Several years ago, Malin Burnham, George Mitrovich, John Kaheny and a group of volunteers began a series of Saturday morning meetings that would end 18 months later with a draft amendment to the San Diego City Charter giving San Diego a strong mayor, a chief executive form of government like the federal government, all 50 states and most large cities.

The mayor would be the municipal corporation’s chief executive, not just the ceremonial chairman with merely one vote out of nine on the council as San Diego’s leadership has been structured for decades.

“We then took it to the City Council and mayor — that was Susan Golding’s term — and we couldn’t get her leadership and her endorsement,” recalls Burnham. “And it turned out most all of the City Council people were very comfortable in their own little district fiefdoms. I don’t say that negatively. They look at their districts as singular independent operations that are operating just fine. And therefore they weren’t interested in changing. The problem was they were not interested in looking at the city as a whole, as opposed to their own district’s operation. That’s a resistance that this effort is going to have to overcome.”

Trying again, Burnham and Mitrovich approached Mayor Dick Murphy and his chief of staff John Kern about six months ago. “And it was fairly clear to me philosophically the mayor was in favor,” Burnham says. “However, he did not want to get involved until after his re-election. So it will take that much more time to get it circulated to the community with the feeling that the document already produced is the right one, or with some modification. If we cannot get the City Council to put it on the ballot, at least we tried and gave them the chance. Thereafter, I don’t think there’s reason to avoid” circulating a petition to put the language directly on the ballot.

The complete language as proposed can be read online at sandiegometro.com/2003/dec/ coverstory2_burnham.html

In part, it says:

Office Of The Mayor

The mayor shall have authority over the executive branch of city government.

The executive branch shall consist of all city departments, agencies, boards, and commissions, with the exception of the offices of city attorney, auditor, clerk, council, independent budget analyst and the department of personnel.

The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city.

The mayor shall nominate the city’s chief administrative officer (previously known as the city manager) to exercise professional city management; said nominee shall be subject to council confirmation.

The mayor shall have the power to dismiss the city’s chief administrative officer without recourse.

The mayor shall nominate the police chief, fire chief and planning director. Such nominees shall be subject to council confirmation.

The mayor may dismiss the police chief, fire chief, and planning director. such action is subject to city council review and/or rejection of said dismissal(s) by majority vote of the full council.

The mayor shall select the city’s agency and department directors, with the exception of the offices of city attorney, auditor, clerk, council, independent budget analyst and the department of personnel.

The mayor shall have the power to dismiss the city’s agency and department directors without recourse. Exempted are the offices of city attorney, auditor, clerk, council, independent budget analyst, and the department of personnel.

The mayor shall propose the city’s budget.

The mayor shall have the power to veto the city’s budget, as approved by the city council, or eliminate any line-item thereof.

The mayor shall have the power to veto any legislative action of the council, except for the annual tax levy, zoning ordinances, emergency ordinances, ordinances calling elections, and any other ordinance requiring a two-thirds vote of the full council.

That’s a lot of “mayor shalls,” all necessary, say Burnham and Mitrovich, to give the mayor the responsibility he needs and the accountability that citizens expect. It also gives the city manager, reporting only to the mayor, a single person to please, rather than a shifting five-person majority of the council.

“I would predict under the new language, the opinions and recommendations expressed by the manager would be unvarnished compared to what they’ve been in the past,” says Burnham. “Currently, in order for the city manager to keep his job and have his opinions accepted, he’s got to placate five out of nine people. Not so under a modern version of what city government could be. Therefore we can place the responsibility for action in the hands of one party, rather than a group of nine.

“Let me give you a current example, the lease negotiations between the Chargers and the city. Currently the Chargers have the substantial disadvantage of having to deal and negotiate at the same time with nine people on the other side of the table. Business doesn’t do that. If my business were to deal in a lease negotiation and attempt to try to satisfy nine voices on the other side of the table, the deal would never get done. Maybe that’s an obvious reason why this deal hasn’t gotten done.

“If the mayor has the responsibility to take the lead, negotiate a deal and bring it back to the council for ratification, things would get done. That’s how our federal and state governments work. Why shouldn’t our city government work the same way?”

What if San Diego winds up with a bad strong mayor?

“Well, just like our federal and state governments, there are checks and balances between the mayor and the City Council,” says Burnham. “There are veto possibilities and override to the veto possibilities. There are ample checks and balances.

“Pete Wilson, in my history of looking and working with mayors of the city of San Diego, was by far the strongest and most effective mayor. Also in many cases he really exceeded his authority. But he had the personality and leadership and it worked. We hear criticism from time to time, either of the current or past ones, that our mayors have not been strong leaders. One of the reasons is the disadvantage of our City Charter, not giving the mayor the legal opportunity to step out in front and be a strong leader.”

Incidentally, Burnham has endorsed Murphy for re-election, but thinks Peter Q. Davis or Ron Roberts would do well in the job.

“During the last election for mayor, John Moores and I agreed that because of the ballpark issues to be voted upon by the future City Council, and because of Burnham Real Estate Services’ partnership with JMI Realty to do some of the peripheral development around the ballpark, he and I agreed we should remain neutral in the mayor’s race, and we did. Now I have decided that is no longer a conflict, and I have endorsed Dick for his reelection. I think he’s done a good job in the areas of communications, especially with his City Council. He is a quality person. He certainly has very strong ethics and projects trust. I am not pleased with many positions he’s taken where I believe he could have taken a much stronger leadership role. However, I think with the three indictments of our City Council members, the fact that the business of our city has slowed down accordingly, it’s in our best interest to reelect Dick Murphy as soon as possible, hopefully in the March election, so we can get working, back to work as soon as possible.

“I think both Davis and Roberts have the skills to be potentially a good mayor. They have different personalities, different experiences, but I certainly look at them as being qualified to be mayor of this community.”

A patient man, Burnham worked on persuading leaders and the public for nearly seven years to establish an autonomous authority to plan for a major airport and operate Lindbergh Field in the interim. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is now marking its first anniversary.