Charter change is not needed

There is a movement afoot in Newport Beach to change the city’s charter so any more unexpected City Council vacancies would go to a vote of the people rather than a choice of the council. As the charter now stands, filling those vacancies is the council’s duty; a vote happens only if the council fails to pick a replacement.

Leaders of the residents group Newporters for Responsible Government, which already is campaigning for a ballot measure that would give voters more control over major city spending, say they will push the City Council to put a measure on the ballot altering the charter. If the council doesn’t agree to do so, group leaders say they might work to get a second measure before Newport Beach voters.

We certainly understand, and sympathize with, this sentiment. In the past three years, four sitting Newport Beach City Councilmen have resigned their posts, former Mayor John Heffernan being the last. As a result, this fall’s election will include an unprecedented six council seats. Three of the four appointed members will be facing voters for the first time. They will, just by being incumbents, have an advantage in the election.

It is an unheard-of situation ? but its being so unusual is argument against the need to take a step as dramatic as altering the city’s charter, a move that is akin to amending the U.S. Constitution. It’s a move that should not be taken lightly or often. The chances that, any time soon, repeated members of the council will resign are slim. It’s only happened once in the city’s 100 years. Making the change now essentially will be after the fact, when it has become a moot point.

Another reason not to make the change is the cost. Holding special elections are costly; councilman Tod Ridgeway suggested that it could have cost the city as much as $250,000 to hold four elections during the past three years. Even if his guess is high, $200,000 or even $150,000 is a lot of money the city could be putting to better use.

Finally, as we have always maintained, voters do have the opportunity to decide who sits on the council: regular elections. Those are the proper opportunity for voters to show their pleasure or displeasure at the council.

We do agree, though, that those appointed have an advantage when those elections come around. Rather than upsetting the charter, however, there must be a more practical way to level the playing field: Perhaps ballots could make it clear than those incumbents were appointed to their seats.

We also agree that the system isn’t perfect. But we don’t concur that it’s so damaged that a major repair is needed.