Oceanside Puts Charter Measure on Ballot

A sweeping proposal to make Oceanside a charter city and revamp its election process will be on the June 5 ballot, the City Council decided Wednesday.

Supporters say the proposed charter, which is similar to one soundly defeated by voters in 1986, would make council elections more democratic and better able to resist the influence of special interests.

Under the charter, the current council--whose five members are chosen in citywide balloting--would be enlarged to seven members. The two additional members and a full-time mayor would be elected citywide, while the four remaining members would be picked from specially drawn council districts.

The mayor’s salary would increase $10,000 a year to $34,000.

Brian Graham, chairman of the citizens commission that wrote the charter, said switching from a general-law city to a charter city would give Oceanside greater authority over its affairs. By state law, charter cities have more power to set their own system of election and to decide which city staff members should be elected and which should be appointed or hired.

“Presently, we’re at the mercy of every state agency and special interest around,” Graham said.

The commission had considered placing the charter issue on the November ballot, but waiting for the later ballot “would politicize the charter and make it a political football,” Graham said.

The council voted 4 to 1 to place the measure on the June 5 primary ballot.

When a charter was advocated four years ago, it was rejected by 61% of the voters, reflecting opposition to creating city staff positions and a general lack of enthusiasm over carving out council districts.

This time, the council majority was guarded against inviting controversy, and seemed eager to vote promptly for placement on the June ballot.

At one point, Councilwoman Melba Bishop, the only dissenting vote, criticized the charter’s wording, and a member of the citizens commission, Terecita Bernal, rose from the audience to defend the measure. A council member cut her off, saying, “We’ll take care of it up here.”

Bishop, a council maverick, said she isn’t necessarily against the charter or districts, but believes that some of the measure’s provisions are unclear and vulnerable to legal challenge.

For example, she questioned the charter’s wording on creating logical council districts, adding, “I’m wondering how objective the district review committee will be when the council appoints it.”

Bishop also questioned why the charter is heading for the ballot without apparent public demand for changing the city’s political system.

“No one went out and asked the community first what you want to change about your community,” she said.

Nobody in the audience spoke against the charter, although, in recent statements, foes of the earlier charter bid have said there would be strong opposition to the new effort.

In previous remarks, Graham has maintained that setting council districts would foster greater ethnic representation on the council as minority members seek election from heavily minority districts.

He also says smaller council districts would make it possible for candidates to run without relying on huge campaign war chests and major contributions from special interests such as developers.