⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
The City Council was specifically informed by the City Clerk at the August 20 meeting that under the Elections Code, the period for persons to file papers to run as a write-in candidate was from September 8 through October 21. Cancellation of the election would eliminate their opportunity to do so.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The City Council was also specifically informed by the City Clerk at the August 20 meeting, that at least one person had communicated the intent to file papers to run as a write-in candidate. 33
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Mayor of the City had a personal interest in canceling the election. This was confirmed during the meeting when she pointed out the work that she had done during the nomination period, to obtain the required signatures and to file the necessary papers on time. Conclusions The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits conflicting financial interests in governmental decisions, and does not address personal interests. While not illegal, the action of the Sonoma City Council to cancel the election that it had called for November 4, 2008, was nonetheless a decision that did not appear to put the public interest first. The right to vote on the persons who seek a public mandate to govern us is one of our most important constitutional rights. Any governmental action to restrict or eliminate that right should be taken only with the utmost caution and due regard for the electorate. Unfortunately, when such an important decision is allowed to be made in circumstances where personal interest is also directly involved, this high standard has not been met. The point is not whether a write-in candidate would have been successful in the election. The point is that a decision to eliminate such an important right should not be made by the vote of a person who directly benefits from it. The failure was that of the City Council as a body and not just the person who cast the tie-breaking vote. As members of the City Council and guardians of the public trust, it should have been incumbent on all of the Council members, to prevent the decision from being made under tainted circumstances. In arriving at these conclusions, we are fully mindful that the actions were taken following advice from the City Attorney. The Mayor’s disqualification was not legally required because she did not have a financial interest as defined in the law. However, we do not believe that this answer meant that the other significant issues raised by canceling an election in these circumstances could be ignored by the City Council. The absence of illegality should not be the highest standard to which the actions of our public officials are held. If that were the case, all that we would need would be laws and lawyers to tell us what is the right thing to do, and we could dispense with such considerations as ethics, public interest, and other matters of mere policy. In America today there is a growing fear and concern as to the efficacy and validity of the political process. The very cavalier way in which the Sonoma City Council cancelled its local election can only add to this growing unease. The most sacred right we all share is the right to exercise our voice and this is accomplished by voting. 34
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 3The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits conflicting financial interests in governmental decisions, and does not address personal interests. While not illegal, the action of the Sonoma City Council to cancel the election that it had called for November 4, 2008, was nonetheless a decision that did not appear to put the public interest first. The right to vote on the persons who seek a public mandate to govern us is one of our most important constitutional rights. Any governmental action to restrict or eliminate that right should be taken only with the utmost caution and due regard for the electorate. Unfortunately, when such an important decision is allowed to be made in circumstances where personal interest is also directly involved, this high standard has not been met. The point is not whether a write-in candidate would have been successful in the election. The point is that a decision to eliminate such an important right should not be made by the vote of a person who directly benefits from it. The failure was that of the City Council as a body and not just the person who cast the tie-breaking vote. As members of the City Council and guardians of the public trust, it should have been incumbent on all of the Council members, to prevent the decision from being made under tainted circumstances. In arriving at these conclusions, we are fully mindful that the actions were taken following advice from the City Attorney. The Mayor’s disqualification was not legally required because she did not have a financial interest as defined in the law. However, we do not believe that this answer meant that the other significant issues raised by canceling an election in these circumstances could be ignored by the City Council. The absence of illegality should not be the highest standard to which the actions of our public officials are held. If that were the case, all that we would need would be laws and lawyers to tell us what is the right thing to do, and we could dispense with such considerations as ethics, public interest, and other matters of mere policy. In America today there is a growing fear and concern as to the efficacy and validity of the political process. The very cavalier way in which the Sonoma City Council cancelled its local election can only add to this growing unease. The most sacred right we all share is the right to exercise our voice and this is accomplished by voting. 34
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma
City