Pacifica public demands redo and clearer rules after contentious mayor pro tem selection

Dozens of residents urged the Pacifica City Council on Jan. 13 to correct what they called a flawed, “rush”-style selection of the council’s mayor pro tem at the Dec. 9 meeting and to adopt clearer, written procedures for future leadership nominations.

The meeting opened with council members and the mayor addressing the public’s anger and disappointment over December’s vote. Mayor Sue Beckmeyer apologized at the dais, saying, “I would never do anything with the intention to humiliate my colleague. I love and respect my colleagues,” and acknowledged the need for clearer procedures.

The mayor pro tem selection drew sustained public comment at the Jan. 13 meeting. Dozens of residents described the Dec. 9 vote as abrupt and exclusionary and asked the council either to hold a new vote or to adopt a transparent nomination process. Several speakers representing different parts of the city said the outcome denied a district’s voters the expected opportunity for representation.

“I support a revised process,” resident Victor Carmichael said during the public comment period, calling last month’s action “ugly, autocratic and unbecoming.” Joanne Arnaud, another speaker, asked the council to “correct this as soon as you can,” and Cliff Lawrence called for a “do‑over,” saying the episode left the council with a stain unless addressed quickly.

Council members agreed the selection process lacked clarity. Council member Christine Bowles, who had asked the item be placed on the Jan. 13 agenda, told colleagues she had requested this review “so that we could deal with it first thing this year.” City Manager Kevin Woodhouse summarized the procedural gap for the public: “The City Council rules and code of ethics does not include any special considerations or guidelines for the selection of mayor or mayor pro tem.”

Council members discussed options including adopting a formal rotation, requiring a written nomination period with public comment before votes, and referencing standard parliamentary guides such as Rosenberg’s or Robert’s Rules of Order. Several speakers and council members cited examples from other Bay Area cities that either write the selection process into council rules or rely explicitly on established parliamentary manuals.

No formal vote was taken to overturn December’s selection. Instead the council reached a working consensus to return the topic to the Jan. 27 agenda: staff will present options and – if directed by the council on Jan. 27 – an ad hoc subcommittee would be formed to draft recommended rule changes for council consideration. City Attorney advice and governance training for council members were discussed as likely steps in the review.

Public commenters said they view a timely fix as essential to restoring trust. “When you make a mistake, you don’t move on — you fix it,” public commenter Betty Duran said. Council members said they want a clear, equitable process that prevents similar controversy, preserves public comment opportunities, and ensures fair representation across districts.

The council did not adopt a specific replacement selection method on Jan. 13. Members asked staff to agendize the options, and several council members volunteered to meet with colleagues and members of the public before the next meeting to help draft guiding parameters.

The council moved on to other agenda items after the discussion and public comment. The review process and any potential re-vote or formal revision of December’s appointment will depend on the council direction and an ad hoc group’s recommendations when the topic returns to the council agenda.

Ending: Council members said they intend to pursue changes quickly and in public; the Jan. 27 meeting is expected to include a staff report and a possible motion to create a short-term ad hoc subcommittee to draft rules and a schedule for consideration.