August 16, 2002

Candidates’ eligibility challenged

By DAN WHITE
Sentinel staff writer

A political newcomer says he’ll go to court if necessary to prove his claim that former mayors Mike Rotkin and Cynthia Mathews are ineligible to run for City Council.

City Attorney John Barisone argued Thursday that council candidate Aldo Giacchino is interpreting city rules incorrectly. But the matter was not fully resolved Thursday, and county elections officials were waiting for an official response from the city.

Giacchino held a press conference Wednesday, the last day of filing for the Nov. 5 election, charging Rotkin and Mathews aren’t eligible because they each served two consecutive terms that ended Nov. 28, 2000.

According to Giacchino, the city charter clearly states residents aren’t eligible to run until two years after the expiration of their second consecutive term. According to his argument, Rotkin and Mathews would therefore miss the election, because they wouldn’t be qualified to run until the end of November, when the contest is already over. The election is Nov. 5

A spokesman for the California secretary of state said the state does not have jurisdiction over election eligibility issues, because they involve local charters. Local charters can include rules that are not spelled out in state election requirements.

Giacchino insisted Thursday it’s not a matter of interpretation.

"The city constantly interprets rules at their own whim, and make it up as they go along," he said. "If a sign on the road says 25 mph, you can’t go 30 mph," regardless of what the city attorney says. "I’m going to nail (them) to the wall."

Giacchino charges Mathews and Rotkin are "recycled politicians," and says the council needs new blood.

Rotkin, who in two stints on the council served almost 18 years, said "lots of people have done this since 1948." He was referring to the year a clause first appeared in the city charter specifying "no member of the council shall be eligible for re-election for two years after the expiration of the second consecutive full term for which such person was elected."

The debate comes down to what a "year" means. A year to the day? A year in general?

"It seems pretty clear what the framers intended, which was for people not to have continuous appointments," Rotkin said. "I’m not a lawyer, but a lot of these things come down to what the intent was." He said he couldn’t imagine the people who drew up that clause of the charter were differentiating between Nov. 5 eligibility and Nov. 28 eligibility.

Mathews would only say she was taken by surprise by Giacchino’s statements and awaited an official statement from the city.

County elections manager Gail Pellerin is also waiting the resolution eagerly. "Time is of the essence," she said Wednesday "The train has left the station."

She said she hopes the matter is wrapped up quickly. She said that Aug. 29 is the last day for her to get a list of nominated candidates and send it off to print on the ballots. She said the ballots could be reprinted if a resolution comes later, but at considerable expense to Santa Cruz taxpayers.

She also has strict deadlines for voter information pamphlets with candidate information. Her office issues special absentee ballots Sept. 6 for a few dozen overseas voters serving in the military. On Oct. 7 the office starts issuing absentee ballots to the general public.

"If I get court-ordered changes in late September, my printer can’t physically turn that over in the right amount of time," Pellerin said. "The clock is ticking."

Contact Dan White at dwhite@santa-cruz.com.