The measure would have extended the maximum number of four-year terms a council member could serve from two to three.
Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Voters overwhelmingly turned down Measure U, the proposal to increase the maximum number of four-year terms a City Council member can serve from two to three. As of 10 p.m. Tuesday night, 1,796 votes against Measure U were counted and 680 yes votes.
Had Measure U been approved, it would have changed the term limits law approved by voters in 2000. The current law will not go into effect until 2008, since only terms beginning in 2000 are counted toward the two-term limit. Those who campaigned against Measure U had alleged that the purpose of the measure, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council in a 5-0 vote, was so that Councilmember Jeff Jennings and Mayor Pro Tem Ken Kearsley could run again in 2008, since they are termed-out by the current law.
Former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan, who led the campaign against Measure U, said he was pleased with the result, but called the night “a very bittersweet night for us” because at the time he though John Mazza had lost his City Council bid. However, as of Tuesday night, more than 200 ballots still need to be counted and the City Council election results are not final.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich proposed measure U late last year, because, she said, she was concerned about the city losing its institutional memory.
“Life is a learning experience and Measure U has taught us that people in Malibu want fresh faces [on the council] for better or worse,” Conley Ulich said.
Although the entire City Council had supported putting Measure U on the ballot, most of them distanced themselves from the campaign. The only person besides Conley Ulich to show any support for the measure during the campaign was Jennings.
“They [the opposition] ran a campaign, we ran no campaign. I had mixed feelings about it. That’s fine I’m comfortable with it,” said Jennings, who added, when asked if the measure should not have been placed on the ballot in the first place based on the result, “I don’t think so. People had a chance to say what they felt, and they did.”
Carrigan put $20,000 of his own money into the campaign against the measure, although he had not spent all of it according to the latest financial statement. His campaign in opposition to the measure included advertisements in the local newspapers and mailers issued to residents. Also, Carrigan spent several days in front of Ralphs market promoting a No vote. Meanwhile the proponents did little campaigning outside of posting a Web site.
Conley Ulich said the measure probably would have fared better had their been a campaign for it. “But who knows, I can’t say for sure,” she said.
Jennings added, “It still would have been an uphill battle. In general I think the idea of term limits has a certain appeal to the electorate… but that’s why we put it in front of the people.”
Daniella Bosio and Hans Laetz contributed to this story.