HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2026 SM_Item 1_Plunk, Ronald and PaulaFrom:Ronald Plunk
To:PublicComments
Subject:Public Comment for Special Meeting 2 February, 2026
Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 3:31:26 PM
Caution - This email originated from outside the City - Verify that the Email display name and Email address are consistent. - Use caution when opening attachments.
Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Manager,
I am concerned about the Special Meeting to be held on Monday, 2 February, and the agenda that was
posted.
First, why the secrecy? Why weren't ALL the Councilmembers and / or Mayor consulted before this was
voted on?
Next, being why the fast-tracking? Here are the filing dates... and it appears we are past the important ones:
Last day for legislative measures to qualify to appear on the ballot January 22, 2026
Voter Information Guide: Proposition Argument Submission Deadline February 3, 2026
Voter Information Guide: Proposition Argument Selection and Exchange February 8, 2026
(https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/primary-election-june-2-2026/key-dates-and-
deadlines)
Therefore, the earliest this could be placed on a ballot would be for the November 2, 2026 election. So, why
the rush? This could have waited until the next regular session on 18 February, 2026.
Now, to the items themselves.
1) Impose term limits of 3 consecutive terms beginning with officials elected in 2026
I have no opposition to this, as I think term limits for the Council and Mayor is a good thing; it allows new
blood, perceptions and visions into city government.
Examples:
Ward 1 - Theodore Sanchez: Running for his THIRD term
Ward 2 - Sandra Ibarra: Running for her THIRD term
Ward 4 - Fred Shorett: Running for his FIFTH term
2) Eliminate primary elections
This is a bad idea, as it allows a candidate with LESS THAN 50% +1 to win a council seat or mayor's chair.
In 2018, for example, Sandra Ibarra would have LOST to Cecilia Miranda-Dolan in the Primary Election:
Primary Election 5 June, 2018
Sandra Ibarra 541 votes (30.65%)
Cecilia Miranda-Dolan 699 votes (39.60%)
However, Ms. Ibarra WON in the General Election:
Primary Election 5 June, 2018
Cecilia 1,446 votes (37.88%)
Sandra Ibarra 2,371 votes (62.12%)
Without the primary election, presuming the vote count didn't change, Ms. Miranda-Dolan would have won
the Ward 2 seat, and would probably be running for HER THIRD TERM.
We do NOT have a parliamentary system that allows candidates receiving a majority of votes LESS THAN
50% +1 into governmental seats of power.
3) Eliminate the office of the directly elected Mayor and replace with Mayor
selected from among the Council.
I am TOTALLY against this... No elected Mayor leads to a consolidation of power within the City Council
with NO OVERSIGHT by other members of the council or the voting public.
The City of San Bernardino is currently under the Council--Manager (Strong Mayor)" style of government
(that means the position, NOT THE PERSON!), voted into office by the voters of San Bernardino City. A
change to this leads to a shift in our governance balance:
• Voter Mandated: Proponents argue that citywide elections provide a stronger democratic mandate, making
the mayor directly accountable to the entire community rather than just to fellow council members.
Otherwise this can involve political bartering (often called "back scratching") among council members
seeking the title ("Cronyism"). Appointing the Mayor is a REDUCTION OF OUR VOTING RIGHTS!
• Independent Check & Balance: An elected mayor can serve as a check on an unpopular council and acts as
a high-visibility spokesperson for the city in regional and state affairs. A council-appointed mayor lacks a
clear, citywide voter mandate. This can make it difficult for them to champion major initiatives or act as a
powerful representative for the city at the state or national level.
• Visible Accountability: Voters have a clear, singular figure to hold responsible for the city’s overall
direction and can directly choose to re-elect or reject them at the ballot box. With a council-appointed
mayor, power is highly diffused, which can slow down decision-making and make it harder for the public to
know who to credit or blame for city performance.
• Parochial Interests: If a mayor is chosen from a council where members represent specific wards or
districts, they may struggle to balance their own district’s needs with the broad interests of the entire city.
• Executive Focus: By removing the independent mandate of an elected Mayor, the City Manager would
likely gain even clearer executive authority, while the "appointed" Mayor's role would become primarily
ceremonial and legislative-focused.
• Accountability: This reduces direct voter influence over the city's top leader. Since the mayor is not
directly elected by the public for that role, they are more answerable to their fellow council members than to
the citizens.
• Blurred Leadership and Confusion: Without a clear, voter-mandated "chief executive," the community
may lack a strong political leader to champion major initiatives. This can lead to public confusion about
who is actually in charge of city services.
• Limited Continuity: Systems that frequently rotate the mayoral position (example: annually) can disrupt
long-term planning and prevent the mayor from developing deep expertise in the role.
• Potential for Discord: If a council-appointed mayor holds a minority view on the council, they cannot
easily be replaced without a recall process, leading to internal political dissension that can paralyze city
business.
The proposed charter overhaul, will re-define the "Council-Manager" system by shifting the balance of
power. This would further centralize the Council-Manager model as the Council becomes more powerful,
and, if the Council allows, a stronger City Manager.
This becomes a Council--Manager (Weak Mayor)" style of government. In this model, the mayor is often
referred to as a "weak mayor" or "ceremonial mayor" because they lack independent executive authority and
are typically chosen from within the elected city council rather than being directly elected by the public.
We urge ALL of you to vote down this proposal.
Ron & Paula Plunk