From valerie at vanngroup.com  Thu Jun  9 08:35:26 2005
From: valerie at vanngroup.com (Valerie Vann)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:35:26 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] Re: Ordinance on Selecting Mayor
References: <p06100511becd47cf7c70@[10.0.1.4]>
Message-ID: <42A861BE.8347D725@vanngroup.com>

I feel the current system of selecting mayor has a certain advantage 
over selecting from a separate slate: 

The person gets some experience as mayor during the Pro Tem period,
so we don't get a total novice, perhaps even someone with no 
council experience, as does happen in a direct election. And you
can still get a "minority" mayor in a multi-person race.

I think everyone has been relying on the current system, knowing
that whoever got the most votes was "elected mayor". To change that
retroactively is tantamount to invalidating the last election.

I also feel that the council and mayor have a moral obligation to
the voters to facilitate the Pro Tem's "training" during his/her
Pro Tem term, which apparently has also been sabotaged by the
current council.

This whole ploy is an insulting power grab, a naked attempt to
intimidate and sideline our validly designated Mayor Pro Tem and
rightful next Mayor of Davis.

Comparing selection of the mayor to selection of Speaker of the
House etc. is not a valid comparison; the City Council is not
a purely legislative body, but a combination legislative/executive.
The Council is also elected at large, rather than representative of 
particular regions or population, and council members are "non-partisan", 
not members of particular parties. With the exception of the
Vice President (who presides -as tie breaker - over the Senate,
and may be from the minority party), Congressional leadership 
represents their respective political parties. 

I doubt that the citizen voters of Davis understand the Mayor 
as representing the council. Who cuts the ribbons, represents
Davis at special events, speaks for the City? Who has the
tie breaking vote in the public interest when the "collegial" 
members are split? Who looks out for the minority views of
the public? 

A mayor who serves at the mercy of the rest of
the council will inevitably be too dependent on what any
current cabal thinks. We need a mayor who represents the
people, and at least the current system insures that the
Mayor had more public support than any other council member
elected at the same time in a multi-person race.

The council members need to be reminded that they are ALL
supposed to be representing the entire city, not just 
those who voted for them, or filled up their election coffers.

> >....concerning the ordinance, ... [Harriet]
> >confirmed that when she wrote the ordinance directing council to select the
> >Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor by highest vote-getter, she put in the phrase
> >"serves at the will of the council" merely to be consistent with state law.
> >According to state law, a city can only legally bind any future council to
> >any ordinance if it is passed by a vote of the people.
> >Again, the "highest vote-getter" ordinance is as strong a statement of the
> >rules of the game a city council can legally pass. It has been honored
> >without question by every council since it was enacted in 1990. Our council
> >fully honored this ordinance when Susie Boyd was a minority Mayor Pro Tem.

If the present council can't be trusted to carry out the 
"will of the people" as expressed in the last election, then 
perhaps it is time to make it mandatory.

Since the existing ordinance originated with the council rather than the
voters, is it possible to put a measure on the next ballot for popular vote
that would be binding on the council?

If so, what is the procedure for getting a measure on the ballot?

Or maybe it's time for a Recall Election.

Valerie Vann
valerie at vanngroup.com