So here we are. Stuck. A spectacle. In what could have been the simplest of meetings, a council installation and reorganization, the San Mateo City Council instead mired itself in a situation seemingly with no solution, because of what could turn out to be a perfect storm of conflict that essentially mirrors the state of our city’s politics.
At this meeting, the City Council said goodbye to three councilmembers who chose not to run for reelection while installing three new councilmembers elected in November. One of the outgoing councilmembers was Mayor Rick Bonilla. The deputy mayor, Diane Papan, just resigned after being elected to the state Assembly. The next order of business was to name a mayor and deputy mayor since the city had none with the departures. In San Mateo, both are ceremonial positions and rotate amongst councilmembers, usually based on seniority. In this case, it was to go to Amourence Lee, since she is now the most senior member of the City Council. The city charter also grants the mayor certain privileges, one of which is breaking a tie when a four-member council cannot decide on naming a replacement for a vacant position. This is the point by which two new councilmembers chose not to abide, leading to an impasse and the inability to choose a new mayor.
It boils down to factions within the city that have become increasingly bitter in recent years, centered mainly on the size and pace of development. On the one hand, you have progressives Lee and Adam Loraine. On the other hand, you have the more moderate Lisa Diaz Nash and Robert Newsom Jr. The three new councilmembers were elected by district. Lee’s seat, along with Papan’s, is at large until 2024. Lee lives in District 2, and Papan lives in District 1, however, her seat will convert to District 4 in 2024 as part of the city’s districting process.
By procedure and protocol, the position of mayor should go to Lee. It didn’t. This has led to two meetings now in which scores of people spoke, hours passed with stretches of silence, and no action.
The elected leadership of the city of San Mateo is now split into two distinct camps, trenched in opposition. Two meetings yielded nothing and now we move out of order to a Monday meeting to name a new councilmember to fill the vacancy. There are several good names on the applicant list. There are a couple of options. The council can name a placeholder. A placeholder doesn’t have to agree to not run again, but one who does not live in District 4 would not be eligible to run in 2024 when the seat converts to district elections along with Lee’s.
A placeholder was last used when Councilmember Gary Yates died in office and former Councilmember Paul Gumbinger returned to complete the term. Another option would be to name the new councilmember from District 4. Otherwise, it would be only one without a councilmember living in it for the next two years. Rich Hedges is the only applicant from the district, and he is well qualified by every single measure.
The best path forward is to name Hedges to the remaining two years of the seat quickly, name Lee mayor as she rightly deserves, then get back to work.
(10) comments
Jon - do you need to put your name / author name on the Op-Ed? Now for the inevitable question, what happens on Monday if the council ends up in another deadlock? Who is at fault for that? Adam and Amo wanted to avoid that situation. They spared the staff and the public. But it is simply not incumbent on them to compromise on Monday. They could have filibustered Wednesday into Thursday or as long as it took someone to not be able to vote (fall asleep, medical issue). They could have prevented breaks. They could have run a true classical filibuster. I really take offence that once again the progressive side have to be the ones to always be the voices of reason, compromise, and good governance when their honor and motivations are always questioned by the other, usually anti-housing side.
As Lee "rightly deserves." Really? This whole mess goes back to the Mccarthyite tactics she used against Rod Linare.
Oh is that the issue? Payback to punish Lee for winning an election?
both.
Which never would have happened had the appointment of Garland gone through ... but it didn't. The Senate 'waited' to have 'seated' a new president and Senate and then they appointed Gorsuch, eventually overturning Roe, requiring CA to bring forward Prop One, which caused the chaos in Rod's race due to his stance on a woman's basic human rights which then caused one group of people to 'wait' to have 'seated' a new council member and only then will they (or will they?) appoint Lee as Mayor.
Disagree, there still was not enough to overturn. Ginsburg was also arrogant and stayed around too long. Ultimately Congresses fault for not passing a law. Thankfully the marriage equality act was passed this week.
Interesting! Just goes to show that bad governance begets more bad governance!
So based on yesterday’s column by Mark Simon, blocking the election of a mayor does not violate the city charter, although it does run contrary to published guidelines. I’m assuming this means blocking the election of a mayor also does not violate any laws. From all accounts, the mayor position is considered ceremonial but with certain privileges, which in my mind makes the mayor position no longer “ceremonial.”
Let’s make the mayor position truly ceremonial, with no privileges, and we can have a “mayor of the day” for each day, chosen via lottery or some other method. Perhaps auctions with bids propping up city coffers? The city may realize higher winning bids for those folks who’d like to be Mayor on a specific day.
The notion that there are “moderates: on one side is denial; choosing to look the other way on charges of racism and segregation raised by Alexis Lewis, neighborhood groups in District 1, and Richard Rothstein. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential-segregation.html
Looks like solid logic to me. Thanks for the clear eyed thoughts.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
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.