Antioch learns it can’t change how it selects a mayor — for now

A discussion Tuesday on whether Antioch’s mayor should be elected or rotated among council members turned into a civics lesson on what was even legally possible. And, in Antioch’s case, nothing can change until at least 2032.

That was the message from an outside legal expert, Mal Richardson of Best Best & Kreiger, who told the council that once a city has redistricted, a council cannot redraw the election boundaries until the next federal census, which would be in 2032. Exceptions are only allowed if a city annexes land, is sued or is ordered by a court to redraw its districts.

“Unless you qualify for one of those three exceptions, as a general law city, there’s no redistricting allowed by the council except for every 10 years,” Richardson said.

Had the mayor’s role been switched to a non-elected position — which first would require a voters’ approval — the city would have had to redraw electoral districts. In that scenario, the mayoral position would then rotate each year as it does in many other smaller cities.

Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker and Councilman Mike Barbanica last week had asked for a special meeting to consider changes in how the agenda is set and a switch in how the mayor is chosen. Mayor Lamar Thorpe, who was out of the country on vacation, did not attend.

“If this (a switch in how the mayor is selected) was to move forward, this would have to be brought to the ballot, and then the people would have to decide, and that’s potentially if this were to go forward that would be the pathway, correct?” Barbanica asked the election expert.

“Yes, if it could, and that’s that’s an open question,” Richardson said.

The attorney explained that the only way a change to rotating mayors could move forward at this stage would be through a ballot initiative but an initiative cannot do more than the council can. Also, he said there haven’t been any legal precedents on such a matter regarding mid-cycle redistricting.

“But it’s possible that even that (an initiative) could be challenged because it flies in the face of the intent of the Fair Maps Act, which is not to allow mid-cycle redistricting,” he said of the state elections code.

Barbanica said he wanted to make sure residents understood where he and Torres-Walker were coming from.

“This is not to remove the current mayor from his position,” he said. “This is not to make a change with that. That was never part of our discussion at any time. This was talking about what would be best for the city.”

During the public comments, more than a dozen people spoke mostly against changing how the mayor is selected. Measures to switch to rotating mayors went down to heavy defeat by Antioch voters in 1994 and 2012.

One resident called the proposal a “systemically racist move.”

“I do not want none of you as mayor ever,” Julia Emegokwue said.

Ronald Mohammed asked if the proposal was really something the constituency asked for or was it what the council members themselves wanted.

“Why are you trying to undermine the vote of the people?” he asked.

Dorothy Ellis also didn’t like the idea.

“It is the right of the people to elect the mayor, not elect someone and then all you guys share it (the mayor’s role),” she said.

“I still am a little lost as to why this is a special meeting,” Ellis added. “When there’s so many other pressing items that need to be discussed and addressed, why are we calling a special meeting?”

“The issues are complex and they’re not just confined to the boundaries of the city,” he said. “More often than not, they are regional issues — transportation, police services, district attorney, homelessness. And frankly, I would just strongly suggest to you not to have a rotating mayor.”

Some residents also questioned the motives behind a proposal to change how agenda items are set. The mayor currently sets the agenda, but some council members have complained that it takes too long to get items before the council.

Barbanica had asked the council to consider changes after becoming frustrated that a tobacco ordinance, which had failed, was not immediately brought back to the council. The city attorney had said the process would have to start all over again, including a public hearing with legal notices.

Jeffrey Klinger said setting the agenda is an important topic. “Hopefully, this is just the beginning of this council’s efforts to take the personal biases and political agendas out of running our city.”

Homeless advocate Nichole Gardner, however, said people knew what they were voting for in the mayor and knew he had the authority to set the agenda.

“I don’t think it’s right for any of you to sit here and say in the middle of his term to say we’re going to take away that authority,” she said. “It may be difficult to get some items coming back, items that you guys want to come back on the agenda. But I do also realize that your (city) staff is low, staff has been getting hit left and right.”

But Barbanica and Torres-Walker both said it was taking too long for items they had requested to be placed on the agenda.

In the end, the council directed staff to return with a resolution setting a policy regarding the agenda and meetings, including several key points: Meetings would not go past 11 p.m.; council members’ items would be placed on an agenda within 90 days; at least three council members’ agenda items – with a maximum of seven – would be included each meeting; and those items not heard due to time constraints would return to the top of the agenda the following meeting.

“Nobody’s looking to take total authority away from the mayor’s office,” Barbanica reiterated. “What we’re looking to do is to create an agenda moving forward that assures council members the ability to get items on the agenda in a timely fashion.”

Check back for updates.