City Council: Brownrigg floats term limits

I'm not sure how widely Mayor Brownrigg sent out the e-mail below.  It's probably fairly widespread, but I spoke to a couple people who are "active" and they have not seen it, so I will go ahead and share it with Voice readers as Michael suggests at the bottom.  My comments below.

Dear friends of Burlingame civic life:

I am writing a heads up note to you about an item I put on the agenda for next Monday, December 4, which happens to be my last substantive meeting as mayor.

And before I explain more, I want to preemptively say that I FULLY understand the irony of my study item!

So my study item is whether Burlingame City Council and/or its commissions ought to have term limits going forward. Here is why I think it merits a conversation now.

When I got on Council I asked about the idea of term limits and I was told that, because the elections are at-large, all the voters get to pick who they think are the best 5 people to lead the city, and often that might be someone with a lot of experience and solid track record. After seeing how hard it was to run for re-election, I completely agreed with this point of view. It is hard to run and each election (until the most recent one), I felt I really had to earn my seat against worthy opponents.

My views changed during the last election, which was our first set of district elections (which I resisted but knew we would have to accept due to state law). In 2022 there were three Burlingame council races without a single competitor; I cannot recall any Burlingame election ever when there was not at least one credible competitor and very often several or even many competitors, creating active debates, giving the voters real choices, and making candidates earn their spot on Council.

I conclude that district elections -- which effectively cut Burlingame down from a city of 30,000 to one of 6,000 for each candidate -- significantly diminish voter choice. In the pre-District days, it usually took at least 2,500 votes to win a seat (depending on the number of candidates) and often 3,000 or more; with districts the top vote getter got 2,000 and the others around 1500 each. Had there been competitors, that number would have been much smaller, perhaps in the hundreds.

So I raise these questions now -- yes, yes, after 4 terms -- do we collectively worry about a candidate sort of "owning" a district such that opponents do not want to take the field? Are we concerned that there might not always being two people in each district who even want to run, let alone two capable people to choose between? 

I do not come into this conversation with a point of view -- I simply wanted to raise the question while I could. And while I was at it, I decided to also put on the table the question of term limits for commissioners because I can see how very hard it is for Council to vote off incumbents and yet I also see how many more applications we get when there is an actual open seat on a commission. The commissions create our city's bench strength, I think, and therefore also worthy of a conversation about term limits.

If you want to weigh in, PLEASE DO. You can send a comment to the City Clerk, you can write to the whole Council, or you can show up; sadly, you cannot call in "live" any more because of the zoom-jerks. And feel free to share with anyone else who cares about how we elect our leaders going forward. Again, I am looking forward to the conversation, I am not advocating an outcome.

If there is sufficient consensus to do something, then staff would be sent away to develop options. If the status quo emerges as the preferred alternative, well, at least I asked!

Very best,

Michael

---------------------------

It strikes me that term limits would confuse cause and effect.  The cause of the scarcity of candidates is the lousy election law Michael refers to and we covered here, here and here creating five tiny districts.  It's voter suppression pure and simple and should have caused a consortium of other small cities (<100,000) throughout the state to beg, plead, cajole or sue for exemptions.  Have Diane Papan and Josh Becker scour the halls of Sacramento for support.  It's actually not too late since we are starting to have early data on the deleterious impact.

Having said that, I go back to my suggestion when this all started.  Instead of five little districts, we could have created two (East side, West side anyone?)  And left 3 seats "at large".  Or cut the city in thirds and leave two "at large".  It's also not too late.  If the SoCal lawyer behind all of this wants to sue, let him.  We wouldn't know how it would play out unless we try.  If someone was put off by a strong district incumbent, they could run at large.  It would be more time consuming and expensive but perhaps easier to actually win.

The main problem with term limits is the loss of institutional knowledge on council.  Even ten years gone from office now, my wife still has insights from her three terms on council that I believe would take a newly elected council member years to acquire.  The de facto term limit we have now is the often-thankless nature of the job.  My sense is the number of people willing to step up to 12, 16 or 20 year stints is diminishing.  Just a guess.  Thoughts, dear readers?

Comments

[Phinancier]

Let's face it. If you think Papan or Becker have any interest in in voter rights, voter suppression or anything other than union donations and climate pork I have a piece of the Bay Bridge to sell you.

[Jennifer Pfaff]

I did not get the Michael Memo, but saw the issue on the agenda for Monday.

It is your last paragraph, Joe, that for me says it all. Institutional knowledge is priceless. It takes at least a year or so (more, if a person is "new" to really participating in city issues) to get the full picture, grasp the background on various items, and understand how a number of staff and council issues are intertwined, etc.

IMO we have benefited greatly from those council people and various commissioners, many of whom stuck it out for a long time in what is essentially volunteer work for the betterment of a community (my view, anyhow). That has been generally true, even if there have been times when I fundamentally have disagreed with some on particular issues.

Though it was been unusual in "at large" elections to have no takers, I think Mary Janney ran uncontested about 15 or 20 years ago (please, correct me if I'm mistaken). At the time, few thought that was a good thing, but then shame on them for not running. I'm pretty sure she walked right in for a second (or third?) term. But she did have institutional knowledge at that point. In Hillsborough a few years back, there may have been a similar situation where nobody wanted to run, and there was no election.

Lots of people complain, but few actually do anything beyond complaining, and that has never really been any different--neither at large, nor district.

[Oh the irony]

Oh the irony. I wonder if they really even have the authority to do this?

[Joanne]

Can anyone tell what was the point of District elections? I know cities were facing lawsuits if they did not comply but it all happened quickly and every city was under the gun which to me felt fishy.

What happens if there are no candidates one year from a specific district?

Another top down mandate hammered down on local cities.

[Paloma Ave]

I will repeat, "It appears that the State of California is against the people of the state." Why is that the case?

[Cathy Baylock]

Yes, Jen, you are correct. Bud Harrison retired at the last minute so Mary Janney was appointed. I am not sure if this is the case for Peter Stevenson since Rachel Cyr still appeared on the ballot even though she had formally withdrawn from the race. I do remember 2005 well when there were 9 candidates on the ballot. I think 2013, also. I think once life gets back to normal post-Covid, we will see interest in city government increase.