The City Council should entirely back away from the idea of
changing the local election dates for a paltry amount in
savings
The Gilroy City Council is giving serious consideration to changing the City Charter so that council members are elected in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years.
A ballot measure is likely to appear before voters sometime in 2008.
It’s a bad idea.
Holding City Council elections in odd-numbered years has an important advantage that is greatly outweighed by the relatively paltry savings that holding elections in even-numbered years is likely to bring.
Those estimated savings of $60,000 are a drop in the bucket compared to the city’s $124 million annual budget, and a even tinier in comparison to the odd-numbered year elections’ advantage: Uncluttered elections.
Holding City Council elections in odd-numbered years allows Gilroy voters to focus exclusively on the important issues facing their community, and who is best able to address them.
Holding City Council elections in even-numbered years means that voters’ attention will be split among school board, supervisorial, gubernatorial, congressional and presidential races, as well as numerous initiatives and ballot measures.
It’s simply not worth the $60,000 savings.
What’s even worse, though, is the way that council members are considering accomplishing the change – by extending the terms of already-elected officials. Specifically, the four-year terms of council members elected in November 2005 and November 2007 would become five-year terms if the proposed ballot measure becomes law.
It’s a fraudulent, Orwellian and un-American plan. Elected officials who run for and receive a four-year term from voters shouldn’t be able to extend their own terms with a ballot measure. Any such change ought to apply only to the terms of officials who earn their seats in future elections.
With the details of this plan, City Council has managed to take a bad idea and make it even worse.
We think it’s in Gilroyans’ best interests to keep City Council elections in odd-numbered years. But if the majority of voters think that those paltry $60,000 savings are worth the change, it must be made by changing the terms of future council members, not current ones.
