Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Vacancies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter committee narrows survey language on how to fill council vacancies
Summary
Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee members debated how to explain options for filling City Council and mayor vacancies in a public survey, pressed staff on turnout and cost differences between election types, and approved edits to emphasize the large gap in cost and turnout between special and general elections.
The Sunnyvale Charter Review Committee on Sept. 25 debated how to phrase survey questions about filling City Council vacancies and directed staff to emphasize that special elections typically cost “much more” and have much lower turnout than general elections.
The discussion, led in the staff presentation by Deputy City Manager Connie Vercelles, centered on how much background to provide survey respondents so they could make an informed choice between appointment and election options. Vercelles said the survey is one tool of many and warned the committee to “keep it very simple” to avoid legal jargon and to keep the reading level low so residents complete the questionnaire.
The committee’s most contested point was whether to show numerical estimates for the difference in cost and turnout between holding a special election and waiting for a regular (general) election. Committee member Scott Neuswanger urged numbers, saying the gap was “enormous” and comparable to a buyer choosing between two cars with very different prices. He cited prior cost estimates provided to the committee showing special-election estimates that varied widely and turnout for special elections of roughly 20% versus 50–70% for general elections in different years.
Other committee members urged caution. Vercelles and the city clerk explained the dollar cost and turnout for any given election vary widely depending on what else is on the ballot and whether the city can consolidate with county or statewide contests. City Clerk David told the committee that consolidation with other contests can greatly reduce the city’s share of election costs.
After extended discussion, the committee took a pair of straw polls and directed staff to keep the question wording that highlights the differences in cost and turnout but to avoid firm numeric ranges in the survey prompt. Chair Larson then led a straw poll on two specific language points; committee members voted unanimously to phrase the survey background so that respondents understand that a special election is typically “much more” expensive and has “much lower” turnout than a general election.
The committee also discussed whether the survey should explicitly mention the charter’s current process (a mixed approach where timing governs the method) and whether the mayor’s vacancy should be treated differently from a council seat. Staff and the city attorney reminded the committee the charter currently treats the mayor as a council member for vacancy procedures; the committee deferred any substantive charter change here and focused the survey on public preferences.
The committee paused the public hearing on this topic twice to take public comment from residents who urged clearer definitions and inclusion of benefit costs in the compensation section. The committee returned the discussion to staff for final wording and schedule items.
Ending: The committee asked staff to launch the survey promptly after minor final edits and to present survey results at the Oct. 23 meeting. Several members emphasized they expect the committee to weigh earlier public votes on related charter language (Measure L, 2018) when forming final recommendations to the City Council.
