League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Santa Clara County, CA November 2, 2010 Election
	Measure S Election Date Change City of Palo Alto election date change - Majority Approval Required Pass: 19,509 / 76.27% Yes votes ...... 6,071 / 23.73% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure S

Arguments Against Measure S

A yes on Measure S will change Palo Alto's City Council elections from odd numbered years to even numbered years. This simple change could double voter participation and save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. More people vote in general elections, which only take place in even years, than in municipal stand-alone elections taking place in odd years. For example, in 2008, Palo Alto's last even year election, 31,566 Palo Altans voted on Measure N. However, in 2009, our last odd year election, only 14,308 Palo Altans voted on Measure A. Consolidating the odd year city council elections with even year statewide elections may double voter participation. 2010 was a tough budget year. Cuts resulted in job losses. Here's one answer. Measure S will reduce the City's cost to hold an election, saving nearly $1 million dollars over the next 10 years. Here's how it works. The City of Palo Alto shares the expense of an election with all other jurisdictions having elections at the same time. Expenses are based on a share of cost, thus when expenses are spread more broadly they are reduced. In odd year elections the city must bear more of the cost. The cost to Palo Alto for the 2009 council election was $295,000. Our next council election anticipates a $93,000 cost if it's moved to 2012. If Palo Alto shifted to even years, it could save about $200,000 every two years. Few neighboring cities still have odd year elections. To implement this change, the current Council Members would have their terms extended by one year, one time only. No other way exists to change from odd to even year elections and reap worthwhile savings. Higher voter turnout. Lower election costs. Greater voter awareness. Three great reasons. Vote YES on 'S'. /s/ Liz Kniss Santa Clara County Supervisor, D5 /s/ H. Greg Scharff City Council Member, Palo Alto /s/ Karen Holman City Council Member, Palo Alto /s/ Stephen W. Player Resident /s/ Judith G. Kleinberg Former Mayor Rebuttal to Arguments For Measure S assumes a maximum cost savings from moving our City Council elections from odd years to even years. In fact, any savings from moving City council elections would become an increased cost to any other election in the odd years. Both our K-12 and community college trustee elections take place in the odd years and there have been special elections (either citizen-sponsored referendum, initiatives, Charter amendments, or revenue raising proposals) in 8 of the past 9 fall elections. We should schedule council elections when they make sense rather than for a false savings. More people vote in even-year elections but the number voting for city council won't double. The registrar's data reflects the number of ballots counted, not the percent voting for local candidates. It is far more important to increase the number of informed participants in local elections and to give prominence to local issues. Even-year elections only save money if voters are kept from voting on important issues for two years. Even if all odd year elections were removed, the claimed maximum savings to the City budget would be less than one half of one percent of the total. Critically, this would take away the unique opportunity to have voters give their full attention to important local issues. Focused, well-contested local elections around both candidates and special ballot issues are necessary for a healthy community. Vote NO on Measure S. /s/ Larry Klein City Council Member And Former Mayor /s/ Gary Fazzino Former Mayor + City Councilmember /s/ Bern Beecham Former Mayor and Council Member /s/ Lanie Wheeler Former Mayor /s/ Diane M. Reklis Former PAUSD Trustee

Since 1909 Palo Alto citizens have focused on state and national issues in the even numbered years and local issues in the odd numbered years, giving thoughtful attention and enormous energy to both partisan and non-partisan elections. Community members are often passionately involved in presidential, gubernatorial, congressional, state legislative, and state ballot propositions. Yet, our citizens also avidly debate our ever-changing mix of local issues and then elect Council Members we believe will serve our needs. Our limited electoral time and money stretch further because our city has separated these very different elections. Palo Altans participate actively in local elections. Turnout rates are usually substantially higher than in other communities with odd-year elections. Mailed ballots now account for almost 80% of the total votes; ease of voting assures high vote counts and lower costs for voting. Additional cost savings will occur when the county allows citizens to choose to receive ballot statements on-line rather than printing and mailing them. Further, keeping in synch with the local school district elections provides an intense focus on our community. Our local elections must continue to reflect our ever-changing community. Shifting to even years would change the nature of local elections: It is much more expensive to reach the public in a highly competitive and partisan environment. There would not be space and time to articulate the nuances of local issues and the critical choices that make a difference. Local elections benefit from the views of political newcomers. It would be harder for those without well-known names to emerge on a more crowded and more partisan ballot. Since all these factors favor those already in the public eye, moving to even-numbered years could well be entitled the Incumbency Protection Act. Vote NO on Measure S. /s/ Gary Fazzino Former Palo Alto Mayor /s/ Greg Schmid City Councilmember /s/ Diane M. Reklis former PAUSD trustee Rebuttal to Arguments Against VOTE YES ON "S" -SAVE $$ Increase voter turnout...save taxpayer dollars...and preserve city services! Why change elections to even years? The extra "cost" for odd year elections comes from taxpayer dollars, paid by you and me. The Registrar Of Voters estimates the total cost of the 2011 odd year election in these three jurisdictions-- the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto School District, and Foothill-DeAnza, --will be close to $700,000. If this amount were even cut by half, we could save hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is "on-going", not just one-time, dollars. What's at stake? A chance to save those extra dollars that it takes to have odd year elections, and use them to improve community services, such as neighborhood parks, library hours, pot-holed streets and programs for kids and families. Or perhaps, for schools--to keep the just hired new schoolteachers, reinstate courses cut from curriculum and keep more community college professors. What will it take to get there? Each jurisdiction can change to even year elections, just as most cities surrounding Palo Alto have done. We save because we share the cost with others running in the same election. The cities that have changed to save money, have significantly increased voter turnout as well. If we value increasing "civic engagement" in our city's democratic process, and encouraging greater participation, let's look at the positive changes that will occur with voting in even years. Vote Yes on S!! Make your taxpayer dollars go for services, and savings. /s/ Robert B. Harrington Resident/Community Volunteer /s/ A. Yiaway Yeh City Council Member, Palo Alto /s/ Walter V. Hays Environmentalist /s/ A Glanckoph Community Activist

Full Text of Measure S

A regular election shall be held in the city of Palo Alto on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year, commencing with the year 2012, and the same shall be known as the general municipal election. All other municipal elections that may be called under the authority of this charter, or by the general laws, shall be known as special elections. Notwithstanding four-year city council member term limit set forth in Article III, section 2 of this charter, any city council members whose term of office would have expired prior to 2012 shall continue in their offices until December 31, 2012 or until their successors are elected and qualified. Notwithstanding four-year city council member term limit set forth in Article III, section 2 of this charter, any city council members whose term of office would have expired prior to 2014 shall continue in their offices until December 31, 2014, or their successors are elected and qualified.