Getting Lost in Translation
Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007 | Go to the Charter Review Committee's website and you'll find a bountiful index of links and documents. If you want to know when and where the full committee or one of its subcommittees is meeting and what they're debating, you can simply click and read its work plan.
There's only one problem: It might not be accurate.
The work plan never would've told you that on Friday, the subcommittee inspecting the roles of the city's elected officials was going to vote on a new definition for the city attorney's relationship with the City Council. It doesn't even show that subcommittee as having a meeting that day.
It also wouldn't tell you that the Sept. 20 meeting has been cancelled and rescheduled for Sept. 21. That's the full committee's second-to-last meeting, during which it was scheduled to tackle a number of important subjects such as the city's vital audit structure, city attorney, appointment power and more.
These are not merely bureaucratic hiccups. They are indicative of a process that has been rushed and ill-conceived from the start.
The long-term shape of the city's own constitution is at stake, yet you would think the committee was planning the homecoming dance by the manner in which it was selected and has gone about doing its business.
Mayor Jerry Sanders convened his Charter Review Committee in April and since then it has been working at a fevered pace to race through an edit of the city charter with the hopes of releasing a set of recommendations to the City Council at the end of this month. After that, the City Council can put these suggestions -- or its own -- on the 2008 ballot.
The Members of the Charter Review Committee
But the process has hit a number of snags. These troubles call attention to the need for a lengthy, public process for constitutional reform to augment or replace this hasty enterprise.
For a while, the committee's three subcommittees met concurrently, making it impossible for one individual from the public to participate in all the meetings. The city also couldn't televise the meetings.
Two of City Hall's busiest lobbyists oversee two of the subcommittees. A third is run by Alan Bersin, the man who was given the plum job as chairman of the airport authority by none other than Sanders. It is very clearly the mayor's committee, not the people's.
The public isn't sufficiently represented in the make-up of the group and hasn't been given the opportunity to be involved in the process.
Boosters cite the need to extend the strong-mayor experiment beyond its five-year sunset period in 2010 as the motivation for the swift movement. They say waiting until 2010 to seek the extension is too risky.
That is no excuse for rushing through a rewrite of the city's constitution. It is clear that the rushed nature has served no one well and, as a result, the process risks both damaging the credibility of what are indeed to be some very important reforms and spoiling the hard work of a volunteer committee.
Strong mayor can be extended in 2008 temporarily and the city can then be given the proper time to select an elected charter commission -- the kind that can truly represent the people and send its recommendations directly to the voters without City Council interference.
The Charter Review Committee is tackling a number of weighty issues. It recommends adding three council seats; clarifying the mayor's veto; and setting up a financial watchdog structure that will hopefully help avoid the embarrassing and costly financial problems that put the SEC and FBI at City Hall's doors.
But it has strayed from its original mission, taking on issues that are too far afield from its original calling and that threaten to inject political poison into the debate. For example, the committee has stepped into the long-running power dispute between the City Council and the city attorney, which is sure to overshadow anything else on the ballot.
Its weirdest recommendation has to do with strong mayor itself. The committee would have voters approve a temporary extension that lasts until 2014. And on New Year's Day 2014, it becomes permanent. Now that's some clever spin.
We do wholeheartedly endorse one proposal. Unfortunately, that has been relegated to the committee's "parking lot," where it places items to be dealt with in the future. This would call for the formation of a new charter committee, either appointed by the council or elected by the people, a few years after the 2008 vote and then every 10 years afterwards. There, we believe, everything but today's most immediate issues should be dealt with -- by a group that would be subject to the state's open meeting laws.
The long list of issues being considered by the committee is truly worthwhile and necessary. But unless it's addressed in a way that inspires trust and elicits participation, even the most well-meaning reforms won't get invited to the dance.
voiceofsandiego.org
Reader Feedback
Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:
Comments so far on this story: 1. Fed Up wrote on September 11, 2007 12:35 PM:
"In the hands of flunkies who make up the present Charter Review Committee there cannot be a good outcome for the citizens of San Diego. Chairs Alan Bersin and John Davies shortly will recommend draconian measures for the ballot to rein in independent City Attorney Mike Aguirre. The CRC will strengthen the hand of inept "strong mayor" Jerry Sanders to the point that any city council will be stripped of its citywide authority. Land use decisions will be made in back rooms, outside the purview of weakened community planning groups and professional planners. The so-called "accountable" strong mayor will be beyond public reach except quadrenially at election time. We now need an elected charter review commission that meets deliberatively and under press scrutiny, that will revisit the notion of a competent city manager/mayor/counci system of government as well as this hyped experiment." 2. Ridiculous wrote on September 11, 2007 3:27 PM:
"It seems odd that over the past couple of months some have been complaining about how there isn't enough chance for input, and how this group is just moving forward, blah blah blah. Has it occurred to any of you yahoos to just start going to the meetings and giving your input? Do you think that might be more productive than complaining about there not being enough opportunity for input? This hasn't been a big secret - the fact is that most people don't want to bother. If we wait until 2010 to address it, we will have a lapse in the law, during which we'd have to deal with a reversion to a city manager structure that won't exist. Just go to the meetings and quite complaining." 3. BenEfit wrote on September 11, 2007 11:24 PM:
"The charter review committee is another example of this mayor's desire is to continue with closed door politics after running on a campaign of transparency. This will truly change his power level, elevating him to a height that risks democracy and violates the public interest. Jerry will be telling you what you should know and how you should vote in hopes that you, the citizen, will continue with your apathy towards government and disengage even further. He epitomizes "big brother" and wants to be the first King of San Diego" 4. Christopher Hall wrote on September 12, 2007 12:54 AM:
"Hey everybody -- let's call this throwback charter review Committee the 'Grant Grillers.' // Seriously, let's all jump on this one and brand the image of the charter review committee what it really is: a group of good old boys/ girls meeting in the back room plotting how to increase the efficiency by which they use/ control the city as their own private business tool. // For those who may not know, the Grant Grill is the lunch watering hole for the MEN only who ran the America's most corrupt city for their own personal benefit. The Grant Grill has a long tradition of being the nickname for the good old boys club, and it wasn't until the late 1960's that some prominent women went in and sat down demanding lunch be served to them, forever busting the sexism rooted in the good old boys club." 5. mel wrote on September 12, 2007 1:12 AM:
"Citizens are not represented ,but real estate developers sure are. Lobbyists Donna jones and Mike McDade represent at leasr 20 different developers. Chair John Davies is not a lobbyist, but his law firm has lobbyists representing 25 clients with business before the City.This is what Jerry Sanders calls a "representative' committee." 6. SILENCED & Disheartene wrote on September 12, 2007 11:11 PM:
"I have gone to 5 meetings! I'm very angry that SD Citizens were given very limited opportunities to speak. And, when we did speak, our comments were given little attention or ignored. Mr. Davies claimed my comments were "Silly"! The inconvenient hours & the poor locations, limited advertizing of this Committee, made this a poor attempt to hear from people. ~ But CRC seem to find many ways to silence the public's voices~ that were saying,"What is the Rush? or Why Not Balanced Power within city gov branches?" This article, & most comments are true & sadly accurate." 7. Inquiring Mind wrote on September 13, 2007 5:44 AM:
"Why can't the next City Charter codify that all charter reviews and recommendations for charter change be handled by an elected, broad-based charter commission that works publicly over a given period of time -- not including the summer months -- with ample opportunity for press coverage and public input?" 8. test2 wrote on September 14, 2007 3:59 PM:
"test" 9. Cheeky wrote on September 14, 2007 8:43 PM:
"Beware! Strong Mayor will soon equal Strong Dictator! As the public loses more and more say in governing its communities, the handful of Jerry supporters will reap the benefits of outsourcing. Do you really think that private contractors will listen to you - a mere taxpayer - when they have a signed contract for 5 years with the Mayor's blessing? Once the strong mayor initiative becomes permanent, it will be extremely hard to go back to the city manager/council/mayo format."
Feedback Rules
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.
Add Your Comments
|
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
