On January 3, 2011, Don Saylor will be sworn in as a Yolo County Supervisor representing the 2nd Supervisorial District. In so doing, he will both create a vacancy on the council and also require the council to find a new mayor, either from the current membership or from a newly-elected or appointed member.
For months there has been debate and speculation as to how this process would work. At this time, it would appear that the window for an election has closed, as Mr. Saylor opted against withdrawing from his position prior to the General Election and a specialty election would cost the cash-strapped city several hundred thousand dollars.
The Vanguard has been informed that the current posted staff report is incomplete and will be amended shortly. In addition, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza will preside over this discussion, as Mayor Don Saylor will recuse himself.
Discussion over replacing the Mayor will take place separately, following a memo from City Attorney Harriet Steiner.
The City Council may fill a mid-term vacancy either through an appointment or by calling a special election. “A specific appointment process to fill mid-term vacancies is not designated in either the California Government Code or the Davis Municipal Code; therefore, Council may utilize any selection method it chooses,” the staff report claims.
The staff report adds, “All activities must be conducted in open and public meetings. City Council is required to deliberate over process, interview potential candidates during the 60-day deliberation period following notice of the vacancy, etc. at regular or special meetings that are properly noticed.”
Staff estimates that a special election would cost at least $200,000. “The stand-alone Wildhorse election in November 2009 cost approximately $220,000. Davis’ pro rata share of the last City Council election in June 2010 totaled approximately $65,000. At this point, Yolo County staff does not have any confirmed information regarding potential elections for either date from other jurisdictions.”
The City’s municipal code apparently does not reflect changes in state law. “Current state law requires 114 days from the call of the election to the election date (DMC lists 90 days). Additionally, effective January 1, 2011, state law will designate a 60-day deliberation period (rather than the 30-day period designated in the DMC) to either fill a prospective vacancy by appointment or by calling a special election,” the staff report read.
Staff recommends that the council either repeal or amend the municipal code to conform to current state legislation.
According to the memo from Harriet Steiner, the City of Davis does have another option – an all-mail ballot, which would greatly reduce the costs.
“As a general rule, all municipal elections must permit traditional, in-person voting,” Ms. Steiner writes. “However, the Elections Code outlines a number of exceptions when all-mail ballot voting is permitted.”
She continues, “Elections Code section 4004 allows cities with less than 100,000 residents to use all-mail ballot voting in a special election to fill a Council vacancy if: (1) the City Council passes a resolution allowing mailed ballots for the election, (2) the election is not held on the same date as any statewide primary or general election, (3) the election is not consolidated with any other election and (4) the return of mailed ballots is conducted pursuant to Elections Code section 3017.”
“The City meets all of these requirements,” she concludes. “First, Davis’ current population is approximately 66,500. Second, there are no statewide primary or general elections scheduled for 2011. Third, the election will not be consolidated with any other election. Therefore, if the City Council decides to call a special election, it may conduct a traditional or an all-mail ballot election.”
While the council has sixty days to act on the vacancy, Harriet Steiner states that they believe an all-mailed ballot election could be held on June 7, 2011.
But this presents a large problem for the city, in that the seat would be vacant for six months. That would mean that Council would be operating with just four members for that time, which seems problematic. The council could presumably appoint an interim replacement, but that itself would present problems. Moreover, the seat would be up for normal election in June of 2012.
From the start, the Vanguard has believed that an appointment process would be the most likely, least costly and most efficient process. The member would lack the will of the voters approval. This has been a contentious issue for sure, but right now it seems the most logical choice is an appointment.
Harriet Steiner also laid out issues regarding the Mayoral vacancy.
Ms. Steiner writes, “Government Code section 36801 requires that after each general municipal election the City Council select one councilmember to serve as mayor and one as mayor pro tempore. However, the mayor and mayor pro tempore are not specific “offices” in the sense that the holders possess special rights to them. Rather, the mayor and mayor pro tempore both serve at the pleasure of the City Council.”
She continues, “In addition to ultimately becoming the mayor, the mayor pro tempore performs the duties of the mayor if the mayor is absent or disabled. This would permit the current Mayor Pro Tempore to act as the mayor upon the Mayor’s resignation.”
However, she believes that “While the City Council could decide to do this, it is not required to do so. Absences and disabilities are temporary limitations on the Mayor’s ability to serve. The Municipal Code does not require or preclude the Council from deciding that the Mayor Pro Tempore should serve as mayor upon a vacancy in the office.”
“Based on this, in our opinion, the City Council may appoint any councilmember to serve out the remainder of the current Mayor’s term. The Council also has the full discretion to take any appropriate action with respect to the appointment of a mayor that it deems in the City’s best interests.”
From a legal standpoint, I believe she is correct, particularly since both positions technically preside at the pleasure of the council.
However, we have a process that determines who the Mayor Pro Tem will be and directs that that individual to preside over council in the Mayor’s absence AND become next Mayor at the end of the term.
It therefore seems most logical to continue with the current system. That would make Joe Krovoza the next mayor. The only other realistic possibility at this point would be Stephen Souza. For current thinking on this, see our previous article on the possibility of Mr. Souza becoming the next Mayor.
Joe Krovoza has a disadvantage in that he has just been elected to the council and is still learning the ropes. That is a sizable disadvantage, and it becomes apparent from time to time. At the same time, he has shown himself particularly in our private discussions, to be a quick study and a fast learner.
However, he has also possesses a huge advantage over Mr. Souza in that he was the first-place finisher, which Mr. Souza never was, AND he appeals to people on both sides of Davis’ political divide. He would be more likely to be a unity Mayor, whereas Mr. Souza has, on crucial issues, sided with the pro-development majority over the course of his six years of tenure on the city council.
While Mr. Souza has been prone to outbursts on occasion, Mr. Krovoza has shown himself to be mild-mannered and looking for consensus and compromise. He has the right demeanor for this position, particuarly in the tough decisions that lie ahead.
The council would have to make crucial decisions with a four-person contingency, that will force compromise and discussion. The first step is Tuesday.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It looks like we will have a 4 member council at the beginning of the year which can lead to tie votes of 2-2, but lets look on the bright side–maybe it will also lead to more consensus, more discussion and better decisions.
I agree Krovoza has the right temperament to be Mayor and should be a consensus builder. Maybe I am a Pollyanna today, but having him serve as Mayor for a longer than usual term may serve us well (just as Saylor’s shorter term did not). He has made mistakes–many of which involve trusting opinions he should not have.
I hope our council is more deliberative next year and does not take staff recommendations blindly or shut out comments too quickly. I also hope our council chooses a new member with these criteria in mind.
If Joe Krovoza is selected to ascend to the position of Mayor, would the City Council still be entitled to select another Council member to replace Don Saylor, so the count of the City Council is back up to 5?
What are the odds on who the new Councilmember will be? Lots of people in town voted for Sydney Vergis who made a strong 3rd place showing in the last election. If it is the will of the people that should determine the new appointee, she would be the obvious choice. Are there any speculations on anybody else lobbying for the appointment?
Elaine: yes.
I don’t think running twice and failing to get elected is a good resume for a council member. Vergis lost and many people voted against her.
It is common at all levels of government to have special appointments to fill a seat and it is not common to give the seat to a loser in the last election–even in a close election.
This is an opportunity for the Council to pick someone who might not have political ambitions but would be an excellent council member.
Agree with Dr Wu. The council would also be wise to choose a financially savvy person.
[i]”Are there any speculations on anybody else lobbying for the appointment?”[/i]
I have not heard of anyone “lobbying” for the appointment. However, I have personally speculated about one of the members of the school board taking a council seat. All of them have essentially been approved by roughly the same electorate. If a Tim Taylor, Richard Harris, Gina Daleiden (etc.) moved to the City Council, then the school board would have an open seat. The last time that happened, when John Poulos quit, Keltie Jones was appointed to finish Poulos’s term.
I haven’t spoken with any members of the school board about the idea of one going to the City Council. My preference would be not to select one of them, but instead take someone who has a lot of experience serving on either our Planning Commission or maybe Budget & Finance. Johannes Troost, for example. However, I speculate about the school board folks because of their electoral experience and because I think all of them are similar in politcal persuasion as most members of our council, and as such would be natural choices.
[quote]The council would also be wise to choose a financially savvy person.[/quote]
I agree 100%. If we have learned anything recently it is that we need a Council that can deal with budget issues. I also think it would be useful to have someone who can politely but honestly deal with staff biases or lack of due diligence which has been an issue a number of times (see zipcar).
I’m not concerned about whether someone has been elected before, but maybe that is just me….
Maybe Lamar could come back until the next election.
Yes, I think Lamar could be appointed with very little opposition from anyone.
Lamar – Where are you?…Please come home…we need you!
Lamar Haystack , why would you want somebody who quit ?
Avatar:
1. It is Lamar Haystek. Not to worry, I usually have to look it up, too.
2. He didn’t quit. He finished his term and chose not to run for re-election.
Avatar, they don’t teach spelling at the fire academy?
[quote]”All activities must be conducted in open and public meetings. City Council is required to deliberate over process, interview potential candidates during the 60-day deliberation period following notice of the vacancy, etc. at regular or special meetings that are properly noticed.”[/quote]
Will candidates be asked to apply? Will someone try to actively recruit good people? (Probably a good idea since the best people are often reluctant to serve.) Lots of questions.
[quote]Avatar, they don’t teach spelling at the fire academy?[/quote]
Why assume it was an unintentional misspelling? What could be better than a haystack? As for Sydney, I don’t recall there being a “vote against” check box on my ballet. I voted for two candidates, not against any candidate.
Helen Thomson for city council!
I like Helen. However, it should be noted she deserves more blame than almost anyone in Davis for the fiscal wreck we are now in. She was in the Assembly when the disastrous SB 400 was passed. She voted for it. That bill, pushed by her campaign donors in the public employee unions and their handpicked members of the CalPERS board, brought about the terrible policies of CalPERS and the much higher pension plans which are forcing most California governments deep into the red. Also, Helen was on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors for all the years that Yolo County overspent its money on bad labor contracts. (Note that Yolo County is in worse fiscal shape than any of the Yolo cities, even worse than Woodland.) So based on that record of poor decisions, Helen does not look like the right person to right our ship.
Rifkin… you may be right about PERS… are you tracking STRS?… they are positing higher returns than PERS… and we should seriously look at Social Security and Medicare… they are also “unfunded” and are arguably a “ponzi scheme”, depending on working employees to fund retirees… and many people get SS benefits far in excess of what they put in… see also SSI & other benefits… if you question one system, in all aspects, I think you should question all…
[i]”Rifkin… you may be right about PERS… are you tracking STRS?…”[/i]
I’m not ‘tracking’ CalPERS. However, I did read this piece ([url]http://calpensions.com/2010/12/03/calstrs-funding-gap-grows-new-earning-forecast/[/url]) about it a few days ago. Here are some excerpts: [quote]A divided CalSTRS board yesterday voted to lower its long-term forecast of investment earnings by a quarter of one percent, from 8 to 7.75 percent, adding to the cost of closing a major funding gap.
The board rejected a staff recommendation to drop the forecast to 7.5 percent.
Teacher groups said a lower forecast could reduce benefits, apparently referring to annuities, the purchase of service credits to boost pensions and other potential member impacts listed in a staff report. …
In the fiscal year ending in June of last year, CalSTRS received $5.3 billion in contributions based on nearly 21 percent of teacher pay — 8 percent of pay from teachers, 8.25 percent of pay from districts and 4.5 percent from the state.
CalSTRS, seriously underfunded, was expected to run out of money in about 35 years under the previous earning forecast. To reach full funding, annual contributions needed to be increased by two-thirds, 13.9 percent of pay. [/quote] As far as I know, there is (at this point) no threat to the public or to public agencies (such as school districts) due to the bad performance of CalSTRS. I believe all of the losses will be absorbed by teachers and or retired teachers. [quote]Unlike most California public pension funds, CalSTRS cannot set an annual contribution rate that must be paid by employers. [/quote]
[quote]Unlike most California public pension funds, CalSTRS cannot set an annual contribution rate that must be paid by employers. [/quote]
Was not aware of the distinction. Thank you for the info.
While the council has sixty days to act on the vacancy, Harriet Steiner states that they believe an all-mailed ballot election could be held on June 7, 2011.
DJUSD likely will consider a school parcel tax vote around that time. If CC wants to run an election, they could find ways to combine and save money.
Dan Wolk for Council.
The Council may need 5 people not to get 3 yes votes on issues but to fill all the duties and sit on all the committees Council members sit on. I’m not sure folks are aware of the huge time commitment our City Council volunteers already make.
Should the Council need a 5th person a democratic choice might be the runner up in our last multi-person election, Sydney Vergis, as Alan Pryor notes. Dr. Wu objects because of all the people who he expects voted against Sydney as evidenced by her not receiving their vote. This hypothesis is hard to test since not getting a vote only proves she wasn’t one of the top 2 choices. In fact all candidates earned less than 50% of the votes, so could have won with most Davisistes against them. (Sydney got 23.4% of the vote, Rachel and Joe won with 27.9% and 37.7% respectively).
Another democratic option would be to appoint an ex officio City Council member. This person would volunteer for all City Council duties and committees, would sit in Council with the other Council members and join their debates, but would not get to vote because they weren’t voted in.
Oops. I assumed Dr. Wu was a “he.”
Maybe someone could see if Stan Forbes is available. I think he’s received more votes than Sydney did every time he’s run.