The highest profile measure on the Anaheim ballot this June is Measure D, which would shift the mayor’s term from four years to two years; the mayor would still be limited to eight consecutive years in office, however.
Thus far, the battle has been confined to the ubiquitous slate mailers. The Tom Tait for Mayor 2014 campaign purchased space on some slates for “No on D” while the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC purchased slates for “Yes on D.” Looking at the slates that have been landing in mailboxes, the “Yes” side seems to be on more slates – but it’s hard to quantify the impact and it’s probably a wash on that front.
The “No on D” campaign reports taking in $1,975 in two donations: $975 from Mayor Tait, and $1,000 from James Vanderbilt – the AUHSD trustee who is Tait’s candidate for council this November and who has quickly become the mayor’s Man Friday. $349 was spent on a robocall that went out about 10 days ago, and $1,042 on signs. The latter is enough to have COGS print them but not enough to have COGS puts them up. “No on D” will have to rely on volunteers to put up sing, which would explain why you hardly see any of them.
The Anaheim Chamber of Commerce PAC has already sent out a mailer that hit this weekend:
Will Measure D pass or fail? It’s hard to say. The “No” side’s message is “this is an attempt by outside special interests to get Mayor Tait.” [In fact, “outside special interests” is the universal Tait campaign message at this point. The “No” pitch against Measure C is it-helps evil-outside-special-interests-get-their-hands-on-city-assets. The re-election campaign is already shaping up to be an “Us v. The Special Interests” crusade.] While voters don’t like “special interests,” the question is whether it will persuade the few voters being contacted by the “No on D” campaign. The best thing that has happened to the “No” campaign is the OC Register editorial against Measure D that ran a few weeks ago – before any voter had a received a vote-by-mail ballot. The OC Register also enthusiastically endorsed John Leos’s losing campaign for city council in 2012.
The election is a week away, and it’s an open question whether Mayor Tait or his campaign will direct any more resources toward defeating it.
No on D!
It is disgenuous to shorten the term of Mayor and not the council.
There’s nothing disingenuous about Measure D, Allen. It’s very clear – change mayoral term from four to two years.
Is it disingenuous that Irvine, Orange, Garden Grove, Westminster and Santa Ana all have two-year mayoral terms and four-year council terms?
Your translation is like this: “Since it is happening to other cities lets change mayoral terms, but don’t change district elections for council”
Hypocrisy as best!!
Does this Allen Wilson guy ever say anything that DOES makes sense??
How about this, Allen: if I said Ling-Ling Chang was against Measure D, would you then support it?
There’s no hypocrisy here. To quote Inigo Montoya, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” The fact that every other OC city with a directly-elected mayor also has a two-year mayoral term isn’t the sole reason advanced for supporting Measure D. But it illustrates there is nothing unusual about it, and demonstrates that it works just fine.
Your phony construct isn’t even consistent. If it were, it would argue against by-district elections, because every other OC city except one elected councilmembers at-large.
Good gravy, Matt– just look at the ad. “Stronger Term Limits.”
This coming from the same people who tried to not just weaken, but to END term limits in the same Charter Review Committee.
Apparently, the Chamber has no problem saying two different things out either side of its mouth just to get what it wants.
Lord knows what a dollar will buy next week.
“The same people”? Really, Ryan? The Anaheim Charter Review Commission and the Chamber PAC are “the same people”? Ernesto Medrano, Keith Oleson, Gloria Ma’ae, Amanda Edinger, Tom Dunn and Craig Farrow are the Chamber PAC? Those are the people who voted to eliminate term limits. And two of the CRC members who voted to eliminate term limits voted against the two-year term recommendation. And the four councilmembers who support Measure D also opposed eliminating term limits.
But don’t let the facts get in the way.
Facts indeed. Forget anyone?
Oh. Right. The chair. Cheers, bro.
Yes, Ryan – facts. Facts that are mighty inconvenient to your outburst.
And I didn’t forget anyone, Ryan. There’s one person who was a CRC member and is with the Chamber. One. Out of seven members. That’s contrary to your claim of “the same people” — which I think you’ll concede is plural.
If past experience is any guide, we’re now at the point where you ignore that your original argument has been demolished, so you change the subject and charge on. Have at it, Ryan. I don’t have time to spare for it.
I see. So facts for you when it’s convenient; ad hominem when they’re absent.
Todd doesn’t favor term limits. He voted to get rid of them. He just bought an ad implying that he not only favors them, but wants to strengthen them.
Keep spinning. Don’t puke when you get dizzy.
If a two year mayor term holds the seat more accountable, then it should Hold the same accountability to the remaining council seats. IE Council should have the same two year term.
One doesn’t follow from the other, though. Council terms are staggered for a reason: so that every election cycle, voters have the opportunity change at least half the council members and therefore the direction of the council – while at the same time preserving stability. Having the entire council up for election every two years risks the chaos of having the entire council thrown out every two years. Does anyone think that would make for good city government?
There’s nothing sacred about a four-year mayoral term. The other OC cities where it is in place function just fine. Their mayors are able to “implement their visin for the city” just fine, and aren’t forced into round-the-clock fundraising.
I wouldnt argue to have all five seats up for election at once. Accountability is a two way street and if it’s good for the mayors seat, it’s good for council. Further, I don’t think two years allows a mayor to set good policy and get much accomplished. If we look at the recent policies that have been enacted by council, they took a good amount of time to process. I understand why there’s a movement to change terms, I just don’t agree with it. We shall see how voters decide!
The thing is, if council terms were two years, then all council seats would necessarily be on the ballot in every election.
Being mayor is different than being a councilmember; it is a different office, so there’s nothing inconsistent with setting a different term length.
I see no evidence that a two-year term is an obstacle to setting policy. That has far more to do with leadership ability and political savvy.
How long did Murray’s housing policy take to write and place into effect? Certainly we agree that she is a good leader and politically savvy?
Thanks to Tait, all other council seats are being cut into districts. The office of mayor if the only seat on the council that will still represent the city at large after November. Making sure that office is responsive and accountable has never been more necessary. This is not about Tait – it’s about the city’s charter and how we govern going forward. Give it a rest that this is about a bunch of people ganging up on the incumbent Mayor. Especially since he voted to put it on the ballot.
I think you’re jumping the gun on moving to single-member council districts. There is no evidence Anaheim voters want them. Proponents have made no attempt to put single-member council districts to the voters by qualifying it for the ballot. They tried to impose them by judicial fiat and explicitly rejected putting it to the voters as racially discriminatory, and then had the council agree to place the question on the ballot as part of the settlement.
Single-member council districts are the pet issue of left-wing pressure groups, with a handful of Republicans providing a useful bipartisan veneer.
Measure D is consistent with all other mayoral terms in a city as large as Anaheim. The two year term forces the mayor to build consensus and be more accountable to their actions- something Tom Tait able to do. The reality is Tait is a horrible fundraiser and the voters WILL see right through him. Then he will finally be done and he. PLEASE LEAVE ANAHEIM- and take Julie and Mishal with you! Speaking of Julie, anyone else get her ridiculous, tantrum-filled email saying the council members are being mean to her husband? Please, Julie…grow up!