responses from other cities election districts

Exactly as extracted, unformatted — for checking against the original. The readable version is easier to read.

RESPONSES FROM OTHER CITIES: DIRECTLY-ELECTED MAYOR
POSITION AND COUNCILMEMBERS ELECTED BY DISTRICT
Question: If you are a city with a directly-elected mayor and council
members elected by district, what are the pros and cons of this model?
Please note, the responses do not reflect any city’s position, rather they are
categorized by where the response came from.
Jurisdiction Comment
Arroyo Grande • Have an elected Mayor position for a two year term. We do not have
council districts. We have many controversial platform issues related to
growth, housing, preservation of agriculture, traffic, and economic
development. These issues tend to be "non-partisan," and that is how
we conduct our campaigns. Candidates for Mayor and Council run on
their viewpoints relative to the foregoing issues, rather than political
affiliation. Further, these issues affect our entire urban area as well as
our rural fringe. As such, we have not and probably won't establish
council districts. Feel we have a good system in place. By allowing
open participation on important issues, we don't promote "turf battles"
nor do we experience unfair influence from individual districts that might
have a stronger economic or population base. We also don't have to
contend with choosing council candidates from a designated district,
which in our city, is a limitation we can live without.
Beverly Hills • Directly-elected Mayors may behave as though they have two votes and
a level of entitlement to staff.
Colton • We were at large and went to districts. I loved before I became a
councilman and will fight to keep this way if any one tries to change it
back. I can give you overwhelming reasons to do this and only a few not.
Corning • Limit the City's ability to recruit the best elected officials.
• In another City with serious racial issues, they had always elected
district candidates at large (all city voters choose each district's council
member). A civil rights suit was filed and the federal government settled
with the city after the requirement was imposed limiting the district
candidate choice to district voters only. Someone else will have to draw
the correlation between this change and that community's economic
deterioration.
• Imagine having to redistrict after each census.
• Districts cause the Balkanization of the Community.
• In County Government there is a long tradition of district representation
and it creates what one County Supervisor and former City Mayor called
"little fiefdoms" each presided over jealously by its prince. Budgets
must be properly distributed to insure each fiefdom benefits equally
rather than by City priority. Each prince must have their own cash
discretionary fund to be able to respond to special interests quickly
without regard to real Community priorities.
Daley City • Sometimes directly-elected mayor and “ward” council members can
become about deal making for their own ward with no attention to the
larger issues and rife with petty politics and public acrimony.

Downey • Regarding a separately elected Mayor: my perception is that this works
for larger cities, but not for smaller ones. I don’t know where the
demarcation is, but I’ll throw out a population base of 200,000. I suspect
that not having a directly-elected Mayor allows for the possibility of the
City Manager assuming greater power.
• Regarding Councilmanic districts: again, in large cities, they appear to
be a necessity. In smaller cities, they can (a) provide a lower threshold
of campaign expense for candidates (fewer mailings, yard signs, and
doors to knock), and (b) possibly allow “minority” candidates an
advantage. Once in office, the Councilmember likely directs his/her
attention largely to that district.
Escondido • We do not have districts and I would not support district elections as I
feel our city is small enough that at-large councilmembers serve all the
people properly and effectively.
Fremont • Directly-elected Mayor's term should be 4 years. Two year terms are too
short to get the benefit of a good Mayor on the regional, State and
national level.
• Electing council members "by districts" gives you the "benefit" of many
mayors instead of just one. "Elected from Districts" maintains a stronger
sense of the common good while frustrating some locals with local
issues.
Fullerton • There are no pros to this model, only cons…..
Glenora • Suggest you contact the City of Redlands in San Bernardino County.
They went to this model about 20 years ago so they should have some
good history. The impetus for the change was allegations that minority
groups were not being properly represented, that some areas of the city
got all the good stuff while the poorer areas got nothing. Recall that
there was quite a controversy over the entire issue with outside
advocates for the change etc.
ICMA • Worked in a city with blended plan where the mayor and two council
members were elected at-large and the other four by districts. The
blended plan was the best demonstration of the strengths of the at-large
system and the weaknesses in the district system. The two at-large
members and the Mayor were the “statesmen”. They thought big and
thought about the best interests of the whole community. The other four
thought often thought first about their own districts and quickly learned
that “deal-making” was the way to get things done.
La Mesa • Has a directly elected Mayor, but the other four Council Members are elected
"at large". For a City that is geographically as small as La Mesa (approximately
9.3 square miles) it would be difficult to create districts that require individual
Council representation. The ability of all Council Members, as well as the
Mayor to represent all of the La Mesa residents and property owners equally
provides for a very effective and responsive form of local government.
Lancaster • The pros of a directly-elected Mayor are that it is clear to the community
who will serve in that capacity for the two or four year term, whichever
your community might select. The media clearly identifies that person as
the contact on most City related issues. City Council Members no longer
need to jockey for position to become Mayor other than through the
ballot process.
• The cons of a directly-elected Mayor are for one, there is a perceived
greater power attributed to the Mayor than the other Council Members
when, in fact, their vote carries the same weight.

• Again, another con is that the City Council can have difficulties,
especially when a minority view is represented by the Mayor. The
dissention among Council Members can become very political and there
is no way for four Council Members to remove or replace the Council
Member representing them as Mayor without the dramatic recall
process.
• A directly-elected Mayor can feel obligated to attend every function and
make every presentation when those duties previously would have been
shared by other Council Members. This burden is maybe self-inflicted
by a Mayor believing he must do all this work, whereas in a Council
selection system duties are more easily delegated to others. Clearly, the
directly-elected Mayor becomes the focal point of all the praise and
criticism.
Los Gatos • Has a five-member Town Council, all elected at-large. Terms are four
years, no term limits. Elections are even years, and terms are staggered,
so that each election either two or three seats are up. The Town Council
chooses the Mayor and Vice Mayor from the Town Council members at
the second meeting in November. If there was an election, this is after
the election, but before the newly elected members are seated in
December. The Mayor and Vice Mayor serve one-year terms. It is
customary that the Vice Mayor become Mayor, and that the new Vice
mayor be the most senior council member who has not yet served in the
role. If seniority is a tie, custom is that the highest vote-getter goes first.
The "old" Mayor "goes to the back end of the line." The goal is continuity
and collegiality, and this method has served us well for many decades.
Marysville • The only problem we ran up against was when our Mayor resigned and I
was appointed the "acting" Mayor. 2 of the 4 councilmembers left didn't
think my seat, (council) was vacant, but that the Mayors was and I was
only there as a Temp. We never addressed this in our charter; this is
being changed this November by the voters.
Monterey • Monterey has a directly elected mayor and has used this system since
statehood. The mayoral term is 2 years, while the council terms are
4. This used to create a problem with councilmembers in a safe seat
running for mayor, knowing that if they lost, they still had a seat
on the council. If they won, they had to be replaced. We amended
the charter some years back, and now if a safe seat member runs for
mayor, they forfeit their council seat and it is filled at the same
election.
• I can't comment on the pro's or con's, other than to state the
obvious that if the CC appoints one of their own to sit as mayor,
there are going to be extensive political "favors" to be repaid by
those supporting the mayor's appointment. That can be good or bad
depending on a number of factors, such as public exposure of promises
gone bad, etc., some of which drag staff into the middle of the mess,
either as witnesses or referees. The elected scenario makes the
mayor accountable only to the voters, not the other councilmembers.
Monterey Park • Have found the majority of the council not caring what happens outside
their area and then you have a real nightmare of issues cropping up.
Napa • Napa has a directly-elected Mayor with Councilmembers at-large, and
there are not district elections. The system has worked fine for many
years.

Pacifica • Directly-elected Mayor could think they are in control of both the City
Manager and the City Council.
• Councils elected by district might loose sight of the whole city and focus
on getting reelected by their district. This could lead to “deal making”.
Pasadena • Forwarded material.
Redding • Council could come to meetings with their own agenda for individual
districts.
• Could bring politics into hiring.
Redlands • A very small number of people can elect someone from their district yet
that person represents the whole city on budget and other decisions.
• Because of the small number needed for election, it is easier for a
special interest group to capture one or two seats compared to having to
face citywide voter turnout.
• The district delineation process, even at the city level, proved very
political. Initial boundaries were drawn based on no particular agenda,
but we did have a redistricting.
Rancho Mirage • Unless you have an identifiable under represented minority
group/community in your city, there is really no legal reason to have
district elections.
• It is very expensive to adjust the boundaries every couple years to
accommodate shifts in population of voters amongst the districts.
• Once a community moves to a directly elected Mayor – there is no
turning back. I believe there is a provision in the Government Code that
provides directly elected mayor with some additional authority than an
appointed mayor -- albeit not much more.
Rancho • Mistake to change to a directly-elected mayor, unless your city is a plus
Palos Verdes 100,000 or more pop. City.
San Diego • With district elections the pros are: greater access by constituents to
their elected representatives and more accountability by them to
constituents.
• The cons: balkanization, competition over resources between districts
and the structure puts far greater strain on City management under a
council-manager form of government, especially if you have a Charter
with a "non-interference" clause. The strain, of course, is caused by the
elected officials trying very hard to satisfy the demands of constituents. I
think under a district election system for council members, a mayor who
is elected citywide (with strongish power to at least control the docket) is
almost a necessity to help counterbalance the districts.
Torrance • Support directly-elected Mayor because the competition for this high
office, which fundamentally sets a method of operation, is best left to the
public sector.
• Oppose councilmembers elected by district because they have their own
interests.
Tracy • Tracy has a directly-elected Mayor with a two year term. No districts.
Council has staggered four year terms. Upside for voters - they get to
directly elect the mayor AND a majority of seats (two council plus mayor)
is up for election every two years. Downside -- Mayor has to run every
two years -- can be lots of effort for a two year term when for same

amount of effort you can have a four year term as council member.
Ukiah • Has a directly-elected mayor with a two year term. The major con is that
seated councilmembers have repeatedly sought that position, leaving an
unexpired term to fill by appointment. If the goal is to give voters the
right to select the mayor, the unintended consequence has been to
deprive voters of the right to select a councilmember. The mayor's role is
largely ceremonial outside presiding at council meetings.
• At a minimum, I recommend making the term for elected mayor four
years, not two.
General • The mayor would be appointed by a council majority to serve a one year.
comments. This appointment can, of course, be viewed as a popularity contest
depending on the personalities and personal agendas of the council and
cause some "back scratching" and political maneuvering by the various
council members seeking the appointment. On the other hand, there
could be rotation system developed based on seniority. Again, who gets
appointed would depend on the personalities involved. If the council is
united as a team and acts only in the best interests of the city, then it
matters now who the mayor is.