The prevailing reason cited is budget stewardship and not term-extension. Councilmember Arellano says, "To insinuate that someone wants an extra year is beyond me …This whole thing is about saving money and balancing the budget."

In the April 2008 Election Cycle Study Session meeting, Arellano said, "Spending taxpayers' money wisely is fiscal responsibility, and that's utmost over anything else," as one of his reasons for supporting the proposal. Cat Tucker agreed with Arellano and further cited "engaging our young adults in the election process" and described the even-year cycles as the best opportunity to do so. Arellano later said odd-year election cycles disenfranchise voters due to low interest.

Crystal clear, however, are the results of this misguided amendment proposal. A review of all current members' term shows they end in odd years. To place local elections on the even-year cycle all members' terms must be increased by one year. That stinks, and not in a garlicky-good way.

Draft charter amendment language appears to only deal with section 1400 which governs the election cycle, yet leaves section 402 which defines the term of a Council member to a four-year period untouched. I'm sure the legal eagles in the city attorney's office will draft the amendment language to be legal yet not lay-person friendly.

Another crystal clear result is Gilroy will save in the neighborhood of $50,000 annually. On the surface that is a huge number! Fifty Grand! Man, just think of what the city can do with all that moo-lah. The opportunities are endless …not so much. Dion Bracco and Craig Gartman sum it up perfectly. Using the reserve as an income source isn't balanced budgeting. It's three-shell Monty on a Brooklyn street corner.

Deficit spending has been the status-quo, but unfortunately, new City Administrator Tom Haglund has the unenviable task of trying to track the movement of the ball in that shell. Until this amendment proposal, it seemed council really wanted to know how bad the financial situation is. Too bad not all Council members felt this way before they approved the largest ($13 million) and fastest occurring (under a year) reserve expenditure in Gilroy's history to purchase Bonfante Gardens.

Balancing the budget? Oh, my, Peter. Give the Gilroyans who voted for you a break! The budget hasn't seen a balanced sheet in some time. Just admit it; the extra year would be nice.

The proposal's annual savings equal roughly 1 percent of the total deficit spending in the recently approved city budget. Gilroy will spend that 1 percent and then some this election year alone getting the proposal on the ballot, let alone passed in a year also having two school district bond issues, the first black presidential candidate in American history, and our library bond to boot.

My biggest gripe isn't even the clarity or lack of it surrounding the reasons behind this proposal. It is the certain confusion that Gilroy voters will face with local races on an even-year cycle. Disenfranchisement in election-speak means a group, cultural or race, is displaced from participating in the election process by intimidation or legislation.

It is simply amazing that in a city having a population more minority than not any elected official can think voters are disenfranchised with a charter that allows a slower paced, more easily understood, and more accessible ballot. What about a non-degreed minority man or woman vying for a seat on Council? How disenfranchised is that potential candidate now that they may have to raise more money just to be heard in a fishbowl of national and state issues. That's disenfranchisement.

Ben Anderson is a longtime Gilroyan and father of two fantastic teens. His column is published weekly.

Ben Anderson Columnist Ben Anderson is a long-time Gilroyan and father of two fantastic teens. You can reach him at heyben@bdkr.net. His column is published every Wednesday.