Not only did city council members split on the idea of extending
their terms an extra year to have council races coincide with
larger even-year elections, but they will continue their argument
on the November ballot.
Not only did city council members split on the idea of extending their terms an extra year to have council races coincide with larger even-year elections, but they will continue their argument on the November ballot.
Moving those up for election in 2009 to 2010, and those up in 2011 to 2012, requires a voter-approved charter amendment and would save the city about $150,000 in election costs by piggy-backing on state and federal ballots, according to historical costs. If four years is enough for a councilmember, the potential measure allows the body to appoint a replacement for the extra year.
Councilman Perry Woodward called the plan a “ruse” last June before he and councilmen Bob Dillon and Craig Gartman voted against the entire idea, but the majority preferred to have voters decide. Before residents vote, though, they will see the debate unfold again thanks to the three council members in the minority and their First Amendment rights to pen an argument against the election change. On the sample ballot mailed to voters, their argument will appear next to the pro-shift argument authored by councilmembers Dion Bracco, Cat Tucker and Peter Arellano.
Mayor Al Pinheiro reviewed the latter’s final draft, but he could not remember a city council ever disagreeing on a topic and then continuing that argument onto the ballot, he said. Disagreeing on submitting a measure to voters is common, but staying the dispute onto the ballot is rare at best, according to long-serving council members and former City Administrator Jay Baksa, who worked at the city for more than 24 years until his January retirement.
“It’s sad this is happening, but we have an unusual council,” Pinheiro said of the argument that can’t seem to settle. “Voters are going to decide, but this has nothing to do with giving ourselves an extra year. It’s all about money. And it’s not only saving money today, but on into the future.”
Pinheiro added that he had floated the idea of shedding a year off terms to get on the even-year cycle, but the idea faded earlier this year as Dillon affirmed that voters elected him for four years, not three. Also, anything like that would have had to happen last year because if voters approved such a measure this year, then those up for re-election in 2009 would be cut down to ’08 and – Oops! – would have just missed their opportunity to run. Another option, which Woodward floated, would be to phase in the shift by having candidates run for special, five-year terms in 2009 and 2011, putting everything on track by 2016.
As for the ongoing term extension debate, Gartman said it is not a big deal: He and his two colleagues just want to make sure an argument in favor of the shift does not go unchallenged.
“We’re council members, and we just have a dissenting voice,” Gartman said.
“It’s a matter of courtesy is all,” Woodward added.
Before the council voted 4-3 June 16 to let voters decide, the three councilmen contended that the shift will drown out the council race and confuse voters with a busier ballot. It would also increase campaigning costs for local candidates who will have to spend more to distinguish themselves in a sea of signs for state, federal and school board candidates. But the other side has argued that the larger pool is a good thing: Even years mean more diverse voters choosing the council because of the greater turnouts that presidential and gubernatorial races command.
Still not worth it, Gartman argued when he warned the council in April against being “penny wise and pound foolish.” He also pointed to the November 1974 election, when voters approved an amendment to the city charter to shift from even- to odd-year elections. This year’s measure would be another amendment to that charter section and would temporarily supersede a separate section specifying four-year term limits.
Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Candidate and Public Services Manager Shannon Bushay said the registrar’s office will print the two arguments of 300 words or less side by side exactly as City Clerk Shawna Freels submits them.
“We will print what arguments are submitted to us with the names and titles of their authors exactly as they are submitted by the city clerk,” Bushay said. “We won’t do anything to differentiate to make one stand out more than the other, and if they list themselves as council members, that’s what will appear. If they list themselves as John Doe, private citizen, then that’s what will appear.”
In their sample ballots, voters will read the complete text of the charter amendment, an impartial analysis written by the city attorney and the arguments in favor and against. There is also room for two rebuttals, but Freels said she did expect any by today, the deadline for arguments. Together with the library bond measure, the even-year ballot items will cost the city $54,000 to $64,000 depending on the number of ballot arguments, according to registrar estimates.
By the numbers
-$195,579: Cost to Gilroy for 2007 election for three council races, mayoral race and one ballot measure.
-$50,184: Cost to Morgan Hill for same number of races and one measure in ’06
-15,223: Number of registered voters in Gilroy
-16,881: Number of registered voters in Morgan Hill
Members up for re-election in 2009
-Dion Bracco, Craig Gartman and Peter Arellano
Members up for re-election in 2011
-Mayor Al Pinheiro, Perry Woodward, Bob Dillon and Cat Tucker
Source: Gilroy City Clerk, Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
