The mayor's charter committee report makes its debut

by Norma Damashek

1) The most needed charter change proposals are the ones that benefit the long range interests of the city's neighborhoods, communities, public heath, safety, and general welfare.

2) The way to ensure that the best interests of San Diego citizens are served is by setting aside the faulty recommendations of the charter committee and seeking real reform though an independent, democratically representative Charter Commission. We've had a long history of appointed commissions whose recommendations gather dust on a shelf. Hand-picked groups such as the mayor's charter committee are a worse alternative. An Independent Charter Commission, elected by district, would be our first chance at full public representation and democratic participation.

3) The 5-year trial period of the Strong Mayor system, plus the original provisions in Prop F provisions approved by the voters, should be allowed to run its full course until 2010 before new charter changes are considered.

4) But wait – there is an important exception: San Diego citizens are entitled to honest financial reform and deserve immediate protection through the establishment of a fully independent, autonomous, and accountable City Auditor, answerable directly to the public.

A City Auditor who in any way can be manipulated or controlled will keep us on the road to ruin. A City Auditor who is appointed by or who answers to the mayor is a travesty. The city already has an audit committee. The mayor already has a CFO. The only charter change the people need is an City Auditor who answers to the people.

Here is a chart listing the recommended charter changes the committee is bringing to the City Council. Notice that almost each report recommendation has a double meaning – it may say one thing but it means something different.

CHARTER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION	ISSUES TO CONSIDER
#1: to extend trial period of strong mayor system	* There is no extension. It cancels the 5-year trial period of strong mayor under Proposition F * It immediately makes permanent a strong mayor system along with new powers and changes that don't exist in Prop F
#2: to cancel the veto provision approved by voters that gave city council the ability to override the mayor's veto with a majority vote and to replace it with a requirement for a 2/3 veto override	* A 2/3 override vote isn't possible with an 8 member council * If enacted, the actual override would be 6 votes out of 8 or 75%. Certain issues would require 7 votes out of 8 or 88% * Under the current balance of powers between mayor and council there have been few (if any) major problems
#3: to increase council districts from 8 to 11	* Prop F called for 9 districts after the 2010 census * Choice of the number 11 was arbitrary * It is an attempt to make the 2/3 veto override appear reasonable * This increase comes with no analysis of the public's needs or its fiscal impacts * An equitable redistricting process cannot occur until the 2010 census. * We mustn't be saddled with 2 redistricting processes within 2 years. * We end up with at least 5 years under a veto override of 75-88%
#4: to increase the Independent Budget Analyst (IBA) scope of activities to include policy analysis	* Policy analysis is already in the scope of the IBA * There is no provision to make this valuable office permanent
#5: to transfer the authority, power, and responsibilities of the Auditor/Controller to a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) appointed by the Mayor	* If the intent is to separate auditor from controller functions, this proposal fails to do that * It explicitly transfers auditor authority, power, and responsibilities to the CFO * The Mayor appoints the CFO * A CFO creates the budget, therefore should not have audit authority * An auditor-controller is regulated by state and professional guidelines. A CFO is not
#6: to establish an Audit Committee consisting of 2 members of the City Council and 3 appointed members of the public	* The Audit Committee composition is a complex hodgepodge of elected and private individuals appointed in convoluted ways * Private members may not have legal authority to fulfill Audit Committee responsibilities, termination of a city official, or official city business * There is no transparency or direct public accountability -- citizens will not know who is in charge, answerable, or responsible, or to whom the committee reports * This is not a recipe for fiscal accountability and reform * The City Council already has an Audit Committee
#7: to create a new category called City Auditor to be appointed by the Mayor for a 10 year term	* An auditor must be fully independent from the administration whose books (s)he is responsible for auditing * Top American cities all have independent auditors * The convoluted termination process (fired by 4/5 of the audit committee subject to a 2/3 council override) is indecipherable and unworkable * A 10-year term guarantees expensive buy-outs at termination * Public oversight and protection are erased * This does not represent fiscal reform
#8: to require a balanced budget annually	* Window dressing is not fiscal reform * Significant mid-year budget adjustments by the Mayor weakens this requirement * Without public confidence in a fully independent auditor, there is no substance to a balanced budget requirement

The list goes on.

#9: to clarify that Police officers, firefighters and lifeguards…are exempt from Managed Competition	* Managed competition is a code phrase for privatizing city departments * Only a select category of sworn safety personnel would be exempt from being outsourced * Police cadets, persons sworn for limited purposes only, and all other employees of the Police Department, Fire Department and lifeguard services are not exempt * Another step in eradicating the city's Civil Service System
#10: to redefine the scope and authority of the elected City Attorney	* San Diego citizens need more, not less, oversight and protection from government malfeasance * A healthy balance of powers requires an independent City Council, independent Mayor, independent City Auditor, and independent City Attorney * Only then will the public be well served and protected
#11: to change the salary setting process for elected officials	* Gives 7 private individuals the exclusive power to dictate the salaries of elected officials * Eliminates public input over how tax dollars are spent * Requires a signature-gathering initiative process for public to be heard
#12: to allow the Mayor to make nominations when appointing authority rests with the City Council	* The Mayor has very broad appointment powers * A large number of vacancies have not been filled in a timely manner by the Mayor's office * The attempt to control all appointments may not be advisable in a democracy
#13: to award the Mayor control over agencies that state or federal law reserve for the City Council	* Legal challenges are likely with this attempt to circumvent state and federal law * There are inherent conflicts of interest in making the mayor the chief executive officer of agencies under City Council jurisdiction * Excessive consolidation of power in the executive office is counter productive to good government

And last but not least:

#14: to allow the Mayor to appoint the Personnel Director

* Another attempt to weaken the Civil Service System * The city's Civil Service System is a protection for the public * Standards for employment are based on qualifications and merit, not on political patronage * Putting the Personnel Director under the Mayor eliminates an independent voice that serves the public interest

The committee wants even more charter changes

by Norma Damashek

The top 11 priority recommendations of the mayor's charter committee were charted in the previous posting (see below). The mayor's committee wants to see their 1^st tier of 11 charter changes sent quickly to the voters, preferably on the June 2008 ballot.

The mayor's committee voted on a 2^nd tier of charter changes. They want to see these put on a subsequent ballot, perhaps in November 2008. Here they are:

CITY CHARTER SECTION(§)	PREEXISTING STATUS under Council-Manager System	CURRENT STATUS under the 5-Year Trial Period with Strong Mayor System (Prop F)	MAYOR'S COMMITTEE PROPOSALS for ADDITIONAL CHARTER CHANGE
RE: Mayor's role in making appointments to outside boards, commissions, & agencies when state or federal laws gives appointing authority to the City Council (§265)	Mayor as 9th member of City Council had same powers to make appointments as other council members	When the Mayor was given new executive powers under Prop F lost the appointment authority that is vested by law in the City Council	Provide charter guarantee of Mayor's power to nominate candidates wherever federal or state laws vest appointing authority in the City Council
RE: Mayor's authority over organizations created under state & federal laws that grant governing authority to the City Council (e.g., Redevelopment Agency, Housing Commission) (§265)	City manager was executive director of the Redevelopment Agency. Housing Commission employed an independent executive director	City Council appointed Mayor as interim executive director of Redevelopment Agency. Housing Commission status unchanged	Charter authorization for Mayor to be Chief Executive Officer of any organization over which City Council has authority under state & federal law
RE: Appointment & dismissal of Personnel Director (§265)	Civil Service Commission appointed Personnel Director	Civil Service Commission appointed Personnel Director	Mayor would have power to appoint the Personnel Director (with Council confirmation) and fire Personnel Director (with no recourse)

But wait, there's more! The mayor's charter committee also prepared language for municipal code changes for the City Council while noting that legislative matters were really outside the purview of a charter committee.

In addition to the 1^st and 2^nd tiers of proposals, the mayor's charter committee adopted a 3^rd tier of charter change issues they recommend for future study. Note that some items in what they call their "parking lot" appear not to be Charter issues. Other items appear to reflect some individual's personal biases. Here they are:

RE: City Attorney	Convert the office from an elected to an appointed position
RE: Charter review process	Schedule charter review on an automatic, regular basis. No preference for elected v. appointed commission
RE: Budgetary authority	Clarify mayor's authority to make mid-year adjustments and transfer funds within and among city departments. Eliminate ambiguities in this political and complex area
RE: City Investment policies	Codify reserve requirements, asset management policies
RE: Filling vacancies	A passing concern of a council member
RE: Independent Budget Analyst's (IBA) status	Preserve IBA's office if Council-Manager form of government is restored
RE: Integration of strong mayor concept into city charter	Concern about neatening up the entire city charter – a process that can realistically occur only after the strong mayor experiment has been resolved
RE: Intergovernmental relations	Desire to create clear lines of responsibility and command concerning interactions among governmental branches
RE: Mayor's role in closed session	Resolve question of mayor's authority over closed session decisions
RE: Opting into CalPERS	Consider transferring the city pension system to the state pension system
RE: Timing of budget process	Create a clearer, realistic time line for the budget process

Here's what the mayor's committee recommends

by Norma Damashek

The final meeting and final votes of the mayor's charter committee took place last week. Their final report has yet to be released but substantive changes are not anticipated. Here is a table of charter change recommendations formally adopted by the mayor's committee for placement on the June 2008 ballot.

The mayor's committee has also prepared a list of charter changes they want to see on a subsequent ballot, perhaps in November 2008. In addition, they have a long list of recommendations they'd like a future charter committee to work on. These will be included in the next posting.

Then it will be time for a behind-the-scenes analysis of the entire report.

CITY CHARTER SECTION(§) undergoing change	PREEXISTING STATUS under Council-Manager System	CURRENT STATUS under the 5-Year Trial Period with Strong Mayor System (Prop F)	MAYOR'S COMMITTEE PROPOSALS for ADDITIONAL CHARTER CHANGE
RE: 5-year trial period (1/06 till 12/10) for public to evaluate Strong Mayor system (§255)	Council-Manager form of gov't for SD in place since 1931	Prop F gave the public 5 years, until 2010, to evaluate the strong mayor system	End the 5-year trial period now. Substitute a new version of the strong mayor system. Make it permanent immediately
RE: Number of City Council districts (§270)	8	8	11
RE: Number of City Council votes needed to override the Mayor's veto (§285, §290)	Mayor = 9th member of City Council with no veto power	During 5-year trial period a council override vote requires 5 of 8 (simple majority)	Would require 2/3 (67%) for council override. In concrete terms it would require 6 of 8 (75%) or 8 of 11 (73%). Certain issues would require 7 of 8 (88%) or 9 of 11 (82%)
RE: Supervision and audit duties over city's financial books, contracts, transactions, and accounts (§39, 45)	City Auditor - Controller appointed by full City Council	During 5-year trial period, City Auditor - Controller appointed by Mayor	Replace City Auditor - Controller with a Chief Financial Officer, appointed by the Mayor. Delete Council confirmation of City Treasurer
RE: Create new Charter category and definition of City Auditor (§39.2)	see above	see above	City Auditor appointed by Mayor (10 year term) "in consultation" with an Audit Committee. Answers to Audit Committee and can be fired by 4/5 committee vote with override by 2/3 Council vote
RE: Create new Charter category of Audit Committee (§39.1)	none	City council committee with 3 members	Replace council Audit Committee with 5-member Audit Committee consisting of 2 Council members plus 3 outside appointees. A 6-member screening committee delivers names of outside candidates for City Council approval
RE: Unclassified and Classified Services (Civil Service) (§117)	Civil service provisions precluded private contracting of city departments and arbitrary elimination of rank and file city workers	2006 charter change permits strong mayor to privatize all city departments and circumvent civil service protection	The positions of "Safety Retirement System" employees (specified members of the police, firefighters, lifeguards) protected from elimination through privatization
RE: City Attorney (§40)	Elected City Attorney established by 1931 Charter	Elected City Attorney established by 1931 Charter	Impose restrictions and limitations to the office, duties, and responsibilities of the City Attorney
RE: Independent Budget Analyst (§270)	none	During 5-year trial period, Independent Budget Analyst office created by and answerable to the City Council	Codify that the role of Independent Budget Analyst extends to policy as well as budget analysis for council
RE: Balanced Budget (§69)	Various charter sections address balanced budget concept	Various charter sections address balanced budget concept	Requires proposal and adoption of balanced budget annually
RE: Salary Setting process for Elected Officials (§24.1, 12.1, 40, 41.1)	Various charter sections address salary setting process	Various charter sections address salary setting process	Give the Salary Setting Commission the power to set salaries for all elected officials. Council and Mayor would have no power over Commission decisions

San Diego's backroom "reform"

by Norma Damashek

The final meeting of the mayor's charter committee was held last Thursday, October 4. Committee members voted on recommendations for 10 charter changes, not unanimously but decisively. They've convinced themselves that they did as good a job as possible and that is probably true, given that most of the mayor's appointees were there to do the establishment's bidding, while the remainder had their hands tied behind their backs by the totally-controlled process.

An analysis comparing the present system to the system under the proposed changes will be provided shortly. Meantime, here is a reprint of a commentary on the San Diego charter review process published in today's (Sunday's) Los Angeles Times:

* **************************************
Op-Ed: Sunday Current
San Diego's backroom 'reform'

A push to revise the city's charter is little more than a power grab by the mayor.
By Steven P. Erie and Norma Damashek
October 7, 2007

Nothing better illustrates the politics, power structure and civic maturity of a city than charter reform. A charter is a city's constitution. It allocates authority at city hall and sets out rules by which interest groups gain access and influence city government.

San Diego is considering rewriting its charter to make permanent a "strong mayor" system that only last year began its five-year trial run. You might ask, why so fast? Why not let the experiment play out longer before taking the significant step of changing San Diego's charter?

The answer is politics. Mayor Jerry Sanders is up for reelection in June, and his supporters hope that a charter proposal on the same ballot securing him and future mayors major new powers will ride his coattails to victory.

The rush has turned the city's approach to charter reform into a civic sham. Orchestrated by the mayor's office, with help from the downtown business and civic establishment, the effort seeks to turn back the political clock and marginalize progressive, labor, environmental and community groups that have only recently gained clout in San Diego government.

Two major events discredited San Diego's previous city manager system. The first was a huge shortfall in the city's pension fund. San Diego had increased employee pension benefits while cutting back its contributions, and pension managers had hoped the dot-com stock market would keep soaring and finance the plans. But the market collapsed. The second crisis was the devastating 2003 Cedar fire, which San Diego firefighters were helpless to stop because the city did not have water-dropping helicopters.

The next year, angry voters narrowly approved the experiment with a mayor-city council system similar to L.A.'s. Elected in 2005, Sanders sought to add even more mayoral powers after his first year in office. In March, he created a 15-member charter review committee, seven of whose members he appointed. The city's eight council members nominated three candidates each for the remaining slots, with the mayor making the final choice.

The result is a stacked-deck committee, top-heavy with downtown lawyers and lobbyists. There are no labor, environmental or good-government representatives on the panel despite Sanders' promise to make the committee broadly representative. And in a city with a large and rapidly growing Latino population, there are no Latinos on the committee.

The mayor's office has controlled the review process from the get-go. Calling for "clarification and fine-tuning" of the strong-mayor experiment, Sanders' staff wrote the agenda. They lobbied hard for the mayor's positions and controlled the charter consultant. The mayor's office scheduled only two community forums to discuss the recommended charter changes. But embarrassed by sharp criticism from labor, environmental and good-government representatives, the committee was forced to hold additional neighborhood meetings, though the public input did not influence the final set of recommendations.

After deliberating less than six months (charter reform in Los Angeles was a two-year process), the committee last week proposed far-reaching changes in San Diego's charter that would strengthen and make permanent the strong-mayor form of government -- at the expense of the City Council's and city attorney's powers.

Under the proposed charter, the mayor would control San Diego's growth and development, including the city's redevelopment agency; appoint the city auditor, who, among other things, reviews the books of the city departments that the mayor manages; appoint two of the five members of a new audit committee; and get more appointment powers. The City Council would be expanded from eight to 11 members, with the veto-override threshold raised to a difficult-to-obtain eight votes. Most troubling is the committee's proposal to weaken the elected city attorney's independence and powers. For instance, the city attorney's clients would be only city officials and not the public.

Sanders' insider power grab is in keeping with San Diego history. In the last 150 years, special interests -- the military,the tourist industry, downtown business interests, developers and the building industry -- have exerted inordinate influence over city government. Sporadic grass-roots challenges, such as outsider Peter Navarro's mayoral race in the early 1990s, were easily subdued, but new threats of insurgency have grown up. With the advent of district elections in 1988, Democrats, labor and community groups have gained a foothold on the City Council.

More recently, progressive City Atty. Michael Aguirre and Councilwoman Donna Frye, who unsuccessfully ran for mayor, have challenged old-guard rule by championing open public meetings, greater transparency in government and an end to special-interest rule. In response, a reinvigorated GOP-downtown business-developer machine, with backing from supporters who bill themselves as the "nominal Democrat allies," has embraced Sanders' quest for a new charter giving him greater power.

The charter committee's recommendations will go to the City Council this month for approval or revision, and will appear on the June ballot as propositions. The council can preserve or strengthen San Diego government's current system of checks and balances by proposing an independently elected or appointed city auditor, maintaining the city attorney's independence and powers and keeping its membership at eight pending the 2010 census and redistricting.

But its performance under the experimental strong-mayor system has not been reassuring because the council has given Sanders nearly everything he has asked for. For instance, the mayor can transfer funds between departments and cut up to 15% of the total budget without council approval. This power far exceeds that of mayors in Los Angeles and most other big cities. Should Sanders not be satisfied with the council's response to the charter recommendations, his supporters are threatening to use the city's initiative process to place the proposals on the ballot.

San Diego has an ignominious history of backroom deals that benefit developers and business interests. Lavish corporate subsidies go hand in hand with penurious spending for such basic public services as police and fire, street maintenance and neighborhood parks. What San Diego needs is a bloodless revolution and an infusion of enlightened leadership, not retrograde charter "reform," to address its real problems: fiscal insolvency and inadequate public services and infrastructure. Only then will America's "Finest City" start to fulfill the promise of local democracy.

San Diego is a wonder of the world

by Norma Damashek

National Geographic Magazine recently released a list of the "new 7 Wonders of the World." San Diego didn't make the cutoff but we should have topped the list. Not for our enviable climate or world-class coastline but for our unique status as the last colonial outpost in the western hemisphere.

This border town we call home has spent the past 150 years kowtowing to a handful of colonial masters – an elite group of land developers, downtown business interests, the tourism industry, and of course the military. It's the 21^st century and we're still locked into a company town mentality, where the public interest is defined by special interests and the city's politics, politicians, purse-strings, top officials, management, and local newspapers are dominated by a select few who prosper at public expense.

Could it be that San Diego is reaching its breaking point? Neighborhoods are literally sliding down the hillsides. Underground water mains burst on a regular basis. Beaches and bays are contaminated. A water delivery crisis is upon us. City revenues cannot keep up with our massive municipal debt and the city's emergency reserves are at rock bottom. City services are being hollowed out like a Halloween pumpkin. Municipal assets are being sold off to the highest private bidder. Targeted city departments will soon meet the same fate. Meantime, City Hall is echoing with resignations, terminations, and high level dismissals. It is not an encouraging picture.

San Diego is in the second year of a 5-year trial period with a strong mayor system of government. Mayor Sanders still hasn't stepped up to the plate and often apologizes for being unprepared for the job. Highest on his list of priorities was the creation of a hand-picked charter review committee, whose instructions were to prepare ballot recommendations for the June 2008 elections to increase the executive's power over city government. It represents a perfect fit for old-time San Diego.

But old-time San Diego has been sucked dry. The old-time model promises a very limited future. It's time for new leadership by people who have proven to be forward-looking, dependable, intelligent, and public-oriented. It's time to shake loose from our past masters. It may be time for our own Boston Tea Party.

Here's what belongs on the ballot ASAP

by Norma Damashek

The mayor's charter committee is singing a different tune lately…oh it's a long long while from May to December, but the days grow short when you reach September…(shades of Frank Sinatra!)

They're getting antsy because they're running out of time. They were given 4 months to come up with a dense list of charter changes, some concerning the strong-mayor system and others reaching deep into other parts of the charter. The goal was to get these charter change proposals on an early 2008 ballot but the September deadline is fading. Now the committee is feeling pressured to push forward on certain issues (like giving the mayor stronger veto powers, giving the mayor control over auditing the city's financial books, making the strong mayor system permanent right away, reducing the City Attorney's powers). They might have to settle for throwing the rest into a "parking lot" for action at a later date.

Contrast this superficial hurry-up job to the 2+ years that most responsible, independent charter commissions are allotted to gather public input, to ensure full exposure and debate, to hear from all perspectives, to pay attention to diverse experts, to make recommendations that come from the bottom up, not top down.

The 15 member mayor's committee got off to a slow start because of an overly ambitious work plan created by the mayor's office. Most committee members (with few exceptions) are experienced "players" in city politics, business, growth, and development but had never flipped through the city charter. These highly-paid experts apparently had no expertise on what it takes to run a city as a public-benefit corporation in the public interest.

Here's a list of topics these charter committee members were supposed to became instant experts and "deciders" on:

Redevelopment Personnel /civil service lines of command Financial auditing process and responsibilities Balanced budget requirements Eliminating the trial period for Prop F /strong mayor Setting up a permanently stronger strong-mayor system Who should be on the retirement board (SDCERS) Mayor's role in closed session

Optimum number of council districts Veto powers of the mayor Universal mayoral appointment power Control over intergovernmental relations How to fill vacancies Establishing officials' salaries Independent budget analyst duties City Attorney role and duties

Now ask yourself this question: Could you become instantly qualified to vote on each and every one of these charter issues? Would you think you were adequately informed on the basis of a simple staff report or a long-winded memo from an eager-to-please consultant working under the mayor? Would you say you represented the views and best interests of the people in your neighborhood and community even though you were not selected or elected by them and don't even live in the city? Would you be troubled by the lack of credibility or legitimacy?

The charter committee is just following orders. Their goal is to change the balance of power in our city -- not just the balance of power between the mayor and city council but the essential balance between the political clout of private interests and the voice and welfare of the general public.

The only criterion that should be used when deciding which charter changes should go on the ballot in 2008 is the long-term protection of the public interest. The following 4 charter recommendations could provide the protection we need:

1. Create a Community Bill of Rights in our city charter to make sure the public cannot be silenced, ignored, or intimidated under a strong-mayor form of government;
2. Strengthen the Office of the Elected City Attorney as an advocate for the city of San Diego and the people within it;
   
3. Elect an Independent City Auditor as an advocate answerable to the public to make sure that San Diegans will never again be swindled through back room politicking and deal making;
4. Create an Independent Charter Commission, Elected by District to conduct open, representative, and democratic hearings over a 2-year time frame to clean up and revise the city charter in the best interests of the general public and future generations.

It's time to jump ship

by Norma Damashek

Yesterday's Voice of San Diego report I Don't Consider Myself an Oaf crosses the t's and dots the i's on the contention that proposals coming out of the mayor's Charter Committee to make the "strong mayor" system even stronger are downright scary. Proposals issuing from this committee to transfer new powers into the executive branch (mayor) and away from the legislative branch (City Council) demonstrate how out of touch with reality the majority of these appointees are. As a substitute for realistic, independent, educated analysis in committee discussions you'll hear pet peeves, lobbyists' preferences, academic theorizing, seat-of-the-pants reactions, and orchestrated outcomes artfully repackaged by the mayor's staff into official recommendations.

Of course there have been many other appointed committees in this city that were set up with a lopsided bias. But this one is more tightly controlled and choreographed than any other in recent history. One might think that self-respecting lawyers, judge, professors, lobbyists, or community persons on this committee would feel so embarrassed by the way they've been "handled" by the office that appointed them that they'd consider abandoning ship on this project. You'd think they'd have noticed what's been happening under the "strong mayor" system and factored these observations into their recommendations.

Is it bad manners to bring up the fact that during the brief 1½ years since San Diego's "strong-mayor" system began its trial run, several of San Diego's highest ranking public officials either crept or were pushed out of City Hall. Goodbye, COO/City Manager Ronne Froman. Adios, City Auditor John Torell. Au revoir, Land Use & Economic Development Director Jim Waring. Ciao, Development Services chieftain Marcela Escobar-Eck. Who's left to run the city? The talkers, the spinners, the political consultants and advisors in the mayor's office -- a roomful of public relations specialists who appear to be setting executive policy and making executive decisions.

We know who it may not be. According to the aforementioned Oaf report, we have the candid statement from our first "strong mayor" that he didn't realize that in order to run a city you must hire people who know how to run a city. And apparently it wasn't in the job specs for San Diego's first "strong mayor" that it was up to the mayor to read the important documents someone might put in front of him for signature. Or remember who that someone might be. Or understand what city letters and documents say and what effect they will have on the public. It looks bad, as if you might be unworthy for the job as San Diego's first "strong mayor." It might appear that under no circumstances should you be enabled to become San Diego's first even stronger "strong mayor."

Yet that is exactly the goal and intent of the process now underway by the mayor's Charter Committee. Despite what they see under their noses, the recommendations they plan on bringing to the City Council promote putting greater power into the hands of our mayor and making an even stronger "strong mayor" system permanent -- right now. The voters of San Diego agreed to a 5-year trial period of this new system of government in order to evaluate how well this new system works. It's getting clearer and clearer to the public but apparently not clear enough to a hand-picked few.