Option of Interim Appointee Gains With Council; Advisory Vote Legality Uncertain

The appointment of a caretaker City Council member who would agree to serve the remainder of Uvaldo Martinez’s term but not run for the position next year appeared to be gaining favor Friday as the best way to replace the 8th District representative.

But several council members said they would agree to Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s proposal for an advisory vote in the district if the legal and logistical obstacles to such an election could be overcome.

Martinez, who pleaded guilty Thursday to two felony counts of misusing a city credit card, has promised to resign by Nov. 13, the day he is to be sentenced in Superior Court.

In response, members of the City Council and potential candidates were wasting little time scrambling to win support for the way they want to replace Martinez, and an interim appointment seemed to be the most likely option.

Martinez’s term expires in December, 1987.

“I think our options are going to be a district advisory vote if it can be done, and the retreat position of an interim appointment to allow all the candidates to begin to muster their forces for a full-scale election,” said City Councilman Mike Gotch.

Gotch said he would do all he could to block the appointment of a council member who would be free to run for the full term as an incumbent.

“That’s out,” he said. “I will throughout the process be a participant as well as an obstacle. I’m not going to support appointing anybody to that seat and giving that person a leg up. I imagine there are at least four votes on the council that would produce a deadlock.”

Even Bill Cleator, the strongest, and perhaps only, advocate of an open-ended appointment, was giving way Friday. Cleator said he would prefer an interim appointment to a full-scale or advisory election.

“An election would cost something close to half a million dollars,” Cleator said. “If you’re going to spend half a million dollars, why not just wait another two or three months and let the person go through the regular process? Put someone in as a caretaker for five or six months and have everyone else on the council do double duty.”

Among other council members, Ed Struiksma also favors the appointment of a caretaker council member, according to an aide. William Jones and Judy McCarty, while they favor an election, do not oppose the idea of an interim appointment. Abbe Wolfsheimer said she supports an election. Gloria McColl could not be reached for comment.

Several potential candidates interviewed by The Times Friday also said they would support an interim appointment, though some of them preferred other methods.

L.J. Cella, executive director of the San Diego Art Center, said he had already discussed the idea with Gotch and Cleator, and is scheduled to see Jones and Struiksma next week. Cella is the only candidate so far to come forward seeking the caretaker’s role.

“You can’t leave the seat open for 10 months,” Cella said. “You’re going into an election year when that seat is coming open. There will be a primary and there will be an open election. If you appoint someone with the proviso that he or she cannot run in the next election, you maintain that integrity and you give the district a quality representative to heed their concerns.”

Lawyer Celia Ballesteros, who won the district primary against Martinez in 1983 only to lose the citywide runoff, also said a caretaker appointment would be an acceptable compromise, though she would not be a candidate for such a job. Community planner Gail MacLeod and county supervisor’s aide Neil Good, who plan to run for the seat next year, have similar views. But a fourth candidate, lawyer Michael Aguirre, said he opposes the appointment of even a caretaker council member.

“We need a full-time City Council member to work on the district’s problems, not another flat tire like we’ve had for the past year,” Aguirre said.

Aguirre favors Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s proposal to hold a district-only advisory vote, with the council appointing the victor. But City Atty. John Witt and City Clerk Charles Abdelnour said such a scheme would be difficult to accomplish within the confines of the City Charter.

The charter requires that the council make a good-faith effort to appoint a replacement within 30 days of a vacancy. If a replacement cannot be chosen, the council may call a special election. The charter makes no mention of an advisory vote.

“We think it’s probably illegal,” Witt said Friday of O’Connor’s proposal. “The question is fundamental fairness to everyone, whether or not doing a really fast and sloppy job is fair to those who aren’t really ready for it straightaway, whether it wouldn’t favor people who already have something in position.”

But Aguirre said it is not Witt’s prerogative to make such judgments, which he said are more political than legal.

“His position is absolutely unsupported by the law,” Aguirre said. “Once you show that you can make phone calls to constituents to ask them what they think, there’s no way you can separate that from an election, as long as it’s non-binding. It’s very distressing that they would do that.”

Even if Witt removed his legal objections to an advisory vote, however, that method might not be possible.

Abdelnour said it would normally take the city and the registrar of voters 90 days to prepare for an election. By then, the 30 days the City Charter allows the council to make an appointment would have elapsed.

Abdelnour said a mail ballot might be possible, though it would be up to the council to take what would surely be a controversial step.

“With the mail ballot, you wouldn’t have to be concerned about setting the polls up or certifying people to work at the polls,” Abdelnour said. “That could happen within 30 to 45 days. It would be a shorter turnaround.”