I lived and/or worked in San Mateo for a decade, and as a participant in regional politics I am concerned to see the rule of law in my former home undermined. Section 2.02 of the San Mateo city charter says the council shall elect its mayor and deputy mayor, and the mayor or deputy mayor shall preside at meetings. Two members now claim the city manager could preside over meetings, however, nothing in the charter authorizes that. Should the council proceed down this path, a court could void future city actions, due to dependence on the vote of a member seated outside the order of the charter.
It is ironic that we’ve heard how important it is that votes be equal in selection of a fifth member, because that will force compromise. On the single vote defined in the charter where all members do have equal weight, have Mr. Newsom and Ms. Nash been forced to compromise? It would seem not, unless they mean, “Let’s compromise on doing exactly what I want.” We have a vivid illustration of why mechanisms for tiebreaking are necessary. A coin flip would be better than the present deadlock.
There will be discussion next Monday on who would be an acceptable fifth member, and perhaps consensus will be reached. But no vote should be taken to seat anyone outside regular order. Loraine and Lee should stand firm on this. If Newsom and Nash want to shut down the government to defend a “rule” found nowhere but their imaginations, that’s on them.
When order is restored, a charter amendment should be proposed to join Belmont and San Bruno in electing a mayor citywide. But lawlessness cannot be tolerated.
The City Staff stated that with a City Manager run city, San Mateo is not vulnerable to legal actions because there isn’t a mayor for 5 days. The City Attorney said multiple times that the Charter was not being violated. Recall papers have been filed on Ms. Lee because of her history of bad behavior on the Council. Ensbling equal votes for deciding the 5th Councilmember will get our City Council back into balance, where all San Mateo voices can be heard.
You're asking the wrong question. "San Mateo is not vulnerable to legal actions because there isn’t a mayor for 5 days" Correct. The lack of a mayor for a few days is not by itself a problem.
The problem arises _after_ a member of Council is (allegedly) seated, on the basis of a vote in a meeting that does not adhere to the procedures of the Charter. Read the text. Section 2.09 says that the mayor and deputy mayor are selected immediately upon the induction of new members. Section 2.02 says that the mayor chairs meetings, or the deputy mayor if the mayor can't serve. There's no allowance in the text for an alternative. (Note: I agree that there _should_ be! And in fact Amo Lee agrees as well, and has stated that she will prioritize a review of the Charter to clarify these procedures.)
The problem at this point is that because Hedges was seated in an improper manner, if any time in the next two years, some party feels they have been disadvantaged by a 3-2 vote with Hedges in the majority, they can go to a court and say that Hedges' membership on the Council is illegitimate. It's entirely possible that San Mateo would win the ensuing lawsuit -- but trying a case is expensive and time-consuming. The question that you should be asking isn't whether the City can win that kind of case, it's whether the reading I'm giving you, of the Charter text, is plausible enough for a litigant to get in the Courthouse door in the first place. And it plainly is.
Nash and Newsom's choice to expose the City to this risk is _wildly_ irresponsible, and completely unnecessary. We ended up exactly where everyone expected last Monday -- with Lee as mayor, and Hedges as the fifth member. If I were Hedges, I would demand a new vote on my appointment, at a meeting where Amo as mayor serves as chair, and re-take the oath of office, in the interest of immunizing the city against future lawsuits.
Well said Auros. Nash and Newsom are engaged in a naked power play. We should return to regular order. If they want to amend the city charter or the guidelines for how to select a mayor or how to fill a vacant seat, they should do so as part of regular order and not by folding their arms and deadlocking the city council.
The only thing I disagree with you on is "A coin flip would be better than the present deadlock" because a coin toss might reward the power grab attempt.
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.
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!
(3) comments
The City Staff stated that with a City Manager run city, San Mateo is not vulnerable to legal actions because there isn’t a mayor for 5 days. The City Attorney said multiple times that the Charter was not being violated. Recall papers have been filed on Ms. Lee because of her history of bad behavior on the Council. Ensbling equal votes for deciding the 5th Councilmember will get our City Council back into balance, where all San Mateo voices can be heard.
You're asking the wrong question. "San Mateo is not vulnerable to legal actions because there isn’t a mayor for 5 days" Correct. The lack of a mayor for a few days is not by itself a problem.
The problem arises _after_ a member of Council is (allegedly) seated, on the basis of a vote in a meeting that does not adhere to the procedures of the Charter. Read the text. Section 2.09 says that the mayor and deputy mayor are selected immediately upon the induction of new members. Section 2.02 says that the mayor chairs meetings, or the deputy mayor if the mayor can't serve. There's no allowance in the text for an alternative. (Note: I agree that there _should_ be! And in fact Amo Lee agrees as well, and has stated that she will prioritize a review of the Charter to clarify these procedures.)
The problem at this point is that because Hedges was seated in an improper manner, if any time in the next two years, some party feels they have been disadvantaged by a 3-2 vote with Hedges in the majority, they can go to a court and say that Hedges' membership on the Council is illegitimate. It's entirely possible that San Mateo would win the ensuing lawsuit -- but trying a case is expensive and time-consuming. The question that you should be asking isn't whether the City can win that kind of case, it's whether the reading I'm giving you, of the Charter text, is plausible enough for a litigant to get in the Courthouse door in the first place. And it plainly is.
Nash and Newsom's choice to expose the City to this risk is _wildly_ irresponsible, and completely unnecessary. We ended up exactly where everyone expected last Monday -- with Lee as mayor, and Hedges as the fifth member. If I were Hedges, I would demand a new vote on my appointment, at a meeting where Amo as mayor serves as chair, and re-take the oath of office, in the interest of immunizing the city against future lawsuits.
Well said Auros. Nash and Newsom are engaged in a naked power play. We should return to regular order. If they want to amend the city charter or the guidelines for how to select a mayor or how to fill a vacant seat, they should do so as part of regular order and not by folding their arms and deadlocking the city council.
The only thing I disagree with you on is "A coin flip would be better than the present deadlock" because a coin toss might reward the power grab attempt.
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.