The issue: Saylor should resign his City Council seat, then be appointed to serve until heÕs replaced in NovemberÕs general election

For the sake of Davis and democracy, Don Saylor should resign from the Davis City Council in July, after he is elected to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. Saylor is running unopposed for that position on June 8.

He announced last week that he plans to stay on the City Council until January, when he is sworn in as a supervisor. Yet a six-month delay in his quitting the council could cost Davis taxpayers $240,000 to conduct an election to replace him.

THE BEST SOLUTION, which we strongly advise Saylor and his fellow council members to follow, is this: Saylor should step down at the first council meeting in July, his colleagues should immediately call for a Nov. 2 special election to replace Saylor, and then they should appoint Saylor to fill the vacant seat for the next four months.

Yes, thatÕs permitted under California law.

Because Saylor was the top vote-getter in the 2008 City Council race, he will become mayor following this JuneÕs election. When they appoint him in July to occupy his old seat until November, council members should make him the mayor at that time, too.

That solution allows Saylor to serve almost all the time he would have had if he waited until January to quit. Normally, the council has very few meetings around the end-of-the-year holidays. So if he leaves in early November, he will miss only a few meetings.

UNDER STATE LAW, a vacancy on the City Council can be filled in one of two ways: a special election, or an appointment.

The problem with the latter is that the appointed person serving on the council, who for many contentious issues will become the deciding vote, will have been undemocratically chosen.

If we had undivided opinions on the major issues on the council and in our community, that would be one thing. But the reality is that on questions of the city budget, labor contracts, housing and other areas, there is a schism in Davis. The right way to fill that gap for the next two years is with a democratic election, not an appointment.

The idea has been floated that the third-place finisher in this JuneÕs election should be handed SaylorÕs seat next January. Two seats are being contested and there are five candidates.

That would be fine, if all voters had three votes. They donÕt; each voter gets only two. The person who finishes third, therefore, should not win anything. A third-place finish really is no better than fourth or fifth place in terms of gaining democratic approval to hold office.

WHEN A city council decides to fill a vacancy with a special election, California laws requires that it Òshall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election.Ó

Therefore, if we were to elect SaylorÕs replacement on Nov. 2, the day our general election is already scheduled, Saylor must resign his seat no later than July 11. If he did that, the cost to the city for the November special election would be about $70,000, compared with the higher price of holding a single-issue election next year.

If Saylor and his colleagues follow our advice, all five seats on the council would be held by people who were democratically elected, the city would avoid wasting money on a special election next year, and Saylor would serve all of the time on the council he had planned, save a few meetings at the end of the year.

ItÕs a fair and democratic solution.

Comments

comments