Woodside council declines to appoint unopposed candidates; election will proceed

The Town Council of the Town of Woodside on Aug. 22 considered three resolutions that would have appointed the lone nominees for three council seats instead of holding the scheduled Nov. 5 election, but the council took no motion on any of the resolutions and the election process will proceed.

Staff explained to the council that because only one candidate had filed for each seat, the council could either appoint those nominees or move ahead with the election, which preserves a statutory write‑in window. Staff estimated the incremental cost of running the election at about $15,000 but said the county allocates election costs and the figure is an estimate (staff comment).

The legal and procedural context was outlined by a staff member identified in the record as Jean, who said the town prepared three separate resolutions so any incumbent could choose to recuse on the resolution affecting their seat and noted that “Elections code 10229 specifically allows for all council members to participate” on such matters.

Public comment included a statement from candidate Hassan Barish, who said he is running for District 5 and urged the council to allow voters to decide. "Why waste the money if if only 3 people are running for 3 spots?" Barish said in his opening remark, then added that, because many voters do not know him, an election would give people an opportunity to learn about candidates and exercise choice.

Council members split along familiar lines during deliberations. Council member Gold argued the value of an election for democratic legitimacy and voter consent, saying: "I think there is an immense difference between an appointment and an elected official. You're there with the consent of the voters and not just the appointment of, you know, 4 or 5 elected officials." Council member Shaw and Council member Brown similarly urged holding elections, noting that running unopposed can undercut accountability and that appearing on a ballot encourages candidates to introduce themselves to the community.

Other council members voiced fiscal caution and skepticism about the utility of spending the estimated $15,000 on elections that historically produce predictable outcomes when races are uncontested. One council member described the choice as a fiduciary question, urging prudence with town funds while acknowledging the democratic argument.

Procedurally, the council first handled a distinct motion to allow Council member Shaw to participate remotely because of illness; that motion passed on a roll‑call vote with every member present recorded as voting yes. Regarding the appointment resolutions, the mayor asked for motions to adopt the three resolutions; no motions were made. Staff then confirmed that without adoption of the resolutions, the town will proceed to the Nov. 5 election and that the write‑in filing window would remain open from Sept. 9 through Oct. 22, 2024. Staff also said candidate statements had been submitted by some nominees and that candidate statements are optional and would be published only if an election proceeds.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to allow remote participation for Council member Shaw: adopted (unanimous roll call yes). - Resolution to appoint nominee for District A (one of three appointment resolutions): no motion made; election will proceed (no formal vote). - Resolution to appoint nominee for District B: no motion made; election will proceed (no formal vote). - Resolution to appoint nominee for District C: no motion made; election will proceed (no formal vote).

The council adjourned after confirming there were no additional staff communications. The next procedural step is the town’s statutory election process leading to the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot and the Sept. 9–Oct. 22 write‑in candidate window.

Sources: Town staff presentations and roll call at the Aug. 22, 2024 special meeting; public comment by candidate Hassan Barish; council deliberations recorded in the meeting transcript.