Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06191984 - 2.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 19 , 1984 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Retirement Board Elections The Board on June 12, 1984 requested the County Administrator County Counsel and Elections Supervisor to review procedures for the election of Retirement Board members relative to the reproduction and distribution of duplicated ballots , absence of a signature verifica- tion method on returned ballots , and the campaign process with respect to the preparation and dissemination of campaign literature . In a June 19 , 1984 letter to the Board , Phil Batchelor , County Administrator , referred to Government Code Sections 31520 and 31520 . 1 with respect to conduct of Retirement Board elections and the procedures established by Contra Costa County as set forth in a reso- lution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 1957. Mr . Batchelor advised that existing procedures are in line with the reso- lution cited but may not provide adequate controls to protect against contested elections . He noted that the current Retirement Board elec- tion has raised issues not previously addressed , such as inclusion of a candidate' s statement and appropriateness of use of County facili- ties and resources for an employee seat on the Retirement Board . The County Administrator commented on the appropriateness of verifying signatures and the delay this could cause in the presen- tation of the convass of votes . He also advised of the need to review in depth the issues raised during this current election and therefore recommended that the Board take the following actions: 1 . The date for certification of the election be extended one week to allow for verification of signatures by the Elections Office in conjunction with the Retirement records; 2. The County Administrator and County Counsel be requested to review and submit recommendations relating to the use of , and limitations on,, county time , materials and faci- lities for Retirement Board elections; 3• The County Administrator in conjunction with the Election Office , County Counsel and Retirement Administrator be requested to develop revised procedures for future Retirement Board elections . For this purpose a new reso- lution. should be developed to replace that of April 23, 1957, which now controls election procedures . Richard Cabral , candidate for a position on the Retirement Board , referred to certain problems encountered by his supporters in distributing his campaign literature . He referred to a reprimand received by one of his supporters and requested that it be removed . Mr . Cabral advised that he could not see any problems with duplicating ballots in order to provide an opportunity for all qualified members of the County' s Retirement System to vote . 000 J Henry L . Clarke , General Manager , Contra Costa County Employees Association , Local 1 , indicated that his organization has been assisting in the election process for approximately twelve years when it became apparent that most employees were not aware of the election procedure for an employee representative on the Retirement Board and their participation in same through the voting process . In order to insure a large voter turn-out , ballots were duplicated and distributed to members of the Retirement system . He supported Mr . Cabral ° s request for a procedure that .would apply to all . candidates in the conduct of elections for Retirement Board members . Michael Ross , also a candidate for a position on the Retirement Board , advised that at the time the election procedure was established in 1957 the County had a small work force and the ballots were cast on site . With a larger work force assigned to various offi- ces and locations throughout the County, the ease with which ballots are duplicated , and the lack of a procedure ,to verify voter signa- tures , a doubt could be cast on the results of an election. Mr . Ross advised that he was not aware of any of the issues raised prior to his becoming a candidate , nor was he accusing his opponent or any person or organization of improper conduct with respect to this election. He felt that the irregularities with Retirement Board elections should be removed . In response to questions from Supervisor Tom Powers , Lon Underwood , Elections Supervisor , advised that it would take his staff at least one week to verify the signatures of the voters in this Retirement Board election since his office does not have the names or signatures of employees eligible to vote . Mr : Underwood indicated that he would be willing to assist in updating the 1957 resolution and drafting procedures for elections of this type . Supervisor Powers advised that while he did not believe there has been any duplication of signatures , he expressed concern that the Retirement Board election procedure could be questioned , and therefore supported the recommendation of the County Administrator relative to the verification of the signatures of members of the Retirement System voting in said election . He expressed reservations with respect to allegations that there has not been equal treatment in terms of violations of existing known county standards , (i .e . , use of staff time , county equipment/supplies ) , and -to insure if violations have occurred , that appropriate reprimands are made to any and all parties involved in that activity. Supervisor Powers then moved the adoption of the three recommendations of the County Administrator with the inclusion of a fourth recommendation to require a review of the allegations made with respect to utilization of county resources in the campaign process . The motion died for lack ofa second . At the request of Board members , Phil Batchelor commented on his second recommendation and advised that said recommendations were reviewed by the Retirement Administrator . Betty Lanoue , Retirement Administrator , expressed her sup- port that a Retirement Board election be conducted in a manner to preclude the possiblity of any challenge that could question the legi- timacy of the election and the subsequent deleterious effect it could have on the actions of said Board . Supervisor Powers moved that the recommendations of the County Administrator be approved and that all reprimands made in con- nection with this election be reviewed so that the fairness issue is addressed . Supervisor R . I . Schroder seconded the motion . Supervisor T . Torlakson advised that he could not support the motion as it related to Recommendation No . 1 and the verification of signatures since he could not see a need for justification of the expense and staff time . He was in total agreement with the remaining recommendations . 0001.50 The Chairman then called for the vote on the motion , which was as follows: AYES: Supervisors. Powers , Schroder NOES: Supervisors Fanden, Torlakson ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak The motion failed to carry. Thereupon Supervisor Fanden moved to approve recommendations Nos . 2 and 3. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion . Supervisor Powers expressed concern that the motion did not address the issues relative to any punishment past or future relative to the use of county resources (staff time , .stationery, equipment ) and asked that the motion be amended to include this provision in Recommendation No . 2. Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson agreed to the change as requested by Supervisor Powers . The Chairman then called the question, the vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, Torlakson NOES: Supervisor Schroder ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak cc: County Administrator Retirement Administrator Elections Supervisor County Counsel 1 hereby Certify that this is a tna and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the rninvtes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK and ox officio Clark of the Board By 00®x,51