This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sd/ for current information.
City Council Vacancies
City of Chula Vista
Majority Approval Required
Pass: 27775 / 75.62% Yes votes ...... 8955 / 24.38% No votes
Index of all Propositions
|Information shown below: Summary | Arguments ||
Shall the City Charter be amended so that, if a City Council seat becomes vacant with more than 12 months and less than 25 months remaining in the term, the Council may fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election; and so that in any special election to fill a vacancy, a candidate receiving over 50% of votes cast is deemed the winner with no run-off required?
Section 303 of the Charter sets forth the rules for filling City Council vacancies. This Section currently provides that the City Council can fill a Council vacancy by appointment only where one year or less remains in the vacant seat's term. If more than one year remains, the vacant seat must be filled by special election. If an appointment is not made within 45 days of the declared vacancy, the Council's power to appoint terminates and the seat remains vacant. When a vacant seat is filled by special election and three or more candidates run, even if one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, a runoff election must be held between the top two candidates.
The proposition would revise the Charter procedures for filling a Council vacancy where a vacant seat has a remaining term between 12 and 25 months. In such case, the City Council would be given the option to fill the vacancy either by City Council appointment or by special election. If the Council decides to fill the vacancy by appointment but fails to appoint within 45 days, a special election would become mandatory.
The proposition would revise the Charter to eliminate the Council's ability to fill a vacancy by appointment if a vacancy occurred at a time when two or more sitting members of the Council had been appointed to the Council. Instead, if one year or less remained in the term, the seat would remain vacant. If more than one year remained, a special election would be held to fill the seat. This would avoid having a majority of the Council members appointed rather than elected.
The proposition would add language confirming that any appointee to the Council would be prohibited from seeking nomination or election to the Council until at least one year had passed from the termination of the appointed term.
The proposition would clarify that if a Council member is elected to another position requiring the surrender of his or her Council seat, that Council seat becomes vacant.
Whenever a special election is held to fill a vacancy, this proposition would also eliminate the requirement for a mandatory runoff. Instead, if one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes in a special election, that candidate would be declared the winner, with no runoff election required.
No change is proposed to the mandatory runoff requirement for the City's general elections (the top two candidates in the June election participate in a runoff election in November). This mandatory runoff requirement would remain in place.
|Arguments For Proposition B||Arguments Against Proposition B|
The City Charter needs to be updated to protect taxpayer dollars.
Without voter approval of Proposition B, filling a vacant seat on the City Council could cost taxpayers between $1 million and $1.2 million!
If a member of the City Council vacates his or her Council seat, such as through illness, moving out of town, or election to another office with more than a year remaining in his/her term, the Charter currently requires that the seat be filled by a special election (estimated $500,000 - $600,000 this year).
And, a run-off special election is currently required, even when one candidate receives more than half the votes cast (another $500,000 - $600,000).
Prop B makes two simple but important Charter changes:
- Special election.
2. Prop B eliminates the current mandatory runoff requirement for a special election to fill a vacancy, potentially saving $500,000 - $600,000 for a special election runoff and shortening the time from declared vacancy to filling the vacancy by five to six months.
Prop B does not change the mandatory runoff requirement for Chula Vista's June elections in which June's top two candidates must participate in a November runoff election.
Prop B protects taxpayer dollars and improves the selection process for filling a Council seat when it becomes vacant in the middle of the Council member's term.
The City Council and I unanimously agree:
No arguments against Proposition B were submitted.