On Novem

On November 30, 2022, the Menlo Park City Council decided to appoint a new councilmember to fill Ray Mueller’s soon-to-be-vacant, District 5 seat on December21 and adopted an abbreviated 21-day application process. It considered but rejected holding a Special Election in 2023. While the Council passed a resolution in August 2022 that legally gave them the legal authority to appoint this new council member, but the chosen application process and schedule were set at the November 30 council meeting.

Primary Concerns

The Council’s councilmember appointment process decisions appear flawed for many reasons.

1. The appointment of a district council member and the adoption of a fast-track applicant evaluation process are extraordinary actions, and voters should have excellent opportunities to understand the reasons for both. Unfortunately, most voters are likely unaware of these decisions especially when the process is conducted during the Holiday season.

2. Why did the Council decide to appoint a new council member rather that hold a special election that would enable District 5 voters select their council representative? When could a special election be held? Why is that unacceptable to the Council?

3. Why did the Council adopt a 3-week candidate selection process when it is only legally required to select a new council member within 60 days of a vacancy?

4. Why did the Council not adopt an appointment process that gave District 5 voters adequate opportunities and time to consider their potential candidacy, submit applications, evaluate individual candidates, and express their preferences? This approach would have encouraged greater overall voter participation and not denied them democratic rights.

I agree with Dana. Additionally one of the biggest dangers is the majority group on the council gets to make its majority even bigger. Thus disenfranchising a lot of residents and would be voters.

Any word who Ray Mueller thinks should be his recommended successor?

Another concern: How do District 5 voters know the most qualified potential applicants who WOULD be willing to serve have actually applied given the unconventional format and short timeframe for the adopted appointment process? Also, it is extremely easy for a district voter to apply as there are no qualification criteria. So how many unqualified individuals will do so? What characteristics, experiences and time commitments do the existing council members consider essential to the success of a new council member? What policy biases might cause problems?

Finally, what happens if the Council does not feel any of the applicants would contribute to the success of the overall Council?

Couple of observations:
a) last time D5 had an election, the incumbent ran unopposed. D2 and D1 incumbents also ran unopposed this year.
b) this is how other cities on the Peninsula (Redwood City, San Mateo, probably Mountain View TBD) have chosen to handle council vacancies, and it seems to work out okay.
c) there are thirteen thoughtful applications already in, from a diverse swath of candidates with compelling life experiences. I'm impressed that so many people are interested in serving on council. Observer and Dana, it's not too late to throw your hats in the ring too!

Finally, to Brian's question, one of the reasons council is rushing to appoint is that CM Mueller had at one point requested the opportunity to weigh in on his successor (as the sole person on council elected by D5 residents) and that's not possible once he starts his new job as supervisor. (waiting until a special election means a four-person council with no D5 representative would be responsible for approving the housing element update, which is also suboptimal.)

Katie:

1. Ray was unopposed because he was a popular and effective council member. I personally supported him.

2. I do not understand how the other cities appoint council members to fill vacancies. The "devil is (always) in the details".

3. Ray's interests should not be given greater weight than those of the District 5 voters.

4. I have not heard a good reason to rush this process. Why was it necessary?

The rushed process was unnecessary. Ray Mueller could have weighed in after leaving the Council. His voice is only one of five.

The rushed process was questionably legal. All applications considered in a Council meeting should be made public at least 72 hours in advance. That is not possible with the application deadline just 49 hours before the special Council meeting.

Katie: "last time D5 had an election, the incumbent ran unopposed. D2 and D1 incumbents also ran unopposed this year. ... I'm impressed that so many people are interested in serving on council"

Does anyone notice the contradiction? Many are interested in being appointed but few actually run.

The elephant in the appointment room is that the appointee can then run as an incumbent.

There was an age old practice in Menlo Park where outgoing members would not serve out their last full term thereby allowing their replacement to be appointed, giving the appointee a leg up to run as an incumbent. Clearly the practice existed because it worked and it allowed existing council factions to persist more easily through the election cycle.

Bob Stephens, Jack Morris, and Cal Jones were some of the early pioneers who got elected in the face of the machine and opened up the system for others to run city-wide, platform-based campaigns that were highly competitive.

I'm not dissing on factions. They're fine so long as elections are truly competitive.

Katie: you describe Ray as "as the sole person on council elected by D5 residents." To clarify, a number of residents who are now in D5 did not have a chance to vote for the city council member representing D5. A total of 414 voters were in D4 and were switched to D5 earlier this year. (Other districts were similarly impacted by the redistricting.) This was done without direct notice (only local press), which made things awkward when people in D5 were posting campaign signs for D4 candidates last month. Moot point in this discussion, perhaps, but factual.

Dana and Observer,
There are some impressive progressives running. I expect the current council majority will have no problem selecting someone who thinks as they think from the current pool.
I wonder if any other council members have been excluded from voting on their district replacement. And if this is a council appointment to complete Ray’s term, should it not be considered a temporary position… like an ‘acting superintendent’ for example.

Wasn't this Ray's first term in a District election? Then he has represented District Five only two years, with two years to go.
His previous terms were won in city-wide elections.