|
From all sides these days come calls for reorganization of San Diego’s municipal government. The main thrust seems to be to change the city's governing structure from the present council/manager form to the "Strong Mayor" form. Trouble is, I haven't heard a good reason why.
"If it ain't broke, don’t fix it" is a good axiom for local government. So is the concept that, before you propose a solution, you'd better make sure there's a problem. Even if it’s there, you'd better know what it is.
It’s human nature to make a decision — to choose a direction, so to speak — then to rationalize it afterward with selected, supportive facts, many of them rank hearsay. Politicians do that all the time, sensing what a constituency wants and then finding "facts" to support whatever it is. I suspect the 1998-99 San Diego Grand Jury used the method in its June report critical of Mayor Golding.
In lawyers' terms, the process is sometimes called "assuming facts not in evidence." On careful analysis, most, if not all, the "facts" used to support the need for change to a "strong mayor" form of government seem to fall into this suspect category. Here are a few and my reactions to them:
1. In a big city, voters want their elected representatives held directly responsible for everything the city does — from potholes to public safety.
Says who? Surely not the electorate. I suspect most voters, if asked, would rail about "those (expletive deleted) politicians," but wouldn't have much in the way of complaints against the way the city manager professionally delivers everyday services.
2. City manager-run governments work well in small cities, but not in large ones, like San Diego.
Efforts to replace the council/manager form of government in cities of whatever size more often come from people unhappy with their community's politics, rather than the quality of municipal service. When you look at the big cities run by strong mayors, the political differences are striking. Strong mayor government tends to be more responsive, all right, but only for those counted on as backers of elected officials in power. Historically, corrupt city governments — those which exist to serve the interests of political supporters — usually are found in cities having governments looking suspiciously like strong mayor forms. New York, Boston, Chicago and Kansas City come immediately to mind.
3. The council/manager form of government is antique — it should be replaced by a modern form.
The U.S. Constitution is "antique," too, but throwing it out just because it’s old makes no sense at all. The council/manager form of government came to us in response to political corruption in city government. In California, it was the culmination of a series of reforms proposed by the Progressive movement in the first half of this century to rid the state of special interests and the corruption they tend to bestow. The reforms have worked well; there's no need to discard them now just because they're old. Attention would be better directed toward campaign finance reform.
4. Recent public works projects would have benefited from strong mayoral leadership. The council/manager form precludes the mayor from exercising effective political leadership.
What would change? Horton Plaza and the Gaslamp Quarter, outstanding successes, can be credited in no small measure to the political leadership of then-Mayor Pete Wilson. The problems, if they are problems, of Qualcomm Stadium and the proposed ballpark certainly haven't flowed from a lack of mayoral leadership. The incumbent mayor's fingerprints are all over those projects and it is way too early too judge them failures.
5. Local government should be like other levels of government, with a strong elected executive, separate from the legislative branch, controlling the budget and exercising the veto.
This is an old "if it’s government, it should look like other governments" fallacy. Federal and state governments have strong elected executives, separated from other branches, and with independent powers. But local government isn’t state or federal government. There's no need to make it operate as if it were, particularly in light of the obvious shortcomings of both those other branches.
Local government's basic purpose is to deliver the fundamental services we all need to survive in an urban setting — police, fire, streets, water and sanitation are foremost among them. Someone wiser than I once said, "there ain't no Republican way or Democrat way to pick up the garbage." Mixing politics with garbage collection, however, has proved to be the incubator for corruption in many larger, strong mayor cities. Until someone comes up with a convincing reason why we need Chicago-style city government in San Diego, I’m for sticking with what we have.
The former San Diego city attorney, John Witt now serves as special counsel with the law firm of Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak.
|
