Witt Says Struiksma Can Fill Vacant Posts

San Diego City Atty. John Witt ruled Wednesday that the City Council cannot prevent acting Mayor Ed Struiksma from nominating new members to city boards and commissions. The decision gives the mayoral candidate a legal boost in his first public battle with colleague and mayoral contender Bill Cleator.

But the ruling does not address the issue of whether the council must ratify Struiksma’s appointments, a question that could lead to more fights between the acting mayor and his colleagues.

“All I can do is my job,” Struiksma said after the opinion was issued. “If the council in its wisdom wants to grind the business of the city to a halt, then it has to bear the responsibility for it.”

The battle began Tuesday when Cleator and four colleagues successfully blocked Struiksma’s attempt to appoint two new members to the San Diego Stadium Authority, an advisory board that is considered a political plum. Cleator and his allies approved, 5 to 3, a motion that called for no routine mayoral appointments until a new mayor has been elected and a full council seated.

Struiksma said that pressing ahead with the appointments is necessary because there will be 137 vacancies or expired terms by March 1, and it could be June before a mayor is elected and a full council in place.

After the meeting, Cleator explained that the move was aimed at keeping politics out of the appointment process, a reference to the perception that Struiksma may be using the appointments to impress on voters that he is mayoral material.

Struiksma, in turn, accused Cleator of taking his campaign from the “streets and bringing it into City Hall,” and he called for a legal opinion.

On Thursday, Witt ruled that the council vote pertained to the Stadium Authority only. He wrote that the City Charter “clearly makes it the duty of the Mayor to make an appointment for each vacancy on a board created by that section within 45 days after the vacancy occurs. The council may not relieve the Mayor of that duty nor direct him not to fulfill it.”

If the council rejects an appointment, the mayor is obliged to try again in the 45-day period. Since there is no mayor, then that duty falls to the acting mayor, Witt wrote.

What happens if the council continues to turn down the appointments?

“We haven’t come to that question yet and I’m not going to prejudge it,” Witt said.

Witt said at least one board, the Historical Site Board, lacks a quorum and has been unable to meet because some terms have expired and the former appointees refuse to continue serving.

Cleator said he would favor going ahead with the appointments in such cases, which he called emergencies. But he said he would probably oppose naming replacements if they were not crucial for continuing city business. Some board and commission members are willing to continue serving even though their terms have expired.

Cleator also indicated that he may be willing to call a truce with Struiksma to prevent appointments from continuing to be political pawns in the mayoral race.

“Am I going to spend eight hours lobbying to beat up on old Ed? No,” Cleator said. “Has he discussed it (appointments) with me? No. Am I willing to discuss it with him? Yes.”

Struiksma said he would call Cleator and “see, in the light of the city attorney’s memo, if he wouldn’t be willing to reconsider his position.”

He also said he intends to submit names for other city boards and commissions soon, perhaps within the next two weeks.

Councilman William Jones, who made the motion to shut down Struiksma during Tuesday’s council meeting, said he hoped that Struiksma would still abide by the council’s wishes not to push routine appointments, despite the city attorney’s opinion.

“I would just hope Mr. Struiksma would sense the majority sentiment of the council and not go along with anything in conflict with that,” he said.