Electing or Appointing our Mayor – Is it Time to Think about It Again?

By Steve Segner

Sedona, AZ –The decision between electing or appointing a mayor holds significant implications for Sedona, AZ’s governance structure. This choice is influenced by historical precedent and the roles of various officials within the local government.

Sedona’s incorporation in 1988 marked a pivotal moment, setting the tone for its governance by appointing the first mayor. The city council, as the primary legislative body in a council-manager system, plays a central role. It appoints a city manager responsible for daily operations and policy implementation, while the mayor’s role remains largely ceremonial, presiding over meetings, representing the city, and managing certain events.

The decision to elect or appoint a mayor involves considerations of efficiency, representation, and preserving nonpartisan local government. Given the symbolic nature of the mayor’s role and their lack of direct authority over city staff, an appointed mayor seems more congruent with the council-manager model.

The shift from appointed to elected mayor in 2005 aimed to provide the mayor with a more direct democratic mandate. Yet, recent elections have brought partisan politics to the forefront, diverting attention from local issues.

This shift in the electoral landscape prompts a reevaluation. Returning to an appointed mayoral position, chosen by the city council, could mitigate the influence of partisan politics and ensure the mayor remains primarily symbolic and representative. This aligns with the collaborative council-manager structure, where operational matters are overseen by the appointed city manager.

Ultimately, the community’s values in local government will drive the decision – whether to have a directly elected mayor with a distinct democratic mandate or an appointed mayor representing the council’s decisions. This choice shapes the city’s leadership and determines the prominence of local issues on the agenda.

As candidates line up for the next mayoral election, it’s hopeful that their focus will be on genuine community issues, rather than self-serving agendas designed to garner votes. A shift back to an appointed mayor may prioritize practical governance over vanity issues and further the city’s progress. It remains to be seen whether the city council will opt for this path in the future.

In 2010, five years after an election to make the mayor an elected position, the city went back to the ballot box under Proposition 400 to decide whether or not to go back to a City Council appointed position. The proposition was put on the ballot via vote of the city Council. It did not get enough votes to make the change, so subsequently, we still have a mayor elected every two years.

But, there seems to have been a shift in perception of what a Sedona Mayor is. It is reflected in the fact that most elections for mayor never cost a candidate more than about $10,000, but in the last election, the two candidates spent over $170,000 not counting more spent by independent expenditures, representing the candidate of their choice.

Changing from an appointed Mayor to an elected one in 2006 was a noble experiment. However, in my opinion, that has proven to be far less successful than originally thought. It has raised the cost of being elected, discouraging qualified citizens from becoming candidates; it has limited the number of people dedicated to serving as Council Members due to the fact a sitting Council Member must resign to run for Mayor or they are eliminated if they lost the Mayor’s race, and it has greatly contributed to politicizing and polarizing our community’s citizenry.

Is it time to think about this issue again?

Steve Segner, 23 year resident of Sedona and the Verde Valley