For many of us, focusing on a task is difficult when we’re working in a chaotic, disorganized space. Cluttered room, cluttered mind as they say.

The same is true for the government. When you have rules and laws that are messy and conflicting, solutions to intractable problems can easily become obscured by towering piles of bureaucracy.

Here in San Francisco, our rule books are a hoarder’s house of clutter.

San Francisco’s charter is akin to a constitution — it outlines central rules and principles for governing our joint city and county. But over decades, this document has become filled with so much legal ephemera that it now spans 548 pages — the longest of any city in the country.

By way of comparison, Seattle’s charter is only 23 pages.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to less-than-ideal outcomes. 

Among them: A literally uncountable number of commissions, including commissions that oversee departments that no longer exist, a lack of clarity over who’s responsible for what and unnecessarily complex and opaque processes that breed corruption.   

This mess is largely San Francisco’s own creation, which means the city needs to do the vast majority of the work to clean it up. The law dictates there’s no way to fix these bloated rules without a ballot initiative.

That effort is already underway.

Voters passed Proposition E last November, which ironically created a new commission to evaluate existing commissions and recommend which could be combined or shuttered. The Prop E committee is scheduled to release its recommendations to Mayor Daniel Lurie and the Board of Supervisors in February. Prop E also requires these recommendations to be placed in a draft charter amendment that will go through the typical legislative process at the Board of Supervisors before being sent to voters in a likely November 2026 ballot measure. 

But commission reform is only one necessary component of overhauling San Francisco’s charter. Larger changes are needed — and they form the heart of a report released Monday by the urban think tank SPUR. 

The report, dubbed “Charter for Change,” makes 10 key recommendations that SPUR argues should also be incorporated into the November 2026 ballot measure.

Many of the recommendations reinforce those SPUR made in a similar report last year that focused on improving San Francisco’s governance. For example, the group argues the mayor should be given the authority to hire and fire most department heads.

Some will no doubt cry foul over the idea of expanding executive power — especially after the fiasco this week with the resignation of Mayor Lurie’s pick to fill the open District 4 seat left by the recall of Joel Engardio. But this is nevertheless a common-sense suggestion.

San Franciscans largely hold the mayor responsible for the state of the city. Under the charter, however, the mayor has unilateral authority to appoint just four of the more than 50 department heads and lacks explicit authority to fire some of them.

Citizens have limited ability to hold their government accountable when power is spread out over diffuse boards and nominating commissions. But when the mayor controls departments, you know who to vote out when things aren’t getting done.

SPUR also suggests empowering the city administrator by turning the position into a chief operating officer focused on essential city operations, long-term projects and reforming San Francisco’s byzantine purchasing rules.

None of these changes will mean much, however, if we continue to expand our monstrous rule books with ultra-long, complex ballots that give voters the chance to add even more clutter. 

Right now, it’s too easy to place measures before voters. Non-charter amendments can be put on the ballot unilaterally by the mayor, with only 4 of 11 Board of Supervisors votes and by any group that collects signatures from 2% of registered voters.   

These low thresholds invite political posturing and disincentivize thoughtful policymaking. In 2022, for example, then-Mayor London Breed and progressive supervisors placed two competing housing measures on the ballot instead of finding a legislative compromise. Unsurprisingly, confused voters rejected both measures. And last year, Prop E was — ironically — one of two competing commission-streamlining measures on the ballot; voters rejected the alternative, Prop D. 

SPUR recommends raising the threshold for non-charter amendment ballot measures: The Board of Supervisors would need a majority vote, the mayor would need board approval and groups would need to gather signatures from 5% of registered voters, a percentage in line with other charter cities.  

What about proposals that would amend the charter? 

To keep San Francisco’s charter from getting even more clogged, SPUR proposes raising the threshold for putting charter amendments on the ballot. Right now, it can be done by a majority vote on the Board of Supervisors or by groups that gather signatures from 10% of registered voters.  

SPUR wants to see the signature-gathering requirement pushed to 15%, and it also wants to empower the mayor to veto a charter amendment proposed by a board majority — although the board could then override that veto with its own supermajority vote. 

These changes, however, would require a tweak to state law. We’re hopeful that one of San Francisco’s state lawmakers will take up the cause in Sacramento. 

Far from diluting voters’ power, the tweak would bring San Francisco in line with other charter cities in California — while also accounting for our unique status as the only joint city and county in the state.  

Other large charter cities and major economic centers in California — such as Los Angeles, San Jose and San Diego — require groups to gather signatures from 15% of registered voters to place charter amendments on the ballot.  

But San Francisco is also the only California city and county governed simultaneously by a mayor. Given this distinctive setup — and the unique responsibility it confers on the mayor — it makes sense for the mayor to play a role in shaping charter amendments. 

The state should do its small part to help San Francisco improve its governance. That said, California cannot save San Francisco from itself. If we want to clean up our system of governance, we’ll have to do it ourselves. 

Some version of charter reform will be on the ballot next year.

Can our leaders set infighting aside and craft a comprehensive measure to meaningfully improve our charter? And, if so, will residents be willing to relinquish some of their power of direct democracy so that the city can function as smoothly as they insist they want it to?

The California Legislature can’t answer that question. Only San Francisco can. 

Reach the editorial board with a letter to the editor:www.sfchronicle.com/submit-your-opinion.