Blog Post < Previous | Next >
USIH.Org
Towns and City Councils move to even-year election cycles: Should they extend their own terms?
On September 1st, 2015, the state of California enacted bill SB 415, which effectively requires regional entities, including city and town councils, to hold their elections on even-numbered years by 2022. The idea is to increase public participation by having local and state elections on the same ballot. This makes sense.
The Public Policy Institute of California performed a survey on 350 California cities and concluded that the new law could increase voter turnout by 21%-36%. Compliance can be accomplished by a variety of scheduling strategies including extending one’s own current term.
In Marin County, various strategies have already been adopted to comply with even-year elections by 2022.
Ross, Sausalito, and Belvedere already hold even-year elections and are therefore already in compliance.
San Anselmo and Tiburon have chosen to not extend terms. They will hold their 2017 and 2019 staggered council elections for 3 year terms. This seems to be the democratic high ground where terms stay within their normal term-length range and it honors terms previously determined by voters. This comes with the expense of an extra election. [UPDATE: Tiburon has subsequently reversed their decision and will extend current terms.]
Similarly, Novato has chosen not to extend current terms. They will hold 2017 and 2019 elections, but for 5 year terms. Again, a fair and equitable solution.
San Rafael will extend the terms of 3 of 5 current councilmembers. They will hold 2017 elections for 2 council seats, but they plan to extend the terms of the other three by one year to 2020. This is not a very equitable solution. It begs the question: did those three council members form a voting alliance to extend their own terms limits? This type of incongruity should not be allowed as an option.
Mill Valley School board and Ross Valley School District, affected entities, have decided to extend current terms of all directors by one year in order to comply. This again, is a very self-serving solution. Oddly, it was noted in Fairfax staff comments that school boards as a group seemed to be favoring current-term extension. It makes you wonder if that’s a coincidence.
Mill Valley City Councilmember’s scheduling strategy is yet to be determined.
Meanwhile, Fairfax is presently deadlocked 2-2.
Let’s look at the positions of the four Fairfax councilmembers, regarding the option of extending their own terms.
Mayor John Reed favors current-term extension:
“It’s expensive to run. It’s hundreds of hours of work from anyone running, either an incumbent or from the public. And in addition to hundreds of hours of work, it costs money. It costs the town money to run an election also so we need to be cognizant of the public’s money to do that. However, it is democracy and it’s important to have feedback and that’s the nature of democracy. It’s what you do. To have 3 year elections, you have to spend the public’s money to do that. How important it is? Frankly, I was hoping for more people chiming in because frankly I don’t know. I don’t know how people feel about us extending our terms as the school boards did to 5 years from 4. It seems a bit presumptuous. Frankly, I’d like some feedback from the community. Not having that, I guess we’re operating in a vacuum except for the two comments we’ve had tonight.”
Comment: If the work and expense of an extra election is his overriding concern then he should be advocating the scheduling strategy Novato employed with elections in 2017 and 2019 for 5 year terms. This schedule at least honors current voter-determined terms and saves money.
Council Member Renee Goddard favors current-term extension:
“There have been so many things that have been continued and continued and continued in small bits with stoppages and collecting public input and workshops. I mean a lot has been put into that. I’m not thinking of myself in 2017 or 2019 actually at this point, but I’m thinking about the town and I’m thinking about the investment of the town. I’m thinking about 3 year elections being expensive. I’m thinking of saving money at this next election and I would push it to 2018 and 2020. And yeah, it’s allowed by law.”
Comment: Does that really sound like an objective opinion? Has there ever been a politician who’s not wanted to stay in office until they decide to retire?
Council Member Peter Lacques is against current-term extension:
“We were elected for 4 year terms. It does feel a little weird to sort of elect ourselves for an additional year beyond what we ran for. As tempting as it is to not have to run for a year longer, I do agree with [Council Member Weinsoff] that that’s what we were elected to do was 4 year terms.”
Comment: Let me note here that I don’t agree with most of Council Member David Weinsoff’s policies, but I applaud his stand on this issue. His comment on this topic is lucid, timeless, and more than deserves to serve as the last word here:
Council Member David Weinsoff is against current-term extension:
“I think when you run for public office you go to the public and you say ‘I’d like to serve as your representative on the town council for 4 years,' not 5 years. If the state law was, in a sense, a hammer, and said, ‘You have to do this right now’ and the only option you had was to extend or be in violation of state law that would clearly change the scenario, but that’s not the case here. Here there’s time to change. There’s time to go to the voters and say, ‘I would like an extended term or I would like a reduced term’ and either of those keeps faith with those who have cast the ballot for us. I think [the extension of current terms is] disingenuous, I think it’s disrespectful, and it’s not necessary. I would strongly recommend that this council keep faith with what each of us asked the voters when we went before them some years ago and have the election this year in 2017 and then my personal recommendation would be to go on and shorten the schedule.”