Changing election years? Some pitfalls

We are uncomfortable with the timing of the Los Altos City Council’s March 11 decision to begin changing the city’s election year to extend by one year the terms of all five council members.

It’s not that we don’t agree with the reasons behind the decision. Both in terms of candidate visibility and elections-cost savings, switching election dates from odd or to even-numbered years makes sense. Council members supporting the change noted low voter turnout in odd-numbered years, about half the typical turnout for the presidential elections that occur in even-numbered years. The 2007 election cost the city $125,200 more than it would have cost during an even-numbered year. In this time of skimpy funding for local governments, that’s money that could have been put to better use. Why the difference in cost? In even-numbered years there more races with shared costs for printing ballots in the five languages required by law.

But then there are the concerns that give us pause.

First, the action item appeared to take members of the public by surprise. Only a handful of residents remained in the council chambers March 11 when discussion began. The council was scheduled at last night’s meeting to formally introduce an ordinance to change the election year. Residents will have at least one more opportunity, the council’s April 8 meeting, to give input, provided the council goes ahead with the ordinance. It seems appropriate here to trumpet the city’s intentions loudly before it goes into effect.

Second, the action could have negative consequences for the Los Altos School District. The school district continues to hold board elections in odd-numbered years. While the city saves money, the district would likely pay more (the estimate quoted last year was $25,000-$35,000) because there’s one less municipality to share in the cost of the election materials.

Third, the fact that the elected members of the city council are taking this action could be interpreted as a conflict of interest by voters. While we trust the good intentions of the current council, moving to even-numbered years results in the next two council elections delayed a year. This gives all members more time on the council and – however honorable their intentions – violates a pact with voters who had approved four-year terms.

All the more reason the city should get strong feedback from residents. We believe changing election years is the fiscally responsible thing to do. But the process needs to allow for more public input and coordination with Los Altos School District.