Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayor Powers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino charter committee asks staff to study mayoral nomination and voting options
Summary
The Charter Review Committee debated restoring mayoral authority to nominate a city manager and whether to give the mayor a regular vote, then directed staff to study the implications and return with analysis. No charter change was adopted at the meeting.
The City of San Bernardino Charter Review Committee debated whether to increase the mayor’s formal powers and asked staff to study possible charter changes, including allowing the mayor to nominate the city manager subject to council approval and exploring what a mayoral vote alongside councilmembers would mean for representation and veto authority.
The committee’s discussion centered on two related proposals: returning a nomination role to the citywide-elected mayor and clarifying the trade-offs of giving the mayor a full vote. ‘‘The mayor should have the opportunity to nominate the city manager, not supervise,’’ said Casey Daly, Vice Chair, arguing a citywide-elected official should be able to put forward a nominee and be accountable for that choice. Daly added that if the mayor were given a regular vote, ‘‘the veto power would necessarily go away,’’ a trade-off members debated.
Supporters said nomination authority could improve accountability and give a mayor elected by the whole city a clearer stake in manager selection. Speakers pointed to past instability at city hall — several members noted frequent turnover of top managers — and argued a mayoral nomination could help align executive leadership with citywide priorities. James Albert, a committee member, said the process could balance mayoral authority with council oversight, stressing that any nomination would still be subject to council confirmation.
Opponents and cautious members warned against personalizing charter amendments around current officeholders and flagged practical consequences. Giving the mayor a full vote raises arithmetic questions: the committee noted an odd number of votes must be maintained and changing the mayor’s powers might require altering ward representation or removing veto authority. One member warned that changes should not be judged solely by recent personalities and should be considered in light of structure and checks.
Rather than adopt changes, the committee asked the city manager’s office and city attorney to prepare research on the likely effects of mayoral nomination authority and of giving the mayor a vote, including legal and representational implications. The direction to staff is procedural: committee members voted to have staff study the options and return with analysis and recommended language for future discussion.
The committee emphasized it was not putting any amendment on the ballot at the meeting and that any formal charter change would require further study, drafting and a separate approval process. The committee also recorded that Mayor Helen Tran and several former local officeholders were present in the audience during the discussion.
Next steps: staff will analyze the mayor-nomination option and the voting trade-offs and report back to the committee in a future meeting. The committee kept the mayoral role item on its agenda for additional study.
