ARTICLE
What Ever Happened to the Santa Cruz City Council’s Decision to Consider Council Districts and a Direct Vote for Mayor? I have a photo at home with an American bald Eagle soaring high above a mountain range looking majestic. The photo captures the beauty, power and grace of the Eagle in full flight. In captions there is a quote: “Leadership Is Action, not a place at the front of the line.” That quote pretty much sums up the non-existent action by the current city council to move forward on the former city council vote to form a committee to study the design and implementation work plan for city council districts and possibly a direct vote for Mayor. In usual political disagreement, when there is a shift of power at any level of government — the policy idea from the past council is disregarded or seen as not worthy of further action by the new city council, city staff and community input. We all lose when a new majority of the council puts a stop to a fundamental issue so vital to our democracy. The conceptual idea came forward last year from former Mayor David Terrazas. The 2018 City Council voted to direct city staff in the following manner: “Motion carried to establish a Charter Amendment Committee to be comprised of thirteen community members, with seven selected directly by individual Council members by September 7, 2018, and six at-large City Council-appointed members through an application/letter of interest process facilitated by the City Manager’s Office to be completed by the end of September 2018; and, direct staff to develop a work plan based on the following scope of work and meeting schedule so that the Charter Amendment Committee commences in October 2018 with a progress check in with Council on or before December 11, 2018. The 13 member committee was appointed to begin this work. The committee met twice (November 1 and November 29, 2018). A link to the meeting agendas and minutes is here. There has been no action on this item since. In a council meeting earlier this winter, one city council member requested that the Charter Amendment committee be modified to include additional members of the community. However, the City Council paused and left the work of the current committee in limbo. Further inquiries to the City about the status of this committee’s progress and whether a work plan would be forthcoming is on hold. Why is this an important local policy issue? Let’s fast forward to the last couple of months. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gives lawmakers across the country the green-light to gerrymander as much as they like, two state bills in Sacramento could push the state even further in the other direction. You can read a CalMatters article here. The two pieces of legislation are summarized as follows: • AB 849 would set up rules restricting how cities and counties draw their council and supervisory maps. Among other things, the bill by Democratic Assemblyman Rob Bonta from Oakland would require each district to “respect the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods and communities of interest.” • SB 139 by Santa Monica Senator Ben Allen, would require most counties over 250,000 people to create independent redistricting commissions. These could either be modeled on California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, with virtually equal seating for Democrats, Republicans and political independents, or they could be made to reflect the partisan makeup of the county itself—as long as no one political party controls more than a majority of the seats. Of the 12 slots, a single party would only be allowed to have 6, with the rest made up of political independents. Exceptions are made for San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, which already have their own commissions. AB 849 passed the Assembly on a 55-20 vote and is now in the Senate Government and Finance Committee awaiting action. SB 139 passed out of the State Senate on a 29-7 vote and is under consideration in the Assembly Appropriation Committee. As you probably would guess the lineup of supporters and opposition to this legislation is typical — community advocates for social justice vs. local election officials, urban and rural county government: Here is a sample of the list: Support California Common Cause [CO-SPONSOR] League of Women Voters of California [CO-SPONSOR] Asian Americans Advancing Justice-California Asian Pacific Environmental Network California Clean Money Campaign California League of Conservation Voters California Voices for Progress City of Santa Monica Courage Campaign Drug Policy Alliance Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Friends Committee on Legislation of California Indivisible CA: StateStrong Indivisible Marin Mexican-American Legal Defense and Ed Fund (MALDEF) Mi Familia Vota NARAL Pro-Choice California RepresentUs Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Supervisor Monica E. Brown, County of Solano United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Western States Council Opposition California Association of Clerks and Election Officials California State Association of Counties Rural County Representatives of California Urban Counties of California Whether you agree or disagree that the City of Santa Cruz should be divided into council districts or we should have a direct election of our Mayor, this discussion should start and end in Santa Cruz. We are better served by local community input first as part of the decision making process before putting this issue to the voters. Now, if state legislation passes and is signed into law by the Governor, that decision will be made in Sacramento and sets in motion a state mandate for the 2020 election cycle. Sometimes it takes a court decision or legislation from the State Legislature or Congress to make local government respond. Our City Council could direct the staff to move forward and put in place a process for making this determination now. Instead - the council majority has taken its place in line and put it on pause. What a lost opportunity.
What Ever Happened to the Santa Cruz City Council’s Decision to Consider Council Districts and a Direct Vote for Mayor? I have a photo at home with an American bald Eagle soaring high above a mountain range looking majestic. The photo captures the beauty, power and grace of the Eagle in full flight. In captions there is a quote: “Leadership Is Action, not a place at the front of the line.” That quote pretty much sums up the non-existent action by the current city council to move forward on the former city council vote to form a committee to study the design and implementation work plan for city council districts and possibly a direct vote for Mayor. In usual political disagreement, when there is a shift of power at any level of government — the policy idea from the past council is disregarded or seen as not worthy of further action by the new city council, city staff and community input. We all lose when a new majority of the council puts a stop to a fundamental issue so vital to our democracy.
The conceptual idea came forward last year from former Mayor David Terrazas. The 2018 City Council voted to direct city staff in the following manner: “Motion carried to establish a Charter Amendment Committee to be comprised of thirteen community members, with seven selected directly by individual Council members by September 7, 2018, and six at-large City Council-appointed members through an application/letter of interest process facilitated by the City Manager’s Office to be completed by the end of September 2018; and, direct staff to develop a work plan based on the following scope of work and meeting schedule so that the Charter Amendment Committee commences in October 2018 with a progress check in with Council on or before December 11, 2018.
The 13 member committee was appointed to begin this work. The committee met twice (November 1 and November 29, 2018). A link to the meeting agendas and minutes is here.
There has been no action on this item since. In a council meeting earlier this winter, one city council member requested that the Charter Amendment committee be modified to include additional members of the community. However, the City Council paused and left the work of the current committee in limbo. Further inquiries to the City about the status of this committee’s progress and whether a work plan would be forthcoming is on hold.
Why is this an important local policy issue? Let’s fast forward to the last couple of months. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gives lawmakers across the country the green-light to gerrymander as much as they like, two state bills in Sacramento could push the state even further in the other direction. You can read a CalMatters article here. The two pieces of legislation are summarized as follows: • AB 849 would set up rules restricting how cities and counties draw their council and supervisory maps. Among other things, the bill by Democratic Assemblyman Rob Bonta from Oakland would require each district to “respect the geographic integrity of local neighborhoods and communities of interest.” • SB 139 by Santa Monica Senator Ben Allen, would require most counties over 250,000 people to create independent redistricting commissions. These could either be modeled on California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, with virtually equal seating for Democrats, Republicans and political independents, or they could be made to reflect the partisan makeup of the county itself—as long as no one political party controls more than a majority of the seats. Of the 12 slots, a single party would only be allowed to have 6, with the rest made up of political independents. Exceptions are made for San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, which already have their own commissions. AB 849 passed the Assembly on a 55-20 vote and is now in the Senate Government and Finance Committee awaiting action. SB 139 passed out of the State Senate on a 29-7 vote and is under consideration in the Assembly Appropriation Committee.
As you probably would guess the lineup of supporters and opposition to this legislation is typical — community advocates for social justice vs. local election officials, urban and rural county government: Here is a sample of the list:
Support California Common Cause [CO-SPONSOR] League of Women Voters of California [CO-SPONSOR] Asian Americans Advancing Justice-California Asian Pacific Environmental Network California Clean Money Campaign California League of Conservation Voters California Voices for Progress City of Santa Monica Courage Campaign Drug Policy Alliance Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Friends Committee on Legislation of California Indivisible CA: StateStrong Indivisible Marin Mexican-American Legal Defense and Ed Fund (MALDEF) Mi Familia Vota NARAL Pro-Choice California RepresentUs Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Supervisor Monica E. Brown, County of Solano United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Western States Council Opposition California Association of Clerks and Election Officials California State Association of Counties Rural County Representatives of California Urban Counties of California
Whether you agree or disagree that the City of Santa Cruz should be divided into council districts or we should have a direct election of our Mayor, this discussion should start and end in Santa Cruz. We are better served by local community input first as part of the decision making process before putting this issue to the voters. Now, if state legislation passes and is signed into law by the Governor, that decision will be made in Sacramento and sets in motion a state mandate for the 2020 election cycle. Sometimes it takes a court decision or legislation from the State Legislature or Congress to make local government respond. Our City Council could direct the staff to move forward and put in place a process for making this determination now. Instead - the council majority has taken its place in line and put it on pause. What a lost opportunity.