Separation of Key City Elections Urged : Charter Panel Wants Mayor, City Attorney Races in Different Years

San Diego’s Charter Review Commission, reacting to changes in the electoral process caused by district elections, recommended Monday that the mayor and city attorney run for office in separate, odd-numbered years. That system would ensure that each year’s ballot contain at least one citywide election.

With statewide and congressional elections scheduled for even-numbered years, the new system would guarantee a citywide election every year after 1993. That would allow the San Diego City Council and community groups to place referendums on the ballot without the cost of a special election.

Under the commission’s plan, approved 8 to 5, the mayor would be elected to a five-year term in 1992 and run every four years beginning in 1997. The city attorney would be elected to a three-year term in 1992 and run every four years beginning in 1995.

The vote, which came after commission members defeated a move to take the proposal off the agenda, continues the commission’s suggested restructuring of the city’s 57-year-old council-manager form of government.

Citing the altered “symmetry” of having a mayor elected citywide and an eight-member council elected by district, the commission voted Dec. 12 to strengthen the mayor’s office by giving the mayor veto power. The veto could be overridden by a two-thirds vote of council.

At the same meeting, the commission recommended expanding the council from eight to 10 members.

All commission proposals must be approved by voters, but there is no guarantee that the electorate will get a chance to review them. Although the council decided April 4 to place commission recommendations on the ballot without amendments, several council members have had second thoughts about that pledge and may demand to review or change the suggestions.

In other action Monday, the commission decided not to strengthen the mayor’s appointive power and declined to change the title of “deputy mayor” to either “vice mayor” or “mayor pro tem.” It also declined to add language to the charter regulating lobbying by former council members, suggesting that the matter be handled by ordinance.

The commission added language to its Dec. 12 vote on council districts, mandating that the two-district expansion occur no later than 1993.

Monday’s action on the electoral process was an attempt to rectify another perceived imbalance created by last month’s voter approval of district-only elections. Under that plan, citywide elections would be eliminated in odd-numbered years because council members will be selected only by voters in their districts.

For example, voters in Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 will go to the polls in 1989--when council members in those districts face reelection--while voters in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8 will stay home.

“It focuses more attention on the office of mayor and city attorney. They’re not lumped in with congressional and state elections,” said Neil Good, a former county supervisorial aide who proposed the system.

City Clerk Charles Abdelnour has testified that the system would increase voter turnout and save the city the cost of special elections.

But opponents of the system pointed out that it discriminates against council members in odd-numbered districts in at least one way: they would have to give up their seats to run for mayor, because the City Charter does not allow a council member to run for mayor and a council seat at the same time.

Beginning in 1997, council members in Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 would be running for reelection on the same ballot as the mayor. Starting in 1995, council members in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8 would be seeking reelection along with the city attorney.

Commission member Ken Seaton-Msemaji, enraged at the decision, told Good that the system would decrease the chances of “a black or a brown” becoming mayor “in my lifetime.”

Seaton-Msemaji reasoned that black and Latino council members--who most likely would come from Districts 4 or 8, which have heavy minority populations--would have to quit their seats to run for mayor.

Under the present system, that is not true. However, the council must redistrict the city next year and could alter the numerical district system. A separate redistricting would be required if two more seats were added to the council.