San Francisco Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie is proposing to overhaul the mayor’s office and bring in several “policy chiefs” to serve as his deputies, a bid to “enhance effectiveness and accountability” over the city’s sprawling 56-agency bureaucracy.
The move partly hearkens back to a system that San Francisco had until the early 1990s, in which “deputy mayors” supervised city departments. San Francisco voters did away with the system by passing Proposition H in 1991, a move largely fueled by anger over the high salaries of deputy mayors at the time.
Since then, the mayor has leaned heavily on a single position to corral the city’s department heads: The chief of staff.
Currently, all department heads report to the mayor through the chief of staff. The proposed changes would add four more chiefs overseeing public safety, housing and economic development, public health, and “infrastructure, climate, and mobility.”
Those four chiefs would report directly to the mayor, sidestepping the chief of staff, and administer city agencies; the public-safety chief will oversee the police and sheriff’s departments, for example, and the public-health chief will oversee the health and homelessness departments.
Each chief, Lurie said in a statement, would “provide strategic alignment” over their collection of city agencies and work as “a partner to department heads.” The “portfolio of agencies” under each policy chief would represent “between $2 and $6 billion in public spending.”
“The changes we’re making at the top will help break down barriers to effective governance that impact every San Franciscan,” said Lurie in his announcement.
Ed Harrington, the city’s controller from 1991 to 2008, supports the change, and said it would make the mayor’s office “more robust,” particularly when coordinating across departments. The idea that the mayor and chief of staff can “have 56 direct reports and manage them well,” he said, is “absurd.”
Ben Rosenfield, another ex-city controller who’s part of Lurie’s transition team, pointed to San Francisco’s status as a city-county, saying the arrangement “comes with a lot of good,” but also “a remarkable amount of complexity.”
“For the last 20 years, we have organized those 50-plus departments in a very specific way: They are direct reports to the mayor, and they work day to day through a chief of staff,” Rosenfield said. “How can you have 50 direct reports and do more than manage the very top?”
Lurie, Rosenfield added, had “a number of specific goals and projects” to launch upon assuming office on Jan. 8, “but fundamental to all of those is, ‘How do you want to organize your office?’”
The specific responsibilities of Lurie’s new policy chiefs were unclear, and Lurie’s team did not yet say which departments each would oversee.
That is perhaps because Prop. H, as passed in November 1991, has explicit prohibitions against “employing on behalf of the Mayor any employee … whose duties include supervising any City department.” The language in Lurie’s announcement seems to sidestep that restriction, stating that each policy chief will be a “partner” to department heads.


The 1991 ballot measure also capped all mayoral staff salaries at 70 percent of the mayor’s compensation, a direct rebuke to then-Mayor Art Agnos, who had a cabinet of seven deputy mayors, each of whom earned $94,000 or more, according to a 1991 San Francisco Chronicle article. That’s about $220,000 in 2024 dollars.
The deputy-mayor system was, at the time, criticized as being akin to “the commissar system in a Marxist dictatorship,” according to the 1991 Chronicle article. The campaign prohibiting deputy mayors was led by then-Sen. Quentin Kopp, partly in an attempt to hurt Agnos in the 1991 election, which Agnos subsequently lost to Frank Jordan.
Much of the successful campaign for Prop. H centered on the lavish salaries of Agnos’ deputy mayors, as recounted in this 1991 Chronicle piece. It’s unclear how much Lurie’s deputies will be paid, but 70 percent of the mayor’s $364,582 salary is about $255,000.
Kopp, for his part, said the proposal was “bullshit,” and that if the “duties and responsibilities” of the policy chiefs violate Prop. H, his group, the San Francisco Taxpayers Association, “will file a lawsuit.”
The proposed change is directly influenced by the urban policy think tank SPUR, which published a report in August concluding that “the lack of clear, coordinated action to address big challenges has led to a growing perception that the city government isn’t responding quickly enough to meet the growing needs of the people it serves.”
SPUR’s top two recommendations are: Eliminate rules restricting “mayoral staffing and management” by striking portions of the city charter instituted by Prop. H in 1991, and restructure the mayor’s office to allow for “a more manageable number of direct reports.” The report pointed to New York and Washington, D.C., as examples, which “use deputy mayors or other senior officials” to coordinate across departments.
“Delegating authority to deputy-mayor-like roles would streamline the overall reporting structure and provide a clear chain of command and accountability,” the report continued.
The proposal is also similar to an aborted effort last year by District 8 Supervisor Rafael Mandelman to put a proposition on the ballot allowing for deputy mayors.
Lurie, for his part, is moving to fulfill a campaign promise he made repeatedly while stumping for votes: Increasing accountability in City Hall.
The term, repeated six times in Lurie’s policy-chief announcement, was also a buzzword of Lurie’s campaign; it was taped to the wall of his campaign headquarters, and hung behind him on a poster at his election-night party. During his acceptance speech, Lurie promised that his administration would be about three things: Accountability, service and change.
“The current way of doing business at City Hall is outdated [and] ineffective, and lacks focus on outcomes,” said Lurie in today’s announcement. “I am restructuring the office of the mayor, so that your government is coordinated and accountable in delivering clean and safe streets, tackling the fentanyl crisis, rapidly building housing and ensuring a full economic recovery.”


Seems like a reasonable approach to governance and organizational effectiveness. You can only be as effective as your team is focused.
The negative comments here are laughable. I guess none of you have ever worked in a large organization. 56 direct reports is impossible to manage. Even 14 (56/4), is about double what most organizations would consider best practice, but it’s a good start
I get all the concerns about adding another layer of bureaucracy, but lets face it, the current system put in place by Willie Brown is no longer working.
Considering the mayor already has the power to ask for department heads to hand in their resignations, is this deputy mayor a way for Laurie to look like the good guy while just letting the deputy mayors play role of bad boss? Still wondering how much we can take at face value the reports from SPUR when they are mainly funded by tech, developers, construction and consulting businesses. Sure they might mean well and say all the right things but could there be hidden motives for those businesses to fund the organization? hills had an article last year about repealing the ban on deputy mayors that was interesting. …no other comments on this… i guess everyone is a bit burnt out on politics maybe. happy holidays.
Maybe if one of those deputy mayors is someone who actually has experience and knows what they are doing, like Peskin etc, then maybe this could be a good idea.
Is Lurie going to give up his salary he clearly does not need to partially fund all these extra salaries on the payroll?
Can we please stop listening to SPUR?
How are you going to pay for these new positions–especially with the budget deficit?
So, more pencil pushers making high 6-figure pay while common folks get the shaft? Got it!
Bwahhhhhhh……and the mask comes off BEFORE his inauguration. This is gonna the same Corruption Playbook as every other mayor. It is almost comical (as in comic book villain) just how corrupt everyone with any shred of political and economic power in the US is. Somehow we MUST CUT CITY SERVICES BUDGETS, but we have money for high paid managers that are political cronies of the mayor. Every news outlet should be covering this story with skepticism AND by pointing out how corrupting yet another layer of management actually is. But they won’t because those same corporate news outlets use the exact same corrupting tactic of management to shield their execs from shit getting on them. It’s a strata of people who can / will take the blame to make the mayor / exec look good. You have to have someone to FIRE when the shit hits the fan. And when you are slashing city services by about $100,000,000 you are gonna want to protect your head before making those cuts. And you want to make sure that the people who do get the axe (and also those responsible for axing) also have your back.
I’m not fan of Breed, but Lurie is gonna be WAY WORSE for San Francisco because he has the $$$$ and power to be even more corrupt. And he has the race and gender that will shield him from critique.
Oh good, more managers. That will surely get more work done….
Lurie: “We need 4 more Luries.”
Daniel,
h. brown here with Bleacher View …
Peskin for Chief of Staff
Don Falk who built TNDC for Housing Czar
Joe Garrity for Safety
Peg Stevenson for Inspector General
Officer Riverra (only real Foot Patrol Officer in Town — outta Mission Station)
Alex Menendez for Communications (Monkey Brains)
Bevan Dufty for Press
Rich Hillis for Chief Casino Development
I know that you respect me so give em a listen.
h. brown