Board of Education

SFUSD is turning the corner - after years of mis-management, the school district has made real progress towards recovery. However, with three seats up for election this upcoming November, the future of SFUSD is on the ballot. Voters this November will decide whether or not SFUSD continues its work addressing the district's budget deficit and improving student outcomes or if it falls back into dysfunction. That’s why it’s incredibly important we elect the following candidates for the Board of Education. 

Phil Kim:

SFUSD is in a fragile recovery. Under Kim's leadership as Board President, SFUSD’s structural deficit has shrunk and enrollment is showing positive signs of recovery. Additionally, he’s well credentialed. He's a former 7th grade science teacher who spent years developing science curriculum. His steady leadership and qualifications have won him the endorsements of Mayor Daniel Lurie, the SF Democratic Party, SF Parents Action, and others. In the previous June special election, residents overwhelmingly voted to keep Kim on the School Board. Let’s make sure he can keep up the good work and re-elect him this November. Having a steady hand on the Board of Education is critical for SFUSD’s recovery. 

Autumn Brown Garibay

Autumn Brown Garibay is an SFUSD parent and PTA leader with a long history of advocating for students and parents. When she was a member of the SF Parents Leadership Council, she was heavily involved in promoting better educational outcomes for students, participating in SF Parents Kids Can’t Wait campaign and raising awareness about unequal academic results using hard data. She has a record of engaging with various stakeholders across the city, bringing people together, and standing up for students and parents in front of the SF Board of Education. She has demonstrated extensive knowledge of the challenges facing SFUSD such as the budget crisis, and shown a willingness to take them head on instead of kicking the can down the road. Now she is running for the Board of Education to give families a direct seat at the table. In addition to her advocacy work, Garibay brings private sector acumen to the position, currently working in a senior customer success role involved with strategy. She is endorsed by the SF Democratic Party, SF Women’s Political Committee, SF Parents Action, and more. Vote for Autumn Brown Garibay to ensure families have a strong voice on the School Board.

Tim Tung 

While much-needed progress has been made, SFUSD still faces a long-term budget deficit. A financial expert on the Board of Education would help SFUSD right the ship. That’s where Tim Tung comes in. Tung is a finance professional with decades of experience and the credentials to match. A Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), Tung’s experience includes serving as the Acting Debt Administrator for the City of San Jose for four years and working as a Director for major credit rating firm, S&P Global, for more than decade. Today, he works for a major asset management firm, Allspring Global Investments. In addition to his professional work, Tung has been a member of San Francisco’s Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee, which is responsible for ensuring the City’s bond dollars are responsibly spent, since 2023. Tung’s competence and commitment earned him Mayor Daniel Lurie’s re-appointment to the committee in 2025. Demonstrating his fellow committee members’ confidence in him, Tung is currently the committee’s Chair. He is endorsed by the SF Democratic Party, United Democratic Club, labor unions, and more. Vote for Tim Tung to set SFUSD on the right financial path.

Ballot Measures 

Good governance, transit, tax reform and other measures are on this November’s ballot. Here are our recommendations.

Prop A - Charter Changes Affecting Various City Departments and Commissions

This charter amendment eliminates redundant or unnecessary commissions (like the Sanitation and Streets Commission), requires regular convening of a Commission Streamlining Task Force every 10-years to review the commission system, and removes outdated legal language.

We recommend voting Yes on A. This is a common-sense measure that streamlines city government. Reforming the commission structure will reduce redundant bureaucracy and create a more efficient and responsive government.

Prop B - Establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and a Public Bank

This charter amendment would authorize the establishment of a Municipal Finance Corporation (MFC) and a Public Bank as non-profit corporations, subject to the availability of adequate funding and resources. It would also set forth the mission, principles and governance structures of those organizations, including authorizing the creation of an MFC Oversight Commission, Bank Oversight Commission, MFC Board of Directors and Bank Board of Directors.

We recommend voting No on B. There's good reason to be skeptical that a public bank would be well-run in SF, especially given that the city's current deficit stems from overspending. Financial experts have also warned that the conditions that make the Bank of North Dakota successful (a state economy that benefited from a fracking boom) don't exist in San Francisco, making the comparison a weak basis for the proposal. 

Prop C - Contributions to the Housing Fund

This charter amendment renews and expands the Housing Trust Fund, which exists to support affordable housing in the city. It would raise the annual city government contribution to over $125M and extend the program through 2058. It doesn't create a new tax or raise tax rates.

We are neutral on C. There's no strong case for either supporting or opposing this one. It doesn't add new tax burdens, and the deficit-triggered freeze provision is a reasonably fiscally responsible safeguard. However, this measure doesn’t address the fundamental issue that the cost for building an affordable housing unit in SF is still too high (around $900,000 per some estimates). 

Prop D - Changes to Ballot Measure Process

This charter amendment tightens San Francisco's lax rules for getting measures onto the ballot, bringing us in line with other California cities like San Diego and LA. This charter amendment would eliminate the Mayor’s unilateral ability to put a measure on the ballot. It would also eliminate the ability of four supervisors to put a measure on the ballot. The Board of Supervisors could still place measures on the ballot, but only with a six-vote majority. Additionally, the charter amendment would raise the signature threshold for citizen-led initiatives to 8% of registered voters and raise the signature threshold to call a special election on an initiative ordinance to 10% of registered voters. Finally, the charter amendment would allow backers of a signature initiative to withdraw their measure 102 days before the election.

We recommend voting Yes on D. We support this measure because San Francisco’s current ballot measure system is flawed and results in overly long ballots in which residents are asked to vote on a wide variety of measures that can be quite complex in nature. 2023’s Rose Report (commissioned by our predecessor organization, TogetherSF) and good government think tank SPUR have both highlighted how San Francisco requires a lower signature threshold for placing measures on the ballot versus other major California cities like San Diego and Los Angeles.  These lax requirements lead to numerous problems: elected leaders deflecting from making tough decisions (sometimes on complex topics like taxes) and deferring them to voters, special interest groups placing misleading measures on ballot to support their own interests i.e. June 2026 “CEO” tax, and electeds/groups using measures to wage political battles/confuse voters i.e. dueling measures like Nov 2022 Prop D and E (both related to housing) or Nov 2024 Prop D and E (both related to commission reform).

Prop E - City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting

This charter amendment expands the City Administrator's authority over contracting, centralizing and streamlining a process that's currently scattered across individual city departments. The City Administrator would gain exclusive power to propose procurement ordinances to the Board of Supervisors; those ordinances would take effect after 60 days unless the Board or Mayor rejects them, and the Board could not amend them. Thresholds for Board approval of contracts would rise sharply - from $1 million to $4.5 million for revenue-generating contracts and leases, and from $10 million to $25 million for expenditure contracts - with the Controller adjusting both for inflation every five years starting in 2032. The Board would still review contract amendments that cumulatively raise a contract by 50% or more above the last Board-approved figure. The City Administrator could also issue procurement rules that override conflicting department rules and set citywide technology policy, with that authority extending to, with some extensions, the SFMTA, PUC, Airport, Port, and Charitable Trust Departments. Finally, the City Administrator's term would double from five to ten years.

We recommend voting Yes on E. This charter amendment makes critical reforms to our City government’s contracting system. Currently, the City’s contracting process is convoluted and confusing, leading to a lack of competitive bidding and higher costs for the City. For example, the notorious $1.7 million Noe Valley public toilet was a product of SF’s current contracting process. This measure would reform City contracting by giving the independent City Administrator the power to standardize and clarify purchasing rules across City departments while still maintaining important Board of  Supervisors oversight. These changes will streamline our contracting process, reducing costs and enhance government efficiency.

Prop F -  Changes to Executive Branch Management

This charter amendment would expand the Mayor’s ability to lead the City government’s executive branch. This charter amendment would give the Mayor the ability to directly hire and fire department heads, a power that mayors in other major cities like NYC and Boston already have. The Mayor would also gain the authority to hire deputy mayors. The charter amendment would also allow appointing authorities to directly appoint and remove their appointees on City commissions, with three exceptions: the Board of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, and Ethics Commission. Finally, under the charter amendment the Mayor could reorganize most Charter-created departments, transferring duties, merging departments under a single head, or reassigning commission oversight, and would also gain authority to hire deputy mayors. A long list of departments would be shielded from this reorganization authority however, including the City Administrator, Controller, Port, Airport, SFMTA, PUC, Department of Elections, Ethics Commission, and any department led by another elected official. Two carve-outs are explicit: the Department of Police Accountability could not be folded into the Police Department, and the Sheriff's Inspector General could not be folded into the Sheriff's Office. 

We recommend voting Yes on F. This charter amendment makes much-needed changes to SF’s government structure as recommended both by 2023’s Rose Report (sponsored by our predecessor organization TogetherSF) and by good government think tank SPUR. This charter amendment would clarify lines of authority and thus accountability in government, making it clear that the elected Mayor is responsible for department performance by giving the Mayor direct hire/fire authority over department heads. Additionally, this charter amendment creates a clear system for holding un-elected commissioners by giving their appointing authorities (typically the elected Mayor or elected BOS) the ability to directly remove them. Finally, this measure gives the Mayor the flexibility to merge redundant City departments and agencies + hire deputy Mayors to help manage SF’s sprawling City government. Overall, this measure will create a more effective and accountable City Hall that will be better structured to address resident needs.

Prop G - Allowing Private Vehicles on the Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park

The measure would allow private motor vehicles to use the Upper Great Highway in Sunset Dunes Park at all times, except for between Fridays at 6:00 p.m. to Mondays at 4:00 a.m. and on holidays. Emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, intra-park transit shuttle buses, and other similar authorized vehicles would continue to have access to the Upper Great Highway at all times.

We are neutral on G. There are good arguments on both sides here, and reasonable San Franciscans have landed in different places. But the Great Highway has now consumed multiple election cycles. We're taking no position on Prop G and encouraging voters to decide it themselves-then let the city turn its attention to the problems that affect all of us.

Prop H - Parcel Tax to Fund Public Muni Operations

This measure would create a new annual parcel tax dedicated to SFMTA transit operations, running from July 2027 through June 2042, with annual inflation adjustments. Tax amounts scale with property type and building size. Landlords of rent-controlled units can pass through up to 50% of the tax, capped at $65 per unit, but only on tenancies whose base rent was set before June 2027. The measure is estimated to raise $177 million annually beginning in Fiscal Year 2027-2028, increasing over time as the parcel tax adjusts to inflation. 

We recommend voting No on H. Transit is important. But so is everything the city provides -that doesn’t mean we keep charging taxpayers more instead of fixing the city budget. SF residents already pay some of the highest taxes in the country and our city has a high cost of living. When we’re in the middle of a cost of living crisis, the last thing our residents need is a new tax that will heavily impact homeowners and renters. Additionally, this tax measure disappointingly does not require SFMTA to make structural financial changes to help address its financial deficit. 

Prop I - Changes to Real Property Transfer Tax

This measure restructures San Francisco's existing transfer tax on high-value property sales to create a permanent, dedicated funding stream for affordable housing. The mechanism is a split: the existing transfer tax rate would be cut in half on properties sold for $10 million or more, and a new "House SF Tax" would fill the gap at the same rate, meaning most sellers would pay the same total tax as today, but half would now be legally restricted to housing use. All “House SF Tax” revenue would flow into a dedicated fund with strict allocations, with the majority of revenue dedicated to affordable housing programs. The measure also restricts the Board of Supervisors' current ability to amend the underlying transfer tax law without voter approval, locking in both rates and dedicated uses until voters say otherwise.

We recommend voting No on I. This measure moves General Fund money into an earmarked fund, which means the city loses flexibility to use those dollars where they're needed most, like covering budget shortfalls. The city is already facing a General Fund budget deficit. This will only make it worse.

Prop J - Removal of Foreclosure Exemption for Real Property Transfer Tax

This measure would remove the existing real estate transfer tax partial exemption for properties wherein A) lender foreclosed on the property or B) borrowers transferred the property to lender in lieu of foreclosure. This measure would apply to transfers on or after 3/01/2027. The Controller estimates this measure could bring an average of $100 million to $150 million annually in tax revenue over the next five-years. 

We recommend voting No on J. Originally, this measure was supposed to be paired with a reduction in the real transfer tax to be part of a revenue-neutral package. But now that it’s not, all this measure does is raise taxes, hampering Downtown’s recovery. And by just raising revenue, this measure doesn't address the real cause of SF's deficit: overspending. SF doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Reaching for more revenue avoids tackling that fundamental issue.

Paid for by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco Advocacy. 

‍