Final Exam- Victoria Luna PDF

Preview

Summary

Final exam regarding policy making and term limits in San Antonio. This paper highlights the change of city government by implementing term limits which ended city manager Sheryl Sculley's career....

Description

Victoria Luna PAD 5573 Final Exam Term Limits in San Antonio

1

INTRODUCTION In taking the policy in San Antonio course, it became apparent that San Antonio is a city that continues to repeat the same cycles of behavior. The political behavior of the city is like a pendulum and it is not always representative of the community’s wants or needs but that of those that are in power. It has always been an unwritten rule that the political system in San Antonio is never run by outsiders. The “Good Government League” ran the city throughout the sixties, led by Walter McAllister and a group of white businessmen. They owned the city and its votes. The political environment in San Antonio remains to be very intimate and is reflective of those with the most influence. In this paper, I will discuss the history of San Antonio’s government in regards to shifting from the city mayor to the city manager model; history of term limits and how they have affected the city and I will focus on the most recent November 2018 City election which enacted term limits on the city manager, ending the reign of long term City Manager Sheryl Sculley. HISTORY OF SAN ANTONIO CITY GOVERNMENT There are three types of city governments that the state of Texas has represented; the mayor council form, commissioner form and the city manager form. San Antonio has operated under all three. Whatever the city government model that San Antonio has followed; the city has always been a “political machine” meaning that there have always been special interests that were served under each form of government. In a San Antonio Express News article written by Richard Gambitta, former UTSA Political Science and Geography chairman, Mr. Gambitta outlined each type of government, “In the “strong” mayor-council variant, the mayor possesses full executive power with the authority to hire and fire department heads, prepare the budget directing spending, exercise a veto, and bring matters of concern to the council. The council 2

performs the legislative function and approves the budget and some board appointments.” San Antonio operated under this type of government from 1836-1915. “Under the commissioner form, a city elects five to seven commissioners at-large, and each performs a functionally specific role, heading either a department of public works, or safety, or finance, as well as legislating city policy.” The commission form remained in governance from 1915-151 before transitioning to the city manager form. “The third variety is the council-manager form of government under which San Antonio operates today. The citizenry elects a city council, ours by 10 districts, plus a mayor citywide. The mayor may possess a broader pulpit, but no actual executive functions.” San Antonio switched from a mayor council structure to a commissioner from as a result of dissatisfaction with former Mayor Callaghan and his failures in public health improvements. In this type of commissioner government, the city council was replaced by small city commission typically on the order of 4-5 people. Commission members were responsible for both legislative and executive functions. The business of the city would be the responsibility of the commissioners who each had control of a city department or function. The commission would be elected on a nonpartisan ballet and all the candidates run at large meaning they run city wide. Although there was still a mayor, the mayor would now be a member of the city commission. The commissioner form of government lasted in popularity until the middle of 1920s because they began to see problems in the commission practice. The city switched to the city manager system and began to appoint a professional city manager. Most city managers were civil engineers because it involved public infrastructure and business. You now had a mayor and city council. The mayor would be a presiding member of city council. When people think about mayors, they think about a mayor at large who is the municipal chief executive. Our mayors are elected for two-year terms on a non-partisan ballot. The mayor is not the municipal chief

3

executive. He has no executive authority or function. The mayor gets to vote on things amongst 1 of 11 votes on the city council. He has remarkably little formal authority while the city manager has the authority. The city manager controls the budget and has the authority to sign for federal grants and acts as chief executive. In the 1951 charter that enacted the city manager structure, the city mayor position was seen as a part time job. Mayors previously had to be supported independently. San Antonio was relatively late in adopting this system (city manager plan). When we adopted this charter, council elections were structured as at large using a place system. It was only relatively recently (1977) that we adopted the 10-1 plan that provided for 10 council districts and 1 citywide elected mayor. You do not get rid of politics by getting a city manager. The politics just change. It is important to understand the nature of local politics because it has historically been the case that people have sought to change the way government works, who is in power and who benefits by changing the structure. The effort to adopt the commission plan was very much directed by a combination by local real estate and development interests. They saw that the city was unresponsive to new, growing, suburban neighborhoods. They wanted to get rid of machine politics. Although the city had gone through these cycles of structural change, San Antonio remained a machine. Machine politics are a form of politics in which a political party organization of some sort distributes money, jobs, services, advantages, etc. in exchange for votes. You do not vote for someone because they are the best candidates. You vote for them because they will get something in return. Though there have been many changes to the way that San Antonio did business, it did not destroy the political machine. The Good Government League totally controlled city council. They picked city manager and the candidates who ran. City commissioners made deals with other city commissioners, etc. Historically, the machine remained and evolved with time. The GGL was able to structure the way that San Antonio would

4

develop with its domination directed at serving the interests of business leadership and developing the city in a particular kind of way. The GGL controlled all policy direction in the city and it wasn’t until the end of their dominance that the city called for a Hispanic Mayor, introducing us to Henry Cisneros. Mr. Gambitta notes in his 3-part series of San Antonio government that “if you can’t beat him, change the game- and the structure of government.” This is a theme that has continued to resonate throughout the history of San Antonio and is still very relevant in today’s political environment. Although the city manager structure has remained in place since 1951, there have still been many shifts surrounding term limits and city council control. TERM LIMITS IN SAN ANTONIO Per Section 5 of the City Charter, the Term of Office for all Members of the City Council elected at a General Election is two (2) years. Effective December 1, 2008, no person shall be eligible to hold any elected office for more than four (4) full Terms of Office. Prior to this date, Officeholders were limited to two (2) full terms of office. These term limits came after the push from former City Mayor Phil Hardberger. Previous to this, Mayor Ed Garza had attempted to lengthen the term limits and failed. Mayor Garza had created a bad reputation within the city because he was not as progressive as the city would have wanted. Could his failure be attributed to the fact that he had a bad reputation and the voters believed that this approving one of his ideas would lead to further disappointment? The debate of term limits have risen the question of possibly being stuck with someone who is not competent for the duration of their term or having someone who is effective in their role and disrupting their continuity. Which works better for the city and why are we always changing the way that the system works? Do term limits really limit good government? Why did San Antonio have some of the strictest term limits? Could it be 5

because of machine politics? We have learned that the incumbency in San Antonio is strong, (i.e. Nelson Wolff), so it is interesting to see how the term limits have affected San Antonio. Before the city term limit was relaxed, former City Council man Kevin Wolff stated, “The reality is that for most folks, you spend your first year trying to figure out who's on first and your second year doing something,” he said. “Then your next term, you're a lame duck.” As previously mentioned, dissatisfaction leads to change. The mayor and city council was subject to revision to their term limits in the form of more years served but there had never been a term limit placed on the city manager. CITY MANAGER Before City Manager Sheryl Sculley came into her administration, the city managers remained in their roles for an average of 1-3 years with the exception of Alex Briseno who served for 11 years. Sculley was in office for 13 years and was highly recognized for her role in making the city government more efficient, saving the city money, earning the city a AAA Bond Rating and improving the infrastructure. However, some people were highly dissatisfied with her compensation and wanted a change. Most notably, Councilman Greg Brockhouse spoke out in favor of Sculley’s resignation stating that he felt that the city needed new leadership and a stronger mayor and city council. Sculley’s resignation and the end of her career as the city manager came to a close in 2018 after a charter amendment which was created by the fire union was approved. The charter would limit the city manager term and compensation. It is reported that Sculley was making approximately 475,000 a year with a bonus to be approved by city council which was another approximate 100,000. The new limits would be 8 years and an approximate 300,000 in annual salary which was 10 times the salary of the lowest paid employee in the city. Was this fair given that Sculley had brought good results to the city and she was 6

responsible for overseeing the 2.8-billion-dollar city budget and some 12,000 employees? The city had been functioning under a city manager structure that did not have any term limits or cap on the compensation for years before this. Ultimately, it was the dissatisfaction of the fire union who had it out for her. Again, if you can’t beat the man, you change the system of government. Sculley and the fire union were at odds over the Evergreen Clause imposed on the fire union. The Evergreen clause was a legal strategy that Sculley believed would get the city out of a costly labor contract. The benefits and pay of the fire union employees were placed on hold while they were in negotiations but the two parties could not come to an agreement. The Evergreen clause remained was a source of resentment towards Sculley and is what led to the fire union petitioning to change the city manager structure. The fire union was upset that Sculley was trying to save money but was still being compensated generously. They did not believe this to be true to they began to have the charter amendments which were to be voted on by the citizens of San Antonio. CHARTER AMENDMENTS The Charter Amendment Propositions are as follows: CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PROPOSITION A Shall the City Charter be amended to expand the types of ordinances that may be subject to referendum including appropriation of money, levying a tax, granting a franchise, fixing public utility rates, zoning and rezoning of property; increase the number of days within which a petition may be filed seeking a referendum on an ordinance passed by council from forty to one hundred eighty days after passage of the ordinance; and to provide that no more than twenty thousand signatures of registered voters are required for a referendum petition instead of ten percent of those electors qualified to vote at the last regular municipal election?

7

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PROPOSITION B Shall the City Charter be amended to limit the term the City Manager may serve to no longer than eight years, limit the compensation of the City Manager to no more than ten times the annual salary furnished to the lowest paid full-time city employee, and to require a supermajority vote to appoint the City Manager? CITY OF SAN ANTONIO PROPOSITION C Shall the City Charter be amended to provide the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 624 with unilateral authority to require the City to participate in binding arbitration of all issues in dispute with the Association within forty-five days of the City’s receipt of the Association’s written arbitration request? If Proposition A is approved Proposition A: Expanding the Referendum Process. This measure would: 

Expand the City Council actions subject to referendum to include appropriating money, levying taxes, setting public utility rates, and zoning or rezoning property (all areas currently excluded by Charter);



Decrease the number of signatures needed from 10 percent of qualified voters in the last municipal election (approximately 70,000 signatures) to 20,000 signatures; and



Lengthen the timeframe for obtaining the needed signatures from 40 days to 180 days.

This measure subjects fiscal actions, such as tax rates, utility rates and bond issues, to the referendum process limiting the ability of the City Council to consider and implement policy and to manage the budget. The uncertainty created by potential changes to revenues and expenditures 8

would certainly negatively impact the City’s ‘AAA’ bond rating. The amendment creates uncertainty resulting in cost to the City of San Antonio between $382.3 million and $4.2 billion over the next twenty years. In addition, it would create uncertainty in the area of economic development because companies looking to relocate to San Antonio and expand their operations through the use of economic development incentives may want not to face the potential uncertainty of referendums and will decide to go to another city. Based on the average size of the corporate relocation or expansion in San Antonio, this could result in a loss of 202 jobs per project. If Proposition B is approved Proposition B: Term Limits and Salary Cap for City Manager. This measure requires a supermajority vote (8 votes out of 11) to select the City Manager, limits the City Manager’s term to 8 years and limits pay to 10 times the amount of the lowest paid City employee. Currently, the City Charter gives City Council the power to determine compensation on the basis of his/her executive and administrative qualifications. The City Manager is hired by and serves at the pleasure of the City Council. Arbitrarily limiting tenure and salary restricts the ability of the City Council to recruit and retain the best talent for the position. This measure could limit the City's ability to attract the top-level talent necessary to efficiently and effectively run a city of this size. This may lead to a reduction in the quality and quantity of public services that, combined with the uncertainty created by the other two amendments, could slow economic growth. For example, firms looking to relocate to San Antonio or expand their operations within the city may decide not to do so out of concern that the infrastructure, quality of life and other

9

public services may not meet their needs. This measure would not impact the current contract of the City Manager. If Proposition C is approved Proposition C: Binding Arbitration. This measure allows the firefighters union to unilaterally declare impasse at any time and force binding arbitration on the City in labor contract negotiations. Currently, the Fire contract follows state law on impasse processes requiring action by both parties to negotiate in good faith first. The current process allows for a mediation option before binding arbitration by mutual agreement. Under the proposed measure, the Union could call for binding arbitration before participating in any good faith labor negotiations with the City which could have substantial negative impacts on the City’s budget. While the City Council always considers collective bargaining agreements within the context of overall budget planning and priorities, this amendment would vest a third-party arbitrator with authority to impose contract terms notwithstanding budget consideration. The arbitrator is not accountable for long term budget ramifications. Public safety already consumes about two-thirds of the budget of the City of San Antonio, and going to binding arbitration has the potential to increase this cost substantially. This will force the City of San Antonio to find other revenue sources and/or reduce public services. The layout of the charter amendments was subject to lots of criticism as many felt that it was bias and written in a way to encourage the community to vote NO on all amendments. There were many rallies in which the community and city council members, even Mayor Ron Neirenberg himself encouraged the community to vote NO. Some argues that the propositions should all be

10

approved because it was only fair to negotiate things in a timely manner, there should be salary caps and term limits and that our city government should be open and honest in the way that it did business. On the other end, some believed that the propositions were written to give the fire union unilateral power to declare impasse any time that they did not get their way. This policy issue became very political and was subject to much criticism around the city because the Fire Chief himself had been in office for more than 10 years as well. This entire political debate came as a result of the fire union constantly being at odds with Sculley. Ultimately, two of the propositions (B and C) were approved and left San Antonio wondering how these new changes would affect how things would continue. Although Sculley was not subject to the term limits, she ended up resigning. Proposition B carried lots of weight in regard to public policy because not only would it now place a term limit and cap the salary, a supermajority would have to elect the city manager. Sculley was recruited by Mayor Hardberger and given her years of experience, was offered a competitive salary which was extended 5 times when her contract was renewed. San Antonio now has a new city manager that was selected but could this be the same trend in which we attempt to keep outsiders out by placing a supermajority decision in effect? Could it mean that we would no longer attract high qualifying city managers because of the salary cap? And, does limiting the term of service limit the projects that they city managers are willing to dedicate themselves to? CONCLUSION San Antonio’s government has historically shifted every time something was no longer working. Although this seems like it is logical, it has often been that the system was not working for someone in particular. San Antonio is a political machine that serves the special interests of those who are elite in the city. The elite are comprised of those with heavy political influence and 11

monetary influence. San Antonio switched to the city manager model very late in the game compared to other Texas cities and seemed to have recruited great talent with Sheryl Sculley who was in office for 13 years. Sculley brought upon many positive changes to San Antonio but was criticized for her compensation and dispute with the fire union. San Antonio showed that history always seems to repeat itself in that if people are not happy, they will have you replaced. The city proved that they would not approve an extension of term limits with city council until someone with more influence was voted into office (Phil Hardberger). I feel that the charter amendments and the situation with Sculley were pivotal because it is a modern ...