You will have to help me understand this one.

I learned this week that the union that represents most of the county of San Diego’s employees, SEIU, spent $248,848 to gather signatures and make other moves to get a measure on the ballot that, if approved, would limit county supervisors to two terms in office.

Now let’s be honest. The county supervisors have had better cheerleaders than me. No question.

But this is just weird.

Let’s first just give the proponents the floor and refer to the ballot argument they wrote.

Our County Supervisors have all been there too long. It’s time for Term Limits to apply to them.

San Diego’s Mayor has Term Limits. So does the City Council. And our Legislators. The Governor. The President.

It’s time our Supervisors live under the same system that the other state and local officials lives (sic) under.

The County Supervisors are all supposed to be fiscal conservatives. But because they are so secure in their jobs, they’ve forgotten that the money they spend is our money. For the last 10 years, these long-term Supervisors have operated what the newspapers have called a “$100 million slush fund” — yet San Diego is one of the largest counties without a countywide fire department.

The whole thing is an argument against the current county supervisors. They stink because of this. They deserve to go because of that. So vote for this and get rid of them.

Of course, the argument doesn’t mention that the measure, even if successful, won’t do anything to the current supervisors. They each would get two terms in office after it passes. It would not affect Supervisor Dianne Jacob until 2020. And Ron Roberts? The supervisor considered most vulnerable?

It wasn’t even clear he was going to run for re-election this year as he considered retirement. If he wins this year, he could still put in two more terms — eight more years. He’s far more likely to retire than to even come close to letting this push him out of office.

To even imply this measure will push out the current supervisors is insulting.

And not only are they implying it, their entire argument for passing this measure is centered around it.

If you’re going to spend $248,843 to force turnover on the Board of Supervisors, why not actually spend it on, well, a campaign against a county supervisor?

I asked the Yes on B campaign manager, Mat Kostrinsky what he was thinking.

He admitted it wouldn’t do much to the current group of supervisors.

“No it won’t affect these people but they’re the ones who forced this,” he said.

And why not just spend in an actual campaign against one of the supes?

He argued it was too expensive. “Credible candidates do not want to challenge because it’s a very difficult prospect,” Kostrinsky said.

So the candidates running against Roberts now aren’t credible?

“No, they are. One of them is the former president of the school board. But look at Lori Saldaña. Look at Donna Frye. And Toni Atkins four years ago. They all considered it and decided not to,” he said.

It was a long term thing, he said.

But that’s not what they’re arguing about the supes and the need for term limits:

In one case, the newspapers caught them giving money to a group that turned around and treated them to an expensive junket. In another case, they got caught giving the money to a group that hired one of their daughters – yet we don’t have a countywide fire department.

So vote for something that doesn’t affect them at all?

It’s like being upset with working conditions and threatening to strike … in eight years.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.