Editor,
In the end, Amourence Lee took on the role of the adult in the room, and ended the deadlock in San Mateo. We arrived at the conclusion everyone expected, with Rich Hedges as the fifth member of the San Mateo City Council, and Ms. Lee as mayor.
It is worth remembering, though, that the order of those two actions matters. I encourage anyone curious to read the charter. Section 2.09: “The new members shall then be inducted into office, whereupon the council shall elect the mayor and deputy mayor.” Section 2.02: “The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council ... The deputy mayor shall act as mayor during the absence or disability of the mayor.”
The question you should ask yourself — and the question the city attorney should have clarified for the council — is not whether they have a plausible argument to defend reversing the order. The question is whether a commonsense reading of the language would be sufficient to get a disgruntled party into court, if they are disadvantaged in a 3-2 vote with Hedges in the majority. San Mateo could win that suit, but trying a case is expensive. It’s an unnecessary risk, especially considering how unsettled questions about basic procedures of democracy currently are.
In Rich Hedges’ shoes, I would insist at the next meeting on holding a second vote on my appointment, with Ms. Lee recognized as mayor, and then retake the oath of office, to immunize the council against this problem.
Auros Harman
San Bruno
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.
(5) comments
Good morning, Auros
Neither of us has a dog in the hunt, but what happens in a large city in our county can affect other cities. That being said, thank you for raising a potential legal pitfall. I am not a lawyer but San Mateo has a city attorney. Perhaps the city attorney can offer the council some advice re: Rick Hedges' appointment and whether the council should participate in a follow-up motion to "appoint" him to the council.
I was just wondering... do the provisions found in California Corporations Code Section 7224... or some other code section... apply to Diane Papan's departure from the city council? Section 7224 allows resigning board members to participate in the appointment of their replacement to avoid... drum roll please... a deadlocked board trying to select a replacement.
Ms. Papan was installed in the state Assembly on Dec. 5. Could she have waited one day and made her resignation effective Dec. 6, and then be sworn into the Assembly? Unless there is a state requirement to install Assembly members on the first Monday in December following an election maybe Ms.Papan should have waited. Maybe.
I'm not 100% certain, but I think the section you're citing only governs corporations, not cities. Government code is an entirely different section. "Government of Cities" starts around section 34000:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=GOV&division=3.&title=4.&part=&chapter=&article=&goUp=Y
Hi, Auros
Section 7224 does have some applicability outside of corporations, but I'm not 100% certain if it applies to cities. However, absent a prohibition to the contrary... why didn't Ms. Papan just wait until Dec. 6? Although she knew her departure would create a vacancy, she probably didn't think there would be a deadlock in the selection of her replacement. Hindsight is 20/20.
So, if there is a statutory provision for council members to make a resignation effective after a replacement has been selected, that might be something to keep in mind the next time a council member decodes to step off the council.
In any case, the main thing to understand here is that what Nash and Newsom did here was reckless. They didn't change the outcome at all, they just made it so the process of arriving that outcome leaves the city open to future litigation over the question of whether Hedges' appointment is legitimate. If they'd simply appointed Ms. Lee as mayor a week earlier, and _then_ voted in Mr. Hedges, we'd have the same outcome, without all the wasted time and legal risk.
Yep.
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.