A Cozy Clique . . . or "Of The People"?

It's time for a supervisor election in this county By Dave Pine Opinion Piece in today's San Mateo Daily Journal If you're having a hard time remembering when the last seriously contested election for a seat on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors was held, it's not because your memory is failing you. The fact of the matter is that the last meaningful election occurred more than a decade ago when Supervisor Rich Gordon was elected to office in 1997. And over the last 20 years, only three of the 30 supervisor races on the ballot have been at all competitive. Without elections, San Mateo County voters are deprived of the opportunity to vet candidates and engage in a dialogue about important county issues that affect their lives. The supervisors are now considering how to fill a soon-to-be-vacant seat on the Board of Supervisors resulting from Jerry Hill's election to the state Assembly. The supervisors must choose between appointing a successor or holding a special election. With a number of serious candidates already expressing interest in the seat, this is the time to hold an election and use the democratic process to complete the important task of selecting a supervisor. The shortage of competitive supervisor elections in San Mateo County is an unfortunate by-product of San Mateo County's unique way of electing them. Only one other county in California shares San Mateo County's approach of selecting its supervisors in countywide elections rather than through separate district elections. That means a candidate has to appeal to approximately 380,000 voters as opposed to 76,000 to win one of the five seats on the Board of Supervisors. Most potential viable candidates are not prepared to take on such a daunting task, and they are even less inclined to do so if they have to face an incumbent. It is not uncommon for incumbents to be unopposed and they almost never face a true challenge. The last time an incumbent supervisor lost was almost 30 years ago when the well-known Jackie Speier was elected. Without any real possibility of an incumbent supervisor being voted out of office in San Mateo County, if the supervisors fill the current vacancy by appointment they will be essentially locking up the seat for 14 years: The two remaining years in Supervisor Hill's term plus three four-year terms following which the incumbent would need to step down due to term limits. Why should we forego this rare chance to have an election and deny voters the opportunity to decide for themselves who should represent them? Some contend that the cost of holding an election, which is estimated to be approximately $1.6 million, justifies filling the supervisor vacancy by appointment. This expense is not trivial during these difficult economic times, but it needs to be put into perspective. The cost of holding a supervisor election equates to approximately one tenth of 1 percent of the County's $1.6 billion budget or one tenth of each cent spent by the county. Given today's economy, all levels of government are forced to make hard choices and set budget priorities. Allowing this miniscule percentage of the budget to stand in the way of holding an election would equate to saying that it is impossible to cut or reallocate one-tenth of 1 percent of the county's current spending and that the value of holding an election ranks below every other item in the budget. Democracy and citizen involvement in our county deserve better. If the relatively modest price tag of holding a supervisor election presents an insurmountable barrier, another alternative would be to appoint a qualified person who would agree to serve only through the next regularly scheduled supervisor election in June 2010. At that time other races will be on the ballot and the county's election costs will be substantially less. There is ample precedent for this approach both locally and nationally. In 2005, a member of the County Board of Education passed away while in office and the vacancy was filled by an appointee who agreed to serve until an election for the position was held in November 2006. In Delaware, the same strategy has been adopted to fill the Senate seat that Joe Biden is leaving to become vice president. Holding an election to fill the vacant supervisor seat would encourage a rigorous and thoughtful debate on county issues, allow the voters to choose who will represent them, and energize our local democracy. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the citizens of San Mateo County. Dave Pine is a member of the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees. The opinions expressed above are his own. He lives in Burlingame.

- Written by Joanne

Comments

[Joanne]

Has anyone else noticed that the solution to the various budget crises (you-name-it: city, county, state or federal) is always one that hurts the public and benefits the bureaucrats?

[Holy Roller]

Unfortunatly, the "little people" who clean the bathrooms, and serve the school meals, bus drivers are the first cut.
When managers consider the impact of cost reductions, how many ever propose their losing their job?
How can this process ever able to be fair?

[Joanne]

Jon May's Opinion Column from today's San Mateo Daily Journal:

Supervisors need to do the right thing
The application period is over for those wanting to finish Jerry Hill's term on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and there are a total of 11 qualified and maybe not-so-qualified applicants (see our front page stories for more details)[ALso reposted on The Burlingame Voice today]. And now it is decision time for the remaining four supervisors. Do they appoint someone for the remaining two years and give that person an advantage in 2010? Or do they call for a special election? The Daily Journal was first in calling for a special election and there has been a number of other organizations including both the Democratic and Republican parties that have also come to the same conclusion.
The candidates and their supporters will make their pitch to the board Monday with less than a half an hour each to do it. The board will then turn around a day later to either make an appointment or call for a special election. That is the political equivalent of speed dating, only it's not dinner and a movie, it's a seat on a critical decision-making board. How can the board possibly make a decision in that limited time frame? The seat deserves an election not only for the benefit of the candidate who will ultimately serve in that seat, but for the community as a whole to have a chance for a larger discussion of the issues facing us all.
When San Mateo Councilwoman Carole Groom announced her intentions to run for Hill's seat once it was vacated, she seemed to be a sure thing. Groom is responsive, intelligent and has a good grasp of what the job might entail. If the board does go with a nomination of Groom, the county and District two will be served well.
However, there is a larger issue here and that is the perception that the Board of Supervisors is becoming somewhat insular, with members simply naming each other to seats and a general lack of competition during individual elections. Jackie Speier was the last challenger to unseat an incumbent, and that was in 1980. Since then, incumbents have only faced competition or token competition 10 percent of the time. Nearly 60 percent of the time, incumbents have not even been challenged. Next week, the board is scheduled to make a decision on whether to fill the seat with an appointment or move forward with a special election either in March, April or June.
There is a question of the cost of such an election, with estimates of about $1.6 million. But there might be an opportunity to piggyback on a state special election and the cost will go down.
Still, hiding behind the cost of the election is taking the easy way out. It is a fraction of the county's budget, which is nearing $2 billion a year. I'll spare you the diatribe about the price of democracy, holding a special election is just the right thing to do. It is the only way the board can avoid the perception that offices are not earned, just simply transferred by the powers that be.
I know it, the candidates know it and the supervisors know it too.

[Joanne]

What cost democracy? About $2.29 per resident -- compared with the $2290 that the county spends per resident each year.

[Holy Roller]

What do those people contribiute to Burlingame?
Or anywhere?

Another opinion on this issue:

Election for supervisor

Editor, (Daily Journal)

The debate on whether to elect or appoint the next supervisor continues. The main concern about an election is the cost. Jon Mays suggests that the $1.6 million is such a small part of the budget that the cost should not be a factor. He should ask any community nonprofit agency how important that $1.6 million would be to them. No one has mentioned Jerry Hill in this matter. He was elected and expected to complete a four-year term. It is his failure to do this which has placed the county in this situation. When he last ran for supervisor he probably knew at that time that he would run for a state office before the completion of his term. He, like many other politicians who have done the same thing, want to be in a no-lose situation. If he wins the state contest he has a job; if he loses he still has his supervisor job.

The moral thing he should have done is to announce his intention to run for the state office before the last supervisor election and not run in that election. Perhaps if we legally prevented currently serving elected officials from running for another office or had a way of asking Mr. Hill to cover some of the costs of this potential election, we wouldn't have been placed in this no-win position. Steven Howard, Redwood City