REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 6/5/07
DIRECT ELECTION OF MAYOR?
(Daily Pilot misses the big story and didn't even mention it in today's paper)
At last night's City Council meeting, former Mayor Gary Monahan "casually" asked the Council to put an item for the direct election of Costa Mesa's mayor on the ballot next year.
In the blink of an eye the Council agreed to do this by immediately asking staff to bring this issue back to Council in July so the Council can officially vote on whether to put this on the ballot or not.
In other words, the Council is moving at warp speed to put this on the ballot.
NOT SO FAST COUNCIL! THE PUBLIC NEEDS TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS.
The first thing the public needs to know about this is that having an item come back for consideration so quickly is rare. Usually, the wheels of local government move at a snail's pace.
When things are pushed through this quickly, and in such a seemingly off handed manner, many people miss what's going on until it's too late.
The speed that this item is taking seems to indicate that a lot of back room talk has been going on and agreements have already been reached to fast track this.
This issue needs a full public airing so the pros and cons can be argued in public by the public.
One thing is certain. A system with a directly elected mayor tends to concentrate power in the hands of the mayor and takes power away from individual Council Members.
Here are a few initial questions that need to be asked and answered:
1. Why do this? If the present system works, why change it?
2. What will happen to our City Manager form of government?
3. What will a directly elected mayor be paid?
4. Will a directly elected mayor be a full time elected official?
5. Will the city be split up into districts for election of Council members?
6. Will the mayor be given an office--maybe a corner office--in City Hall?
7. Will directly electing a mayor throw our elections into the hands of the big developers and monied special interests and take them away from the grass roots?
# # #
TRAFFIC CALMING SIT-DOWNS GET THE CONCRETE BOOTS
The Council on a 2 -3 vote, with Katrina Foley and Linda Dixon voting against the motion, killed the city wide traffic calming study. The majority on the council apparently believes that individuals and individual neighborhoods can contact the city if they want traffic calming methods used in their neighborhoods.
The CM PRESS agrees with the majority on this and we know from personal experience that City Staff is very responsive to such requests.
It appeared to the CM PRESS that City Manager Allan Roeder was a little perturbed about the way this was handled. At one point, Mr. Roeder asked the Mayor to put exactly what he wanted staff to do in a motion that the Council could then vote on so there would be no confusion. The Mayor refused to do this.
This little exchange, given the poker faced and emotionless demeanor that usually characterizes those on the dais during Costa Mesa's meetings, was the equivalent of a street corner shouting match.
SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE?
There appears to be an almost constant miscommunication happening between some members of the City Council and City Staff. We saw this as it related to Paularino Park and we see it again in this traffic calming matter.
There may be several things happening at once.
1. When the City Council has its study sessions to discuss various matters, it is not allowed to take official action on those matters. However, it can give direction to Staff.
2. Staff is generally very responsive to what the Council wants. Thus, if a Council Member sneezes at a Study Session, staff is likely to show up with a truckload of Kleenex.
This being the case, Council Members need to start being very clear at these Study Sessions about when they really are giving direction and when they are not.
3. Mayor Mansoor seems to work on the principle of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." While this is good in many ways, it can lead to him not shooting down ideas of other City Council members at these Study Sessions.
In the present case, the traffic calming idea was apparently Katrina Foley's. And, since the Mayor and his majority didn't come right out and firmly say they didn't like the idea, staff may have incorrectly believed that the Council as a whole had given them direction to move forward with holding community meetings, etc.
So, based on "direction," that apparently wasn't direction, staff put in many hours and spent about $ 6,000 on holding community meetings and gathering information before this was deep- sixed last night.
Come on Council, let's communicate a little better. Give signals at these Study Sessions so everyone knows where you're going. This means that you'll have to be more direct and pointed in your comments to each other and to staff.
Our guess is that some of you Council Members (especially those of you born and raised in California) may consider such direct and pointed comments to be rude. Get over it. You need to be understood, and it is clear that right now you're not always being understood. Learn to disagree without being disagreeable but learn to communicate what you want. People can't read your minds. This is costing taxpayers money.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
