I read Sam Steel’s recent letter (Dec. 16) about the selection of mayor pro tem and I’d like to offer a different perspective.
The one council member who nominated herself (Marsha McLean) is leaving the council in a year, so it’s fair to ask: What would have been the point of making that person mayor pro tem, a role that is traditionally a stepping stone to mayor? In the corporate and entrepreneurial world – the world Councilman Bill Miranda himself comes from – you simply don’t assign key succession roles (vice president to president, junior to senior partner, or in our case, pro tem to mayor) to someone you know is on their way out. It doesn’t build continuity or leadership depth for the organization.
Seen that way, supporting Patsy Ayala for mayor pro tem was the most logical choice. She is staying, she is prepared, and giving her that experience serves the long-term stability of the council and the city. You don’t need to violate any rule to have common sense. That stretch does not hold.
If anything, the more interesting question is not “why did the mayor support Ayala,” but why Jason Gibbs doubled down on promoting someone who will no longer be on the council in 12 months. How does that choice benefit Santa Clarita in the long run?
Matt Richardson
Newhall
