Mayor Is Going Places--but What About City She Promised to Lead?

On June 3, 1986, Maureen O’Connor was elected mayor of San Diego, pledging to “bring San Diego back together again” after the trauma of Roger Hedgecock’s conviction and resignation from office.

O’Connor’s mandate seemed limitless. Elected by more than 55% of the voters and blessed with a fragmented and virtually leaderless City Council, she had the opportunity to set a bold new course for America’s Finest City.

After the preceding two years of political turmoil, even former opponents privately wished her well. San Diego needed stability, and voters overlooked the fact that she came to power without articulating a concrete action plan for her administration. The public readily accepted her assurances that an agenda would be presented in due time.

Today, 13 months after her inauguration, San Diegans still await the long-promised agenda, and serious concerns have arisen over both the style and substance of the current city administration.

The bright promise of a few short months ago is dulled by the image of a mayor who can’t be bothered by the nitty-gritty of day-to-day government, who fails to lead or inspire, who snubs visiting leaders and who has ample time for travel, but is known to local leaders only through carefully worded releases from her press secretary.

As a result, where O’Connor’s reelection in 1988 appeared inevitable, talk about vulnerability and possible challenges to her have become favorite topics at social and political gatherings throughout the city.

The city’s concern was never more evident than during the first week of the mayor’s recent three-week vacation in Europe. In her absence, the SANDER trash-to-energy plant was trashed, the Interim Development Ordinance was gutted, a major decision was made regarding the future of Mission Valley without her input, $7 million in federal sewage funds were lost, the mayor’s Tin Cup II campaign reform proposal was rejected, and the council, unable to work without her, adjourned for an unprecedented three weeks.

The SANDER fiasco even led the San Diego Union and Tribune to write editorials critical of a mayor who previously could do no wrong.

Criticisms of the mayor invariably center on two characteristics: inaccessibility and lack of leadership.

The complaints of inaccessibility, though not new, are fueled by the perception of a mayor who seems most at home when viewing the city from afar during frequent junkets and vacations. They are most often expressed not by political opponents, but by business and civic leaders who are dismayed that Mayor Ed Koch of New York and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) can discuss issues with her more readily than they can.

These criticisms have surfaced publicly in recent weeks. In withdrawing from the SANDER project after four years and $4 million wasted, leaders of Signal Environmental Systems cited lack of political leadership and bitterly complained that they had been denied a meeting with the mayor to plead their case for more than six months. Considering that this pullout now leaves the City of San Diego facing a monumental trash crisis, the refusal to meet is hard to explain.

In threatening to move all downtown Superior Courts to the suburbs if local officials could not provide new court facilities in the center city, Presiding Judge Thomas Duffy bitterly complained that the city was unresponsive. He, likewise, was never given the courtesy of a meeting with the mayor. It would seem that an issue that could threaten downtown stability and redevelopment deserves more attention.

This same complaint of inaccessibility has been privately echoed by the Board of Supervisors, the Chamber of Commerce, ConVis and the building industry. This attitude doesn’t stop at the city limits.

When the mayor failed to appear for the opening of Tijuana’s major new sewage-treatment plant (at which the President of Mexico presided), eyebrows were raised. When the mayor could not find time to meet with our sister city delegation from Taichung, Taiwan, local Chinese leaders were outraged.

While the mayor publicly offers three-minute audiences to all San Diegans fortunate enough to make it to the top of the waiting list, leaders of neighboring governments and local economic leaders are left standing in the hall, hat in hand, in hopes of a summons from our ephemeral leader. As a result, dialogue concerning issues that affect all taxpayers seldom occurs, and the public interest is the loser.

The leadership issue is equally troubling. Though the City Charter establishes a city manager form of government, it is no secret that San Diego witnessed a shift to a strong mayor when Pete Wilson was elected in 1971. That trend has continued, and San Diegans today clearly expect their mayor to be a leader, not merely a reflection of the most recent opinion survey.

Wilson provided the leadership a growing city needed. It was comforting to San Diegans driving by City Hall late at night to see the lights still burning in Wilson’s office. We knew he was in charge.

That trend continued in the first eight months of the Hedgecock era, until tragic circumstances overwhelmed the office and rendered it impotent. The same work ethic is nowhere in evidence today. In a city where leadership must overcome a charter deficiency, lethargy and inaction are in vogue. This is a formula for civic disaster.

Examples of dangerous drift in the conduct of city business abound. Key appointments have not been made, primarily because of the mayor’s vacillation and inattention.

The city’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs has been without a director and virtually stripped of staff capability for almost a year.

In the meantime, the mayor and council have no systematic procedure for analyzing the impact of state and federal legislation on the region and lack a comprehensive lobbying effort to guarantee the city’s fair share of federal and state funds.

Likewise, in the midst of a crisis over growth, the Planning Department has languished without a permanent director for almost as long. The true cost of these inexcusable delays may not be known for years to come.

Campaign reform has also been a victim. When O’Connor was elected, a Campaign Review Task Force was already at work, making progress toward needed campaign reform. This process was brought to a halt when the mayor insisted that her own proposal be adopted, even though it lacked even token support. The results were a year’s delay, demoralization of the citizen task force and the likely end of any chance for meaningful reform.

When added to the SANDER debacle, the Superior Court crisis, the failure to provide direction for a new central library, inaction toward the plight of the homeless, etc., the picture is not one to be proud of.

One can only hope that the specter of a real reelection campaign instead of the anticipated coronation will cause the mayor to focus on the real reason she was elected: to provide leadership for a city in transition.