The Case for VERITAS

Paul DeSantis and Irene Zivi
Special to the Mirror
 
   Ed. note: Two weeks ago, the Mirror published an op-ed piece by Santa Monica Mayor Michael Feinstein which was critical of a proposed Charter Amendment, Voters’ Election Reform Initiative for a True Accountability System (VERITAS). Here is the response of Paul DeSantis and Irene Zivi, co-authotrs of VERITAS. 
   Why is Santa Monica Mayor Feinstein afraid to let the VERITAS initiative be voted on by the people of Santa Monica? Why has he exhorted people to keep VERITAS off the ballot? Is it because VERITAS will free Santa Monica from the stultifying status quo from which he benefits?
   The major virtues of VERITAS are: (1) it will bring a more genuine grass-roots democracy to Santa Monica City government by enabling City Council candidates to run for office without massive fund-raising or the support of an entrenched political machine, (2) it will guarantee each of the seven historic neighborhoods (including the Pico neighborhood) a place on the City Council, and (3) it will refresh and vitalize Santa Monica City government with reasonable term limits for Council Members.
   Under VERITAS, a candidate for City Council almost always would be elected by at least 50% (plus one vote) within his or her constituency, the district in which she or he is running. Currently, for a candidate to be elected, the votes he or she receives in the whole City must be within the top three or four (depending on how many seats are to be filled) of all the votes cast. Consequently, a candidate must campaign across the whole City, and many candidates have been elected with as little as 33% of the total vote. Under VERITAS, just some shoe-leather, recognition in his or her neighborhood, and a little money could enable a highly-regarded person to gain a seat on the Council.
   Contrary to Feinstein, VERITAS would increase accountability of elected officials to voters in their constituency. Accountability under the present system of at-large Council elections is diffused and confused. With VERITAS, accountability would be crystal clear. 
   Feinstein’s old and flawed argument that VERITAS would bring about neighborhood vs. neighborhood conflicts covers over the fact that such conflicts always exist and are now dealt with in the back-room of the Council majority. VERITAS would bring the discussion and resolution out into open session, with the discussion and votes visible to all. Evidently, the City does recognize the value of input from neighborhood groups because it provides financial support to them. But these neighborhood groups have little power and consist of the self-appointed. Under VERITAS, the individuals who are now out-front in the neighborhoods would be able to submit themselves to a vote of all who reside in their community. Only then will we know if they really represent anybody but themselves.
   Feinstein expresses a fear of a popularly elected Mayor who would have more than a ceremonial function. Currently, the Mayor is elected by the majority on the City Council, and has little more authority than any Member. Under VERITAS, the Mayor would be elected at-large by the people and would have some real responsibilities and authority. The Mayor would have veto power, but a veto could be over-ridden by a five-vote (out of seven) majority. As to Feinstein’s claim that such Mayoral power would bring big money into the election process, there would still be a $250 limit on contributions from any source. Even so, Santa Monica City Council elections are already disgracefully expensive, with close to a million dollars being spent by all the candidates. VERITAS would surely bring that total down.
   As to Feinstein’s argument that in 1992 a Charter Review Commission recommended against districts and term limits, we have to remember that the Commission was composed of members appointed by the sitting City Council. Commissioners were not elected. Is it any wonder that they came up with recommendations that were in accord with the vested interests of those who appointed them? Subsequent to 1992, we have seen how term limits have brought new vitality in the State legislature and Los Angeles City Council.
   The Mayor says the City is so small and unified that districts would only bring divisiveness to the political process. This laughable argument would have us believe that there is no difference in interest or viewpoint between residents north of Montana and those in the Pico neighborhood, a neighborhood that has never had one of its people elected to the City Council. The truth is that almost all venues from the Federal down to the local get along just fine with legislative district elections.