Mayor Needs Full Firing Power

The political science answer to the question of how the will of the majority can be ignored by their elected representatives is that this is one of the failings of district-by-district democracy, particularly when political participation is limited. In such circumstances, factions of committed supporters and activists exercise disproportionate power, because they will inflict damage if they are crossed. A committed minority can control a majority; the more districts you divide people into, the easier. Federalist 10.

It is this particular problem with democracy that is at the core of the controversy over a new charter for Los Angeles.

At issue is the seemingly technical matter of the mayor’s authority to fire general managers, which is the sticking point between the two commissions--one elected, one appointed--that are drafting charter reform. The elected commission wants to give that power to the mayor; the appointed commission--appointed, that is, by the City Council--not surprisingly wants to retain the power in the council. There is a compromise on the table to allow the mayor to fire general managers, subject to a two-thirds veto by the council. This would be better than the current system, but the mayor isn’t satisfied, and he’s right not to be.

The trend nationwide has been toward stronger mayors. Every major city to reform its charter in the last decade has increased the power of its mayor over city department heads, except New Orleans, which already had a strong mayor. In New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Miami, Detroit, St. Louis, San Francisco, Washington, Seattle, Denver, Cleveland, Baltimore, Milwaukee--in virtually every major American city, save Los Angeles--department heads can be removed without the approval of the City Council.

The old argument against strong mayors was that they would create a centralized machine, which would run the city and inevitably become corrupted by that power, as many did. But new methods have been created to deal with corruption, including mandatory disclosure of campaign contributions and other campaign finance regulation and intense media scrutiny.

In the meantime, weak mayor systems defeat accountability; no one is responsible for dissatisfaction with the delivery of city services. There are many fine men and women who serve on the City Council, but as a form of government, it is much more likely to be susceptible to the influence of powerful constituencies, otherwise known as factions, at least when we don’t like them.

The fact that this city faced riots with a police chief and mayor who literally were not speaking is proof of the system’s failure; it should not have been so hard to fire either Daryl Gates or his successor, Willie Williams, who before his contract was not renewed was so well protected politically that the council overrode his censure by the Police Commission without ever reading its report.

If the City Council expands from 15 to as many as 25, as recommended by both commissions, the last thing we need is to turn every firing into a City Council issue--and too often a race issue, as so many issues become in this city. Far from getting politics out, it puts politics in, not at the level of the city as a whole, but at the level of the most organized of a largely disorganized polity. Instead of working for the city as a whole, as seen by its mayor, department heads are free--or even forced--to work for the most powerful constituents of a collection of separate districts.

“How anyone can defend the City Council’s power to consent to removals is a mystery to me and to any student of American government,” UCLA professor James Q. Wilson wrote. He tells the story of the Senate’s 1789 defeat, with a tie-breaking cast by Vice President John Adams, of legislation that would have required Senate approval for the removal of Cabinet officers. “Imagine this country’s history if the vote had gone the other way. It would have been an invitation to malfeasance and corruption as Cabinet officers sought the support of the Senate so they could stay in office. It would have defeated the president if he did not have (as he usually does not have) an absolute majority in the Senate.”

The mayor is the only official who is elected by everyone in this most diverse city in America. Giving him the responsibility and the authority to run the government as its chief executive forces the politics to the level where it’s likely to be done best.