 |
 |
Mike Senneff, middle, chairman of Santa Rosa's 21-member Charter Review Committee, listens with his colleagues to Santa Rosa citizens lay out their viewpoints Saturday on district elections for the city's seven council members. (Kent Porter / PD)
By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A parade of speakers on Saturday called for district elections in Santa Rosa, saying the concept is more democratic and would bridge the city’s economic and ethnic divide.
“The current system does not work for the most marginalized” residents, said Omar Gallardo, referring to the low-income Roseland and Apple Valley areas. “I encourage you to bring back democracy.”
About three dozen members of Gallardo’s group, the North Bay Organizing Project, attended a public hearing hosted by Santa Rosa’s Charter Review Committee at the Utilities Field Operations building on Stony Point Road.
About 130 people attended the three-hour meeting to consider possible changes to the city charter, including a switch from citywide voting for all seven council members to separate voting in seven districts.
By unofficial count, 44 speakers favored district elections and two supported the status quo.
Boisterous applause followed some of the majority comments, voiced by whites, Latinos, blacks, academics, clergy, activists and residents from all quarters of the city.
Nineteen committee members, appointed by the council, made no comment. The committee, which previously had rejected district elections on a 10-6 straw vote, is expected to recommend charter amendments to the council in May.
The council will decide whether to put any amendments to a public vote in November.
“I don’t want my city known for having an exclusionary attitude,” said Rev. Curtis Byrd, who noted he is the second African-American appointed to the Planning Commission. “The time for change has passed.”
Northeast Santa Rosa residents have long dominated the council and other policy-making boards, and in 145 years only two westside residents and two minorities have been elected to the council.
The Rev. R. Tim Carnahan took a humorous tack, saying that as a northeast neighborhood resident he ought to feel well-represented, but does not.
“They’ve never bothered to walk down the hill to my house,” he said.
Judy Kennedy, a Burbank Gardens area resident, said that district elections would produce candidates “who represent the point of view of our neighbors and those who live and work nearby.”
Andy Merrifield, a Sonoma State University political science professor who lives in Santa Rosa, gave the discussion an academic twist, describing the notion that northeast area residents know best as a “neocolonialist viewpoint.”
Stephen Gale, a local Democratic Party leader, said he had “a sense of deja vu” at Saturday’s meeting.
“Ten years ago you heard most of these same reasons” for district elections, he said. “The issue is before you now and it’s not going to go away.”
Keith Woods, chief executive officer of North Coast Builders Exchange in Santa Rosa, said he had served 10 years ago with Merrifield on the last charter review panel.
“I admire the passion in the room here,” Woods said, but warned of “unintended consequences” from district elections.
Woods said he once lived in a city with 10 council districts that “created 10 small kingdoms” and forced council members to fight for one-tenth of everything done in the city, which he did not name.
Kirstin Merrihew, a Coddingtown area resident, said district elections would “balkanize Santa Rosa.”
“We need to be a whole city, pulling together,” she said, but allowed that it would be all right to put district elections to a vote.
Lee Pierce, the city’s first black council member who lost a bid for the state Assembly in 2010, said he used to favor citywide elections but now feels the system is not working.
“All we are saying here is take it to the people,” Pierce said.
Three other charter topics — the Community Advisory Board, mayoral elections and binding arbitration — received scant attention.
The committee’s next meeting is 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday at the Utilities Field Operations building, 35 Stony Point Road.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
@ Money Grubber
I have three words for you. You are wrong. District elections are undemocratic. In this case it is designed to limit what the citizens have to say about how the city spends tax money and on what projects.
Districts would reduce each little district to fighting for crumbs from the city budget. The council that arose from this mess would be strictly looking out for their little piece of the pie and keep the interest group or groups that put them in office happy. special minority interest groups would control much more than they do today. Just look at San Francisco.
It would decrease representative democracy in Santa Rosa.
Bad idea for the future of town. That’s why most of the cities have not adopted this type of government in California.
Ted Appel: don’t delete posts.
I said you were blabbering, “Grubber,” and you are.
I want to continue CITY AT-LARGE elections, Grubber. This has nothing to do with regional elections; we don’t have “regional” elections here except under special conditions (such as the SMART two-county district, which could be called a regional election but is technically a special district election).
Also, you wrongly (twice) impuned the motives of someone you presumably — since you are using a pseudonym, how can I be sure? — don’t even know. Not the best form.
Hey Kirstin;
just be thankful this codescending individual isn’t a public official…
oops.
I find Kirstin thoughtful, intelligent and ‘focused’.
BTW, I wasn’t there, but it sounds like more synthesized ‘consensus’ to me.
Kirstin:
Focus, Kirstin, focus.
My posts are all about DISTRICT elections.
You want regional elections because regional elections protect those who have held the most power in Sonoma County for so long.
You fear DISTRICT elections because DISTRICT elections give voters in specific areas actual power to toss their specific govt rep out of office if he/she refuses to represent just that DISTRICT.
And, as I said, I suspect that you fear DISTRICT elections heatedly because you stand to personally lose some benefit that you have had under the existing system.
Change is good. Kirstin dislikes change.
Grubber, you have a very skewed idea of how to “help” voters here in Santa Rosa. Your claim that we need to shrink voter rights in order to “protect” them doesn’t make sense. With that kind of “logic” maybe we should just stop having elections at all. Would that suit you?
I believe in the power of the people. The voters should continue to vote every two years — for, first, three members of the council and then, the next time, for the other four members. This will best guarantee the abilities of all the voters to fully oversee THEIR city government.
Kirstin again chants, “we residents need to have the unfettered ability to choose and unfettered access to all the council members who are making decisions.”
Translation: By her own admission, she admits that DISTRICT elections would prevent the powerful from exerting pressure except in just their area.
DISTRICT elections protect everyone within their DISTRICTS from power hungry manipulators that Sonoma County has always had. DISTRICT elections prevent powerful people on the East side from exerting pressure and manipulating politics upon people living in the SW.
DISTRICT elections are feared by those who currently control Sonoma County.
Money Grubber, you make a lot of subtle but totally unfounded insinuations for someone who doesn’t even post under a real name.
Ever heard of differences in scale? Congressional districts are pretty much a necessity from a numbers standpoint, you know? The Founders understood that. And the same is true for Senate and Assembly Districts here in CA. Whether we really “need” districts for the supervisorial races here in Sonoma County is questionable.
There will always be advantages to some candidates if any election area is smaller rather than larger from a monetary standpoint, but the financial concerns of candidates are not, of course, the only or necessarily the most important consideration. As for Santa Rosa, although we are the largest city around these parts, we, at about 167,000, I think, are not so large that we “have” to divide up into city council districts the way the Congressional races, etc. do.
You may be happy as a clam to vote once every four years for just one out of seven council members. Maybe you like the idea of holing up in your little 1/7th of the city and concentrating on just it. Not me. I’m not for creating seven little kingdoms here in Santa Rosa.
I think a deliberate DISENFRANCHISEMENT is divisive and a distraction from more vital issues we need to face together. I want every voter to continue to have input on each person who sits on our council and to be able to vote each and every time someone’s term expires and the seat is in contention.
Santa Rosa is one city, and we residents need to have the unfettered ability to choose and unfettered access to all the council members who are making decisions about the incorporated area in which we live. We must strive for greater unity, not greater division, if we are to make the hard financial and other decisions that are coming our way.
Kirstin chants “district elections will decrease all the voters’ power over what is done in our own city”….
But notice that she doesn’t explain how she figures that position. :)
Tell us, “Kirstin,” if DISTRICT elections are so bad… why is it that the state operates via DISTRICTS via assembly people from DISTRICTS ?
And, tell us why the entire federal govt is operated via DISTRICTS vis congressional people from DISTRICTS?
Yet local politics are decided by region. I suspect “Kirstin” benefits personally from the current system that needs to be changed to DISTRICT elections.
Really Mr Money ? When the citizens can only vote for 1/7th of a city every 4 years, it seemed skewed to even more shenanigans. Such as ‘ gettin’ the bucks for the ‘hood’ kind of thing.
Unintended consequences can be harmful.
Thanks for the laugh, Money Grubber. Death grip? Hardly. The prevailing politics in Santa Rosa often goes against my political convictions.
My interest IS in seeing that all Santa Rosans, including myself, of course, continue to be able to vote to all city council members. As Kay Tokerud said, district elections DISENFRANCHISE!
Those who propose and push district elections claim to be fighting for better representation, but in reality, district elections will decrease all the voters’ power over what is done in our own city. I don’t want that, and I think most Santa Rosans don’t either.
Kirstin is among those who seek to retain their death grip on the politics of Sonoma County by blocking DISTRICT elections.
Look around at the political manipulation of the public.
Why retain the system that only benefits the elite of Sonoma County ??
The elite of Sonoma county fear DISTRICT elections because it enables representation to everyone.
Our electoral format isn’t broken, IF
the ballot count is genuine.
Kay is spot on; this represents MORE disconnect, not less.
Why fix an aspect of our municipal system that isn’t broken?
What’s broken is our ICLEI membership.
That’s where all these shenanigans come from.
An NGO foreign to our government and Constitution dictating policy that is foreign to our system.
Regionalism.
That’s what OneBayArea is about, that’s in part what this is about.
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
Just make sure our wheels are true and straight.
Drop ICLEI.
Ensure that our public officials stick to their oath and are accountable to us, the Constitution.
Set the Free Market free.
I will repeat this here:
As I said at the meeting on Saturday, district elections will reduce the influence and power of regular residents by only allowing us to vote for one person on the council instead of all. It would also compartmentalize our ability to communicate with the council as a whole. We would be told to speak only with our own district reps even though decisions about our city are contingent on the votes of the entire council.
We also need to distinguish between the many neighborhoods in Santa Rosa and the seven artificial districts that would be drawn on a map. Those districts would not be able to represent those many neighborhoods as a natural outgrowth of them. It would be a created structure placed on them and just another layer between them and the full city council.
It is important too to mention the potential growth in influence of special interests if district voting were implemented. At-large voting doesn’t avoid special interests, of course. But the districts could open a door to increased special interest power.
We should not be seeking to divide, to “balkanize”, to put up new barriers by creating districts. Our mission in these crucial times should be to unify and seek to solve our not inconsiderable problems as one city, not as seven small, competing “fiefdoms.” We need to be a whole city, pulling together.
“Harry Calahan” …
The only thing that is “silly” is your mixed bag of complaints that have zero to do with DISTRICT elections.
Home mortgages that are under water, for example, are not at all controlled by the City Council.
Focus, Harry, focus !!!
District elections are a minor side show in Santa Rosa. The real issues are jobs, jobs, jobs. How would district elections fix the jobs problem?
Santa Rosa has a crashed economy. Vacant stores downtown, huge pension and benefit deficits, a bloated city workforce, too many houses underwater and a leftist city council which wants to spend more on boondoggle projects and keep the bureaucracy growing.
Santa Rosa has a proud history of pro taxes, more and more user fees, anti-business and anti-employment development.
The city loves to talk and debate the wonders the occupy Santa Rosa group brings to Santa Rosa. They attract the homeless to town and to the downtown area to beg and badger the poor customers who still try to buy from a downtown merchant.
Santa Rosa needs a reset. District elections are a silly issue to distract us from the real issues this city refuses to address.
I am pretty sure that every single member of this committee has personal ties to the respective council members making it an inefficient committee! Come on these are the names we see all the time in Sonoma county politics what about finding some real community members who can truly speak to what the community really needs, that’s right they don’t know them because real community members have to work to sustain their families. This is why there will never be a truly representative city council.
Can anyone spell DISENFRANCHISEMENT? Yes, that’s right, Instead of people voting for 3 or 4 candidates every two years, people would be voting for one candidate every four years! Voters would then have no say whatsoever on who is elected in most of their city. We are not little fiefdoms as some would like us to be, but are a single city with a city council voted on by all of us.
On top of that, it would be possible that some of the most qualified individuals would be unable to win a seat because someone living near them has the seat. District elections are bad for voters as well as candidates and would likely produce an inferior level of performance on the job due to artificial geographic restrictions.
As far as benefitting the smaller, less affluent neighborhoods, we already know that candidates will simply move to be able to run for a position. Therefore, most of the supposed benefits would be erased by this anyway.
@Money Grubber
“By using that analogy, Steve, you are admitting that the local government is sinking as in the Titanic deck chairs.”
Yes, most California cities are sinking…like the Titanic. some are drawing water faster than others. Loss of Redevelopment is going to expose the icebergs.
We might be able to save ourselves by moving away a incorporated city status. This is a legal term.
Santa Rosa is a incorporated city. The City Manager hires and fires. The Mayor is appointed by the City Council. The Councilmen work at volunteer wages. And all of them turn to Redevelopment Districts for advise and funding.
I’m suggesting a more democratic and adversarial relationship between the Mayor and the City Council. Elect a mayor at large who does not even have to attend City Council meetings let alone chair them. Give the strong Mayor the power to hire and fire.
Electing by district might complement this arraignment, as everyone would still be voting for the mayor.
we got to do something to shake things up, look around, business as usual is not working anymore.
Dividing Santa Rosa into districts will only make a more divided city and encourage ward politics. Santa Rosa is a large city. It is a little democrat feudal city in a democrat realm.
Why would dividing up the city into smaller political units benefit the taxpaying peasants? I see more bureacracy, more entitilement programs and more public spending and debt on pet projects in special little political units.
None of this is good for the vast majority of citizens living in Santa Rosa. It only benefits the political few with more control over the purse strings of government.
Chair, Mike Senneff — Appointed by Mayor Olivares
Donna Jeye — Appointed by Mayor Olivares
Bill Arnone — Appointed by Mayor Olivares
Pat Fruiht — Appointed by Council Member Sawyer
Sharon Wright — Appointed by Council Member Sawyer
Doug Bosco — Appointed by Council Member Sawyer
Wayne Goldberg –Appointed by Council Member Gorin
Terry Price — Appointed by Council Member Gorin
William Steck — Appointed by Council Member Gorin
Tony Alvernaz — Appointed by Vice Mayor Ours
Janet Condron — Appointed by Vice Mayor Ours
Herb Williams — Appointed by Vice Mayor Ours
Pamela Chanter — Appointed by Council Member Bartley
Patti Cisco — Appointed by Council Member Bartley
Curt Groninga — Appointed by Council Member Bartley
Sonia Taylor — Appointed by Council Member Vas Dupre
Ann Gray Byrd — Appointed by Council Member Vas Dupre
Ida Johnson — Appointed by Council Member Vas Dupre
Bob Andrews — Appointed by Council Member Wysocky
Denise Hill — Appointed by Council Member Wysocky
Bill Carle — Appointed by Council Member Wysocky
OK, the ‘ Separatists ‘ have infiltrated a meeting of fools and tools. They mean well, but really….
District elections ? So that one district can ” DEMAND” extra service ?
Besides the fact that someone like Noreen Evans is endorsed by the powers that be, we have no choices. The elections are paid for to elect rubes like Noreen.
Does anyone know which council memebr appointed Herb Williams, a political consultant, to the committee. Mr. Williams earns his living promoting candidates, of course he doesn’t want the cage rattled. My guess is there was little or no attempt to choose impartial membersto the committee.
Steve Klausner claims that DISTRICT elections (elections representing ALL the voters) would be merely moving the deck chairs around.
By using that analogy, Steve, you are admitting that the local government is sinking as in the Titanic deck chairs.
So, why would you NOT want to change things to DISTRICT elections where everyone has a say in local government rather than just the hand picked buddies of criminal bureaucrats?
The failure of government at the local and state level is purely because the same “lifers” get into office election after election and hand pick their henchmen.
Its time to change that flaw of the election process and go to DISTRICT elections for everyone to have a say.
Graeme Wellington asks why we are thinking of other “issues.”
Well, Graeme, some of us are able to process more information than others.
DISTRICT elections would enable the entire bloc of voters to get a say rather than just the minority of voters that control the regional election process.
Look at the photo. You are looking at hand picked buddies of the monopolistic local government. You are not seeing the general public represented there.
If they can balance their budget using only the enormous sums of money they already take in – then they’d have all the power they need. Why are we even thinking of other issues when their primary purpose can’t be accomplished?
Santa Rosa’s problem is not how it elects its council, it is about how little power the council actually has once elected.
Transfer the powers of the city manager to a mayor elected at large. Give that mayor the power to hire and fire the department heads. Lessen the role of the planning dept. by giving the city council larger role in making planning decision.
What Santa Rosa has right now is an incorporated democracy. Moving the deck chairs around by going to district elections or not will make little difference in how or what gets done.
Why would the City refuse to simply put the DISTRICT election question to the voters / on the ballot ?
Answer: They fear the voters.
Is it sufficient for Rev. Carnahan to say he wants to feel well-represented? Doesn’t he need to say something more? Is his neighborhood being shortchanged on city services that district elections might remedy?
Not a single speaker went beyond saying the system isn’t working and issue won’t go away. What issue?
Other than slightly increasing the chance a council candidate might knock on your door, what tangible changes will district elections accomplish? Yes, campaign mailings become cheaper, but not newspaper or other media advertising.
Please, it’s time for advocates to move beyond bromides.
The people have spoken and apparently they think we should let the public decide. I strongly support the Charter Review committee re-thinking their vote about district elections, and I strongly support the City Council placing this on the November ballot. Let the people decide!
http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-santa-rosa-charter-review-committee-support-district-elections-in-santa-rosa-apoye-eleciones-por-distrito
This plan is about carving out the poorest parts of the city and creating ethnic fiefdoms.