The current Menlo Park City Council majority of Lee Duboc, Nicholas Jellins and Mickie Winkler has defined itself by the three council members’ readiness to vote together on major issues.
The majority’s political opponents have chosen to back three candidates to break that majority vote.
Candidates Vincent Bressler, Richard Cline and Heyward Robinson are united in their hope to oust the majority, but have divergent political views on major issues before the council, including the privatization of city services, the future of Bayfront Park and how El Camino Real should be developed.
The three candidates have emerged from an elaborate candidate vetting process, in which they won support from two groups — one that includes former mayors and current council members Kelly Fergusson and Andy Cohen; and one called Vision 2020, made up of residents who say the council is making decisions without considering long-term impacts.
The two groups interviewed potential candidates in invitation-only forums, and ranked candidates based on their answers.
Mike Gullard, a spokesperson for Vision 2020, said potential candidates were given feedback to help them gauge whether they wanted to pursue running or not.
Ousting candidates
But not everyone is happy with the three candidates who will appear on the ballot — especially would-be candidates who didn’t win the groups’ support.Former mayor Steve Schmidt, who announced in March that he intended to run for council, called the process “a balancing act” of special interests. He said individual candidates were supported to satisfy specific interests and, in turn, garner more votes for all three candidates.
He decided after interviews with both groups that he would not run.
Mr. Schmidt sent a letter to the San Mateo County Democratic Party Endorsement Committee on August 30, critiquing the candidates who won the groups’ support and are now on the ballot.
In the letter, Mr. Schmidt criticized the groups because they opted to support candidates who are not “progressive,” like himself and Bayfront Park advocate Elizabeth Lasensky.
Ms. Lasensky said it was made clear to her that she would be labeled “a spoiler” if she were to run for council without the groups’ support; she also changed her mind about running.
Three spots
With multiple residents interested in challenging the current majority, the risk of vote-splitting was on people’s minds.“No matter how good the candidates are, if we have more than three candidates, the votes split,” Mr. Robinson said. “It’s the reality of the math. If you’re against the council majority, you’re in the same boat.”
Former mayor Gail Slocum, a member of the former mayors’ group, said although the process may have sparked some controversy concerning who should run against the current majority, the route was more open than previous elections.
“This was more inclusive and participatory than ever,” she said. “Usually this consists of people already involved urging others who are actively involved to run for council. We saw fresh faces, for once, getting involved in local politics.”
“We have a lot of different interest groups who want to see change on the City Council,” said Ms. Fergusson. “It’s a broad but fragile coalition. I don’t know if it will hold together at any other time.”
