‘No idea what she’s doing’: Staff of SF’s disaster department turns against boss

There’s a revolt inside San Francisco’s emergency department. Staffers are calling into question the competence of a leader who played a critical role during the city’s COVID-19 response and a mass blackout, and who would oversee the city’s response in the event of an earthquake. Employees of the Department of Emergency Management say Executive Director Mary Ellen Carroll displayed a lack of knowledge during the widespread Pacific Gas & Electric outage in December and is laying off a key financial leader while foisting that work onto unqualified subordinates. They further allege that Carroll is cutting back staff at an emergency watch center that serves as eyes and ears to head off the city’s worst disasters. A petition is circulating within the agency alleging a “vote of no confidence” in Carroll’s leadership. A growing number of the staff wants Mayor Daniel Lurie to toss out Carroll. “She doesn’t have any idea of what she’s actually doing,” one staffer alleged, in a message echoed by others who spoke to The Standard. “She’s not interested in knowing what the staff is supposed to do.” Another said Carroll “always has questions” about what various divisions within the DEM do and how they function, adding, “There’s always a hesitation, a delay, and long discussion. It doesn’t really feel good. It seems she isn’t fit for the job anymore, if she ever was.” Are you a City Hall worker? We want to hear from you. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com to get in touch. The complaints come as San Francisco’s emergency management apparatus faces mounting pressure from federal funding cuts and citywide layoffs. The department — unlike others in the city — has almost no vacant positions to eliminate. When tens of thousands of residents lost power on a Saturday in December, Carroll was at a hair salon, internal communications reveal — and her first message to the department’s response thread came roughly an hour and 20 minutes after coordination began. Current and former employees say leadership failures and staffing reductions are undermining the department’s ability to coordinate the city’s emergency response. More than half a dozen current and former staffers came forward to The Standard under the condition of anonymity. “We’re really genuinely worried about the state of the city if a big disaster happens,” one said, “whether it’s a cyber attack or a huge earthquake that could happen any day now. It’s pretty horrible.” While it’s unclear how many have signed the petition, news of the document has spread widely among emergency personnel, with staffers across multiple divisions saying their peers are all discussing it. Flyers were left on the floors of various rooms of the department with a QR code linking to the petition. “Over the course of her tenure, it has become increasingly clear that Ms. Carroll lacks the essential knowledge and operational understanding of critical public safety functions,” the petition states. Those functions include 911 dispatch, the disbursement of Bay Area homeland security grants, and emergency medical services. “These are not peripheral areas of our mission, they are core services, and the absence of informed leadership places the public at unnecessary risk.” Jackie Thornhill, a spokesperson for the Department of Emergency Management, denied the claims. “DEM leadership, including Director Carroll, are in constant communication with staff from all divisions and work 24/7/365 to lead the Department through San Francisco’s everyday and not so everyday emergencies,” Thornhill said. “We staffed up dispatch and are responding to 911 calls faster than we have in years, and DEM continues to coordinate all major emergency activations.” Carroll was appointed to the position by London Breed in 2018 after serving at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Her last reported salary, in 2024, was $327,000, according to Transparent California. Carroll is also a member of the board leading the Big City Emergency Management Association, which advocates for the interests of emergency departments across the nation. Concerns around Carroll’s competency bubbled to the surface among widespread dissatisfaction over this year’s impending City Hall layoffs. San Francisco’s $643 million budget deficit has led Lurie to send out 127 pink slips across city agencies, including DEM. The department was already in a troubled financial position after President Donald Trump cut federal counterterrorism dollars disbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency , which DEM sends across the Bay Area. While other city departments fended off Lurie’s layoffs by eliminating vacant positions, DEM has long maintained a 1% job vacancy rate, Thornhill said, leaving few alternatives when faced with budget reductions. Among those layoffs were personnel in the department’s emergency watch center, described by the city as a central information hub for emergency communications and notifications. The watch center is essentially the government’s disaster watchdog, monitoring emergency requests and escalating issues when they reach the level of a disaster. As The Standard’s politics newsletter, Power Play, reported , the staff of four full-time employees has been reduced to two. That it is too few when trying to provide the backbone of emergency response, staffers say. The watch center is supposed to be operational 24/7, and while it never reached the goal of full coverage, the staff shortage has reduced working hours to 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., then later to one eight-hour shift. On-call staff cover off hours, though they do not monitor emergencies at the same level. “We’re not as aware of what’s going on in the city because of these gaps,” one staffer said. “When the next big disaster emergency happens, everyone will wonder” why the city’s emergency response would face slowdowns, one staffer alleged. “The board of supervisors, even the mayor — are they OK with a fatality? Is that what it takes to recognize [this is] critical?” Thornhill countered that some cities have no watch center at all and that the center provides an additional layer of monitoring to emergency situations. One of the most concerning examples of Carroll’s incompetency, staffers say, arose during the PG&E blackout in December. Despite her years heading the department, Carroll didn’t know how to access a needed conference room and set up an emergency operations center to coordinate the city’s response. She did not know which staff from across the city should be included. On a vital multi-department call on the afternoon of the outage, roughly 30 people initially attended out of a total of 80 who were invited. Coordinating city departments is one of DEM’s key responsibilities. Lurie himself called out the lack of some key personnel. One staffer recalled him saying at the meeting, “This is important; every department should be here.’’ The Standard reviewed digital records of the call’s attendance to verify the claim and spoke with others who verified the mayor’s concern. The mayor’s spokesperson, Charles Lutvak, said Lurie’s comment at the meeting did not stand out as significant in the crisis response. City government ultimately stepped up to ensure San Franciscans got what they needed in a crisis, he said. Some people who were absent from the call were optional attendees. Department staffers view Carroll’s performance differently. “When the extended power outage happened, she was running around with her head cut off,” one said. WhatsApp messages obtained by The Standard through a public records request show that Carroll’s first response in a leadership chat coordinating response to the outage came roughly an hour and 20 minutes after the team began. The watch center flagged 15,000 San Francisco households losing power. “I am down the street on Haight getting my hair cut,” Carroll wrote to the leadership team. “As soon as I am done I will swing over to Turk to monitor and assess what we may need to do.” An hour later, the outage had spread to 129,000 PG&E customers. The texts show that Carroll delegated responsibilities for establishing emergency provisions for neighborhoods. She led efforts to speak directly with PG&E leadership and the mayor’s office and advised staff on how to convey the severity of the incident to the media. Thornhill said the message thread doesn’t represent all of Carroll’s actions during the blackout and that she led the initial incident management calls that coordinated between the mayor’s office and public safety departments. Thornhill added that PG&E outages affecting more than 1,000 customers are routine, occurring every few months, and that the severity of the incident did not become apparent until later. Separately, some are concerned about the department’s ability to process federal funding after Carroll laid off a division’s chief financial officer. The Trump administration has slow-rolled FEMA emergency grant funding, which was initially aimed at counterterrorism but later used more broadly to address disasters. Since the duties of the laid-off CFO who disburses those funds still need to be performed, Carroll asked two staffers in a lower job classification to take on those responsibilities. Some are concerned that those low-level analysts are not qualified to perform such a task, which requires additional training. “There’s a lot of mistrust in the organization on the whole because of Mary Ellen’s behavior,” one staffer said. Between the layoffs and allegations, “it creates a lot of mistrust, and instead of doing the work, people are trying to figure out what’s going on around here.”

Scott Wiener wins big in primary, promises to fight ‘disaster of a regime’ in Congress

State Sen. Scott Wiener on Tuesday night looked and sounded like a man who’s ready for Congress. And if he goes on to win the general election in November, he does not plan to spend his time in the House sitting quiet. “I’m polite, but I’m not quiet,” Wiener told a crowd of roughly 300 supporters after taking a commanding lead in the polls over Supervisor Connie Chan and tech centimillionaire Saikat Chakrabarti in the primary contest to succeed Rep. Nancy Pelosi as San Francisco’s representative. “I will not wait my turn.” “The people of San Francisco sent a very clear message. And the message has been received,” Wiener said. “San Franciscans are ready for bold, forward-looking leadership. For real results, not just words. And a new generation of leaders, a new generation ready to take on the hardest issues facing our country.” Continuing the four-decade legacy of the liberal lioness Pelosi, Wiener vowed to take on the Trump administration’s “disaster of a regime” that has “commandeered this country, that is tearing down our democracy and the rule of law, that is getting us into disastrous wars.” But he also said he refused to “go back to the pre-Trump status quo” and pledged to push the party in a more daring direction on issues like healthcare and transgender rights and to take a stronger stance on the “unforgivable” immigration policies being pushed by the White House. “We need to have our immigrant neighbors’ backs,” he said. “And the same goes for our LGBTQ community, particularly our trans community. Because in San Francisco, how we roll is we have people’s backs. Even when it’s unpopular. “We need to go to the mat for trans people,” he added. “We are not going to let them eliminate trans people.” Wiener noted that his early primary success does not guarantee victory in the general. He acknowledged that he is up against “institutional” challenges. Supervisor Connie Chan, who in early results appeared headed to a head-to-head with Wiener in November, was endorsed by Pelosi, a San Francisco icon with wealthy donors and powerful political players on speed dial. “When I first ran for supervisor, and parallel to today, I had a whole bunch of institutional stuff against me. And we have that again today,” Wiener said. “And we did the work, and we made the case and won, and we’re going to win this race as well.” Wiener said he is expecting a competitive race in November, likely against Chan, who had virtually doubled Chakrabarti’s votes with 29% of precincts reporting Tuesday night. “She and I are very different,” he said of Chan. “I am known for what I have done. She is known for what’s she’s opposed. Whether it’s transit or housing or car-free JFK or whatever the case may be. And San Franciscans want a forward-looking vision.” He thanked his competitors for participating in the Democratic process and what was a “spirited primary.” “But it’s San Francisco, so we would not have it any other way,” he said.

Mayor Lurie releases his budget next week. Here’s how Trump royally screwed it

More and more, San Francisco’s 2026 budget process is resembling a slasher flick. Shadows are dancing across City Hall’s marble-wrought grand staircase, with President Donald Trump threatening to leap into view, ready to gouge hundreds of millions from the city’s coffers. The threat is real: Roughly $2 billion of San Francisco’s $16 billion budget flows from Washington, funding hundreds of grant programs across nearly every city department. Trump has already started turning off the tap. With a $643 million deficit looming, Mayor Daniel Lurie has days to reveal how the city absorbs the pain — and who feels it most. Trump has already made real cuts to healthcare. And while San Francisco has fought back — filing more than a dozen lawsuits against the administration and winning most of them so far — a single appellate loss could imperil billions. Fear that Trump may further upend any number of federal revenue streams undergirds every hard fiscal choice in front of Lurie. On June 1, the mayor will propose his draft budget to the Board of Supervisors and voters, revealing the true extent of the bloodletting. Trump’s policy choices are projected to disenroll up to 45,000 San Franciscans from healthcare and tens of thousands from food stamps. To protect those programs, Lurie is trimming across all 55 city departments rather than gutting public health and human services, his budget director, Sophia Kittler, told The Standard. “This is a loss to the whole city,” Kittler said. “We’re treating it as a citywide deficit.” The impacts are already here. Government layoffs loom, and nonprofit social safety-net programs know they face the chopping block. In anticipation of deep layoffs, labor has signaled a historic general strike is possible next year. In the meantime, tens of thousands of San Franciscans may lose crucial services, from food stamps to doulas. So what can San Francisco do to save itself? And how devastating will the impacts be? The answers are uncertain, but the city is preparing anyway. Threats in the shadows Since it’s a city and a county, San Francisco is uniquely vulnerable to federal meddling. Large counties often administer healthcare, serving as a pass-through for federal funding, creating a single vulnerable pot of money. But the city also depends on federal and state grants, both of which are primarily funded by the federal government. Trump could whisk much of it away with the stroke of a pen or the tap of a button on his social media platform, Truth Social . Much of it is also at risk in court. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu is litigating more than a dozen lawsuits against the federal government, most of which touch on funding to the city. “Our legal efforts to defend our communities and protect our federal funding are paying off,” Chiu said in a statement. “We have seen many early wins in the lower courts, preserving billions of dollars in federal funding for our city.” Yet the risk still persists. The largest of these suits seeks to challenge the Trump administration’s effort to axe grants for any program it deems related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. As Chiu’s office wrote , Trump’s rules sought to instill his anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-equity policy preferences on federal spending. A court granted a preliminary injunction against Trump imposing new restrictions on those grants last year, Chiu’s office said the decision preserved billions in funding that help San Francisco support early childhood development, critical health services, safe and effective transportation, and housing to our most vulnerable. Each lawsuit represents a distinct fiscal vulnerability, a situation that insiders speculate will prompt Lurie to budget cautiously. He doesn’t have much room for error — the city has about $433 million in its federal-risk reserve fund, which Lurie and the Board of Supervisors created last year. If the worst federal funding losses happen, it won’t be enough. One Big Beautiful screw you You might’ve noticed that downtown still isn’t the hotbed it once was. That carries economic implications, since the city largely fills its general fund coffers from taxes generated by employee-filled high rises, including property taxes. In that weakened economic state came Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act , also known as H.R. 1, which threatens to see tens of thousands of San Franciscans lose Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh food access — which in turn will prompt a roughly $300 million, two-year loss in federal payments to San Francisco to administer those programs locally. It isn’t a straight cut. Instead, the legislation implemented stricter work and filing requirements and is projected to cause people to lose their care. The Lurie administration budgeted $34 million to help those people navigate stricter filing requirements and retain access to Medi-Cal and CalFresh, but it remains to be seen how successful the effort will be. The funding losses primarily hit the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency. Those program losses equal roughly half of the city’s $643 million budget deficit. Lurie’s office chose to distribute the pain of that funding loss across the city’s 55 or so departments. Kittler said the other choice would be to decimate public health programs and food stamps, and that wasn’t a choice at all. Stemming the bleeding The Board of Supervisors will haggle with the mayor over budget details throughout June. There aren’t many choices before them. The city can either cut its funding or increase its revenue. Both choices carry risk. As nonprofit leaders have told The Standard, Lurie’s intention to cut community social service programs may have downstream impacts: if nonprofits that help tenants fight their evictions lose funding, for instance, more people may pressure homeless services in the coming months. Supervisor Conie Chan, the budget chair, laid out another plan in an early-May budget briefing with reporters. She said San Francisco shouldn’t live in fear of D.C. “You can absolutely plan that way. But then what you will end up with is just cuts and cuts and cuts,” Chan said. Instead, she said, Lurie should dip into reserves until 2028, when the Overpaid CEO Tax would begin generating an estimated $300 million annually. Dipping into reserves could leave San Francisco vulnerable to other Trump cuts, which may be anathema to risk-averse Lurie. It is also wholly dependent on voters approving the tax in June. Lurie opposed the tax. But if it does pass, he’ll have one more tool to forestall the worst of Trump’s cuts, whether he wanted it or not.

Lurie promised a permitting overhaul. Its builders say it was troubled from the start

Soon after Mayor Daniel Lurie took office in January 2025, he set out to solve a problem that affects nearly every San Francisco resident and business: the nightmare of getting a permit. Lurie’s effort to overhaul the permitting system, a tangled mess of antiquated software and arcane procedures that has long been the bane of the city’s homeowners, contractors, business owners, and tradespeople, culminated last summer with the announcement of a $5.9 million contract for a San Francisco-based tech company called OpenGov. The promise: a hassle-free, one-stop, online shop that Lurie branded “ PermitSF .” OpenGov’s contract with the city, signed in October, did not come without controversy. The Standard reported that a majority of city staffers preferred a different software, claiming OpenGov lacked necessary features. Additionally, the company was found to have eyebrow-raising links to Lurie and some of his circle. The mayor’s office denied any favoritism, insisting that OpenGov was the only company capable of meeting the city’s aggressive timeline for launching PermitSF. Lurie had given the city until February 2026 to get some form of new system working. But the high-stakes project has been beset with extensive delays and concerns over key deficiencies in OpenGov’s software, according to documents obtained by The Standard and interviews with five former OpenGov employees and current city staffers. The delays in implementing the new permitting system should come as no surprise, the former OpenGov employees say: From the beginning of the city’s expedited, no-bid contracting process, the company harbored doubts about the city’s timeline. The former staffers said delays were almost a certainty, as OpenGov had never undertaken such a large or complex project. Are you a City Hall employee? We’d love to get in touch. Email powerplay@sfstandard.com. According to the contract signed by the city , 15 types of permits — for projects ranging from kitchen and bath remodels to fire alarm and sprinklers — were to be transferred from San Francisco’s old system to the PermitSF platform by March. The new, OpenGov-powered platform would allow residents to file for those permits online, rather than having to visit the Permit Center. As of Tuesday, about two months after the deadline, only seven of the permits are available on PermitSF . The rest are scheduled to go live by June, according to the company. But a city official overseeing the project told The Standard not to expect all of those permits to be available on the platform before the end of summer. The halting progress, alongside issues with the software’s capabilities raised by city employees, renews a critical question: Was OpenGov the right company for one of the most technically complicated projects the city has undertaken in recent years? For some former OpenGov employees, the answer is an unequivocal no. “Our system was not prepared for it,” said one ex-staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals. “When they go for these deals, they just promise, promise, promise. … There was knowledge that this was a much bigger lift than what was going to be possible.” Another added: “We didn’t have any of the stuff that we promised [the city]. … The money was very important to [the company]. I think it was more the prestige for doing it for a big city like San Francisco.” Some city employees concur that OpenGov’s permitting software lacks important features, leading to missed deadlines and a rush by the mayor’s office to celebrate progress on PermitSF even as the system remains limited. “It’s been amateur hour, to be honest. I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said one city worker. “The ability to spin absolute failures as success is absolutely wild to me.” Lurie said in a statement, “It’s clear our new portal is working.” He added, “We’re seeing strong adoption, faster processing, and more flexibility for applicants, exactly what San Francisco needs to move projects forward. By modernizing how permits are submitted and reviewed, we’re making life easier for San Franciscans and helping accelerate the housing and investment our city needs.” In a statement, a company spokesperson said, “OpenGov remains committed to supporting San Francisco’s permitting transformation and working alongside its teams to deliver the project.” The company deferred questions about the project’s timelines and contract to the city. Questions about the software’s efficacy come at a crucial moment for both the company and the Lurie administration. OpenGov’s contract is up for renewal, with members of the Civil Service Commission set to vote Monday on a new $6.5 million, six-year contract that is subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The proposal is already facing objections from IFPTE Local 21, a union that represents more than 13,000 city employees and has been critical of Lurie’s leadership at times, including his decision to lay off 127 city workers to help close a $643 million budget deficit. Lurie has staked much on the project's success. In February, his office trumpeted the system’s launch , signaling to voters that he was delivering on one of the pillars of his 2024 mayoral campaign of making government more efficient. However, as with the campaign promise to create 1,500 shelter beds in six months , City Hall has quietly walked back some of Lurie’s ambitious targets. Elizabeth Watty, director of current planning and one of the managers of PermitSF, admitted that there have been hiccups in the project’s rollout. “If we were to do it over again, we probably would have selected different things to work on for this first year,” she said, referring to the types of permits the city prioritized for launch. “Once you start digging in, you’re like, oh, it’d be great if we could actually launch this instead. But this was enumerated in the contract.” But Watty defended the city’s adoption of the OpenGov-built platform, describing the “first phase” as “foundational” to the city’s overhaul of an antiquated system. “I think we’re really excited to be able to kick off phase two with all those lessons learned under our belt, too, and have this opportunity to structure the contract in a way that gives us more of that nimbleness to do it the right way for permitting to be successful,” she said. Michelle Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Office of Small Business, one of the departments involved in PermitSF’s execution, said the city’s permitting is “notoriously complex,” and the initial February launch was undertaken in four months, something the city “has been trying to do for over 15 years.” “ OpenGov’s approach is to use their pre-built tool as a foundation, off of which they develop additional features that San Francisco needs,” she said. “That is not a limitation, it’s a deliberate risk-management strategy, and it’s already working.” Reynolds said the new contract will require OpenGov to train city staff to maintain the software indefinitely. The city projects it will be “cost neutral” by the fourth year of the contract, she said, because of savings through letting go of old permitting systems. A contract leads to an inquiry Software procurement doesn’t usually court controversy. But that wasn’t the case with OpenGov, which was founded in 2012 by former CEO Zac Bookman and conservative entrepreneur Joe Lonsdale. The company, which was acquired by cable conglomerate Cox Enterprises in a $1.8 billion deal in 2024, touts 2,000 government clients, for whom it modernizes the old, creaky software that many cities and states depend on. In addition to streamlining permitting, the company builds out systems to manage licensing, budgets, procurement, and tax and revenue collection. When Lurie launched his permit reform initiative at the beginning of 2025, the search for a software provider began. Watty; Ned Segal, the mayor’s chief of housing and economic development; and Florence Simon, the office’s former innovation director ( who was fired in March ), sought a company that could take on the complex endeavor of overhauling a system that, in Mission Local columnist Joe Eskenazi’s words , was so old, “it wouldn’t even get carded.” San Francisco has hundreds of permit types, and a whopping 20 software programs have been used to coordinate their approval across multiple departments — a migraine-inducing exercise that Lurie and others have argued inhibits business and lowers confidence in local government. A winner in the PermitSF sweepstakes was announced in the summer. “We’re just trying to make life easier, more efficient, more effective, and deliver faster for the people of San Francisco,” Lurie said in an Instagram post Aug. 26 about the selection of OpenGov. However, questions quickly surfaced about the company’s selection. The mayor’s office never issued a competitive bid, arguing that doing so would have delayed the self-imposed February deadline. Instead, it asked dozens of software companies to showcase their products to the city, an informal process known as a “request for information,” rather than the traditional bidding procedure known as a “request for proposal.” In April 2025, a month before the city notified companies that it was looking for a permitting solution, Segal, the former COO of Twitter, introduced OpenGov’s then-CEO to another city official. “Zac can help us think through permitting technology,” Segal said in an email, adding a smiley face. “Zac has been patiently waiting for the right partner.” By July, Segal and his team had narrowed the competition to two companies: OpenGov and Vancouver-based Clariti. Documents obtained by The Standard show that city staffers across departments flagged OpenGov as having “gaps so significant” in its features that it “shouldn’t be considered” and expressed concerns about the product’s cost. A majority of staff preferred Clariti, though there were worries about one department’s past experiences with the Canadian company. The Standard reported on the links between OpenGov and Lurie in October. Katherine August-deWilde, who leads the Partnership for San Francisco , a business group that provides policy advice to the mayor, was an adviser to OpenGov at the time of the deal. (August-deWilde no longer remains an “active” adviser to the company, a spokesperson said.) Lonsdale and Bookman, who stepped down as CEO in April and now serves as chairman emeritus, have collectively given tens of thousands of dollars over the past decade to Tipping Point Community, the nonprofit Lurie founded. Financial records show that Lurie and his family held investments in OpenGov through a fund overseen by another Tipping Point donor. In response to these revelations, Supervisor Jackie Fielder, who has sparred with Lurie during his mayoral tenure and remains wary of tech’s power in the city, launched an inquiry in November into how the OpenGov contract was procured. (Fielder went on leave in April , citing mental health issues, and is expected to return in June.) The Standard obtained a draft version of the Board of Supervisors’ budget and legislative analyst report, which has not been released publicly, finding that the OpenGov contract was eight times larger than the average new software contract procured through the same no-bid process. While investigators found the selection process did not violate city requirements, the report states it did not abide by best practices and that the procurement of OpenGov was “less transparent.” The report’s authors urged the board to adopt a policy prohibiting the procurement methods used by the mayor’s office. A small but working product The budget and legislative analyst’s report pointed out another aspect of the deal: The mayor’s office’s “key justification” for the no-bid contract was that OpenGov was the only company that could meet its deadlines. But records released on a weekly basis by the company show that those deadlines haven’t been met. The OpenGov contract was supposed to deliver the 15 permit types on a new system by March 16. On that date , the company released an update spelling out that there would be an eight- to 14-week “extension for remaining workflows.” Today, the public can obtain permits through PermitSF for window, door, and siding replacements; fire alarms; sprinklers and water flow; special events; and contractor authorization. According to the city, between February and April, 772 permits were processed through the new platform — 10.2% of all permits issued during that period. Though its reach is limited, some front-line city staffers who are working with PermitSF said the platform has made their jobs easier. “We do the same type of review, we do the same type of back and forth with applicants,” said Dakota Spycher, a staff member of the planning department. “It’s just all in one system. We don’t have to write on [a] physical form. We don’t have to enter information into a system that was created in the ’90s, and we don’t have to create a new record ourselves. So it’s really streamlined.” Spycher pointed out that he can access the platform remotely, allowing him to tackle an influx of permit applications even if he isn’t at the Permit Center, an option that wasn’t available before. Another SF Planning employee said she can spend more time with customers answering questions. The mayor’s office pointed to data that it says shows success: Fewer people are going to the Permit Center, and wait times to get a permit from the San Francisco Fire Department have decreased from an average of 30 minutes to 14 minutes. But there are many types of permits not yet on OpenGov’s platform: reroofing, solar, electrical, kitchen and bath remodel, and a handful of others that require more technical work than those that went online in February. Beyond that, there are many more complicated permit types to transfer to the new system in the coming years. Reynolds from the Office of Small Business said sign and reroofing will be completed in June, “with additional permit types rolling out shortly after.” The delays, said city employees, can be attributed in part to the software’s limited or lackluster features related to customization, data access, and reporting and analytics. City staff have put together a list of more than 50 enhancements they say the software needs, according to a copy of the internal document obtained by The Standard. The issues include problems with basic labeling, gaps in the permissions controls governing who can edit data in the system, and a lack of integration with the city’s existing systems. One former OpenGov employee agreed with the city staffers’ sentiments, saying the company is “not even close” to its competitors in terms of feature parity. The person estimated that OpenGov software can handle approximately 25% of what other govtech firms, like Clariti and Tyler Technologies, can do. Said one current city employee: “I think San Francisco is funding the research and development work of OpenGov.”

5 takeaways from The Standard’s investigation into Lurie’s permit project

Obtaining a business or residential permit in San Francisco is like that check-engine light on your car: a big fix that you keep putting off, even though you need to do it. Since taking office in January 2025, Mayor Daniel Lurie has attempted to bring the city’s byzantine permitting system into the shop, promising a one-stop, modernized platform, PermitSF, that would make life easier for residents and businesses. But an investigation by The Standard reveals that the project has faced significant setbacks. Former employees of OpenGov, the firm hired to oversee the overhaul under controversial circumstances , said the govtech company had internal doubts about the city’s deadlines. City employees said the software, which was procured through a no-bid contract, lacks critical features that have led to delays in the permitting revamp — criticism that mirrors concerns voiced last summer when the mayor’s office was choosing software for the project. Lurie had given the city a year to get a new permitting system up and running, and his office said OpenGov was the only company that could meet the aggressive timeline. OpenGov’s $5.9 million contract with the city — eight times higher than the average new software contract procured through no-bid contracts — was supposed to deliver a full slate of permits on the new platform by March. Roughly two months later, less than half are available on the website. “It’s been amateur hour, to be honest. I’ve never seen anything like this before,” one city worker told The Standard. “The ability to spin absolute failures as success is absolutely wild to me.” The mayor’s office is defending its progress, all while seeking a renewal of the OpenGov contract that will go before the Civil Service Commission on Monday. Here are five takeaways from The Standard’s story. The city chose OpenGov because it could meet deadlines After OpenGov was selected by the mayor’s office through an unconventional no-bid process last summer, The Standard reported on some unusual circumstances of the contract, including links between company executives, the mayor, and Tipping Point Community, the nonprofit Lurie founded. The city’s justification for not conducting a formal bidding process was that OpenGov was the only govtech firm that could meet the deadline. But that bet hasn’t borne out. The company was supposed to deliver 15 types of permits — from bathroom and kitchen remodels to fire alarm and sprinklers — to the new PermitSF system by March 16. Today, only seven are available online. OpenGov says the rest will be delivered by June, but a city official told The Standard not to expect everything to be completed until the end of summer. The contract renewal is facing pushback The city is seeking a new, $6.5 million, six-year contract with OpenGov that would lock the permitting system into the software for the foreseeable future. While the first year of the contract has faced hiccups, city officials admitted to The Standard, they claim future iterations of the software will offer more flexibility. That hasn’t stopped some from trying to put the kibosh on the contract extension. IFPTE Local 21, the public-sector union that represents more than 13,000 city workers, claims that the software lacks critical features and isn’t being integrated properly with the city workforce. On May 4, the Civil Service Commission, the body overseeing the approval of the contract, voted unanimously to push the renewal hearing to Monday after asserting that the city had not provided the required documentation showing union objections. The contract is also subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval. This isn’t the first time Lurie has missed an important deadline During his 2024 campaign for mayor, Lurie promised to create 1,500 shelter beds in the first six months of his term, a signature proposal that helped propel him into City Hall. Almost immediately, there were signs that this would not come to fruition: In January 2025, a homelessness adviser to Lurie told The Standard that his 1,500-bed commitment was a rhetorical “ slip up .” By July, as the six-month mark approached, the mayor dropped the ambitious plan and said he would instead focus on a smaller number of “the right beds,” while directing city agencies to tackle drug addiction and mental health issues. The promises surrounding PermitSF carry similarities to the shelter rollout. However, in this case, the city has been able to release a small, working product with OpenGov instead of scrapping the project entirely. Staff have been frustrated by the software’s lack of features When the mayor’s office was searching for software to overhaul the permitting system last summer, staffers raised concerns about OpenGov’s capabilities, saying its features had “gaps so significant” that it “shouldn’t be considered.” Those concerns continue, with one city worker telling The Standard the city is effectively subsidizing OpenGov’s research and development department. City staffers have created a list of more than 50 problems with the software, according to a document obtained by The Standard, including a lack of integration with the existing system and gaps in the permissions of who can edit data. OpenGov employees backed up the city workers’ assertions; one said the company can handle roughly 25% of what its govtech competitors can do. PermitSF is making some workers’ jobs easier All the criticism doesn’t diminish the fact that some city workers are pleased with the new OpenGov platform. The Standard spoke with two members of SF Planning who described a program that, while limited in the types of permits it can issue, has made their jobs better. “We do the same type of review, we do the same type of back and forth with applicants,” said staffer Dakota Spycher. “It’s just all in one system. We don’t have to write on [a] physical form. We don’t have to enter information into a system that was created in the ’90s, and we don’t have to create a new record ourselves. So it’s really streamlined.” But there remains a wide variety of permits to transfer to the OpenGov platform. The city has hundreds of permit types, and many are much more complicated than the ones that have been modernized. Whether Lurie’s project can execute on those remains to be seen.

Inside Uber’s $77 million plan to rewrite the California constitution

On a Monday afternoon in May 2020, a corporate shuttle bus carrying Genentech employees in South San Francisco changed lanes without warning and crashed into a Toyota Camry. The woman driving the Camry worked as a janitor. She barely spoke English, and she was six months pregnant. She gave birth to a girl 17 days later. The mother was hospitalized for three weeks; her premature baby spent nearly three months in the NICU. Both survived, but at a cost — their medical bills totaled more than $1.6 million. The family hired a personal injury attorney — the kind seen on highway billboards — on contingency; they paid nothing upfront but promised him a healthy portion of any settlement they won. The case took four years and garnered $3.4 million: $2.2 million for the family and $1.2 million for the lawyer. This is the usual course of personal injury claims in California, beginning with lawyers who gamble from case to case, taking nothing if they lose and potentially seeing big paydays if they win. But with its new sponsored ballot measure that would rewrite California’s constitution, Uber is trying to change the legal calculus for all car crash victims and the attorneys who represent them. The measure backed by the $162 billion rideshare company would cap attorneys’ fees in auto crash cases at 25% and put restrictions on the way medical claims are valued. As a constitutional amendment rather than a statute, it would be much harder to reverse if passed. The strategy mirrors a recent national dark-money push supported by Uber to make it harder for consumers to sue corporations . Uber has contributed more than $77.5 million as the sole donor to its own California campaign committee. The campaign’s ads claim the current system is rife with abuse: ambulance-chasing “billboard lawyers” inflating medical bills, pressuring clients into unnecessary surgeries, and taking up to half of what victims win. The measure could protect Uber from liability stemming from car crashes, whether those cars are driven by humans or autonomous tech. “Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over billboard lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does,” said campaign spokesperson Nathan Click. “We’re confident voters will agree.” Opponents of Uber’s measure — plaintiff attorneys and medical professionals — disagree. They say what looks like attorney regulation is actually a sweeping restructuring of legislation that dictates who can access the civil justice system after a crash. Should Uber’s proposal succeed, they say, it would be nearly impossible for a victim like the pregnant woman in the Camry to find a lawyer willing to take her case. Only well-heeled victims with the ability to pay for an attorney out of pocket would get the chance at justice and compensation. Attorneys are also concerned about reducing the pressure on companies to make their products safer, saying product liability cases often stem from auto crashes — a reading that Uber’s campaign disputes. “There are some lawyers that aren’t doing things the right way, and they should be held accountable,” said personal injury attorney Rahul Ravipudi, partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP. “But that shouldn’t mean the destruction of the entire justice system.” The attorneys have mounted their own Uber-targeted proposition that would require stronger rideshare driver background checks, in response to thousands of pending cases alleging sexual assault against the rideshare giant. They are matching Uber’s spending nearly dollar-for-dollar. With six months until the election, it’s shaping up to be one of the priciest ballot fights in California history — a confusing, multi-disciplinary clash over who bears the cost of car crashes in the state with the most cars on the road. ‘The lawsuit is often the only mechanism’ Uber’s measure , “Limits Automobile Accident Victims’ Recovery of Medical Expenses and Fees Their Attorneys May Receive,” really comes down to contingency fees. An attorney who takes a case on contingency is betting on a future payday. They pay out of pocket for expert witnesses, depositions, records, and months to years of overhead. In the case of the injured mother in South San Francisco, her attorney took more than 30 depositions, fought more than 30 motions filed by the defense, organized translators, prepared for trial, and negotiated the hospital’s medical claim down to $300,000. If they win, attorneys working on contingency get to keep the agreed-upon fees. In California, those generally fall between 33% and 40% of a total award but are usually capped at 25% for injured minors. Plaintiff attorney Deepak Gupta said the arrangement is uniquely American. “In most wealthy democracies, a person catastrophically injured in a crash can rely on some combination of universal healthcare, robust disability insurance, and wage replacement,” Gupta said. “In the United States, the lawsuit is often the only mechanism available.” In the current system, medical debt typically comes out of the plaintiff’s share, not the attorney’s. In a case with massive bills, the lawyer can walk away with their contingency fee while their injured client ends up with nothing, or even in debt. In some cases, as Uber’s campaign points out, personal injury firms pressure clients into unnecessary surgeries to inflate settlement values and increase attorney fees. In an investigation of alleged predatory practices, the Los Angeles Times found a woman who spent $500,000 on medical fees on the referral of her attorney but received a settlement of only $350,000, leaving her in debt and with ongoing pain. Uber’s measure would require that victims keep 75% of settlements, capping plaintiff attorney fees at 25%. Defense attorneys could take as much as they and their clients agree on. The measure would also limit what injured people can recover for medical expenses, placing fee caps and requiring plaintiffs to prove their damages. And it would ban financial arrangements between attorneys and the doctors to whom they refer their clients. Uber says this would leave more of the payout with victims. Uber says the language mirrors California’s existing medical malpractice fee-cap law and does not dictate who pays medical bills — only how attorney fees are calculated. Critics interpret the measure differently. They say that it creates another problem — the economics of catastrophic injury cases would be infeasible. If medical liens cannot be deducted before calculating the victim’s 75%, they argue, a seriously injured victim could end up with far less. Expecting smaller paydays, attorneys say they would be less inclined to take those cases. Ironically, this could make the most gravely injured the least likely to find a lawyer willing to gamble on their case. “The goal of this is not an altruistic attempt by Uber to make sure that people who sue Uber get more of the money,” said Gupta. “It’s to prevent people from being able to bring cases in the first place.” Dr. Topher Stephenson, a Sacramento traumatic brain injury specialist, regularly treats patients on attorney-arranged medical liens, meaning that if the legal case is resolved, the clinic is reimbursed. “This ballot initiative is just inhumane,” Stephenson said. When his patients cannot access lien-based specialists, he said, they go to emergency rooms, and the cost falls on California taxpayers. When Medi-Cal recipients are injured in crashes, the state is required to recover costs from the eventual settlement. If attorneys decline those cases because they’re economically unviable, there is no settlement to recover from. Medi-Cal pays the price instead. The state’s legislative analyst estimates that if Uber’s measure passes, fewer lawsuits will be filed, meaning trial courts could save tens of millions of dollars annually. In turn, according to the analysis, the state’s Medi-Cal costs would likely increase by tens of millions of dollars annually. ‘A very large war chest’ This is not the first time California has seen this fight. Voters rejected nearly identical ballot measures twice, in 1988 and 1996. Uber tried a version of this in Nevada in 2024. The Nevada Supreme Court threw it out unanimously, calling the ballot language misleading. Rather than abandon the strategy, Uber drafted a tighter version and brought it one state over. Gupta argued the case that got Nevada’s initiative cut from the ballot. California would be a far bigger prize, and Gupta does not believe it will be the last one Uber tries to win. “Uber has a lot of money to spend on these kinds of fights,” he said. “They have a very large war chest.” What’s different this time is the moment for the company. “Uber is so hell-bent on protecting its profits that it is trying to amend the California constitution to give itself a free pass,” said attorney Micha Star Liberty, owner of Oakland-based Liberty Law. “They’re not doing this out of the goodness of their heart.” Uber faces an avalanche of litigation across the country that is gaining traction. More than 3,300 plaintiffs have sued the company in federal court for sexual assaults they allege against drivers. Two bellwether cases have gone to trial, and both were decided in favor of the victims, one with an $8.5 million verdict. In response to these cases and to Uber targeting their livelihoods, Consumer Attorneys of California — including the billboard attorneys whom Uber loves to hate — have filed their own ballot measure, “Sexual Assault Against Rideshare Passengers and Drivers Prevention and Accountability Act.” It would mandate more stringent annual background checks, require monthly public reporting of sexual misconduct incidents, and compel rideshare companies to disclose internal driver risk scores to passengers before a ride begins. The stakes are as high on both sides as the pockets are deep — the billboard lawyers and their allies have raised around $75 million from more than 1,000 contributors for their measure. Together, the two measures have made this one of the most expensive ballot fights of the year. And that doesn’t include potential dark money from larger organizations pushing tort reform across the country. In a letter to shareholders filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2026, Uber’s Compensation Committee disclosed that executive cash bonuses for 2025 were tied in part to “insurance reform advocacy efforts” as a named performance metric. Uber’s insurance reserves grew from $9.8 billion to $12.5 billion in 2025. If the ballot measure passes and expected claim values fall, Uber would potentially free billions in capital. Uber did not mention the ballot initiative in its annual report to the SEC. But the filing describes those reserves as subject to “changes in the economic, legal, and social environments.” Gupta has been watching the company’s legal strategy for long enough to see a pattern. “Uber from the very beginning has been a company that has always tried to change the legal rules,” he said. “The very genesis of the company was just: break the rules and then force people to change them.” Some critics, including Consumer Watchdog , say a potential longer-term benefit to Uber of its proposed amendment is tied to the apparent strategy to move away from human to autonomous driving , while the company’s version of that technology is reportedly becoming less reliable. According to data from the California DMV, safety metrics for Nuro, Uber’s autonomous vehicle partner, deteriorated sharply in 2025. Its reliability rate dropped 68%, even as it drove 25% fewer miles. Over the same period, Waymo drove 40% more miles and nearly doubled its reliability. Uber’s campaign disputes that the ballot measure is aimed at minimizing robotaxi liability. A spokesperson said that the company reviews each autonomous vehicle partner’s safety approach before deployment and that its internal safety program has been recognized as an industry best practice. “What I want is to keep up pressure on the companies to make this technology safer,” said Matthew Wansley, a professor at Cardozo School of Law and expert on legal issues around autonomous vehicles. “Tort liability serves an important function for society. It gets compensation to victims, and it creates a deterrent. When companies have to pay out settlements or damages, they start to rethink their practices and think: How can we reduce the risk in the future?” He was unambiguous about Uber’s ballot initiative. “I wouldn’t vote for this, and I don’t think California voters should. I think it will reduce liability across the board.” Whether voters agree will depend on whose story they find more convincing: the rideshare giant or the billboard lawyer.

Huh? Sunset Dunes leader backs supervisor candidate who wants to reopen Great Highway

In a blow to Mayor Daniel Lurie’s hand-picked District 4 supervisor, Alan Wong, the campaign leader who fought to create Sunset Dunes park is backing a challenger who wants to reopen the area to car traffic. Lucas Lux, chair of Friends of Sunset Dunes and leader of the 2024 Proposition K campaign to close the Great Highway, is endorsing progressive City Hall staffer Natalie Gee for District 4 supervisor. “While I could not disagree more with Natalie on Sunset Dunes, I believe she’s the best choice for District 4 supervisor,” Lux told The Standard. Gee is running to unseat Wong, who was appointed by Lurie late last year. Gee, Wong, and other candidates, including merchant leader Albert Chow, support placing a measure on the ballot to overturn Prop. K. Lux said Gee wants to create safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists, more housing, and better public transit. More important, he added, she has “a real chance to win.” Lux said he is endorsing Gee as an individual, as the nonprofit Friends of Sunset Dunes cannot make political endorsements. Lux’s endorsement is a significant loss for Wong. Four rival candidates last week targeted his campaign for its support from a political action committee, SF Believes, that has received funding from Trump-aligned conservatives like WhatsApp founder Jan Koum. As supervisor, Wong has been distinctly car-centric in his policy focus for the housing- and density-resistant district, and his recent criticism of an affordable housing project has angered YIMBY groups . The Sunset has had a turbulent few years. Prop. K passed citywide but failed within the district, a dynamic that contributed to the 2024 recall of Supervisor Joel Engardio, who had championed the measure. After a weeklong saga surrounding the appointment and resignation of Isabella “Beya” Alcaraz, Lurie appointed Wong to the seat. Wong voted for the mayor’s Family Zoning Plan in December . Wong, a former community college board member, has to run in June to serve the remainder of Engardio’s term through January 2027. In November, voters will elect a supervisor to a full four-year term. Lux’s endorsement may mobilize swing voters in District 4, where about 35% supported Prop. K yet opposed the Engardio recall, and could prove a critical force in the competitive race. Molly Rose, a Sunset resident and park supporter, said she shares Lux’s position and is also backing Gee. “While we disagree about Sunset Dunes, I appreciate that she’s looking forward, not backward, on pedestrian and bike safety, as well as public transit,” Rose said. Gee, a legislative aide for Supervisor Shamann Walton who is supported by progressive labor unions, said she is building a coalition and is glad Lux recognizes her experience and vision. “I’ll be candid: Lucas’ support was a surprise. I didn’t seek it out,” Gee said in a statement. “We don’t see eye to eye on the Great Highway/Sunset Dunes.” Tensions between Gee and Wong have intensified throughout the year. Gee’s boss, Walton, did not join Wong’s effort to place a measure overturning Proposition K on the ballot, and the two candidates have traded barbs in Chinese-language TV interviews. Wong’s campaign blasted the Lux endorsement as a backroom arrangement, saying it doesn’t make sense given their opposing views on the Great Highway. “The idea that these same people are endorsing her for any other reason than her support for their issue is comical,” said Derek Jansen, Wong’s campaign strategist. “I don’t know what she promised them, but something isn’t adding up.” Wong has the support of the city’s moderate establishment and is benefiting from significant outside spending, but his relationship with Sunset Dunes advocates has been rocky. After the supervisor announced his push to reopen the Great Highway in December , park supporters accused him of having “ghosted neighborhood groups” before backing the Sunset Dunes closure. Engardio recall activists have launched yet another effort to close the Great Highway, gathering signatures in hopes of putting a measure to overturn Prop. K on the November ballot.

Yale University considering San Francisco for satellite campus

Watch out, Harvard alums. Yale University, the New Haven, Connecticut, institution with a $44 billion endowment, is considering establishing a campus in San Francisco, The Standard has learned. School officials and Mayor Daniel Lurie’s administration have been in talks since at least December over the Ivy League university’s expansion, according to emails obtained via a public records request. While the type of campus Yale is pursuing is not immediately clear, the correspondence shows that the university’s plans are being spearheaded by Jeff Brock, the dean of Yale Engineering. The emails also show that other universities are looking to expand their campuses to the city, though it isn’t clear which ones. If Yale establishes a satellite school in San Francisco, it will mark the second university Lurie has lured to the city in recent months. In January, Vanderbilt University announced that it is taking over the century-old California College of the Arts campus in the Design District. The move came after CCA had been struggling financially for years, despite emergency injections of funding from the likes of Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia. In March, Lurie announced the launch of Third Coast Foundry, a workspace in the South Park neighborhood for students and researchers at eight Midwestern universities. The space will be open under a two-year pilot program. A deal with Yale — which has the second-largest endowment in the country — would solidify the city’s ability to attract highly competitive universities, in addition to Bay Area heavyweights UC Berkeley and Stanford. While the mayor’s office declined to share which locations are being considered by the school, an expansion could be part of Lurie’s plans to inject energy into downtown. Former Mayor London Breed had also proposed bringing universities to the city’s center. The mayor’s office declined to comment. A spokesperson for Yale provided the following comment: “Yale officials accepted an invitation from the mayor’s office staff to take a tour of the city; we don’t discuss the details of private meetings, but there are no current plans for a satellite campus.” The university has 6,740 undergraduates, 8,750 graduate and professional students, and 5,744 faculty members. It opened in 1701, making it one of the country’s oldest universities. Jonathan Meeks, a Yale alumnus and executive at private equity firm TA Associates, introduced Ned Segal, Lurie’s chief of housing and economic development, to Brock via email Dec. 22. Brock is “leading the business plan for a potential Yale SF campus,” the email states. “It would be great if you guys could speak and you can walk him through some of the learnings of the other institutions that are considering the move.” A Feb. 18 email shows that Yale’s leaders gave the thumbs up to Brock to go ahead on the proposal. “The president [ Maurie McInnis] wishes to proceed with gaining more information and has looped in more stakeholders for a follow-on meeting that will take place next week,” the email states. Brock and Cynthia Beach, Yale Engineering’s senior director of development and external relations, toured San Francisco on March 10. Segal; Faisal Ojjeh, a San Francisco strategic initiatives analyst for housing and economic development; and Ben White, assistant chief for that office, showed the Yale officials around. The group visited two sites. Upon leaving San Francisco a couple of days later, Brock sent a heartwarming message to the mayor’s office. “I forgot to take a selfie with the Mayor, but I managed this one from the airport!” Brock said, attaching a photo that was redacted as part of the public records request. It was likely referring to images of Lurie seen at San Francisco International Airport.

Jackie Fielder, citing a mental health condition, will take leave of absence

This article is from Power Play, a twice-weekly newsletter rounding up the latest City Hall and local politics gossip. To sign up, visit The Standard’s newsletter page . Supervisor Jackie Fielder ’s acute health crisis is a personal tragedy for a young politician at the inception of her career. If she follows through on her stated intentions to resign , it would also be a loss for progressive Democrats, winnowing a slender bloc on the Board of Supervisors into irrelevance. Fielder’s office Sunday evening released a statement saying she is taking a medical leave of absence, as she “ is currently navigating a mental health condition and needs time and space to recover before making any major decisions.” Publicly, Democrats are wishing Fielder a speedy recovery, with some hoping she reverses her intent — expressed to multiple people on Friday — to step down. Privately, moderate operatives are already gaming out strategies if she follows through and leaves office. Moderate Democrats are already floating potential candidates for Mayor Daniel Lurie to appoint to replace Fielder. Names Power Play reporters are hearing include Moises Garcia , Lurie’s community liaison and former LGBTQ campaign outreach director, Planning Commission member Lydia So , and Joshua Arce , a program manager with the Northern California District Council of Laborers who once ran for District 9 supervisor. As for the progressives, Jim Ross , a decades-long political consultant who ran Gavin Newsom ’s first mayoral campaign, said the city’s lefties are undoubtedly considering committing more resources to Natalie Gee ’s race in District 4, the Sunset and Parkside, to unseat Lurie’s recent appointment, Alan Wong . “That was a very important race for progressives before this – now it’s almost existential,” Ross said. The balance of power in San Francisco is at stake, imperiling progressive priorities: stalling layoffs, defeating charter reform, and softening the impacts of market-rate development, like evictions. Fielder’s potential absence also takes away one of the most outspoken voices against President Donald Trump and his aggressive immigration policies, as others in the city, like Lurie, have taken a more cautious approach to the White House. The 11-member Board of Supervisors often serves as a counterweight to any sitting mayor, and in London Breed ’s time, the body famously fought against her policy choices. Lurie has enjoyed more unanimity thanks to a six-member majority of mayor-aligned moderate Democrats. Supervisor Myrna Melgar sometimes serves as a seventh vote Lurie can court. “It actually hurts my stomach thinking about it,” said Melgar about the news regarding Fielder. “I really hope she doesn’t resign.” While the progressive bloc of four (and sometimes five) supervisors cannot, on its own, defeat Lurie’s preferred legislation, progressives wield enough power to negotiate on key issues, like when Supervisor Connie Chan successfully lowered the amount of homelessness funding Lurie wanted to redirect from Proposition C to shelters, away from housing, to $34 million , when Lurie wanted $88 million. But if Lurie could appoint a replacement for Fielder, the game changes. Seven reliable votes are much closer to an eight-vote supermajority, which is the number needed to override any mayoral veto of board legislation. San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel said the scenario could “cement a board that is much more favorable to Lurie’s agenda.” A weakened progressive flank could unlock multiple avenues for Lurie and his allies, including: San Francisco’s budget. Last year, Fielder was the lone dissenting vote against Lurie’s budget. One less progressive would make it tougher for Chan to stop the most severe Lurie austerity measures, like layoffs. OpenGov . Fielder was set to hold a hearing investigating Lurie’s OpenGov contract, which The Standard found had troubling ties to the nonprofit foundation Lurie founded, Tipping Point Community. If Fielder departs, the pressure may be off Lurie’s office. Charter reform. Lurie has already submitted paperwork to begin gathering signatures for his grand structural overhauls of city law, with progressive-aligned labor fiercely against ballot initiative regions. Fielder’s position as supervisor would give her a perch to speak out against them. The Great Highway. Wong, a Lurie appointee, was a man alone when he tried to get a Great Highway measure on the June ballot, lacking his colleagues’ support. A District 9 appointee could help him get it on the November ballot, and helping Wong is a Lurie priority. Nearing a Board of Supervisors supermajority, and capturing the mayor’s office, has been a pie-in-the-sky dream of moderate Democrats since 1996, when voters approved the switch from citywide to district elections, which saw the rise of progressives like Aaron Peskin , political observers told Power Play. If Fielder steps down, which is by no means guaranteed, moderates would be closer to that goal than they have been in a quarter century, which would fuel energy to spend on contested races for the Board of Supervisors this November — like District 10, in the southeast, with their preferred candidate of Theo Ellington and District 8, in the Castro and Noe Valley, where they hope Manny Yekutiel takes the win. “If they have a near veto-proof majority, they can fundamentally change San Francisco,” Ross said of moderates. “This is their chance, you gotta go all in, you’ve gotta spend every last dollar, do everything you can.” Peskin hoped moderates and progressives alike would pause and respect the health of a young politician, just 31, who has so much left to offer. “That’s a moment when good people don’t use it as a political opportunity. It’s a time when they take care of one another,” Peskin said. “People who want to use it as a political opportunity should be ashamed.” — J.F.R., G.G. and H.L. Got tips? Send to us at powerplay@sfstandard.com . NEW NUMBERS: We’re finally getting a look at polling in that heated race to succeed retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi . An internal memo from Saikat Chakrabarti ’s campaign, shared exclusively with Power Play, shows the former congressional staffer and tech engineer in second place, with 20%. He trails state Sen. Scott Wiener , who is favored by 32% of voters. Supervisor Chan follows at 17%. About 13% of voters support other candidates, and 18% are undecided. The poll, conducted this month by Data for Progress, surveyed 800 likely voters via text and online in English and Chinese. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. It’s a rare snapshot of the race. The last publicly reported poll was conducted in September and published by The Standard earlier this year. The new memo compiles results from five polls conducted over the past year. As recently as January, Chan was in second place. The new poll shows Chakrabarti’s rising name recognition — from just 10% a year ago to about 50% today. While Wiener and Chan still have higher name recognition, both carry higher unfavorability ratings. Wiener’s favorability has declined, likely due to backlash over his viral Gaza moment. Chakrabarti’s polling surge isn’t surprising due to his media blitz as of late. He has spent hundreds of thousands to air TV ads — drawing criticism from opponents who accuse him of trying to buy a congressional seat . “Saikat has spent over $2 million to be in a statistical tie with a woman who has spent a fraction of that amount,” said Julie Edwards , spokesperson for Chan. “We know voters are looking for a progressive fighter, not a corporate phony.” In its latest survey, the campaign tested messaging and biographical descriptions. Voters responded most positively to messages about refusing money from AI companies, Big Tech, and pro-Israel lobbying groups. Among biographical traits, the most popular ones are Chakrabarti’s upbringing in an immigrant family, raising a child in San Francisco, being a homeowner, and the potential to become the city’s first Asian American member of Congress — qualities that also apply to Chan. — H.L. GAME ON : The San Francisco Chronicle is jumping into the political newsletter game, according to a LinkedIn job posting titled “California Confidential reporter.” The daily newsletter will focus on state legislation in partnership with USLege, an artificial intelligence tool that tracks bills and transcribes meetings. “The newsletter author will be a self-starter capable of unearthing news, reporting on daily developments, and big-picture conversations on the most urgent political topics of the day,” the post states. “We are seeking someone with an entrepreneurial bent who is eager to launch a new project that they will own. This person should be passionate about how laws are made in California and how the process plays out throughout the state.” California Confidential will enter a crowded field. In addition to Power Play, it’ll go toe-to-toe with Politico’s California Playbook and CalMatters’ WhatMatters. It doesn’t appear the newspaper has swiftly identified a candidate for the job. LinkedIn shows it was reposted two weeks ago. The Chronicle’s Editor-in-Chief, Emilio Garcia-Ruiz , declined an interview request. — G.G.

PST: Why SF’s crime rate has plummeted — and who’s taking credit

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee