Council Finds Compromise in Vacancy Ordinance

The Moorpark City Council agreed to compromise at its meeting Wednesday in regards to how future mid-term vacant mayor or council seats will be filled.

A proposed ordinance, which will get a required second reading and on which the council will vote at its next meeting, will allow for a signature gathering period in which residents can petition to fill the seat by means of a special election. If 10 percent of the city’s registered voters don’t petition for special election within 30 days, it will be up to the council whether to appoint someone to the seat or hold an election.

The city’s previous ordinance regarding vacancies had to be rewritten because it no longer complied with state law, so at its December meeting, the council instructed city staff to draft an ordinance that would comply. An ordinance favored by all but one council member said that within 60 days of a vacancy, the council must fill the seat by appointment or call a special election. The person who fills the seat would continue on for the term of the person who vacated it. The only way to remove someone appointed to the office would be my means of a recall.

Council Member Roseann Mikos, however, said she believes filling a vacant seat should be left to the people by means of election, even if a special election could be costly—up to about $190,000 if it’s not part of an already scheduled election, according to figures from the county’s elections division.

“In order to have a recall election, you need to have 20 percent of the voters in your town and as of 2008, the last time I had records, we had 17,612 voters in town, and 20 percent of those would be 3,522 signatures to do a recall,” said Mikos. “If three council members can vote to appoint but it takes 3,522 citizens to ask for an election, that just seems a little off to me.”

All four Moorpark residents who spoke agreed with Mikos, as did a number of residents who e-mailed the city regarding the issue.

“What we’re basically talking about is stripping away my right to vote for a replacement on the city council,” said Chris Evans, a 30-year Moorpark resident. “I understand the ordinance has to be updated because of some problem with state law, and I appreciate that, but how in the world did it become that I’m going to lose my right to vote on a council member because we have to update the ordinance?”

Evans estimated the cost of a special election to be about $3 per Moorpark resident.

“I think my right to vote is worth more than a cup of Starbucks coffee,” he said.

Seeking a compromise, Mikos arrived at the meeting with a proposal similar to the suggested ordinance, but with the addition of the petition to allow residents the opportunity to force a vote, if enough were stirred up over the issue.

At the heart of a sometimes heated discussion between city council members was whether citizens’ rights would be lost if the original proposal to fill vacant council seats was passed, whether future councils would be impeded and whether the majority would truly be represented in calling for an election via the petition.

Council Member Keith Millhouse was most vocal about some of these concerns.

“All these speakers are compelling as to the reasons for having a special election, but there may be times, there may be situations where a special election is not appropriate for whatever reason—I’m not going to try to come up with a hypothetical—so I don’t know why you would tie a future council’s hands in a situation where a special election may not be appropriate,” said Millhouse. “I think most times they probably are. I’m having trouble thinking of a time when they’re not, but to tie them based upon the circumstances at this point in time just seems like it’s an unnecessary action.”

In the end, Millhouse said he would not be opposed to going along with a compromise as long as the number of petitioners for a special election is “significant enough so we’re not having a small minority basically take away the rights of the other people in this community.”

Council member David Pollock also supported the proposal, with one reservation.

“I don’t have a problem with giving the public a mechanism for forcing the issue if they think that something onerous is going to be done by the council,” he said. “My only concern is that we don’t create a situation that we’re forcing the expenditure of money without having some informed deliberation about it ahead of time with all the facts known.”

After a little more than an hour of discussion on the topic, the council voted unanimously to move forward with the Mikos proposal. The ordinance will be read again at its Jan. 18 meeting, where the public will again have an opportunity to speak.