GILROY
– City leaders seem ready to continue the costly practice of
subsidizing Gilroy elections despite fears they are losing local
control over their ever-shrinking budget.
GILROY – City leaders seem ready to continue the costly practice of subsidizing Gilroy elections despite fears they are losing local control over their ever-shrinking budget.

At its Jan. 16 to 17 retreat, Council discussed scrapping its 100 percent subsidy of campaign filing costs. But a majority of dais members are not interested in taking an action that could be interpreted by some as closing access to the most sacred democratic process, running for election.

“I’m not going to cut anybody off from running for public office,” Councilman Bob Dillon said. “I hate to say it this way, but the amount ($1,274 per candidate) is fairly insignificant for me. Open elections are good for the city. They’re worth the cost.”

Council will discuss the matter further at a future retreat, and the issue could be brought up at a regular Council session at any Councilman’s request.

The dilemma is this: Avoid covering the costs and risk limiting the contest to better-funded candidates; or cover the costs, and ask taxpayers to foot the bill for someone’s political aims.

“This is an issue of the haves versus the have nots,” Councilman Charlie Morales said. “There are some people who want to run for office and they can’t afford to do it.”

Only one Councilman, Roland Velasco, showed interest in a policy change last week.

This year, a tight-budget year, Gilroy paid $12,800 to the county registrar so 11 candidates – several of whom raised thousands of dollars in their campaign – could run for office. Also, county campaign costs are rising partly due to expenses related to new electronic voting systems.

Costs used to be $351 per candidate.

“It may not break the bank, but at the same time Council gets stipends and I’d love to pay Planning Commission members for their time, too,” Velasco said. “We need to be sensitive to these costs.”

The Planning Commission is the council’s premier land use advisory board.

Previous articleNew Councilman’s explanation for not showing up to the orientation meeting with city department heads weak
Next articleGilroy, Coe among bullet train options

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here