The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it!
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday in the noon hour.
Do you think the citizens in the area should be able to elect a Mayor, or do you think the Mayor should be appointed by the council?
Talk about it….
By the people. Having the city council elect them is like recycling poop.
The Mayor should be elected by the people.
This town is large enough for a part-time mayor the people want in office.
Not a mayor who wins with the help of the dominion.
Corruption in politics is rampant.
Being a politician means there is corruption, no integrity, or any other character values.
We need real people to represent us, not some corrupt politician.
They all should be elected by the people
Elections 100%. People who are appointed tend to be dictators, and it allows elected “representatives” to let the ones appointed make the decisions that violate the constitution and civil rights so the elected officials can’t be held accountable.
That needs to stop. Now. No more appointed officials. Everyone is elected, everyone answers to the people. No more passing the buck, no more hiding behind appointed officials.
If the last 30-40 years has shown anything’s it’s been a movement to centralized “authorities” with appointed positions that answer to no one and dictate to the citizens.
It was business as usual so we didn’t see how dangerous these centralized institutions with no accountability had become, then we were shell shocked in the beginning with all of their orders amidst the chaos. Now it’s time we fix these things so they can never pull this crap again, and hold those responsible accountable as an example to future generations.
people
like someone else said; right now it is just recycling
Normally by an Election is best yes. But when there is no time for such and Cities are having to take action fast because of minute by minute literal changes in a Crisis such as the Health Crisis we are facing NO. Leadership from the get go on it is key. Adapting is one thing, being able to use your go-to people already in place with their contacts is another.
i had to read that twice, The new mayor was selected, not elected. One way to get things done the way one wants is appoint people from within your circle, that share your views rather than bring in a variable thru election out of a group of those out side your team. that is a way to control the outcome.
Elected by the PEOPLE!
The mayors are already elected positions. There is no need to change this.
Most cities in California use the council-manager style of government. We elect council members. The “mayor” position is an honorary title position and that is rotated through the council members with one year terms. The council chooses and hires a city manager that handles the day to day administration of the city. Sometimes small cities share a city manager between them.
A few larger cities use the mayor–council style of government. The mayor is an elected position and has a full time job with the day to day administration. The mayor serves as the city manager.
You just explained perfectly why California is so corrupt. This is California communism at its core. It’s definitely time to change this.
Things worked better in Clayton when the Mayor was elected. Seems like the same for Concord. I don’t know how or when it changed to the City Council, musical-chairs Mayors model, but it is extraordinarily ridiculous.
Good idea, Gittyup! We should start collecting signatures to petition for a ballot measure to turn Clayton into a charter city so that all the constituents have a voice as to who our mayor is by direct election. The current status quo trio (Wolfe, Tillman and Cloven) has deliberately denied us the most qualified council member, Jeff Wan, as mayor. What a sham…the banners displayed in our town of inclusivity and do the right thing!
Sancho, the current one is “kindness,” I notice. There wasn’t anything “kind” about the way Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven stole the Mayorship from Wan … and gives every indication of a Brown Act violation with its obvious preplanning. And, where, pray tell, did this Wolfe guy come from anyway? Was he Pierce’s hand-picked replacement? I don’t ever remember seeing his name on any ballot I ever received.
Gittyup~Absolutely no kindness exhibited with their vindictive voting. On another thread Cellophane said it best, “They are not leaders, they are your representatives. You don’t follow them, they follow you. If you follow them, all is lost.” Clayton has been cheated out of having Jeff Wan as a mayor (last year on the council)—travesty of representation for me, and many, as I never voted for any of the trio.
Selection is a joke.
But since the council can’t stand Edi, I’m OK with it.
Pardon my very very cynical view. My suspicion is that most votes in local elections are based less on what the individual brings, and more to placement on the ballot, or name recognition. Regarding Concord, the past 20 years or so, this town has been in general a very decent place to live and raise kids. Prior mayors have been, at a minimum, fairly decent, and at a personal level, personable. I do not blame McGallian for the current state of affairs of Concord, in the deterioration of civility, as at a county and state level, it seems reckless and anti-social behavior has not only been tolerated, but in many cases rewarded (here, we have converted a Motel 6 into housing for you…). I am fine with CC selecting (kind of a variation of how US Senators were instilled, until the 17th Amendment).
Well, the mayor is one of the council members so yeah, they are elected by the people but only the people in their “ward”. I think for most bigger cities the mayor should be elected at-large, but you could look at Antioch as an example of how that works.
BY THE PEOPLE!!!!
Every public official should be elected by the public. Period!
Does it matter?
yes – big time – the pro-tem policy just rotates the mayorship… ie – you scratch my back this year I’ll scratch your back next and so on and so on…..
…always by the people – not the pro-tem policy… how do we change it to the election policy?
The obvious answer is the council members. Each and every one is duly elected by the people.
In California there are several types of governance
https://www.nlc.org/resource/forms-of-municipal-government/
City Charters establish the form of government. A commission must be appointed to change the City Charter.
In towns and cities where a majority of communities of permanent residents, families and individuals care about looking out for their own interests and well being and future directions I think voting in a Mayor can be adventitious. However, since I’ve only ever seen the people with the highest number and the largest sized signs win seats on the Concord City Council, which means that the best interests of communities of permanent residents, families and individuals are not properly represented. It appears that a large percentage of voters here are disinterested. In Concord it makes very little difference, the outcome would be the same either way.
This is the People’s Republic of California we don’t get to pick and choose our political leaders it’s done for us behind the scenes who actually believes Gavin newsom beat the recall mail-in ballots for everyone always corruption runs deep in this state and we are not alone
Only a matter of time before the right person files a lawsuit regarding this.
This practice does NOT represent the people of Concord.
Where’s the Equity now???
Power should always be in the hands of the people.
The mayor should be selected by secret meeting of the Garavantas, the Seenos, and the Concord Police Officers Association. Or, barring that, the city council can take turns appointing each other mayor. There is to be no limits on how many times one is appointed mayor.
For the majority of cities in California it doesn’t matter at all since the mayor’s position is strictly ceremonial and usually rotates between the council members. In these weak-mayor cities, the mayor holds no more power than any other councilperson. A professional city manager runs the day to day operations.
In strong-mayor cities, where the mayor actually runs the city’s day to day operations (LA, SF, SJ, Oakland, SAC etc) they are elected and by the entire city not just from one single district like a councilperson.
Being Mayor…being on City Council…being a County Supervisor…Governor, Attorney General… (I could go on)… Elected office holders should all be subject to TERM LIMITS… I’m thinking 3 terms MAX whether consecutive or not…does not matter. THREE! Three seems to be enough to leave office with a really nice pack of dough. No one… (Hoffmeister) NO ONE should hold an office through one generation– and through another!
Matters not who is in office – they all lie, steal, and deceive.
All government is theft. Who has a bigger hand in your pocket?!
100% elections but what the heck does it matter now days. Just like in Concord citizens did not want Seeno but due to the payola the council got they went with the crooks Seeno anyway.
US citizens (Legals) no longer have any say and we are taxed without representation. Our fore fathers must be spinning in their graves. We have allowed this to happen and it must STOP!
https://claytonca.gov/city-clerk-department/city-council/live-streaming/12-07-21/ nice fireworks 18.30 in.
Fireworks indeed! Must’ve been the buildup of pressure beneath the shell ignited by the vindictive voting. Thanks for the video—speaks volumes for having in person meetings.
The position of Mayor and Vice Mayor or Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem should be at-large positions that are elected by voters and not this current rotation system where the City Council elects the Mayor and Vice Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem. The City Council’s in the Claycord area all have 5 seats, but California law allows for City Council’s to have 5, 7, or 9 seats. In a city like Concord that went to districts causing voters to lose 80% of their voting power and since Concord has been put on a path to becoming a city with a population of 200,000, which will further deteroriate the quality of representation the public has on the Council as these districts that are ever growing in population will become ungovernable and Councilmembers unaccountable. Increasing the size of City Council’s to allow for a directly elected Mayor and Vice Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem gives voters back some of the voting power they’ve lost and increasing the number of districts will offset population growth, giving voters more representation in their districts and make District Councilmembers more accountable when they have a smaller population in their districts.
Well now. Apparently since the system “seems” dysfunctional as is. Now What ? I meditated on this very same issue last night and came up with the nine seat solution. However, let me strongly point out, imagine 9 seats. It’s already really difficult with 5 residents. Can you imagine 9 different people making the “popular” decisions vs. the 5 ?
ON DA,
I think with 9 seats we’d definetly have to institute a time limit for how long each Councilmember could speak or ask questions, just like members of the California State Legislature and U.S. Congress are limited on time during hearings. We could give each Councilmember 3 minutes each, just like they give members of the public. If it’s a meeting on an important issue we may have to give them several rounds of 3 minutes each. It may be helpful in eliminating the tendency some Councilmembers have of droning on and on because they enjoy hearing themselves speak.
I have been an advocate of a directly elected mayor for at least 12 years in campaigns in Concord. I have introduced the topic to receive no support from any councilmember over that time.
I also attempted to get it on the ballot by petition but failed to get the needed 7000 signatures to force it in 2016.
Closest we came is in 2018 when the council had to option to go to directly elected mayor when we transitioned to districts. Again I was the only one to support it. It can now only be done by direct vote and only the Council or a petition drive (now we would need about 8,000 signatures).
Barring that I have attempted to make an ordinance for a defined rotation of the position along the lines of: If there is only one candidate then they get it, if there are two then the one who has not been the mayor for the longest current consective years should be mayor with ties broken by highest vote count in their election.
This too has failed on several attempts to get support. However, to be fair in the last four years starting with my appointment in 2017 for the 2018 period we have actually followed those ideas. Prior…well let’s move forward.
I still support directly elected mayor for Concord.
Edi Birsan,
Thank you for your efforts.
How do you feel about increasing the number of seats?
I’m not sure about breaking ties based on the candidate that received the most votes because we have Districts based on population, not registered voters, so candidates from Districts 1, 4, and 5 likely have more registered or active voters than District 2 and 3 have.
@ Black Knight
Increasing seats to 6 plus a directly elected mayor is ok by me. It would allow for the districts to be smaller and would allow under the Brown Act for 3 councilmembers to talk off dias on something rather than 2.
I did suggest this by the way and was again shot down.
As for the tie breaking, you are right that the different number of voters in each district which can be quite large makes it unequal. However flipping a coin or high card draw would maybe work after the city of Clayton got its name on something like that.