Mayor Daniel Lurie’s charter measure would end a 2003 rule requiring the Board of Supervisors to consent before a mayor fires his own police commissioners, a change his campaign says creates clear accountability and critics say could weaken independent oversight of officer discipline.
Since 2003, a San Francisco mayor who wants to fire one of his own appointees to the Police Commission has needed the Board of Supervisors to agree. Proposition F, one of three charter amendments Mayor Daniel Lurie has placed on the Nov. 3 ballot, would remove that requirement.
The change is a small part of a long measure, but it touches one of the city’s most sensitive bodies. The seven-member commission sets police policy and acts as a quasi-judicial panel in misconduct cases, hearing evidence and deciding whether officers should be disciplined or fired. The mayor nominates four members and the Board of Supervisors appoints three. Under current law, removing any of them requires the board’s approval.
What the measure does
Prop F would allow the mayor and the Board of Supervisors to remove their own appointees to most city boards and commissions without cause, according to reporting by The San Francisco Chronicle and The San Francisco Focal. Three bodies would be exempt: the Board of Appeals, the Civil Service Commission and the Ethics Commission. The Police Commission is not on that list.
The measure would also move the power to appoint the director of the Department of Police Accountability, which investigates civilian complaints against officers, from the mayor to the Police Commission. And, according to The Chronicle, it would remove the commission’s separate authority to fire the police chief, leaving that power with the mayor alone.
Prop F is part of Mr. Lurie’s “Clean Up City Hall” package, along with Proposition D, which would raise the number of signatures needed to qualify most citizen initiatives, and Proposition E, which would change city contracting rules, SFist reported.
The campaign’s mailer and its correction
The removal provision drew attention this week after The Chronicle reported that a campaign mailer promised “fully independent watchdogs” and said, “Prop F keeps the Ethics Commission and Police Commission fully independent of the Mayor and Supervisors to ensure strong oversight.” The paper said it identified at least five instances in which Mr. Lurie or his campaign suggested the measure would not affect the Police Commission’s independence, including the official ballot argument, which states, “Watchdog commissions like Ethics and police oversight remain fully independent.”
Max Szabo, a political adviser to Mr. Lurie, told The Chronicle the campaign had made mistakes in a “handful of communications” and should have used “clearer terminology.” He said the mayor intends to change the removal process and stands by that position.
“Proposition F creates a clear line of accountability,” Mr. Szabo said. “Elected officials are responsible for the commissioners they appoint, and voters can hold those officials accountable for the consequential public safety policies their appointees enact.”
The case for the change
Supporters argue that a mayor who is held responsible for public safety should be able to replace the commissioners he chose. Don Clay, the commission’s president and a retired judge who was appointed by former Mayor London Breed, told The Chronicle he supports Prop F because it would “level the playing field” between mayoral and board appointees. “If you have the courage of your convictions, you are going to do what is right,” he said, regardless of how easily a commissioner can be removed.
The current rule was tested last year, when Mr. Lurie needed the board’s approval to remove Max Carter-Oberstone, a former commission vice president appointed by Ms. Breed, according to The Chronicle.
Jason McDaniel, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University, answered the Inquirer’s questions in writing and disclosed at the outset that he is a proponent. “I should mention at the outset that I am listed in the ballot guide as one of the proponents of Proposition F,” he wrote. “I understand opponent’s arguments about preserving checks and balances, but I believe it strikes the right balance between accountability and mayoral executive authority while preserving the ability of the Board and the Police Commission to check mayoral influence.”
Mr. McDaniel noted that until 2003, mayors appointed all five commissioners and could remove them at will. “Proposition F would partially reverse that 2003 settlement by allowing each appointing authority to remove its own commissioners without cause,” he wrote.
He described the trade-off this way: “Independence protects commissioners from retaliation when they disagree with a mayor over discipline, use of force or police policy. But protection from removal can also weaken accountability: voters may hold the mayor responsible for public safety while the mayor cannot replace even the commissioners the mayor selected.”
The case against
Opponents say the 2003 rule exists precisely so that commissioners can make unpopular disciplinary calls. The ACLU and other reform advocates backed that year’s measure on the argument that mayoral appointees needed protection from political interference to discipline officers fairly; the police union at the time called it a power grab by the board, The Chronicle reported.
Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman, who signed the official argument in favor of Prop F, made the opposing case himself at a committee hearing in April. “We do not want police commissions dispensing discipline to members of the police department with the fear that if they make a politically unpopular call, they’re going to get fired the next day,” he said. Reached last week, Mr. Mandelman told The Chronicle there were “compelling arguments on both sides.” He added, “On balance, I think Prop F is a significant improvement on the status quo.”
Christin Evans, a small-business owner and former vice chair of the Homelessness Oversight Commission who is among the measure’s opponents, told The Chronicle that the package mixes “some good stuff” with “a lot of problematic stuff.” SFist reported that Supervisor Jackie Fielder, former Supervisor Dean Preston and the San Francisco chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America are also opposed.
What voters are deciding
In practical terms, Prop F would not change who appoints the commission; the board would still name three members and confirm the mayor’s four. It would change what happens after a commissioner and the official who appointed them part ways. The measure is backed by millions of dollars from donors including Michael Moritz, Chris Larsen and John Pritzker, The Chronicle reported.
“The central question is therefore what kind of accountability voters value more in this setting,” Mr. McDaniel wrote: “accountability of commissioners to elected appointing authorities, or independence that allows commissioners to oversee those authorities and the departments connected to them.”
The mayor’s press office, Mr. Mandelman’s office, the Police Commission and the Department of Police Accountability did not respond to requests for comment from the Inquirer.
Celia Marroquín covers San Francisco City Hall, the Board of Supervisors, city departments and the neighborhoods where their decisions land, for the Inquirer’s City Desk. More from Celia Marroquín
