IN A SPLIT VOTE — 3-2, with Vice Mayor Tom Campbell and Councilmember Mark Hughes voting no — City Council on Tuesday voted to continue the effort to extend all elected officials’ terms by one year without voter approval.
In Benicia and the rest of America, government is the people, not the politicians. We elect representatives at all levels of government up to the president, but we retain the sovereignty of our responsibility by voting for inclusive periods of time — terms. That sovereignty has now been compromised.
The undermining of voter sovereignty was rationalized by one of the most ironic statements I have ever heard a politician speak. Mayor Elizabeth Patterson noted that so few voters — only one at Tuesday’s meeting — appeared against the across-the-board extension of terms, and remarked that it was well known that if Benicians were really against it they would have come out in droves. She proceeded to say that Council believed it was too important to achieve the measure’s significant benefits — budget savings and increased voter turnout — to allow voter approval.
Got that? Council will deny residents a vote on whether to extend their terms so more voters can vote in the future.
In my comments to the Council, I affirmed that support would be overwhelming if the question is, “Should Benicia move elections to even years to save money and take advantage of more people voting in general elections?” However, that is not the real question. The real question is, “How will we achieve this goal?”
Several proposals were discussed besides extending everyone’s term by one year. The most logical process was to simply have the next two odd-year elections be for terms of three years, thereby allowing us to be on an even-year schedule by 2018. Campbell attempted to gain voter approval of the process by having the issue placed on the 2013 ballot, but that idea was defeated 4-1. Council was more than willing to accept anecdotal support versus reading the comments I presented from The Herald website that supported moving to even-year elections but were unanimously against adding the one year.
My comments ended with a discussion on conflict-of-interest issues. My reading of the attorney general’s publication on the matter (“XIII — The Common Law Doctrine Against Conflicts of Interest,” page 102) is that an across-the-board extension of terms is clearly a violation because the incumbent would continue to enjoy the prestige and power of their office in addition to receiving monetary benefits of an another year’s salary and benefits, all without voter approval. That argument appeared to win Hughes’s vote.
This matter is not over by any means. I believe Council must hear a second reading of the proposed ordinance, then subject the ordinance to the county Board of Supervisors to render its judgment. Clearly, if Council does not hear from voters that we do not want terms extended for one year, they will not be deterred from doing what they please. Now is the time for voters to stand up and speak up. We should not and will not give up our sovereignty without a fight.
READ DENNIS LOWRY’S ORIGINAL OPED ON THE CITY COUNCIL’S VOTE TO MOVE ELECTIONS TO EVEN YEARS.
Dennis Lowry, a retired telecommunications executive, is former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.
Sharing is caring!
Dennis, normally I agree with you, but on this issue I could not differ more. I do not understand why everyone is screaming things like sovereignty. This move makes sense, saves money, and is the right thing to do. I also have backed Hughes in his previous elections but I was very disappointed in his vote Tuesday. I vote for council members to make decisions, and they did. If each and every tough issue has to go to the voters then why do we need a council? We are talking about extending the terms of two members for one year for petes sake.
John, the proposal extends the term of all elected officials, mayor, councilmembers all 4, City Clerk and City Treasurer. I agree here and in Tuesday’s meeting that the right thing to do is move to even year elections. However, it could be easily done as suggested by limiting the next terms to 3 years without subordinating the vote of the people. This is a big deal in that it serves as a weak link in the ability of voters to decide who should represent them and how long.
I agree that we should elect people whom we expect to make prudent and timely decisions. I disagree that extending their own terms is appropriate. The savings could have been achieved in a variety of ways without extending their terms.
Dennis has laid out the foundation for a lawsuit against the council. Perhaps even a class action suit.
I still do not agree with your stance. I think the arguments, while making sense, are still overstating the outcome. There is no threat to our being sovereign. Frankly, I am glad the council is thinking at how to save money without cutting services or raising taxes.
I am glad you wrote this article. They should not be allowed to extend themselves like that regardless of cost.
Dennis, are you not simply inflating your “principled argument” as a posture you take because you were eased out of office, yourself? Extending terms by a year for practical purposes is not a venal measure proposed by Mayor and Council. Nobody’s getting rich from it. Indeed, everyone involved could make more money by leaving office than by staying in. Elected office for honest folks in small towns is pitifully rewarded (in spite of a continual flow of self-promoting hog-wash from Bob Livesay.)
Wow. Bob is really in your head isn’t he?
Robert Shelby I assume they run to serve and not for salary and benefits. The elected council/mayor are either retired, soon to be retired or have a business or profess. It appears all are not doing it for the money. Remember Robert they were elected for four years not five. I do not see any of them saying lets reduce the time in office by a year. I have put forth a very clear and easy path to accomplish the goal of even numbered year elections. I do believe we have two members on the council that do not agree with the extension. It only takes three to stave off this measure. We shall see.
Mr. Shelby, you couldn’t be more wrong; I expected not to be reappointed because I questioned everything and focused on issues vs. supporting the party line. I would pursue this argument regardless of whether I was on a committee or not. It is a matter of principal that can be easily solved by ways other than extending the term of all elected officials. That is the issue and the rest is an attempt to deflect the conversation.
The cost savings is so minimal, to me it is clearly not a money issue at all but rather government overreach so they can continue their own agendas. The people decide the length of term, not those in office.
Mr. Lowry made mention of my solution. It is very simple and is not at all much different in a timetable for elections to go to even years. The year extensions puts the 2014 and 2016 elections at even years and back to the four year term. My proposal reduces the 2013 and 2015 elections to three years and puts the even number years at 2016 and 2018 back to the four year term. No extension and the elected officials serve only their elected term. No extension. The three year terms could effect all sitting mayor/council with no effect on the elected offices except it would be a three year term for those two election and then back to four year terms. Tell me what is so important about extending an elected official by one year when they were not elected to serve that extra year. Mr. Lowry is correct and the residents must stop this. My solution is a very simple one but not the only solution. Write your council/mayor and show them that the voters do care. Tom and Mark got it and it could change with one more vote. Lets get that vote. You contact them and they will listen and least the four council members will.