Elaine Larsen's opinion: Elections are best.
Pacifica Tribune", Elaine Larsen, Editor and Publisher, 3/6/12. From the E&P: "Stand up and run."
"Councilmember Vreeland's resignation leaves a council vacancy at a particularly important time. Pacifica is facing significant challenges of which the budget, possible sales tax and police outsourcing head the list. All these issues require a very focused city council and an attentive community to reach conclusions we will have to live with for years.
Part of this community decision process is how to fill the now-vacant council seat. Should an appointment be made or an election held? Will a possible appointment be a temporary "place holder," someone who will not run again in November 2012? Or will the appointment assume the remainder of Jim Vreeland's term which runs through 2014? If an election were held to fill the vacancy, would a larger more diverse field of candidates emerge?
Most importantly, if the remaining four council members meet to vote on an appointment, does this community get the best possible leader to address our challenges? Consider the stark differences between an appointment and the democratic process of an election and you will see why I am inclined to support an election to fill this vacant seat. If council interviews a half dozen potential appointees over a two-hour meeting, each candidate gets maybe 20 minutes of question and answer. All too often this exercise turns into "I agree with the other guys" type responses. The public rarely gets to ask questions. The interview becomes something of a beauty contest. Run an election and you get several months of walking neighborhoods, showing the voters who supports you and several debates. That proves your meddle.
Some people are jockeying to support one or another candidate. Some say running in prior elections but not winning that election means this person or that has a claim to an appointment. Some folks say serving on Pacifica's many citizen committees gives someone a leg up. I say absolutely not. The last election was 16 months ago, an eternity in politics and the developing issues in Pacifica. Many issues facing town right now were never mentioned in the 2010 election.
My final observation: elections in Pacifica are spirited three-month campaigns where voters get up close and personal with the candidates. Debates, issue questionnaires and face-to-face campaigning in front of various stores really highlight candidate positions and presentations. Nothing beats an election for picking best of the breed. I support and I believe you will agree that a three-month campaign is superior to a 20-minute interview. Pacifica needs this rigorous examination of all candidates for the vacancy, and that means stand up and run."
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Posted by Kathy Meeh
25 comments:
Agree we shouldn't be appointing ANYONE right now.
You can't go with the person who finished far behind the leader in an election so long ago.
Let the people decide in November.
I agree with much of what Editor Larsen says. The voters should be making this decision not Council. However, IMHO, given the time requirements of the various options available to Council a compromise would seem to be necessary if Council is to move forward anytime soon. Prime example of unfinished Council business is the appeal hearing pending on the assisted-living facility which has been delayed repeatedly due to recusals and lack of quorum. We risk loss of project and a lawsuit if this farce continues. Other important Council decisions will also be delayed or votes deadlocked. The only acceptable option that would seat someone quickly, (by April 27 2012), and also protect the voter's right to choose, is to make an interim appointment to serve until the November 6, 2012 general election. Ideally, a definitely-retired councilperson or a respected member of FCSTF such as Bruce Banco, Susan Getchell-Wallace or Karen Ervin. There are certainly other qualified community members out there. Definitely not anyone who ran and lost in the last election. And then, on November 6, 2012 the voters elect a replacement to serve the remainder of Mr. Vreeland's term ending November 2014. For those of us who believe in the people's right to choose their representatives this solution isn't ideal but it is the best available. All others involve unacceptable delays or, worse, allow Council to choose someone to serve for nearly 3 years. Even the costly All-Mail Ballot option could not legally happen until after July 18th. This city cannot wait that long.
Let's hope Council is really going ahead with an interim appointment to serve until the November election. They'll undoubtedly be criticized for their choice but this compromise is in Pacifica's best interests...and that's all they should worry about.
As long as they don't appoint Leo Leon or any other declared anti growth person. I believe the Sierra Club recommended Leon. Not good in these times.
If they start appointing from the losers list they'd probably have to go with Leon which is why they won't appoint from the losers list. Better to have a retired councilmember or someone w/out political ambitions from the community.
If a past city council member is appointed, you'll be appointing someone who had a part in creating the mess we're in.
It seems like if you appoint someone from the Financial Services Task Force, you'd be guaranteeing a vote on a sales tax.
Appointing someone uncontroversial is going to be very difficult, which is one of the reasons I believe an election is the only way to go. (Other than pulling a name out of a hat, which is in a sense what the ancient Greeks did.) Even if someone gets voted in that many don't like, people will more easily accept it if it's done through a vote rather than an appointment.
Based upon comments from City Councilmembers as well as our reading of the relevant statutes, Pacifica Index is of the opinion that Council will appoint an interim councilmember until such time as a 2-year replacement is put up for a vote on the Nov. ballot.
Pacifica Index's reading of the statutes and the City's options differ slightly from that of Atty Kenyon's. As one example, an all-mail ballot may only occur if the election were not concurrent with any other. Pursuing a special election in this manner would restrict the City and not allow an interim appointment.
Our reasoning and analysis of the City's options are available at Pacifica Index. We welcome your thoughts and comments.
Duh. An interim appointment to serve from April to November of this year when the election takes place is the way to go. The appointment is only for 6 months. It allows the business of the city to continue. Council will be criticized no matter who they choose but so what. Bunch of babies. To avoid a 2 to 2 deadlock on their choice I think they'll go with a "neutral"or as much as anyone can be seen as neutral in this asylum. In November we can start the circus anew with 2 elected councilmembers. I think any prior councilmember is as aware as the rest of us of our dire situation and will try to rise to the occasion. Someone from FCSTF certainly does not mean a committment to a tax measure. That group is not in full agreement on that option and is aware the city tied their hands early. Six months with a seasoned council alum or FCSTF member, this scenario can work.
"An interim appointment to serve from April to November of this year when the election takes place is the way to go. The appointment is only for 6 months."
April - November is 8 months.
No, just wait until November. It's too difficult to appoint someone that is not seen as biased. And there's no way anyone as controversial as Leo Leon should be appointed. The argument that he was the runner up is weak. He lost by a wide margin and that was almost two years ago in very different times. And the same goes with any task force members. They have no clue and only want to raise taxes.
Seems like the earliest a temp could be seated is April and we know that by law under this option they have to be seated by 4/27. The election is 11/6. It's a 7 month term if we're counting. About 11 or 12 meetings depending on the actual start date and one holiday in there.
Hutch, how do you propose handling city business in the interim? For example, the Assisted-Living facility hearing and vote? Any more delays and that developer is going to walk...straight into his attorney's office. And there are other practical considerations to worry about...budget? An interim appointee of 6 or 7 months is a compromise that may be absolutely necessary. There are reasonable and responsible people without political ambitions who can do the job for a few months. None of the losers from the last election should be appointed. That group can all run again in November. Controversy in Pacifica is unavoidable. In fact if there isn't any, Pacificans will manufacture it.
I don't want Leon because he's against development like the Oddstad project but I don't want Sue Vellone either. She's for the tax, circulated a petition for it. Didn't even bother to wait for the sheriff numbers to see what was possible. She's married to a SF cop. Leon and Vellone both have the same flaw. They put themselves, whether it's their enviro idealogy, or their family income, above doing what's best for Pacifica. Don't need that kind of leader.
Well if we appoint one of the anti growth people the assisted living project will not be approved. I'd rather take my chances with a 50/50 council. Maybe Dejarnett and Digre may feel all the pressure now and make a good decision for once.
I believe the push to recall them both is also moving forward.
"Leon and Vellone both have the same flaw."
Guess the only perfect candidate for you Anonymous 1:55 PM would be yourself. Vellone is pro-economy and would work hard to fix the economic deficiencies of this city. I'll vote for her should she run for city council in November. And, if she's appointed, that's okay too.
"the push to recall them both is also moving forward." A waste of time and effort. It will only end with the recall proponents looking foolish.
Recall proponents have always looked silly. Win or lose.
@205anon yeah, she's off to a great start to be an economic savior for this town. Peddling a petition to support a sales tax increase. Mmm, I think we've already been there and we have to do better.
Total recall! This is Pacifica and nobody comes between us and our right to be the county clowns.
Hutch, don't forget that DeJarnatt cannot vote on the assisted-living project and neither can Stone. Both have recused themselves. Therefore, for the project to go forward someone else will have to be seated on Council who can vote on the item. Better be soon. The developer will be back in May and that's about it for him and this looney-bin of a town.
anon536 pretty much. even w/out a recall.
oh no dyslexia strikes again. anon536 s/b anon 356.
From that 3/12 agenda it seems council may be about to do something smart and appoint an interim councilperson. Bravo! The city must move forward.
As a twice-elected and former Mayor of San Bruno and a Pacifica homeowner since 1986, as well as a Pacifica business owner, the Pacific Passions Consignment Store where Bearly Worn used to be at 35 Manor Drive, I had already told my friends and family that I had intended to run for Pacific City Council in November after my retirement from the Department of Emergency Management in San Francisco. With the vacancy of Councilman Jim Vreeland's seat and prior to the March 12th council meeting I had already given formal notice to the Pacifica Mayor and Councilmembers of my intent on seeking election to the City Council. Pacifica cannot function with continued conflicts of interest, 2-2 ties or lack of quorums at public hearings so someone new without a prior agenda or political alliance may help pull this city together. Through Pacific Passions is my intent to provide an economic service to the residents of Pacifica and improve our business climate even if it is just helping one person at a time to get back on his or her feet. Pulling a near bankrupt city up by it's bootstaps is something which can also be done by re-energizing the City Council giving priorities to vitally needed public safety and services. We can all succeed if we empower each other and look for win-win solutions instead of the bickering and factionalization which must be overcome. We must all look forward to the future instead of dwelling in the past. The power of "YES" is amazing by taking on a positive approach and a "can-do" attitude.
Gary J. Mondfrans
you gotta be nuts but welcome to the asylum
Hey Gary, Welcome! So I'm assuming you understand this city must concentrate on economic development.
Great!
What are your views on more taxes? Employee wages and pensions? Allowing new development?
We have a problem here of environmental groups blocking new development and progress. Do you believe we need more tax base?
We also face a grave future with over 20 million in unfunded pension debt to Calpers and un-affordale union contracts. Do you agree?
Post a Comment