Council won't yield on appointing replacements when seats open up

She wanted a discussion, but what Thousand Oaks City Councilmember Claudia Bill-de la Pea got was silence from her fellow council members.

Bill-de la Pea initiated two agenda items during last week's council meeting. One sought to give residents the right to vote for a council replacement should a vacancy arise, as in the case of the late former Councilmember Ed Masry; the other would have established clearer guidelines for campaign spending and contributions. Both items failed. All council members voted against the two motions, except for Bill-de la Pea.

The issues were placed near the end of the agenda and came up late in the meeting, well after 11 p.m. The council had discussed the issues and made decisions on them several weeks earlier. Issues are not usually revisited so soon after a decision has been made.

Noting the emptiness of the council's chambers at that late hour, resident Nick Quidwai expressed disappointment in the lack of turnout by residents over the issues.

"Unfortunately, people are not interested. They don't care," Quidwai said.

The first item addressed filling future council vacancies. In April, the council reviewed its decision to appoint a replacement for Masry rather than conduct a special election. Mayor Dennis Gillette had initiated the discussion on whether to retain the current code or change it to require a special election to fill a vacancy. The council determined that it had made the right decision by appointing and rejected any change to municipal code, citing concern about "tying the hands" of future councils, according to Councilmember Andy Fox.

Bill-de la Pea's motion would have placed the issue on the November ballot, allowing voters to decide whether or not a special election ordinance should be adopted specifying that a special election be held to fill incomplete council terms. An interim appointment would be permitted until an election.

"When there's a choice, let the people decide. It's the democratic process," said resident Tom Ritch in his appeal to the council, echoing the thoughts of speakers at earlier council meetings who urged council members to hold a special election.

Bill-de la Pea said that, if approved, the text of such an ordinance would have to be completed by June 27 in order to make the county's November election deadline of July 17.

"I would like feedback on the motion," Bill-de la Pea said to council members.

The council remained silent, voting 4-1 in defeat of her proposal.

The next issue went the same way.

Bill-de la Pea proposed strengthening the city's campaign disclosure rules with voluntary campaign spending limits of $40,000; disclosure of contributors with pending business before the council; and disclosure of campaign bank statements from political action committees, independent expenditure committees and candidates' community funds.

Several weeks ago, the council had approved requiring disclosure of campaign bank statements of candidates who raise $10,000 or more. Bill-de la Pea wanted to take the idea further, but her motion at the time was voted

down. Gillette and Councilmember Jacqui Irwin agreed that the new disclosure rule wasn't enough but that it was a start.

The average amount being spent on campaigns in the city, according to Bill-de la Pea, is $100,000, which may be a deterrent to residents who might consider running. The $40,000 limit might enable others to run, she added.

"Public service is wonderful and more people should try it," Bill-de la Pea said. "Unfortunately, a lot of people feel they need to have a lot of money to run."

She encouraged the council to consider public funding for campaigns, something Los Angeles does.

Once again, Bill-de la Pea asked for feedback from fellow council members.

"I'd like to discuss this," Billde la Pea said. "I think this is an important issue."

Council members made no comment. All but Bill-de la Pea voted against the motion.