Maybe it’s time to ask, do we need a Mayor?

In 2022 John Ramon Vigil was elected as the youngest Mayor in Española's history, maybe he should be its last. It is rare in politics for a governing body member to call for decentralizing the government they serve in, but in this case, I think it is necessary. On paper, the Mayor of the City of Española has a mostly ceremonial role, acting mostly as the presiding member of the city council without a vote but with the ability to recommend important appointments to the council for approval. In contrast, the City Manager actually has the authority to run the executive branch at the will of the council. The Mayor has no authority over day-to-day operations legally speaking, nor does he have the authority to dispose of any appointed official. In practice, however, the council has handed over all of its authority to the Mayor, and the City Manager has become nothing more than a ceremonial position that enacts the policies and desires of the Mayor. How did this process become so corrupted? The council stopped caring about governing and the incentives to hand over all the power (and blame) to the Mayor became too tempting. It makes a lot of sense if you're a councilor, give one person all the authority and when anything bad happens you can put all the blame on them until you want to run for Mayor. Something important the community cares about not on the agenda, blame the mayor he puts together the agenda. A political appointee is really bad and not doing what they're supposed to, blame the Mayor he appointed them. It goes on and on, it takes the blame off of specific councilors and gives it to the Mayor. With as large as the council is, it makes it even easier to obscure who actually has the power on paper.

Here is the reality, the council could overturn everything the Mayor does. We don't have to accept his appointments, we don't have to let him control the agenda, and he only has as much power as we let him have. I just don't see a scenario where the council takes back their power anytime soon. I think we need a dramatic structural change, and the one that makes the most sense is abolishing the office of the Mayor and in its place establishing a 9th city council seat that is elected at-large. This may seem radical to some people, but in rural towns across the country, the idea of being more council-ran is becoming more popular, this year many elections are being held to get rid of these executive positions.

Española itself is not allergic to de-centralization, we chose a big council for a reason, we saw that the small commission under Rio Arriba didn't work well, and this was a big factor in incorporating to begin with. Then later on we realized having a completely at-large elected council was a bad idea and that using a district system would give neighborhoods a better say in how the city was run and planned. Now we need to ask ourselves, do we really need a Mayor? What benefit does having a ceremonial centralized authority figure have for a small municipality of 10,000 people?

A council-only government would lead to appointments and executive activities having greater oversight, more transparency, and an easier way for the average citizen to hold us accountable. Some critics may say that the office of Mayor Pro Tem or what would probably be retitled President of the Council would inherit a lot of the problems the office of the Mayor has, but let us be honest, it is a lot harder to steer 5 fellow members of a council than it is to rule your own branch. There will be a lot of need to compromise and debate, which will be a lot healthier for our city. It will lead to appointees who are less political or at least have their incentives be dictated by more than a single elected official. It will be a more community-driven government with fewer incentives for councilors to use their office as a stepping stone.

In the spirit of Española's history to call for a smaller and more accountable government, we really should think of ending the practice of having a Mayor.