LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

TO: The Honorable Board of Supervisors
FROM: Elaine Forbes, Legislative Analyst
HEARING: N/A
DATE: May 28, 2002
ISSUE: Appointments to City Board and Commissions

Summary of Request and Scope of Report

The Board of Supervisors asked the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) to report on the diversity of persons nominated and appointed to City Boards and Commissions. In a follow-up discussion with Supervisor Yee"s office, the sponsor of the request, the request was limited to Board of Supervisor appointments only. The request asks that the report include data on gender, age, ethnicity, and district of residency. Additionally, the request asks that the report include all persons whether current or past members from January 1, 2001 to present.

On September 26, 2001, the OLA released a report (file #011382) about the diversity of appointments made to boards, commissions, and to heads of departments. Consequently, this report expands the number of Board of Supervisor appointments surveyed and supplements the above-mentioned report with data regarding district of residency. Unfortunately, the City does not maintain records in a manner that delineates persons nominated but not appointed to commissions from those who have applied for positions that are currently filled. Therefore, this report can only consider appointed persons.

Executive Summary

The limited data available shows that Board of Supervisor appointed commissioners and board members are generally reflective of San Franciscans overall in terms of gender, race and ethnicity. However, some exceptions are notable. The limited data suggests that African-Americans are slightly over represented, and Asians and Latinos are underrepresented. Using limited data, districts do not appear to have equal membership. Looking solely at Board of Supervisor appointees, Districts 5, 7, and 8 appear to have more members than is average, while districts 9 and 11 have less. Considering all the appointments, Board of Supervisor, Mayoral and others, District 11 appears to be most underrepresented on boards and commissions. Districts 1, 3, and 4 also appear underrepresented. District 7 appears to have the highest number of representatives in both Board of Supervisor appointments and total appointments.

Presently, the City does not have a standardized method of collecting and tracking information about the diversity of board members and commissioners and does not maintain a tracking system of applicants not chosen to serve. If the Board of Supervisors wishes to monitor the diversity of persons who apply for and serve on boards and commissions in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, and district of residency, the Board may choose to require that all applicants complete a standardized application form and that monitoring information be consistently entered into a database. If the Board considers other factors such as age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and disability important for monitoring purposes, the Board may wish to work with the City Attorney"s office to change the application form.

Background

The City currently has 106 active commissions, boards and task forces (please See Attachment 1 for a full list). This report includes 24 commissions, boards and task forces, which the Board makes direct appointments to. This constitutes 165 appointees (please see Attachment 2 for a full list). Consequently, the conclusions herein are approximations that represent the demographics of fewer than 50% of boards and commissions. For district of residency, in order to enlarge the sample, this report includes advisory committees. Consequently, 221 Board of Supervisor appointed members were tallied, for which district of residency was available in 179 instances.

Information and Data Limitations

Board Members and Commissioners. According to the Office of the City Attorney, collecting information such as age, gender, ethnicity, and race should be done at the option of the applicant and in a manner that does not exclude or discourage any person from applying for a position. Accordingly, data used in this report was gathered using public documents such as applications and biographies. In instances where a commissioner or a board member did not volunteer his/her information, nothing was inferred other than gender.

For Board of Supervisors appointees, all vacancies are noticed to the public and applicants must submit a basic application for consideration. Applicants are requested to appear at the Rules Committee and the Committee makes recommendations to the entire Board. For seats that serve as representatives for a particular supervisor, the supervisors make direct appointments. In these instances, the Clerk of the Board requests an application in order to maintain contact information. The application for Board of Supervisors appointees was updated in April 2001 to optionally ask about ethnicity and gender, but the new form does not request information about race, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability.

Analysis

Boards & Commissions. Of the 165 commissioners, board, and task force members included in this analysis, 27 volunteered their age, 163 their gender, 67 their race and 70 their ethnicity. As a result, this report presents data on gender, race, and ethnicity. Age is excluded from this analysis because the sample size is less than 20% of those surveyed.

Findings. The data available shows that in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, commissioners and board members appointed by the Board of Supervisors generally reflect San Francisco"s population overall. However, some exceptions are notable. For example, compared to the City overall, Asians (31% of the County"s population, 24% of board members and commissioners) and Latinos (14% of the County"s population, 9% of board members and commissioners) are slightly underrepresented. African Americans may be over represented (15% of board members and commissioners compared to 8% of the City"s population). However, the African-American population in San Francisco has declined over the last 10 years (11% in 1990 to 8% in 2000) and the Asian population has grown slightly (29% in 1990 to 31% in 2000).¹ Sampled board members and commissioners more closely match San Francisco"s population in 1990 in terms of African-American and Asian representation.

 

Table 1: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity of SF County Compared to Board of Supervisor Appointed Board, Commission and Task Force Members
	SF County % of the Total	Board Members, Commissioners and Task Force Members % of the Total
Total	776,733	165
Gender		(N=163)
Male	51%	52%
Female	49%	48%
Race		(N=67)
White	50%	57%
African-American	8%	15%
Native American & Alaska Native	0%	0%
Asian	31%	24%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander	0%	0%
Some other race	6%	0%
Two or more races	4%	4%
Ethnicity		(N=70)
Latino (of any race)	14%	9%

Source: 2000 US Census & Applications for Members and Commissioners

District of Residency. To consider district of residency, this report expanded the query to include Advisory Committees, resulting in 221 members for which district of residency was available in 179 instances. The Clerk of the Board"s Office developed a tracking system for district of residency in 1999. The data available on that system - about 81% of Board appointed members have district data - indicates that districts 5, 7, and 8 have a higher percent of representatives than is the average for the districts, while districts 9 and especially 11 have fewer members. However, this data includes only 179 appointments and consequently may not be reflective of all appointments. In considering all the appointments, Board of Supervisor, Mayoral and other, for which district of residency data is available, some patterns emerge. District 11 appears to be most underrepresented on boards and commissions. Districts 1, 3, and 4 also appear underrepresented. District 7 appears to have the highest number of representatives in both Board of Supervisor appointments and total appointments.

 

Table 2: District of Residency
	Board of Supervisor Appointments	% of the total	All Appointments	% of the total
	(N = 221)		(N=558)
District 1	14	5.9%	17	3.0%
District 2	14	5.9%	36	6.5%
District 3	14	5.9%	19	3.4%
District 4	15	6.3%	24	4.3%
District 5	22	9.3%	44	7.9%
District 6	15	6.3%	45	8.1%
District 7	28	11.8%	50	9.0%
District 8	26	11.0%	40	7.2%
District 9	11	4.6%	30	5.4%
District 10	16	6.7%	24	4.3%
District 11	4	1.7%	10	1.8%
Average	16	6.9%	31	5.5%
No District Data	42	17.7%	219	39.2%
*Shaded Districts are at least .5 below the average in both categories (BOS appointments and all appointments).

Conclusion

The limited data available shows that in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, commissioners and board members in the City who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors generally mirror the City"s population distribution. However, Asians and Latinos may be underrepresented. Districts do not appear evenly represented; however, data is limited and may be inaccurate.

If the Board of Supervisors wishes to monitor the diversity of board members and commissioners in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, and district of residency, the Board may choose to require that all appointees complete the application form and that monitoring information be consistently entered into a database. If the Board considers other factors such as age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, and disability important for monitoring purposes, the Board may wish to change the application form in coordination with the Office of the City Attorney and may also wish to track information for all applicants not just those who are appointed.

Attachment 1: San Francisco Boards, Commissions, and Task Forces, September 2001

 

Number	Name
1	Access Appeals Commission
2	Affirmative Action Task Force
3	Airport Commission
4	Animal Welfare and Control Commission
5	Art Commission
6	Asian Art Commission
7	Asthma Task Force
8	Assessment Appeals Board
9	Ballot Simplification Committee
10	Bay Area Library and Information System Advisory Board
11	Bicycle Advisory Committee
12	Board of Appeals
13	Board of Examiners of DBI
14	Building Inspection Commission
15	Business Tax Board of Review
16	CEDAW Task Force
17	Child Care Planning and Advisory Council
18	Children and Families First Trust Fund and Commission
19	Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections
20	Citizens Advisory Committee on Wastewater Management
21	Citizens Advisory Task Force for the Central Freeway
22	Citizens Committee on Community Development
23	City-wide Alcoholism Advisory Board
24	Civil Service Commission
25	Clean Air Advisory Committee
26	Code Advisory Commission (DBI)
27	Commission on the Aging
28	Commission on the Environment
29	Commission on the Status of Women
30	Convention Facilities Management
31	Delinquency Prevention Commission
32	Developmental Disabilities Area Board
33	Digital Divide Task Force, Joint Board of Education
34	Disaster Council
35	Drug Abuse Advisory Board
36	Elections Task Force, 2001
37	Emergency Room Diversion Task Force
Number	Name
38	Ethics Commission
39	Film Commission
40	Fire Commission
41	Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
42	Golden Gate National Recreation Area Advisory Commission
43	Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority
44	Grants for the Arts
45	Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee
46	Health Authority - San Francisco
47	Health Commission
48	Health Service Board
49	Hospital and Nursing Home Discharge Planning Task Force
50	Housing Authority
51	Human Rights Commission
52	Human Services Commission
53	Immigrant Rights Commission
54	In Home Supportive Services Public Authority
55	Joint Board of Education/ Board of Supervisors Digital Divide Task Force
56	Juvenile Probation Commission
57	Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
58	Lead Hazard Reduction Citizens Advisory Committee
59	Lead Poisoning Prevention Citizens Advisory Committee
60	Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer/Questioning Youth TF
61	Live/Work Task Force
62	Local Agency Formation Commission
63	Local Homeless Coordinating Board
64	Long Term Care Pilot Project Task Force
65	Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Board
66	Mayor"s Criminal Justice Council
67	Mayor"s Disability Council
68	Mental Health Board
69	Office of International Trade & Commerce
70	Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee
71	Parking and Traffic Commission
72	Permit Appeals
73	Planning Commission
74	Police Commission
75	Port Commission
Number	Name
76	Potrero Power Plant Advisory Task Force
77	Public Utilities Commission
78	Public Utilities Infrastructure Task Force
79	Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Committee
80	Redevelopment Agency
81	Relocation Appeals Board
82	Rent Board
83	Risk Management
84	Seismic Safety Retrofit Bond Program Advisory Board
85	Seismic Safety Retrofit Bond Program Board
86	Shopping Cart Task Force
87	Skating Advisory Committee
88	Small Business Commission
89	Southeast Community Facility Commission
90	SRO Hotel Safety and Stabilization Task Force
91	Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 2000
92	Sustainable Funding for School Arts and Music Task Force
93	Sutro Tower Health and Safety Task Force
94	Taxicab Commission
95	Telecommunications Commission
96	Transbay Joint Powers Authority
97	Transgender Civil Rights Implementation Task Force
98	Transportation Authority
99	Treasure Island Development Authority Board of Directors
100	Treasure Island Development Authority Citizens Advisory Board
101	Unreinforced Masonry Appeals Board
102	Veterans Affairs Commission
103	Victims of Violence Advisory Committee
104	Video Display Terminal Advisory Committee
105	War Memorial, Board of Trustees
106	Youth Commission

Attachment 2: Boards, Commissions, and Task Force Surveyed for this Report, March 2002

 

Number	Commission
1	Advisory Council to the Commission on the Aging
2	Airport Noise Committee
3	Animal Control and Welfare Commission
4	Assessment Appeals Board No. 1
5	Assessment Appeals Board No. 2
6	Ballot Simplification Committee
7	Bay Area Library and Information System Advisory Board
8	Building Inspection Commission
9	Child Care Planning and Advisory Council
10	Children and Families First Trust Fund and Commission
11	Community Land Trust Task Force
12	Delinquency Prevention Commission
13	Developmental Disabilities Area Board
14	Ethics Commission
15	Immigrant Rights Commission
16	Local Agency Formation Commission
17	Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Board
18	Mental Health Board
19	Park, Recreation and Open Space Advisory Committee
20	Seismic Safety Retrofit Bond Program
21	Transbay Joint Powers Authority
22	Veterans Affairs Commission
23	Veterans Affairs Commission
24	Youth Commission

Attachment 3: City Departments Included in this Analysis, September 2001

 

Number	Name
1	Administrative Services
2	Adult Probation
3	Agriculture/ Weights & Measures
4	Airport Commission
5	Animal Care & Control
6	Art Commission
7	Asian Art Museum
8	Assessor/Recorder
9	Board of Appeals
10	Board of Supervisors
11	Building Inspection
12	California Academy of Sciences
13	City Admin Office
14	City Attorney
15	Civil Service Commission
16	Commission of the Environment
17	Aging and Adult Services
18	Controller
19	Convention Facilities
20	Child Support Services
21	COSW
22	County Clerk
23	District Attorney
24	Department of Elections
25	Emergency Communications Department
26	Ethics Commission
27	Fine Arts Museum
28	Fire Department
29	Human Resources
30	Human Rights Commission
31	Human Services
32	Juvenile Probation
33	Law Library
34	Mayor
35	Medical Examiners
36	Office of Citizen Complaints
37	Parking and Traffic
38	Planning Commission
39	Police Department
Number	Name
40	Port Commission
41	Public Defender
42	Public Health
43	Public Library
44	Public Trans Dept
45	PUC
46	Public Works
47	Purchasing
48	Real Estate
49	Recreation & Park
50	Rent Arbitration Bd.
51	Retirement
52	SFCCD
53	SFUSD
54	Sheriff
55	Telecomm & Info Svcs
56	Treasurer/ Tax Coll
57	War Memorial

¹ US Census 1990 and 2000, on the web @ www.census.gov.