A So-Called “Good Government” Policy Body Violates Good Government

Streamlining Task Force Accused of Violating Law

by Patrick Monette-Shaw

Wholesale Destruction of San Francisco’s Checks and Balances Continues

• • • • • • • • • • January 2026 • • • • • • • • • •

It was bad enough that, in its mad dash to place a measure on the November 2026 municipal ballot to revise our City Charter, critics say the five-member Commission Streamlining Task Force, wielding its Elon Musk-style streamlining chainsaw to the structure, functions, and very existence of approximately 150 governing boards, commissions, and advisory bodies. Then — adding injury to insult — the Task Force chose to knowingly and willfully violate both the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance governing open meeting laws.

One such violation occurred on December 12, 2025, in full view and with the approval of Jonathan Givner, Chief Assistant City Attorney — essentially second-in-command, just under elected City Attorney David Chiu.

The Westside Observer has filed a complaint with the City’s Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) regarding the violations of both laws requiring discussion — or taking official action on — a matter or topic that was not listed in a published meeting agenda, whether for a regularly-scheduled meeting, or a “special” meeting. Full disclosure, this author filed the Sunshine complaint.

The December 12 Violation

On December 12, 2025, the Task Force held a “Special Meeting,” during which it improperly discussed and took action on the “Re-entry Council,” a body that was not on the Special Meeting’s agenda.

Near the end of the meeting agenda, when they were ostensibly discussing Agenda Item #7 on “Future Agenda Topics,” formally listed as a “Discussion Item.” After the support staff discussed preliminary future agenda items, Task Force Chair Ed Harrington took public comments on that specific agenda item, as required by the Sunshine Ordinance.

Although the “Special Meeting” was scheduled for 10 a.m. on December 12, community members organized to attend and advocate for the reinstatement of the “Re-entry Council” as an advisory body.

The draft meeting minutes of the December 12 meeting now report that 17 community members spoke in support of retaining the Re-entry Council, urging the Task Force to reverse its initial decision. At least 6 of the 17 speakers self-identified as being formerly incarcerated people. Two were employees of Adult Probation Department, who testifyed in support of their clients: Ms. Westbrook, the Probation Department’s Re-entry Director and a former member of the Re-entry Council, testified on the importance of having formerly incarcerated individuals “at the decision-making table,” and Alek Hartwick, the Probation Department’s Legislative Affairs Manager, urged the Task Force to keep the advisory body in the Administrative Code.

After public comment on the agenda item, Chair Harrington started the discussion, “I must admit when we first talked about the Re-entry Council, it seemed like mostly [it was a] staff [working group]. It’s clearly important to a number of people [from the community], and I don’t think it causes harm to have it where it is today.” Harrington and other members opened the discussion, stating that the Re-entry Council clearly provides expertise that only certain community members can offer.

At 3:01 on the audiotape, Harrington supported bringing the Re-entry Council item back for a future meeting and introduced a formal motion to that effect, which was seconded. But rather than waiting to place it on a future meeting agenda, as required by the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance, the December 12 meeting went ahead and violated open meeting laws.

Here’s why the initial decision to eliminate the Council needed to be revisited.

Task Force’s Initial September 3 Decision

Because the Task Force voted unanimously by voice vote on September 3 to eliminate the Re-entry Council — with minimal discussion of the Council’s composition, costs, functions, or merits — it was begging for reconsideration.

The Budget and Legislative Analyst’s analysis showed the Council costs approximately $60,873 annually, none of which was for full-time staff “hard costs” that would actually be saved, and the majority involved “soft costs” for part-time City staff who would keep their jobs to perform other duties. That compares to the estimated cost of approximately $132,860 per inmate annually as of early 2024 in a State prison, and slightly less in a County jail. Preventing just one case of recidivism, or a new inmate, could easily pay for the cost of the Re-entry Council.

The Task Force’s September 3 meeting minutes report on page 5 that the only discussion was “Vice Chair Jean Fraser recommended eliminating the Re-entry Council so as not to limit the group to public body rules such as quorum or the Brown Act. Chair Harrington supported Vice Chair Fraser’s recommendation.” Fraser’s concern was that the Council’s compliance burden with open meeting rules, such as the Brown Act.

[As an aside: Both Harrington and Fraser (before her abrupt resignation from the Task Force) are Board members of SPUR: Mayor Lurie’s “Chief of Infrastructure, Climate & Mobility,” Alicia John-Baptiste, is the former CEO of SPUR.]

The Task Force had relied on the Support Staff recommendation memo that reported the Council was merely a “Staff Working Group,” stating:
“The Task Force should consider eliminating the Re-entry Council; since many members are department heads, this group can continue to collaborate and meet with community members without needing this body explicitly established in the Administrative Code.”

On page 14 of the memo, Staff’s admission that, because seven formerly incarcerated members are appointed by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, the Council is actually a “hybrid” Staff Working Group and an “Advisory Committee.”

Did the Streamlining Task Force eliminate the Re-entry Council without any meaningful deliberation?

Task Force’s December 12 Meeting

After Task Force members discussed bringing the Council back at a future meeting, Hannah Kohanzadeh, a support staff member, suggested scheduling the Re-entry Council for a future Task Force meeting on December 18 or January 14.

Task Force member Sophia Kittler said “Separating ‘best practices vs. Brown Act rules … would it be inappropriate for us to discuss this today?” Was the Task Force prohibited from taking action on an item not on the published meeting agenda?

Then, at 3:05:30 City Attorney Jon Givner said, “You could go back to [Agenda] Item 7 and discuss.”

[Note: Did Givner know that for “Special Meetings” of policy bodies, the City Attorney’s “Good Government Guide” (which he co-authored) states: “For special meetings, the body may consider only matters stated on the agenda; there are no exceptions.” [Cal. Govt. Code §54956(a); SF Admin. Code §67.6(f).]

Then at 3:06, in line with Givner’s suggestion, Chair Harrington said “So let’s reopen Item 6. I would typically not want to have [discussion and decisions] about things that were not on the posted agenda, but I think this is not controversial.”

At 3:08, Givner said, “You don’t need to [take public comment again on the additional discussion topic], but you could reopen public comment for those who did not already comment.”

At 3:08:12, Chair Harrington closed Agenda Item 7 and reopened Item 6, at which point they eventually voted to rescind its recommendation to eliminate the Council.

But another procedural problem was that Agenda Item #6 had been listed on the meeting agenda to discuss previous Task Force decisions regarding five specific, but narrow, topic areas, including member qualifications, compensation and benefits, contract approval authority, appointing authority, and policy body naming conventions. Previous Task Force decisions were not within the topic areas listed for Agenda Item #6.

Vice Chair Bruss then introduced a (competing) motion to reverse the prior decision and restore the Re-entry Council to its current form, but keep the Council’s planned 2029 Sunset date. It was seconded by Member Kittler.

There was no”Motion to Withdraw” made, or seconded, required under Robert’s Rules of Order, to withdraw Harrington’s initial motion to schedule the Council for a future Task Force meeting.

The Sunshine Task Force must now decide if there was a violation of both the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, with Givner’s tacit approval.

Going Rogue?

Critics aver that, in a rush to please Mayor Lurie and the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), with a view to putting a City Charter reform measure on next November’s ballot, the Task Force appears to be quite willing to take whatever shortcuts are necessary.

Further, the Task Force holds itself out as a paragon of good government to achieve “efficiency,” but it is not. The five members may have violated the law.

Two of the six people who have served on the Task Force are SPUR Board members; critics contend that SPUR is driving the Streamlining Task Force’s decision-making.

And two members of the Task Force may not be qualified to hold their respective seats. Task Force Chair Harrington holds Seat #4, which was supposed to be filled by “a representative of organized labor representing the public sector.” Harrington has no such experience.

The second is Sophia Kittler, Mayor Lurie’s Budget Director. She was appointed by the Mayor to Seat #5, reserved for experience as an “Open Government Expert” with expertise in open and accountable government. Kittler’s background is in budgeting.

Did theTask Force flout the 7.3 decades-old Brown Act — California’s “sunshine law” ensuring public access to local government meetings?

The Sunshine Ordinance requires that draft meeting minutes be made publicly available 10 working days after a given meeting. Separately, this author had to force the release of the Task Force’s December 12 meeting minutes. The Task Force attempted to keep its draft meeting minutes secret until January 9.

The Streamlining Task Force has flouted other provisions. On August 6, Jon Givner’s oral legal advice to Chair Harrington was that the Task Force didn’t need to take public comment following each and every agenda item on a published agenda, including taking public comment before a body enters into a “Closed Session” agenda item, which clearly violated the Sunshine Ordinance.

Even earlier, the Task Force initially refused to publish a 150-word written testimony submitted for inclusion in their published meeting minutes as required by Sunshine Ordinance §67.16, Meeting Minutes, until it was brought to the attention of Task Force support staff.

The Task Force’s motions are often unclear about what they are actually voting on, including motions that were not properly seconded. Robert’s Rules of Order provides that a motion to adopt a recommendation without stating its contents is generally improper and can create procedural problems. Still, many of the motions made by the Task Force during the past year have merely stated “to accept the staff’s recommendation.”

As such, many of the decisions made and votes taken could be overturned by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and declared null and void.

November 2026 Ballot Box

There are many other bodies — not just the Re-entry Council — that the Task Force has recommended be eliminated, that are equally clearly important to many people in the community.

The Task Force has drastically altered the qualifications for member seats on many bodies, qualifications that also provide expertise that only certain community members can offer. The Task Force has eliminated qualifications entirely for four bodies, and changed the qualifications of at least 23 bodies to being merely “desirable,” rather than mandatory, silencing community voices — including on the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force itself. That grants cover to appointing authorities to claim they couldn’t locate candidates with “desirable” qualifications and to ignore the qualifications requirements to appoint less-qualified candidates instead.

And like the Re-entry Council, those other bodies don’t cause harm as they are today. That alone speaks to the fact that when a Charter reform measure is placed on the November 2026 ballot, voters could reject it at the ballot box — if the Board of Supervisors fails to overturn many of the Streamlining Task Force’s recommendations.

Acknowledgement: My great-nephew is in prison in another state, and I support the work of Re-entry Councils to help former inmates re-adjust to living again, safely in the community.

Monette-Shaw is a columnist for San Francisco’s Westside Observer newspaper, and a member of the California First Amendment Coalition (FAC) and the ACLU. He operates stopLHHdownsize.com. Contact him at monette-shaw@westsideobserver.com.

January 2026