It scares me to think that I agree with Donna Frye or my council person, Marti Emerald--but it happened on this issue. Seems like a big, big step in the right direction. One question I have though: does this make the strong mayor form of government less strong?

Posted by ltegarden | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 6:22 pm

I said it before and I'll say it again: This is a terrible idea. Gut the council president, and you gut the city council, strengthening the mayor.

Posted by Vlad | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 6:29 pm

Have they done the study yet to see how much it will cost to have an evening meeting? It does make sense to have meetings when staff is working. If you have an evening meeting, do you shift all the work hours for those who have to attend? On the other hand, have you ever seen the non-agenda public comment on Tuesdays? It's pretty much the same people over and over and I don't think they speak for the majority of San Diegans. At least a night meeting might get a few different characters in the mix. With a City of over a million, having one night meeting to encourage public input doesn't seem like the best way to hear from the masses.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 6:40 pm

This shouldn't cost that much as most (if not all) of the councilmember staff is exempt. You'd probably just be looking a nominal added expense for police overtime...Well worth it so citizens can actually go to the meetings without blowing off work

Posted by Justin | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 9:05 pm

The notion that this agenda reform will give the mayor more power is a herring of the rosiest hue. To act as an effective check on the power of the mayor the council has to be able to bring attention to the "mistakes" of the mayor's minions. Lowering the threshhold for shedding light on what Jerry's folks are up to in no practical way increases his clout.

Posted by Jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 7:50 am

Great news. Those with short memories will remember when Scott Peters was on the council, the very first thing he did was to campaign against the public. Peters made a motion that the public who came to City Hall to speak for three minutes, should speak at the End of time for all others. Meaning, they could take a day off work, but not get to speak before, in some cases, six o' clock. Also, there was no guarantee other council members would be present, claiming, "prior meetings." And Peters wouldn't docket anything he didn't want to, which wasn't unusual. He barely responded to the public, at all. Staff didn't return repeated calls, for years. So this is very good. One more thing to remember. The strong Mayor program is supposed to be temporary to see how it works.

Posted by Bonnie Russell | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 7:54 am

As an occasional citizen activist, I am ecstatic. Finally, some council members (besides Donna Frye) have stood up and declared that public input is important and that it won't be manipulated like it has been for say, the last six years. Is it a panacea? Well no, but it is a darn fine start. My compliments to Frye, DeMaio, Lightner, and Emerald. Question: As long as the three freshmen and the one senior have formed this little civic minded study/action group, could we get some serious consideration for the public testimony, at council meetings, to go last---instead of always being first. Tired of staff and the special interest group du'jour going last and being put in the power position of always knowing what THEY need to refute.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 5:01 pm

Allowing the public to speak first is a courtesy implemented by the Council several years ago. Prior to that change, since no one can ever actually predict how long a meeting would run, citizens had no way of knowing what time they would get to speak. Many arrived at 10 a.m., and had to wait until 5 p.m. or even later. As a result, all but the most determined (and jobless) ended up leaving before they had a chance to speak.

Posted by InTheKnow | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 8:07 am

Some courtesy? If the chair was concerned about public courtesy, the Items with a large amount of speaker interest would go first. Or, some measure of time certainty could be scheduled much like the closed session items. I've watched the Mayor's staff hurriedly taking notes, creating strategies, while they watched/listened to public input (in one of the other rooms) on items before the council. The staff and advocates presentation frequently incorporates rebuttal misinformation---eve a hastily developed power point method that responds directly to the public's representations. I'm not suggesting stifling any viewpoint. I'm suggesting that at times the staff and their supporters commonly stretch figures and give self-serving analysis. The public should have the last say before council decisions are voted upon---after all our the council members elected by the public, not by the staff.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
February 6, 2009 8:39 pm

Hooray for the fabulous foursome! It's high time that the Councilmembers developed a realistic and efficient method for placing the public's business before the entire Council and the public.. This reform should have been adopted before the Mayor-Council form of government took effect - when it seemed highly probable that a Mayor and Council President could establish an executive autocracy in one, the other or both, thereby gutting the legislative branch.

Posted by Abbe Wolfsheimer Stutz | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 5:44 pm

Yes!!!!! Some common sense is creeping into the process. The idea of one person deciding what our council can hear is beyond comprehension...do they represent us or not? I urge these 4 to continue with this...you may not hear from all of the "little people" but you can be assured that this approach is in their interest.

Posted by Judy Weiks | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 5:50 pm

But, but, but.....the union employees and developers couldn't control the agenda like they always have in the past. Where's the fairness in letting the public actually have a say in how their city government works? Well, at least in San Diego, it's nice to think that such democratic ideas might actually prosper for a change, despite the best efforts of those who wish to rip us off (e.g. city unions which currently enjoy fringe benefits equaling 62% of their base pay).

Posted by Point Loma Resident | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 6:13 pm

This development thrills me no end. I've long admired Donna Frye's courage to buck the establishment in this town. The strong mayor form of government with all its dictator-like provisions should be repealed. A big thank you to Donna, Carl DeMaio, Marti Emerald, and my new councilperson, Sherri Lightner, for doing the right thing for the people of San Diego.

Posted by Julia Cooper | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 6:25 pm

YAY! This is VERY VERY GOOD for San Diego!! Especially since Mr. Hueso has been shaping up as another nightmare in the footsteps of million-gallon Scott. The council president is a completely unneeded, unwanted, non-democratic "bad cop" who enforces the will of the special interests downtown. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU from a taxpayer who really loves this city.

Posted by John Calvin | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 9:05 pm

Thank you! A welcome change for all, more what a council should be, evenings 'work' in other cities, giving opportunities for all ideas/solutions to be considered. As this 'new' president also barely listens to the Public, does he think 'he knows better?' Smiling during serious comments from an experienced and concerned public, he seems the least qualified, imo to be in a leadership position, barely one year-on- the-Job training is all 'he needs?' Why are 'newbies' given 'power positions' here? Is that why we're in such a 'mess?' Could it be they are 'supported' by special interests with not only $ but power-that they don't want to lose? We need common sense in planning, financial and city services solutions or San Diego will soon become 'West NY' without transit, a real airport stabilizing revenue, no arts, no music, etc. Hardly 'Amercia's Finest!'

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
February 3, 2009 11:05 pm

Unbelievable. The new council must be concerned with input from the citizens. When only daytime meetings occur, those that don't work, can't work, or the few that are able to leave their jobs to attend meetings have a voice. The rest of the people aren't able to voice their opinions, and/or concerns on issues. And don't forget the traffic coming and going. Meetings in the evening would be so much more positive and the boards and commissions would probably change for the better. GREAT ! America is a democracy. We are government _For the people, by the people, and of the people_and our voices need to be heard.

Posted by San Marcos says, | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 7:07 am

I am so tired of the intentional disinformation peddled here. Scott Lewis perpetuated this myth repeatedly but was only able to document two instances in which Council President Peters "refused" to docket something. Both instances were legal issues best reserved for closed session. The council presidency was created to create a strong leadership position on the council, something that never existed previously, to serve as a check on the power of the mayor. The fact Ms. Frye can get enough of her colleagues to agree to docket this misguided effort proves the fact that councilmembers can get their issues on the agenda without gutting the powers of the council president.

Posted by HP | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 9:01 am

HP is right. SLOP along with Frye and DeMaio continue to root for chaos and disorder in government. Perhaps DeFryeLew want to forfeit the power of a legislative branch, but I've lived through the era of a emasculated council in a strong-mayor form of government, and it is really lame. There is no evidence that Peters or Hueso refused to docket anything that could have been appropriately heard in public. Matters involving Mike Aguirre's pension goose chase were not, despite Councilwoman Frye's assertion. To get the council to hear a proposal, it should have proven support -- like the four council members or the consent of a council committee, which is the current requirement. If you can'y get that, you shouldn't waste everyone's time.

Posted by Jefferson | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 11:50 am

Not to worry, had the writer of the piece contacted me I would have provided pages of times and dates. Myself and others in the district were keenly, K-E-E-N-L-Y aware Peters only wnated to hear from a select few from the district he represented. Although he had plenty of time to drink coffee at Starbucks with certain political consultants on Saturday mornings in Del Mar.

Posted by Bonnie | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 12:12 pm

thanks, this is great. now for your next task. do away with all of your vehicle expense allowances. what a joke!!

Posted by Frank from OB | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 9:12 am

Evening Council Meetings once a month should be at least tried. Districts 2, 3, 4 and 6 are the most "compact" and should have 1 meeting, while Districts 1, 5, 7, and 8 should have 2 because they are so spread out. (That's a total of 12 meeting once each month). Most public comment I have watched is mainly the same "gadflies" berating the Council without providing any meaningful comment. Get a life! The Council President should be able to "control" the agenda, but certainly not "dictate" it. Each elected Councilmember should have the right to have items of concern to their Distrcit heard in a timely manner, without interference from the "controller" (i.e., Council President). Similarly, the Mayor's office also should have the right to have important City-wide matters attended to by the Council in a timely manner.

Posted by mikef | reply to this comment
February 4, 2009 11:13 am

I believe that there should be one Councilmember controlling the docket. Otherwise, you'll get a bunch of non-city related issues clogging an already clogged agenda, i.e. Donna Frye's opposition of a toll road in Orange County. Yeah great Donna, but how about those pot holes here in PB? The funny part is, I think both DeMaio and Frye are approaching the same conclusion but have different reasons for pursuing it. DeMaio has a bunch of great ideas of how to reform City Government, but is scaring the establishment; so they don't want him to have that power. While Frye has a bunch of bad ideas that she has never been able to get support from even friendly colleagues, now wants an carte blanche to place an item on the docket. Sorry, but Frye is that mooch in college asking for study notes.

Posted by Cade | reply to this comment
February 5, 2009 2:15 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.