Read Below to Understand the Major Issue Areas 

Stay Engaged: Download Talking Points for Public Testimony in Support of Arts & Culture

Overview

The Commission Streamlining Task Force and the Charter Reform Working Group have both put forth recommendations that will change the way business is done in San Francisco for generations. 

In fact, to date there are no less than four Charter Reform initiatives that will go to voters in November; more may emerge in the coming weeks. 

There is a lot of detail and nuance in these recommendations; here are highlights of proposed changes to the Charter that have been most actively discussed:

• • Mayor has proposed to increase the thresholds for putting ballot measures before voters 
  • Mayor has proposed to sunset baselines for voter-led initiative set asides
  • Mayor has proposed changing Procurement rules to remove voter-approved requirements from the Charter
  • Commission Streamlining Task Force (a Mayoral appointed body) recommendations to reduce the number of commissions; change many from a Charter-mandated approval authority by moving it to the City’s Administrative Code where it will only have an advisory role; change the seat requirements; and give the Mayor the power to remove commissioners for any reason

How does Charter Reform Change the City’s Arts Commission?

Background: 

What Are Proposed Changes — The Major Structural Shift for the San Francisco Arts Commission

Although the Arts Commission’s mission remains in the Charter organizationally, the draft recommendations from the Commission Streamlining Task Force redefines it as an Advisory Body rather than a Charter Commission. This is done by taking it out of the Charter and putting into the City’s Admin Code.

This means it no longer exercises sovereign or binding authority on behalf of the City. 

It also means when the public speaks before the Arts Commission or one of its committees, they will not be presenting to a body with authority to make decisions; commissioners will only be able to advise.

Current vs Proposed Structure

Where Authority Shifts

As a result of the reclassification, many functions previously exercised by the Arts Commission move upward or outward within City government (in some cases to staff which are not qualified to make the same decisions made by Arts Commissioners; this would therefore involve unions in getting more qualified hires ($$) or reclassifying multiple positions ($$).

• Budget control shifts toward the Mayor and department staff.
  
• Public art approval authority likely moves to executive departments, eliminating public engagement and expertise 
  
• Arts Commission final design approval is removed; civic design decisions default to project agencies unless restored by ordinance.
  
• The Commission’s role becomes advisory rather than regulatory; quality of public realm declines, eroding SF’s reputation and standing as an arts-forward city
  
  
  

Charter Changes to the Arts Commission: Talking Points

1. Moving the Arts Commissioners’ function to the Admin Code means they will no longer have authority to approve City business. They will only be able to advise, thereby stripping the value of their expertise away from decisions around cultural programs and policy. 
   
   
2. The Arts Commissioners should retain their authorities and regulatory functions, not change to an advisory body which has no teeth at all. 
   
   
3. SFAC will quickly lose all its expertise and talent if there’s no built-in system for approval authority. Why would someone at the top of their field want to donate their time and expertise for the public good when their advice may be dismissed? 
   
   
4. The Arts Commission will no longer have approval of the department’s program allocations; these decisions will land in the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors, not with lifelong arts advocates, cultural workers, and field experts. 
   
   
5. The aesthetics of our built environment and public open spaces will begin to erode quickly. Cultural tourism (and therefore hotel tax revenue that funds the arts) will suffer.
   
   
6. Commissioners deliberate and make decisions that staff are not equipped to do (e.g., concerning architectural design and landscaping), so moving authorities out of the Charter and into the Admin Code for staff to oversee will not work; it will also get the unions involved because classifications would need to change and would ultimately cost the City more money. 
   
   
7. If the Arts Commissioners have no Charter-mandated authority, there is little incentive for the community to offer public testimony on issues that concern them. The commissioners will have no ability to make decisions based on that public input. This means the public will have less access to decision-makers, undermining the democratic process.
   
   
8. Instead, the public would have to go to meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office in order to present to those with the authorities to make decisions; these are not subject-specific entities with no expertise in arts and culture. They are also much more difficult to access as BoS meetings run longer, and have multiple issues being discussed. Those bodies will not have the subject expertise to make decisions about the arts. 
   
   
9. Unintended consequences and implications the Mayor nor the BoS wants: The Commission serves as a gatekeeper for the MO and the BoS. The arts community is passionate and political and they engage monthly with SFAC decisions, turning out in force for public meetings. (Recall the 2020-2021 Maya Angelou debacle that made international news. The SFAC took the community heat for the proposed change. That all would have landed squarely in the MO if not for the commissioners taking the community’s feedback and criticism, shielding the MO from the extensive negative consequences that the SFAC absorbed on behalf of the mayor.)
   
   
10.  With the proposed consolidation of authorities and decision making within the MO and BOS comes the responsibilities of them making defensible aesthetic decisions, and therefore also dealing with the consequences of community discord. The Arts Commission hears hundreds of hours annually of public comment, with some topics bringing out a huge show of force. This would all land squarely in the MO and at the Board Chambers.
    
    
11. The Charter Reform efforts could include making the Arts Commission a smaller body (changing from 15 to 9 or 11), thereby meeting Mayor Lurie’s mandate for the task force. Also, ensure there is one film commissioner to accommodate the merged entities. 
    
    
12. Reduce Arts Commission’s 5 committees to 4 (keep Civic Design Review, Visual Arts Committee, Executive, Nominating; and eliminate Community Investments and have their business of approving grants and cultural center oversight go before Full Commission).
    
    
13. The SFAC is one of the nation’s most respected municipal arts agencies BECAUSE of the authorities the Charter affords it.
    
    
14. Our public buildings, public art and the grantmaking processes receive national and international attention and awards (e.g., for SFO and SFPUC building; and more than any other city, Americans for the Arts awards SF its annual “best in public art”). SF is a model of best practices. This is a huge driver of cultural tourism which fills the General Fund with Hotel Tax Funds.
    
    
15. The authorities of Civic Design Review and Visual Arts Committee are valuable to the City—they are an insurance policy for better, more responsive art and design in the public realm—and they keep critical decisions about art and design with the experts. 
    
    
16. THE ARTS COMMISSION IS NOT BROKEN AND DOES NOT NEED FIXING. 
    
    
17. It is championed nationally and internationally as one of the best municipal arts infrastructures.  Recent problems with oversight of the cultural centers were not a structural problem; it was a leadership/people problem. Do not make structural changes that will impact the arts in San Francisco for generations, based on the poor performance of individuals over the last several years. 

How Does Charter Reform Change the Voter Approved Budget Set Asides?

Background: 
Set asides refer to municipal dollars that the voters decided to restrict for certain purposes. It reflects the voters’ values expressed at the ballot box. There are set asides for arts, libraries, parks, education, etc. These baseline set asides are democracy in action. 

Every baseline represents vote after vote of the people of San Francisco affirming support for a budget that invests directly into social services.

• These funds were created because vulnerable communities were chronically underfunded and cut first during difficult budget years.
• Many of these measures passed and were reauthorized with overwhelming voter support, often 70%+.
• Regardless of whether this administration promises not gut funds for the arts, children’s services, parks, libraries, MUNI, and more, we cannot assume future leaders in City Hall will hold these values intact during the budget process. 
• Lastly, the enormous damage being done by the executive branch federally should demonstrate that power should stay with the people—particularly when these funds were mandated by voters.

Arts Funding Set Asides
In 2018, 75% of voters approved Prop E, a change to the way hotel taxes are distributed. It did not increase the amount taxed, it allocated more of those taxes collected for the arts. 

Prop E Baseline Allocations (2018) 

• $16.3 million to the city administrator for grants to nonprofit arts and cultural organizations (GFTA)
• $6.4 million to the San Francisco Arts Commission for programs that move the city’s arts funding toward cultural equity
• $3.8 million to the Arts Commission to support the operation and programming of City-owned cultural centers
• $3 million to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development to support city-designated cultural districts
• $2.5 million to the Arts Commission to address the needs of the arts community, as determined by a cultural services allocation plan2
  
  

The remainder of the tax goes into the General Fund.

Charter Changes to Budget Set Asides:  Talking Points 

1. 2018 Prop E must be held harmless and restored at minimum at the baseline that 75% of voters approved. 
   
   
2. The voter-approved hotel tax allocations are called “baselines”. We interpret that to mean that’s the bare minimum of what should be invested in the arts in San Francisco. 
   
   
3. If the Charter Reform efforts eliminate the voter-mandated set asides, the growing coalition of advocates for libraries, education (PEEF and SLAM), parks and affordable housing (remember—artists need affordable housing!) will work to bring down the entire ballot initiative. 

Additional Messaging Around Charter Reform Recommendations (from People’s Budget Coalition)

1. Centralizing Authority in a Strong Mayor System Has Consequences
   Core Message: Expanding executive discretion while weakening voter guardrails concentrates power in one office. If charter reform increases executive control over the budget while weakening voter protections, it moves us away from participatory government and toward consolidation.
   
   
2. Weakening Baselines Creates Instability for Vulnerable Communities
   Core Message: In a year of economic threat and budget cuts, destabilizing dedicated funds increases harm.
   
   
3. Raising Signature Thresholds Tilts Democracy Toward Wealth
   Core Message: Quadrupling the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot would make citizen-led reform harder and wealth-driven reform easier.
   
   

Download an easy to carry talking point sheet.