San Mateo scopes mayoral, council vacancy changes 

Like most cities in the county, San Mateo follows a rotational mayor system, in which a new mayor is appointed every year, with the senior councilmember next in line for the position. But the appointment was pushed back last year after councilmembers Lisa Diaz Nash and Rob Newsom objected to appointing a new mayor until a newly vacant council seat was filled, a move that triggered more than a week’s worth of debate and contention. 

Councilmember Adam Loraine stated that staff’s newly proposed language is not strong enough to avoid a similar situation in the near future. 

“I’m concerned that, as written, it still puts the council in potentially the same exact position that we found ourselves in December. One of the main ideas behind this conversation is to move beyond that, and we need a mayoral rotation that cannot be delayed indefinitely, so how can we accomplish that?” he said. 

Councilmember Rich Hedges also encouraged staff to develop more explicit, standardized instructions.

“I want to get beyond politics. I want this to be a simple rotation and let the chips fall where they may based on seniority,” he said. 

While most councilmembers agreed on codifying a more straightforward mayoral rotation, varying opinions surfaced around the process by which vacant council seats are filled. Based on existing city charter language, the council must select a new member by majority vote if a seat becomes available before an election. If they are unable to do so, the mayor has the power to make the appointment. The issue came into particularly sharp focus last year when now Mayor Amourence Lee could not make the council seat appointment due to her pending status as the city’s leader. But with the proposed changes, the mayor’s ability to appoint a new councilmember would be revoked, and the City Council would instead have 60 days to either decide on a new councilmember or call a special election.

Staff noted that a decision to hold a special election, however, could result in a six-month vacancy or more, as state law requires that special elections are held in select months and the public is given about three months’ notice. Cost estimates range from $574,000 to $688,000, over three times the costs of a regular election.

“The council, when faced with that cost for a special election, will often make the appointment, because that is a high cost burden for most cities,” City Attorney Prassana Rasiah said. “There’s cost and time considerations wrapped up in the council vacancy question.” 

Nash and Loraine were in favor of the proposed changes to remove the mayor’s power to appoint a councilmember in the event of a vacancy, referencing the unconventional nature of the policy compared to nearby cities. But both Lee and Hedges voiced concern.

“In the worst-case scenario — a deadlocked council with 2-2 votes — the legislative body could be significantly impaired by a vacancy,” Lee said. “My interest in serving on this organization is to continue doing the city’s business and the people’s business, so any prolonged timeline that could potentially impair the city from making very important, critical decisions that serve the community … I want to raise as a very real concern,” Lee said.

Other proposed changes included implementing more flexibility into the schedule of City Council meeting times, council compensation and updating the repeal process for urgency ordinances. The information presented was part of a study session and did not include a resolution.