Mayor’s Gavel Automatically Changes Hands at Next City Council Meeting

• Largely Ceremonial Post Stirred Controversy Last Year

BY BILL KOENEKER

It may seem strange to some casual Malibu City Hall observers that the rotation of mayoral duties is taking place next week, which is less than a year after the current mayor, Pamela Conley Ulich, was installed.
However, the reasons for the shortened term can be found in the minutes of a meeting that took place in April of last year, when it appeared there would be a mayoral succession crisis if some unusual action wasn’t taken to prevent possible fireworks.
Prior to that April meeting, it seemed that Councilmember Andy Stern, who will be handed the mayoral gavel next week, and Conley Ulich were quietly battling for the top post behind the scenes, and the dispute had the potential to become acrimonious.
The largely ceremonial position had become the focus of controversy because Conley Ulich, who was the top vote-getter in the city council election in April was prepairing to take over mayoral duties because of her high vote count. The position is normally rotated between council members on a yearly basis.
At the same time, Stern who was the mayor pro tem at the time, thought he was assuming the post and that the action was not related to election numbers.
However, a showdown, which ostensibly had been brewing for weeks, was averted when Councilmember Sharon Barovsky threw out an olive branch to both parties and came up with the plan now in place that made both of the council members happy.
A crowd that had gathered in the council chambers to debate for one side or the other was stopped cold.
Barovsky suggested a policy that was unanimously approved by the council—to have each council member serve as mayor for 9.6 months, starting with Conley Ulich, instead of the customary one-year term. Stern would succeed Conley Ulich for 9.6 months, and then Barovsky offered to serve a shortened term of only 4.8 months and that would put the council on track on a continuous 9.6 month term, which was designed to remain in effect for succeeding councils.
In the aftermath, some called it a compromise that was self-sacrificing, while others said it was politically savvy to prevent any sort of crisis. Still others called it a political retreat, but whatever the spin, it took the focus off the conflict and, in its own small way, changed municipal history as will be evident at next week’s city council reorganization meeting.