August 21, 2002

City disputes claim that Rotkin, Mathews can’t run

By DAN WHITE
Sentinel staff writer

SANTA CRUZ — What’s an election year? Is it 365 days? Is it simply a dozen months?

In most years, the correct answer would be another question: Who cares?

But the city, in an official statement released Monday rebutting a claim that Mike Rotkin and Cynthia Mathews aren’t eligible to run for City Council in November, states that election years are "measured by months or biannual election cycles, i.e, the November of even-numbered years, and not in terms of calendar years measured by days."

The three-page statement denies the assertion of council candidate Aldo Giacchino, who says Rotkin and Mathews are washed-up politicians and that the city’s own election code says they can’t run this year because of the city’s term-limit rules.

Giacchino cited a clause added to the city charter in 1948 that states "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."

A letter-of-the-law interpretation would mean Rotkin and Mathews couldn’t run Nov. 5, because they served two consecutive terms that ended Nov. 28, 2000.

Giacchino could not be reached to comment Tuesday. In an earlier interview, however, he said the city and the two candidates are trying to take advantage of non-existent legal wiggle room, and that he’d sue if the city released a statement denying his assertions. He accused the city government of "making it up as they go along."

City Attorney John Barisone, in a rebuttal, wrote, "I disagree with Mr. Giacchino’s assertion," in part because the 1948 provision "has never been interpreted or employed to preclude a former City Councilmember from seeking election to the City Council once again after sitting out the general municipal election."

Barisone also wrote that both the city charter and the state election code measure their election years by months and election cycles, "not in terms of calendar years measured by days." He said that if the calendar-year standard applied to all elections, it would have rendered the Nov. 5, 2002 congressional election "null and void."

He goes on to say that Santa Cruzans "have always understood that the two-term limitation set forth in their City Charter simply requires a two-term councilmember not to seek re-election for a third consecutive four-year term."

Joe Ghio was subject to a similar challenge in 1985 but the city allowed him to run again, referring in part to a 1914 appellate case.

Hops v. Poe had nothing to do with council elections. Instead, the case referred to a pre-Prohibition challenge to Calaveras County’s decision to hold a referendum on the sale of "alcoholic liquors," just a few days short of two years after a similar referendum was held in that county. Calaveras County was vindicated, and the booze vote went on as planned.

The appellate court declared it could "see no good reason why it should not be held that it is fully two years from one general election to another."

Rotkin accused Giacchino of trying to improve his election odds by seeking publicity, and of using a spurious claim to try and shut out two of the best-known contenders, thus increasing his chances of winning in a field of 12 candidates.

But Giacchino has called both Mathews and Rotkin old news, claiming the council needs "new blood."

Also running for the three open council seats are incumbent Tim Fitzmaurice, David Eselius, Phil Baer, Steve Argue, Karen Woblesky, Connie Thomasser, Jeromy McMillan, Thomas Leavitt and Greg Lopez.

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