There’s a lot of buzz about potential ballot measures that would bring San Diego more money, or secure infrastructure dollars for Balboa Park.
But at least one councilmember thinks people should be considering something else: a ballot measure that would reduce the mayor’s power.
“Based on the neglect that I currently see, it seems the most appropriate ballot measure that should be discussed is a strong mayor form of government and potentially going back to a city manager system,” said Councilmember Henry Foster in an interview with Voice of San Diego.
In 2004, voters approved a change in the city’s governance structure from a City Council-Manager form to a strong mayor form of government.
Under this form of government, the mayor is the city’s chief executive officer. The city’s major departments all report to the mayor, who has the power to hire and fire people.
In a weak mayor system, as San Diego previously had, the mayor serves as a member of the City Council and has far less executive power. Department heads all report to a City Manager, who reports to the Council.
Under the strong mayor system, the city has historically had a chief operating officer, or COO, that worked with the mayor to manage the city’s day-to-day operations.
But last year, Mayor Todd Gloria eliminated that position and decided to take on the role. Some councilmembers tried adding that position back in last year’s budget negotiations, but the mayor vetoed their move.
In an interview in July, Gloria said being both mayor and COO gives him “multiple bites at the apple.”
Foster said not moving forward with the COO position was a big disservice to the city.
“Especially in the strong mayor form of government, when you have an individual that doesn’t have operations experience,” he said. “I think it’s the glaring truth at this moment.”
The City of San Diego has a $5 billion budget, rivaling many good-sized private sector corporations. None of these corporations select their chief operating officer based on a vote of their shareholders. Rather, the shareholders vote on the boards of directors and the boards select their CEO. Of course, they always look for someone with vast experience and demonstrated skills running similar sized corporations. What San Diego is doing presently is the equivalent of having the shareholders (in our case voters) select the CEO. Political skills and promises are not the same as operations skills. We need a strong manager form of government.
i absolutely agree with Chris Brewster. i think we have seen this system fail several times in these 20 years. we gave it a try; now please let’s look at returning to the city manager form that served San Diego much better.
When Todd Gloria first ran for mayor and won, the room was full of hope, and the promise of good things to come based on Gloria’s promise of a city that would be run for the benefit of the people. I was in that room, I was a volunteer on his campaign.
Unfortunately, Gloria turned out to be just another lying politician beholden to those with money, in his case the developers. He is also as demonstrated by his actions, incompetent, lurching from one poorly executed program to another.
I don’t know what his future plans are, but “Welcome to our store,” seems to be the only one he is qualified for.
Limiting or eliminating this guys managerial power is clearly necessary! He has proven his inability to manage this City time and again. He has cost us millions of wasted dollars, over far too many years, and the City now finds itself in crisis mode. Do it now!!
Folks. This train has sailed. A couple mediocre officeholders doesn’t change the fact that a city with over a million people needs a strong executive position – certainly more than we need another overpowered, unelected bureaucrat who would be even harder to remove if the situation arose.
Everyone who constantly harps on this issue and pines for the good ol’ days conveniently forgets the many past (and bigger) debacles a sainted manager role was somehow helpless to prevent. The pension crisis alone blows your whole argument.
If you want to hold elected officials accountable, frankly, you need more of them, in a spicy mix of self-preservation and personal ambition that serves to check each other’s missteps and overreaches. An elected auditor, an expanded city council, some at-large council seats, all sorts of options out there. The fact that Henry Foster is even speaking this openly against the mayor is a great start, but as a lone councilmember he doesn’t have many powers in his toolbox. Give him some company!
A lot of people support a City Manager form because they’ve seen how easily management can get politicized, how leadership turnover creates instability, and how scandals or fiscal problems can follow when day-to-day operations are driven by politics instead of professionalism. For them, it really comes down to this: cities usually run better when experienced administrators handle operations and elected officials focus on setting policy and direction.
San Diego has been failed either way, but I prefer the city manager system.
Yeah I don’t buy the argument that a return to the city manager system is a good idea. That system did not prevent a lot of the issues the city is currently facing, and I see no reason why returning to it would help much. I understand people’s frustration with Todd Gloria, but the guy is basically a lame duck at this point.
Also, how many major US cities have the city manager system over the strong-executive system? SD is not a small town and we shouldn’t act like one IMHO.