Committee forwards rename of Mental Health Board to Behavioral Health Commission

The Rules Committee voted to forward an ordinance that would rename San Francisco’s Mental Health Board the Behavioral Health Commission, broaden the definition of "consumer" to include people who receive substance‑use services, and permit certain employees of public or private health agencies to be appointed if they recuse for conflicts of interest.

Andy Mullen presented the item on behalf of Supervisor (Stephanie), saying the proposal comes from board members and modernizes language that dates to the board’s 1956 origins. "The mental health board is a fairly unique body in that it has been around since 1956," Mullen said, and the changes reflect an updated, integrated approach that treats mental health and substance‑use disorders together under the umbrella term "behavioral health." He said the changes also respond to board members’ requests to be more inclusive of substance‑use services and to remove an employment prohibition that prevented some consumers from serving on the body.

Several members of the current board and community advocates spoke in support. John Sanders, who said he co‑chairs the board and holds a consumer seat, argued that the rename would reduce an historic divide between mental‑health and substance‑use services and make integrated funding and programmatic approaches easier. Other board members and appointees — including Terry Borra, Rachelle Slota and Greg Glenbatter — said the new name aligns San Francisco with other California counties and gives the public clearer guidance on the board’s scope.

Board staff clarified that two elements of the proposal (consumer employment eligibility and Mental Health Services Act roles) reflected state changes already in effect; the ordinance would align the local code with those state updates. Committee members praised board service and moved to forward the ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors with a positive recommendation; the motion passed without objection.

The committee’s action sends the ordinance to the full board for final consideration; the measure as drafted also raises operational questions about oversight and funding alignment, which staff and members said would be addressed through ongoing work by the board and departments.