Changes eyed for mayor’s power

Panel won’t seek to add a vote on council matters, but could push to expand official’s veto authority

A panel examining whether Riverside’s mayor ought to have more clout doesn’t intend to seek a vote in City Council decisions for the leader of the city of 330,000 residents.

Instead, the group may seek to expand the mayor’s veto power.

“Giving the mayor a vote on council matters is a dead issue for us,” said James Goldman, attorney and chair of a three-person subcommittee of the Charter Review Committee, which is studying the idea.

Goldman said that’s because panel members don’t believe such a proposal would be greeted favorably.

“We’re not going to put something forward that wouldn’t clear the council,” he said Tuesday.

Last summer, the council voted to put several proposed charter amendments on the November ballot but did not include a previous charter committee’s suggestion of making the mayor an eighth City Council vote.

What the current committee might recommend, though, is restoring a power mayors long ago had to remove specific items from the city budget.

Charter Review Committee Chairperson Ben Clymer Jr. said mayors had the ability to issue so-called line-item vetoes from 1907 to 1953.

“But we have not had it for more than a half century now,” Clymer said in a March 17 committee discussion, according to the meeting videotape.

Ultimately, Riverside voters would decide what power the mayor wields.

But the City Council holds sway on what goes on the ballot.

Goldman said he anticipates the Charter Review Committee will determine in May what to recommend to the council.

Though not permitted to participate in City Council votes, the mayor currently can veto some council decisions. The extent of that authority has been the subject of much debate the past three years and at the crux of lawsuits that cost the city about $900,000.

The veto is seldom used. But in February 2018, former Mayor Rusty Bailey ignited a political firestorm by vetoing a contract extension for former City Manager John Russo that he viewed as “exorbitant.”

There was a dispute over whether Bailey had the ability to veto a deal setting the city manager’s pay. Some contended Riverside’s charter gives the council exclusive authority over that.

But a Riverside County judge ruled Riverside’s then-mayor possessed that veto authority and properly exercised it.

Bailey declared the ruling laid to rest on the question of whether the power

extended to the pay of three top officials: city manager, attorney and clerk.

Goldman said, however, that because the ruling was issued by a trial court, it is not binding and does not set a precedent. So, he said, the panel wants to make clear in a ballot measure that the mayor may exercise a veto in such situations.

Goldman said a line-item veto is something the city will need if it loses a significant chunk of its revenue as feared.

In fall, a court ruled Riverside’s longstanding practice of shifting some electric revenue into the general fund unconstitutional.

That money is used to pay for basic city services such as police protection and street upkeep. A judge declared the city cannot charge customers more than the cost of providing power to help pay for unrelated city services without voter approval.

The City Council has

asked the Charter Review Committee to also explore a ballot issue to authorize continuing the practice. Absent that, city officials have said, Riverside could lose $19 million to $32 million in a year.

“If the voters reject that, the city is going to be on a severe financial diet,” Goldman said.

He said a line-item veto would help keep the budget balanced.

At the March 17 meeting, the committee invited Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson to attend and answer questions. She declined to express an opinion on whether, and how, the mayor’s role should change.

“It’s not about how I envision my role, but rather how the people of Riverside wish their government to be structured,” she said, according to the videotape.

“You’re asking me what I would like to see on the ballot,” Lock Dawson said. “My opinion on it is sort of irrelevant.”