TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
CITY COUNCIL City Clerk
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: April 12, 2022
SUBJECT: Oppose the Valley Water District Measure Extending Term Limits for Board Members
Recommendation
As recommended by the Rules and Open Government Committee on April 6, 2022, direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution:
(a) Opposes Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (VWD) term limit extension measure; and\ (b) Calls on other cities in VWD’s service area to join in opposing the measure.
CEQA: Not a Project, File No. PP17-008, General Procedure and Policy Making resulting in no changes to the physical environment. (Mahan)
[Rules Committee referral 4/6/2022 - Item C.2]
COUNCIL AGENDA: 4/12/2022
ITEM: 3.4
FILE NO: 22-542
CITYOF �
SANJOSE
CAPITAL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: RULES AND OPEN
GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW
APPROVED:
RULES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT
04/06/2022
ROGC 22-144
C.2
AGENDA:
FILE#:
ITEM:
Memorandum
FROM: Councilmember Matt Mahan
DATE: March 31, 2022
SUBJECT: Oppose the Valley Water District Measure Extending Term Limits for Board Members
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution that:
1. Opposes Santa Clara Valley Water District's (VWD) term limit extension measure and,
2. Calls on other cities in VWD's service area to join in opposing the measure.
2. Place the item on the 4/12 City Council Agenda for Council discussion and action.
BACKGROUND:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (VWD) recently approved a June 2022 ballot measure that purports to "limit" directors' terms of service using the following ballot language:
Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted? What is not noted in the ballot language, however, is that VWD board members are already limited to three successive four-year terms. Thus, via a brazen verbal sleight of hand, VWD's measure manages to frame an extension of sitting and future board members' terms as a good governance initiative to limit their tenure.
Ordinarily, I'd argue that other jurisdiction's governance questions should be left to those jurisdictions and their constituents. In this case, we have at least two compelling reasons to take a public position of opposition to the measure.