Deja Vu All Over Again, or Why Did We Work So Hard to Defeat the Charter?

This evening, December 6, the Costa Mesa City Council will not only swear in three new members, but  will vote on a “Mayor and City Council Staffing Plan” (New Business No. 1).  While this may seem dull and innocuous, it could have profound implications for the city’s future.

The incoming mayor, Katrina Foley, wants to establish a full-time “Chief of Staff to the Mayor & City Council” along with three part time city council aides.  The Chief of Staff would report to the mayor.  The council aides would report to the Chief of Staff. 

What would the Chief of Staff do?

The Chief of Staff would help with constituent services, policy issues, legislation, and events, functions now performed by existing staff.  The Chief of Staff would work with the mayor and council members to establish goals and priorities.  The Chief of Staff would also monitor the office budget and process checks. 

Who assists council members now?

Now, one person provides direct, general support to all five city council members.  She is supervised by professional staff.   The proposal adds more personnel and changes how they’re managed. 

By law, Costa Mesa has a “council-manager” form of government.  Council members collectively supervise a professional city manager who, by law, supervises the rest of the staff with the exception of the City Attorney.  (Government Code Sec. 34856) 

With additional council members won’t we need additional staff?

Possibly, but this is more than double, jumping from one full time person to one full time plus three part timers, equivalent to two and a half full time people. 

Won’t the new, directly elected mayor have more responsibilities and need more staff support?

No, the duties of the mayor have not changed.  The mayor has the same powers and duties as any other member of the city council (Government Code Sec. 34903).  Under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the mayor is also the “ceremonial head of government”, something all mayors have done for decades.  Why does this now require a full time staff person?

The mayor would have four time the staff support provided to other council members (one full timer at 40 hr/week v. shared part timer at 20 hr./wk/2 council members = 10 hr./wk.).   By what ordinance did the mayor suddenly get four times the duties and responsibility of the other council members? 

Why does it matter?

Other than cost, about  $220,000 per year, this proposal could lead to fundamental changes our city’s system of government.

Now, staff reports to the city manager who is accountable to ALL the council members.  This proposal would add staff accountable to only the mayor.  Even aides intended to help other council members would be accountable to the mayor.

Checks and balances are eliminated.

Mayoral staff would answer to no one but the mayor. For example, the Chief of staff would process check requests.  A council member seeking re-imbursement for attending a conference would go to the Chief of Staff accountable to the mayor.  The mayor, seeking re- imbursement for anything, whether a parking fee or a lavish vacation, would go to the Chief of Staff accountable to … the mayor. 

Until now Costa Mesa mayors have been accountable to the council as a whole, providing a check on a mayor run amok.  The Foley proposal forces  council members to ask for assistance from staff accountable only to the mayor.  This puts individual council members in subordinate positions, though by law they are supposed to be equal.

Transparency will be at risk.

As noted above, the Chief of Staff would work with the mayor and council members to set goals and priorities.  Will this be on a one-to-one basis in a 5th floor office?  This was previously done by the council as a group—in public.

The Chief of Staff would go over the agenda with each council member a week before a council meeting, before most council have had a chance to review relevant staff reports.  So what’s the point?  Could this become a formalized system for the Chief of Staff to transmit the mayor’s marching orders to individual council members.  Would assistance from staff depend on compliance with the mayor’s wishes?

This opens the door to Brown Act violations.

Two council members would share each staff aide.  Two aides conferring could represent four council members total, a quorum of the council.  It would be easy for even inadvertent violations of the Brown Act to occur.  

Is this a first step in eliminating the council-manager form of government in Costa Mesa?

The term “Chief of Staff” implies that there's an actual staff  to be “chief” of.  What other responsibilities, authority, and personnel would be added?  What’s next?  

The council-manager form of government run by professional staff arose in response to widespread corruption in cities run by political machines.  Let’s not go back there.

You Could Look It Up

Like Samuel Pepys, I find myself inspired to write in spurts, only to abandon the effort for periods of time. Here’s something to get the juices flowing: Went to the Costa Mesa City Council meeting instead of just watching an item or two on-line. Still shaking my head.

I love that the public takes advantage of opportunities to participate. Often speakers at the podium dispense much needed wisdom, but why do these folks feel compelled to pontificate about that of which they are ignorant? Sure, I pontificate, but try to do my research, though admittedly through the prism of my own prejudices, like most people. But some just seem to expound out of thin air.

Example: At the last City Council meeting, elimination of the City’s Park Commission as a separate body was considered as a “cost-saving” measure, though the City would have saved $3,500 a year at most and possibly generated additional costs instead. For context, bear in mind that Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners are by far the highest paid city planning commissioners in Orange County, receiving $400 a month, even if they attend only one thirty-minute meeting for the entire month, even if they don’t show up at all.

At the Council meeting it was asserted that a park commission was “fluff”, whereas a planning commission was required “by law”. No one corrected this misinformation at the time, so here goes.

Both have the same standing. Both are included under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and neither is required by any State or Federal law. State law does prescribe responsibilities of a planning commission, if there is one, for example, “When the city or county has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution … the commission shall … “ (Government Code Section 65353 (a)), but whether or not there is a planning commission is optional.

State law says “The legislative body [that’s the City Council] may create one or more planning commissions… (GC Sec. 65101(a))”. And “When there is no planning commission…” (Sec. 65861).

In fact, the City of Villa Park right here in Orange County has no planning commission.

So, if they were really serious about saving money, the city council could not just cut the more-than-generous salaries of our planning commissioners, which a majority declined to do, they could actually eliminate the planning commission.

Let me hasten to add that’s a step I don’t advocate. I believe all of our commissions and committees serve a useful function, though at least one is overpaid in the extreme.

Off and Running--Sort of

As of 5 pm Friday, August 8, 2008 Eric Bever, Chris Bunyan, Katrina Foley, Gary Monahan Nick Moss, Lisa Reedy, Jim Righeimer, and Bill Sneen had filed papers to fun for the Costa Mesa City Council this fall. Because incumbent Linda Dixon did not file, the deadline to file has been extended to August 13.

Look for Bever, Monahan, and Righeimer to share resources, if they don’t run as a formal slate. Look for a sizeable chunk of those resources to come from the ostensibly conservative Orange County GOP establishment.

Mesa Verde Homeowners will be sponsoring a forum at the Neighborhood Community Center on Thursday August 21, 2008. This will one of our earliest chances to see the candidates together responding to residents’ questions.

See you there.