Republican Supervisor Joel Anderson has some beefs with county governance reforms supported by board Democrats a few weeks ago.
Now he’s pitching a similar but competing ballot measure that nixes the elements he thinks cross the line, including extended term limits for sitting supervisors and appointment votes for top county positions.
Last month, Democrats led by Board Chair Terra Lawson-Remer took an initial vote to send a charter reform measure to voters in November that would give supervisors more sway over county government. The proposal gives supervisors an additional term and the power to approve the hiring and firing of top county officials, creates new auditing and budget analyst positions and an ethics commission, and tweaks longstanding policies meant to prevent supervisors from inappropriately interfering with staff or contracting.
Anderson, who urged Lawson-Remer to postpone the April vote to allow more time to review it, is now introducing his measure on May 19, the same day the board will take a final vote to place Lawson-Remer’s measure on the November ballot.
Anderson said his proposal largely matches Lawson-Remer’s but includes five key changes to address what he deemed fatal flaws.
Anderson’s proposal calls for sitting supervisors to be held to two terms and clarifies that extended terms only apply to new supervisors, the approach taken in a 2010 measure that set existing term limits. It also deletes language Anderson and others have deemed misleading about the measure’s ability to create term limits for other positions including the sheriff and district attorney, more politically popular tweaks that require changes to state law.
“This is an earnest way of saying we’re not trying to game it for ourselves,” Anderson said. “We’re actually doing it because we think it’s good government.”
Democratic state Sen. Catherine Blakespear has urged similar tweaks.
Lawson-Remer and supporters of the measure have argued additional terms for supervisors would lead to more experienced, effective legislators.
Anderson’s pitch also nixes language giving county supervisors the authority to take confirmation votes on top county posts and to fire those officials with a super-majority vote. Lawson-Remer and advocates say this move would make these officials more accountable to constituents. But Anderson argues the county’s chief administrative officer should maintain this authority and that Lawson-Remer’s proposed approach could open the county up to inappropriate micromanaging and political influence.
Anderson also wants an elected auditor to review county programs – or an appointed auditor that reports to an elected official – rather than create an appointed position that reports to the board to ensure the position’s independence. His proposal also maintains existing county governance rules barring supervisors from directly dealing with county contract staff that were tweaked in Lawson-Remer’s proposal. Lawson-Remer has described these as minor edits proposed by county lawyers.
“We need to make sure that there’s a moat between the Board of Supervisors directly controlling the contracting process,” Anderson said.
Lawson-Remer and a broad coalition behind her measure argue that the reforms she introduced will make county government more accountable and transparent without increasing costs. She also said she hasn’t decided if she’ll run for a third term if the reform measure passes.
Anderson’s replacement proposal faces high odds. Only three board votes are needed to place an initiative on the ballot and Lawson-Remer had those votes last month.
But Anderson said he hopes his board colleagues will give his pitch an earnest look.
“They say this is about the charter and improving government,” Anderson said. “My board letter will give them a chance to prove it because I’m delivering everything that they say needs to be reformed but without any of the goodies they included in their version.”