It is my sense that Greg Tanaka is smarting because he has not been mayor. Why Veenker has jumped on the bandwagon is an enigma? The current system works fine. Taking this mayorial process to the residents for a vote is overkill and wasteful. Veenker and Tanaka need to focus on working for residents instead of their egos.

I care less about how the mayor is chosen and much more about when they're going to start providing strict oversight of the city manager and staff.
In mentioning how other cities work, this article neglected to mention that several of them have fired their city managers for ignoring council directives.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
It would be more productive to do cc work.
Don’t rearrange deck chairs.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Cc should do their work and not rearrange the deck chairs

I would like to see Palo Alto and Santa Clara County switch to ranked choice voting for elections. The ranked election process results in more voters feeling represented by eliminating the more extreme candidates that appeal to small but dedicated segments. It also rewards cooperation and consensus rather than grandstanding.

We need simple elections and for a city of our size, no separately elected mayor. Everyone in the city should opine on who should be members of the council. A fascinating article about district elections in small towns and cities shows how distorted the election process can be in school districts (See SF Chronicle: front page, 12/26/2023) "Christian right's power to win school boards".

I think many changes to the process could be made that would be much better than the mayor choice. I would like to see council members elected for areas of the City rather than the way it is done now. I would like to see a much better method of getting localized issues dealt with better. For example, nobody north of Oregon is interested in what is happening in the Midtown Shopping area and likewise the Philz/Bills location. Fortunately, one council members used to be a regular Philz customer. Our mayor also personally supported Mikes Diner.

Local issues need to have local representation.

Obsessing on how the Mayor is chosen and for how long is a silly waste of time by Council. It’s a solution looking for a problem.

Veenker and Tanakas’ arguments smack of self aggrandizement. Conference of Mayors as a justification? Come on - the many regional committees on which council members serve carry far more value to residents.

Keep the current process and 1 year term as all but the 3 cities cited do - SJ is the 3rd largest city in CA, Santa Clara and SV are 125K and 145K in population. Palo Alto - abt 65K. Apples to oranges in comparison. We do fine having a “ceremonial Mayor”.

We have chosen a “weak Mayor” system, with a City Manager hired by council who does just that. To create a new job as Mayor would soon be followed by a real salary. No and no.

Online Name is exactly right. Mayor selection is pretty much pointless given our model of government in which WAY too much power and authority is ceded to the City Manager.

Bystander:

"For example, nobody north of Oregon is interested in what is happening in the Midtown Shopping area and likewise the Philz/Bills location."

Really? This is total BS. Divisive statements like this don't do anybody any good.

@ Pat.

Actually I disagree. I think we are all much more concerned about what is happening in the vicinity near where we live and not so much about areas of town we seldom visit. This was not meant to be divisive but shows that local residents are interested in local to them issues and not so much to those that are not as local.

@Bystander
But that is not what you claimed. You said that “nobody north of Oregon is interested in what is happening in Midtown” etc.
I agree with Pat Markevitch. While residents tend to know their area of town best, most of us know the rest of the city well and care about those areas too. More importantly, we should want our councilmembers to represent the broader interests of the community rather than focus on squabbling over narrow interests.

Navel gazing at its best. I don't know why we should even have ceremonial roles such as Mayor and the CC when we are paying a BOATLOAD of money for a City Manager and his many assistants, and Legal department that has to vet every CC decision. Let's cut out the middle men and their increase in pay for doing basically nothing. We're paying the City Manager's office and legal services. Let's start asking for an account of what exactly we are paying for. If the CC isn't willing to delve into potentially corrupt situations, they shouldn't even be there as ceremonial figures. It's merely a stepping stone, to greater glory for people who want to show off their shiny Palo Alto "I sat in a chair there, thus, I am qualified to represent PA and its district at the national level".

Ranked Choice? A Big NO! Alameda County had ranked choice and look what happened to them. A DA that gets a lot of press for a recall and a mayor of Oakland that has upended the Police Department. Though I am glad she shot down the A's Coliseum on the bay. It was projected in a location that is suppose to be hit with the biggest tidal surge increases for the bay in total. Just another city that ignores all of the state agencies that are paid to predict the impact of global warning on this location due to rise in sea level. WE do not need inexperienced people directing traffic in these complex times. WE want to vote the people who can best contribute knowledge of the city and how it will survive in this financial uproar.

Anyone interested in investigating a new form of city government?
What about eliminating the city council and electing a mayor?
The current form of leadership is ineffective, stifles decisions, and lacks accountability.

Palo Alto is one of California’s “charter” cities which among many other things defines how the delicate balance of governance is divided between the elected council members and the non-elected city manager.

This proposal to upend the city’s charter is a transparently cynical self serving attempt to burnish the resumes of politically ambitious council members for whom such an elected position would further their political ambitions while waiting in the wings for an opportunity to run for higher office.

Every city has a Mayor. Every City has a council meeting where people can air their grievances and discuss current plans for the city. That is called "being normal".

What we need to see is a report on the committees and what they are up to. I listened to one and it sounded like the Bike Coalition was involving themselves in the El Camino Upgrade, and I suspect that they are responsible for the delay in the new layer of road. They may be pushing an agenda which is counter productive to the businesses on that highway. When you mess with the business base of a city then we all need to put a light on that.

Otherwise - when the UFO lands up near the dish and pops out and says "Take me to your Leader" - we will have a leader.

I think the big question is “what problem are we trying to solve”? The mayor has no more power than any other council member, it is ceremonial. Everyone has the same ability to propose agenda items and one vote.

A much bigger question is would an elected mayor for a longer term be given any more power? To me that is the real question and it should be addressed first. It seems to be implied and that is a tremendous change from our current form of government.

Palo Alto is a major reference for a major portion of how the rest of our tech economy works, runs, ruins the contemporary commerce universe — it.s also a real estate bell weather. So whether @Tom DuBois it’s largely “ ceremonial” is mute. The entire world is at its feet. Example: SRP is a massive global economy in itself. 30% of Californians exist is near to below poverty conditions. Over a half a million California’s languish without permanent shelter to call home; yet we are the 5th largest economy on Earth and third richest per capita. The CC Mayor role is huge. Especially when “running” meetings and time limited public comments or the amount of consent items on an agenda calendar or when or who gets on the list as the Police Chief or City Manager. The mayor steers the council, the public and city staff. Ascribing a PA Mayor to only steering a meeting is like saying she, him they or them only has one ore. Not so. To say Palo Alto Council is but a wee pee in the pond is burying the elephant in the room. Palo Alto is a massive player in emerging markets. Just as Wall Street. This is no small town politic. Don’t pretend other than a global partner disguising as a local arbiter.