The obvious here is that Mayor Foster doesn't have the power on his own to remove Long Beach Harbor Commission President Thomas Fields. In 2007, via a ballot measure that newly elected Mayor Foster proposed, Long Beach voters approved giving six Councilmembers the power to say "yes" or "no" if a Mayor seeks to remove a Harbor Commissioner.

The measure is consistent with the rest of the City Charter which gives Council members votes and the Mayor only a veto that six Councilmembers can override. In other words: Councilmembers are the people's check and balance on the current Long Beach Mayor or future Mayors.

The City Charter doesn't make Councilmembers stooges of the Mayor. Only Council members can make themselves stooges of the Mayor. And stooge is the proper word if some Councilmembers think their role is similar to former East European "lawmakers" who drew laughter by raising their hands when told to do so.

Mayor Foster brought the agenda the item. He has a de facto burden of proof here. No, the City Charter doesn't specify what that burden is. Yes, Councilmembers can individually decide what the burden is and whether the Mayor has met it. But whatever it is, it isn't zero. If it were zero, the 2007 Charter amendment would have given the Mayor complete control over removing Harbor Commissioners which it didn't do. The fact that the City Charter requires approval by six Councilmembers (beyond a simple majority) shows how important that check and balance is supposed to be.

As of dawn today (Nov. 19), Mayor Foster hasn't provided a public, businesslike explanation for why he proposes that the Council should remove Harbor Commission President Fields. Travel expenses? The City Auditor says she doesn't plan to present her report until January. Locating a new Port HQ? Dissent alone shouldn't equal disqualification.

The PressTelegram quotes Foster as saying something about "losing faith" [faith?] in Fields, but that sounds like the kind of thing we'd expect from a junior high school couple breaking up.

We don't know if Mayor Foster can provide persuasive reasons for removing Fields. Perhaps he can...but as of dawn this morning, in our opinion he hasn't.

Retired Mayor Beverly O'Neill has voiced concern that public squabbling may hurt Port business. We hope her carefully chosen words aren't twisted to justify squelching thoughtful dissent. Clashing opinions here may displease trade ministers abroad but we're not willing to sacrifice our system for container volumes.

If later today, six Councilmembers do what this Mayor wants just because he wants it, they will in our opinion be forfeiting their check and balance duty. We don't recall any Council candidates seeking office on a platform to rubberstamp what this or any other Mayor wants.

There are two major issues headed to the Harbor Commission in the coming weeks: (1) whether a new Port HQ [which a Foster veto pushed out of the Port and into downtown] should be part of a Taj Mahal Civic Center designed/built/outsourced/operated for private profit; and (2) whom to choose for a new Port Executive Director, a person effectively controling how the Port runs a daily basis.

In our opinion, these are good reasons to respect checks and balances, not erase them.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook, plus moderate length letters and longer-form opinion pieces (op-eds) submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.