If it seems like a big question that should not have simply been appended to a larger item, that dealt with modifications to the city council salary – which seems like a no-brainer given the low pay and large workload and responsibility – and campaign contribution limitation changes, you’re not alone in thinking that.
The Vanguard spoke to several councilmembers about this item and none knew exactly where the idea of changing the city elections to November came from.
It does not take very long to see the possibilities here. Mayor Joe Krovoza, who is running for assembly, could run for the assembly in June, lose the primary to Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, and be able to run once again for city council in November.
The discussion could become highly politicized very quickly, although the mayor for his part insists that he knew nothing about the item and that, even if that scenario comes to pass, he is unlikely to run for city council again.
The staff report notes that, of the four cities in Yolo County, only West Sacramento has fall elections. Davis, Winters and Woodland conduct June elections.
Staff notes, “Traditionally, voter turnout has been greater in November elections, with the greatest turnout during presidential elections.” On the other hand, “However, there is also greater competition for attention on the November ballot, especially considering that, now, statewide initiative and referendum measures only appear on general election (November) ballots.”
Staff continues, “A change to November elections would modify staff workload and may affect the timing of Council recess, as many election-related deadlines and activities need to take place in July and August. Moving to November would align council terms with other terms (school board, county, state) but would require the city to adjust certain internal procedures (i.e. commission appointments, etc.) accordingly.”
So why do it?
Strangely, the staff report does not make a real argument for the necessity of the change. But the thought is this. There is a belief that with a wider electorate the voters would be more inclined to vote for a parcel tax – whereas the smaller pool would bring out people who are more polarized one way or another.
It is not clear logic, as the school board has run parcel taxes in November and during small-turnout special elections, and the outcome has ranged from about 67 percent approval to just over 70 percent approval. The variance in the result has been more about whether it is a new tax or a renewal than the timing.
One might argue that the city could still put the parcel tax on the ballot in November, if it believes that is optimal, without changing the election cycle. True. Indeed, the school board has done that.
There is a belief that, by forcing the council candidates to support the parcel tax and run on it, it generates an advantage. But that is not clearly the case. As we note, the school board has not run on the same ballot as its parcel tax except in 2007. So in 2008, 2011, 2012 (twice), there was no concurrent election and parcel tax – and yet, the parcel tax passed by about the same percentage each time.
I have lived in communities that have consolidated all of their elections on the same ballot. It is not clear there is an advantage to doing so. Do we really want to hold our council election against Presidential elections, where all the focus is on Washington?
In June, even in years where there have been contested primaries for governor like in 2006, the focus locally was largely on the council election with a few other local elections – supervisor, district attorney, superior court judge and some ballot measures – gaining attention as well.
That focus has led to strong community engagement, even in years where the overall turnout was not that high.
So the question is, are we better off with 40 to 50 percent turnout in June with voters who are engaged and paying attention to the candidates and their campaigns, or are we better off with 60 to 75 percent turnout, but with many of those voting mainly for the Presidential or Congressional or gubernatorial elections?
But we can put this another way, just as we did with the campaign finance limitation proposed increase – is there something broken that needs to be fixed by changing the process?
Bottom line is that, in June, the community that votes is heavily engaged on the issues. Our readership generally spikes during that time. There is heavy community focus on debates, with many letters to the editor.
The parcel tax issue seems a non-starter. The city has passed parcel taxes and sales taxes in June. The schools have passed parcel taxes in March and they have passed them in November.
Bottom line, unless you are Joe Krovoza and want a chance to lose next June and run again for city council, we see no reason to make this change. And given Mr. Krovoza’s comment to the Vanguard, we do not believe this was on his mind either.
If the council does want to make this change, they should do so in 2016, not 2014, so that it will not impact current calculations and will not drag politics into the decision.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for the David. I was actually going to ask you to run an article on this because I could not understand it at all. Like anything else if there’s something that needs to be fixed I’m willing to listen to the arguments. This one just didn’t seem to make sense to me.
One question. Is there a significant cost issue one way or the other ?
As medwoman suggests, the costs of the two alternatives need to be considered.
Combining the council elections with all the others on a single ballot seems very sensible. As for overlapping campaigns and combined ballots, Davis residents have proved we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
And, of course, having 75% of our electorate vote for our city council is better than having only 40% so involved.
I wonder if our traditional scheduling has anything to do with purposely excluding UCD students from our city elections?
—
“…the Mayor for his part insists that he knew nothing about the item and that even if that scenario comes to pass, he is unlikely to run for City Council again.”
It would be a shame if Mayor Krovoza really intends never to run for the council again. Regardless of what side of a particular issue he comes down on, he’s been a thoughtful and respectful representative of Davis’ residents. It’s nice to have adults leading our city.
Regardless of the sensibleness of this proposal, however, the timing of the staff recommendation makes it awkward for the council to give it much consideration.
Incumbents generally like low turnout, as the special interests can dominate the get-out-the-vote effort. Unions in particular prefer off cycle elections. That is why the teachers union will be strongly opposed to any effort that shifts school board elections to November. In off cycle elections, the teachers and their friends and relatives can play a decisive role in the outcome.
the school board elections have been in november in davis for a long time and they moved to an even year starting in 2010, so not sure your point.
So if Joe loses in June he will be out but if this change is made he will be able to run for his council seat again. Also if Joe and Dan end up in a top two fall election without this change Dan would be Mayor but with this change Joe would be mayor. I think if they do this change, even though I don’t see a compelling reason to change, they should have it take effect in 4 years after the voters have had a chance to vote for people knowing what their terms would be. Changing it now smacks of petty manipulation for political advantage. Maybe, like Sargent Schultz, Joe knows nothing, or maybe its all just a coincidence. Either way now would be the wrong time to make such a change.
“I wonder if our traditional scheduling has anything to do with purposely excluding UCD students from our city elections? “
We do this by drawing the City Limit not with an early June election date.
The Mayor is responsible for the agenda of city council meetings, so Krovoza saying he had “no idea” about this item seems disingenuous at best. And given the clear personal political benefit he would get from making this change, it appears that Joe is trying to game the system for his advantage. I’m pretty shocked he would try and do this.
The city manager and Joe Krovoza have both told me point blank, Joe had nothing to do with it.
So Joe is just abdicating his responsibility as Mayor and setter of the agenda? Not sure that’s much better.
My impression is that Steve Pinkerton has been a bit more hands on as a city manager than other recent ones.
Mr.Toad, do those thousands of students living in Davis apartments and converted single-family homes not get to register in Davis? This doesn’t sound right. Are you sure? Another Republican way to limit Democratic votes?
Just Saying: They get to register to vote. They can vote for county, state, or federal candidates. What they cannot vote in is municipal elections. There is no conspiracy. UC Davis is not part of the city proper and therefore the students who live on campus or at West Village cannot vote in city elections. There have been efforts to look into annexation, but the Board of Supervisors has generally been opposed. The person most strongly opposed is ironically, Don Saylor. Ironic, because Mr. Toad is a huge supporter of Don.
I’m surprised Pinkerton’s hands-on approach doesn’t allow for running each proposed/draft agenda by the mayor for his approval. Someone as experienced as this city manager should have foreseen the embarrassment this proposal would drop on the mayor before David noticed it.
I suspect that this was delegated even further down the staff ranks without routine review. Hence, the decision to advance it in combination with the paper on council salaries, also noted by David.
Students living in the city can vote in the city. Students living on campus can only vote in the county. The effect is to dilute student voting power.
“…do those thousands of students living in Davis apartments and converted single-family homes not get to register in Davis?”
“Just Saying: They get to register to vote. They can vote for county, state, or federal candidates. What they cannot vote in is municipal elections.”
I would think that all those living within our city limits should be eligible to vote for city candidates and issues as well as county, state and federal matters. Where do they got to get ballots (that exclude city matters) and cast their votes?
I’m still skeptical since it’s been so long since I ever could have been so disenfranchised. But, I’m willing to go back to AmGovt-101.
“Mr. Toad is a huge supporter of Don.”
Maybe a $100 dollar donation is huge to you but to me its not that huge. I have had discussions with Don on this issue. Sometimes in politics you don’t get what you want but that doesn’t mean you die on every hill of disagreement. i will continue to push on this issue until this toad makes his last croak.
[quote]I would think that all those living within our city limits should be eligible to vote for city candidates[/quote]
They are. Campus housing isn’t in the city limits.
I didn’t mean that you were a huge monetary supporter…
“Campus housing isn’t in the city limits.”
I’ve been talking about those “living in Davis apartments and converted single-family homes,” not at all about on-campus housing.
Wonder how the two populations compare? Seems as though lots of kids would be trying to get off campus the moment they’re allowed to vacate the dorms.
“I suspect that this was delegated even further down the staff ranks without routine review.”
I’m not buying that way of thinking and I’m not going to let Joe off the hook for this one. I think he is more on top of things than to let something like this just “slip” into his meeting without knowing. “Oh look, what a surprise, there’s an item in the agenda of the meeting I run that would totally benefit me personally. What a stroke of luck!” Not buying it.
Good Government: I want to be clear, my purpose is to pass on information and facts I have, not defend or attack anyone here. You’re entitled to your opinion. We will have to see what happens tonight.
You’re definitely doing as you should, David. You have no choice but to take these guys at their word. It’s Joe who I believe to be pulling the shenanigans.
Clearly this issue has raised my ire. But as my name implies, I have little tolerance for those who misuse their positions of power and influence for personal gain. And that’s exactly what I see happening here.
Good Government, you might have a case if this could have “slipped” through and become real in a meeting that the mayor is running. I can’t imagine this would have passed tonight without anyone (including Krovoza) noticing the conflict of interest involved (as David proved with this report).
You have nothing but your suspicions (and no Krovoza history) on which to base your assumption. We’ll see whether good government or Good Government prevails this evening.
JustSaying: I’m confused by a couple of your statements.
“…you might have a case if this could have “slipped” through and become real in a meeting that the mayor is running.” It is real. It’s on the agenda. The Mayor sets the agenda.
“You have nothing but your suspicions (and no Krovoza history) on which to base your assumption.” Not sure you meant lack of Krovoza history or anti-Krovoza history. But I have neither. I just call them as I see them. The only time I have ever even mentioned Joe on this blog (aside from today) was to ask clarifying questions.
“We’ll see whether good government or Good Government prevails this evening.” The two are not mutually exclusive. If good government prevails, I will be happy. I think what you meant is that we’ll see whether good government prevails or whether I am proved right. I hope for the former.
I don’t think the mayor knew this was on the agenda until it was too late to stop it. That’s a failing of the present system, and it should change immediately.
I meant that to state that this episode is about leaders who “misuse their positions of power and influence for personal gain” should require some evidence on your part. Or, at least, some history that the individuals involved have such a tendency. I’ve seen none.
You would be proved right, in my opinion, if this embarrassing change goes through tonight. However, ood government will prevail–as both of us desire.
Vanguard readers, you don’t need to take my word for it. Ask yourself, do you really believe that the mayor, whose job description includes setting the council agenda, really had this issue, which clearly benefits him personally, just magically slip into the agenda without him knowing it?
If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…
Yes, I do. That’s what David has reported. I have no reason to believe otherwise. But, we’ll see whether that rascal mayor gets away with whatever he’s trying to do to benefit himself.
He’s not going to he away with it. The rest of the council is too smart to let Joe get away with it.
*get away with it
I just got home from council chambers. After talking about it all day I needed to watch this issue live. I must say I feel somewhat vindicated here. Joe was the only council member who even remotely argued in favor of the change in election date. He even went as far as to thank staff (three separate times by my count!) for putting the idea out there. But ultimately he read the writing on the wall and let the issue die.
Fascinating that we both viewed the same discussion and I saw an appropriate discussion and action and you saw evil at work.
I think you’re missing my point. The discussion was fine (certainly not evil). But it was telling. I still believe this November election idea was something Joe wanted on the agenda. And I think he showed that in his comments last night. Had the issue not been analyzed in this blog post, and had he not been called out on it, perhaps he would have argued more forcefully for it. As it was, he gave a half-hearted endorsement for an idea that was never going to see the light of day anyway, despite his efforts. Just because he failed at his attempt to manipulate the electoral process does not get him off the hook for trying.