Santa Monica is at an inflection point and we desperately need new leaders with a clearly articulated vision for the city. That strong vision should be something we as a community can get behind, enabling the city to govern forward and not backward. So, let’s explore the idea of a directly elected mayor.
At another inflection point in 1946 following WWII, the city voted and approved a new city charter replacing three commissioners with the current council system as governance had become too complicated for three untrained politicians to manage.
All council members are now elected at-large, meaning the whole city votes for all of them, and they hire a city manager as the city’s executive officer. The manager serves at the “pleasure of the council.” The mayor is a ceremonial position, which recently changed to be a rolling appointment based on seniority. (Previously, the mayor was voted in by the council.)
What if we voted directly for a mayor with a staff, office, and responsibility for the city? This hypothetical situation would mirror other forms of government giving the mayor a veto over council and giving council the ability to over-ride that veto. There would still be a city administrator to maintain continuity between mayors, but all departments would report to the mayor.
Could this directly-elected mayor better express the desires of residents, taking power away from the organizations that have always run things and making the city executive directly responsible to the citizens for both expressing and executing their vision?
Santa Monica elections are heavily influenced by what I would describe as political machines (or de-facto political parties if you prefer). For a long time, it was the chamber of commerce. Then in ‘79/’83 it became Santa Monicans for Renters Rights.
I am not opposed to any one group, SMRR, Chamber of Commerce, Dem Club etc. I would just like our politics to be less controlled by these institutions. It has become insular and stifling and I don’t think it’s working. New ideas are suppressed by an ingrained power structure. The vision is very blurry.
Driven largely by the riots and looting that hit the city in 2020, the election that year had a “change slate” beating the traditional machine-backed candidates that have dominated for so long. However, the election of 2022 saw the reemergence of traditional power blocks.
Currently we have a majority of four city council members disconnected from a central machine, but the central issue remains: there’s a lack of central vision. By design, the city manager is charged with executing Council directives and is not responsible to the people. They are a servant of the city council, not the residents.
A directly-elected mayor would allow residents to take a direct stance on a singular vision for the future and hold a single person accountable for making it happen.
We saw this play out last year in Los Angeles with the competing visions of Karen Bass and Rick Caruso. The voters had a real choice, and they made it.
There are very good arguments against a directly-elected mayoral system. Opponents say a directly-elected mayor who is the city executive officer turns an essentially bureaucratic position into a political one. An unelected city manager is able to make important decisions that may not be politically popular, but that are necessary, without risk of direct voter blowback — the council shields the city manager so they can focus on the job and not on the optics of the job.
There is also a competence argument. A city manager is hired based on their resume and experience. A directly-elected mayor opens the door to those who might be popular but ultimately incompetent. With so much on the line, they argue, the current process ensures an experienced, competent executive. If the city manager doesn’t pass muster, they can be fired by a vote of the city council.
Finally, there is the argument that if the city council is setting the policy and the mayor is running the city, there is a possibility of gridlock. That by giving the mayor so much power, and taking some oversight power away from the city council, you risk a council and mayor at odds, where the work of governance is lost in the “blood sport” that is politics. The current council, they argue, must come to a consensus of at least four votes, supposedly dissuading gridlock in favor of negotiation.
The current system reminds me of Plato’s “Republic” and the philosopher king (without the eugenics, thankfully). Plato argued that you wouldn’t hold a vote for ship’s captain, because captaining requires skill and experience, and voting would open the position to all manner of incompetence. He argued that the philosopher, beholden to no one but truth, should govern.
I have always found Plato’s “Republic” to be arrogant and patronizing. It suggests that the people aren’t smart enough to decide who leads them. Then again people did vote for Donald Trump after all, so maybe we aren’t worthy of the power of democracy.
I can’t help thinking about our seven council members as philosopher kings, not directly running the city, but holding sway over their chosen executive; responsibility divided by seven and diffused through a hired administrator. I suppose we are the ‘People’s Republic of Santa Monica’, after all!
Ultimately, it comes down to whether you think things are working or not. Are we at an inflection point where we must make changes to improve as a city and surmount the current challenges, or are we content?
Miles Warner, Santa Monica resident