Motivations for a Popularly/Directly Elected Mayor

1. Regional boards: Palo Alto participates in a range of regional boards that have substantial impact on us. However, our representatives tend to have less clout on these boards than similar cities.
   • Longevity and institutional knowledge: Our representatives have a higher turn-over rate (the reason that the next point is important).
   • Titles matter: A representative who has the title of "mayor" is regarded as more accomplished and more able to achieve results than a mere Council member. Also the presence of a mayor indicates stronger interest in the topic by his/her city. Many of our representatives to these boards are "merely" Council members.
2. Follow-through on initiatives: The 1-year term for Palo Alto's mayor means that shortly after they get up to speed, they become a lame duck. Too often, the initiatives they take are not followed through on by their successor. Counter-example: Bern Beecham was pushing for improving the environment for retail in Palo Alto when he was Vice Mayor, established a Committee when he was Mayor and is now leading a follow-on Committee under his successor (Jim Burch).
3. Palo Alto has a "Strong City Manager" for of government (as opposed to the "Strong Mayor" that San Francisco and many other big cities have). This proposal would *not* change that. Rather, a directly elected mayor serving a two-year term could somewhat reduces the power imbalance.
4. Selection criteria: Currently, mayors are selected largely based upon it being their turn. Selecting mayors based upon their skill sets could improve effectiveness of Council.

The advocates of a directly elected mayor are seeking to make only minor changes to the current situation. The debate whether these changes produce enough advantages to both warrant the risks (unintended/unforseen consequences) and justify the cost and aggravation of making the change.