For Good Governance, Mayor Gloria Must Flex His Veto Power

By Paul Krueger

I used to zone out when politicians debated the strengths and weaknesses of policy proposals, especially when I covered government meetings for NBC 7. Revisions, compromises, and continuances left me frustrated. I’d think, “Come on, just agree, vote, and move on.”

But my six years as a community advocate have given me a new appreciation for the value of policy debates and public disagreement among our elected officials.

I’ve seen how a philosophical split on the County Board of Supervisors — with three liberal Democrats and two conservative Republicans — gives us a better understanding of policy issues and exposes the possible pitfalls of proposed legislation.

Pointed but civil disagreements between the Supervisors have revealed important details — pro and con — about proposed reforms to the county charter and the use of reserve funds to expand programs and hire more employees.

That’s why I grimaced when Mayor Todd Gloria described the city of San Diego’s recent budget negotiations as “more collegial” than last year’s. “I don’t think anyone at the outset of this process would have envisioned a unanimous adoption of the budget and no line-item vetoes,” Gloria told the U-T’s David Garrick.

That “Kumbaya” moment is good example of what’s wrong at City Hall. This go-along-get-along attitude enables our elected officials to avoid scrutiny for their votes. And it deprives residents of the information they need to assess their representatives’ performance.

The Mayor apparently shares some of these concerns. He acknowledged that he’s “still somewhat disappointed in the new budget.” And Garrick described him as “particularly critical” of a deal brokered by Councilmembers Kent Lee and Henry Foster that reversed his proposed cuts to arts funding by using $6 million from voter-approved funding to expand the convention center.

Gloria noted that while arts funding is important, “it’s time for the city to make tough choices” and that when the city is “struggling with its own finances, granting funds to (outside arts groups) is tough.” In an earlier interview, he told Garrick that “Decisions like diverting… funds from the Convention Center may avoid difficult cuts this year, but they set us up for the same budget challenges next year.”

That’s why the Mayor should have vetoed the council’s action. He would have aligned his words with his deeds and given credibility to his call for fiscal restraint. Instead, he empowered the council to once again defy voters’ expressed limitations on bond funding by using monies dedicated for a specific use (upgrading the Convention Center) to fill the operating budget.

Gloria lost an opportunity to stop — or at least force a debate — on the council’s annual exercise in deceitful budgeting, which batters our trust in City Hall and makes us less likely to approve any tax and fee increases.

Equally important, Gloria’s veto could have prompted a public hearing on the issue. We’d have a healthy exchange of viewpoints from stakeholders and taxpayers. And Councilmembers would feel pressured to explain why they support or oppose diverting convention center funds to support our arts and culture organizations.

Funding for arts and culture is vitally important. But we need to discuss the pros and cons of using convention center money for that purpose, this year, and possibly in years to come. And we must start finding other more appropriate funding sources.

The same goes for the Mayor’s refusal to veto the council’s restoration of funds for the city’s very costly — and controversial — bike lane, street design, and “traffic-safety” programs.

In his initial budget, Gloria axed the 14-employee “bike team” in part because voter surveys showed widespread opposition to bike lanes and a preference for using that $2.5 million to pave more streets. “Reducing the miles of road repair to facilitate more bike lanes — we did not hear that from our residents,” Gloria told the U-T. He even knocked the council for “catering to vocal groups complaining about the cuts to (the bike) team but ignoring what the vast majority of residents want –better-paved roads.”

But he again gave the council a free pass by refusing to exercise his veto power and forcing a public debate and vote on this issue. Gloria and Lee both told the U-T they “appreciated the more positive tenor of this year’s negotiations.” The Mayor also embraced this conflict-avoidant behavior as a model for good governance: “The issues we’re dealing with here are very difficult, and they’re not made better when there’s tension and conflict and extreme disagreement.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Tension, conflict, and disagreement — balanced by mutual respect and an ability to compromise — are crucially important to representative government. When the Mayor refused to force the issue by exercising his veto power, he sacrificed a real opportunity to restore credibility and trust in local government.