Why San Jose voters should reject strong-mayor system
When local government faces serious challenges, changing its structure may seem like an obvious answer. But the current proposal to change San Jose’s form of government to a strongmayor structure is a “solution” looking for a problem.
The council-manager form is time-tested. It has been the most successful form of local government for more than a century, proven in cities large and small across the nation for accountability, integrity and professionalism.
Including San Jose. And our “hybrid” form already gives the mayor and council powers beyond the traditional councilmanager form found in most American cities.
San Jose has been fortunate to have been served by outstanding mayors who have led the city and the council with energy and vision and who have worked in partnership with talented and dedicated city managers and their professional staff. Together we have understood and respected the roles of elected officials and administrative staff.
But now our current mayor and City Council are asking voters to move to a strong-mayor structure. As former San Jose city managers with decades of service in several cities, we offer these questions and perspectives for careful consideration:
• Would this change improve accountability? Would a strong mayor be more accountable to the council and to the people than a city manager who works for the entire City Council?
A mayor can’t easily be replaced when found to be incompetent or corrupt; voters must either wait until the next election or attempt a recall. On the other hand, an ineffective city manager can be dismissed by the full City Council at any time.
• Would individual council members improve their ability to represent and serve their constituents by ceding their power to a strong mayor who could veto their legislation, appoint their city manager and formulate a budget with little or no input from them?
The city manager is accountable to all council members, not just to the mayor. The manager is not affiliated with political parties or factions, is politically neutral and is required by a strict professional code of ethics to treat all elected officials fairly and equally. Currently in San Jose, all appointments of department heads made by the city manager must be confirmed by the full council, not just the mayor.
• Would council members be more effective when policy recommendations primarily reflect just the mayor’s priorities and not the City Council’s?
The city manager now enriches the policy debate for everyone. Under the proposal, the council could lose the objective and professional analysis of a full range of alternatives and policy proposals and not be limited to just those offered by the mayor.
• Would a strong mayor appoint department heads based on their management skills and technical competency, or will that mayor reward political supporters?
A city manager appoints senior management based on their professional experience and qualifications, not on their politics. They are held accountable based on their performance, not on their fealty to individual elected officials.
• And the City Council and San Jose voters must ask this question first of all: What problem are you trying to solve?
Advocates of structural change must make a valid case that the problem truly is structural; big changes require big explanations. Watch out for the law of unintended consequences.
They should first determine if the current system is being used effectively. Are the mayor and City Council getting responsive information, decisions and results? Are city services being delivered as promised?
Over the decades, San Jose and its council-manager structure have responded remarkably well to serious community challenges, disasters, recessions and even political scandal. This is because of its strong corps of professional managers and elected officials, its commitment to high ethical standards, and the separation of politics from administration.
Vesting more power in a strong mayor isn’t a panacea. It doesn’t make pandemics go away or prevent recessions. It won’t make our government work better. Resolving complex challenges will continue to take courage, communication and commitment. Don’t blame the structure if those are missing from City Hall.
Would this change improve accountability? Would a strong mayor be more accountable to the council and to the people than a city manager who works for the entire City Council?