Doesn’t Want to Be Appointed by Mayor : Lockwood Opposes Move to Weaken His Office

In a forceful defense of San Diego’s form of government, City Manager John Lockwood told the Charter Review Commission on Monday night that fundamental changes that would weaken the city manager’s office by putting it under the authority of a more powerful mayor’s office are neither necessary nor needed.

“Major overhauls,” Lockwood said, “ . . . should be reserved for situations when the machinery of government is malfunctioning severely--when there is widespread and uncorrected scandal or disorganization.

“You should consider whether responsible and knowledgeable San Diegans are telling you that this is the state of the city today. Are the media saying it? Has the grand jury said it? Have our many civic and community organizations said it? Do you yourselves think that the city government is unable or unwilling to function responsibly and effectively?”

Although the commission might want to tinker with the City Charter to give the mayor’s office more power over the rest of the City Council, Lockwood said a city manager could live with those changes as long as nothing was done in the charter to change the way the manager is appointed: by a majority of the City Council.

Independence in Question

Turning over to the mayor’s office the authority to fire and hire a city manager would likely spell the end to independent and professional management, Lockwood asserted.

Lockwood made his statements, both in prepared and spontaneous remarks, to the commission, which is considering charter changes that could fundamentally alter the structure of city government. The core of that structure is the council-manager form of government, which provides for a strong city manager to carry out the City Council’s policies and manage the day-to-day activities of the city. It has been in place in San Diego for 57 years.

Among the reasons the Charter Review Commission is studying changes--particularly alternatives giving the mayor’s office more authority--is the success of Proposition E earlier this month. Under Proposition E, City Council members will no longer be elected citywide but will be elected in individual districts. As a result, the mayor will be the only member of the City Council elected by voters citywide.

That has led some commission members to conclude that the city’s balance of power has changed and that now is the time for the city to consider a form of government with a strong mayor.

Ed Butler, chairman of the commission and a retired 4th District Court of Appeal justice, maintains that, with district elections, the new council members won’t have a citywide view and may interfere more with the city manager.

Neighborhood-Oriented

This will occur, Butler claims, because these new council members will be extremely conscious of neighborhood issues--the garbage pickup and pothole issues--and will act more as an “ombudsman” at City Hall than existing council members might. Such a scenario might put too much pressure on the city manager’s office, Butler contends, pressure that might be diluted if the manager were under the mayor’s authority.

Lockwood, however, didn’t buy Butler’s argument. Yes, he said, there might be more pressure, but it would still take a council majority to make policy decisions. And, if anything, Lockwood said, a council that spends more time and energy attending to district problems and constituents “places a premium on centralized professional management of the day-to-day operations of the city’s departments.”

“I don’t see district elections having any significant impact” on the basic structure of city government and on the city manager’s office, Lockwood said, cautioning the commission that “change for the sake of change is disruptive.”

The commission, which also heard testimony from a variety of speakers including Councilman Wes Pratt, put off making any decision until next week. Any decision it makes to change the charter must be placed on the ballot and approved by voters.