Seattle Press on Line - Reform City Council Presidential Selection Process

Guest Editorial

Reform City Council Presidential Selection Process

By Curt Firestone

Jan 03, 2002 -- It is January and we are getting a new president. No, not of the USA, but of our Seattle City Council. Once again the city's second most powerful position was filled not by a vote of the people, but by a closed-door political shoot-out. I think that the time has come to ELECT the city council president.
Currently, Seattle uses a secret, deal cutting, politics-at-its-worst process to choose its council president. The person selected must secure private commitments from four other councilmembers. The results are then announced to the public and the new president takes office in January for a two-year term. The public never knows who supported whom and what political trades were made in order secure the presidency.

In December, Jim Compton and Richard Conlin both were eager to be the new president, but neither of them could muster the support of four other council members. We can speculate that the conservative wing of the council was advocating Compton. Conlin, a master of middle of the road politics, apparently could not find the right mix of political support. No public mention has been made of Margaret Pageler possibly continuing as president for another two years. However, this is all speculation because the whole process is cloaked in secrecy.

The winner of the new presidency contest turned out to be Peter Steinbrueck. As council president, he will appoint the chair and members of the council committees and be responsible for the ebb and flow of council legislative business. He also gets to appoint citizens to various advisory committees and commissions. The public will hold him responsible for the council's success or failure. And, if Mayor Nickels is incapacitated, Steinbrueck will become the acting mayor.

There must be a better way to mete out such power. And there is: the citizens can democratically elect the city council president. This powerful position should be answerable to the people instead of being accountable to back door deal-makers. All that it would take to put the voters in charge would be a simple change in our method of electing the city council.

Each time Seattle elects its new city council members, the individual with the most votes would become the council president. Seattle could continue to elect half of the council every two years for four-year terms. All candidates for city council would simply run for office against each other. The only necessary change would be the elimination of the current artificially numbered council positions. The numbered positions are completely arbitrary. Responsibility or geographic district does not define them. The elimination of the council numbered position system would simplify our electoral system.

This simplified election process would maintain the current city-wide, at-large city council election process. At the same time, the voters would be choosing the council president. A step forward for democracy.

San Francisco successfully used this system until switching to election by district. District elections are subject for another discussion.

In the 2003 election, if we used this new system, we could elect or re-elect all five new members of the City Council and the new City Council President at the same time. And the voters would not have to figure out who is running against whom for what position. There would be no more phony positions. Just one contest for City Council membership and Presidency. Enough of these back room deals without the public knowing who gets what.

Come on you government reformers, let’s get democratic.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!