For decades, local government watchers have seen a disturbing run of poor management and scandalous property decisions, especially at San Diego City Hall. But in all that time, there have only been a few power plays as brazenly dishonest as the one we’re now seeing from county supervisors hell-bent on extending their time in office.
Their scheme comes with a noble disguise: On Tuesday, Democratic majority members Terra Lawson-Remer, Monica Montgomery Steppe and Paloma Aguirre took the first step toward asking voters in November to consider a package of changes to make county government less “opaque.” Among the changes would be creating new budget and auditor offices and allowing supervisors to confirm and remove more top officials.
But it is an open secret that the key provision in the package is to increase from two to three the number of four-year terms a board member can serve. And what’s the best way to make sure the package passes? To pretend that what three board members hope to achieve is to strengthen, not weaken, county term limits. (This makes another part of the package — the creation of a county ethics commission — seem grimly funny.)
This intent to deceive constituents has been obvious since February. That’s when Lawson-Remer asserted that there was strong public support for allowing supervisors to serve a third term. But her evidence couldn’t have been weaker: a survey of about 700 residents that asked about their support for a “limit” on supervisors of “three four-year terms” — without mentioning the limit of two four-year terms approved by county voters in 2010. Her claim of support was based on a survey meant to sell the belief that proposed “reforms” would lead to a more restrictive rule on term limits than now exists — not a less restrictive rule.
On Tuesday, the board chair’s intent to bamboozle voters came into even sharper focus. Incredibly, the ballot language Lawson-Remer proposed for the charter “reform” package does not disclose the measure would weaken term limits, instead saying that they would be “set … to three terms.” But it works overtime to create the impression that the supporters of the ballot measure are big fans of such limits. The ballot language asks voters to approve term limits for the county’s district attorney, sheriff, treasurer and assessor “where allowed by law.” It does not mention that such limits are not allowed under state law. So why bring it up in the ballot language? It’s obvious: to make voters think an anti-term limits measure is actually pro-term limits.
Lawson-Remer’s abuse of power is obvious. But don’t excuse Montgomery Steppe or Aguirre. Their votes Tuesday enabled it. Here’s hoping that before the board’s second vote on the “reform” package, they have a crisis of conscience and realize they can’t support ballot language that’s so plainly intended to deceive voters.
If the dishonest ballot language is approved, at least county residents have reasons to hope state courts will protect them. On March 26, Superior Court Judge Blaine Bowman ordered the city to change the title of a June measure meant to impose large annual taxes on second homes within city limits from the inflammatory “Empty Homes Tax” to the neutral “City of San Diego Non-Primary Homes Tax.”
That was less than a month ago. One might have assumed it would have given Lawson-Remer pause. But she’s evidently all-in on a scheme built on the assumption that county voters are gullible chumps.