Editorial: Supervisors make bad call on elections

The editors are absolutely right that this is a bad - and arrogant and self-serving - decision by the Supes. But what the editors failed to explain is WHY it's a bad call:

County-wide supervisorial elections in a county of more than 700,000 population means that only those candidates who can get access to huge campaign funds usually have any chance of winning. Special interests and politicians who are actually more interested in seeking higher office love it!

But it leaves smaller, and poorer, and less "significant" interest groups and communities with no functional chance of getting their "minority" views and concerns fairly represented.

The FY 2009-10 County budget (all funds) was $1.7-billion - with a "B" - and their structural "deficit is projected to grow to $150 million by FY 2015".

It's long overdue for San Mateo County to have district elections, to allow and encourage candidates who are more interested in representing local interests and serving San Mateo County, rather than those who too-often see the County Supe's office primarily as a springboard to higher office.

Since the Board won't allow the People to decide, the People should force it by ballot initiative.

Editor,

"In our view, the supervisors' action was an incredible affront to the hard-working charter committee, as well as county voters."

Don't forget the Grand Jury Report.

This group of (4) Mark Church, Rose Gibson, Adrienne Tissier, Carole Groom have not only ignored the wishes of the majority of San Mateo County voters they personally have caused potential financial damages from the lawsuit promised. They could have avoided this by placing it on the ballot. This is the action of only 4 people who should know better. They have legal counsel we pay for it.

Welcome to San Mateo County