Mayoral Rotation Goes Counter-clockwise, Again

Gary Silbiger

For  the  second  time in 3 years, there has been some controversy surrounding the choice by the City Council of Culver City over who should become mayor.  This is no small deal.  The mayor helps structure the City Council agenda, chairs the meetings, and represents the City in many capacities. The aura of the title of “mayor” gives additional power in the minds of many, influencing the political direction that the city follows.  In 2009, the City had a 12 year consistent unwritten policy about rotation of the mayor.  This year, the Council had a written policy.  Neither one worked because the Council decided to ignore the precedents and intention of a fair selection process.  Interestingly enough, both Councils selected Andrew Weissman who successfully campaigned twice on promises of bringing civility to city government.

Let’s begin exploring the 2009 mayor selection and then look at the 2012 process.

In 2009, the City Council was given the choice of selecting the current vice-mayor as the next mayor.  We have to go back in time to 1997 to find a sitting vice-mayor – Mike Balkman (whose name is used for the Council chamber) - who was passed over by his colleagues to become the next mayor.  Tempers flared and accusations hurled during that 1997 vote.  Yet for 12 years afterward, each vice-mayor was quickly chosen at the conclusion of the term to become mayor.  This one year period as vice-mayor gives training, both in terms of occasional chairing of meetings and representing the City at community events, for the inevitable mayoral position.  Equally important, the April mayoral selection process should give predictability and good will to our community and Council members.

The precedent was overwhelming.  Yet,  at the April 27, 2009 meeting, Councilmember O’Leary quickly nominated Councilmember Weissman for mayor stating he had gained the necessary skills of acting as the mayor during his year as Redevelopment Agency chair.  At that time, I had served as vice-mayor the previous year and Councilmember Armenta nominated me to become mayor.  When the vote was taken, Weissman became mayor by a 3 to 2 vote.  Weissman explained, “Fairness requires that we all have an opportunity to serve once before anyone has an opportunity to service twice”. 

The serious disagreements caused by that vote led to a Council meeting on May 18, 2009  to discuss implementing a policy about the rotation of the mayor.  Councilmember Armenta explained that a written policy on rotation of mayor will lead to a celebratory selection rather than resulting in a fight.  Councilmember Weissman proposed that “It’s a matter of equity and fairness.  It establishes rotation one year in advance when vice-mayor is selected. Otherwise, it would perpetuate the process of who can get 3 votes.  I prefer an orderly process.”  The Councilmembers passed  the motion for City staff to bring back a policy which used as a model Beverly Hills’ policy as well as the fairness ideas of Weissman. 

On February 8, 2010, the City Council adopted City Policy 2010-01 entitled “Mayoral Rotation”. 

In 2012 the selection of the mayor took another twist with unfortunate results.

When the selection of mayor inevitably came before the Council on April 23, 2012, the rules required the vice-mayor to rotate into the mayor’s seat.  However, due to vice-mayor Malsin’s resignation in 2011, there was no vice-mayor in place.  The Council policy does not cover every scenario, but does have both helpful language and the intentions as stated by the Councilmembers at the time of its passage.  The Council policy states that the vice mayor shall be the most senior member in length of uninterrupted service who has not previously served as vice mayor.  If all members have served as vice mayor, then the position will be filled by the member who has not served in that role for the longest time. 

When we evaluate a policy, we first look at the clear meaning of that policy.  If we can fully understand the policy in terms of the current issue, then it must be followed.  Here, there was no vice mayor at the time of the voting for the mayor, so there was no Council member who would automatically advance to become mayor.  Therefore, we have to look at the (1) logical meaning of the policy and (2) the City Council’s intention at the time of enactment. 

Although this Council policy is silent about the order of the mayor when no vice mayor exists, the wording demonstrates that the mayor must be the “member who has not served in that role for the longest time” because that would be the case if a vice mayor had been previously chosen.  Reviewing the Council statements from the 2009 meetings – “fairness requires that we  all have an opportunity to serve once before anyone has an opportunity to serve twice” – the only proper selection of mayor this year would have been Jeff Cooper.  However, Cooper declined the nomination of Councilmember O’Leary.  This raises another point:  Should a Councilmember be able to reject the mayors office when it is his/her term to serve?  If so, that Councilmember should not be able to choose the “correct” time to serve as mayor because it would avoid the fairness this policy is built on.  If Cooper wanted to wait another year because he wished to be mayor in his last year, or thought Weissman was more qualified, or any other purpose, once again the Council would be letting power politics overshadow the fairness and equality that is best for Culver City and required by the Council policy. 

Therefore, Councilmember Cooper was the appropriate Councilmember to become mayor in 2012 for 2 reasons:  (1) although the Council policy fails to explicitly select the mayor when a vice mayor does not exist, it does imply that procedure when requiring the vice mayor to be chosen from the Councilmember who is most senior in length of uninterrupted service who has not previously served as vice mayor because (s)he will become the mayor “the following year”, and (2) Councilmember Weissman explained in 2009 that “fairness requires that we all have an opportunity to serve [as mayor] once before anyone has an opportunity to serve twice”.  This policy statement was specifically sent to staff as part of the motion creating the mayor rotation policy that was later approved.

How do we fix the mayor rotation policy?  The next step should be agendizing a discussion about reforming the Council Policy on Mayoral Rotation so the lessons we’ve recently learned can be implemented in a revised and fair new policy.  This new policy should specifically state the selection process of a vice-mayor when none exists – either because the vice-mayor is ill, resigns or can not serve - as well as the selection of the mayor when no vice mayor exists.  Each of the 5 Councilmembers has been elected by our whole City to serve everyone and should have a fair opportunity to lead for the one year term.  This will lead to the predictability and fairness needed to begin a new year of the Council.  Our community expects no less.

Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.