CC Min 1998-02-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . . - Schricker said the City could not hold an election of any kind in August, based on the State Elections Code. He said the problem of defining this issue is the use of the term - special election. Mr. Schricker said, "The election in November will be a special municipal election" because although it is a municipal election it will not be held in November of an odd year, and therefore is considered a special election. Mr. Schricker answered further that new State law no longer allows Cities to have stand alone elections for any purpose on other than state established election dates. Council Member Leipzig said that Warren Slocum (San Mateo County Clerk who is responsible for all elections in the County) advised that today was the last day to publicize a consolidated election in June. He said he was unhappy that the City Attorney had not called him back immediately on the Friday that Council Member Buchan resigned, because if the Council had acted swiftly it would have had an opportunity to call an election for June. He said that the Council could have immediately called a special Council Meeting and at that special meeting adopted a Resolution calling an election and immediately published a Notice to Call an Election. Council Member Leipzig said the City will have an election in November no matter what the Council decided within the 60 day period provided in the Charter. He said the $20,000 or $30,000 cost of an election "is a small price to pay for democracy. We spent $40,000 or $50,000 on a gunshot locator system that hasn't worked to catch one criminal. We spend $50,000 a year on a newsletter that I think most people think is a waste. When it comes to asking the people what they think, and who should sit up here and decide issues for them, the idea that someone is going to throw this back in my face as a fiscal conservative and say it is a waste of money - is absurd. The people's voice is never a waste of money. It is not a needless use of funds." Council Member Hartnett said, "I can't help but say that it seems wholly inconsistent to say that... we shouldn't appoint somebody tonight because nobody knows what we are doing, and then days after the resignation we should hold a special Council Meeting to decide that very issue." He said that the letter from the City Attorney is very clear that the only way the Council could have an election is by failing to appoint someone within the 60 day period. He said the Charter requires the Council to exercise due diligence in attempting to appoint someone within 60 days, and failing that the Council must call an election. Council Member Hartnett said, "To say that our due diligence could have been met by calling a special Council Meeting days after the resignation" was entirely inconsistent, inappropriate, and "political baloney." Council Member Claire asked the City Attorney to confirm that at the January 31, 1998 Council Meeting in Redwood Shores, the Council decided that the 11 :00 p.m. Council Meeting extension deadline no longer needed a unanimous vote, but only needed a simple majority. City Attorney Schricker confirmed that policy change, advising that action did not need a Resolution, and since no time was determined, the policy became effective immediately. MEMO 2/10/98 - REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 56 FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES Page No. 261 PAGE 19