Should San Francisco voters approve Proposition F? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Proposition F would make San Francisco city leaders easier to judge.

It would give the mayor more power over city workers and boards.

What supporters say

• Voters could more clearly tell whether the mayor should get praise or blame.
• More control could help the mayor join up work that now feels split apart.
• The mayor could act faster when leaders do poor work or break rules.

What critics say

• Giving the mayor more power does not make city services better by itself.
• The mayor could remove board members without giving a reason, weakening free checks.
• Too much power in one office could make it harder to stop bad acts by city leaders.
• Each new mayor could change many leaders, causing city work to lose its steady path.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more than a long list.

Proposition F, on San Francisco’s Nov. 3, 2026 ballot, would give the mayor more control over department leaders, commissioners and the organization of city government. Supporters say that would make responsibility clearer; opponents warn it could weaken independent oversight and concentrate too much power.

The case for

The strongest argument for Proposition F is that it could make it easier to tell who is responsible when city departments succeed or fail. The mayor currently supervises nearly 50 department heads but has direct power to hire or fire only a small number of them. The measure is designed to close that gap, so voters would have a clearer answer when judging administrative performance. 1

The proposal could also reduce fragmentation inside city government. It would allow the mayor to appoint deputy mayors and shift responsibilities among most departments, within specified limits. The Board of Supervisors could object to some transfers. Research on local government suggests that stronger mayoral coordination can help address overlapping responsibilities, although authority alone does not guarantee effective management. 2

Proposition F would also give the mayor a faster way to respond to ineffective leadership or serious misconduct. The mayor could hire some department heads and remove most of them without approval from a board or commission. That could make performance standards easier to enforce and reduce delays.

But this benefit depends heavily on how the power is used. The measure does not ensure that removals would be based on performance rather than political loyalty. Its personnel authority could improve accountability, but only if officials use it to enforce results rather than reward allies. 3

The case against

The strongest objections concern independent oversight and checks on executive power. Proposition F would allow appointing authorities to remove most commissioners without giving a reason, while also expanding mayoral control over department heads. Officials who fear removal could become more responsive to the mayor or another appointing authority than to professional standards, legal limits or the public interest. 4

Concentrating authority could also make misconduct harder to detect or challenge. The Government Accountability Office says accountability requires more than identifying who is in charge; it also depends on oversight, transparency and safeguards. If officials fear punishment for disagreeing with the mayor, formal responsibility could become clearer while meaningful scrutiny becomes weaker. 5

The measure also provides no proof that more executive authority would improve city services. San Francisco’s own performance system emphasizes goals, measurements, reporting and follow-through, while research on mayoral management points to administrative capacity and transparency as well as strong leadership. The Controller has estimated a minimal fiscal effect but said the amount cannot currently be determined. Available materials provide no projected gains in service quality or productivity. 6

Finally, easier reorganizations and removals could create instability whenever a new mayor takes office. A new administration might respond more quickly to changing priorities, but it could also replace experienced leaders, disrupt institutional knowledge and encourage short-term political management. Proposition F includes no clear protections for continuity and no benchmarks for judging whether reorganizations actually improve performance. 7