San Mateo County disagrees with grand jury over appointment

September 18, 2009, 11:18 PM By Michelle Durand

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, knocked by the civil grand jury for appointing rather than electing its current member, agreed partially with recommendations about how to handle future mid-term vacancies.

But while officials agreed “in concept” that the board needs to consider the time remaining in the term when opting between an election and an appointment, they are “unsure if the remaining time should be one year, two years or any specific amount of time.” The county also disagreed that a provision appointment be prohibited from running for the seat in the next election cycle.

The opinions are part of the mandated response from the Board of Supervisors to the grand jury on its report “Appointment vs. Election: How Should the Board of Supervisor Seats Be Filled?”

The reports carry no legal weight but subjects are required to respond in writing within 90 days. The Board of Supervisors accepted the suggested response as part of its consent agenda Tuesday but Grand Jury Forewoman Virginia Chang Kiraly said it has not yet been received.

Kiraly could not comment on the report before it comes to the grand jury.

The report in essence held that former San Mateo councilwoman Carole Groom should not have been appointed in late 2008 to fill the Board of Supervisors’ seat vacated by elected state Assemblyman Jerry Hill. Instead, the jurors recommended the board place a ballot measure before voters asking them to amend the county charter to require elections if the term remaining is one year or more.

The worry, according to the jury report, is that appointees have an advantage in regular election cycles. Every incumbent seeking re-election to the board has prevailed 100 percent since 1980.

The Board of Supervisors considered an election after Hill won the Assembly seat but decided against it because of the $1 million price tag. The jury said the cost was not a valid reason and said the appointment denies voters the right to hear serious debate about issues.

A Charter Review Committee will convene in 2010 and may consider jury recommendations like the ballot measure, County Manager David Boesch wrote in his response recommendation. Boesch, on behalf of the county, also questioned banning appointees from future elections because “there are concerns that eliminating their chances to continue serving in this position may not be in the best interests of the county.”

The appointee may also not represent the best long-term interests if they are only provisional, he added.

Dave Pine, trustee with the San Mateo Union High School District, and outspoken critic of the appointment, called the response “disappointing.”

“The supervisors failed to respond to the primary recommendation that there should be an election to fill a vacancy. The supervisors do not state an opinion about that, instead pushing it off to a charter review committee,” Pine said.

Pine also called the matter’s placement on the consent agenda “inappropriate” because it deserved a public discussion.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=116725