The San Mateo City Council remains at an impasse in selecting a mayor following another uncomfortable meeting, with a decision possibly hinging on filling the vacant council seat.

The five-hour meeting Wednesday with councilmembers Amourence Lee, Adam Loraine, Lisa Diaz Nash and Robert Newsom saw close to two hours of public comment and another two of deliberation on appointing Lee mayor, with no success.

Recommended for you

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102

Recommended for you

(6) comments

Westy

The reasons given by Diaz Nash and Newsom for not affirming Lee as Mayor, as is the rotational procedure, do not make any sense. There are either some very dirty politics going on in the background that she and Newsom hope to win out on by securing a majority through a back room deal, or there is some personal animosity towards Lee. Or both.

rballard

The justification that’s been given for delay is that a 5th member — one who will be appointed by the existing four — is somehow relevant to the mayoral decision. Or more inclusive of the electorate — even though they will be appointed by the people already elected.

The mayoral selection process shouldn’t result in a vote that isn’t unanimous anyway, whether four or five are voting. That’s why the rotation rules are clear and apolitical, to avoid situations like this. When we have a 5th councilmember, the rules about who should be mayor are the same and the result should not change. So there is not a good reason to wait.

Any good deliberative body has a method for tie breaking. The mayor has that critical role. Were the council meant to grapple with appointments *before* having a tie-breaker, the city charter could have specified it that way. We are in a unique moment in this new council where the tie-breaker is missing, and we can see the result.

The decision by councilmembers Diaz-Nash and Newsom is unprecedented and breaks clear democratic norms. And the thing about democratic norms is that once broken, they're hard to put back together. The mechanism they've found to avoid appointing mayor in the first meeting is a clear loophole that violates the spirit of the city charter: to not end that meeting and technically keep it in progress indefinitely. It sounds almost like a joke when you try to explain it. Diaz-Nash and Newsom must recognize the harm they are doing and appoint councilmember Lee without further delay.

willallen

The foundation this was built on was the opposition to Rod Linares because he is against abortion.

Thomas Morgan

Sounds a little like Watergate, but at the local level. Lee is the next in line to be Mayor, she feel insecure about council make up (perhaps she already felt that the outcome could result in her not being Mayor). So she decides to interfere with the District 5 election. But that action has caused uneasiness among residents. Newsom and Nash hear these concerns and listen to these residents (clearly with any decision someone is not going to be happy). Lee now feels in the same position before the election, so decides to act once again to push the Council in her favor, and demand the role be filled and uses her hand picked candidate to support her. If successful not only would Lee have won her seat, but hand picked two other council member for a majority. How is anyone OK with this? On a side note I am severely disappointed in Loraine, he was attaching Nash and Newsom.

Eaadams

Learn from Foster City. Don't mess with rotations. It will cause issues for a decade.

JustMike650

Chris Conway OMG 😱 he who taketh, giveth back. [ban]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here