Editorial:
Proposition C
Limitations and Credits for Veterans’ Preference Points
City of San Diego
Charter Amendment – Majority Approval Required
Shall the Charter be amended to extend eligibility for veterans’ preference points in any original Civil Service examination to veterans who have served in the United States Armed Forces during any war, major military action or peacekeeping mission, and to provide an additional five percent credit for any veteran or the spouse of any veteran who has a qualifying service-related disability?
This is a pretty simple proposition. When hiring employees the city would give a five (5) percent credit to veterans and their spouses who served during the period while the draft process was instituted. Now that military service is now voluntary this credit is no longer valid. Prop. C would fix this to included military personal who served in any branch of service during any military action, war, or peace keeping, whether or not the draft was in effect. This will also extend to the military spouses of veterans who have a military related disability that precludes them from working at all.
Prop C would also change the preference points from five (5) to a total of ten (10) to those who have a service-related disability of at least fifteen percent. The preference points would only apply only to the first examination for classified employment with the City and will not apply to promotion exams.
Our military men and women have earned and deserve this credit, with or without the draft and We Support A Yes Vote on Prop. C.
Proposition D.
Strong Mayor Form of Governance
City of San Diego
Charter Amendment – Majority Approval Required
Shall the Charter be revised to make permanent the Strong Mayor form of governance; add a ninth Council seat; and, when the ninth seat is filled, increase the Council votes required to override a mayoral veto to a two-thirds vote?
Five years ago San Diego city residents voted to try a strong mayor form of government. On December 2010 this experiment will expire and the city will revert back to the city manager being the chief executive officer and the mayor will once again become a voting member of the city council
In reviewing this experiment we have to ask ourselves has anything noticeably changed in city government that has proven so overwhelming beneficial that there is loud and insistent cry to keep a strong mayor form of government?
All that has really changed is now there is centralized control in the mayor’s office where policy and decisions are made outside of public purview. It has also created a mini-power broker within the city council with the new position of council president welding a certain amount of new found power under the strong mayor format.
The promise that was made five years ago was that of a mayor that would be accountable to the people. This turned out to be a falsehood. If anything the strong mayor format has isolated the mayor away from public view, with him only popping out when he goes before the city council to explain his latest proposal or budget.
The mayor has not only isolated himself, his ex-communications man Fred Sainz was infamous as a road block to public and media access, but the mayor’s cone of silence covers the administration and staff from communicating with the media.
Another problem of a permanent strong mayor format is that to become a mayor, technically, there are no job requirements other than getting more votes than the other person, yet we are asking this person to take over the helm of a major city and run it as a CEO. The validity of the democratic process is the collective wisdom of the majority. The strong mayor format circumvents this process.
But, with all that said, the biggest problem with making the strong mayor format permanent is the 2/3rds vote need to overturn a mayor’s veto. This only solidifies the power into the hands of one person.
This proposition wants to expand the city council to nine (9) members, with that we agree. Expand the council to nine members by including the mayor’s seat as a sitting council member and Vote No on Prop. D.