Irvine’s Political Succession Proposal Is Sloppy, Deceitful

There is probably universal agreement in Irvine that Measure D, which provides for political succession in the event that a City Council member is elected mayor and must vacate a council seat, has produced a political nightmare.

Indeed, the sloppy language drafted by the city’s legal counsel to implement Measure D has caused “nothing but trouble” during the past two years in and out of the courtroom. Measure D is deplorable, and Irvine desperately needs a new plan for political succession.

But that doesn’t mean Irvine needs less democracy. Measure E, placed on the November ballot by the City Council, would abolish Irvine’s directly elected mayor as a means to solving the city’s problems with political succession. This is sheer lunacy!

The two issues--whether Irvine should have a directly elected mayor and the plan for political succession--are competely distinctive. The widely acknowledged problems with Measure D can and should be solved without diminishing democracy in Irvine.

Irvine residents should have the opportunity to vote for or against a directly elected mayor and the opportunity to vote for or against the abolition of Measure D.

Unfortunately we don’t; the City Council didn’t give us that choice. Instead, the council has combined these two issues in an effort to appeal to people’s disgust with Measure D as a way of motivating them to eliminate the directly elected mayor. That’s deceitful, but it’s also terribly crafty.

How should someone who supports a directly elected mayor and a change in Measure D vote? Those preferences are impossible to express in this fall’s election. The council has intentionally merged these two issues to secure their aim with greater certainty: a return to the “good old days” when mayors were selected by a small cabal of council members behind closed doors. Shame on the council for not posing the choices honestly!

There are any number of ways to solve the problem of political succession without diminishing democracy in Irvine. First, the seat of a council member running for mayor would become vacant upon the conclusion of the mayoral election (win or lose), thus enabling other candidates to run for that seat during the normal election cycle. Second, vacancies on the council could be filled by a special election or, third, by appointment. Fourth, voters could rank in order all council candidates in the election, thus creating a third- or even a fourth-place winner if necessary to fill a council vacancy.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine