While Santa Clara Valley Water District directors are amenable
to allowing the voters to decide if they should be subject to term
limits, some wonder if the $1 to $4 million associated with such an
election is worth spending during the difficult budgetary
times.
While Santa Clara Valley Water District directors are amenable to allowing the voters to decide if they should be subject to term limits, some wonder if the $1 to $4 million associated with such an election is worth spending during the difficult budgetary times.
The district’s board of directors are expected to discuss placing the question of term limits on an upcoming ballot at its March 24 meeting. This comes on the heels of a decision last month to ask Assemblyman Joe Coto to submit legislation to keep the body a seven-member board and codify a list of board governance rules into state law.
Water district board members are currently not subject to term limits, though the board and staff began an outreach effort last year to determine the public’s mood on the issue. That effort consisted of a series of sparsely attended public hearings, one of which was in Morgan Hill.
The cost of an election to ask voters whether or not they support imposing term limits on water district board members would vary depending on which ballot it appears on. The least expensive option, according to district counsel Debra Cauble, would be to conduct the vote on the general election ballot of November 2010.
She said at the board’s Feb. 24 meeting, when the item was briefly discussed before it was tabled for later this month, that the cost would be more than $1 million, though an exact cost was not available. If the question were to appear in a special election such as the June 2009 ballot, the cost could jump to about $4 million.
Director Rosemary Kamei, who has served on the board for 16 years representing south Santa Clara County, said she supports the idea of letting the public decide on term limits, though the cost of an election is a factor.
“In concept I think it’s fine and I always believe in letting the voters choose,” Kamei said. “But when you look at our hard economic times, you have to balance that.”
She added that she has not seen any thorough cost estimates and district staff is expected to present such information at the March 24 meeting.
Kamei was first appointed to the board in 1993, then elected in 1994.
Director Richard Santos, who represents communities in central North County, said there are “pros and cons” of term limits on special districts such as SCVWD, but he is willing to “let the voters speak.”
He did not say directly whether or not he supported term limits on the board, but wondered why local special districts should be subject to the rule, but other officials such as U.S. Senators are not.
“Let’s make it equitable,” Santos said. “If you’re going to impose term limits, let the whole country abide by the same rules.”
Santos was first elected to the board in 2000.
District spokeswoman Susan Siravo said special districts in California have not traditionally been bound by term limits.
“The reason is they involve in-depth knowledge of special issues, where a lot of the projects we do are complicated and it takes a while for people to get to know them and understand the issues,” Siravo said. “Board members who stay a while have that knowledge, and it’s helpful.”
She said the board is considering placing the question on the ballot as a response to public requests and because other local elected bodies, such as the board of supervisors, have term limits. Members of the Morgan Hill City Council and the Morgan Hill Unified School District are not subject to term limits.
Five members of the water district board are elected to four-year terms within geographical sub-districts. The other two members are appointed as at-large representatives by the board of supervisors.
Board Chair Sig Sanchez is an appointed director who has served on the board for nearly 30 years. Sanchez said he will recommend the directors vote in favor of placing the question on the general election ballot of November 2010 and he speculated they will likely adopt that recommendation. Sanchez said while he is “no example” of an argument for term limits, he supports the idea.
“I think generally the people want term limits, so my guess is when we put it on the ballot it will pass, and I have no strong objection,” Sanchez said.
At its Feb. 24 meeting, the board voted 4-3 to ask Coto to submit legislation adopting 11 rules on how the board governs itself, as a condition for keeping the board a seven-member body. Those rules include requiring board members to wait at least one year after they leave the board to seek employment in the district, more transparency in district finances, openness in staff communications to the board, disclosure of relationships between board members and lobbyists, and restrictions on board members’ interference in the bidding of projects.
Since that meeting, the legislation has been introduced as AB 466.
