1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Courtney Padgett, Assistant City Manager
By: Cathryn LaBrado, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of City Council’s Yearly Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff, if any, on Council’s desire to create a formalized policy for the yearly mayoral selection process.
BACKGROUND
At the January 9, 2024 City Council meeting, Council Member Takahashi requested a first step report on City Council’s yearly selection process of mayor and vice mayor. The Charter of the City of Burbank, § 400, provides the following in regard to Council’s yearly selection of mayor and vice mayor:
“The date of the reorganization meeting will be set by ordinance. At the reorganization meeting the new members shall then be inducted into office, whereupon the Council, as thus newly constituted, shall choose one of their member to serve as Mayor. The Mayor shall have the same voting power as any other member of the Council. The Council shall also choose one of their member to serve as Vice Mayor, who shall act as Mayor pro tempore in case of the absence, sickness or other disability of the Mayor. The officials so chosen shall hold their respective offices subject to the pleasure of the Council.”
A
s indicated above, the Charter does not define the selection process. Council currently has the option to select any member of the Council for mayor and vice mayor during the Council reorganization meeting each December.
CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE
2 DISCUSSION
Survey of Other Jurisdictions
Staff surveyed various cities across California (Attachment 1) and found a relatively equal division between cities that utilize a mayoral rotation process and cities that select the mayorship via majority vote of the council. Amongst jurisdictions utiliz ing a specific process, the mayoral rotation is commonly based on seniority, followed by vote count or vote percentage in elections. Most mayoral rotation policies were found to be adopted by resolution and subject to council adjustment at any time. Rotation policies also applied to vice mayors at times, with the m ayor position automatically being assumed by the vice mayor. Lastly, some cities included specifications that would preclude council members from serving as mayor or vice mayor during their first year on Council or within a year of previously serving as mayor.
City of Glendale
The City of Glendale’s Code of Ordinances § 2.04.020, Selection of Mayor (Attachment 2) details a selection process that appoints the mayorship to the council member “with the longest, continuous uninterrupted service on the council since last serving as mayor, and who is not serving as the mayor as the time of the mayoral selection.” In the event of a tie, additional considerations include most votes in councilmembers’ most recent election or highest percentage of votes if council members were elected during different elections. The vice mayor is then selected by a majority vote of the Council. Notably, the City of Glendale’s selection process includes a caveat that allows the Council to bypass the council member next in line to serve as mayor if they feel it is in the best interest of the City not to appoint that council member.
City of Burbank
On March 22, 2016, the Burbank City Council considered a rotation policy based on seniority, then votes received, for the annual selection of mayor and vice mayor, but voted (5-0) in favor of not adopting a new policy. The majority opinion of the Council was that, as officials elected by the people, council members should be able to select the mayor and vice mayor and that the process of doing so builds a foundation for working collaboratively, fostering trust, and navigating challenges as a cohesive body.
Additionally, Council expressed concerns with a regimented process that would remove discretionary power from the elected officials. The 2016-2017 Charter Review Committee included Selection of Mayor as a topic for review and ultimately found the topic to be “not an appropriate Charter amendment, but a potential policy consideration for future Council discussion.” The 2023 -2024 Charter Review Committee did not include Selection of Mayor as a topic for review.
On January 30, 2024, Council adopted a Code of Conduct that establishes the framework that Council Members use to carry out their public responsibilities with a focus on professionalism and accountability. Section D (Enforcement) of t he Code of Conduct 3 codifies Council’s responsibility to “assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.” As such, Council has the authority and responsibility to enforce the Code of Conduct and warn, censure, or remove the mayor or vice mayor when deemed necessary. With the discretionary power to remove the mayor or vice mayor, its recommended that Council maintain continuity with this policy and continue to reserve the right to select the mayor and vice mayor.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
CONCLUSION
Based on Council’s previous consideration and discussion of this item in 2016 and the recently adopted Code of Conduct, it is recommended that Council not adopt a formalized rotation policy for the annual selection of mayor and vice mayor.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Survey of Cities
Attachment 2 – Glendale Code of Ordinances