14 hours ago
Santa Fe city councilors want say if mayor decides to fire three key city officials
Santa Fe voters in November could see a proposed city charter amendment on their ballots requiring the City Council's consent before the mayor can remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk.
Currently, the city charter requires the mayor to get the council's consent when appointing people to the three positions but not when removing people. Councilors Pilar Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Amanda Chavez presented a resolution Wednesday to the council to change this.
The resolution comes as election season is in full swing in Santa Fe, with seven mayoral candidates vying to replace Mayor Alan Webber, who is not running for reelection.
Faulkner and Garcia said the resolution was not prompted by concerns about any candidate for mayor, but rather the councilors' broader concerns about checks and balances in Santa Fe's governing body, which has a full-time "strong" mayor.
"If you have a powerful mayor and a weak council, you don't really have a safe or effective or responsible way of managing the city," Faulkner said.
Faulkner said the city manager, city clerk and city attorney work for both the council and the mayor. Therefore, she said both the council and the mayor should have the ability to fire, or say no to the firing of, people in those positions.
"If you don't have that balance, then there's the potential for the mayor to be the de facto city attorney, city clerk and city manager because the mayor holds those individuals' positions and is the only one that holds those positions in a place of authority," Faulkner said.
In Santa Fe, the city manager is the highest-paid position. City Manager Mark Scott makes $225,000 annually, The New Mexican reported in February.
"They are charged with a lot of responsibility, and I think the governing body needs to be able to be involved with those decisions," Garcia said.
In creating the resolution, Faulkner was also thinking about its long-term implications.
"You can say that an individual who is a mayor is a good person, and they will not abuse the power, but we don't know if every mayor we're going to get would be a good leader and not abuse the power," she said.
If the council votes to pass the resolution, and if voters approve it, it will take effect Jan. 1, Garcia said.
The new mayor would then have to get council approval before removing a city manager, city attorney or city clerk.
Mayoral candidate and former Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler said she believes the mayor should have the authority to appoint and remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk without council approval.
"If a City Council wants to be involved in that, you can't have several masters," Vigil Coppler said. "The city manager reports to the mayor, period."
Councilor Michael Garcia said he is 'on the fence' about the proposed charter amendment. Though running for mayor, he said he is approaching the legislation from the perspective of a government administrator.
Michael Garcia said he would consider supporting the resolution if it was amended to make an exception for when a new mayor first takes office. As it is currently written, Garcia said the legislation does not allow an incoming mayor to choose his or her own leadership team, something he does not think is appropriate.
'It could really handcuff an administration' to appointees who may not support the new leader's agenda, Garcia said.
Faulkner said she disagrees with such an amendment.
"It's not the mayor's team; it's the city's team," Faulkner said.
The deadline for the council to adopt ordinances or resolutions that establish a ballot question is Aug. 26. Lee Garcia and Faulkner plan to propose two other charter amendments, they said.
Michael Garcia said he has been considering introducing a charter amendment requiring the mayor to submit the fiscal year budget proposal to the council by Feb. 1 to allow more time to discuss it and make revisions, but the legislation may work better as an ordinance.
Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Chavez's resolution will go to the Public Works and Utilities, Quality of Life and Finance committees before returning to the council for a vote July 9.
"To me, it's like a security dilemma," Faulkner said. "When both parties are equally vulnerable and equally armed, there's less of a chance of conflict happening because everyone knows there's a balance of power."
Staff writer Carina Julig contributed to this report.
