People Power Prevails in Pacific Grove

By Susan Goldbeck

The Pacific Grove City Council in its August 20th session, in a unanimous vote,

and as a first step, gave the go–ahead to put the recently certified, citizen- backed

referendum on the ballot concerning their decision last May to give themselves

substantial raises. The decision changes the very nature of councilmember

compensation from public service and a small stipend, to a salary. Medical benefits

were also discussed at the time, but this was tabled and was not part of the

decision.

People Power Prevails in Pacific Grove

The Council on Wednesday bowed to public pressure to reverse their prior

decision on the issue and requested that City staff pave the way to do that at the

next meeting on September 3 rd . The action also encompassed direction to have the City Attorney come up with language for a ballot measure next year, This would

put the issue of whether the view of City Council compensation should be seen as

salary or remain as it has always been, a job compensated by the desire to do

public service with a small stipend to defray expenses.

Two councilmembers, Paul Walkingstick and Lori McDonnell both voted

against the raises last May, because that they thought the issue should be subject to

a public vote. They expressed similar feelings about the issue at Wednesday’s

meeting. McDonnell commented. “I like the idea of people having a voice.”

Walkingstick favored the raises and saw them as what he described as “a means

of encouraging more people to run.” Councilmember Tina Rau supported the raises

saying: “I don’t think it was out of line, we were very measured and it is much less

than other jurisdictions.”

There was no discussion of the financial implications of the raises in view of the

57 million dollar- plus debt situation the City of Pacific Grove faces.

A number of members of the public spoke on the issue urging the Council to let

the people vote on the issue. Dixie Layne, a long- time Pacific Grove resident, and

one of the signature gatherers for the referendum, told the Council that the

enthusiasm on the stump that she heard was not so much for or against the raises,

but instead for a public vote on the issue.

Long- time community activist Annette Corcoran said this: “They knew that

the position was not a paid one. If they wanted to be paid a salary, they should not

have run for job and should resign. “

Former City Councilmembers Luke Coletti, who led the effort to put the issue

on the ballot by referendum, asked the Council to allow that to happen. Former

Councilmember Susan Nilmeier spoke in favor of letting the people decide. A

number of other citizens echoed these sentiments. Only one person spoke in favor

of the raises and that was former Pacific Grove Mayor Bill Kemp.

Councilmember Cynthia Garfield led the Council in making the decision to let

put the issue to a public vote but with a twist: no vote on the referendum. She

favored reversal of the vote on the raises and putting the issue of whether the raises

should be implemented should be put on the ballot for a public vote. She added

that she was also concerned that the language of any measure on the issue be

framed in a clear way so that the voter was not confused as to what their vote

meant: yes if they favored the raises or no they did not.

The Council ‘s unanimous action in reversing their decisions to give

themselves a substantial raise took the wind out of the sails of the folks supporting

the referendum because it makes the issue moot. No raises, no vote on them up or

down, at least not yet.

Several Councilmembers expressed the opinion that the vote on a new

measure about the raises should be at the time of the primary general election next

June; they didn’t say why they had this preference. It is a curious choice in that the

public vote is always substantially smaller in a primary, the last election it was

50% less.

It was suggested by one citizen that the choice was so that it would not be an

election issue for the mayor or other Councilmembers that were running in

November. Another said that a plan to raise taxes is in the offing and that would

not play well with a bid to substantially raise City Council compensation.

There was no real consideration by the Council of holding a special election on

the issue because of the massive costs associated ($160K-200K) with this option.