Following up our City Council Notebook post below, it should be noted Item 65 (“Mike Martinez and Lee Leffingwell‘s motion calling for an election on how the City Attorney is installed”) is facing a tough road. It would allow the council – who the City Attorney ostensibly represents – to make the appointment instead of the City Manager; the argument goes that the City Manager’s appointment powers makes for a weird dynamic where the City Attorney’s loyalties are divided.
The item was originally proposed as part of a comprehensive package of reforms designed to shift power from the City Manager back into the hands of City Council. But while two other measures sailed through (increased financial scrutiny, and an election to change the way the City Auditor’s installed), the sponsors pulled the City Attorney item, presumably for some explanation and arm-twisting.
Now it’s back, but Leffingwell tells In Fact Daily he doesn’t know if he has the votes. IFD also has Brewster McCracken and Sheryl Cole down as opposed, with Cole saying “I think it would create an unhealthy environment for the relationship between the City Council and the City Attorney.”
Granted, the council members are entitled to their opinion; hell, for all we know, they may be right. But let’s not forget that Item 65 doesn’t make these changes – it simply puts it them to the people for a vote, like the City Auditor resolution, which passed unopposed. Our question for Cole and McCracken is: why preclude even the possibility of debate?
This article appears in November 2 • 2007.