There is no way in heck, so to speak, that any of the departing four councilmembers should have any say in the makeup of the new Council, which they will not be on! Duh! And don't forget, all four termed-out members are a part of the "Negligent Five", who saddled us with hundreds of millions of dollars in deficits, which will take the taxpayers of this city decades to pay off. Of the remaining four incumbent councilmembers, Tony Young stands out, to me, as the most qualified to be the new Council president. Let's just say, it would be indelicate of me to say why I think the other three -- Hueso, Faulconer and Frye -- are not as qualified as Young to be president of the new Council...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 13, 2008 5:46 pm

I,for one,believe that only the new Council should be permitted to vote for the future City Council President,in mid-December,and that position be up for re-election each year subsequently each December.The Holiday recess would give the new President a couple of weeks to get the ducks lined up.It's also extremely important to remember that the Council President also has a district to represent while they're administering to the Council as a whole.It's clear to many of us that there are a couple of these district staff crews that are overly taxed/tasked now and to put the additional weight of the administration of the Council upon them is to risk failure of either or both of their mandated missions.Whomsoever assumes this critical position they're indeed fortunate to have Liz Maland,the City Clerk and Andrea Tevlin,the IBA in place for support and guidance. IMHO,a mid-December vote would be best for everyone.

Posted by Jack Griffiths | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 6:29 am

My vote goes to Carl or Donna. I like Carl's ideas, but he MIGHT be too green to take on the positon right out of the blocks. But either one would be a good choice.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 6:40 am

Donna Frye, the perpetual 'one' of the 7 to 1 vote, as council president? To be the council president, you have to build consensus so you can get things done. Donna has shown herself to be excellent in the 'naysayer' and 'watchdog' role, but has never shown any ability to make effective compromises. I don't imagine she's going to be changing her stripes now. But who does that leave? Hueso or Young are the other democrats. Faulconer is the lone surviving republican on the council...hard to see how he would get the votes since at most the republicans could get to a 4-4 split on the council. SLOP is right, this one is a big mystery that will be fun to watch.

Posted by Simple Guy | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 7:10 am

As a resident of District 1, the question you pose is particularly difficult for me. It certainly deserves serious and sober consideration. It really does. However your question comes in the context of the departure of Scott Peters from office. I may be alone, but that happy, nay, joyous circumstance is just too distracting and delicious for me to much care about whether the next council prez represents a coalition or simple ceremony. (My bad.) Scott Peters' record for our city and our district has been, in a word, abysmal. Shall we review? Lets begin with his golf handicap: as faithful VOSD readers know that was Scott's excuse for missing the problems with the Managers II pension proposal--the one that gave Ron Saathoff a little sweetener for his pension (ok, a lot of sweetener) the employees some added benefits, and the city

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 7:27 am

Ah, the wrenching question of who gets to be President of City Clowncil. If power and internecine warfare over who has it and who doesn't continue to be hallmarks of our municipal government's legislative branch, watch the four lame ducks maneuver to name the replacement for jobless kahuna Scott Peters. Assuming that Council is a gathering of equals who have been duly elected by their constituents and recognizing that fully one-half of the body will be new to office after November, one might imagine a fresh start, a new beginning, a rededication to service and cooperation among the members. A utopian small-d democrat (like Donna Frye) argues for annual rotation of Council President responsibilities to put an end to turf wars, self-aggrandizement and narrow outlook. Personally, I share Donna's view, but my money is on the triumph of business-as-usual over the greater good. We'll see.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 7:43 am

dollar headache. Scott told Kroll he missed the problems because he was usually golfing on Friday afternoons and the proposal came into his office on Friday afternoon because it was going to be considered in closed session. The levels of incompetence and deception in this scenario are simple mind boggling. The irony of course is that as I write Saturday morning, Scott is probably using city tickets to watch the 3rd round of the US Open. Would that Scott had worked a little more on his political game and less on his tee shot. But Scott will say, "We've solved the pension mess!" Oh yeah? Tell that too the people in my neighborhood who will want to go swimming at their neighborhood pool next winter. Saathoff's goodies and the pension benefits mean they can't swim; it also means my neighborhood has neither the

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 7:46 am

fire stations or firefighters we need. Since we're talking about swimming and water, that leads me to two more of Scott's "signature" accomplishments: killing seal pups and pumping potable water into the gutters adjacent to his house. Thanks Scott for helping to make the childrens pool available to all your well-heeled neighbors. Children in the rest of the county don't need to experience nature. And thanks for consuming ten times the household average of water while telling everybody else they have to consider using toilet water. While toilet to tap may have merit, Scott's utter hypocrisy didn't help move the issue forward. Then we have Scott's statesmanship on Hillel and Rose Canyon. After campaigning on the promise he would listen carefully to communtiy planning groups, he didn't. He listened to Lynn Heidel and Bill Evans. What a disappointment, what a joke.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 7:54 am

Boy, Gen. Lee, you had me there -- enthusiastically even -- until I got to the name Tony Young. What makes this former school teacher so qualified to lead the council of the eighth largest city in the United States? He has never shown more comprehension of council affairs than any of the other present members -- with the exception of Heuso, natch. Actually, as far as qualifications go, the new president should be Carl DeMaio. Oh, but he hasn't even taken his seat, yet. Well, whatta ya want to go with, qualifications or seniority? Fry? I think anybody can see just how bogged down things will become with her setting the agenda. Nothing will get acted upon. Faulconer? His constant attempts to find consensus and sing Cumbaya won't get the council any farther. Actually, my second (Boling) and third (Thalheimer) choices haven't even been elected yet. They will_be.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 14, 2008 10:04 am

I agree that the Council President should be one who can build consensus among the group and help negotiate tough issues not just throw rocks and vote NO all the time. I think that of the experienced members left after November, Ben Hueso would be the best choice. He is thoughtful and smart and has been a consistent voice for rational ideas. We may not always agree with his position, but he could be the best and getting the new and old members working together quickly.

Posted by TruBeliever | reply to this comment
June 15, 2008 6:31 am

The selection of a new council president should without question fall on the newly elected council members. I would add that at least two years experience would be necessary to adequately guide and lead San Diego's City Council. Ben Hueso is a solid leader on the Council. His thoughtful representation of his district through the years has been solid. Tony Young is also a solid leader who would be a strong choice to lead a new council. Tony's teaching experience and eloquent speaking manner would be a calming presence in a chaotic setting. Bottom line is the outgoing members should without question pass on any involvement in the selection of the next council president. The four new members of the council should be involved in the decision but not considered for this very important leadership role.

Posted by Steve McMillan | reply to this comment
June 15, 2008 5:16 pm

Edgar: You and I are on the same page as far as the overall merits of DeMaio, Boling and Thalheimer. But I think they just would not have the kind of experience needed, right out of the gate, to be Council prez. So, that obviously leaves the remaining four, incumbent members to choose from. I already expressed in my first comment my reservations about Faulconer, Frye and Hueso. So that leaves Young. Actually, I think Young is a pretty fair, evenhanded guy during the times I've seen him in action. After their first year on Council, I can then definitely see DeMaio, Boling or Thalheimer stepping into the hot seat, using the proposed annual rotation of members. Just not quite yet, Edgar, for the newbies...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 6:26 am

Well, Gen. Lee, I have to say you are probably right, but I just can't see where ANY of the carry-overs would do any good -- for various reasons, ranging from incompetence to obstreperousness and lots of other things in between. What I find flabbergasting is that anyone would write in to praise Heuso's merits for the position -- true, one was Steve McMillan (need I say more), while the other fashions himself "TruBeliever," but is aka Ben Heuso patting himself on the back (don't believe me? Just watch the next council meeting and see him appear with his arm in a cast.) I have watched Young closely. He clearly does not have the background, understanding or leadership abilities for the post. He may have more than the others (except Frye), but what does that prove? And we know Frye will hold up everything. It has to be_someone_new.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:23 pm

Continued from my previous comment: Don't blame me that our only choice (other than council meltdown and concomitant disaster) is to put one of the newcomers in there. I didn't put these carryover members in there. As I said, we have to go with competence over seniority any time, but especially now. Best of the lot out of Boling, Thalheimer or DeMaio is DeMaio, although either of the other two could do a better job than any of the carryovers.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 16, 2008 4:24 pm

Shouldn't the Council President be the smartest, most competent of the bunch? Just because Donna's on the lone side of some 7-1 votes doesn't mean she's wrong; perhaps it means the rest of them are spineless monkeys who don't do their homework and often haven't a clue what they're even voting on. Face it, Donna should have been Mayor, and at the very least, before she's out in 2010, she deserves the chance to run this Council.

Posted by 2 cent Jack | reply to this comment
June 18, 2008 7:56 pm

Something else, 2-fer cent, WHY "should" Surfer Chic be mayor?? She didn't win the election. Perhaps the large number of bubbleheads who failed to fill in the bubble next to her handwritten name or who didn't even know how to spell her name was indicative of the intelligence and/or education of a large number of Frye voters. Hmmm?

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 19, 2008 9:26 am

De Mayo? What makes anyone think that he is anything more than the pro-Development pro-Big Businesses (regardless of having already surpassed our ability to support growth) ideologue, as most the others seem to have been over the last 10 years? Has anyone seen his resume? What's his advanced degree, City Planning, Economy…? Winning a popularity contest is no real marker of being qualified to do any job.

Posted by El President | reply to this comment
July 28, 2008 5:47 am

You mean like Todd and April?

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 31, 2008 8:41 am

Yep, two of a kind there good buddy. That's why my support is going to Whitburn. He’s the only one who has dared to speak up and stand firm in support of the working class super-majority in San Diego. You can tell a lot about a candidate by the local organizations who are endorsing them – and all the rich and powerful pro-business groups are nowhere near this cat.

Posted by El President | reply to this comment
July 31, 2008 6:53 pm

One of the many things I truly can’t understand; how can the citizens of San Diego continue to support the very same political candidates that have been endorsed and sectioned by Big Business and even bigger developers/redevelop I would think that even the most 'simple' of us would find it easy to see that the push for expansion beyond our means to support the growing populations (like with infrastructure expansion and maintenance – among other things) has been one of the main contributors to our current conditions. Moreover, we keep support Business/Development first, before all other things. It seems we have been doing this for the last twenty years in San Diego and things are getting worse and worse for we how were already here. Time for a change people,, a real change.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
August 1, 2008 10:47 am

• 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.