The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors has formally approved the membership of the county’s Charter Review Commission, a panel seated every 8 years according to the county charter to review the very document that guides county government. The Charter Review Commission is the local version of a Constitutional Convention and it will examine a variety of potential changes to the county charter.
The names of the newly appointed members of the Charter Review Commission were published in a recent newspaper article. They include:
• Rosalie O’Mahony and Cary Wiest, nominated by Supervisor Mark Church;
• Sean Foote and Beverly Miller, nominated by Supervisor Rich Gordon;
• Ruth Nagler and Dolores (Dee) Canepa, nominated by Adrienne Tissier;
• Dave Pine, nominated by the San Mateo County School Boards Association;
• Dave Burow, nominated by the Council of Cities;
• Kathy Everitt, nominated by the League of Women Voters;
• Daniel S. Cruey, nominated by SAMCEDA;
• Shelley Kessler, nominated by the San Mateo County Central Labor Council;
• William (Bill) R. Schulte, nominated by Sustainable San Mateo County.
One of the items that will certainly be on the agenda is an examination of changing the way in which county supervisors are elected from an at-large system to a district based system. Last June, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued an advisory letter to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors directing the five-member board to change the system under which supervisors are elected from an at-large system to a district based system through the regularly scheduled Charter Review process.
In response to the letter, San Mateo County Supervisor Mark Church, now board president, stated that “It is probably time to look at the issue again.”
San Mateo County is the only county is the State of California that elects supervisors at-large – or countywide. Tehama County in the Sierra Mountains also maintained such a system until voters overwhelmingly approved a county charter amendment to impose a district-based system in November of 2008.The issue is not new a one and has been discussed and even voted on in the past, but the issue is coming to a head now as elections for the powerful and remote county board of supervisors have become selections rather than elections.
In fact, two of the five sitting supervisors were actually appointed by their colleagues, the most recent of which was former San Mateo City Councilwoman Carol Groome who was appointed mid-term to the seat formerly occupied by Jerry Hill who was elected to the State Assembly last November. Groom’s appointment to the board was roundly criticized in local newspaper editorials and formally opposed by organizations such as the San Mateo County Democratic Party, the county’s Republican Party, the Sierra Club and even the League of Women Voters. Despite the firestorm of opposition, Groom was appointed by the Supervisors with only Supervisor Rich Gordon calling for a special election instead. That action touched a nerve and again reminded many of the machine politics that continue to dominate San Mateo County.
In its letter, the Grand Jury cited many reasons for making the change. First an foremost, the Grand Jury opined that the task of running for the board in a county with a population topping 700,000 is daunting at best. The cost to run such an election without major support from entrenched political interests is all but impossible. Running in such an election would even dwarf the size of a U.S. Congressional district.
Secondly, the representation for defined districts would improve and provide for more opportunities for a diverse range of candidates to both run and perhaps get elected. The simple benefit of having more legitimate candidates run will also invigorate the democratic process by forcing discussion of pertinent county issues.
It has been over 12 years since there was a hotly contested Supervisorial race when Supervisor Gordon actually had to earn his seat in a special election without an incumbent.
But such a contest is rare. Most Supervisorial elections are exercises in the inevitable where candidates blessed by the county’s political machine simply walk into office or are appointed to their seats.
More startling is the fact that an incumbent San Mateo County Supervisor has not been unseated since 1980 when now Congresswoman Jackie Speier unseated James Fitzgerald.
Over the same period of time, according to county records, when incumbent supervisors run, approximately 50 percent of the time they are not even challenged. Worse yet, 86 percent of the time when incumbent supervisors run they face no competition or only token competition from protest candidates who rarely even mount a hint of a political campaign.
But the prospects for change in San Mateo County may be limited. Many of the Supervisors who have appointed the lion’s share of the Charter Review panel have publicly or privately voiced opposition to a district-based system. And many of the organizations tapped to send representatives – an odd mixture with little in the way of rhyme or reason as to why they were selected to send representatives – will also likely oppose a district-based system.
San Mateo County’s political leaders have long sought the dodge and weave approach when it comes to issues that threaten the power structure. In 2005, following a hue and cry over the way in which a recently retired county supervisor was awarded a seat on the San Mateo County Transit District Board (SamTrans) reserved for a member of the public without any notice or opportunity for a member of the public to even apply – and done so with the approval and participation with two county supervisors – the county board responded by performing a diversity audit of all county boards and commissions under the control of the county board. Of course, the audit demonstrated that the county was doing a terrible job of getting a diverse range of the public involved and all pledged to do better. Years later, the audit has been all but forgotten.
Another recent dodge perpetrated by the County Board of Supervisors was the so-called Citizens Review Panel. This special commission was set up by the county to respond to potential misdeeds by county elected officials. The panel was created as a direct response to the intense criticism leveled against the county supervisors for their collective silence over the detention of the County Sheriff Greg Munks at a Las Vegas brothel in April of 2007. While the Supervisors did and said nothing about the incident for a year, criticism began to mount. Finally, the Citizens Review Panel was created to deal with such situations but no action was to be taken against Munks.
So while the Charter Review Commission may be a formal opportunity to examine the possibility of establishing district elections in San Mateo County, reformers need not get their hopes up. This effort is likely yet another example of the County’s way of dodging and weaving their way out of real reform and remedying a system that is stacked in favor of the county’s power elite.
Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Visit Bruce Balshone's Twitter Page
Visit Bruce's Peninsula Examiner Facebook Page
Comments
Here is an example of another report from our 2008-2009 grand jury. Sue
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!