184 . A STUDY OF THE CITY CHARTER
Legislation
The Mayor's formal powers in legislation are mild on the one hand and
negative on the other. The charter requires him annually, before the presentation of the budget, to send to the Council a general statement of the
condition and affairs of the city and to recommend the adoption of measures he considers expedient and proper. The charter also states that periodically he can send special communications to the Council. Thus, the
Mayor clearly has the authority to propose legislation to the Council. In
addition, the Mayor has the negative right to veto any ordinance, which
then becomes law only if repassed by a two-thirds vote of the entire Council (three-fourths of the whole Council when a two-thirds vote or more
was required for the original ordinance). However, the Mayor must exercise this righr within ren calendar days after an ordinance is presented
to him. This is a very short period, considering that weekend days and
holidays are included in the ten-day limit and comparing the time (sixty
days after presentation of the Mayor's objections) given to the Council
to override a veto.
In terms of formal relationships between the Mayor and the Council,
the real problem is the high degree of isolation of the Mayor from the
legislative process. In some cities this isolation does not exist because the
mayor serves as the presiding officer of the council or as a voting member
or as both. At the present time, measures sponsored by the Mayor can
be bottled up in a Council committee or shuttled between committees and
thus never ger to the full Council because other members of the Council
do not often withdraw the proposals from committee for presentation to
the Council. (It may be suggested that this practice is fostered by the exclusive district system of Council representation which encourages councilmen to pay homage to one another.) At various times since 1925, proposals of the Mayor have been buried in Council committees mainly or
solely because he initiated them. And it has been rare for a Mayor to ask
to speak or to be requested to do so before the Council to explain his
proposals.
Actually, the two offices are so constructed by the charter as to work
against easy interaction. The Mayor and the Council, under existing charter provisions, can go their separate ways and have almost no direct face-
to-face contacts, despite the fact that they are both viral, interrelated parts
of the same government. It is evident that a big, important step to improving the city government is to provide a significant means of breaking down
the isolation, bred by the charter, between the Mayor and the Council.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  MAYOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
185
Appointment and Removal Authority
The Mayor should have the authority to appoint all non-elective department heads and general managers, except those in the three proprietary
departments (Airports, Harbor, and Water and Power), the Civil Service
Department, the Department of Pensions, and the City Employees' Retirement System. Appointments should be made from civil service lists on
the basis of recommendations by the City Administrative Officer and
should be subject to confirmation by the Council.22 The procedure should
be for the Mayor to consider the name of the person recommended to
him by the City Administrative Officer as the best qualified and available
individual on the basis of the list of candidates certified as qualified to the
CAO by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners after its testing of the
applicants. The Mayor should have the righr to accept or reject this initial
recommendation and, if he rejects ir, he should be able once to ask the
CAO for a second recommendation from the list. Council consideration
of the proposed appointment will follow. If the Council turns down the
Mayor's proposed appointment, the Mayor will requesr another recommendation by the CAO from the list.
The Mayor should have the authority to remove any of these department heads and general managers. A dismissed department head or general manager should receive a written statement of the reasons for such
action and should be entitled to a public hearing before the Board of Civil
Service Commissioners. The board should then certify its findings and
recommendations to the Mayor, but it should not be able to overrule him.
After reviewing the board's report, the Mayor should consider the board's
findings and his decision should then be final.
Presiding Officer of the Council
The Mayor should be the presiding officer of the Council. (Various executives in other governments serve in this capacity.) The Mayor should
be able to enter into the discussions, but he should not have a vote on the
Council. As Mayor, he should continue to have the veto power over ordi-
--T he recommendations made here on appointment and removal of non-elective department heads and general managers do not apply to the City Administrative Officer. He should
continue to be exempt from civil service, appointed by the Mayor, subject to Council approval, and removed by the Major with a majority vote of the Council members or by a
two-thirds vote of the Council members alone.