Editorial: Mayoral election is the best course of action

By Doug Spoon, Editor

This could get ugly – but it doesn’t have to.

You could get dizzy contemplating all the factors that could play into the selection of a new mayor for Menifee in the wake of Neil Winter’s death. But don’t get too caught up in government codes, special election timelines or one appointment creating another vacancy.

There may not be a simple way out of this, but there is the most practical and the fairest one.

Adopt a city ordinance declaring that all city council vacancies must be filled by special election. Pass that ordinance in the next few weeks, while there’s still time to put such an election on the November ballot. Stick it out for five months with four council members and no potential tie-breaker vote; they’ve done it before.

Then let the people of Menifee decide who should replace the People’s Mayor.

Yeah, I get it. The government code states that in the case of a mayoral vacancy, the city council “shall” fill the vacancy by appointment. That seems pretty definite. Yet in the next sentence, it says that if the council does not appoint a replacement within 60 days, it “shall” call an election to fill the vacancy. Sounds to me like the council has a choice here.

From all we’ve been hearing, a vote of the four remaining council members today would result in a 3-1 vote to make an appointment. Only Matt Liesemeyer has voiced support for a vote of the people to select the next mayor. The question is, will any of those votes change by June 20, the date of the next council meeting?

How much weight will public opinion carry with a council that is supposed to serve the public?

Every published reader poll we’ve seen on social media – including our own – indicates that the public wants the right to select the next mayor in an election. About 80 percent of residents are voicing this opinion. If council members ignore those numbers, all those comments on social media, and vote to make an appointment, what does that do to public trust in local government?

Here’s the problem with an appointment, especially in this case. It seems highly unlikely that these four council members will vote to appoint a resident outside of the council, even if the best possible candidate were identified. Sources indicate there are at least two current council members who would like the mayor’s at-large position. Why should they risk running for the position in an election if they can convince their colleagues to appoint them?

That leads to the next problem. Say two council members are seeking the appointment. How easy will it be for one of them to win over two of their colleagues and win the appointment by a 3-1 vote? What happens if the vote is 2-2?

Or how about this? Should a council member seeking the appointment even be allowed to vote? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

So now we’re back to the issue of a public election. Yes, there would be cost in adding a mayoral election to the ballot with the already required elections for Districts 2 and 4. Maybe $25,000 to $40,000. The council spends that to throw up a center road median. Big deal.

Is an election discriminatory to the current council members who might seek the position? Nope. They have as much right to run in an election as anyone else. And with the mayor’s post being the one at-large position on the council, every registered voter in the city would be voting for or against them – not just the one district that elected them to the council in the first place.

We’re not saying that a current council member should not be chosen as mayor. We are simply concerned about the process. Do it right. Put everyone on a level playing field and see what happens. There are other qualified residents out there -- some of whom have already expressed interest. Give everyone a shot.

And who knows? Maybe a candidate will come out of nowhere and actually win the election. It worked OK last time.