Fine, and Not So Fine

A coalition of Santa Ana residents unhappy with some recent decisions made by the city council and city staff is seeking an election for changes in the city charter that it contends will make city government more responsive. That’s fine.

What’s not so fine are some of the structural changes that the group is seeking as an alternative to its threatened recall action against the entire city council.

One change sought by the group, which calls itself SAMSON (Santa Ana Merged Society of Neighbors), is to elect city council members by ward and increase their salaries to $1,500 per month. A proposal to elect council members by district was rejected by the voters in 1983. The present system divides the city into seven areas, and requires candidates to live in the ward that they seek to represent but be elected citywide.

SAMSON’S ward demand, however, is flawed because, if approved by voters as proposed in a special June election, the entire seven-member city council would have to stand for reelection. That, as Councilman Wilson Hart notes, would be government by chaos.

There are some good arguments for electing council members by ward. One of the most important reasons in Santa Ana, which has the largest minority population of any city in Orange County, is that the present system penalizes minority residents. In Santa Ana minority candidates have historically had trouble winning elections despite their heavy concentration. In some instances they carried their wards but lost city-wide.

One change proposed by SAMSON would eliminate the city-manager form of government, which has proved itself so efficient in California, and substitute a full-time elected mayor. Another change would elect and pay city planning commission members.

The election of a full-time paid mayor was rejected by Santa Ana voters in 1974. Nothing has changed since the voters wisely decided then against politicizing its everyday government operations. That’s what would happen if planning commissioners were elected, too. They would be forced to raise campaign funds and seek election to posts that are strictly advisory to the council, which sets planning policies. The change would only set the stage for divisiveness and political gamesmanship.

It’s no wonder that the council voted to study the proposals more closely for possible inclusion on the regular November ballot. They deserve much more thorough study than they have received so far.