This was introduced in another topic in this forum. See:
The chosen map left incumbent directors Shefren, Griffin and yours truly, in zones E, B and C respectively. Two directors, Kane and Faro shared zone A. Faro was up for election in 2018, but Kane will represent zone A until 2020. I suggested to director Faro that he could move to the minority zone D to seek re-election to the Board.
NOTE: Faro participated in the Dec. 13, 2017 meeting by telephone from his ranch in Oregon, and will be doing the same for next Wednesday's meeting.
It has been suggested that minority voter turnout is higher in Presidential elections. In that case, in the view of those in power, zone D would not have an election to fill the seat until 2020. That's poppycock! Nothing prevents them from holding an election in 2018 for a two-year term in minority zone D.
But, those in power would like to give Director Faro an opportunity to run for re-election.
As I suspected, the Sequoia Healthcare District has placed an item on the agenda for next Wednesday’s board meeting which has a Nov. 2018 election option which would deny the newly created “minority” zone a director until the 2020 election. Their rationale is that the larger voter turnout in the 2020 Presidential election year would favor a minority candidate. I've already covered that.
Please consider the addition of Option 3 as shown below. This option comports with the desire to afford the minorities in Zone D an electoral advantage by placing it in the Presidential election cycle, where minority turnout is higher, while also allowing the seat to be filled in the 2018 election.
Agenda Item 5a presents 2 Options to the board. I sent an e-mail suggesting a 3rd option, to the CEO, district counsel and all of my fellow board members. I have appended the options below:
OPTION 1 – Defer Zone D Election Until 2020
In this model, the three districts that elect directors in 2018 would not include Zone D. Presumably, the zones would be A, C, and E, to coincide with the districts in which current directors reside and have expiring terms. Zones B and D would be up for election in 2020. This option defers the election in Zone D to 2020, when minority electoral participation is likely to be greater based on the past voting data. After 2020, Zone D will continue to elect its director in higher turnout presidential election years. In this option, Zone D will not elect a director until 2020, a deferral of two years.
Option 2 – Include Zone D in the 2018 Districts In this option, Zone D would elect a director in 2018, together with two of Zones A, C and E. The remaining zone would elect its director in 2020, along with Zone B. In this option, Zone D would elect a director sooner and Zone D will be locked into electing its directors in nonpresidential years for the foreseeable future, when turnout generally is lower. In option 2, one of Zones A, C, and E will not elect its director in 2018, meaning one sitting director will not be able to run for re-election. It could be that operational, administrative, or other reasons justify the choice of one zone for deferral to 2020 over another. It is up to the Board to decide which of the 3 zones would not elect a director by a majority vote or if preferred by the board, a drawing of straws could be used to make the decision of which zone would not be up for election in 2018
Option 3 – Zones B, D and E would be designated to be on the Presidential election cycle. Zone D, with no current director, would have an election for a 2 year seat in November 2018 to fill the vacancy. This complies with the statutory requirement for staggered terms. Zones C and E, each having a director with 2 years remaining in their terms, would hold elections along with zone D, for those incumbent seats in 2020. Zones A and C, which are on the Gubernatorial election cycle, would each have an election in 2018 in which the incumbents could seek re-election for 4 year seats.
NOTE: The only response to my e-mail asking that my option be added to the agenda item was from district counsel, Mark Hudak He cautioned me that "...it is a violation of the Brown Act for you to communicate with the other Board members in this manner." I then sent a separate e-mail to SHD Board President Kane, to wit:
"Katie, there is a serious flaw in agenda item 5a. As board president, you could correct this."
The agenda and Board packet for the Feb. 7 meeting can be found here: