Pacifica council debates mayor and vice mayor selection rules; staff to draft amended policy

The City Council spent the bulk of its Oct. 13 meeting discussing possible amendments to Administrative Policy No. 17, the policy that governs the annual selection of mayor and vice mayor.

City Clerk staff and the ad hoc subcommittee presented options including a district-rotation model, a public drawing among eligible council members, and eligibility and deferral rules. The staff memo and supporting slides framed decision points the council needed to resolve.

Council direction and clarifications given at the meeting included:

- Eligibility: Council members agreed that a council member must have served at least approximately one year (staff and several members used “11 months” as a practical near-term threshold) on the council before being eligible to be vice mayor. The council discussed — and did not adopt a strict multi-year ineligibility for prior service as mayor or vice mayor; staff recorded direction to remove a fixed 3- or 4-year exclusion for prior service and to focus on more immediate eligibility and prioritization rules.

- Notice and interest: The council asked the city clerk to contact eligible council members before the reorganization meeting to confirm whether they wish to be considered and to present that list publicly on the dais when the selection occurs. Council members said that publishing the names at the meeting (rather than circulating them in advance for campaigning) better protects process integrity.

- Deferral and declination: Council members differentiated "deferral" (a council member asks to postpone being nominated for mayor or vice mayor) from "declination" (a council member definitively declines nomination). Staff recorded the following directions: a deferral preserves the member’s place in priority for consideration (the member remains in line for a future opportunity) but a declination moves a member to the end of the priority order and should make that person ineligible in the immediate following year; the council also asked staff to prohibit a consecutive two-year deferral that would block others indefinitely. The council said deferrals and declinations cannot be rescinded during the same meeting.

- Multiple eligible candidates: Council members discussed two ways to resolve multiple eligible candidates: (1) council deliberation and nomination on the dais followed by roll-call vote, or (2) a public random drawing conducted by a neutral party among eligible and interested members. Members expressed differing views. Some favored drawing to avoid perceived council bargaining; others preferred structured deliberation so the council could select a candidate by majority vote after hearing statements. The clerk and city attorney noted both methods are permissible; the council did not adopt a single method and instead asked staff to draft policy language describing the options and clarifying process flow.

- Deviating from the policy: Council members asked whether diverging from the adopted policy in a given year should require a supermajority. The council settled on the principle that changing or departing from the policy should be harder than a simple motion: staff was directed to draft language that requires a supermajority (as defined in the policy, e.g., supermajority of those present) to override the policy in a given year. Council members disagreed on the merits and some spoke in favor of a simple majority; staff will reflect the council's direction and note the disagreement for the full draft.

City Attorney Michelle Kenyon and staff said the policy can be changed later if practical issues arise and advised that a clear, public policy will make future reorganizations more predictable.

Staff will return a proposed amended Administrative Policy No. 17 reflecting council guidance for consideration at a future meeting. No final policy vote was taken Oct. 13.