Taking turns at being mayor

Finally, the Agoura Hills City Council has decided to appoint its mayor on a simple rotating basis, not according to which council member happened to be the top vote-getter in a previous election.

The decision in last week’s city council meeting to change the way the city selects its mayor is about 20 years overdue.

But if the new process sounds anti-democratic, hold on.

In the past, the city council would give the mayor’s job to the member in line who received the highest vote count when he or she was last elected. But the process always favored the incumbents, those who seemed to garner the most votes. It made newcomers wait an inordinate amount of time before finally serving as the city’s top official. Some council members got to be mayor twice before others even served their first term. Critics charged that the process could be used for political gain when a mayor served in the same year that he or she faced reelection.

Defenders of the old way argued that the top vote-getters should be rewarded for their popularity by receiving a pass to the front of the line in the mayoral rotation. But if the city wants to have its leader decided by a vote, then it needs to make mayor an elected position similar to cities such as Simi Valley where the mayor is elected at-large every two years. Moorpark and the city of Los Angeles have an elected mayor as well.

In Agoura Hills, where the mayor is chosen among the current council members, we agree with the new policy that requires the position to rotate evenly.

The office of mayor is important in Agoura Hills, but largely ceremonial. If the city thinks the mayor should play a more prominent role—and be given the job as a reward for their popularity—then put the office up for election. In the meantime, do it the fair way and give everybody on the city council an equal shot.

Editorials RSS feed