by Jack Lee
It was a messy process that caused a lot of unnecessary disappointments because in the end Bob Evans was appointed anyway. If there is one good thing to come from this, its the need for the Council to amend the City Charter to allow the next runner up in an election to be appointed without playing games. That is, so long as the seat become open within 90 days of the close of said election.
I would suggest further that, if it is opened between 91 days and 180 days the council may used their discretion to either appoint or hold a new election. If it is after 181 days the open seat must go to election in the next election cycle and an interim council person should be appointed. I think this would make a reasonable amendment to our charter and save us some time and money down the road.
In letters to the editor, it was suggested that the city councilors be elected by wards or precincts so that minorities would have a better chance of being elected. The reality is and should be, that the chances of being elected increase with the candidate’s qualifications, not race. To elect someone based on race first and qualifications second conflicts with our notions for racial equality and quality representation. I would not be opposed to wards or precincts to elect council persons… if they were established to elect the best possible candidates and not created to serve a particular minority purely for the sake of getting diversity on the council. Diversity by itself is not a virtue, but accepting all people regardless of race and based purely on their qualifications is!
One last thought, creating a precinct around an ethnic population is no different than than the old affirmative action program that required hiring minorities, even if they were less qualified than a non-minority, in order to achieve diversity. This practice was held to be unfair and we choose to be, as the late Bernie Richter said, “color blind” and give everyone a fair chance.
Jack
I’m curious how you measure qualifications ?
Most interested in comparing the two men on their business
experience and qualifications.
One retired as a manager in a processing operation with
the complexities of corporate ownership.
The other a small business owner struggling to make ends
meet in an increasingly regulatory climate and a bad economy.
Who wins and why ?
Also I’m very happy Bob Evans was appointed on merit and not because he was the next guy in line. I liked the process and it demonstrated our liberal council has a reasoned middle. Its going to be interesting to see if Evans and Sorensen will work to influence the outcome or just complain, like Larry did.
Sorry I don’t have anything to offer on cleaning up the process.
Mike
Jack I’m curious how you measure qualifications? (Mike)
Mike: Qualifications for City Council should be based on life experience, a reasonable knowledge how the system works, a demonstrated interest in the community and a good knowledge of the current issues. A good candidate should understand basic economics and have a good grasp of the law. Qualifications should also include higher education, demonstrated leadership and a good voting record to show civic concern. Some like myself may hold that veterans status is a real plus when it comes to electing public servants…serving in uniform as a combatant to defend our liberty is very commendable, but if one doesn’t have it its not a deal breaker.
As i recall Lor said he had not voted before. He had never served in the military or a city commission. He seemed to have a very limited knowledge of the issues and how the system works compared to Mr. Evans. He had no leadership experience except within his H’mong group and from what little I could find out they gave a mixed review. His small business experience was good and he has a good education.
I think if he wants to be on the council he should get himself appointed to city commission, or attend a few council meetings. He should also take part in some community issues and vote in elections. Maybe he could donate some time to helping others get elected and be active within a political group? Thats always a good thing for candidates to do.
He would be most welcome in our CRA, the Tea Party or the BCRP, I’m sure!
So, at this point I didn’t see the two as being very close in qualifications, but this is not to say he isn’t a good person or a competent man. Not at all. He maybe a fine person with good things to offer, but he does come up short in experience as I have noted above.
Thanks for the reply
So what happens when the runner up does not meet the
qualifications you suggest? Its very likely the loser might
be just that… a loser. How does making it automatic make
it the best thing to do. You should find some comfort in
the existing process, it put the right guy on the job.
You dont need any of those qualifications to run or be
elected.
Mike, you asked how I would define the qualifications and I gave them to you, but it is by no means what might get a person elected. Who can predict what’s going to appeal to the voters at any particular moment in time. Case in point: Look at the dolts that we have running our state.
However, if you still want the council to put up every open seat between election cycles to a so-called competitive appointment process, there’s no guarantee that you’ll get any better than what the voters did. If I had to err, I would sooner err with the voters and go with the runner up. At least I am respecting their vote and the fact that candidate bothered to go thru the pains of an election and I say this with certain timely qualifications as previously outlined.
Jack,
What if the 4th place finisher had been an incumbent? Would you automatically appoint a person that the voters have arguably voted out of office? In the oft cited 1985 four seat sweep of the city council followed by a resignation of a newly elected councilman. David Guzzetti was the 5th highest vote getter followed closely by the three other liberal majority incumbents voted out that year. If this year had been a 3 seat sweep would appointing the 4th place finisher and the majority balance of the council been in the voter’s interest?
What if the next place finisher isn’t 104 votes behind and instead 3,000 votes behind?
Is the current election process piggybacked on the partisan Nov elections in the best interests of Chicoans?
Districts will alway be gerrymandered. Remember they are formed by population not registered voters. In Chico, one or more districts would have substantially less actual voters than the others. Would the inhabitants of each district have that dissimilar of interests in how the City of Chico delivers services and spends resources? A 7 district system would be around 9,600 residents but the number of voting age residents would very greatly.
For example: The number of voting age residents would be high in the college residential area with all of the apartments, shared houses and lower number of children. The actual number of registered voters in that population is lower other areas of Chico and the number that actually vote even lower yet. Currently council members are elected by 40% of the voters at 10,000 votes or greater. In some districts the winning total could be a low of 1,000 votes or a high of 2,150. That really would divide Chico on a neighborhood level.
Creating gerrymandered districts has two extremes: 1. Put as many voters as possible in your opponent’s district. 2. Create districts for the controlling party’s leadership with as few voters as possible.
My favorite example is the 2002 CA Assembly District gerrymandering.
Nov Election 2002 46th Assembly District Fabian Nunez 27,227 votes. Percent of total vote 86.4%
Population 423,393 Voting-age population 286,618 [Not every person of age to vote is eligible to register.] Registered voters 109,115. Fabian Nunez became Speaker of the CA Assembly in 2004.
And
Nov Election 2002 3rd Assembly District Rick Keene 78,225 votes, 61% of the total votes.
(Stuart King Dem in the same race 43,096 votes 33.8% of the vote)
Population 423,393 Voting-age population 320,069 Registered voters 244,940
Observation: Have you ever wondered how a person that represents a district with, 85.39%, 361,552 Hispanic residents can be a champion of issues not typically embraced by that culture? Perhaps by taking very good care of the 6.4% that voted for him?
You raise good questions PYPR and I would have to say yes, he should be appointed. Its not different than if there had been 4 seats open on election day. He would have made it then and he should make it the day after election day when the 4th seat came open. I see no other way to do it. Excellent comments on the districts as well…great information, thank you.
One further thought on the past election. Over all Chico had 25,420 voters that cast a ballot for city council with 19,927 voting for three, 3,662 voting for two and 1,831 voting for one candidate.
Would expanding the number of voter choices from 3 to 4 have changed the 5 and 6 place finishers’ totals enough to matter? It seems to me that they all gave it their best shot.
Had the seat been open it would have been a special election for only a two year seat with candidates running only for that short term in addition to the 3 full term seats.
Yep, I don’t see a better brighter future by dividing Chico into districts.