Thursday, June 28, 2007

The "Direct Election of Mayor" Stampede Begins


As we head toward the celebration of Independence Day, July 4th, the agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 3rd, became available on the city web site. Of special interest on this particular agenda is the next-to-last item, the debate of whether or not to directly elect the position of mayor at some point in the future. This will certainly provide us with some pre-4th fireworks. I thought it was curious to place such an important issue on the agenda at a meeting almost certain to be sparsely attended because of the holiday. However, former mayor Gary Monahan was very specific about it when he proposed the change.

KIM BARLOW'S REPORT

I scrolled down through the staff report prepared by City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow for the council to consider on Tuesday. That report, which can be reached by clicking here, provides some very interesting food for thought. As usual, Ms. Barlow has provided plenty of information for the council to con
sider. For example, she goes into an exhaustive analysis of the balancing of terms of council members and a mayor, depending on the circumstances of the election which approves the position.

Paraphrasing Ms. Barlow, here are a few pearls gleaned from her report (the emphasis is mine):

1- Ge
nerally, an "elected" mayor has the same powers as an "appointed" mayor. However, an elected mayor, "with the approval of the city council, shall make appointments to boards, commissions and committees unless otherwise specifically provided by statute." This means that an elected mayor selects individuals for appointments, but subject to the City Council's "right to reject mayoral appointments''. These appointments include "regional boards, commissions, and committees" and all "appointments to city council subcommittees." She goes on to tell us that the City Council may withhold approval of an appointment submitted to it by the mayor, but may not dictate to the mayor who the appointee must be. She also tells us an elected Mayor's power extends to the power to appoint members of the City's Planning Commission, but subject to the approval of the City Council. In my mind, that's a lot of power to place in the hands of one individual.

2- The term of such an elected mayor could be two or four years, depending on what the voters choose.

3- On the subject of salary of a directly elected mayor, Ms. Barlow indicates that an elected may
or may receive a salary in addition to the salary established for members of the council. She goes on to tell us that any such additional compensation is unlimited if it is established by the voters. Yikes!

4- On the subject of timing of such an election, Ms. Barlow provides extensive analysis and cost figures. She states that, "The estimated cost for our City to conduce a 'stand-alone election' is about $199,000". Later she further states that, "The cost of a consolidation election is estimated to be about $90,000 to $105,000."

5- There is no budget for a municipal election in the 2007-2008 budget, so an appropriate budget adjustment would have to be made, depending on the type of election anticipated.

If you're interested in the other details of Ms. Barlow's report I invite you to click on the link I provided in the second paragraph of this entry and review it in it's entirety.

QU
ESTIONS
I'm left with many questions about this subject but, in my view, the two most important to me are the following:
1 - Why is this change necessary?
2 - How will the direct election of the position of mayor improve the way the city is managed?

I need to be convinced that changing the system that has worked for more than a half century is ess
ential and will make a significant improvement in how things are managed. Former Mayor Gary Monahan mumbled something about this position giving Costa Mesa more stature among the other cities in Orange County. Well, when I look at the list of the six cities in Orange County who have directly elected mayors - Anaheim, Irvine, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana and Westminster - nothing jumps out at me as those cities having any particular elevated stature among the others simply because they directly elect the mayor. Anaheim gets a disproportionate amount of attention because of the recreation venues within it's borders. Irvine has gotten much attention because of it's growth, The Great Boondoggle, er, Park and because it had an egomaniac at the helm as mayor for a long time - the Emperor Agran. Miguel Pulido in Santa Ana is certainly not a good example of why an elected mayor is a great idea.

WHAT IS MONAHAN'S MOTIVE?

It's interesting that former Mayor Monahan is the moving force behind this initiative. A cynical gu
y might suspect that he got very comfortable at the municipal trough during his twelve years on the City Council and misses the significant benefits that come with a council position. I'm suspect he wouldn't be pursuing this change if he didn't think he had a lock on the position. And, if memory serves me correctly, didn't Monahan step down from the position of mayor not too long ago because his schedule was too busy? I wonder what's changed.

THE D
EVIL'S IN THE DETAILS
Not addr
essed in Barlow's missive to the council is the question of a sitting council member running successfully for the office of elected mayor. If a council member with two years remaining on his or her term decides to run for mayor, must he or she abandon that seat first? How would that vacant position be filled? Would another special election be necessary to fill the unexpired term? Would one of the vote-getters from the election be automatically appointed? What about term limits for this position?

WHY I WOULD VOTE "NO" TODAY
At this point, I'm not inclined to think favorably about this change. Even though the council is currently controlled by people I think are taking it in the wrong direction, I don't see how the direct election of the mayor would improve things. Quite the contrary, I see the real opportunity for corruption with such a change.
The opportunities for cronyism and control of the city agenda by one person - a dictator, as it were - makes this a bad idea. And besides, I'm not sure I want to make such a change in this city just to provide health care benefits to a former mayor's brood and to pad his city pension.

This issue is very important to every resident of this city because it will fundamentally change the way the city does business. I suggest those residents with an opinion or questions communicate with the city council and/or present themselves before the council Tuesday night to express their views. I have the impression that the council majority will attempt to stampede this through the process to have it placed on the next state-wide election, the primary in February. To make that happen, even though it's more than a half a year away, many things need to happen fast to meet statutory requirements - see Ms. Barlow's report for the details.

Tuesday's council meeting should make for some very interesting viewing.

Labels: , ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Flo Martin said...

One only needs to Google Carson California corruption and discover a myriad of reasons why not to support an "elected" mayor for Costa Mesa.

6/29/2007 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger Connected said...

2 Questions:

1. Would there be term limits? 2 terms?
2. Why would Monahan be the guy? Wouldn't Mansoor want to be the first direct elected Mayor?

6/29/2007 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

The duration of each term must be determined by the council and be part of the ballot measure. Same with term limits. Right now neither issue as it applies to the council would apply to a directly elected mayor.

Maybe Mansoor would give it a shot, although the OC GOP has been stroking him as though they have other plans for him. It will be interesting, because he really needs to put more time in as a Deputy Sheriff to vest a decent pension. A couple four-year terms as mayor/deputy sheriff would take him past the magic 20 year service mark.

Monahan is the only CM council member to qualify for a pension, meager though it would be. However, tack another eight years on it as a directly elected mayor and it begins to look pretty attractive, especially for a self-employed guy. Plus, the health care benefits for his family have to be a real inducement for him to run again. There's nothing to stop him from running for city council again. As I understand our term limits policy, once he has a break in service he can run again.

6/29/2007 04:04:00 PM  
Blogger Connected said...

Being involved in the OCGOP as I am, the only thing Allan could be on tap for would be Van Tran's Assembly seat in 2010, but now that Jim Righeimer has moved further into the district, Jim would definitely take that shot, considering he's run before and was in the running when Van was thinking about State Senate. Can't really see anything else on the horizon.

6/29/2007 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger Len Bose said...

Article: “Picnics, Games and Culture Shock” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000965.html


Fascinating story especially their role in conditioning (immigrants) in how to act more American. I can see the tailgating at the new soccer stadium already?
Parks are designed to serve as a social/class mixing bowl of sorts, with the distinct goal of lowering then-rising tensions between the born-here "haves" and the come-here "working-six-days-a-week-to-get-theirs" immigrants.
An interesting parallel.

7/02/2007 07:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home