|
Let's have real competition for county offices
The system ain't workin'. Five Supervisors run
San Mateo County. They've an important job. Their ideas, competence, energy
and goals are crucial to whether this county succeeds or fails. They're
"elected" officials, and it's true each of their names has been on the
ballot in recent years, either in the year 2000, or this year, in the
election of March, 2002.
District One: Mark Church of Millbrae, had no opponent except a write-in,
in 2000.
District Two: Jerry Hill, is on the 2002 ballot, but has no opponent.
District Three: Rich Gordon, lives southeast of Redwood City. "Our" Supervisor,
this year he faces only Jack Hickey, a Libertarian who's run for many
offices, and been rejected for most. Hickey's been chosen for the Libertarian
Central Committee more than once, however. He's unlikely to be elected
Supervisor.
District Four: Rose Jacobs Gibson of East Palo Alto, originally appointed
to a vacancy. No opposition in 2000.
District Five: Mike Nevin, Daly City, last election had no opposition.
That means five out of five: no effective, meaningful opposition to any
current Supervisor.
Through no fault of its own, the board in effect has chosen itself. Obviously
you can't criticize elected officials for not generating opposition. It's
not their job to seek out and stir up competitors. However, the system
hasn't worked when there's no competition. It gets worse. The Sheriff,
County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor, Treasurer/Tax Collector and County Controller
have no opposition this time around, and faced minimal opposition or none
the last time they ran. County officials need competition, lest they grow
lax and complacent. Even the most competent need challenges to do their
best.
I see two solutions. For Supervisors, elections district by district.
If Rich Gordon, theoretically our own district Supervisor though he lives
at the opposite end of the county, should have a competitor from Pacifica,
competing for votes only in a district where Pacifica is the largest city,
he would give us more attention. Don't get me wrong. Rich Gordon has not
ignored us. He's really done far more than you might expect from a politician
to whom Pacifica represents only five or six percent of his potential
voters.
Instead of having to compete for about 330,000 registered voters, Third
District candidates would have to deal with only about 82,000 potential
voters. Other Supervisorial candidates would have as few as 55,000 potential
voters to contact. We need to attract candidates who can afford to lose
an election. After all, any election for Supervisor which attracts three
candidates for one office will include two losers, yet those losers can
shape the way the office is run, how citizens are treated, and cause improvements
to be made.
Let's never again have five Supervisors out of five who've never faced
serious opposition. That's disgraceful.
As for Sheriff, Coroner, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Controller, etc. it's
no longer logical to elect them. The pool of competent potential Sheriffs
is severely limited. The other offices also demand unique skills which
may not happen to exist fully in a county resident, but might be found
in a non-resident. If the person most qualified to be sheriff of this
county happens to live in San Jose, why do we have to do without his (or
her) services? Experts in finance, autopsy, or other arcane skills are
needed for the various county departments. Those same people aren't necessarily
the glad-handers who get the most votes. Let's elect our Supervisors by
district to cut the cost of running, and attract a wider variety of competitive
candidates. Then let those Supervisors appoint the Sheriff, Treasurer,
etc. It should improve our county government. It should certainly end
up being more democratic.
Paul Azevedo's E mail address is Paul@thereactor.net.
Check his website at http://www.thereactor.net.
|
