The proposals would make significant changes to the city charter. But the remedies described in campaign materials do not always match the problems cited, and some provisions could concentrate power or make it easier to remove officials for reasons unrelated to misconduct.

Proposition D would make it harder to qualify local ballot measures, including by quadrupling the required number of signatures, according to the measure’s description. A campaign mailer says the change would stop special interests from flooding the ballot with deceptive initiatives.

The higher signature threshold could make ballot access more difficult, but it would not necessarily keep well-funded groups from qualifying measures. San Francisco initiatives can be backed by elected officials, organized groups or residents able to hire professional signature gatherers. The term “special interests” can apply to a range of participants, not only those the campaign opposes.

Proposition E is promoted with a reference to the city’s widely publicized Noe Valley restroom, whose initial estimated cost was $1.7 million. The modular facility ultimately opened in 2024 at a cost of about $200,000 after a Nevada-based company donated the toilet and contributed resources toward its installation.

The original estimate included substantial costs for design, engineering and project management—not just construction. About 57% of the $1.7 million estimate was tied to those so-called soft costs, including work by city departments. That breakdown raises questions about whether changing contracting rules would address the sources of the high estimate.

Prop. E would give the city administrator, who reports to the mayor, exclusive authority over most contracting laws, while limiting the Board of Supervisors’ ability to amend those laws. It would also remove the board’s authority to amend or vote on many city contracts, with exceptions for agreements expected to generate at least $4.5 million in revenue or cost the city more than $25 million.

San Francisco spent about $6 billion on contracts with outside agencies in fiscal year 2025-26, a figure cited in the campaign’s messaging. The city controller’s analysis said Prop. E would have minimal impact on government costs, though the amount could not be determined. The measure also would not directly resolve high internal project-management costs such as those in the restroom estimate.

Recent contracting disputes have added to scrutiny of mayoral oversight. The mayor’s office approved a $5.9 million contract with OpenGov to overhaul permitting software. After missed deadlines and concerns about the software, an extension initially proposed through 2031 at an additional $33 million was negotiated down to a 2029 end date and $22 million, following pushback from supervisors.

Proposition F would lower the bar for removing members of city commissions. A mailer cites sheriff’s oversight commissioner William Palmer, who faced allegations of violent behavior and sexual assault. Palmer denied the accusations. Prosecutors dismissed the sexual assault case in April 2024, citing a lack of evidence.

A Sept. 11 report from the Office of the Inspector General found that Palmer violated 14 city laws. Among the conduct it described was Palmer invoking his position as board president during a traffic stop and using his title in an attempt to contact a woman held in a secure ward at San Francisco General Hospital, beyond the scope of his oversight duties. The Board of Supervisors voted to suspend Palmer that month.

Under the current charter, sheriff’s oversight board members can be removed only for official misconduct. Prop. F would delete that standard. Removing a board-appointed member would still require a public process and a 9-2 vote by supervisors, but the measure would no longer specify a reason for removal. That could make it easier to remove an official accused of misconduct, while also reducing protections for commissioners who challenge those in power.

The contrast with other commissions is notable: Mayor Lurie did not have to provide an official reason when seeking the removal of police commissioner Max Carter-Oberstone in 2025, and that vote required six supervisors rather than nine.

Together, the measures would alter who can place proposals before voters, who controls much of the city’s contracting framework and how officials appointed to commissions can be removed. Their impact on costs, ballot access and accountability will depend on how the changes are used after the election.