|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, October 19, 2012, 11:12 AM
Should supervisor candidates run countywide?
With Measure B, voters can decide.
|
|
by Dave Boyce
Almanac Staff
Voters in San Mateo County will have another chance in November to decide whether to change how the five supervisors who oversee county operations are elected.
Measure B would switch from at-large elections, in which all the county's voters choose each supervisor, to by-district elections, in which voting for a particular candidate is limited to voters who live in that candidate's district. In electing supervisors at large, San Mateo County is unique among California's 58 counties.
Opportunities for voters to weigh in on this question have been infrequent. The last time was in 1980, when 56.5 percent of voters endorsed the at-large system. Voters had arrived at the same conclusion in 1978, but by a 52 percent vote.
The Board of Supervisors' oversight includes public health, the county jail and parks, child support, care for the aged and infirm, and local government in unincorporated areas.
In 2010, the supervisors named a 16-member Charter Review Committee to study several county matters, including at-large versus by-district election of supervisors. A committee majority voted to keep things as they are, but also recommended that the question be put before the voters in November 2010.
The supervisors rejected that idea in a 4-1 decision on July 13, 2010, with then-Supervisor Rich Gordon dissenting. "The matter really needed to go to the ballot for the citizens to make the decision," Mr. Gordon said at the time.
"The board has the discretion to make decisions to not put a particular matter on the ballot," said then-supervisor Mark Church. "We are elected to make these kinds of decisions."
"Every resident gets five supervisors and I think that's the way it should be," Supervisor Carole Groom said at the time. "The Board of Supervisors decides what goes to the voters and the board has made its decision," she said. "Why clutter the ballot?"
Making the case
Ms. Groom, departing Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson, and Sheriff Greg Munks are among the signatories to the ballot argument against Measure B. Congressional representatives Anna Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, and Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, signed a rebuttal to the argument supporting Measure B.
The opponents assert that when supervisors are elected by the entire county, they are accountable to the entire county. "Your influence and ability to have your voice heard will be reduced if we turn to a system where elected representatives are only interested in their district," the ballot argument says. By-district elections, they add, would lead to influence by "special interests" and a shift toward parochial concerns by individual supervisors.
"San Mateo County is different. And we believe that we're better because we're different," they say.
Fifty-seven counties can't all be wrong, Measure B proponents say. "Every other county elects supervisors by district. District elections result in more competition, more accountability, more citizen involvement, and lower costs to taxpayers," says the ballot argument for the measure. Supporters include county Supervisor Dave Pine, Menlo Park Councilman Peter Ohtaki and Menlo Park Fire Protection District board member Virginia Chang Kiraly.
San Mateo County has about 340,000 registered voters, and it takes around $40,000 to reach the likely voters with one direct-mail piece, candidates have told the Almanac. By-district elections would reduce the registered voter pool to about 68,000, opening the door to successful grass-roots campaigns and a more diverse pool of candidates, proponents say.
"A supervisor campaign is a daunting and expensive proposition," the ballot argument says. "As a result, the vast majority of San Mateo County supervisor races are uncontested or uncompetitive."
Since 1982, an incumbent has never lost an election, in about half the candidates ran unopposed, and in elections for open seats, about half have been competitive -- margins of victory below 20 percent -- according to statistics provided by Measure B proponents.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Oct 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm Empower the voters, Vote YES on Measure B and settle this the easy way.
There is a very SMALL group of people who enjoy the benefits of At-Large elections in SMC.
Most of them are members of Service League of San Mateo County.
Web Link
Notice that 4 current Supervisors are members, if you go to their county website you will see that they do NOT mention they are members of this Private Non Profit.
|
|
Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Oct 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Website
Web Link
|
|
Posted by MPCyclist, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm Opponents of the measure say: "Your influence and ability to have your voice heard will be reduced if we turn to a system where elected representatives are only interested in their district."
Yet, it's quite the opposite. It makes YOUR supervisor LESS responsive to YOUR need and the needs of YOUR community. Ask yourself who gains from the current system. There are five supervisors. That means that roughly 4/5 of the electorate don't know or care about the issues in your district and are voting based on campaign rhetoric and name recognition. In other words, if your supervisor is not getting the job done, then only 20% of the electorate is effected or may even know about it. In a good election cycle roughly only 40% of that number will turn out to vote anyway. That means you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting rid of a poor or non-performing or incompetent supervisor. How's that for job security?
Another way of looking at it is, how would you like it if the entire state of California were required to vote for the legislative representative for YOUR district? How good would your representation be then? It makes about as much sense.
|
|
Posted by Virginia Chang Kiraly, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:14 am Many thanks to those who have posted in response to this article!
Vote YES on Measure B! The YES on Measure B campaign has incredibly broad support across San Mateo County and has been endorsed by three papers, with a fourth coming (I hope!): The Almanac, The Daily Journal, and The Merc/Daily News. We are so grateful for these endorsements and the momentum that the YES on Measure B campaign has!
For more information about Measure B and to see a partial list of endorsements, please visit the YES ON MEASURE B website: Web Link.
If you have any questions and/or comments, please feel free to contact me at vck@VirginiaChangKiraly.com.
|
|
Posted by Greg Conlon, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:19 am Measure B proposes to revise the San Mateo County Charter by changing the manner of electing members of the Board of Supervisors from “At Large” to a “By District” system. Of the counties in California, only San Mateo County elects its Board members “At Large”. The five Districts in San Mateo County each have approximately 55,000 to 85,000 registered voters, and 334,000 for the entire county.
Even though a Supervisor must reside in one of the five districts, a candidate must campaign county-wide. A lawsuit against the County raised the question about lack of minorities on the Board of Supervisors. Only two non-Caucasian have ever been elected to serve on the Board in the history of the County.
Passage of this ballot measure, Measure B, would attract and allow more candidates to run in each district at much less cost than it would “At Large” county-wide. It would also result in more direct representation for all voters since one Supervisor would have to represent 55,000 to 85,000 voters rather than 334,000 voters county-wide.
Under the current “At Large” system, it is also possible that one of two candidates for the Board who reside in one district could lose the majority number of votes within their District but still win the seat on the Board by winning a majority of votes in the other four Districts.
It is time for San Mateo County to join the other 57 counties in California who realize the substantial benefits of allowing “By District” elections.
|
|
Posted by Through the Looking Glass, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:38 am MPCyclist: You bring up a great point with your question: "That means you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting rid of a poor or non-performing or incompetent supervisor. How's that for job security?"
The truth of the matter is that two supervisors, or 40%, were first-time appointments to the board: Gibson and Groom. They were appointed to finish out terms of the the supervisors whom they replaced. Therefore, they were able to run for re-election as the "incumbent." That is 12+ years of job security with a six-figure salary and benefits. For some (Jerry Hill, Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier), it is a political stepping stone. Maybe, that's why Eshoo and Speier oppose it? Hill may be too much of a coward to make his views known, since he is running for CA State Senate this year.
In terms of accountability, most SMC residents don't even realize that the supervisors have decreased the number of their committee meetings, changed the committee meeting time to the middle-of-the-day for low public turnout, have three staff members. With the exception of Dave Pine, the others pretty much don't care about what the voters think because they don't have to! One example is the county jail. Whether or not you believe in having a new jail, I understand that the board wants to use a certificate of participation (COP) to fund it. IF this is true, a COP requires no voter approval. Is this a way for the board to circumvent a controversial issue on which they may lose so that they get their jail?
To have a more representative government, voters should vote yes on Measure B!
|
|
Posted by boondoggle, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2012 at 6:46 am Virginia, on that endorsements page [ Web Link ], it seems peculiar that you are on the top row, and Peter Ohtaki is the only council member from Menlo Park to endorse this measure. Did you do any outreach, or is this website a boondoggle for you and your friends?
|
|
Posted by Virginia Chang Kiraly, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2012 at 3:28 pm boondoggle:
I had nothing to do with the design of the website. In fact, I'm not even an editor for the site so do not have access to it from an editing and/or designing standpoint. Therefore, I'm not sure why you would think the website is a "boondoggle" for the endorsers of Measure B.
This measure has bipartisan and broad countywide support. The endorsement list reflects this. If there is anyone else on the MP City Council you think should be on this site, please feel free to contact me at vck@VirginiaChangKiraly.com. I look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Oct 22, 2012 at 8:38 am Empower the voters, Vote YES on Measure B
It's good to see the bipartisan and broad countywide support, both Republican and Democrat. Both Supervisor candidates support it. The people who are opposed to it are the ones who have benefited from this system. Two of them were appointed not elected.
Web Link
|
|
Posted by Virginia Chang Kiraly, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2012 at 9:53 am Thank you, Michael Stogner!
You are absolutely correct that Measure B has incredible support! The YES on Measure B campaign is very proud of this! We are grateful for the diverse- ethnic and philosophical- support we have!
Re the fact that two of the current supervisors were appointed is highlighted in the 2008-2009 Grand Jury report: Web Link.
It's very interesting and complements the Grand Jury's advisory letter that is highlighted on the YES on Measure B website: Web Link.
I hope voters take the time to read these two documents for more information. Thanks for supporting Measure B!
|
|
Posted by boondoggle, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2012 at 2:28 am Virginia , there are only 34 elected officials shown on the endorsements page. When you describe incredibly broad support across San Mateo County, are you referring to this 34?
|
|
Posted by Virginia Chang Kiraly, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2012 at 7:13 am boondoggle:
This is a partial list, which also includes both the Democratic and Republican central committees and the Sierra Club.
Again, if you have a suggestion as to any other MP councilmember whom you think should be on this partial list, please contact me at vck@VirginiaChangKiraly.com. Unfortunately, I still have not heard from you.
|
|
Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Oct 23, 2012 at 10:29 am It's been reported in the DP today that Ed McGovern has submitted papers to form a committee ....
San Mateo County residents and businesses for equal representation - No on B.
I hope this is a little late in the game.
Voters should know only 4 Supervisors oppose this measure, two of them Carole Groom and Rose Jacobs Gibson were appointed to the Supervisor seat. They personally have benefited from being appointed by their friends. Carole Groom was appointed by just 3 people, 1 of them was Rose Jacobs Gibson.
A very small group of people are opposed to District Elections.
VOTE YES on Measure B and empower the voters.
|
|
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2012 at 3:04 pm No, by district. Of course Groom and Gibson object. Gibson is termed out so she is a non issue. The others need to wake up and smell the coffee. The people in San Mateo County want to be represented by a district rep.
|
|
Posted by Heyward Robinson, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Heyward Robinson is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online Election of Supervisor's by District is long overdue. Vote yes on Measure B.
Heyward Robinson
Menlo Park City Council, 2006-2010
|
|
Posted by boondoggle, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2012 at 12:42 pm Virginia, you may not be the best gate keeper for this outreach role. In the past three election cycles, you only endorsed the lone city council candidate that also serves on the Rebublican Central Committee, as do you. If you have ever endorsed a Democrat for Menlo Park City Council (or even the fire board), than I will stand corrected.
|
|
Posted by Michael G Stogner, a resident of another community, on Oct 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm boondoggle,
I don't think it matters who the gate keeper is on this one.
Empower to voters VOTE YES on Measure B.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
