Sounding Off:

Last October, the Independent editorialized on the Huntington Beach Charter Review Commission’s recommendation to directly elect the city’s mayor rather than let the City Council appoint the mayor.

The editors wrote, “A mayor elected to a four-year term may appear a more influential figure to some, but because his or her duties would be no different than that of a council member, it’s hard to see how the change would make Huntington Beach a noticeably different city” (“Mayor need not be elected,” Oct. 28).

The editors quoted four presumably objective sources in order to support their position: The Orange County Sanitation District, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the League of California Cities and the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

Imagine how much spaghetti would have hit the fan had one of these sources said that appointed mayors have less clout than elected mayors do. Objective sources? I think not.

The Preamble to the Constitution states six reasons for the writing of it, and one of them was “to form a more perfect union.”

The authors sought to bind the states together in a firm and lasting unity.

Today, this unity flourishes when state and local governments govern themselves in accordance with its underlying principle, namely democracy, which requires citizens to elect representatives who will make their voice heard in government. Electing a mayor to a four-year term accords with this principle far more than does appointing one.

So, for all who have noticed the United States Constitution, a Huntington Beach governed by an elected mayor would be, in principle, noticeably different from one governed by an appointed mayor.

Were its mayor elected, Huntington Beach would be different not just in principle, but in fact and in practice as well. In fact, the mayor’s clout pales next to that of elected mayors in neighboring cities. People who respect the Constitution would have more respect for an elected mayor than for a merely appointed one.

Greater respect means greater influence, and greater influence comes with practical advantages.

First, our city’s leader would be on an equal footing with the leaders of other cites when dealing with them.

Second, every four years, the significance of the mayor’s office would supercharge the election process by spurring citizens to reflect on their city with an eye to deciding which mayoral candidate would best serve its interests.

This season of reflection would allow citizens to identify needs and problems and debate about how best to address them; it would also prompt citizens to create a new vision for the city and set new goals for it.

It should be clear to every American that the electoral process is the vehicle for the fullest realization of our cherished freedom, and it makes no sense for us to opt out of this process when selecting our city’s mayor.

The current selection process promotes disinterest in the office of the mayor by surrendering the voice of Huntington Beach’s nearly 150,000 voters to a mere seven-member City Council.

The editors make the absurd claim that the absence of our voice in selecting the mayor makes for “a diverse city” in which “all political views are heard.” In fact, however, allowing the City Council to appoint the mayor ensures that there will be no proper debate between diverse interests and thus no proper airing of any, let alone all, political views.

Although council members represent their respective constituencies’ “different interests and different views,” each of them does so only as a council member and not as an elected mayor.

An appointed mayor only nominally represents the interests and views of his or her constituency. He or she is, except for the nameplate, on an equal footing with the remaining council members.

Under these circumstances, his or her best hope of representing the voters is, oddly enough, to avoid pursuing their interests too vigorously for fear of offending fellow City Council members.

In a democracy, we give political views a proper hearing by debating issues during the election process, voting for our elected officials and, ultimately, by establishing representation in government that reflects election outcomes. Therefore, appointing the mayor results in a less-diverse city because it hears no political views properly. It is equally absurd for the editors to claim that because an elected mayor’s duties would not differ from those of a council member, the change would not make Huntington Beach a different city.

Bestowing the title of mayor on a City Council member without giving him or her the authority that goes with title is as silly as it is divergent from the principle of our nation’s unity.

Conversely, bestowing the authority of an elected official on the mayor greatly enhances his or her ability to carry out duties even if they are identical to those of a City Council member.

RICHARD LARA is a Huntington Beach resident and an adjunct professor of philosophy at Orange Coast College.