The Biggest Change

Published: Monday, October 8, 2007 7:05 PM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

Of all the recommended changes to the city charter that the San Diego City Council is preparing to consider, the biggest is not the expansion of the City Council from eight seats to 11.

Sure the expansion would be stressful. Drawing the new district boundaries will cause enormous angst. And you never hear anyone demanding that the city spend more money on offices and staffs for the politicians.

But the biggest issue, I think, among the recommendations is the push to strengthen the mayoral veto. Right now, the mayor has the right to veto actions by the City Council. But the council can override him by simply getting the same number of votes together.

To our surprise, however, the mayor was actually able to successfully veto something twice this year. For example, he vetoed the City Council's proposed ban on Wal-Mart Supercenters within city limits and it actually held. The City Council couldn't muster the same number of votes it had to pass it.

The veto may not be completely toothless but it's pretty gummy. The mayor's Charter Review Committee has recommended that the City Council be comprised of 11 members. So, six of them would be needed to pass a bill. If the mayor vetoed the measure, the committee recommended that it take eight votes to override him.

Of all the changes proposed to the city charter, there is nothing that would more dramatically change the way things worked at City Hall. The mayor would have power not only over the management of city personnel and the budget, but he'd have a direct, unavoidable say in legislation.

The City Council has effectively sidelined the mayor on major votes, proud of its ability to do as it pleases. Now the mayor could turn into the gatekeeper, forcing the body to work things out with him before going forward.

This isn't necessarily bad. The Charter Review Committee didn't even consider recommending that new members of the City Council be elected from the city at large. District elections have made City Council members unbearably district-centric. They measure their accomplishments by what happens in their neighborhoods not in what the city achieves.

That means this historic chance to put some more general perspective on the City Council has pretty much slipped away. The mayor will be the only elected official (except for the city attorney) who will have the city's interest as a whole in mind.

Yes, if this passes, things will change dramatically.

My prediction: The City Council aims at this and forges a compromise with the mayor. The compromise? They will lower the burden, making it so the council only needs seven votes to override his veto.

The council will think they got something but their job will effectively be less important from that moment forward.

Of course, I'm the absolute worst predictor around.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

7 Comments so far on this story...

Both for fiscal and logistical / organizational reasons, I would only support increasing the Council by one member. The fiscal reasons are obvious: The last thing this city needs right now is to be paying for several new council members, TWICE. First, the cost of funding the operations of each new councilmember's office, then second, the additional tax dollars that would be spent on the pork and special interest projects that each additional councilmember would want. As for the logistical and organizational reasons: we only need one more member to break tie votes; next, adding three more members would make the operations of council even more unwieldy than they often are now; and finally, if you think the current councilmembers are already too parochial and hyperinterested in helping their own, respective districts, imagine what it would be like with even more districts being narrowly served at taxpayer expense.

Posted by www.robert-lee.org | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 6:22 am

I think you are on the right trac. If the council is increased to 11 members and the veto over-ride is placed at 8, things will be dramaticly changed. Changed for better or worse? Taking the person out of the equation, Mayor Sanders, is is too much to ask for the over-ride to be 8 council votes? I would say "HELL YES". I would agree with you that 7 would be a compromise. I also agree that 6 may not be enough. What is the answer??? The answer is for the public to pay attention to who they vote for and stop listening to the Union Tribune Editorial Staff and actually get to know and understand the person they are electing. Elect people who have the citizens interest in mind not theirs or special interest. But then, is that asking too much?

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 7:27 am

Why is it assumed that each council office would still get a million dollars? Why wouldn't there budget just be indexed to the number of citizens they served.... I.e. if you serve half as many citizens you get half as much budget. I think that is the weakest of all arguments for not increasing the Council seats. Also, the charter commissions passing on citywide council members is rediculous. The real reason that nobody wants to have City wide council members is that individual council members don't want another politician to have a legitimate cause for debating policy with them as it pertains to there district, likewise, the Mayor doesn't want anyone else to have a real concern about the big picture.

Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 9:23 am

The answer is to reduce the Council by 8.

Posted by Rpsebud | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 9:23 am

I am in 100% agreement with Rpsebud, things are just not working out in this City democracy.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 10:06 am

The reason why a return to a city-wide runoff election was not considered is because it would probably violate the Federal Voting Rights Act. The Charter Review Committee did discuss it.

Posted by Michael Jenkins | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 10:27 am

Scott speculates about what single measure will make the "biggest change" in local government if City Council approves any recommendation coming from Mayor Sanders' handpicked Charter- change committee of lobbyists and insiders. In fact, Pandora's Box has been opened with recent "strong mayor" tinkering by too many players; the progressive time-honored City Manager form of governance still has much in its favor for a town as beleaguered as ours; and we would have to be crazy to hand over absolute and unaccountable power to the City Hall group presently in charge, both in front of and behind the scenes. Can't we call a time-out now, before City Council waffles and deals; before confusing and confused "public testimony" on rigged suggestions coming from a mayoral committee of questionable provenance; before money is spent on a bogus campaign to persuade voters to embrace something without redeeming value.

Posted by Francine Foraday | reply to this comment
October 9, 2007 11:59 am

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.