Should Santa Fe roll back 'strong mayor' powers? Voters will get some say
The 'hybrid' form of municipal government voters OK'd in 2014 — in which the mayor is the presiding officer on the governing body, as well as the city's top executive — has drawn some criticism from members of the community and city councilors alike, who contend it is a flawed system because it shifts the balance of power too heavily in the mayor's favor. Previously, the mayor had a part-time job and could cast a vote on the City Council only to break a tie.
Is it time to walk back some of those mayoral powers?
Proposed ballot questions would let voters decide in November.
'I don't think any of us believe the current power structure is working,' District 4 City Councilor Jamie Cassutt told fellow councilors on the Quality of Life Committee during a meeting Wednesday.
But the council so far has split on which potential changes to the city charter would be the right fix for the system, including whether to roll back the mayor's authority when it comes to hiring and firing three key members of the administration: the city manager, city clerk and city attorney.
The issue has emerged two years after the city convened a Charter Review Commission to review the charter and propose changes, a process required every 10 years. The City Council approved two ballot questions at a special meeting in August 2023 out of eight proposed by the commission after what many called a rushed process.
One proposal that would have limited the mayor to voting on a measure only in the event of a tie was postponed at the commission's request because the panel had run out of time to consider the matter, according to District 2 Councilor Michael Garcia, who sponsored the resolution.
Webber said at the time any process for revisiting the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of city government should come as part of a more comprehensive process.
'We really ought to do that comprehensively, and we ought to take it in real careful ways to assess whether the current structure and assignment of responsibilities and roles works or ... if it could be made to work even better,' he said at the special meeting.
The series of ballot questions voters approved in 2014, dramatically altering the mayor's role, came with a warning from one member of the Charter Review Commission that had convened a year earlier. Steven Farber wrote in a 'minority report' in July 2013: 'This deeply flawed proposal radically restructures City of Santa Fe government. It is no exaggeration to state that the potential for an autocrat, an autocratic form of government, and political patronage are made possible through the proposed consolidation of such enormous power in the office of the mayor.'
Farber called the proposal 'complex, convoluted and controversial,' and warned it would leave the roles of the mayor and the city manager 'completely ambiguous and confusing,' The New Mexican reported.
Hiring, firing authority
Discussions on the proposed ballot questions have been lengthy at recent meetings, with councilors appearing divided on how much power the sitting mayor should have and whether the proposed amendments would serve as an effective check on the current balance of power.
Late last month, the City Council voted 5-4 to reject a motion to put a question on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters whether the mayor should need the council's consent to fire the city manager, city clerk or city attorney — except within the first 180 days of a new mayor's term.
By a 6-3 vote at the same meeting, councilors approved a ballot question asking voters to approve a change allowing six councilors — a supermajority — to suspend or remove the city clerk, city attorney or city manager. The final proposal was amended from the initial legislation, which would have required only a simple majority of five councilors to vote for the move.
Both measures were sponsored by District 3 Councilors Pilar Faulkner and Lee Garcia and District 4 Councilor Amanda Chavez.
Under the current city charter, a simple majority of councilors can vote to fire or suspend the city manager, though, there has not yet been much appetite to make such a move.
A proposal in 2023 to suspend former City Manager John Blair for three days was favored by only three councilors: Michael Garcia, Lee Garcia and then-District 3 Councilor Chris Rivera. The sanction was proposed after Blair had withheld a state letter from councilors alerting the city it could not access state legislative capital outlay for infrastructure projects until it had submitted past due financial audits.
Limiting mayor's vote
Another proposed ballot question, sponsored by Faulkner, District 1 Councilor Alma Castro and Michael Garcia, was introduced at the council's July 30 meeting. Like the halted resolution in 2023, it would limit the mayor to voting on legislation only to break a tie of the eight-member council. It is scheduled for a final vote at Wednesday's City Council meeting.
At committee meetings last week, Cassutt and the outgoing District 2 Councilor, Carol Romero-Wirth — who had served on the Charter Review Commission that successfully proposed the full-time hybrid role for the mayor in 2013 — voted against the charter change giving the mayor only a tie-breaking vote.
They argued it would reduce transparency.
If the mayor doesn't vote on controversial issues, he or she could 'be everything to everyone,' Cassutt said.
Michael Garcia said he doesn't see that as a concern.
'The president doesn't vote; the governor doesn't vote,' he said, noting the people in those positions have plenty of ways to make their views known. 'It's just an argument I see major flaws to.'
Castro said she views the legislation as part of an ongoing process of making the city's governance structure 'less political' and noted if the proposal makes it to the ballot, the final decision will be up to the voters.
'If folks feel that the way the structure is working currently [is effective], they are welcome to vote against this ballot measure,' she said.
Correction: This story has been amended to reflect the following correction: An earlier version included the wrong district numbers for a current councilor and former councilor. Former Councilor Chris Rivera represented District 3, while outgoing Councilor Carol Romero-Wirth represents District 2. The error was made in editing.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
After D.C., Trump says he might use the National Guard to ‘take back' other cities. Can he actually do that?
When President Trump announced his plan Monday to send 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to crack down on what he described as 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor' in the nation's capital, he also issued a warning to other cities around the country. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump said. "And then we'll look at other cities also.' But can Trump actually send federal forces elsewhere? And what cities might he target? Here's everything you need to know about the president's warning. What did Trump say about sending the National Guard into other cities? During his news conference on Monday, Trump singled out Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore and Oakland, Calif. as 'other cities also that are bad, very bad.' 'They're so far gone,' he continued. 'We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C. and we're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly, as they say.' Beyond that, the president didn't elaborate on his plans. But he did issue what amounted to an ultimatum: 'self-clean up' or else. 'Other cities are hopefully watching this,' Trump said. 'Maybe they'll self-clean up, and maybe they'll self-do this.' But 'if they don't learn their lesson, if they haven't studied us properly,' he continued, 'then I'm going to look at New York in a little while. … And if we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster.' Later Monday, Trump issued an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to coordinate with state governors and "authorize the orders of any additional members of the National Guard to active service, as he deems necessary and appropriate, to augment this mission." What does the law say about Trump's plans? Trump's actions in Washington, D.C., are legal. As you may remember from elementary school, D.C. isn't a state. It isn't part of any other state either. It doesn't have a constitution of its own. Instead, D.C. is what's known as a 'federal district,' and it's been mostly under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress since its founding in 1791. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, which allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor and council members. But the law doesn't give D.C. complete autonomy. Even now Congress controls its budget. Congress also has the power to review and block local legislation. The president, meanwhile, still appoints D.C.'s judges — and he still leads its National Guard. He can also take control of the District's police force by invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which is precisely what he did Monday. But Trump doesn't have the same powers across the rest of the country. Under current law, governors are in charge of each state's National Guard and the police are largely controlled locally. Trump has already challenged some of these rules. Over the objections of state and local officials, he deployed nearly 5,000 National Guard members and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June after a new round of ICE workplace raids sparked protests marred by sporadic violence. California Gov. Gavin Newsom swiftly sued the administration to end the mobilization, claiming that Trump was violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the president from deploying the armed forces to participate in domestic law enforcement operations unless he declares that an insurrection is underway. A federal judge agreed with Newsom, but an appeals court blocked that ruling. Now Trump and Newsom are facing off in a three-day trial that began on Monday in San Francisco to determine whether Trump has the authority to do what he did in L.A. in other cities such as Chicago and New York. A verdict is expected Wednesday. What does Trump hope to accomplish by mentioning other cities? Whether the president sends federal forces into other cities remains to be seen; much depends on the outcome of the current trial in California (and any subsequent appeals). In the meantime, Trump was clear on Monday: He wants to pressure Democratic-run cities to change certain policies he disagrees with. One policy he mentioned was cashless bail, which eliminates the requirement for defendants to pay money to be released from jail before their trial. Supporters say the policy addresses disparities in the justice system, where those who can afford bail are released while those who cannot remain incarcerated; critics (like Trump) say that it puts the public at risk by releasing potentially dangerous individuals back into the community. Maybe other cities will 'get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,' Trump said Monday. 'I mean, if you go back, this whole thing with cashless bail is a disaster. So many problems came that we never had before.' Have local officials pushed back? Yes. As Yahoo News reported Monday, 'the president's description of crime in Washington, D.C., is not reflected in official statistics, which show that the city had its lowest violent crime rate in over 30 years in 2024. The rates of homicide, sexual abuse, assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery all fell by at least 25% compared to 2023, according to statistics from the U.S. attorney's office for the district.' On Sunday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, cited similar statistics to claim that Trump is prioritizing politics over policy. 'If the priority is to show force in an American city, we know he can do that here,' Bowser told MSNBC. 'But it won't be because there's a spike in crime.' Officials elsewhere have repeated that message. On Monday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors responded to Trump's actions and statements by touting a "nationwide success story" of plummeting crime rates. An FBI report released Aug. 5 found that between 2023 and 2024, violent crime nationwide dropped by 4.5%, with murder and non-negligent manslaughter falling by nearly 15%. "Ultimately, the best public safety outcomes are delivered by local police departments and local officials, who know the communities," Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, president of the mayors' conference, said in a statement. "America's mayors never see takeovers by other levels of government as a tactic that has any track record of producing results."
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
DC Residents Are Saying The Same Thing About This Clip Of DEA Officers Patrolling The National Mall
On Monday, Donald Trump announced he would be taking over the Washington DC police department and deploying National Guard troops there. One day before that, on Sunday, DC news anchor Lorenzo Hall took this video of DEA police officers patrolling the National Mall: LorenzoHall/Twitter: @LorenzoHall Related: There were a bunch of *viral* responses to the clip. DC political analyst and journalist Tom Sherwood called it "Basically [a] meaningless stroll." Related: @johnmconnollyjr said, "I've lived in DC for 10 years. The only crime I've ever seen on the National Mall was when a mob ransacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021 at the direction of the man who lost the 2020 presidential election." And Aaron Fritschner the Deputy Chief of Staff for Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, pointed out, "The Metropolitan Police Department tracks and publishes the location of all crimes committed in the DC; the map grid section where this video was shot on the National Mall near the Lincoln Memorial has recorded zero (0) crimes so far in 2025: Related: The responses get pretty funny from there: One person said, "6 guys in full uniform on a stretch of the mall where the biggest threat is the mama ducks defending their ducklings from my dog." Another person joked, "You know what screams 'high crime area'? White women jogging." Related: And this person said, "This is cosplay. this is drag. this is banned from entering Florida public schools." Basically, everyone is like: "If you know DC you understand how tremendously goofy this is." Also in BuzzFeed: Also in BuzzFeed: Also in BuzzFeed:
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Price Trumps 'Made In USA' Labels As Tariffs Affect Consumer Choice
Key Takeaways A new survey showed that consumers are less likely to emphasize where a product is made. U.S. consumers are 18% less likely to prioritize buying American-made products than they were three years ago. Consumer loyalty to products made in other countries also declined. The survey showed that price-conscious consumers are more likely to look for value than focus on where the product is made.'Made in the U.S.A.' labels may appeal less to consumers as rising tariff costs are changing people's attitudes about where products are made. A new study by The Conference Board found consumers are now less likely to purchase a product based on where it's made, even if it's in the U.S. The June survey of 3,000 U.S. adults found that 50% said they were more likely to buy American-made products, down from 60% in a similar survey from 2022. It's not just American-made products, either. Consumer loyalty was lower for products made in every country included in the survey. The sentiment shift comes as President Donald Trump instituted a series of tariffs that he said would help boost American manufacturing, potentially enabling businesses to offer more products made domestically. However, price-conscious buyers are more focused on a product's price than where it's made, the report found. 'As price concerns intensify, many U.S. consumers appear to associate 'made in' labels with elevated prices due to generally higher domestic production costs as well as tariffs on foreign-made goods,' said Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at The Conference Board. 'Increasingly, consumers prioritize value and affordability over emotional affinity for certain countries, including their own.' Support for American-Made Products Drops for Older Buyers Support for American-made products dropped across almost every age group and demographic category, with those younger than 35 being the only group more likely to buy American-made products than they were three years ago. Notably, customers older than 55 were among the most likely to lose support for buying products with the 'Made in the U.S.A.' label, dropping 22 percentage points from three years ago. American-made products were most popular with middle-income consumers; those making between $50,000 and $125,000 a year were most likely to purchase domestically produced goods. Read the original article on Investopedia Sign in to access your portfolio
