Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayoral Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palm Springs forum hears sharply divided views on keeping rotating mayor or adding an elected mayor
Summary
At a city working‑group listening session, two presenters and many residents debated whether Palm Springs should keep a rotating mayor drawn from district council members or place a citywide elected mayor on the ballot, focusing on representation, accountability, cost and outreach.
Jason Kravitz, a member of the city’s working group, opened the meeting by explaining that the group will gather community feedback and deliver a report to the City Council.
Lex Ortega, speaking for the working group’s CVRA background, urged keeping the current rotating‑mayor model, arguing it has increased representation for Latino, Filipino and African American communities and keeps local council members engaged with residents. "A directly elected mayor will have to get the votes of a majority of everybody in the city," Ortega said, warning that citywide campaigns rely on TV ads rather than door‑knocking and that a mayor under the current charter is a "coequal member of council" with mainly ceremonial duties.
Rich Gordon, chair of Citizens for an Elected Mayor, argued the city should place a charter amendment on the ballot to create a directly elected mayor while preserving district council seats. Gordon said a visible, citywide mayor could provide sustained leadership on large projects — including an airport master plan and a convention center overhaul — and advocate consistently in Sacramento and Washington. "Put this on the ballot," he said, adding that a mayor’s salary would be about "$88,000 a year," which he called a modest cost compared with potential returns in state and federal funding.
Public commenters expressed a mix of views: some urged keeping rotation to preserve recent gains in diversity on the council and avoid concentrating power, while others said a full‑time mayor could provide continuity and accountability for multi‑year projects. Several attendees raised procedural concerns about outreach, asking why the working group scheduled only one Spanish‑language session.
The working group closed by inviting attendees to leave written feedback on boards at the back of the room and said the next community meeting is scheduled for September 16 in District 5.
