The "job" of Mayor in a General Law city is so very different from what a Mayor does in some well known Charter Cities, that the term "Mayor" shouldn't even be used to describe the position. The term "Presiding Council Member" is much more accurate in indicating the nature of the work. A General Law City Mayor, by law, has no CEO, budgetary authority, sole power, veto power, personnel power, or any other power at all, beyond the powers given to all members of the City Council.

The idea of a "weak mayor" system, versus a "strong mayor system", applies to some charter city systems, but does not apply to a General Law City, because a General City has an altogether different form of government.

Santa Clarita, as a General Law City, has neither a "weak", or "strong" mayor system, but a City Council-City Manager form of government. In this very different structure, there are no separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches. All of these powers are vested to a significant degree, in all five members of the City Council. The City manager, while exceptionally powerful, has none of these powers vested in the position of City Manager. It is dangerous to try to make comparisons with other US Government structures, but the City Managers job is crudely comparable to that of the President's, or a Governer's Chief of Staff, in that it is THEY who carry out the day to day administrative work of running things, while it is the elected officials who set policy.

In some older charter cities, which again, are all different from one another, the "Mayor" does have executive authority. Not so in a General Law City. That is why the term "Mayor" in a General Law city should be changed to some other term. As a further example of how the true meaning of the real "job" of a "mayor" can become confusing, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, several years ago, began to call the Supervisor who was chosen from among the five of them to preside over the Supervisor's meetings, the "Mayor of Los Angeles County".

Since the Mayor's job in a General Law City is limited to presiding over meetings and ceremonies, and signing documents (only if a City Council Majority authorizes it, however), it is easy to further confuse a General Law City Mayor with any number of "Honorary Mayor" positions, some of which are well publicized. The late Johnny Grant, known as the "Mayor of Hollywood", which does not exist as a separate city, readily comes to mind. He conducted numerous ceremonies, just as a General Law City Mayor often does. Since a General Law City Mayor is really a "presiding councilmember" with no other real function, rotating it among the five legal equals gives real advantages to all citizens. Among them, are the somewhat greater public exposure the presiding councilmember receives as they do the same job as the other councilmembers. This allows the public to assess, to a greater degree, just how competent each councilmember is. I congratulate each person involved in taking up this issue again. This particular ship of state needs each and every oar in the water.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I was pleased and honored to be one of the 15 members of the Santa Clarita City Formation Committee Steering Committee. City Formation is still a work in progress If anyone wishes, please feel free to send me an email at ac_cdc@msn.com. (the symbol between ac, and cdc in the email address is an underscore symbol/mark)