COUNTY EMPLOYEES SEEK TO PUT TERM LIMITS FOR SUPERVISORS INITIATVE ON JUNE BALLOT

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

By Miriam Raftery

 

July 13, 2009 (San Diego) – San Diego County employees today held a press conference at the San Diego County Administration Center to announce a ballot initiative that would impose term limits for the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors. Margaret Johnson, a long-term County employee, filed an initiative with the San Diego Registrar of Voters that if approved by voters, would limit Supervisors to two four-year terms.

 

"The same politicians have run San Diego County for years, but they have failed to address the pressing issues facing our County,” Johnson said. “These career politicians have become so entrenched with special projects that they are routinely reelected, even though they’ve lost touch with the needs of all the people of San Diego County. In fact, no incumbent Supervisor in San Diego County has lost a re-election bid in over a decade.”

 

Service Employees International Union Local 221, the union that represents San Diego County employees, supports the term limits initiative. “We need new leaders with new ideas to improve the quality of life in San Diego County – leaders who are not focused on their own issues and benefits,” SEIU Local 221 president Sharon-Frances Moore said at the press conference.

 

But Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who has represented East County for more than 20 years and currently chairs the Board of Supervisors, has a different perspective which she shared with East County Magazine.

 

“Term limits reflect the philosophy that voters are too stupid to decide for themselves when to turn an underperforming official out of office,” she said. “The hapless and ineffective California Legislature is a prime example of the terrible consequences of term limits.”

 

Laura Cyphert, head of the East County Community Action Coalition, agreed.  "I believe that we, as Americans, should have the freedom of choice to elect those candidates whom we believe are most qualified" she said. "I do not agree with the concept of "forced choice" for our so-called own good." Jacob shares the coalition's opposition to Sunrise Powerlink and has been a vocal spokesperson against the project.

 

But Carl Meyer, who led a successful recall effort against  Potrero planners over Blackwater's plan to build a private military base in Potrero, supports the initiative.  "It's telling that the County's own employees are so fed up with lobbyist deals behind closed doors--land use development that benefits sprawl developer interest versus the communities' interest," he observed.

 

Steve Rivera, regional director for the state Democratic Party, said of the proposed initiative, "It's a good idea. The non-responsiveness of the board to the public and their own actions have created the conditions that made the filing of this initiative all but inevitable."  All five Supervisors are Republicans, though the County now has a majority Democratic registration. 

 

After the Registrar processes the initiative, petition gatherers will have 180 days to obtain 77,537 valid signatures in order to qualify the initiative for the June 2010 ballot.

 

A similar effort six years ago resulted in approximately 22,000 signatures but failed to qualify for the ballot.  That effort was led by medical marijuana advocates and Cedar Fire survivor Rudy Reyes, who later ran for Supervisor against Jacob.

 

Reyes said he fears Supervisors will hand-pick their own replacements if term limits are not opposed. "Retire, implace a lacky, no change!" said Reyes, who added that he plans to run again for Supervisor  in 2012.

 

 

 


Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

terrm limits

As an organizer for seiu, obviously I have an insiders view of this initiative, it is all B.S., our union is and has been corrupt for decades, if one of our own dares to speak out, they are dismissed without recourse, we have to sue our own local because of our so-called president, who had never held a union job in our local EVER. she is a crook.
the reason we have had to try to sneak in the back door is because the residents of san diego aren't stupid, we only support politicians who we know have no self esteem and or dignity, just take our money and we will tell you what to do.
just a little insider news, several of us organizers are working to get a recall of any and all "appointed leaders it is a shame that we do not have term limits for our workers.
if you are not gay, you will have no leadership role inseiu, its so sad

SEIU 221 does not want free and open choice

RE: ECM'S words
San Diego County employees today held a press conference at the San Diego County Administration Center to announce a ballot initiative that would impose term limits for the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors."

My response
Why am I not surprised that the county employees union wants to follow their successful takeover of State politics, with an attempt at San Diego County.

ECM'S words
"The same politicians have run San Diego County for years, but they have failed to address the pressing issues facing our County,” Johnson said. “These career politicians have become so entrenched with special projects that they are routinely reelected, even though they’ve lost touch with the needs of all the people of San Diego County. In fact, no incumbent Supervisor in San Diego County has lost a re-election bid in over a decade.”

My response
If more voters want the union’s candidate than those currently in office, they will win the election. What is wrong with that?
What part of supervisor Jacob’s quote, “The hapless and ineffective California Legislature is a prime example of the terrible consequences of term limits,” is incorrect?

If Ms. Cyphert, who said, "I believe that we, as Americans, should have the freedom of choice to elect those candidates whom we believe are most qualified,” she said. "I do not agree with the concept of "forced choice" for our so-called own good."
is so concerned with the freedom of choice in elections, why is she in favor of removing my choice of candidates? It seems to me that the current system allows anyone who can get on the ballot, to run for office. Who forced each of the current supervisors at their constituents? Couldn’t anybody run for that office?

ECM'S words
Steve Rivera, regional director for the state Democratic Party, said of the proposed initiative, "It's a good idea. The non-responsiveness of the board to the public and their own actions have created the conditions that made the filing of this initiative all but inevitable." All five Supervisors are Republicans, though the County now has a majority Democratic registration.

My response
Mr. Rivera doesn’t think it fair that the political balance in this county is not reflected on the Board of Supervisors. Hmmm, I wonder if he has ever looked at the balance of voters in California versus the political breakdown of the state senate and assembly. I hope that the anti gerrymandering proposition passed last time, will finally make him happy. However, I doubt it.

Bearfoot - Thanks for your comments, but

I think you misunderstood Laura Cyphert's position - she opposes term limits.

 

It is true that anyone can run for office and voters always have a choice.

 

the other side of the argument, which we probably should have included here, is that incumbents have a powerful advantage for staying in office, in that they can send materials at county expense to constituents to update voters on their views/accomplishments etc., which it's very difficult for a challenger to raise enough money to get his or her message out.

 

On the other hand, imposing term limits can also mean eliminating the most experienced political leaders, tossing out good ones with the bad.

 

I've worked in Sacramento before term limits, and personally have mixed feelings on this issue.  But we did try to include multiple voices on each side of this issue for our story.

Misunderstanding, but unchanged

I suppose I misread Laura Cyphert's position, but it doesn't really change my response.

Incumbency is huge, and that is a shame. Perhaps the folks with all of the lobbying power can come up with a scheme to lessen the power of the incumbent, but still allows them to be selected.
Perhaps a start would be to make all who hold elected positions, pay for all of their mailings.

Interesting thought. Campaign finance reform is another option.

In places that have adopted "Clean Elections" campaign finance reforms, such as Maine and Arizona, there is a huge change in the number of incumbents swept out of office and also in the diversity of people elected -- more women, minorities, and independent-type candidates who are not part of a party machine.

 

Clean Election candidates receive public funds but must pledge to abide by limits on contributions to restrict  the influence of corporations or individual wealthy donors.  Proponents claim it costs just $6 per taxpayer on average and argue that the cost to society of corruption in politics is far greater.  The idea is to level the playing field by giving viable challengers equal access to funding for campaigns.

 

A proposal in our Legislature last year would fund a pilot program of public funding for the Secretary of State race and pay for it by increasing lobbyist registration fees.

 

There is an effort to implement clean elections in San Diego.  You can learn about about that at this website:  http://www.sdcleanelections.org/index.html.  

Campaign reform

One thing that will help our pitiful legislature, is the new method of drawing senatorial and assembly districts.
I am afraid that I have no confidence in politicians and their supporters making any pledge to abide by any limits. Wealthy people or organizations will find a way to campaign for their 'favored' politicians.

Great for our brothers and sisters in Maine and Arizona, but I am afraid that our state, which is larger in population than Canada, and likely has a larger budget, has way too many politically 'important' people to abide by some mere oath of politically honesty.

I sure do seem like a cynic, don’t I?