About Us

​When you cut through the political noise, municipal governments generally run on one of three structures:

• Rotational Mayor (What we have now): You vote for your district representative, and the five council members pass the mayor’s gavel around the table every 12 months. It carries no real executive power. For four out of every five years, you live under a mayor you never had the chance to vote for.

• Directly Elected Mayor (The proposed hybrid model): Every voter in town casts a vote for mayor, while keeping their district council member. The city manager still manages daily operations, but the mayor gets a clear, four-year mandate from the entire city.

• Strong Mayor: The mayor acts as chief executive, effectively taking over the city manager’s job. That’s standard in megacities like Los Angeles or Chicago, but it's rare for a city our size.

 

Our community outreach isn't about imposing a system on anyone. It’s about giving residents the chance to decide if an inherited model still serves us.

Why a Hybrid Model Fits Palm Springs

​

Districts have been a great addition to Palm Springs. Moving to them in 2018 diversified our council and gave individual neighborhoods a direct voice. But the annual rotation left a massive blind spot: no single leader is accountable to the entire city.

​

Here is what actually happens when you swap mayors every 12 months:

• Residents regularly tell me they don't even know who the current mayor is. Rotation breeds an endless cycle of short-term "pet projects." Before a mayor can build real momentum on a complex, multi-year initiative, their term expires. Under current rules, someone has become mayor of Palm Springs with as few as 843 votes from a single district.

• As a District council member, I contribute leadership to issues that impact all of us, such as housing, modernizing citywide infrastructure, and advancing public safety programs. I want time to be hyper-focused on local issues. Everyone will say they are working for the entire city, and we do; however, constituents have priority, focusing on the tangible, day-to-day things that directly impact a neighborhood's quality of life, safety, and pocketbook. They’re about whether the streetlights work and if the local park is safe for kids. An elected mayor creates a dedicated advocate whose job is to focus on the big picture and ensure the entire city has a clear vision for where it's going. Working across all districts to find common ground among council colleagues on contentious, citywide votes and long-term city projects.  

• Having a consistent, directly elected leader reduces public confusion, builds intergovernmental influence, and works hand in hand with vital business communities to champion local small businesses, work with tourism boards, and pitch the city to regional partners.

• Under a hybrid system, you don't lose anything; you gain. You keep your district council member for local needs, and gain a mayor who answers to all of us equally.

 

Debunking the Myths

A few objections raised at the meeting sound alarming on the surface, but fall apart when you look at the facts.

​

1. The "Legal Risk" Scare Tactic

Opponents keep repeating that "no California city has switched to districts and then added an at-large mayor later." That is classic legal misdirection. Emphasizing what no city has done, rather than pointing out that at-large mayoral seats routinely exist without triggering CVRA liability, creates an unwarranted perception of legal hazard.

​

The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) exists to prevent cities from using total at-large systems that dilute minority voting power. Adding an at-large mayoral seat to an existing district framework is a completely different story. Cities like Santa Cruz and Hayward run hybrid models without any CVRA issues. Stirring up fear while ignoring how common at-large mayors are across California is just institutional risk aversion getting in the way of voter choice.

​

2. The "Big Money" Fallacy

Opponents argued that a citywide campaign requires so much cash that candidates will only cater to wealthy donors and skip working-class neighborhoods.

​

I’ve lived in Palm Springs for 16 years. In all that time, not a single rotating mayor has ever knocked on my front door.

​

The math behind this argument doesn't hold up either. Given Palm Springs' demographics, any candidate who relies solely on donor parties and ignores renters, working-class families, and our Latino community will lose. Beyond that, under rotation, a mayor only represents 20% of the city, and they have zero political incentive to ever campaign in or advocate for the other 80%. An at-large system forces candidates to show up in every neighborhood.

​

3. The "Too Expensive" Claim

We heard wild claims that creating an elected mayoral seat could cost upwards of $500,000.

​

Let's look at actual city payroll. The mayor currently receives $4,160 a month (~$50,000 annually) without a dedicated administrative staff. A directly elected mayor under this model should operate under similar parameters, costing roughly $82,000 a year in salary and standard benefits. Nobody is asking for a staff of $150,000 executive aides or grand office additions. Be real, a municipal government that manages 650 employees can handle basic desk space without breaking the bank.

​

4. Blaming the System for Individual Misconduct

Whenever governance reform comes up, someone brings up a past local scandal to argue against having an elected mayor.

​

Corruption isn't caused by an organizational chart. From Bell to Los Angeles, San Leandro to Moreno Valley, public misconduct occurs across every imaginable form of government, rotational, strong mayor, or council-manager. Misconduct is a failure of individual character, not organizational design.

​

If you want to talk about financial risk, look at oversight, not structural models. Case in point: in 2022, the City Council approved $700,000 in funding for the QueerWorks basic income pilot ($200,000 in March, $500,000 in July). By October 2024, the nonprofit’s CEO was indicted on 53 felony counts, including grand theft and money laundering. A Riverside County Civil Grand Jury later cited the city for a lack of basic policy controls in monitoring grants.

​

(For the record: I was not on the City Council when those funds were approved.)

​

That breakdown happened right under our current rotational model. It proves that protecting taxpayer money comes down to strict internal oversight and enforcement of existing policy, not refusing to update how we elect our leaders.

​

Let the Voters Decide

​

The biggest takeaway from our July 22 meeting, for me, is that it comes down to a simple choice: do we stick with an inherited, rotational appointment system, or do we modernize our local democracy and let everyone vote for their mayor?

​

Keeping district council seats protects neighborhood-level advocacy. Adding an elected mayor gives Palm Springs a single point of citywide accountability, economic stewardship, and consistent day-to-day focus with the city manager. 

​

These community meetings let residents weigh their options, whether maintaining a rotational format, opting for a directly elected mayor, or exploring other structures. Palm Springs can achieve the best of both worlds: hyper-local neighborhood representation combined with sustained, citywide leadership. 

 

Because true community engagement is rooted in direct democracy, the path forward is clear: 

​

Put this choice on the ballot and let the voters decide.