San Francisco and California Ballot Backstory · Why is this on my ballot?
Prop E: summary
City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting
Mark your own choices here. You may bring this sheet into the voting booth.
A YES vote means
The City Administrator gets ten-year terms, more authority. With some exceptions, Board approval starts at $25 million in costs or $4.5 million in revenue.
A NO vote means
The City Administrator keeps five-year terms and shared authority. With some exceptions, Board approval starts at $10 million in costs or $1 million in revenue.
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop E fails, current City rules stay. The City Administrator keeps a five-year term and shared purchasing power. With some exceptions, the Board of Supervisors still approves contracts that cost the City $10 million or more.
Why it’s on the ballot now
Prop E’s own findings say more than $5 billion a year in City contracts follow rules spread across more than 100 sections of code.
The findings say one purchasing process costs about $25,000, many contracts take six to 12 months, and more than 14 departments can be involved in approving one contract.
The findings also point to repeated technology purchases, such as five separate Microsoft contracts and 14 document management systems.
Today, with some exceptions, the Board of Supervisors must approve contracts that cost the City $10 million or more. SPUR's paid argument for Prop E says these limits have not changed since 1996.
Supporters present Prop E as part of a package with Props A, D and F on this ballot.
The money
The Controller says Prop E would have a minimal impact on the cost of government, at a level not yet known. The Controller adds that unified purchasing may lower costs and save staff time over time, and higher approval limits may cut contract review time. Starting in 2032, the Controller would adjust these limits for inflation every five years.
Needs a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass Some measures need 55% or two-thirds of votes to pass. This one needs only a simple majority.Who bears the cost
City government (the General Fund)No new cost
The Controller says Prop E would have a minimal impact on the cost of government, at a level that cannot be determined at this time.
The strongest case for and against
Strongest case for
Supporters, including Mayor Daniel Lurie, Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman and former Controller Ben Rosenfield, say the City hands out more than $5 billion in contracts each year without enough oversight. They say a single contracting process can cost more than $25,000, and basic purchases take years. They say investigators caught six department heads running contracting schemes in five years, and some went to prison. They say a professional City Administrator would set clear, transparent rules so contracts go to whoever is best for the job, not best connected. They note the Mayor or a Board majority could still reject proposed changes within 60 days.
Strongest case against
Larry S. Marso’s official argument against says Lurie treats checks and balances as the enemy and seeks to concentrate power through Props D, E and F. Marso says Prop E raises the contract amount that needs supervisors’ approval. Marso argues most of the Mayor’s goals could be met through regular legislation, if the Mayor led the Mayor’s party toward fiscal discipline and drove the most ideological members off the Board, and says the Mayor raised millions for paid signature gatherers to rewrite the Charter. No paid arguments opposed Prop E. Per the digest, the Board and Mayor could only approve or reject the City Administrator’s contracting laws, which pass if neither acts in 60 days; Board power over purchasing laws mainly on wages, safety, local business or labor is unchanged.