The nomination of a vice mayor, a charter requirement for the city’s governance, became a contentious issue as the commission grappled with procedural intricacies. The charter explicitly states that the mayor must nominate a vice mayor, a duty made complicated by the mayor’s absence. The acting mayor, who is also the current vice mayor, found themselves at the center of a debate over whether they could fulfill the mayoral role of nominating a vice mayor. This procedural deadlock was further complicated by a tie vote on a nomination, preventing a resolution.

The city attorney, serving as the parliamentarian, was called upon to provide clarity. The attorney emphasized that the vice mayor assumes the mayor’s duties during their absence, but the nomination must occur within the prescribed timeline. Despite this clarification, commissioners voiced differing opinions. One commissioner argued that postponing the nomination to January would effectively rewrite the charter, undermining its stipulations. Another commissioner highlighted the charter’s clarity, stating, “the code is extremely clear. It’s not a suggestion.”

Attempts to nominate other commissioners for the vice mayor position met procedural challenges. The city attorney reiterated that nominations must originate from the mayor, adding further complexity to the discussion.

As the meeting progressed, a commissioner attempted self-nomination for the vice mayor role, which was countered by claims that this was impermissible. The city attorney once again clarified the charter’s requirements, underscoring that nominations must be made by the mayor. This clarification did little to resolve the ongoing procedural disputes, which culminated in another tie vote.

Following this contentious discussion, the meeting moved on to other agenda items, including a resolution authorizing the city manager to sign necessary contracts during the recess period. This item, in contrast to the earlier debate, was approved swiftly and without public comment.

Another topic discussed was a proposed art donation agreement for the sculpture “Mariposa Asoulles” by Monolo Valdez. The commission considered the implications of accepting the donation, focusing on liability and insurance concerns. Commissioners emphasized the need for comprehensive agreements to address maintenance and potential liabilities. The city manager assured the commission that detailed cost information would be provided at the next meeting. The matter was tabled for further discussion in January.

The commission’s attention then turned to the regulation of overnight anchoring for vessels. This ordinance, aimed at managing the city’s jurisdictional waters, saw no changes from its first reading and received no public comments.

Budgetary matters were also addressed, with the commission approving amendments to the city’s operating capital improvement budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. These routine budget transfers and adjustments were adopted unanimously.

The meeting also included discussions on the city’s involvement in an upcoming art exhibition, where questions arose about the funding structure and transparency in selecting artists. The city clarified that it would pay a gallerist, who acts as a broker for the artists, rather than compensating the artists directly. This led to concerns about transparency and the decision-making process, with calls for greater commission oversight in the selection of artists.

Other resolutions discussed included updates to the city’s color palette for exterior walls, with a new palette developed in collaboration with Sherwin Williams. Additionally, the commission authorized the purchase of police equipment and approved a resolution for the installation of surveillance and security equipment, emphasizing the importance of safety, particularly for children.