Editor,
Just prior to Dec. 5, it appeared that Amourence Lee would become mayor, and that this would allow for the selection of a moderate candidate preferred by Lee and Adam Loraine to occupy the fifth council seat. And that is precisely what happened. But the drama of the weeklong deadlock it took to achieve that has left our city reeling with continuing bitterness and recriminations. How in the future can we minimize such divisiveness over mayoral succession?
A simple fix would be to enact a amendment to our city charter. In the section pertaining to mayoral succession, where it stipulates that the mayor be elected at the first City Council meeting, simply add that if the mayor is not elected by the end of the calendar day of the scheduled meeting, the mayorship then defaults to the longest-serving councilmember, other than the incumbent mayor. If the incumbent mayor is the only councilmember who is not newly elected, then the mayorship will be drawn by lot.
Deadlock invites bitterness and division. This gets compounded when the stakes involve the power balance, as it invites the potential for corruption. We are now witnessing the bitter results of that: corrupt offers, their dramatic revelation, demands that names be named, and, when those demands are met, counter-accusations of calumny. Flaws in the rules for succession enabled this to happen, and steps should be taken to prevent the same mistakes again. We can do this.
Ted McKinnon
San Mateo
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
Good morning, Ted
Thanks for some thoughtful commentary. I don’t live in San Mateo, but perhaps we can all learn from what happened earlier this month.
I feel there is wisdom in your suggestion to enact a measure that can avoid future disputes over selecting a mayor, and other cities on the Peninsula might want to look at their method for selecting a mayor before a dispute arises. Defaulting to the longest serving councilmember may not solve the problem of mayoral succession.
If a deadlocked council cannot decide who should step up as mayor, perhaps the councilmember from the district which has gone the longest without its representative serving as mayor could be appointed as an interim mayor. At the council's next regularly scheduled meeting, that interim mayor could preside over the selection of the next mayor. If a deadlock still remains, the interim mayor breaks the tie. Maybe.
Some council positions are vacated by resignation before the council can meet to appoint a replacement. However, could the replacement process provide for an outgoing councilmember to participate in the selection of his or her replacement à la Corporations Code Section 7224? If so, Diane Papan could have remained on the council in December until a new mayor is selected followed by the appointment of her replacement. Diane’s resignation would become effective the next day and she would still be able to join the Assembly before the end of the year. Maybe.
Hear hear
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.