VENICE — The City Council voted Tuesday to move forward on switching to four-year terms, but only after heated debate in which one member labeled the proposed change “corrupt,” another called for an apology and Vice Mayor Jim Boldt speculated about dropping his bid for re-election.
City Clerk Kelly Michaels presented four options for implementing the change in response to a directive given in January after Supervisor of Elections Ron Turner told the Council that holding city elections in even-numbered years would save money.
An odd-year election, in which Council races are the only thing in the county to vote on, costs about $50,000, she said.
Mayor Nick Pachota got his colleagues to agree to have staff look into the idea because it would reduce the frequency of campaigning, which causes “election fatigue,” in addition to saving the city money.
The longer terms would come with a two-term limit, compared to the current three. Voters would have to approve both changes in a referendum in November.
Council terms have been three years dating back to when the City Council was created in the 1920s.
Before the Council even started its discussion, it heard from several residents opposed to the change.
Odd-numbered terms mean that voters can “send a message each year,” Curt Whittaker said. No one is complaining about doing that, he said.
“Whose problem is this, really?” he said.
The real impetus for the change, he said, is coming from the county GOP and developers who want to assert control over the city’s nonpartisan Council by electing their candidates on the coattails of Republican candidates in other races.
Jan Vertefeuille, of Venice Thrives, said the longer terms might inhibit people from running for the Council. And voting in down-ballot races tends to drop off, she said.
Also, she said, it would look like self-dealing if the Council adopted an option for implementing longer terms that extended anyone’s tenure beyond the three years they were elected to.
Ruth Cordner said that voters in odd-year elections are better informed because media coverage focuses on Council races.
The perception, she said, is that the change is being driven by outside interests.
“Your reputation is not worth a $47,000 savings,” she said.
Of the four options Michaels presented, Council Member Rachel Frank moved for approval of No. 3. Under it, the elections that would be held in 2025 and 2027 would be eliminated.
Council Member Rick Howard, who holds Seat 5, would get a one-year extension, after which that seat would be grouped with seats 1 and 2 for four-year terms starting in 2026.
Frank, whose term in Seat 6 is also up next year, would also get a one-year extension. Then, in 2026 whoever is elected in Seat 6 would serve a two-year term so the seat would be grouped with seats 3 and 4 for four-year terms starting in 2028.
Seat 7, the mayor’s position, would be treated the same as Seat 6, switching to a four-year term in 2028.
The Council would just be giving the voters the option to decide whether to make the change, she said.
She noted that Turner’s records show far more people vote in Council races in even-numbered years than when they’re all that’s being voted on.
Boldt seconded her motion, saying that if voters approve the change, it should go into effect as soon as possible. Two of the other options required holding at least one more odd-year election.
That’s when the gloves came off.
Council Member Ron Smith called the change a bad idea for all the reasons members of the public had raised. It would come at a loss of accountability, he said, and take the focus off city issues in election season in even-numbered years.
It’s part of an effort to make Council races more partisan, he said.
But what’s most offensive, he said, is proposing to implement the change by extending terms when it could be done in an “honest, noncorrupt” way: Just switch each seat to a four-year term when it’s up for election in an even-numbered year.
“You’d accomplish the same thing without all that craziness,” he said.
As proposed, the change isn’t just a matter of letting the voters have their say, because they’re only being given one option, he said.
“We’re trying to jam this through,” Smith said.
His colleagues took offense at his remarks.
Council Member Helen Moore said his use of the term “corrupt” angered her and that she “resented it to the maximum degree.”
“This whole rant that you’re on, Mr. Smith, is offensive,” she said. “And you owe us an apology.”
Moore’s second term is up this year, and she hasn’t yet said whether she’ll seek a third.
Frank said Smith’s remarks weren’t “professional or respectful.”
“When you don’t have the data and numbers and facts on your side, you, I guess, are forced to sling and slander your colleagues,” she said.
Smith fired back that Frank and Howard would be asking for an extra year in office by voting for her motion because it would cancel the 2025 election.
“That’s corrupt,” he said.
He used the phrase “jamming,” he said, because the Council had declined to have the change considered by a charter review committee or the new Citizen Advisory Board.
“You need to vote this down and you need to get honest,” he said.
Boldt, who has filed for re-election but who doesn’t yet have an opponent, said the attitude in chambers “scares me.”
If that continues to be the attitude on the dais and among the public, he’ll withdraw, he said.
Frank called for her motion to be voted on, and it passed 5-2, with Smith and Council Member Joan Farrell voting no.
“I look forward to seeing what the voters say in November,” Pachota said.
First, the Council will need to vote on an ordinance approving ballot language and authorizing a referendum. City Attorney Kelly Fernandez said all the changes — the longer term, the two-term limit and the method of implementation — will be presented as a package.
Most Popular
Comments / 0