Sean Belk
-Staff Writer-
After a heated argument between Signal Hill Mayor Ed Wilson and Vice Mayor Larry Forester, the City Council at its meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 4 voted 4-1 to drop the idea of having a directly elected mayor.
Wilson brought forward the notion at the end of the last Council meeting on Oct. 21, requesting that city staff present dates for when the Council could propose a ballot measure that, if passed, would amend the City Charter to make the mayor an elected position. This week, the Council ultimately agreed to “table” the matter, which Wilson voted against.
Historically, the mayor in Signal Hill has rotated once a year among Council members and has been selected by a Council majority. The position holds no official powers other than those of a regular Council member. In addition, the city manager is considered the administrative head of the City, directly answering to the Council.
In some cities, however, the mayor is elected by voters and has additional duties, such as appointing members of city commissions and boards, while the Council retains veto power. In some large cities, mayors have even more responsibilities that may supersede the city manager entirely.
City Manager Ken Farfsing noted that changes in the State’s election code require that any charter amendment that impacts the “protection, right, benefit or employment status” of a local government employee must be scheduled for a statewide primary or general election.
He said the election code changes grew out of scandals in the City of Bell to ensure that such charter amendments are voted on in elections with high voter turnout.
Farfsing said, because of the State’s election code changes, such a ballot measure would not be permitted for the City’s March 3, 2015 election, as was suggested by Wilson.
The soonest the City could propose such a measure, Farfsing said, would be for the June 2015 statewide primary election, at a cost of about $10,000 to $12,000. He noted that the Council would have to vote on proposing a ballot measure at its next meeting on Nov. 18 and call for a city election by Dec. 2.
Farfsing added that proposing a ballot measure and a city election in such a short time frame might pose some logistical issues for city staff, particularly since Deputy City Clerk Becky Burleson plans to retire by the end of this month and will be replaced by the City’s current administrative assistant.
For now, however, Wilson’s proposal has been dropped after receiving strong opposition from a majority of the Council and at least two residents.
During public comment, Carol Churchill, a former councilmember and Signal Hill resident, spoke against the idea, stating that having a rotating mayor allows councilmembers to have an “equal voice” and a “floating majority.” She also questioned whether having an elected mayor would benefit the community at all.
“One thing I did not hear in the staff report is how this is going to benefit the community,” Churchill said. “I mean, it might be nice as an ego trip for somebody to be elected as mayor of the city, but, so far, I haven’t heard how the people of the community are going to benefit from this.”
Maria Harris, a resident who regularly attends Council meetings, expressed opposition to the proposal in the form of an email, stating that she was volunteering at one of the City’s polling places for the election that took place during the Council meeting.
In the email, Harris stated that there’s “no need” for a directly elected mayor in such a small city that has no Council districts, adding that elected mayors are typically for cities with large populations that have a diverse range of needs. Both Harris and Churchill expressed concerns about whether the elected mayor position would come with additional pay and how that would affect the city budget.
City Attorney David Aleshire noted that Signal Hill’s City Charter already has provisions that would allow for a directly elected mayor and the Council could request that city staff draft a charter amendment in a way that would give the mayoral position as much or as little power as desired.
He added, however, that, in some general-law cities, changing the charter to have a directly elected mayor has resulted in a “negative dynamic” when Council incumbents compete for the position during elections.
Councilmembers Michael Noll and Tina Hanson both said they were against even considering such a proposal.
Councilmember Lori Woods said she was open to further analyzing the issue, but she added that the City’s current form of government is “perfect” for Signal Hill, further stating that other cities that have switched their government model seem to be “problematic.” Woods added that she’s “wary” of the State government pushing cities to have more of a mayoral presence.
Wilson explained that his reasoning for bringing the idea forward came out of discussions with people in the community, adding that comments during workshops on the City’s Strategic Plan expressed the need to address a lack of “continuity, vision and direction” for the City.
“I brought this forward because people have talked to me about it,” Wilson said, adding that, if the Council doesn’t act soon, voters may bring forward a petition to put it on the ballot themselves.
“As elected officials, it’s our responsibility to lead, to look at the future and move our City forward in that direction,” he said. “Or, we can sit back, and we can say, ‘We’ve always done it that way,’ and so we’ll continue to do it that way until someone forces us to do it differently. That’s a choice we make.”
While Wilson said having the mayor position rotate among councilmembers once a year has “worked” for the City, he added that the rotating system also “creates confusion, not only within the city, but [also] outside the city with people we transact business with.”
In response, Forester said he is in “total disagreement” with the mayor on the issue.
“I don’t think the citizens have said…We’ve already had two citizens speak publicly against it,” Forester said. “I don’t think there is a need. What we’ve done is a very, very democratic system.”
Wilson, however, took issue with Forester’s choice of words, accusing the vice mayor of calling him a “liar,” after which a heated argument broke out between the two elected city officials.
“I said people have asked me about it,” Wilson said. “You don’t believe that’s a true statement. So, by saying that, you have called me a liar up here.”
Forester at one point threatened to leave the Council Chamber over the skirmish, later clarifying that Wilson’s reasoning for bringing the item forward was “illogical.”
The city attorney then attempted to intervene in the situation by clarifying Forester’s statement.
“Nobody was calling anybody a liar,” Aleshire said. “I thought it was clear the mayor had conversations with people, who were interested in this concept. Mr. Forester was saying that, just because a few conservations like that occurred, did not mean the community as a whole was calling for it.”
Wilson responded by saying, “thank you for smoothing that out.”
The spat comes after Wilson proposed a “code of conduct and civility” for appointed and elected officials during the last Council meeting after a resident expressed concerns about Forester making “offensive” remarks about race.
Still, during this week’s Council meeting, all councilmembers other than Wilson agreed to “table” the proposal for having a directly elected mayor, stating that, if the issue is brought up again by residents or is identified as a key issue in the City’s Strategic Plan, the Council may bring back the proposal for further consideration.
Signal Hill Mayor Ed Wilson presents a certificate to Joseph Martinez, a new Signal Hill police officer, during the City Council meeting on Nov. 4. Also pictured is Police Chief Michael Langston.
