One of the benefits of modern communication is the ability to keep up to date as to what is going on at home. While on my trip to the Northwest I was able to keep up on local events. As we head down the stretch in the local election season, voters in Cathedral City will be asked to vote on whether or not to become a charter city. There are benefits to doing so.
I remember this debate well almost 2 decades ago in Palm Springs. I think there is merit in becoming a charter city as far as city state relations and the negotiation of municipal contracts. Now please bear in mind I never tell anyone how to vote as I feel you are far too intelligent to be swayed by any word written or spoken. What I don't understand is why the abolition of the direct election of mayor is tied into this? It really has nothing to do with a charter city. I think there is a driving force and I will get to that soon.
Currently La Quinta, Cathedral City, DHS and Palm Springs all have directly elected mayors. In DHS and Cathedral City, the directly elected mayor serves only a 2 year term while the council serves 4 year terms. In Palm Springs and La Quinta, the mayor does a 4 year stint like the rest of the council.
I will be the first to admit, that the currently structured system for electing mayors in both DHS and Cathedral City has caused chaos. Too many times. a sitting council member with nothing to lose has taken a "free shot" at a sitting mayor. This does cause disharmony as sometimes local politicos have thin skins. Shocking I know.
Now proponents of rotating the mayor among council members say it is more efficient and since the posts are largely ceremonial, it should be no big deal. The arguments pro and con are laid out well in this piece by Hank Plante. (Note to my friend, while the age joke about the Rancho Mirage council is funny, the members of the Palm Springs council all have fully paid up AARP cards.)
In Palm Springs, the move to a non-elected city council appears to be being pushed by the 876, er 241, er 53 members of the Ethics Task Force. (I'm sorry, the number of members is still ridiculous.) I think this is an end around campaign finance limitations. Let's face it, the last election was ludicrous with Council member Ginny Foat's run being financed well into 6 figures by one man, Harold Matzner. By eliminating the direct election of mayor, you eliminate this problem. Clever and it will be interesting to see if it comes out in the wash shortly.
In Cathedral City unfortunately it appears that the end of the direct election of mayor is being touted for a different reason. Many of the pro comments on both social and traditional media either obliquely or openly refer negatively to former mayor Kathy DeRosa. Some current city council members had a difficult relationship with her. Kathy has been out of office for a few years. If the council is serious about changing the role of mayor, the debate on the charter and the change to a mayoral rotation system has to be elevated.
In my 21 years of living in Cathedral City, this has been one of the best councils I have ever seen. But right now, the argument in favor of a rotating mayor seems to be based more on past grievance than on positive governance. If this continues, it may affect the vote on the charter question.
Steve Kelly is a writer and broadcaster based in the Coachella Valley. He can reached at KellysCorner227@gmail.com or #skellynj on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment