This is a simple policy change to the City Charter. Currently, the Charter is silent regarding what effect the resignation of a Council Member has on his or her eligibility to run for an elective City office in a future election. Measure CB proposes that residents who have resigned from an elective City office shall not be eligible to hold an elective City office nor be eligible for candidacy for election until two years have elapsed from the date of resignation.
It seems like a harmless enough change, but I wonder why it is needed. I’m trying to envision a scenario where I guess a sitting councilmember would be around the end of the third year of their second term in office. Because of a two-term limit, that person would have to sit out an election cycle before they could run again. Council elections are every two years. So, if someone REALLY couldn’t wait two years, but would be willing to go through the trouble and controversy of resigning and running again in one year, this proposed change to the Charter would stop that.
In thinking of the downside, there is not much. However, if you consider the possibility that 2015 City Council candidate, Scott Wyant could have won a seat on City Council, he most certainly would have at least considered resigning when he was diagnosed with cancer. What his condition improved to the point where he felt like he’d want to run for office again in the next election? He would not be able to do so. Nor would anyone who felt they could not perform their duties for a period and chose to resign. Maybe a spouse becomes ill, or some other personal emergency arises which would cause a need to resign.
Just some food for thought.
A YES vote on Measure CB requires that residents who have resigned from an elective City office to be ineligible for candidacy for election until two years have passed from their resignation date.
A NO vote maintains the current City Charter with no restrictions.
Dan O’Brien
A case in which this measure would be needed? One name: Scott Malsin. Resigned in late 2011 to maintain city provided health benefits for his family that new council members would be ineligible for; ran again in spring 2012. Do we want council members who exploit loopholes in city regulations or their own benefit, or those who abide by the intent of the regulations despite their own feelings and consequences to themselves? I felt bad for the Malsins having to choose between a solid benefit plan and city service. But in a democracy, sometimes you do need to choose between the needs of your own family and those of the greater community–this goes especially for our elected officials. If the citizens have to choose, the elected officials shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways.