Remarks by President Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: Among the progressive cities of the state is Sacramento. We invited some of the officers of the different cities to attend this meeting and participate in this discussion, and we are honored this evening with an acceptance by some of the commissioners from Sacramento. We have here Dr. Simmons, who is the President of the City Commission of Sacramento and acting Mayor at the present time. We would be very glad to hear from the doctor about the experience of Sacramento in regard to its municipal elections. (Applause.)

Remarks by Dr. George C. Simmons

DR. SIMMONS: The city of Sacramento did send this representation, as your chairman has stated, but we come before you with a desire to learn. I think I voice the sentiment of my fellow commissioners and our city clerk, Mr. Desmond, who is present here tonight, in stating our appreciation of the work of this committee, and I am sure we will return with many valuable thoughts on this matter.

Now, your chairman has asked a question of me, why our city is in the throes of a charter revolution. In 1912 we adopted a new charter. A few months ago a board of freeholders was elected and that board is now engaged in forming a new charter, which will be presented to the citizens about October. If you ask me the reason for this, I am sure I cannot tell you. I can only say that we noticed a discontent. Whether that discontent is founded justly or not, is for the voters to state. But, as I reason it out myself, one of the causes is an unjust belief that the commission form of government is expensive. I have gone to some pains to look up statistics, and I find that our per capita expense in Sacramento is some eleven dollars. If you look at the history of Dayton, of Des Moines, or New Orleans-in fact, most of the commission cities-you will find that the expense runs up to eighteen to twenty dollars per capita as against our eleven dollars, and the only cities that are below us are cities in Georgia and Alabama, that are not referred to as advancing cities. Another objection to our charter is that each commissioner has too much autocratic power. Now, the charter places the responsibility for any act upon the head of the department. That was done because the people were not satisfied with the former form of government. There was too much "passing of the buck"; responsibility could not be fixed. Under the new charter it is fixed. Each head is responsible. Now we have the complaint that there is too much authority. Whether that is just or not is for the citizens to decide in the election in October.

As regards the suggestions put forward tonight, I feel in hearty sympathy with those brought out here. In the first place, the reduction of expense, cutting down the two elections to one, is a great inducement. And then another thing is the economy of time. I feel, gentlemen, that you are on the right track. I would like to see this matter put forward before the voters at the proper time, and I am sure from what I have heard tonight the conscientious work of the citizens will be of avail. (Applause.)

Remarks by President Hodghead

THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask one question of these gentlemen from Sacramento while they are here before we go on to the discussion of another phase of the subject. I suppose everybody in this room believes in the short ballot as being the ideal in city government. Sacramento has, I presume, the ideal short ballot in America. They elect just one official at an election each year, as I understand it. DR. SIMMONS: One commissioner, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not suppose there has anything like it ever been attempted anywhere before in the United States. I would like to know if that plan has been a failure or a success.

DR. SIMMONS: Of the thirty thousand people who are registered in Sacramento, some seventeen thousand voted at our last election, when we had one commissioner to elect.

THE PRESIDENT: And how many people do you claim in Sacramento now?

DR. SIMMONS: We claim seventy-five thousand.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it proposed by your present board of freeholders to get away from your commission form of government or retain it?

DR. SIMMONS: They wish to go back to the old mayor-and-council form, each councilman being nominated by a ward and elected at large.

THE PRESIDENT: You are going back to the ward system in a modified form and elect all of the councilmen at one time.

DR. SIMMONS: I do not believe that Sacramento will go back to the old system, but we are simply in the throes of that revolution at present.

Remarks by Leo I. Sussman

MR. SUSSMAN: As I understand, in Sacramento each commissioner acts in his own field.

DR. SIMMONS: He is supreme in his own field, except that he is

responsible to the commission; the commission itself has the veto power.

MR. SUSSMAN: Then it is not exactly like the organization of a corporation in which there is a unit of authority, a manager or superintendent.

DR. SIMMONS: No, there is no manager and no superintendent. THE PRESIDENT: Mayor Otis, we would like to hear your views on the preferential system?

Remarks by Frank Otis

MR. OTIS: Mr. President, I hardly feel able to speak on the broad lines justified by the particular subject under discussion this evening. I am in the unenviable position of a freeholder of the east bay city of Alameda. We of that city are in the throes of charter revision—not, however, on the ground of undue expense under the present charter, but on other grounds. Even the Taxpayers' Association of Alameda county found no fault with our government on the ground of extravagance, or because the taxpayers did not get value received for their money. To the present time the freeholders have outlined their new charter as being of the manager form. A commission of five and an auditor and a treasurer are the elective officers. The commission is to appoint a city manager, and one of the commission is to be the mayor without a veto power. The city manager will have full powers except that he will not appoint the board of education and free library board, which bodies will be in accordance with the state law. That is about as far as the freeholders have gotten. On the question of nominations and elections I cannot say that, for a city of Alameda's size, the present system used by it is not a good one. It has always seemed to me to be quite simple and direct. All that is needed for a candidate to get his name on the ballot is to secure a written nomination signed by fifty electors, a less number being required for a councilman. The names must be properly verified and the document must be filed with the candidate's acceptance of the nomination. The clerk does the necessary checking, and the candidate's name is then placed upon the ballot. The election takes place on the second Monday in April and the newly elected officers take their positions on the second Tuesday thereafter. We only have one election. A plurality, not a majority, elects. It seems to me that the preferential system is good to add to what we have, unless it should develop some weakness, which so far it has not done. I personally think it would be excellent to add to the present system, so as to secure the majority vote. In regard to the report of the committee, one important matter is not touched at all. I refer to the adoption of charter amendments. No plan has been suggested to

overcome the passage of amendments by a majority of a minority of electors.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think that is in the province of the committee. We are simply dealing with the election of officers.

MR. OTIS: Then that is all I have to say upon the subject. I think very highly of what I have heard of the preferential system. I think it would make an admirable addition to Alameda's proposed new charter.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Locke, we would like to have your views on the preferential system generally, and whether it is deserving of adoption or whether there are any objections.

Remarks by William J. Locke

MR. LOCKE: If you want me to say a few words on the subject generally I will say that I am a warm advocate, and have been for a number of years, of the preferential system of voting. I feel that it is far superior to the so-called dual system or what might be otherwise termed the Berkeley system of election, for, as I understand it, it was in the new charter of Berkeley that the dual system was first introduced. I believe that the preferential system of voting is superior to the dual system for a number of reasons.

Mr. Jordan in his report tonight spoke of a number of objections to the present dual system which is in effect in Berkeley and San Francisco and some of the other cities of the state, but he did not touch upon one objection which has always seemed to me a very important one, and that is this, that under the dual system you require the voters at the second election to confine their choice to one of two men, each of whom may represent only a small minority of the voters. To illustrate, we will assume that there are a thousand votes cast and that there are five people running for office, and that in this particular case the votes are about evenly divided. We will assume further that at the first election two of those candidates get 201 votes each, just one more than a fifth of the total vote cast. You then require and restrict the electors to make a choice of those two men, neither of whom represents more than one-fifth of the voters. That is, in my judgment, one of the greatest evils of the present dual system, in addition to the fact. that it costs a great deal more money, requires two elections and campaigns, and all the annoyance and expense connected with them.

Now, the preferential system of voting was introduced about eight years ago in this country-first, in the city of Grand Junction, Colorado; and the system which has been favored is known as the Bucklin system, because it was worked out and designed by Senator Bucklin of Colorado.

At the first election held in Grand Junction the very thing that has been suggested here tonight was attempted. The undesirable element of the city combined to plump for a certain candidate, but they met. with defeat. The candidate got the greatest number of first choice votes, but he was not elected. The man who was chosen, according to the report of their first election, was the best candidate who could have been elected.

The preferential system of voting has been adopted by our Legislature. By that I mean that a bill was passed in 1913, but was not signed by the Governor-perhaps because of the great number of bills that he was called upon to sign at the last moment he was not able to reach it; or perhaps it may have been another reason. Again in 1915 a bill to authorize the preferential system of voting was introduced and again it passed the Legislature. However, this time it was given the pocket veto by the Governor for the reason that he reached the conclusion that such a law would be unconstitutional; and that conclusion is supported by some of the leading city attorneys of California. The preferential system of voting, however, has been adopted by some of our charter cities and is in use by them.

THE PRESIDENT: On that point, Mr. Locke, it would not be unconstitutional to introduce it into a city charter?

MR. LOCKE: No, I was just going to touch upon that. The city of Napa has adopted and used the system, and the city of Santa Monica also has just had an election under it, and the people of those cities would not think of going back to the old style of election. The city of Santa Barbara has just formulated a new charter which includes the preferential system of voting. I do not understand that the charter has yet been adopted. The city of Portland, Oregon, is the largest city on the Pacific coast using the preferential system, and from the reports I have read the citizens there would not think of returning to the old method. It has been in use in Portland for two or three years. At the first election they had over ninety candidates for the office of city councilman (there were five to be elected), but notwithstanding the large number seeking the office, they had no difficulty in conducting the election under that system.

The preferential system of voting, it seems to me, would be a good thing to be used in connection with our present recall elections. The present law covering the recall in California is deserving of severe condemnation for the reason that it requires the candidate sought to be recalled to secure a majority vote, whereas those who run against him to secure his office are only required to secure a plurality; for example, if there were a thousand votes cast altogether and 501 were cast in