By Marie Jobling–
As a nonprofit leader and long-time advocate for aging and disability rights in San Francisco, I know how important it is for our diverse communities to have a place at the table in shaping policy and funding decisions. San Francisco’s strength in creating innovative programs and policies has grown out of dedicated leadership representing the LBGTQ+ and other communities.
It is a well-known fact that San Francisco’s bureaucracy is in need of reform. Currently, our system of government is often an obstacle in and of itself to innovation, failing to keep up with the needs of its citizens. But this system of government includes commissions, advisory councils, and oversight committees that do give residents a formal role in improving city services and providing effective oversight and accountability. Ideally, affording San Franciscans the opportunity to collaborate with legislators and city officials empowers us to create a city that serves us all.
This November, two ballot measures—Prop D and Prop E—offer contrasting visions of how to reform this system. Both aim to cut through the red tape that hinders city governance; one vision, Prop D, takes a reactive strategy while the other, Prop E, is an organic, intentional approach. Prop D would reduce the access that citizens have in contributing to our democracy. On the other hand, Prop E would preserve the aspects of our system of government that works to serve us all.
Let’s start with Prop D. Backed by billionaire interests, this measure seeks to drastically reduce the number of city commissions from around 130 to a maximum of 65. It would also take away all decision-making authority from commissions and make their roles purely advisory. Critical commissions that ensure oversight and accountability—like the Health Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Human Rights Commission, the Library Commission, and the Immigrant Rights Commission—would be eliminated.
Under Prop D, the Police Oversight Commission would be disbanded, putting police conduct decisions in the sole hands of the police chief. In light of recent national and local events, we cannot afford to weaken civilian oversight of our police force.
I was part of the coalition that helped pass the Dignity Fund, which secured vital funding for senior and disability services. Embedded in that legislation is an oversight committee, created to ensure transparency and accountability. Prop D would eliminate this committee, dismantling a key safeguard to assure for vulnerable communities.
Prop D would also give the mayor the power to appoint two-thirds of all commission members without the Board of Supervisors’ approval. The Board would get one-third of the appointees. The current system, where the Board of Supervisors can co-nominate and approve members, has helped make the commissions more diverse. For instance, 19% of current commissioners are LGBTQ+.
The proponents of Prop D claim that external research supports their proposal. However, the outside organizations that did the research did not have full access to the city’s internal workings, nor did they demonstrate that they understood the importance of the commissions they seek to eliminate. They also misrepresented what the research really showed. Without this context, their recommendations lack the insight needed to support such sweeping changes.
Now, let’s talk about Prop E. Prop E advocates for a thoughtful, structured approach to reforming city commissions. It calls for the creation of a Streamlining Task Force that will hold public hearings and engage with the community to propose changes. The task force will include diverse voices, from city administrators to public sector labor representatives, and will be tasked with carefully evaluating which commissions should be restructured or consolidated.
The beauty of Prop E is its transparency and inclusivity. The task force will present its findings to voters in 2026, allowing us to have the final say on any recommended changes. This two-step process ensures that any reform is not only well-considered but also accountable to the public—a model that has worked before, when San Francisco last updated its charter in 1995.
At the heart of Prop E is a recognition that while reform is needed, we must do it in a way that preserves the checks and balances, accountability, and citizen oversight that, make our government more responsive and equitable. Prop E offers a path to a more efficient city government without sacrificing the voices of our diverse communities.
In short, Prop E is the reasonable solution San Francisco needs to address the issue in a way that is fair and democratic. Prop D threatens to undermine the very systems designed to hold our city accountable. This November, the choice is clear: vote Yes on Prop E, and No on Prop D.
Marie Jobling is the Founder and Co-Executive Director of the Community Living Campaign, a nonprofit that advocates for seniors and people with disabilities. She is also Co-Chair of the Dignity Fund Coalition, which passed a charter amendment to increase funding for senior and disability services in San Francisco.
Marie Jobling is the Founder and Co-Executive Director of the Community Living Campaign, a nonprofit that advocates for seniors and people with disabilities. She is also Co-Chair of the Dignity Fund Coalition, which passed a charter amendment to increase funding for senior and disability services in San Francisco.
Dr. Marcy Adelman oversees the Aging in Community column. For her summary of current LGBT senior challenges and opportunities, please go to: http://sfbaytimes.com/challenges-and-opportunties/
Aging in Community – Election 2024
Published on October 17, 2024
Recent Comments