Arcadia has 27,646 registered voters. A mere 1,327, less than 5% of them, took the time to go to a precinct and vote in this week’s City Council and City Clerk election on Tuesday. One of the lowest turnouts, if not the lowest ever. More than twice that number, 2,946, or 10.6% of all registered voters, submitted absentee ballots in advance of election day, meaning the total number of ballots cast was 4,273, just 15.4% of eligible voters. Only three of all the registered voters and eligible candidates submitted their names to run for two open seats on the City Council. Two of those three candidates have served at least 2 terms and at least 8 years already. One candidate has never held public office in Arcadia, was relatively unknown by most community leaders and residents, and barely did anything to raise that profile during the election campaign. Yet, he still received nearly 12% of the votes. Finally, the only candidate running for City Clerk received just 62% of the votes. Almost all the other ballots left that space blank.
So, what does all this mean? (I’d love to hear your perspective. Submit your comments below.) Already there have been comments and letters in local papers complaining about the lack of visibility and perceived effort of the losing candidate and the lack of substantive debates and forums for the candidates to engage in constructive discourse about local issues. Overall winner Gary Kovacic said he’d like to believe the miniscule number of ballots represents a high level of satisfaction level with the current Council. Others said it was so obvious that Kovacic and Chandler would win, and since there were no other issues on the ballot and only one other uncontested race for City Clerk, there was little motivation to bother voting. Kovacic and others acknowledged that it could all mean just about anything, from voter apathy to the fact that the election was held during spring break when many families were out of town or out of their routine. The more than 1,600 blanks on the ballot for City Clerk Jim Barrows are generally believed to be the result of a confusing layout with multiple languages below the City Council candidates that caused many voters to overlook the additional circles to color in.
I subscribe to the theory that there just wasn’t enough on the ballot to get people out to vote, especially with most feeling confident that Kovacic and Chandler would easily and deservedly carry the day, as they did. But that’s a very dangerous assumption to make, especially considering that the candidate most people dismissed as a non-threat got nearly 12% of the vote despite being relatively unknown and doing almost no campaigning.
But more concerning for me is the lack of candidates who filed to run. Say what you will about George Young’s approach to his campaign; at least he took the time to consider running for office and file an application, albeit at literally the last hour. That’s more of an effort than anyone else put in. People are understandably disappointed that having a third candidate cost the City a reported $160,000 or so of our money to hold an election that would not have even taken place if Kovacic and Chandler were the only two candidates for the two open seats. That’s true, and given that circumstance, it would have been nice to see the third candidate make more of a showing. But why did it come down to that situation?
Just a few months ago it appeared there would be a slew of candidates, with at least one preparing to run on the solitary issue of helping policemen get a better pay raise. When that contentious issue was resolved a few months ago, thank goodness (or, more accurately, thank Mayor Mickey Segal, amongst others), that potential candidate evaporated. But where did all the other potential candidates go? Did they all fear the strength of Kovacic and Chandler? Will we see more people throw their hats in the ring next time? I hope so. As Gary Kovacic says, elections and campaigns are healthy, as are debates and dialogues about issues. New ideas and new voices are also healthy. A strong mix of age, gender and ethnicity is also important, even moreso now in Arcadia. Once again the Council that is sworn in on Tuesday will be made up of five men, four of them Caucasian, and most of them at least middle-aged or retired.
Arcadia is a remarkably solvent, smooth-running, and relatively controversy-free community, thanks to these leaders of the present and the past. But enticing new candidates might become more of a challenge in the future. Because there is almost no pay for serving on the Council (only $500 – $600 per month, plus some health and retirement benefits while in office), candidates must either be retired, independently wealthy (or both), or have a job that allows them to miss many hours of work without consequence. Candidates generally either have a great love for the city or a passion about a particular issue or two (as well as a bit of an ego, which is not a bad thing — it’s what drives most successful people). Finding a candidate that is driven by one or both of those things AND has the time and financial standing to handle the job is hard enough. But the candidate must also be able to have or raise money and mount an effective election campaign, and have enough of a base of supporters in town to win thousands of votes. That’s a lot to ask and expect of people who get little financial reward (often not even enough to cover campaign expenses). Yet we have not had a problem finding such people in the past. So, why now?
Hundreds of Arcadians give exactly that kind of commitment in volunteer work every day, though it is in lower profile positions with schools, churches, kids activities, the library, the Red Cross, the Historical Museum, or charitable clubs and organizations. The city is heading into several years of fiscal challenges due to the national economy, the state budget, and the real estate market, among other things. Multi-term Mayor Segal will be eligible to run again in two years but has not yet decided whether he will do so. It’s time for more of you who already give of your time to start thinking about running for City Council next time around. We can’t make the same few guys feel like they have to keep carrying the flag every election.
Here’s hoping that next time the discussion centers not on whether we even needed to bother to hold an election but what a great and diverse crop of new candidates with fresh ideas we have to carry us into the future. Your thoughts?