By COMMON SCENTS BY CAROLE ORLIN
As this year quickly comes to a close, my husband and I have been taking stock of our personal financial matters before the New Year arrives. It allows us to prepare a personal “state of the union.” I know our president is probably working on the traditional “State of the Union” address scheduled for January before the U.S. Congress. For some reason, this time has also led me to think about the state of my hometown of Santa Monica.
The first thing that strikes me as a bit strange relates to the size of Santa Monica by population: approximately 84,000, and the size of Santa Monica by annual budget: approximately $396 million. Although I readily admit that statistics can be manipulated to justify many differing views, I decided to look at a few cities of similar size — more 75,000 and under 100,000. My choices got me to two cities in California: Santa Barbara and Mission Viejo, and one in Florida: West Palm Beach. Based upon the 2000 Census, and the 2005-2006 annual city budgets, here are the numbers: CITY POPULATION (2000 Census) BUDGET (2005-06) Santa Monica 84,000 $396 million Santa Barbara 85,000 $220 million Mission Viejo 93,000 $ 94 million West Palm Beach 82,000 $315 million The next thing that caught my attention in recent times involves several high-level appointments in the administration of our city. First, a new city manager, Lamont Ewell, is coming to town with considerable baggage from San Diego. Mr. Ewell starts work next month at a base salary of $245,000 plus significant benefits, including relocation expenses. Then, last Tuesday, the selection of a new “homeless czar,” Edmund Edelman, was hired under a one-year contract for $200,000. Finally, the announcement last week of the recruitment of a “consultant” to analyze Santa Monica’s homeless services — where City Hall is now spending in excess of $2 million annually for homeless-related programs — a job that is expected to take nine to 12 months for yet-to-be determined compensation. I cannot help but question as to whether any or all of these changes will be the catalyst to change Santa Monica’s image, referred to in an LA Times article last Wednesday as a “… city where patience with panhandling and public urination has worn thin” (Dec. 14, p. B1).
My deeper concern relates to the fact that we allow ourselves to be governed by a part-time City Council that holds regular Tuesday evening meetings, often until after midnight. As reported in the SMDP last Thursday (Dec. 15, page 1), the story discussed the mostly ceremonial mayoral change: “Santa Monica has a strong city manager form of government, meaning that the city’s seven councilmembers, who are elected into office, appoint a mayor and are charged mostly with helping City Hall shape its policies, according to officials.”
The day-to-day operations of the government are handled through an appointed city manager, an individual who we recently have secured through the use of a headhunter. This individual has oversight authority of approximately 1,900 employees and a budget that now approaches $400 million.
Perhaps the form and size of our government, the size of our budget, and the specifics of salary expenditures, in comparison to the size of our city, could be more easily tolerated if our very visible city was running smoothly. We have not been a quaint and quiet beach community for quite some time. We have grown into a small but influential urban center — for residents, workers and tourists. I can think of no city of a similar size (fewer than 90,000 people) that gets the national media exposure of Santa Monica. My true concern relates to the “urban” issues that our city seems to be confronting without implementing successful strategies in spite of spending enormous sums of monies. What would a poll of our citizens of Santa Monica reveal on how the local government is handling many of our quality of life issues: Vagrants and homelessness? Crime and gang-related violence? Traffic and congestion? Planning and development? Business opportunities?
I know that it is easy to sit back and criticize government. Have we not, however, reached a point where we need to consider a change to the city charter that created our form of local government in the mid 1940s? Perhaps we need an elected City Council and mayor that devote their full time and attention to our problems and come up with solutions that are responsive to the needs of the citizens of Santa Monica. How about changing the mind set of part-time elected officials to full-time professionals? Would it not be refreshing to have meetings held during a normal business day rather than at midnight on Tuesdays? A lot has changed in Santa Monica over the decades, and it can’t be effectively governed the same way it was 60 years ago. (Carole)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 19, 2005. Read the original PDF.