Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand jury finds San Francisco's many commissions need clearer oversight; city pledges coordinated review amid ballot debate
Summary
The committee reviewed the civil grand jury's 'Commission Impossible' report, which found no accurate, up‑to‑date list of active commissions and recommended a permanent oversight body and standardized reporting. The mayor's office and city attorney said existing systems and an upcoming charter reform process are the right forum for changes.
The Government Audit and Oversight Committee heard the civil grand jury’s "Commission Impossible" report, which said San Francisco lacks a current, accurate list of active commissions, has too many advisory bodies and lacks a single authority to evaluate commission performance.
Niall Murphy and John McCall, presenting for the grand jury, said their investigation identified misclassifications, inactive bodies on official lists and wide variance in annual reports. "We recommend the city attorney's office prepare and publish an up‑to‑date, accurate list of active commissions and other appointed bodies each year," they told the committee.
Sophia Kittler, a mayoral budget director, thanked the jurors and said the mayor’s office broadly supports improving transparency and training but prefers to address commission reform as part of a comprehensive charter reform process. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russsey told the committee the city attorney has published and periodically updated a list since 2014 but acknowledged differences in scope and cadence between the lists maintained by different offices.
Supervisors and the mayor’s representatives debated whether to create an independent commission oversight body or to strengthen existing interagency processes. Supervisor Connie Chan said she favored clearer onboarding and more standardized training and performance evaluation beyond attendance. The mayor’s office cautioned that uniform performance metrics for all advisory bodies may be infeasible given divergent missions.
The committee directed the clerk to prepare the Board’s responses to the superior court and forwarded Item 4 to the full Board with a positive recommendation. The committee also continued Item 3 for further analysis.
What happens next: The clerk will draft the Board response reflecting partial agreements and items requiring further study; the matter will move to the full Board for consideration and the work will be coordinated with the mayor’s upcoming charter reform process.
