Grand jury questions council election

Although Sonoma’s City Council didn’t act illegally in deciding to
cancel this year’s municipal election, the move did violate the public trust – that’s according to a Nov. 14 decision released Tuesday by the Sonoma County Grand Jury.
“The failure was that of the City Council as a body and not just the person who cast the tie-breaking vote,” the three-page ruling said in part. “The City Council’s action to cut short the democratic process in such circumstances was incompatible with its obligation to protect important rights of its citizens and to promote confidence that its decisions are being made solely in the public interest.”
Sonoma City Manager Linda Kelly deferred detailed comment, saying City Attorney Tom Curry was in the process of preparing an official response.
At issue were this year’s two vacancies on the Sonoma City Council, which saw Mayor Joanne Sanders pondering a second four-year term and Councilmember Stanley Cohen stepping down after his first. As Sanders and candidate Laurie Gallian were the only ones to file nomination papers by the Aug. 13 deadline, the council voted 3-2 on Aug. 20 to forego the election and appoint both women to the dais.
Sanders cast the tie-breaking vote, siding with fellow Councilmembers Cohen and Steve Barbose in citing apparent electoral disinterest as well as a savings to the city of $7-8,000 in election fees. The council’s action also pre-empted the possibility of a write-in candidacy, but although City Clerk Gay Rainsbarger said one person had expressed such an interest prior to the Aug. 20 meeting, that person hadn’t pulled the necessary paperwork.
The move prompted an intense debate in local media over whether or not Sanders should have disqualified herself from a vote in her political benefit – an action allowable under section 10229 of the California Election Code – or left the field open to potential write-ins. Part of the debate also concerned whether the $300 monthly stipend the council unanimously voted themselves last November (and which takes effect this month) raised a financial conflict of interest for Sanders under California’s Political Reform Act of 1974.
After extensively reviewing the Aug. 20 meeting, the grand jury said neither election law was violated – but noted that law wasn’t the only factor at play.
“The Mayor’s disqualification was not legally required because she did not have a financial interest as defined in the law,” the jury’s conclusion reads. “However, we do not believe that this answer meant that the other significant issues raised by canceling an election in these circumstances could be ignored by the City Council. The absence of illegality should not be the highest standard to which the actions of our public officials are held.”
The 19-member panel’s investigation began early in September after it received a complaint about the council’s action, foreperson Richard Klein said Tuesday. The jury’s confidentiality rules prohibited Klein from naming the complainant, or anyone interviewed for the investigation, but he confirmed that “there was at least one complaint issued.” Without elaborating, Klein added that the city was less than forthcoming about providing the jury with the requested information – which included meeting minutes, audio and video recordings, and an Aug. 26 memorandum from Curry confirming that he’d told Sanders her vote would be legal.
“That’s not to say that we had to subpoena it, which we could have, but ‘unusual legal proceedings’ is an accurate description – we would have published [the report] somewhat earlier had that not occurred,” Klein said. “As a courtesy to the City Council and mayor we gave it to them several days in advance, so they wouldn’t be blindsided by the release of the report.”
But Wednesday afternoon, Curry said Klein’s allegation of difficulty was “news to him.”
“Certainly there was no reluctance on this office’s part,” Curry said, adding that he’d initially had some extensive discussion with two jury representatives concerning what materials they needed and when. “I was left with the impression that we had been very cooperative, and I’m sorry that they didn’t feel that was the case.”
Councilmembers contacted by Wednesday’s press time expressed a range of emotions.
“I’m relieved,” Sanders said, adding that she didn’t know about the jury’s investigation until the report was issued. “It’s relieving to know the council didn’t do anything illegal.”
Councilmember Aug Sebastiani declined comment until after Curry issued the city’s response, but colleague Ken Brown was more direct. “I voted in the minority with Aug Sebastiani,” he said, “to continue to hold the election through the filing period for write-in candidates, and I stick to that opinion.”
Generally, Sonoma’s council race sees more candidates when an incumbent chooses not to run – 2002’s three-vacancy council election drew nine candidates, and 2004 and 2006 saw six people apiece vying for two seats. Cohen, who announced in May that he wouldn’t seek a second term, said prospective candidates had already had sufficient time to file for nomination.
“The city attorney saying ‘we could do this’ was part of what led to my decision-making,” Cohen said. “The fact that someone called in to say they may [run] did cross my mind, but my decision was based upon counsel’s advice. I still stand behind my decision.”
Klein emphasized that with no legal wrongdoing, no penalty would be imposed, and stressed that “the fact that the mayor would avoid competition by a cancelled election does not necessarily mean that was her reason for voting for the cancellation.” But he added that the grand jury’s job isn’t to impose sanctions so much as to investigate and make recommendations.
“In this case,” he said, “the recommendation is inherent in the report that, under similar circumstances, elected officials should not vote where a personal interest situation exists.”