Good morning and welcome to our January 26, 2026 Rules Committee meeting.

I am your Chair Supervisor Shimon Walton.

I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Cheryl, soon to be joined by President Mandelman,

and we have Supervisor Mahmoud with us here this morning.

Our clerk is Victor Young, and I want to thank Jamie Eshevery for making sure that this proceeding is advertised on SFGovTV and made available to the public.

Mr. Clerk, do we have any announcements?

Yes. Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the Rules Committee Clerk at victor.yong at sfgov.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will also be included as the file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S. Mail to our office in City Hall,

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of February 3,

2026, unless otherwise stated.

That completes my announcements.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

Please call item number one.

Item number one is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of

San Francisco to change the current two-term limit for the Office of Mayor and the Office

of members of the Board of Supervisors from consecutive term limits to lifetime term limits

at an election to be held on June 2, 2026. Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk, and I do believe we have

Supervisor Mahmoud here to speak on this item. Supervisor. Thank you, Chair, and thank you,

members, for the opportunity to share more about this charter amendment. I'll share a little bit

more about what this charter amendment is intended to do and what message we're sending by having

this on the ballot in June. This charter amendment will do something quite simple. It will enforce

that term limits that the voters already voted on for mayor and the board of supervisors should

remain at two terms over their lifetime. This closes a loophole where currently supervisors

and mayor have the opportunity to serve in two terms, take a gap for a term, and come back over

and over. This is important because it closes off access to a pipeline of a next generation

of candidates. Every campaign, every four years, when you have termed up politicians with the

ability to come back, it closes off the opportunity for the next generation to raise their hand

and say, I'd like to have an opportunity to represent my community as well. If we look even

over this last year. A little over a year ago, there was not a single millennial on the Board

of Supervisors. A year later, a majority of the board is now representative of a new generation

of leadership. As a result of that new generation of leadership, we've had amazing progress on

housing, safety, and small business. It shows that representation leads to results. And lastly,

this is important in the context of the times that we're living in today.

It gives voters the opportunity this June in San Francisco to send a message to Washington

to say that when our charter says that it's two terms, it should remain as two terms with no

loophole. And when you have the president of this country saber-rattling about his third term,

this will give voters the opportunity to send a message that we believe in term limits and

closing a loophole. Colleagues, that is, I hope to have your support today and looking forward to

the dialogue thus far. Thank you so much, Supervisor Mahmood. I don't see anything from

colleagues, I do have a couple of things that I do want to say about this legislation.

I really think that this is really a solution in search of a problem.

If you think different, I would love to have all of the former mayors and former supervisors

come line up that have actually ran for office again after they were termed out.

And even furthermore, I would love to have the former mayors and former supervisors that have ran for office and turned out and have actually won.

I think that we are focusing on a policy that may affect one, two, or three people at some point in time,

which I think is almost ridiculous because we have a billion-dollar projected deficit here in this city.

We have a $300-plus million deficit projected for MTA.

And let's not forget that elections cost money.

People spend money on elections.

And why this is our focus, I truly don't understand.

We have affordability issues for 800-plus thousand residents.

But since we do want to ensure that more people have bigger opportunities

and that we provide space for new ideas,

I think my colleague is not going far enough with this legislation.

And someone who is a job creator

and someone who has actually been considered an expert in workforce development,

I think that we should open this up to every last elected office in this city

for the very same reasons my colleague expressed

for this legislation being in front of us in the first place.

So I am proposing amendments that would apply this to all SF elected officials.

This way, the author can achieve exactly what they set out to do.

I want to thank Supervisor Mahmoud for working to come up with opportunities for more people to be able to serve.

And I have sent out these amendments.

Everyone has them.

but the gist of the amendments will impose a lifetime two-term limit on the office of assessor

recorder, city attorney, district attorney, public defender, sheriff, treasurer, members of the Board

of Education, and members of the City College Board of Trustees. It will provide provisions for

anyone holding those offices as of June election or elected at the June election and who would

otherwise be termed out under new term limit, they may complete their term of office and one

additional four-year term. These amendments are reflected in the short and long titles and in

sections 6.100, 8.100, and 8.101. There are also a few clarifying and confirming amendments to

those sections in the long title, and I do just want to emphasize that my amendments are not about

anyone who is currently sitting in office today, and they do provide for all office holders to

complete their term and serve another four years, no matter how many previous terms that they have

served. I want to thank my colleague, Supervisor Mahmood, for encouraging more participation in

the democratic process and for wanting to allow the same opportunities for everyone across the

city. I think it's very kind of you to want to allow for more opportunities for people to serve.

With that said, I don't see any other statements from colleagues, so we will,

sorry, Supervisor Cheryl, my apologies. Chair, I just had a couple clarifying questions for the

city attorney on your amendment, but I don't want to jump the gun if this is not the right time.

I think the time is whenever we decide as a body to have the conversation, so it's up to you.

Okay. Sorry. In looking at extending the lifetime term limits to elected office, I'm kind of looking specifically at city attorney and district attorney.

Can you just remind me here, what are the city attorney and district attorney need to be credentialed specifically, correct, and separate from the board of supervisors?

There are different kind of credentials there, right? Professional credentials?

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi, yes, there are, in the Charter there is a provision governing

the qualifications for city attorney, and under state law there are qualifications for

district attorney as well, professional qualifications, like being elected attorney.

And not for Board of Supervisors, which I know.

That's right.

For Board of Supervisors you need to live in the district where you are elected and you

have to be an elector of that district, meaning registered to vote there.

Okay, and then for city attorney, district attorney, public defender, and so public defender and treasurer, are there also credentials required for those?

Right. For public defender, there's qualifications in the charter, and in state law, there are qualifications for treasurer and tax collector.

Okay. Which of the offices are under county authority and state authority? And does that differential, would those credentials kind of govern, change our ability to govern the offices? I just want to make sure I'm clear on that.

The county officers of San Francisco are the assessor, recorder, district attorney, sheriff, and treasurer, tax collector.

And those state law does not impose term limits for those offices.

But does anything about the state credentialing versus county credentialing or county requirements,

does that change our ability to impose term limits on either of those?

that you mentioned with state credentialing necessary?

Supervisor, this is a question that I'm happy to brief you on confidentially.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Great.

And I think with that, you know, I know we're going to vote on the amendments,

but after that I'd like to move to send this to the full board

without recommendation as a committee report.

Thank you, Supervisor.

And I will say, obviously, you know, some of your concerns or questions

or things that were discussed that would not be possible for me to put these amendments

forward if it was not legal.

There's no precedent for us not to be able to set our own term limits here in the city

and county of San Francisco.

I will also say that the professional credentials needed, obviously, for most of the offices

that were brought up by Supervisor Sherrill also require a law degree in the passing of

the bar.

and there are no changes to any of those required credentials within what I'm proposing.

All I'm saying is that putting the same eight years of service for Board of Supervisors and Mayor

also should apply to every elected official here in San Francisco.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

With that said, seeing no other comments or speakers, Mr. Clerk, would you call for public comment?

members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time

each speaker will be allowed two minutes there will be a soft chime when you have 30 seconds

left and a louder chime when your time has expired are there any members of the public

would like to comment on this matter please line up at this time

you can begin great good morning supervisors my name is Adriana Zhang I am proud that

supervisor Mahmoud has shown leadership by taking action on this issue that was published by Ruth

an eye in our op-ed. I know that all of us believe in good governance and responsible leadership,

and this ballot measure is simply restoring the original promise of term limits in 1998.

I know that, again, for all of us really want to work towards this goal. For termed-out politicians

to run again and again indefinitely may be an exception today, but will become a pattern tomorrow,

And that's what we're trying to stop here today.

I grew up here in San Francisco, a city that prides itself on progress and justice.

As a public policy student at Stanford, I know that San Francisco stands for innovation and moving forward.

And as the former chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission, I know that firsthand that the city is rich with ideas and people.

Right now, our term limit system does not live up to those values.

New candidates, especially young people and first-time leaders, community organizers,

are discouraged from stepping up in the first place.

The playing field is already tilted towards those with name recognition, donor networks, and institutional power.

That's not competition. That's imbalance.

And so at a moment when trust in government is fragile,

this body has a chance to restore democratic norms here in San Francisco and around the country.

This June, San Francisco deserves an opportunity to decide, and I urge you to place this measure on the ballot.

We want to send a clear message that fairness matters, democracy matters, and rules matter.

Thank you.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Ren Fitzgerald, and I am urging you to vote yes to place this ballot measure on the term limit,

this term limit reform on the ballot.

In 1990, San Francisco voters passed term limits for supervisors,

understanding that indefinite service from a single individual limits new ideas, innovation, and opportunity.

Closing the loophole will restore the promise of these ideals.

San Franciscans, young people like myself especially, deserve the opportunity to run.

But it's not just about leveling the playing field for prospective candidates.

Closing this loophole will bring new ideas and new solutions to some of the city's biggest problems.

Allow the voters the opportunity to close this loophole and restore the opportunities

we were promised.

Thank you.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Ruth Ferguson.

I'm a trustee for the City College of San Francisco, but I'm here in a personal capacity.

For too long, young, smart, dedicated leaders have been quietly pushed aside and pushed

out of local government because of the same tired politics in City Hall.

Recent elections show us that people are ready for change, that we're not afraid of those who challenge the political establishment.

Instead, we welcome them.

In 1996, San Franciscans made their voices loud and clear when they voted to institute term limits on supervisors.

This ballot measure wasn't a backroom deal.

It was the result of an independent task force created by voters that spent years transparently researching term limits.

Because of this thoughtful process, term limits on San Francisco's supervisors gained widespread

support across the political spectrum.

But then, when it came time to actually implement these changes, these transparent changes,

this loophole was weaponized to undermine the will of the people.

So for the past 30 years, we have failed to properly enforce the spirit of the term limits

our voters passed.

Instead, we've allowed this loophole to persist.

The public didn't get a say in this loophole.

In fact, it was as if the votes cast by voters to enforce term limits on our supervisors didn't matter at all.

This is not how San Francisco implements policy, and it's not at all how we should do politics.

And to be clear, especially to Supervisor Walton, there is a long list of former and current elected officials that this will apply to, including some of you here today.

If we're ready for a new era in San Francisco and across the country, if we want new leadership that actually reflects the people we serve, we can't keep letting termed-out politicians run the show.

Let's uplift courageous leadership in San Francisco, not more of the same tired political machine.

Let's close the term limit loophole this June and build that future together.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Austin Milford-Rosales, and I'm here to encourage all of you to vote in favor

of putting this charter amendment on the ballot.

Our nation right now is in a crisis, and the leaders that brought us here are not the ones

capable of getting us out, in no small part because of how long they've been in office.

Although this may not seem like a significant large problem in San Francisco today,

as actions all over the country have shown us.

I believe it's very important for us as people

to take leadership and show what we want and what we value

in our government and our representatives.

Putting this measure on the ballot

will allow the people of San Francisco

to say they don't want to be represented

by the same person for 30 years, whether it's

at the House level or the supervisor level.

Thank you very much.

Is this one?

Yes.

OK.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Kudrit Kuntilis.

I serve as the vice chair of the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission.

I'm an advocacy officer with San Francisco Young Democrats

and also a policy co-chair with the San Francisco Women's Political Committee.

I'm speaking today in my personal capacity in favor of closing the term limit loophole.

My graduate school professor, political scientist Eaton Hirsch, writes in his latest book,

Politics is for Power, that democracy erodes when politics becomes something only insiders can realistically access.

When systems reward permanence and insider advantage, participation narrows and power concentrates.

I always try to look beyond the text of a law and ask what problem it was actually meant to solve.

When San Francisco adopted term limits, the intention was clear.

To prevent entrenchment, encourage renewal, and ensure political power didn't calcify in the hands of a few.

Term limits were meant to balance experience with accountability and to keep the door open for new leadership.

That includes younger leaders and newer voices who bring fresh ideas, lived experience, and urgency to public service.

What we have today may not necessarily be that kind of system.

The current loophole allows people who already have name recognition and political infrastructure to remain in the game indefinitely,

while quietly discouraging newer candidates, especially young people and first-time candidates,

to ever step forward.

This isn't about being anti-incumbent or anti-experience.

It's about whether we want a democracy that renews itself,

one that makes space for newer leadership alongside experience,

or one that prioritizes a small entrenched circle.

Therefore, today, I urge the Rules Committee to place this measure on the June ballot

and let San Francisco decide.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public

who wish to speak on this matter?

There are no additional speakers.

Thank you.

Supervisor Madelman.

Thank you.

Chair Walton, thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood,

for your work on this item

and thanks to the members of the public

who came out to exercise their democratic rights

and participate publicly.

I guess we all look,

I think this is definitely a measure

about which reasonable people can disagree.

And we all come at these questions

from our own unique perspectives.

I spent six years on the community college board

and I've now spent seven and a half years

on the board of supervisors

and from that vantage point, and I will say that I spent 18 years in the private practice of law

before joining the Board of Supervisors, but I believe that I'm a better supervisor today

than I was in 2018 when I was first elected.

I think Supervisor Walton is perhaps a better supervisor today than he was in 2018.

We have learned more about our communities.

We have seen the ways in which our city bureaucracy works and doesn't work.

We have, over repeat cycles, seen the budget process and seen different aspects of our charter and of our laws.

And I do think that experience matters a lot.

I have always been ambivalent about term limits because they are inherently anti-democratic.

They say to the people, you may think you know who you want for this office, but we are going to, before the election, say that you can't vote for this person because even if that person might be your top choice,

we think that there is a harm in putting that person back in office

or a greater benefit to be gained from switching it up.

Now, I also, given my decades of experience in San Francisco politics,

have seen the power of incumbency.

And it is actually not as overwhelming as you might think.

We have recently seen a mayor lose an election.

We've seen a member of the Board of Supervisors, an incumbent, lose an election recently,

or multiple members of the Board of Supervisors lose elections.

And we've certainly seen members of the Community College Board and the School Board get thrown out through Democratic elections.

But I do think the power of incumbency is a real thing,

and I do think that there is some period of time beyond which, however amazing you are,

with the possible exception of Nancy Pelosi

where we don't need you to come back.

So in my mind, what we're trying to do

is compromise between these competing goals.

And the compromise that was established in 1998,

I guess it was, that term limits went in,

seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

We elect people, we allow them to seek re-election, but then we say, if you're going to do it again, you've got to take some time off and let somebody else come into this spot.

I don't think that's a loophole.

I think that's actually a reasonable way to do this.

and by the way we have only seen one person in the 28 years since this since that charter amendment

happened take advantage of the ability to come back we've seen some other people try

but they haven't succeeded in that which means to me that you know insofar as we're trying to break

the power of incumbency and give other people a shot it's mostly happening I happen to believe

that in 2015, Aaron Peskin was just a better candidate for District 3 than his opponent.

But that's the only case where this ability to come back has been exercised, and we've

seen someone come back.

so I am open to the idea of switching from the kind of limit we have now two terms then you got

to take a break but you can come back to a lifetime limit eight years strikes me as short

and I have suggested to the author of this proposal that I would be amenable to supporting

a 12-year limit that would align San Francisco with the term limits we have at the state

legislature.

It's worth remembering those are not the first term limits, the state legislature, that we

adopted for the state legislature.

The first term limits we adopted were six years for the Assembly and eight years for

the Senate.

And what we saw and what people didn't like in that was the turnover of decision-making

authority in the legislature from the elected officials and the constituencies they represented

to the lobbyists and the lifetime staff.

That was generally the understanding of what happened

when we put in term limits in Sacramento.

And then I think in part to fix that

and allow people to gain both some expertise

and reset in a way that would give the elected officials

a little more authority with respect to the lifetime bureaucracy

and the lobbying community,

we did the 12-year lifetime limit at the state legislature.

I think if we want to do a lifetime limit in San Francisco for these local offices, I could probably support that.

But eight, I think, is too short.

And so I'm not going to be supporting this measure as currently proposed in June.

I'm not going to support it at the full board.

I would note that a majority of the board

has signed on either as the author or as co-sponsors

and I'm not committing that I always believe this

but this seems like a measure

I don't hate this

I just think I disagree about it

and I don't feel the need to try to kill this right here

right now in committee and prevent it from seeing the light of day

I think we can forward this to the full board

and have my colleagues vote on it.

But I don't think I'm a...

I actually know that I'm not a supporter of this measure.

Now, I appreciate my colleague, Chair Walton's, effort to make us consistent.

If we're going to rein in the mayor and the board of supervisors,

why aren't we reining in all of these other people?

But that amendment I actually like less even than what Supervisor Mahmood has proposed

because I do think that expertise becomes even more,

and experience becomes even more important for these offices

where you actually have to have some special skills as an attorney

or someone who knows something about being a treasurer or tax collector.

And so I don't think I can support that amendment here today either.

But the motion that Supervisor Cheryl has made

that we forward this to the full board without recommendation

is one that I can support.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, again,

for the opportunity to have this at rules and discuss the merits of it.

I wanted to discuss, just in response to some of the proposed amendments

and some of the discussion here as well,

on the component about potential term limits for other positions.

I think I understand the spirit of it, and I think it's an interesting proposal.

I think the focus of this ballot measure, though, is about closing a loophole on existing term limits.

And I would be open to looking at, with further diligence, term limits as they apply to other offices.

But I don't believe it fits within the scope of this current ballot measure,

because this is about reclarifying intent of an original ballot measure that the voters already passed.

and with the other term limits for the other positions I think there's more diligence to be

done on other groups that might be affected. For this ballot measure it's affecting positions that

have very few employees serving under them and in talking to the union that represents those

employees they are actually neutral on this ballot measure but with the ballot measure that would if

it was expanded to other positions, which is an interesting proposal. I'm not sure the diligence

has been done yet to understand the implications for the thousands of employees that are in those

respective positions and serving under those positions. And in preliminary conversations

with the unions that represent those positions, they did not actually seem that they are that in

favor of that proposal at this point in time. So I would be in support of further review of those

other positions as potentially a separate ballot measure, but it's not in the spirit of this one.

This is about closing a loophole. And so I think in that context, again, I actually think that this

is fulfilling the will of the voters from a democratic perspective. The original ballot

measure that was passed for term limits many decades ago was the voters making a statement

that they do believe in two terms as a limit for lifetime, theoretically.

But I think the point to clarify is that this loophole that was implemented

was not actually part of the original ballot language.

It was something that was kind of left out

and was put into interpretation by the then city attorney

in terms of how they implemented that law.

So the purpose of this ballot measure is actually to re-put on the ballot

to close the loophole that was never actually intended in the first place

from our position.

and to give voters the opportunity to make that statement that this is what the original intent of the law was

and letting the voters decide.

And I think term limits in that context actually lead to a thriving democracy.

Democracy requires change, and change requires change in leadership,

and ensuring that we have term limits in place is important.

Whether it's eight years or 12 years, that's another valid argument to discuss,

But again, the purpose of this ballot measure is to reinforce what the will of the voters already decided, which was eight years in max, and closing that loophole that was not intended to begin with.

And that's why, respectfully, like President Mandelman said, reasonable people can disagree.

And that's why I would ask, again, I'm comfortable with this passing out of committee without recommendation as a committee report to the full board, respecting that there's a difference of opinion here and letting the full board make a decision there.

So thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood.

I do just want to reiterate a couple of points.

I think the first thing, you know, growing up I was always concerned because people always talked about things only being so because of data.

You know, when you're somebody who grows up poor and you see that people with less opportunity are less successful, like, that's kind of common sense.

But when you become a policymaker, when you go get an education in political science,

when you go get an education in administration,

when you serve on policy bodies like the Board of Education and on the Board of Supervisors,

you learn the importance of data at least from what people present as how you should make policy.

so there is no data to support the the need for this addressing the quote-unquote loophole and

i know we've heard people say that this would be available to so many people but again we've only

had a few people who served for eight years as supervisors want to come back and run for election

again, and 99.9% of them have been unsuccessful.

To Supervisor Mandelman's point, it's only happened one time where somebody was actually

successful, and I can guarantee you this supervisor will not be running for office again.

But there's no data to support the need for this at a time where we have so many things

that are crucial to the success of this city.

So it makes me think this is more about politics than it is about good policy.

With that said, I am somebody who 100% supports term limits.

I think they are good.

I'm not interested in San Francisco becoming a place like cities like Chicago,

where you have mayors that are there for 20, 30 years,

and then their children become mayor for 20, 30 years.

I don't ever want to see that in San Francisco, and that's why we have term limits.

on the books right now. And it is very important for us to allow for new and fresh leadership. I

100% agree with that. That's why if we are going to really discuss term limits, if we are going to

really discuss providing opportunities for new leadership, then let's allow every elected office

benefit from these term limits. And I understand that there's a certain required expertise for

some of these positions, and we're not asking to do anything about changing the expertise that's

required for some of these elected offices. I will say, being an attorney, does that automatically

make you a great administrator or any other professional degree or certification you may

have? It does not make you automatically a successful leader. And so, again, giving somebody

the ability to be around for a very long time can lead to its own set of issues.

So if we're going to do term limits, let's do term limits.

But I do want to thank folks for coming out.

I think this is a conversation that obviously is going to continue.

And if this does go on the ballot and is successful, so be it.

and it'll be good for two offices here in the city,

but it won't apply to anybody else.

And I've seen people create their own little fiefdoms

outside of the Board of Supervisors

and outside of the mayor's office.

And I would argue that the mayor

does not have a whole bunch of staff.

I think that for sure is definitely not true,

but we can take that debate at another time.

But with that said, I do want to move

that my amendments be accepted and at least have a vote on the record.

Yes, on the motion to accept the proposed amendments to apply term limits to all elected

officers.

On that motion, Vice Chair Sherrill?

Sherrill, no.

Member Mandelman?

Mandelman, no.

Chair Walton?

Aye.

Walton, aye.

That motion fails.

Motion fails. And on the motion to move this item forward without recommendation.

As a committee report? Yes.

Yes, on the motion to refer this matter to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation as a committee report.

On that motion, Vice Chair Sherrill? Aye.

Sherrill, aye. Member Madelman? Aye.

Madelman, aye. Chair Walton? No.

Walton, no. That motion passes with Chair Walton dissenting committee.

The matter will be referred to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation as a committee report.

Thank you. Motion carries.

Mr. Clerk, do we have any other items this morning?

That completes the agenda for today.

Thank you. We are adjourned.

Thank you.