12,873 / 58.0% Yes votes ...... 9,338 / 42.0% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

The Way It Is Now:

• The Mayor has no vote except a veto and the Council may override the veto with a simple majority vote (5 votes).
• The Mayor may veto the entire Council-adopted budget, but does not have a line-item veto of the budget.
• Only the City Council may remove an appointee to a Charter-mandated commission, and only for specified causes.
• The Mayor has no veto over the Council’s vote to appoint or remove the city manager and city clerk or to confirm the appointment of the assistant city manager.

• It would require a 2/3 vote of the Council (six rather than five Council votes) to override a Mayoral veto
• The Mayor would have a line-item veto of the budget and could reduce or eliminate any specific budget item.
• The Mayor could remove a member of a Charter-mandated commission with concurrence of 2/3 of the city Council.
• The Mayor may veto the Council’s vote for such appointments, removals or confirmations, subject to override by a 2/3 vote of the Council.
• . The measure also increases the time for the Mayor’s and Council’s review of the budget.

• This is a common-sense proposal that will improve the efficiency and accountability of our city government.
• Prop. A allows citizens and elected officials more time to analyze the city’s budget independently.
• Giving the Mayor a line-item veto will rein in out-of-control spending.
• These Charter changes will require the city Council and Mayor to collaborate on personnel decisions for key city staff.

• The City Council is spending about $1 million  for this election at the expense of funding to increase police officers on our streets.
• Despite the election’s high cost, this proposal is quite modest.  We need real Charter reform so our citizens will become empowered partners in addressing the city’s problems.
• Our Charter needs wholesale change, not modest “fine tuning.” A NO vote will send a needed message: we need more than a few extra powers for the Mayor; we need real Charter reform.
• There is no urgency for this Charter change. Why not place it on a primary election ballot likely to attract a large number of voters rather than at an election that will bring a very low voter turnout?

Presently, the Mayor is empowered to veto actions taken by the City Council. The City Council may then override the Mayor's veto with a vote of five of its members for ordinances and resolutions, six of its members for the City's budget ordinance, and two-thirds of its members present for minute orders. The proposed amendment would modify this procedure to strengthen the Mayor's veto authority by permitting the City Council to override the Mayor's veto with a vote of two-thirds of its members for ordinances and resolutions, and two-thirds of its members present for minute orders.

Presently, the Mayor is only empowered to veto the City Council's approval of the annual budget in its entirety. The proposed amendment would increase the time periods within which the Mayor and City Council may consider the budget, and would permit the Mayor to reduce or eliminate any specific expenditure in the budget approved by the City Council (a "line item veto"). The City Council may then override this veto and restore the expenditure with a vote of two-thirds of its members.

Presently, the City Council is empowered to appoint and to remove the City Manager with a vote of five of its members. The proposed amendment would permit the Mayor to veto this appointment or removal, subject to an override by the City Council by a vote of two-thirds of its members.

Presently, the City Manager is empowered to appoint the Assistant City Manager, subject to confirmation of the City Council. The proposed amendment would permit the Mayor to veto the City Council's approval of this appointment, subject to an override by the City Council by a vote of two-thirds of its members.

Presently, the City Council is empowered to appoint and to remove the City Clerk with a vote of five of its members. The proposed amendment would permit the Mayor to veto this appointment or removal, subject to an override by the City Council by a vote of two-thirds of its members.

Presently, the City Council is empowered to remove a member of a Charter-mandated commission only in the case of incompetence, malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The proposed amendment would permit the Mayor to remove a member of a Charter-mandated commission at any time, upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the City Council.

City of Long Beach

City Profile

date: Saturday, April 21
time: 10 am - 12 noon
place: Los Altos Library, 5614 Britton Dr
plus: short presentation on the city Budget for fiscal 2008 by David Wodynski, Bureau Manager, Budget and Performance Management Bureau
more info: LWV Long Beach Area

Google News Search

• YES ON A gives the Mayor an effective veto, requiring two-thirds vote of the City Council to override (6 out of 9), not just the simple majority (5 out of 9) that voted for the measure in the first place.
• YES ON A allows citizens and elected officials more time to independently analyze the City’s Budget. This will bring transparency to the budget process and find potential cost savings.
• YES ON A will rein in out of control spending by providing the Mayor with a line-item veto on budget items, subject to override by two-thirds of the City Council.
• YES ON A makes commissions more responsive to the needs of our community by allowing the Mayor with agreement from a two-thirds majority of the Council to replace members of Charter-mandated commissions.
• YES ON A requires the City Council and Mayor to collaborate on personnel decisions for key City staff positions.

We respectfully request YES on A.

Senator Alan Lowenthal
Former Mayor Beverly O’Neill
Former Mayor Tom Clark
Former City Attorney John Calhoun
Former Councilmember Doug Drummond

So why this election? The city council gave no rationale.

But a low turnout election, with few independent-minded voters, will ease passage of the Council’s insider-deal propositions that politicians and their appointees can happily endorse to oblige their colleagues.

Prop. A makes commissioners even more beholden to the few who appoint them. Props. B and C loosens Council term limits and allows a fig-leaf commission to boost Council salaries. Prop. H pretends to ‘update’ the city’s oil tax and help public safety, while quietly keeping Long Beach an oil producers’ tax haven. The other propositions, minor in effect, just add number and topical variety, as if thereby to justify holding an election.

A No on Prop A (and the others) will send several needed big messages. We need to address our real problems - like getting police on our streets now - and real charter reform, not waste of a million dollars and voter inconvenience in order to rubber-stamp power-grabs or minor changes.

JOE WEINSTEIN
Mathematical and Statistical Analyst

For all the expense, Council’s proposals are very modest: cosmetic or else politicians’ petty power grabs or transfers. But our politicians present these propositions as impressive evidence that they are working expertly and importantly to fine-tune an already fine city charter.

The charter is actually a disaster and needs not fine-tuning but wholesale change. Its concept and structure for municipal governance are archaic and anti-democratic, suited not to a large 21-st century city, but to a 19-th century village or a closely-held corporation run by a few robber barons. Between election days, out of 350,000 adult Long Beach citizens, only a few dozen officials (elected politicians and appointed commissioners) have any power to decide anything. We ordinary citizens - in our home town - have none. We cannot even readily agendize matters for the Council to consider. We are treated less as citizens than as cash-cow customers of city enterprises.

Prop. A gives a few extra powers to the Mayor. You may like its small changes, but a No on Prop A (and the others) will send some needed big messages:

We are citizens, not cash-cows. The city shouldn’t be spending a million dollars to rubber-stamp minor power-grabs and paper shuffles. We need many more police on the streets now, not just maybe next year. We need real charter reform, so that we citizens become empowered partners in addressing the city’s deep problems.

JOE WEINSTEIN