City Desk
By Carolyn Schuk

Charter Review Committee Off and...Plodding

On Sept. 1 the Santa Clara Charter Review Committee (SCCRC) began work in earnest reviewing the city's at-large election system and possible alternatives. Unfortunately for those who hoped for actual discussion about the city's elections, a considerable part of the Thursday night meeting was devoted to process and procedure - including a lengthy discussion about California's Brown Act and whether the committee's assignment included term limits.

Two speakers were on the agenda: Steve Chessin President, Californians for Electoral Reform (www.cefr.org); and Robert Rubin, legal director of the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), the organization that's threatening Santa Clara with a California Voting Rights (CVRA) lawsuit.

The challenge that has always faced democracies since the ancient Athenians first advanced the idea is choosing representatives that properly represent those governed.

One such attempt is the U.S.'s Electoral College, whose ostensible justification was preventing large population centers from stifling the voices of smaller communities. In practice the Electoral College turns out to be an ineffective tool for ensuring that minority voices are heard, but can be gamed to subvert majority sentiment. This alone should be a caution to those seeking a formula for making elected bodies more representative.

The most familiar alternative to at-large election systems is the geographic district system. Geographically concentrated populations - some would call those ghettoes, and thus repugnant to American notions of equality and personal liberty - are necessary for districts to be representative. Lacking that population concentration, districts deliver the same results as at-large elections, said Chessin.

The alternative is some form of proportional representation, which comes in several forms, Chessin explained: party list, ranked choice voting, and cumulative voting. Party list and ranked choice voting - also called "instant run-off" - are the most familiar examples of proportional representation.

The second speaker was Robert Rubin, legal director of the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), the organization that's threatening to bring a California Voting Rights (CVRA) against Santa Clara.

Admitting that he was probably the "most unpopular person in the room" that evening, Rubin spoke briefly to argue for geographic election districts on the grounds that proportional voting systems are too complicated for voters to understand.

San Francisco - Rubin's home - combines district elections with ranked choice voting to elect its Board of Supervisors on a district. So perhaps he knows what he's talking about, and it's this complexity that explains the endemic cronyism and pettiness characterizing that body (which a few weeks ago put aside trivialities like the city budget to declare Sept. 13, 2011 Jimmy Hendrix Day).

However, some say that it's not the process for electing candidates that's the problem, but the willingness/reluctance of representative members of the community to run for office. "The real issue is getting minorities to run for election," says Santa Clara resident Jim Mathre, "and changing the [city] charter doesn't do anything towards that [goal]. "

The next meeting of the Charter Review Committee is Thursday, Sept. 22 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers. The community is encouraged to attend. You can review all of the Charter Review Committee's information at by visiting santaclaraca.gov, selecting the What's New tab, and scrolling down the news page to select "Charter Review Committee Binder."

Three Main Types of Proportional Election: Party List, Ranked Choice, Cumulative Voting

In a party list system, political parties make lists of candidates, and seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives. Thus any party receiving more than a specified percentage of the vote is guaranteed representation.

South Africa and Israel are among the countries that use a party list system. The disadvantages of this type of election system is that it weakens the links between legislators and constituents, increases the party control and entrenchment, and, can, through alliances that are needed to obtain a governing majority, endow splinter groups and extreme positions with disproportionate power.

Ranked choice - also called instant-runoff voting - lets voters rank candidates by preference, and ballots count for the first choice candidate on the first round of counting - a candidate with a majority of the votes on the first count wins.

If there's no majority winner, a new round of counting takes place in which the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choice on those ballots is counted. The counting continues until a candidate gets a majority of the vote. Regardless of the iterations, each ballot, ultimately, only counts for one candidate.

Ranked choice has long been used in Australia and is used locally in San Francisco and Oakland. Ranked choice makes it "safer" to vote for third party and independent candidates, but it's no guarantee of proportional representation.

Cumulative voting lets voters distribute their share of votes. In other words, if there are four open seats, voters can place one vote for each of four candidates, four votes for one candidate, or any other combination. Cumulative voting offers a method for achieving proportionality because a group of voters can pool all their votes for one candidate. However, cumulative voting lends itself to "tactical voting" - some would call it gaming the system - by spreading out votes to ensure a like-minded governing body, or concentrating them to ensure a win by one candidate.

"Failed Term Limits" Bigger Concern than At-Large Elections to Some Santa Clarans

While Robert Rubin thinks Santa Clara needs electoral districts, some actual city residents are concerned about something else: What former Santa Clara Mayor and Council Member Larry Fargher called "a failed term limit system" in his August 26 letter to the Charter Review Committee.

"Every one of the Council is finishing two terms, or has already served more than that. Our senior Councilman is now in her 18th year. How can any new candidate hope to be successful against such seasoned campaigners?"

Fargher recommends that the city's term limits for mayors and council members - which currently prohibit more than two "consecutive" terms - be changed to an absolute two-term limit. "If we had a valid term limit...we would have new faces on the Council. It is incredible that the minimum service is 8 years and the maximum in 18 years on the present council."

Despite the fact that this could be a fundamental defect in Santa Clara's election system, term limits fall outside the scope of the current committee. So unless the California Voting Rights Act is amended to include "perpetuity in office" as a form of voter suppression - in which case Robert Rubin will threaten a lawsuit - don't expect the City Council's "musical chairs" to change soon.

Economic Development Officer or Deputy City Manager - Same Salary, Different Name?

Listeners had good reason to be puzzled at the August 30 City Council meeting during the discussion of the job description for the City's as-yet-unhired $181,000/year - $15,000/month - Economic Development Officer. That's because Santa Clara doesn't have an Economic Development Officer, and, as far as the Weekly has been able to find, never has.

The City does have an unfilled Deputy City Manager position at about the same salary, however. This, we presume, is what the Council was discussing - although some Members seemed to be in the dark. The Council unanimously approved the new job description.

The new job title is a reflection of the City Council's 2011-12 stated goal to "refocus the City's Economic Development Committee." Originally formed in 1995 as the Mission City 21 Committee, the Economic Development Committee currently consists of Mayor Jamie Matthews, Council Members Lisa Gillmor and Pat Kolstad, City Manager Jennifer Sparacino, Acting Assistant City Manager Carol McCarthy, Director of Planning & Inspection Kevin Riley, Director of Electric Utility John Roukema, and Chamber of Commerce President Steve Van Dorn.

The committee is supposed to meet quarterly - its most recent meeting was August 22, 2011, but no future meetings appear on the city calendar.

Most of Santa Clara's neighboring cities have an economic development director, but the title comes with a considerably lower salary. For example, Sunnyvale's (sunnyvale.ca.gov) Economic Development Manager has a top salary around $130,000, while Palo Alto's (www.cityofpaloalto.org) Manager of Economic Development and Redevelopment earns $129,000.

Salaries for a comparable position in private business in the South Bay, VP Business Development, average $170,000 -$180,000 according to the salary information sites Salary.com and CBSalary.com. Twenty-three (23) of Santa Clara's 924 city employees take home more than $170,000.

You can find the minutes of the Aug. 22, 2011 Economic Development Committee meeting at santaclaraca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5969.

Did You Know That...

The average annual income in Santa Clara County is $89,342 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, and slightly more than nine percent of the county's population lives below the poverty line - $18,312 annually for a family of four (www.dhcs.ca.gov).