Our mayors have the ability to instill both your values and theirs, working to emphasize city opinions and create a safer community for all. And we should encourage them to do so.
But when you put into perspective the effort that is required to improve and maintain our collective community, it makes you wonder why our mayors are given 12 months to serve our city.
Currently, the City of Palo Alto has an elected city council paired with a rotating mayor system. This system gives each council member an opportunity to hold office for a one-year mayoral term.
It’s not enough time to achieve their goals for the city.
While Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale have four-year mayoral terms, cities such as Mountain View and Palo Alto have one-year mayor terms.
Right now, we’re in the minority. According to a 2006 survey of municipal governments by International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 45% of cities had mayoral term lengths of four years while 14% of cities had mayoral term lengths of one year.
Turning the one-year mayor term into a two-year term would give mayors time to adjust into office and implement effectual change.
Although some may suggest a four-year term because it allows the mayor ample time to make changes, according to Texas newspaper Caller Times, a four-year term is too long. David Smith, a political science assistant professor at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, said, “[With] a four-year term, the voters aren’t able to make changes as quickly if someone is not to their liking.”
Palo Alto Mayor Greer Stone explained the difficulty of condensing what he wants to do for the City given his one-year term.
“It’s ambitious to think that one year would be enough to address some of my own priorities and what I’d like to see us accomplish within this year,” Stone said.
A two-year term is the sweet spot — it is shorter than a four-year term, improving efficiency and allows the mayor the ability to tackle a variety of topics in that time.
One short year to make change is not enough for a city mayor. Increasing mayoral term length could lessen the static hand-over process at the end of the 12 months.
There is also another issue to consider about the one-year term. What happens when time runs out and unfinished projects filter onto the next mayor?
Time does make a difference. And it determines how much a mayor is able to do.
Anthro spoke with Morgan Hill Mayor Mark Turner, whose city adopted the two-year term. 20 years after switching to a directly-elected mayor instead of Palo Alto’s rotating system, the City of Morgan Hill is debating a four-year mayoral term. Turner spoke about how time pressure can affect policy making from city mayors.
“A two year term isn’t enough,” Turner said. “It really doesn’t allow you to get as established as you would like with your vision for the city and the direction you want to go.”
Previous Palo Alto mayors informed him that the one-year term went by quickly, Stone said. Revealing the hidden clock, Stone decided to announce the details of his new Task Force on his first day.
“The clock is ticking on night one,” Stone said. “That’s why I announced the formation of the Youth Wellbeing and Mental Health Task Force, so I wouldn’t waste any time.”
Of course, our mayor’s have completed many successful years in office, but an increased term can push the boundaries of what mayors can do.
So, let’s add time to the mayor’s ticking term, not only to ensure that they meet their goals, but for us all to continue to improve our city.