Measures H, I and J.

As We See It: Watsonville voters should reject Measures H, I, J

We place a certain amount of trust in our elected officials. We elect them to represent us, to make the best decisions on our behalf. While we may not always agree with them, we respect the process.

The people who occupy the seats on city councils, boards and commissions come and go at our discretion. We hold the power to boot the representatives who fail us.

The system — the rules by which our elected officials govern — should not be quite so fluid. Changing the fundamentals of our governing structure should be carefully and judiciously applied.

Watsonville voters will consider three measures on the June ballot that will change the city charter, and the way the City Council operates. We believe these measures are not in the best interest of the city and should be rejected by voters.

Measure H would change the way council vacancies are filled. Currently, if a council seat becomes vacant, the City Council must appoint someone to that seat within 30 days. The proposed change would take the appointment out of the council's hands and instead require an election within 90 days.

Measure I would change the way the mayor is selected. Currently, the council elects a mayor from the seven council members. The proposed change would set up a mandatory rotation among the council districts.

Measure J would change the procedure for naming parks and public places. Currently, the City Council has final say on how such places are to be named. The proposed change would allow each council member to nominate a name, with all recommendations going to the electorate for popular vote.

It's not difficult to see the common thread among the measures, which are backed by the group Let the People Vote. Each of these measures is intended strip the council of some authority it now holds.

In Measure J, the parks and public places measure, the authority is stripped from the council and returned to the at-large electorate.

In the late 1980s, a group challenged the city's at-large City Council elections, claiming the system violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The case, which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulted in Watsonville abolishing the at-large system in 1989 and instituting a seven-district City Council, with each district electing its own representative.

Measure J appears to be an end-run around that decision by ultimately putting the power back into the hands of the at-large electorate. Even more ironic, Measure J, as do the other two measures, only need be approved by a simply majority of the at-large electorate.

Measures H and I seem to try to fix issues when there are no issues to fix. The council is perfectly capable of appointing a replacement council member and selecting its own mayor. A change simply is not needed.

The electorate has a right and a duty to monitor its elected officials and our representatives should always be held accountable to the public, by the public. At the same time, elected officials must be given the leeway to operate.

These measures go beyond the bounds of monitoring and more into the realm of micro-managing. We can't help but wonder what council responsibility might come up next for review, leading to a patchwork of rules and procedures that leaves the council with an almost ceremonial role.

Attempting to restructure our governing rules is a perilous proposition and not to be taken lightly. Yes, situations do arise where there is a need to make a change and yes, the Watsonville City Charter is not set in stone and should be amended when warranted.

Measures H, I and J do not rise to that level and should be rejected by voters.