I'm curious which burning issues were kept off the agenda by our current council president. Do Ms. Frye and Mr. DeMaio have any examples to offer?

Posted by HP | reply to this comment
October 28, 2008 8:11 pm

I disagree with Vlad's concerns. If the concern is that the power of the council does not adequately check the power of the strong mayor, that sounds like an argument for reducing the power of the mayor or discontinuing the strong mayor experiment altogether, not making the council a one person show. I fail to see how creating a second mayor solves the problem. If the president is aligned with the mayor, then you have a two person lock. If they are diametrically opposed, you have a similar problem to the mess Vlad is concerned about with a balanced council. I see an even larger problem being the manner the mayor has controlled access of city information and personnel to council members. The mayor must not be able to prevent or color the flow of information to the council.

Posted by Paul | reply to this comment
October 28, 2008 6:18 pm

While I mostly agree with the proposed Frye-DeMaio reforms for City Council, I think "HP" raises a fair question: Can the incumbent, Frye, or even DeMaio, provide some specific, important examples of where the council president deliberately withheld an important item from the agenda, and which was a disservice to the public? I do remember when Peters infamously withheld a Council vote on the "big box" stores issue, reasoning that the issue was going to be decided by voters anyway at the ballot box. But what else? Again, I overwhelmingly support the proposed reforms, but arguing for major reforms without citing examples of a too-powerful council prez just leaves things open for suspicion and cynicism on the part of those who question the motives for the changes...

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
October 29, 2008 6:57 am

I'll give you one, and it's an important one. The Developer Impact Fees in Mid-City have not gone up one dime in ten years, depite the language in the Mid-City Financial Plan that says they should be adjusted annually, at least for inflation. The reason the DIF has not increased to reflect reality is because of intense lobbying by developers. We were told at the local planning group this past January that the DIF would increase from $2400 to $12,000 in June of this year. It is now late October and still nothing on the agenda. I called the City Facilities Financing people and was told that they were "having trouble getting it on the agenda". Perhaps that 1472 document is just too tricky for them, or maybe the developers have Scott Peters' ear, as usual. No infrastructure improvements for us until then.

Posted by Maggie M | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 7:50 am

Terrible example since it is the Mayor's office that has stopped all FBA adjustments over the protests of the Council.

Posted by Marco | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 9:48 am

Vlad is right on the money. This weakens the council's power. Nothing like a disaorgnanized council to allow the Mayor even more power. This is DeMaio's twist on Daddy Grover's dream of shrinking government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub. Carl wants the council to wear a blindfold and spin around like a dizzy bat relay before it gets down to any kind of legislative agenda.

Posted by Viva Maland | reply to this comment
October 29, 2008 8:38 am

"One person needs to have power of the council's docket to prioritize the body's business. Otherwise, it could be chaotic." What's Vlad's point? That the Clown-cil over the past eight -- and in particular, last two -- years has NOT been chaotic? Please. It has been a three-ring circus. Clown-cil president Peters will soon make (albeit involuntarily) his single greatest contribution to better government in San Diego: removing himself from the council -- but only because of term-limits, mind you. Of course, this happy event will only occur after a considerable amount of shifty dealings to assure his appointment to the Port Board. Our gain. The Port's loss. Let's hope THAT doesn't occur. The sooner the termed-out loosers are out of there WITHOUT any say in how the Clown-cil becomes a council and is run in the future, and the sooner DeMaio, Thalheimer and Boling take seats the better.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
October 29, 2008 8:41 am

Your friend Vlad wins this one and you conceded this when you wrote "if there are priority discussions, the council president . . . and the pro-tem could move them up." That IS control over the agenda. Deciding what is "priority" is practicing discretion over the agenda, as the Council President does now. "The fact that resolutions would [ ] have to . . . have a partner signed on" would NOT "dramatically limit the overwhelming list of moronic resolutions." Seconding a resolution is a throw-away gesture to gain the support of a fellow councilmember later on something important to you. It doesn't mean the item is worthy of Council or committee attention. Nor would the 1472 process keep bogus items off; a strong-headed councilmember will do whatever it takes to get what they want on the agenda if it only takes a second.

Posted by Lee Burdick | reply to this comment
October 29, 2008 9:08 am

1 would think that addressing this issue would lead to the discussion of the core problem. Time. Our council made there schedule as an organization without authority and power. They are set up to rubber stamp anything that comes to them from the then City Manager. Specifically they meet Monday Afternoon, and twice on Tuesday. There requirements and actions are exceeding the physical time. You see examples of this with Czar Peters limiting time public may address items. If a person prepares to speak for three mins and they get one the public is not given its due access. Now the council is the RA, Housing Authority, Budget, and Council. This takes time. If they were doing the job they were elected to perform, they would consider another day of council meetings to open up the process to more efficency.

Posted by Rick | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 6:19 am

2, The members of the council would whine and scream that this idea. What more meeting days. The problem revolves around these people doing things that they were not elected to do... Airport authority, League of Citys, Coastal Commission, the list goes on and on. Just look at the absentee rate from the council meetings because they have to go to other things. The council should seriously look at itself and do the job they were elected to do and expand the time they meet so they can address the issues in a timely manner. The docket would open and the public would have a fair opportunity for access. I do not believe their egos will allow them to correct the core problem so they work at the margins and do a dis-service to the people they supposedly serve.

Posted by Rick | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 6:37 am

Vlad is correct. Eliminating agenda control would severely weaken the Council and 'first in, first out' would clog the agenda. Having worked in management at the City for many years, I know that putting together the "1472 paperwork" to get an item on the agenda is not necessarily time-consuming. There is also now a proceedure for a council member to get signatures from other council members to get an item on the agenda if the Council President refuses. A really good idea can find its way to the Council Docket.

Posted by Dick | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 6:59 am

All council members should have reasonable access to placing items on the docket. Any item approved by a majority of a Council committee should automatically be forwarded for Council action, as should any item proposed by two council members. If there is a prioritizing problem, the Council should (while respecting the noticing requirements of the Brown Act) have a designated time before items are taken up when any member may move to re-order one or more items for that meeting. By majority vote, the Council should then determine whether the identified item(s) move(s) to it proposed new place in the sequence of items.

Posted by David Cohen | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 8:17 am

And what about the Charter, I believe it was voted on by the people and is pretty specific in its rules about the Council Prez job and duties?

Posted by RR | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 8:36 am

This will weaken the City Council and harm its credibility further. First, it will create a deluge of 2-6 votes, filibustering the ability of the Council to legislate. Second, the Mayor already has the ability to docket things whenever he wants, and will keep that power. Third, expect long-winded, hearings going late into the night, that will turn off regular citizens, with the crazies camping out till 1am for their moment on Channel 24. This is more about grandstanding, than about actually getting work done on the council.

Posted by City hall Observer | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 10:23 am

Just a thought. Do you think Carl is doing this to set up his run for Mayor? This will weaken the Council and will be beneficial to him if he becomes Mayor in four years. Not much can stop Carl's agenda as Mayor.

Posted by ..the end | reply to this comment
October 30, 2008 4:50 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.