Panel Urges 10 Districts, Mayoral Veto

Proposing a dramatic restructuring of San Diego city government, the city’s Charter Review Commission recommended Monday night that the mayor be given a veto over any council action and that the council’s size be increased by two seats.

With 9 of the commission’s 15 members supporting both the mayoral veto and a council increase to 10 seats, the charter panel took its boldest steps to date to alter both the form and size of the city’s 57-year-old council-city manager form of government.

Arguing that voters’ approval last month of district elections for council members has “altered the symmetry” of the 1931 charter, retired 4th District Court of Appeal Justice Edward Butler, the commission’s chairman, persuaded a majority of his colleagues that it was necessary to increase the mayor’s powers to “restore the balance of power at City Hall.”

Enhancing Representation

The two-seat addition to council’s size was advocated as a means of enhancing community representation at City Hall by reducing the geographic area represented by each council member.

Given the potentially sweeping impact that those proposals could have inside and outside City Hall--as well as the fact that they would reduce the current council’s power--both measures are certain to generate intense debate when forwarded to the council for insertion on the ballot. Even the procedural question of whether and how the commission’s recommendations will be placed on the ballot is likely to provoke debate.

When the commission was formed, the council pledged to put all of its proposed City Charter changes on the ballot without amending them. Since then, however, several council members have complained about that hands-off approach and have suggested that the council review any proposed changes, rather than automatically placing them on the ballot.

Butler expressed confidence after Monday night’s vote that the council would “honor its original commitment and not renege” on its promise to submit unaltered commission proposals to the voters. But other commission members were less sanguine, noting that a mayoral veto and reduction in council district sizes would curtail council’s authority.

“Why would the council want to do anything to reduce its own power?” panel member Scott Harvey asked rhetorically.

Mayoral Veto

Under the commission’s proposals, the mayor, who now essentially functions as the first among equals on the council, could veto any council action, subject to an override by two-thirds of the council. The commission opted not to give the mayor a line-item veto over budget matters.

Nevertheless, if normal veto powers are ultimately approved by voters, that change--perhaps more than any other amendment being studied by the commission--would shift the balance of power within City Hall, leaving San Diego with a form of government somewhere between the current council-manager plan and a strong-mayor system.

That shift toward a stronger mayor was opposed by San Diego Chamber of Commerce President Lee Grissom, who unsuccessfully encouraged the commission to strengthen the existing council-city manager system by, among other means, placing several city departments now within the council’s jurisdiction under the manager’s control.

“Our current system . . . has a track record of superb performance and responsiveness to the citizens of this community,” Grissom said. He also argued that the panel should not be “stampeded” into making major structural changes in the form of government until the district election plan has been given a chance to operate, recommending a “cooling off period” of at least a year.

Political Realities?

Butler and other supporters of the veto proposal, however, argued that giving the mayor greater executive authority reflected the changed political realities at City Hall. The advent of district-only council races beginning next year, they emphasized, will leave the mayor as the only voting member of the council elected citywide. Without an expanded mayoral leadership role, Butler warned when the issue was debated last week, council meetings would deteriorate into “eight mini-mayors fighting like mad.”

The commission also discussed another proposal that would strengthen the mayor’s office by giving the mayor the right to appoint all members of all city boards and commissions, subject to council confirmation. The mayor and the council now share the power of nominating members to city boards. In part because of legal questions raised by city attorneys, the panel postponed a decision on that issue until next week.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor described the commission’s actions as “a step in the right direction,” saying that a mayoral veto would redress the “inequity of having the vote of a mayor who represents 1 million people being equal to the vote of a council member who represents 100,000.”

“The present system doesn’t work when you go to district-only elections,” O’Connor said shortly after the commission’s vote. “No one likes to give up power . . . but there have to be changes.”

Although she expressed conceptual support for a mayoral veto, O’Connor also questioned the wisdom of giving the mayor a veto while also keeping the mayor as a voting member of the council.

“That might be a little duplicative,” O’Connor said.

Several council members said Monday night they want to study the commission’s recommendations before deciding whether to support the proposed changes.

‘Plan for the Future’

The other major change proposed Monday night--the two-seat expansion of the council--was proposed by former county supervisorial aide Neil Good, who argued that council districts already were too large and that it was “necessary to plan for the future.”

Expressing opposition to increasing the council’s size, commissioner Sam Wilhite said he saw merit in “keeping the size of the council to a minimum,” while commissioner Jeanette Roache dismissed the proposal as “putting the cart before the horse.” Like other major proposed structural changes, Roache added, a decision on whether to add seats to the council should await experience under the district-election plan.

But commissioner Ron Ottinger, noting that the city’s last charter review commission served 15 years ago--and that it might be longer before a future panel again tackles the thorny task--responded: “It’s clear to me that 15 years is too long to go without increasing seats.” By a 9-3 vote, his colleagues agreed.

The new seats would be added in the next election after a public’s vote on the proposed charter changes. With the commission’s recommendations not expected to be put before voters until 1989 or 1990, depending on the council’s preference, that means that the new seats would not be added until the 1991 council elections, at the earliest.