AnonymousBy William Smithers
The government of Santa Barbara is a government of all its people.
In 2002, the California Voting Rights Act authorized municipalities and other publicly-elected bodies to govern themselves via so-called “district elections,” by means of which citizens having majority cultural population in certain neighborhoods, but who constitute a minority in the overall community, have the right to vote for, and elect, a representative to their governing body.
Many state communities and electoral bodies have adopted this form of governance, usually mandating in a municipality that its mayor be chosen by a vote of all its people, with other representatives on the governing body chosen by district vote.
This form of government has the benefit – and strength – of giving cultural minorities at least roughly proportional representation in their governance.
Its weakness is that it relies on the character of district electees to conduct themselves in a manner evidencing their respect for, and needs of, those community citizens not in their districts.
Though our government is a government of all its people, its success and equitable functioning begin to rot when any of its district representatives pointedly and repeatedly refuses to accept responsibility to deal with problems affecting all, or other, parts of the community.
Throughout history, we know this recognition and support for community inter-dependence as the common good: “ … that which benefits society as a whole, in contrast to the private good of individuals and sections of society.”
If state law permits the sale and use of liquor, or of tobacco, should your district representative – or any – fight to prevent a store selling these to be licensed in his/her district? If recreational/medical use of marijuana is legalized, should any district representative fight to prevent relevant facilities from existing in his/her district; should any representative try to create legal conditions making such locations impossible to create? Would this be a commitment to the common good?
If sewer lines erupt; if storms throw trees, boulders and debris across city neighborhoods; if spilled chemicals threaten the lives or health of Santa Barbarans, should your district representative – or any – refuse to authorize monies to deal with these because they don’t occur in his/her district? If foul odor, water contamination, environmental degradation and wildlife diminution threaten the health and reasonable comfort of Santa Barbarans in one area of the city, should a representative of another area refuse to help provide funds to eliminate or ameliorate the problem? Would this be contributing to the common good?
Unfortunately, community irresponsibility of just this kind is happening in Santa Barbara, especially by one of the first to be honored with governmental authority via the new district election system. In my view, this behavior should be noticed, criticized, condemned and, eventually, repudiated by voters who care about the fairness of the system that governs them.
This has nothing to with debate over measures affecting all our citizens: housing, taxes, zoning, election laws, community-wide transportation or environmental concerns, economic prosperity, etc. This has nothing to do with likes/dislikes of anyone’s personality.
This is a Declaration of Inter-Dependence. This is a reminder that if District X residents want others in the community to consider their problems and needs, they had better be sure their elected representative is exhibiting that concern for others. This is a reminder that District Y and Z residents should understand whether District X’s representative is refusing to support funding to address serious problems in their communities. Everyone should know, or find out, which of their government’s district representatives demonstrate commitment to legislate for the entire community: the “common good.”
This is an appeal to any fair-minded Santa Barbaran to hold accountable any district representative who makes a habit of ignoring the concerns and needs of those who didn’t actually vote for him, but whom he has pledged to represent.
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at ed@edhat.com. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Councilmember Eric Friedman believes that priority needs to be given to one’s own District and that a Councilmember can’t really represent people from other Districts. During the whole SBCAG drama that he and Murillo got the City into (which now includes a lawsuit) he inferred that he would not and could not represent those not in his District. — Why elect someone who refuses to represent the whole City?
Friedman isn’t intelligent. His comments since being elected have shown us again that the local Democratic Party doesn’t care who gets elected as long as it’s their man or woman. We need intelligent committed people who are not looking higher Office. Friedman just doesn’t have what it takes to be a good representative and we are stuck with him for 4 years.
I concur.
RHS:
The author of this article has always supported municipal district elections (as well as instant runoff elections, which, unfortunately, have never been adopted here).
The article is not a “hidden” message. It presents concrete examples of the community irresponsibility of “one of the first [in Santa Barbara] to be honored with governmental authority via the new district election system.”
EdHat seems to provide no “Search” facility for previous Op-Ed pieces, so I can only refer you to the title of one: “Who Does Jason Dominguez Represent?”
Perhaps now you get the picture. Perhaps there is hope that you will speak up about it.
William Smithers
3620: Thing 1 is possible. Thing 2 is possible. Things X, Y and Z are possible.
The article you are responding to is not theoretical. It presents concrete examples of the community irresponsibility of “one of the first [in Santa Barbara] to be honored with governmental authority via the new district election system.”
EdHat seems to provide no “Search” facility for previous Op-Ed pieces, so I can only refer you to the title of one: “Who Does Jason Dominguez Represent?”
Perhaps now you get the picture. Perhaps there is hope that you will speak up about it.
William Smithers
Pro Murillo Hit Piece! SMITHERS, we all know that this and the other posts you have written are hit pieces. You are trying to drum up some sort of anti Dominguez sentiment, based on wildly inaccurate descriptions, all in an effort to paint Dominguez black when Murillo should be in a orange jumpsuit and behind bars – as far as I am concerned. That is were corrupt Officials should be. Let’s all fact facts. Murillo IS a lousy Mayor and SO Corrupt that she is dragging the City into a lawsuit because she broke the laws she wrote. And the City Attorney doesn’t have the balls to stand up to her! I just wonder when the next shoe will drop with Murillo. That phony mask she has been wearing is finally falling off and we are seeing who she truly is! When it finally drops the residents will be on the warpath!
93441: I challenge you to refute any specific citation I have made of council member Dominguez’s votes, and please demonstrate how my citations are evidence of his legislating for the common good.. Please try to use language that is meant to convey actual information. And please assure us you are not cowardly by giving your real name IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
William Smithers
Go to Council SMITHERS! — It is obvious that you do not go to any of the City Council meetings or watch them on TV. If you did you would know that everything you wrote is based on half the truth. Or maybe you just wanted to write it that way. — You’ve cherry-pick the facts you write about, but you pervert the discussion with half-truths. That isn’t any way to write an opinion piece. Take for instance, the fact that Dominguez wants the dispensary on Milpas moved. There’s a big difference between not wanting a dispensary in your District at all to wanting one moved to a different location. But you act as if he wants zero and is doing everything he can to accomplish that. You’re flat-out wrong and ill-informed. — And after reading this I can only speculate that either Murillo has you eating out of the palm of her hand and you will believe anything she says, even if it is a lie or Murillo is behind this hit piece. She was a reporter after all…