Council campaigns follow familiar path
Yorba Linda’s 25th election to select City Council members is unfolding like most of the past council contests since city incorporation in 1967: candidates offer more generalities than specifics and partisan adherents pony up plenty of cash for negative ads and mailers.
Let’s look at the latter topic first. Well-paid consultants at the national, state and local levels claim that negative campaigning works, despite the voters’ often-stated distaste for this noxious hammer hanging from the tool belt of political operatives.
Of course, politicians don’t call the practice “negative campaigning.” They prefer such euphemisms as “illuminating,” “clarifying” or “explaining” an opponent’s record, as if voters don’t see the fact-twisting process for what it clearly is--a character attack.
For the past few election cycles, Yorba Linda’s office-seekers have kept their own ads and mailers positive, stating their backgrounds and qualifications and identifying them-selves as “fiscal conservatives” who support low-density, public safety and horses.
They leave it up to friends and fervent followers in political action committees to do the dirty work. Thus, the Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation faction attacks Gene Hernandez and Craig Young, while the United Citizens for Yorba Linda crowd blasts Ken Peterson, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing.
Maybe these attacks will cancel each other out or the group spending the most money on their ads and mailers will gain the upper hand in shaping voter opinion of the candidates.
Negative campaigning clearly lowers the level of political discourse, which undoubtedly keeps many outstanding citizens out of the political realm and certainly gives school-age youth a bad civics lesson.
In addition to offering few specifics about how they plan to reach some of their stated goals, candidates have become adept at not fully answering questions asked at forums.
One example at the Chamber of Commerce event was a query about compensation for council members, in which incumbents and challengers failed to mention the largest benefit council members receive—up to $945 monthly in a “cafeteria style” package.
Each contender focused on the $500 monthly salary, but didn’t comment on the fringe package that gives council members the same dollars as full-time city employees since council added itself to the plan on a 3-2 vote in 1996, with 5-0 renewals thereafter.
Also not discussed were the $100 to $212.50 per meeting pay some earn for serving on county bodies, the city’s self-insured dental and vision plans, a monthly phone allowance and the PERS pension for which the city pays both employee and employer contributions.
Council members sometimes mistakenly call the fringe package a “health” benefit, but the money can be taken in cash or used for deferred compensation in a 401k-style plan.
Since council members now qualify for both defined benefit (PERS pension) and defined contribution (401k-style) plans, fiscal conservative candidates should support dropping at least one of these tax-funded perks as a commitment to pension reform.
Let’s look at the latter topic first. Well-paid consultants at the national, state and local levels claim that negative campaigning works, despite the voters’ often-stated distaste for this noxious hammer hanging from the tool belt of political operatives.
Of course, politicians don’t call the practice “negative campaigning.” They prefer such euphemisms as “illuminating,” “clarifying” or “explaining” an opponent’s record, as if voters don’t see the fact-twisting process for what it clearly is--a character attack.
For the past few election cycles, Yorba Linda’s office-seekers have kept their own ads and mailers positive, stating their backgrounds and qualifications and identifying them-selves as “fiscal conservatives” who support low-density, public safety and horses.
They leave it up to friends and fervent followers in political action committees to do the dirty work. Thus, the Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation faction attacks Gene Hernandez and Craig Young, while the United Citizens for Yorba Linda crowd blasts Ken Peterson, Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing.
Maybe these attacks will cancel each other out or the group spending the most money on their ads and mailers will gain the upper hand in shaping voter opinion of the candidates.
Negative campaigning clearly lowers the level of political discourse, which undoubtedly keeps many outstanding citizens out of the political realm and certainly gives school-age youth a bad civics lesson.
In addition to offering few specifics about how they plan to reach some of their stated goals, candidates have become adept at not fully answering questions asked at forums.
One example at the Chamber of Commerce event was a query about compensation for council members, in which incumbents and challengers failed to mention the largest benefit council members receive—up to $945 monthly in a “cafeteria style” package.
Each contender focused on the $500 monthly salary, but didn’t comment on the fringe package that gives council members the same dollars as full-time city employees since council added itself to the plan on a 3-2 vote in 1996, with 5-0 renewals thereafter.
Also not discussed were the $100 to $212.50 per meeting pay some earn for serving on county bodies, the city’s self-insured dental and vision plans, a monthly phone allowance and the PERS pension for which the city pays both employee and employer contributions.
Council members sometimes mistakenly call the fringe package a “health” benefit, but the money can be taken in cash or used for deferred compensation in a 401k-style plan.
Since council members now qualify for both defined benefit (PERS pension) and defined contribution (401k-style) plans, fiscal conservative candidates should support dropping at least one of these tax-funded perks as a commitment to pension reform.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home