Measure F: Changes to Executive Branch Management

When a City department fails, you expect the Mayor to fix it. But Mayor Lurie says he can hire and fire just 6% of the City's department heads, and that replacing a failing one can take six to twelve months (https://www.sfexaminer.com/lurie-will-go-to-voters-in-effort-to-remake-city-hall/article_fb2da73b-ff52-4f7d-919a-35d64ae8c047.html). Most of the rest answer to unelected commissions, which pick the candidates (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-f/legal-text/#prop-f-nominations) and decide who keeps the job (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-f/legal-text/#prop-f-commission-removal). The Mayor you elected can only make a recommendation.

Prop F closes that gap. The Mayor would choose department heads, reorganize departments that aren't working, and answer to you for the results. As SPUR adviser and former City Controller Ed Harrington put it (https://missionlocal.org/2025/11/spur-sf-charter-reform/), "if you want the mayor to be held responsible, you have to give them authority to make decisions."

The checks are real. The Board of Supervisors can still block any reorganization, and on police accountability the measure cuts the other way: appointing the police-accountability director (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election/measures/prop-f/legal-text/#prop-f-dpa-director) moves from the Mayor to the Police Commission. Yes, this is Mayor Lurie's own measure (https://sfstandard.com/2026/07/15/charter-reform-daniel-lurie-2026-ballot-measure-election/), and it gives his office more power. It also gives you someone to hold responsible.

Vote yes on Prop F.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-f)

SPUR's Recommendation

Prop. F would adopt many recommendations SPUR made in recent charter analyses, including strengthening the authority of the mayor, as the city’s chief executive officer, to select department heads and hold them accountable for performance. It would remove charter limits on the mayor’s ability to structure the Mayor’s Office to manage a large and complex government. While the measure would give the mayor greater authority to reorganize charter departments and functions than SPUR envisioned, it would maintain important limits by allowing the Board of Supervisors to reject changes and exempting key independent oversight functions. Taken together, these changes would strengthen the mayor’s ability to serve as the city’s chief executive and voters’ ability to hold the mayor accountable for results.

What Prop. F Would Do

Proposition F would expand the mayor’s authority by changing how executive branch departments are managed and how appointed commissioners are removed.

Department head appointment and removal. Currently, the city charter provides several paths to appoint and remove department heads, leaving the mayor with authority over only a handful. Boards or commissions play a role in appointing or removing many department heads, and some require Board of Supervisors approval. The measure would give the mayor sole authority to directly appoint and remove most executive branch department heads. It would not change processes for appointing or removing department heads outside the executive branch.

Department oversight and supervision. The charter requires the mayor to directly supervise all executive branch departments and prohibits using deputy mayors or comparable roles. The measure would remove these prohibitions, permitting the mayor to establish reporting relationships and delegate supervision to others, including deputy mayors.

Executive branch reorganization. Currently, the mayor may reorganize only departments that were created by ordinance, subject to rejection by the Board of Supervisors. To change departments, powers, and duties established in the city charter, voters generally must approve the change at the ballot box. Themeasure would authorize the mayor to reorganize most charter-created executive branch departments, including by transferring (but not modifying or eliminating) functions among departments, consolidating departments, and transferring functions across departments, subject to rejection by the Board of Supervisors within 60 days. Exemptions from this authority would include those departments headed by elected officials, the independent Elections and Ethics Commissions, most city enterprise departments, and the controller and city administrator.

Appointed commissioner removal. Currently, the mayor, Board of Supervisors, and other elected officials appoint members of boards and commissions established in the charter. Most serve fixed terms and may be removed only for cause through a charter-defined process. The measure would establish most commissioners as at-will appointments by their appointing authorities (typically the mayor or Board of Supervisors). Independent oversight bodies, including the Ethics Commission, Civil Service Commission, and Board of Appeals, would be exempt.

The Backstory

Although the charter establishes the mayor as San Francisco’s chief executive officer, it limits the mayor’s executive authority in critical ways. The mayor currently directly appoints and removes only 6% of department heads, often sharing these powers with commissions, the Board of Supervisors, or others. The charter requires the mayor to directly supervise more than 50 executive branch department heads and prohibits deputy mayors or comparable roles in the Mayor’s Office.

By contrast, comparable city governments generally give chief executives broader authority to appoint senior management, structure operations, and hold department leaders accountable. Increasing the mayor’s authority to hire and fire department heads and establish management structures used in other large cities could improve city operations and strengthen accountability to voters.

Unusually, San Francisco’s charter prescribes the city’s organizational structure and procedures. About 90% of city departments are established in the charter, compared with 49% in Los Angeles, 41% in Denver, and 24% in Seattle. Consequently, voters must approve relatively minor organizational changes. SPUR and the Controller’s Office have recommended moving many departments and procedures into the administrative code, where they could be amended legislatively.

Peer City Comparison: Proportion of Departments in the City Charter

Source: San Francisco Controller’s Office, Charter Reform Working Group: Summary and Analysis (https://media.api.sf.gov/documents/Charter_Reform_Working_Group_Summary_and_Analysis.pdf), April 2026, p. 36.

Prop. F takes a different approach. It would allow the mayor to reorganize charter departments or responsibilities after notifying the Board of Supervisors, with changes taking effect unless the board rejects them within 60 days. A similar process already applies to functions established outside the charter.

The proposal comes amid national debate over executive authority, underscoring the importance of checks and balances. San Francisco currently distributes oversight among the Board of Supervisors, commissions, the controller, city administrator, other elected officials, and voters.

Prop. F would preserve many of these relationships while modifying others. Core independent offices, including the Ethics and Elections commissions, Controller, City Administrator, Human Resources Director, City Attorney, and District Attorney, would remain exempt. Commissions would have less authority to appoint and remove department heads, while some organizational decisions that now require voter approval would shift to the mayor, subject to board rejection.

Mayor Lurie proposed the measure, and it qualified for the ballot through a voter signature initiative. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.

Equity Impacts

Prop. F could have mixed equity impacts. A mayor with greater authority to reorganize departments and manage executive leadership may be better positioned to coordinate services that disproportionately affect historically underserved communities, particularly when multiple departments must work together on issues such as homelessness, behavioral health, housing, public safety, and economic development. At the same time, reducing commission involvement in department head appointments and removals may lessen opportunities for public participation, particularly for vulnerable communities that lack informal political access.

Pros

• Removing constraints on the Mayor’s Office in managing a large and complex government would improve cross-departmental coordination.
• Giving an elected citywide leader more authority would give voters a clearer sense of who is responsible for executive branch performance.
• San Francisco’s executive structure would be more closely aligned with governance models used in other major cities while preserving key independent oversight agencies and functions.
• Reorganizing city government as needs change would become less reliant on voter-adopted charter amendments.

Cons

• Concentrating more authority in the Mayor’s Office would increase the risk of misuse or abuse by an ineffective or unprincipled mayor.
• Mayors could exercise broader organizational authority in ways that some communities or policymakers oppose, with fewer checks.
• Allowing reorganizations without amending the charter would create inconsistencies between the charter and the city’s actual organizational structure.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/sf-prop-f-executive-branch-management)

The city's mazelike permitting process for housing persists as a perennial contributor to our housing shortage. Mayor Daniel Lurie seeks to simplify housing approvals as part of his PermitSF campaign, by combining the Planning Department with the Department of Building Inspections. Unifying these two important departments will create a new optimized pathway to build more housing. Enacting this reform requires voters to pass Proposition F, which cleans up the City Charter so Mayor Lurie and future mayors can streamline and reorganize city departments. SF YIMBY endorses a vote of YES to fix a long-broken system that worsens our housing shortage.

The city's mazelike permitting process for housing persists as a perennial contributor to our housing shortage. Mayor Daniel Lurie seeks to simplify housing approvals as part of his PermitSF campaign by combining the Planning Department with the Department of Building Inspections. Unifying these two important departments will create a new optimized pathway to build more housing. Enacting this reform requires voters to pass Proposition F, which cleans up the City Charter so Mayor Lurie and future mayors can streamline and reorganize city departments. SF YIMBY endorses a vote of YES to fix a long-broken system that worsens our housing shortage.

This charter amendment would expand the Mayor’s ability to lead the City government’s executive branch. This charter amendment would give the Mayor the ability to directly hire and fire department heads, a power that mayors in other major cities like NYC and Boston already have. The Mayor would also gain the authority to hire deputy mayors. The charter amendment would also allow appointing authorities to directly appoint and remove their appointees on City commissions, with three exceptions: the Board of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, and Ethics Commission. Finally, under the charter amendment the Mayor could reorganize most Charter-created departments, transferring duties, merging departments under a single head, or reassigning commission oversight, and would also gain authority to hire deputy mayors. A long list of departments would be shielded from this reorganization authority however, including the City Administrator, Controller, Port, Airport, SFMTA, PUC, Department of Elections, Ethics Commission, and any department led by another elected official. Two carve-outs are explicit: the Department of Police Accountability could not be folded into the Police Department, and the Sheriff's Inspector General could not be folded into the Sheriff's Office.

We recommend voting Yes on F. This charter amendment makes much-needed changes to SF’s government structure as recommended both by 2023’s Rose Report (sponsored by our predecessor organization TogetherSF) and by good government think tank SPUR. This charter amendment would clarify lines of authority and thus accountability in government, making it clear that the elected Mayor is responsible for department performance by giving the Mayor direct hire/fire authority over department heads. Additionally, this charter amendment creates a clear system for holding un-elected commissioners by giving their appointing authorities (typically the elected Mayor or elected BOS) the ability to directly remove them. Finally, this measure gives the Mayor the flexibility to merge redundant City departments and agencies + hire deputy Mayors to help manage SF’s sprawling City government. Overall, this measure will create a more effective and accountable City Hall that will be better structured to address resident needs.

Source (https://www.sfblueprint.org/advocacy/november-2026-voter-guide)

Today, the Mayor can hire and fire only a small fraction of department heads; the rest answer to unelected commissions. Prop F lets the Mayor reorganize failing departments, appoint and remove department heads, and answer directly to voters for the results - with the Board of Supervisors retaining the power to block any change. Accountability requires authority. Vote YES

Source (https://sfgop.org/nov-2026-endorsements)

Prop F - Expand Mayoral Power

What it does: Prop F: 1) expands the mayor's authority to hire and remove most department heads; 2) allows appointing authorities to remove most commissioners at will, not just “for cause”; (3) authorizes the mayor to reorganize departments and adjust reporting relationships within the executive branch (subject to the discretion of the BOS); and 4) incorporates the use of deputy mayors.

Endorsement: Really hesitant YES

Current city lines of accountability resemble a subway map drawn by a toddler. And it’s very hard to hire and fire (e.g., if voters can fire the mayor, let the mayor equally fire failing department heads). “For-cause” removal is how mediocrity gets tenure. The William Palmer-style sagas exist because the org chart was written as a hostage negotiation.

There is so much to love here, but we have massive, sick-to-your-stomach reservations about the deputy mayor provision. Most notable red flags: 1) SF had DMs in the past and eliminated them due to corruption; 2) this adds new headcount for an already bloated city struggling with a deficit; and 3) where is the requirement that these deputy mayors actually live in SF? For a role that is a “mini-mayor,” it should be very clear that only people who live, pay taxes, and vote in SF should hold this role.

This is one of those laws that works best when “your person” is in power.

One thing’s for sure: these appointments must be watched like a hawk. Accountability without competence is just a shorter org chart.

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-f)

Prop F is like dangerously pumping steroids into San Francisco’s strong-mayor system. When Mayor Breed demanded advance signed resignation letters of her appointees, the City Attorney (politely) said that was illegal. Prop F would let any Mayor remove a commissioner who didn’t follow their directions. No advance resignation letter needed. What’s the point of having commissioners if they only vote the Mayor’s line??

Mayor Lurie has already broken the charter prohibition against hiring “deputy mayors.” Prop F would legalize this and allow him to pay his deputies more to run the city for him while he focuses on livestreaming Taco Bell Cantina openings. 

Prop F would also allow the mayor to merge city departments on a whim, potentially without any checks and balances or even a hearing. Unilateral decisions like that could lead to more outsourcing, layoffs of city workers, and shittier services–which is why department mergers currently require legislation and public hearings. The Mayor is banking on his popularity to blind SF voters into yet another harmful “reform”. And even if you like this mayor, no mayor should have this much power. Vote Hell No on Prop F!

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#PropF)

(Committee Vote: 4 NO, 2 YES, 4 ABSTAIN)

Gives the Mayor greater authority over department heads, commissioners, and City reorganization, and in some areas changes the Board of Supervisors' role from prior approval to the ability to reject a Mayoral action after it is proposed. CADC recognizes the goal of making the Mayor more accountable for department performance, but is concerned about weakening independent oversight. Having already supported Prop. A to streamline commissions and Prop. E to expand the City Administrator's authority and streamline contracting, CADC believes Prop. F goes a step too far by further reducing existing checks and balances.

CADC 認同加強市長對部門表現的問責能力，但提案 F 將進一步削弱獨立監督；CADC 已支持了提案 A – 精簡委員會，及提案 E – 擴大市府行政官的權力和簡化合同程序，因此認為提案 F 再進一步削減現有制衡並不恰當。

Source (https://www.sfcadc.org/11_2026_propositions)

More unelected, corrupt appointees and less accountability

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

No on Prop F: Removing City Hall Checks and Balances Prop F would give the Mayor sweeping power to hire and fire department heads, as well as to greatly alter departments’ core objectives, and merge departments together at will. Essentially, this would place the leadership, direction, and structure of all departments at the Mayor’s discretion. Prop F would also give the Mayor authority to fire appointed commissioners at-will, undermining independent citizen oversight. We are currently seeing the consequences of unchecked Mayoral appointees on the SFMTA Board of Directors, who are privatizing car-free Market Street to hand over to Waymo This measure would further entrench Mayoral control over SFMTA and other appointees, removing crucial checks and balances that can prevent corporate power grabs like the Market street debacle. Given Mayor Lurie’s record, Prop F would open a dangerous pathway for the further slashing of public services, giveaways to the rich, and criminalization of homelessness and poverty. This measure would place unprecedented power in the hands of a single executive. Any future Mayor would have the ability to dramatically reshape City Hall with little check from independent departments & city commissions, whether that be for unpopular political ends or even for personal corruption. Say NO to Prop F.

Three propositions in San Francisco would dismantle our democratic processes and concentrate power in the hands of the Mayor and the conservative majority on the Board of Supervisors. All three measures are funded by a venture capitalist and a Trump megadonor. Prop D would make it harder for voters to have their voices heard by increasing the number of signatures a measure needs to reach the ballot. Ballot measures are an important way for the public to make direct change in our city and to tell the Board of Supervisors what we, as the public, want them to get done. Prop E slashes the authority and community oversight provided by the city’s commissions and replaces it with more Deputy Mayors in a bloated executive branch of government. Prop F gives the Mayor more powers vis-à-vis the Board of Supervisors by raising the threshold for Board approval and amendments of contracts, increasing the Mayor’s authority over contracts, and extending the City Administrator’s term from 5 to 10 years. Vote No on Prop D, E, and F in San Francisco.

NO on Prop F, which would limit public comment and independent department head’s oversight: This would give the Mayor the power to hire and fire at will all city administrators and policy chiefs. F will consolidate more power in the Mayor. Some positions will become "deputy mayors” 100% controlled by the executive. More power at the top, makes checks and balances less durable.

Source (https://indivisiblesf.org/endorsements)

NO ON PROP F: Increases the Mayor’s Power

Prop F gives the Mayor significantly more power over departments and appointments, which weakens checks and balances. It allows the Mayor to reorganize the government and hire and fire without cause.

Source (https://www.repsf.org/blog/repsf-voter-guide-nov-2026)