You haven't thought this one through, and neither has the UT. If you have an even numbered council, you need a majority to pass something. If you get a 5-5 vote, than it doesn't pass. Big deal. This would be neither unusual, nor undesirable. It's not deadlock, or legislative gridlock. If something is good for the city, it should be able to get 6 of 10 votes. If not, it won't. That is a different situation, and a different issue, from having a simple majority be able to overturn a veto. That is ridiculous and should be fixed.

Posted by Scott, think it thru | reply to this comment
November 26, 2007 5:55 pm

Scott- you did think it thru. The oddity is in the UT's support of the need-an-odd-number council and how that just doesn't work if the strong mayor experiment fails in 2010. [I think the UT is right the veto problem is only theoretical so far-- how many vetos have there been? like 3 How many were overruled by council vote?] Another oddity is in the recommended controls on the city attorney. It gives control of city attorney cases to the Mayor when the charter gives the Mayor control. If the strong mayor proposal fails, the mayor has no areas of control. And-- last the proposal to "extend" the experiment as proposed would legally end the experiment and make the new gov't permanent as of the vote.

Posted by historian | reply to this comment
November 26, 2007 6:34 pm

PS- Scott, think it thru, What we have in San Diego now is not a true veto-it's a way to make the City Council rethink or reconsider its initial vote on a matter, and gives the Mayor an opportunity to lobby councilmembers to change to his position. It's not ridiculous. It's politics. Oakland has a very similar system. They have 8 Council members and a strong mayor system. They tried the 6 vote override of the mayor's suspension of their action in their trial period and opted to REDUCE the override number to five....just like ours.

Posted by historian | reply to this comment
November 26, 2007 6:48 pm

I support the strong mayor form of government, but I hope the U.T. editorial is the kiss of death for charter reform. On Sunday, the U.T. talks about how important it is to have checks and balances and to implement what they call the landmark Kroll report. On Monday, they want the Mayor to appoint the city auditor. The U.T. talks about accountability, but they want the City Attorney to represent the corrupt municipal corporation. I say let City Attorney represent the best interest of the voters and let those responsible for the corrupt municipal corporation hang in the wind. The only thing I agree with the U.T. on is that the audit committee should be independent and that San Diegans need to wake up. The voters need to remember that the U.T. endorsed the Mayor before Sanders and that Mayor did not come out so great in the landmark Kroll report even if he is probably a decent person. What I would really like to see is a debate on the Voice of San Diego between Bob Kittle and a person representing the average person in San Diego. In other words, a person that is not part of what the U.T. calls a panel of respected citizens.

Posted by Elanus leucrus | reply to this comment
November 26, 2007 9:36 pm

No offense to "historian," but I hardly think Oakland is a city we want to turn to see how municipal government should work. This is the city that elected Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown as mayor, and then Communist Ron Dellums after him. You'd have to pay me to live there, as they say.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
November 26, 2007 10:06 pm

Scott, I'd say that you're mildly obsessed with the U-T. When voters agree to something as important as a strong mayor "trial" experiment, it's insulting for a committee to try to expedite the permanancy of such until the five year time period has expired. That action shows a complete disregard for the voters' wishes, something that is all too common in this administration's m.o. Mayor Sanders was just a little too blatant in supporting this obvious power grab.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
November 27, 2007 5:54 am

Jerry Sanders is giving us a perfect reason why we should think long and hard about changes to the charter. When you have a weak man in the postion of strong mayor, chaos results. His administration is in shambles, departments under his control are ignoring him, and the opportunity for real reform has been squandered for at least 4 years. And we want to give this guy more power?

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
November 27, 2007 7:49 am

The truth is Strong Mayor or City Manager form of government all lead to corruption if no one is watching. The fact is NO ONE HAS BEEN WATCHING during the last 10-15 years and look where we�re at today. Mayor Sanders stated he wanted transparency in government. Where? During the last two years his administration has been more opaque then the Mayoral days of Frank Curran. Then there is our City Attorney who says he�s only doing what needs to be done. The problem is he represents whatever side suits him for the moment, while really working the City toward bankruptcy. What San Diego really needs is a non-corruptible WATCH DOG. The trouble is finding one seems to be more difficult than anyone ever imagined! Strong Mayor or City Manager, it really doesn�t matter as long as corrupt individuals control the internal processes.

Posted by RD | reply to this comment
November 27, 2007 9:52 am

Scott, just when it looks like you are going to grapple with the truth, you side-step. First things first: A city charter "reform" committee made up of insiders and lobbyists -- all appointees of a mayor who is himself seeking to centralize power -- is a front for special interests who rigged the set-up in the first place. Summertime "committee" meetings of mayoral appointees pushing an agenda are totally bogus. City Council can accept and file all such recommendations for future reference and, honoring past practice, act to place a broadly representative elected Charter Commission on the November ballot. The trial period for "strong mayor" should be fully observed, not shortened. The elected Charter Commission would deliberate publicly over time, review previous recommendations, actively seek public comment and news coverage, and propose what seems to work best.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
November 27, 2007 10:00 am

Ms. Zimmerman, how exactly does the trial period end? Would we wait until AFTER the five years, and then put extention on the ballot, thereby having a lapse in the form of government? That is nonsensical, of course. We should have made it clear that it was a 7 year trial with a vote expected after five years. But we didn't, so it is reasonable to vote now to avoid a lapse. Now, I would support an extention with some modifications. Second, regarding Francis, apparently he noticed that flip-flopping is what candidates do these days. Good luck with that.

Posted by Two things | reply to this comment
January 15, 2008 8:42 pm

• 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.