Long Beach Mayor: Power Broker or Power Seeker?

Whoever becomes this city’s next mayor may find the job to be much like the British monarchy: high on ceremony but low on actual power.

The new mayor will not have a vote on the City Council. And in most cases, the mayor’s veto can be overridden by a simple majority. Perhaps even more significantly, the city manager--not the mayor--will still draw up the all-important annual budget and appoint department heads.

“This is an extraordinarily weak mayor,” said Councilman Wallace Edgerton, a part-time college instructor of political science who called the future mayor “a horse without legs, a duck without feet. It’s an anomaly.”

“After July, the mayor is going to be a eunuch,” Edgerton said.

But nine candidates are vying to take the new office, with the primary election to be held April 12. And some observers, including those who criticize the office as weak, said persuasion and leadership might be more important to the new mayor than charter-given powers.

“The individual is going to determine how that power is used,” said Councilman Tom Clark, who has been an appointed mayor three times.

Clark Disappointed

Clark, a longtime advocate of a strong mayoral post, was disappointed with the plan that was eventually approved two years ago by the voters. Nonetheless, he and others noted that personality could strongly influence how powerful the position becomes. No matter what kind of mandate the new mayor gets from the people in this spring’s elections, Clark said, the mayor will need to muster a majority consensus on the nine-member City Council.

With campaign spending breaking all previous records and two incumbent council members among the candidates, Cal State Long Beach teacher Paul Schmidt said the position must hold some allure. “Otherwise, why would people be spending $400,000 to get the job?” asked Schmidt, who teaches local government and public administration.

Schmidt was on both a citizens advisory group and a city task force that drew up the proposal that the City Council agreed to place on the ballot in November, 1986. At the heart of the discussions was the contention that Long Beach, as a growing city, needs to join the ranks of other large cities with one leader to deal with visiting dignitaries, corporations and other governments.

There was some initial discussion about abolishing the current City Council structure, which divides the city into nine districts, Edgerton said.

And there was also considerable discussion about doing away with the city manager and creating a powerful mayor, Clark said.

The citizens group ultimately recommended a major restructuring of city government that would have created a full-time city council and shifted some of the city manager’s most important duties to the mayor and council.

While the citizens group met on its own, the Chamber of Commerce said it wanted to become involved in the restructuring discussion. Mayor Ernie Kell appointed a panel to study the questions. The panel, which included several members of the citizens committee, rejected key elements of the citizens group’s plan for a stronger mayor.

Tie Vote to Be Avoided

The mayor’s panel favored not giving the mayor a vote on the council, partially because the council has nine members, each representing a city district. With the mayor voting, there could be a 5-5 tie, unless the council districts were redrawn and either increased or decreased by one.

“What it came down to basically was that nobody on the committee wanted to increase the number of council districts, because that would mean adding another elected official, at greater expense,” Schmidt said.

“Anytime there is redistricting, there is some reluctance,” said Kell, who said he was “kind of neutral” on whether the number of districts should change.

Alex Bellehumeur, chairman of the citizens group, said the mayor’s panel decided not to give the mayor “too much power” at the onset.

“We’re a growing city, politically. . . . But we’re not quite there yet. So we’re going to tippy-toe for now and play it safe,” Bellehumeur said.

Rejected in 1982

Voter approval was a big question mark. In 1982, voters rejected a full-time mayor proposal by a 3-1 margin. This time, though, more than 67% of the voters approved creating the $67,500-a-year job.

Clark said: “I thought the community was ready for it. And it was. And they (members of the mayor’s panel) didn’t have to make compromises. That (they did) was the unfortunate thing.”

The mayoral post could change again. Part of the package that voters approved calls for a city committee to convene in 1990 to decide what--if any--fine-tuning needs to be done on mayoral power. Many of those who have pushed for a stronger mayor hope that the mayor will get more power, such as a vote or a stronger veto.

“I think it will evolve” into a stronger mayor after 1990, Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Jan Hall said.

Luanne Pryor, another candidate for mayor who was also a leader in the move to restructure city government, said that she was disappointed that the job did not carry more responsibility than it does but that she suspects that the job will be strengthened in a couple of years.

“Sometimes people fear strength. I don’t know why. But sometimes they fear it,” said Pryor, adding that weaker people are “much more to be feared.”

‘More Emphasis on Mayor’

Clark added: “The general feeling is that there is going to be a change . . . a gradual change in softening the powers of the manager and placing more emphasis on the mayor, who is the leader or policy setter.”

Clark wants to see the full-time mayor eventually get a vote but no veto power, because he said the veto forces the mayor to lead by negative example.

Edgerton noted that the mayor loses a bargaining tool with the council when there is no mayoral vote, which places the mayor in the position of saying: “I have nothing to offer. I can’t hurt you with my vote. I can’t help you with my vote. I don’t have anything.”

After the election, “whoever (on the council) is more influential in putting together those five votes will decide where Long Beach goes,” Edgerton said.

Others support a stronger veto.

Schmidt, for example, said he believes that proponents attribute too much power to a mayoral vote.

“The budgetary veto is more important than the vote,” he said.

Similar Systems

Redondo Beach and Riverside are often mentioned as cities with similar veto systems. But in Redondo Beach, it takes four out of five council votes to override a mayoral veto. In Riverside, five out of seven votes are needed to override the veto.

To make the position stronger “in the textbook sense” would require giving the mayor administrative or executive powers, which now belong to the city manager, said Edgerton, who added that he does not expect that to happen anytime soon in Long Beach.

But the task force scheduled to convene by 1990 can also suggest a more likely alternative: strengthening the position via stronger legislative powers, such as either a vote or stronger veto power, Edgerton said.

Under the present council-manager, or “strong manager” form of government, the part-time council sets policy while the professional city manager prepares the annual budget, hires department heads and runs daily city activities.

Under the new system, the city manager will continue with the same responsibilities he now has, including preparing a budget. But the mayor will receive the budget from the manager two weeks before the City Council, then present the budget--with mayoral recommendations--to the council. The leading candidates said they believe that the mayor will thus have greater say in the budget.

But even under the current system, the mayor and council members can make all the suggestions they want to the city manager.

‘Informal Relationship’

Dan McGowan, the chief administrative analyst for the Los Angeles city government, said the “informal relationship” between the mayor and the city manager, plus the mayor’s early role in forming a budget, will be crucial to how much of an influence the mayor will have on the city’s finances.

“The key is to influence what is proposed rather than suggest amendments (to a completed document),” said McGowan, who also teaches public administration part-time at Cal State Long Beach.

City Manager James C. Hankla, who is appointed by the City Council, said he expects to prepare his budget in the future much as he did last year. The mayor can recommend changes to the City Council while presenting the budget.

When the council finally does vote on the $1-billion-plus budget--possibly the key vote of each year--the mayor has extra clout in the form of a veto that requires a two-thirds council vote for an override.

“In the long run, there is nothing more important than the budget,” Schmidt said. “You can have wonderful programs, but if they’re not funded, nothing is going to happen.

“Consequently, if you’re going to give the mayor special authority, the first place . . . is over the funding.”

Schmidt said even the veto that can be overridden by a simple majority of the council gives the mayor a tool to get his point across.

That veto, he said, gives both the council and the public a second look at “issues that could have sailed by while you were blinking your eyes.”

Kell likened the new position to that of the President of the United States. Ronald Reagan doesn’t have a vote either, Kell pointed out, but he has a veto, plus much access to the news media, Kell said.

Citywide Constituency

The mayor will have a citywide constituency “to bear pressure” on the rest of the council, Kell said.

Citywide elections of mayors, rather than by residents in one district, will mean prestige and power, Kell and others said.

Hall said the job is “an opportunity to provide focus on citywide issues,” because unlike council members elected by voters in their districts, the mayor will be elected at-large.

Pryor called the job “almost a charismatic role.”

Because it is not a powerful position, the new mayor will have to market the city, she said: “The person has to be a salesperson, really.”

According to the League of California Cities, there appears to be a growing trend in California toward the direct election of mayor, although the organization had no figures available to prove such a trend. Of 448 cities in the state, 122 have directly elected mayors, said researcher Joan Hogan of the league’s Sacramento library.

Last year, a panel created in the city manager’s division of the league examined the role of mayor in the manager-council form of government. The organization was spurred by a perception that people become frustrated with a figurehead mayor and want a “more recognizable political leader.”

The panel reported that a “new breed” of mayor appears to be emerging: a politician more interested in broader issues; one who more often uses the local post as a steppingstone to higher office, and one who often has an increased interest in political parties.

By contrast, the traditional ceremonial mayor concentrated on local issues and did not necessarily look at the post with an eye toward future politics.

An article last month in Governing, a Congressional Quarterly magazine, examined a possible national trend toward stronger mayoral systems.

Mayor Thomas P. Ryan Jr. of Rochester, N. Y., was quoted as saying: “A council-manager form of government works just fine if you have a cohesive majority on the council, they know what to do and can generally agree.

“But a manager can’t work well for nine different people with differing ideas. And a cohesive majority is getting harder to get--not just at the city level but anywhere.”

L. P. Cookingham, 92, the former city manager of Kansas City, Mo., and Fort Worth, gave a different perspective that is being echoed by many in Long Beach: “Strong mayors are strong people. That’s it.”

Cookingham, who Governing called “an inspiration to several generations of city managers,” told the magazine:

“It doesn’t matter what kind of government you have--council-manager or mayor-council--a strong man can work fine with either one and accomplish whatever he sets out to do. A weak man won’t get it done, no matter what you call him or the rest of the people around him.”

MAYORAL POWER: HOW LONG BEACH COMPARES

Does Mayor Who Appoints Who Presents City Vote Veto Power City Manager Budget to Council Los Angeles No Yes * *** Mayor San Diego Yes No Council City Manager San Francisco No Yes * **** Mayor San Jose Yes No Council City Manager Long Beach No Yes ** Council Mayor

Who Presides City at Council Los Angeles Council President San Diego Mayor San Francisco Board President San Jose Mayor Long Beach Mayor

* Takes two-thirds council vote to override in most cases.

** Can be overriden by council simple majority in most cases.

*** City Administrative Officer nominated by mayor and confirmed by council.

**** Chief Administrative Officer nominated by mayor and confirmed by Board of Supervisors.

Source: Officials of cities involved