Power-Shift Plan for City Hall to Get Council Test

Whether the time is right for a radical shift in the balance of power at City Hall will be argued Tuesday, when the City Council begins to debate a proposal to restructure city government.

The proposal, forwarded to the council six weeks ago by a broad-based citizens’ committee, calls for a full-time mayor elected citywide and City Council and a sharp reduction in the authority of the city manager.

Because of a price tag of about $500,000, the new plan already has begun to divide the council and the community.

And it has prompted a new round of criticism of City Manager John Dever, who, though widely respected as a professional administrator, almost was fired in 1979, when he failed to clear a commission appointment with the council, and in 1982, when several council members said he was keeping important information from them.

The plan has been promoted as a way to make government more open and responsive by parceling out some important duties of the city manager to the mayor and the City Council.

And a measure to limit campaign contributions, which has been before the council for a year, has been revived to make the proposal to restructure city government more acceptable to voters. (See accompanying story on campaign contribution proposal.)

Reassignment of Duties

Under the restructuring plan, some of the city manager’s most important duties would go to the mayor, who would be elected citywide and paid $65,000 a year. Others would go to, or be shared with, council members, who would earn $39,000 annually and be required to spend 40 hours a week running the state’s sixth largest city.

Now, part-time council members are paid $12,600 annually, and the mayor, who is selected every two years by his council colleagues, receives $13,800.

Most council members say they favor most of the 34-point reform package presented to them by the independent Citizens to Evaluate a Full-Time Mayor and City Council. All members except Mayor Ernie Kell made presentations to the committee during its three months of deliberation.

Council members say they disagree on some important provisions but want to approve some version of the plan by March 4, so it can be placed before the voters June 7.

“Today, we have the worst possible situation,” said Councilman Wallace Edgerton. “Ninety percent of the power of the government of Long Beach is in the hands of City Manager John Dever, and that’s bad government. The public ought to have direct control of that power through its elected officials.”

The council hires and fires the city manager. But the manager dominates city business because, as the highest ranking full-time municipal official, he controls the flow of information from which the council makes its decisions, prepares the city’s budget, and recommends and carries out city policies, Edgerton and other council members argued.

Under the restructuring, the full-time mayor, rather than the manager, would set the priorities for the annual budget, and though the manager still would appoint departments heads his selections would require council approval. In addition, the manager would be subject to biannual review by the council and could be recalled by the voters.

No Comment From Dever

Dever, manager since 1977 and recently elected president of the 7,000-member International City Management Assn., would not comment on the reform plan. He has received strong council support in public since his job was last threatened three years ago.

Still, several council members said a full-time council is needed partly because it remains too dependent on Dever’s recommendations.

Councilman James Wilson said the council now gets as much information as it can handle as a part-time body. “The council doesn’t have time to decipher any more than he gives us,” Wilson said. “So, it ends up with us accepting John’s recommendations all the time. If you want to translate that into power, then you can.”

As things are now, Edgerton said, “the poor, pitiful, pathetic, undereducated, understaffed” council just does not have the expertise or time to properly question Dever.

“He’s their big daddy, their shield from the public,” Edgerton said. “He has a lot of goodies he can offer council people who stay in line. He can make them look good or he can make them look foolish. . . . And if anyone tells me some council people aren’t scared to death of John Dever, they’re either stupid or they’re lying.”

But other council members said Edgerton’s assertions are a mix of inaccuracy and exaggeration.

“Any time I need information, I request it,” Mayor Ernie Kell said. “If I don’t get the information the first time, I ask again. I don’t feel intimidated by the city manager or his staff.”

40- to 50-Hour Week

Eunice Sato, the only council member to immediately oppose the reform plan, said she often goes to staff for more information and sees no problem with the current system. But Sato, a retired teacher, also said she works 40 to 50 hours a week on city business.

“I personally feel that professionally run, day-to-day management of the city is a lot better than a politically run machine,” she said. “The more diffuse the power, the better. There are undesirable feelings between the mayor and council members now, and this would only aggravate the situation because of the strong mayor.”

Even its authors agree that the reform plan is probably most vulnerable because it would increase the cost of government.

Anticipating the problem, the citizens’ committee says it could support a ballot measure that would increase council salaries to between $18,000 and $24,000, instead of the recommended $39,000.

Sato said she will lead the attack on what she sees as unnecessary spending.

“This proposal is out of mind, and the public will never buy it,” she said. “There’d be higher salaries and staff, materials and equipment and a whole bunch of other things. It just grows like a mushroom.”

Price Tag Cited

At least one other council member, Warren Harwood, said he has backtracked from his support of the measure because his constituents don’t like its price tag.

“They’re not interested in seeing their tax money go for expanded opportunities for politicians,” Harwood said. “Their perception is that the current structure is serving the community pretty well.”

A majority of the council also has acknowledged that the cost of the proposal could kill it with voters, many of whom cited expense as their reason for rejecting, 3-to-1, a 1982 measure for a full-time mayor.

Neither the citizens’ committee nor city officials have produced estimates of how much it would cost the city to have a full-time mayor and council, and to hire the proposed legislative and budget analyst for the council.

Comparison of the council salary of $12,600 and benefits and a proposed salary of $39,000 and projected benefits of at least 42% of salary, however, show a full-time council would cost about $365,000 more a year. That figure does not include the possible increase in other council expenses, such as travel, office supplies and auto allowances.

Analyst’s Salary, Benefits

Also, the salary and benefits of a full-time mayor, who would become the council’s 10th member, would add about $92,000. Salary and benefits for the council’s new analyst would be perhaps $50,000.

That $507,000 total increase would be added to a council budget of about $1.5 million for the 1985-86 fiscal year.

Kell said some of the new costs, specifically the salary of the council analyst, could be deferred by reassigning an employee already on the city payroll.

And Kell, Edgerton and Wilson all said a half-million-dollar increase in an annual city budget of more than $1 billion should not be the reason for defeat of the proposal.

Before the proposal goes to the voters, however, it must first be approved by the City Council, acting as the Charter Amendment Committee. And several council members said they have strong reservations about some provisions of the plan, particularly a recommendation that the amount of money contributed to candidates in municipal elections be limited. Both Kell and Councilman Edd Tuttle vowed to vote against the government restructuring package if it includes the limits on contributions as now drafted in a measure sponsored by councilmen Tom Clark and Harwood.

Supporter Seeks Change

Even Clark, a strong supporter of the package, said he will not vote to place it on the ballot unless it is changed to allow the full-time mayor to vote on all council matters. The plan calls for the mayor to vote only to break ties.

“A mayor without a vote cannot provide the kind of leadership we’re looking for,” Clark said.

If voters approve the proposal, it would be the second important shift in the balance of power at City Hall in a decade.

In 1976, voters decided that council members should be elected by residents of their districts, rather than by voters from throughout the city.

While the change allowed candidates with little money to run and win elections, it also shrank the power base of all council members and created a power vacuum backers of the current proposal say could be filled by a full-time mayor chosen citywide.

RESTRUCTURING CITY GOVERNMENT

Full-time mayor would be elected citywide to a four-year term. Now, the part-time mayor is a City Council member chosen by the council every two years. Pay would be $65,000, up from $13,800.

City Council, still elected from nine council districts, would work full time. Salary $39,000 a year, instead of $12,600 for part-time position.

Mayor, a 10th member of the council, would vote to break ties and could veto council actions. Veto override by two-thirds of council.

Council would meet at least twice weekly, instead of once.

Mayor, not city clerk, would prepare council agenda.

Mayor would appoint the city manager subject to council confirmation. Now, the council selects the manager.

City manager would still appoint department heads but would require council approval.

Mayor and three-person council committee biannually would evaluate manager’s performance. Committee reports to council, which would vote on manager’s reappointment. Currently, there is no formal review.

Voters would be able to recall the manager.

Mayor would prepare a five-year plan, including fiscal projections, which the council could amend subject to mayoral veto.

Manager would prepare annual budget in “closest possible conformance” with five-year plan.

Mayor could veto line items in budget after it passed council. Council could override veto with two-thirds vote. Now, the council votes on manager-prepared budget and there is no line item veto after approval.

Mayor could force ordinance reconsideration, which a council majority could override.

Mayor would still appoint city committees and commissions subject to council confirmation.