: Police Commission

On July 15, 2003 the Board of Supervisors voted 7 to 4 to place Proposition H on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, and Sandoval.
No: Supervisors Dufty, Hall, Ma, and Newsom.

Prop H, Nov 2003 passed with 51.94% of the vote.

Prior to Prop H: Mayor appointed all 5 members of the Police Commission.

After Prop H: Expanded the Police Commission from 5 to 7 members, split appointments (4 Mayor, 3 BOS), and required majority BOS approval vote to confirm Mayoral nominees.

2003: Department of Police Accountability

In 1982 Prop A created the "Office of Citizen Complaints" (OCC), and the director was appointed by the Police Commission, when the Police Commission's 5 members were appointed by the Mayor.

On July 15, 2003 the Board of Supervisors voted 7 to 4 to place Proposition H on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Gonzalez, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, and Sandoval.
No: Supervisors Dufty, Hall, Ma, and Newsom.

Prop H passed with 51.94% of the vote.

Prior to Prop H: 5 members were appointed by the mayor

After Prop H: 7 members with split appointments (4 Mayor, 3 BOS), and all Mayoral nominees required BOS approval. The Mayor cannot remove their appointees without BOS approval.

In 2016, Prop G renamed the "Office of Citizen Complaints" to the "Department of Police Accountability" (DPA), but did not change the nomination process.

Prop G passed with 80.77% of the vote.

2008: Public Utilities Commission

On February 12, 2008 the Board of Supervisors voted 9 to 2 to place Proposition E on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin and Sandoval.
No: Supervisors Alioto-Pier and Chu.

Prop E passed with 51.79% of the vote.

Prior to Prop E: Mayor appointed all 5 members of the Public Utilities Commission.

After Prop E: Mayoral nominees required majority BOS approval vote to confirm.

2008: Historic Preservation Commission

On July 29, 2008 the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition J on the ballot.

Yes: Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Chu, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin and Sandoval.
No: None.

Prop J passed with 55.64% of the vote.

Prior to Prop J: The Mayor appointed all 9 members to the "Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board," which only offered advice to Planning Commission and did not have decision-making authority.

After Prop J: The Historic Preservation Commission was created with the authority to approve and deny permits. The Mayor nominates alls 7 members, and they all require confirmation by BOS majority. Granted authority to approve and deny permits.

2020: Sheriff's Department Oversight Board

On July 21, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition D on the ballot.

Yes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee.
No: None.

Prop D passed with 66.9% of the vote.

Prior to Prop D: No commission was dedicated to overseeing the Sheriff's department

After Prop D: The commission was created with 4 Board of Supervisor appointees and 3 Mayoral appointees.

2020: Sanitation and Streets & Public Works Commission

On July 21, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 7 to 4 to place Proposition B on the ballot.

Yes: Haney, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Walton.
No: Fewer, Mandelman, Stefani, Yee.

Prop B (November 2020) passed with 61.33% of the vote.

Prior to Prop B (November 2020): Street cleanliness and other sanitation work was done by the Department of Public Works.

After Prop B (November 2020): The Department of Sanitation & Streets was created, tasked with street cleanliness and other sanitation work. The Mayor would choose a Director from a set of candidates put forward by the commission. The commission would have 5 members, 2 nominated by Mayor with BOS majority approval, 2 by BOS, 1 by the City Controller.

Prop B (November 2020) also created the Public Works Commission, which oversees the Department of Public Works. The Mayor would choose a Director from a set of candidates put forward by the commission. The commission would have 5 members, 2 nominated by Mayor with BOS majority approval, 2 by BOS, 1 by the City Controller.

Just two years later, the department was shut down but the commission stayed in place.

On July 19, 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 8 to 3 to place Proposition B on the ballot.

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Mandelman, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Stefani.
No: Mar, Safai, Walton.

Prop B (November 2022) passed with 74.56% of the vote.

Prior to Prop B (November 2022): See Above.

After Prop B (November 2022): Partially repealed Prop B (November 2020) by eliminating the brand new Department of Sanitation & Streets and merging its responsibilities back into DPW. But it kept the new Sanitation & Streets Commission, leaving its appointments unchanged. So now BOTH the Sanitation & Streets Commission and the Public Works Commission oversee the Department of Public Works.

2022: Building Inspection Commission

On February 15, 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition B on the ballot.

Yes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.
No: None.

Prop B (June 2022) passed with 61.99% of the vote.

Prior to Prop B: Mayor appointed 4 members directly, BOS appointed 3

After Prop B: Mayor's nominees require BOS approval

2022: Homelessness Oversight

On July 19, 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition C on the ballot.

Yes: Chan, Dorsey, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.
No: None

Prop C passed with 67.37% of the vote.

Prior to Prop C: Mayor had direct control of Department of Homelessness & Supportive Housing.

After Prop C: The Homelessness Oversight Commission was created with split appointments (4 Mayor, 3 BOS), and the mayor's nominees require majority BOS approval.