| When we vote for 3 this time, think about the future of this city. Choose: maybe not the prettiest candidates, maybe not the most fun, maybe not who you would share a beer or banana with. |
To date, the following is a tentative alphabetical listing of city council candidates who have taken out papers, filed and qualified:
Sue Digre
Therese Dyer
John Keener
Mike O'Neill
Eric Rachames
Victor Spano
Candidates who have taken out papers, but not filed: Mathew Dougherty (the first name spelling may be Matthew). Assuming Councilmember Len Stone did not file, non-incumbent candidates may file up to Wednesday, August 13th, 5 p.m.
Reference - November 4, 2014 election, City of Pacifica, pdf, pages 1. For candidate updates, quick links to candidate websites and this filing information, also see Pacifica Index.
Note: photo/graphic from Quick me me.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
35 comments:
Yup. Horrey for Theresa. I really things is about time to send Sue Digre home.
We need new people and I strongly believe that Len Stone wants to take care of his family. His kids are very young and as a mother I admire that honesty.
Theresa was a tireless worker for the No on V campaign. Who working with Bob H. help get the whole thing going from the beginning.
Those of you who have read my post about Len, know that I did not want him to be re-elected, but I do want to thank him for stepping up and doing a thankless job to the best of his ability.
Political life brings out the best and worst character traits.Pacifica Council:A reality show of the worst.i
Tom
What is your problem with Lennie?
Therese is a sharp lady,who would keep us from getting screwed.She would need some help from us.
Since Mr. Stone is not running there is no point in getting into my reasons for him not to run or get reelected. I wish him well in all his future endeavors.
It's getting surreal.
I have a question for "Term Limits" genius. Can Sue Digre ran for council? I thought her last term was this one.
Please we need to keep in mind that term limits was a success and we shouldn't forget.
Term limits passed November of 2010. Remember, it runs prospectively, not retroactively.
From the impartial ballot analysis provided for Term Limits Measure V passed in November 2010. Laugh or cry?
If this measure is approved by the voters of Pacifica, no person may be elected to more than two terms on the Pacifica City Council after the effective date of the measure. A term of office under the ordinance that would be enacted by this measure is either a full four year term, or a partial term in excess of two years. HOWEVER, terms of office served or commenced prior to the effective date of the measure by present or former members of the PCC will not count toward the two-year limit.
Hmm. Reading that first sentence, would a term that commenced at the same time as the measure (11/2010) count towards the two term limit? 'Same time' and 'after' are not generally the same thing but IDK. The part after HOWEVER makes it pretty clear that a term already in progress on 11/2010 would not be counted towards the two-year limit that defines a term under this measure. How many more times could Nihart and Digre run? One more time for each?
Sue or anyone could be elected 2 more times after the effective date of measure V. She has been elected once so far.
906 Yes, clearly two terms AFTER Measure V enacted, but where is the language that addresses anyone elected at the same time Measure V is enacted? Or, is it just your interpretation to count that as 'after'-- and your interpretation may be as good as it's going to get on here. What about O'Neill? Is this his final run or one more for a 4 year? His first term was an elected 2 year, not a partial.
Term limits went into effect on the Jan. 1 following the election. Council was sworn in a few weeks earlier in mid-December. This has all been hashed over a dozen times. No one is sneaking in an extra term.
I am glad no one can sneak another extra term. Imagine Digre would be there until she reaches 100 years old.
I am so happy that Term Limits took
place. Can you believe having the same people for ever.
So 1042, are you saying that the November 2010 election results (Digre and Stone) do not count towards term limits because term limits weren't enacted until Jan 2011, ie, after the 2010 winners commenced their terms? For the record, I certainly don't suspect anyone of trying to "sneak" an extra term. I just want to know when the clock started ticking for council members who were in office when term limits was enacted. I think past discussions here were no more than opinion and interpretation. Do you have a legal opinion to cite or share?
Many thanks to Bernie for getting term limits done!
The text of the ordinance states that it applies "prospectively" (in the future), so the concurrent elections didn't count towards term limits.
As an earlier poster alluded to, the clock started ticking on January 1, 2011. In other words, no one has yet served a term that counts towards the limit; this election is the first first that will.
BIG OOPS!!! I really screwed up and totally ignored the 2012 election!
Karen Ervin and Mary Ann Nihart each have one more term of eligibility. They are both are currently serving terms that began AFTER term limits were put in place.
Mike O'Neill and Sue Digre can serve twice more (this election they're running for would count as one of those two times). O'Neill can be elected twice more because even though he was elected after the ordinance went into effect, his current two-year term doesn't qualify as a "full term" under the ordinance.
Sue may be elected twice more (this election would be once of those two, should she be elected) because this would be her first election after the ordinance went into effect.
Kind of confusing, but I hope this helps.
Thank you, Chris Fogel. That's what I thought was the case. So, Nihart and Ervin are in their first terms under the term limit ordinance and can run once more in 2016. Digre and Stone have served no time under term limits and can run now and again in 2018.
Seems like O'Neill's first elected term of two years does not count towards term limits as described in the ballot language and he can run now and again in 2018.
Whether or not we like term limits, it's important to understand how our version of the thing works.
11:04 // Yes, that is correct.
Not confusing at all Fogel. It's all right there in the language which few bothered to read while celebrating passage of the measure. Noticed the Pacifica measure differs from some others in that it results in a lifetime ban. Merciful.
Measure V, from 11/2012 election, as follows: "Shall an ordinance be adopted providing prospectively that no person who has served two terms of office as a Pacifica City Councilmember shall be eligible to run for election as a Pacifica City Councilmember and further providing that if for any reason a person serves a partial term as Pacifica City Councilmember in excess of two years, that partial term shall be considered a full term for purposes of the term limit provision?"
The measure takes effect from the election date, and if she wins, this will be the last term for Sue Digre. Whereas, Mike O'Neill who has served no more than two years may serve two more terms. (A city council term is four years.) That's my understanding from reading this text.
Jane Northrop states the same in her Pacifica tribune "The races are on" article. "The other incumbents, Sue Digre and Mike O'Neill, will run for another term. In Digre's case, it will be the last term for her under Pacifica's term limits ordinance."
I'm with Fogel. If the Pacifica term limits measure runs prospectively, which is CA law for general law cities, it would seem that election results that happened concurrent with the measure cannot be covered by the measure. Matters not whether the ordinance is enacted on election day or as someone earlier posted, on Jan 1, 2011. All due respect to Jane and Kathy.
1238, knock yourself out! The city attorney is waiting for your inquiry.
Meantime, I'm pretty sure Jane and I each have the correct information. The election date matters, that is the "prospective" date. And that's the way I recall this information from Bernie, through the attorney who drafted the Measure. But, you're right the eligibility dates are a little confusing.
Looks like it's all about statutory interpretation. And there's all kinds of that to be found. However, no lesser luminary than the CA A.G. Kamala D. Harris was asked to render an opinion for the city of Loomis Ca. in 2012. If you sort through the thing, the attorney general's method is to ask 'what did the voters want to do'? That question helps form her opinion that the enactment of the Loomis term limits measure followed so closely the swearing in of the office holders (2 weeks m/l)that those terms would count towards the term limit total. Her reasoning was that it was clear to her that the voters meant to limit service to 8 years and not 12 and that a variance of 4 years was a hell of a bigger deal than a couple of weeks once the voter's intent was clear.
The language used in a term limits measure is critical and can and has resulted in legal challenges. There are still a lot of contrary interpretations at work around the state, but that one came from the A.G.
1:37 nails it.
I had search the CA Attorney General's Opinions, but didn't find this.
Opinion No. 11-401 pretty much covers this exact scenario and the concurrent terms begun in 2010 count towards term limits.
Sue Digre, Mary Ann Nihart, and Karen Ervin may each serve one more term. Mike O'Neill may serve two more.
Thank you very much to the commentator at 1:37 for setting me straight on Harris' legal interpretation. Appreciated!
Nobody will be termed out for at least 4 more years. Mary Ann won't be termed out until 2020. So much for Bernie's term limits.
City Hall can not find a missing $4,000,000 bucks do you really think anyone is keeping track of term limits?
You're welcome Chris Fogel. BTW I also didn't find that particular perfect opinion from the A.G. until after I agreed with you on here. Looks like all those term limit measures we've seen in CA in the last 7 or 8 years have produced many questions and opinions. A.G. Harris wasn't just talking to little old Loomis, CA. And a judge in any jurisdiction could probably insist on a stricter letter of the law interpretation instead of the 'intuitive' one offered by Kamala Harris. If it came to that.
312 Look at it this way...you have time to get all those city-savin' candidates primed and ready to run.
347 In related news you might get a giggle out of news coverage of the SamTrans forensic audit (under the DA's office) which found massive mishandling of public funds but no sign of criminal conduct. Apparently management was squirreling away funds in various accounts so they could be used later with less oversight. Auditors found lack of GAAP, missing receipts, flaky accounting entries, etc etc. SamTrans hired their own auditors which caused whistle-blowers to take it to the DA who brought in new blood to do a forensic audit. It's a great read. Lessons and inspiration for us all.
I love how the authorities always release the bad news about their brethren's massive mishandling of public funds with the good news of no criminal conduct. Insures the public breathes a sigh of relief and forgets all about it.
455, interesting little conversation here. Anonymous 440, 415, 137-- no links to backup anything you say. Some reason for that?
Kathy, one source for Samtrans see nbc.bayarea.com/investigations. For the A.G's full opinion on questions re term limits in Loomis CA which Fogel also cites see oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/11-401.pdf
A short version of the opinion is also on the OAG website but without her reasoning. The rest is in the language of the Pacifica initiative which you have. Bon appetit!
Post a Comment