ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Measure Would Trash Irvine’s Structure for Self-Governance

Popularly elected leadership is the essence of democratic government. When was the last time that citizens in any representative democracy were asked by their government to abolish democratically elected leadership? It’s a rare event, indeed, more familiar to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes.

Yet that’s precisely what the Irvine City Council is asking Irvine residents to do by voting for Measure E, which will eliminate the direct election of Irvine’s mayor.

For the third time in five years, Irvine voters must decide whether they want a mayor directly elected by the people or a mayor appointed by the majority of the City Council behind closed doors. Capitalizing on popular dissatisfaction with Measure D, the City Council moved hastily to put Measure E on the November ballot.

According to the Council, Measure E will remedy “the expensive lawsuits and divisive elections” produced by Measure D. How will it accomplish this? Not by abolishing or amending Measure D but by eliminating the direct election of the mayor. This is the political equivalent of selling your automobile because it has a flat tire.

Contrary to the council’s claim, there is nothing intrinsic in the direct election of the mayor that leads to expensive lawsuits and divisive elections. These are the stepchildren of Measure D, which provides for political succession in the event that a council member is elected mayor, and have no family relationship whatsoever to a directly elected mayor. Measure E has been deceptively set up to force voters to render a single judgment on two very distinct issues.

For varied reasons, a city the size of Irvine needs a directly elected mayor. First, a directly elected mayor can provide the political leadership and initiative necessary for community improvement in a municipality undergoing the strains of development and growth. American cities with council-manager forms of government--the kind Irvine has--recognize that while government by a professional city manager works well for small cities, larger cities need the leadership and initiative that comes from a directly elected mayor. As a result, two-thirds of these cities directly elect mayors in addition to city managers.

Second, a directly elected mayor guarantees political accountability for the principal executive official in the city. That’s as it should be in a representative democracy. The results of effective political accountability can be seen in the results of Irvine’s June election. The political system worked; the electorate effectively rejected one political agenda and endorsed another.

Third, Irvine needs a directly elected mayor to stand up to the Irvine Co., which has forcefully opposed the direct election of the mayor because it challenges the company’s control over the city’s development. As the dominant voice in the city, the Irvine Co. has a major stake in diminishing the ability of Irvine residents to speak through a single voice in opposition to its interests, especially through a popularly elected mayor with ample political credibility and legitimacy.

Irvine needs a directly elected mayor to buttress the development ambitions of the Irvine Co. and to balance the influence of the company on important political and economic issues.

Irvine needs electoral reform. However, reform must nurture, not trash, the city’s commitment to democratization. Irvine’s problems with political succession must be remedied. But that remedy should not come at the price of democratically elected leadership.

Measure E is a giant step backward in self-governance. In the name of democratic leadership, Irvine residents should send a stern rebuke--No on Measure E--to those who would too quickly sacrifice democracy in pursuit of private interests.