Oxnard lets Aaron Starr term limit plan sail through, but lasting impact uncertain

The unfolding drama between the city of Oxnard and resident Aaron Starr took a peculiar turn on Tuesday when the City Council voted to adopt Starr's proposed term-limit proposal instead of fighting it.

Less than a week after council voted to sue Starr over three of his proposed ballot initiatives, the elected body voted 6-to-1 to adopt the proposal as is. Councilman Oscar Madrigal was the dissenting vote. After the meeting, Madrigal said the issue should go before voters in November.

The decision means that for the first time, Oxnard has a limit on how long a council member or mayor can serve on the City Council. Under this term limit act, an elected official can serve only two consecutive four-year terms. After eight years, the official must take a two-year break before serving again.

More:Oxnard's latest battle with Aaron Starr over citizen initiatives has a storied past

Adopting this proposal outright means it is now in effect, although the impacts won't be realized until the victors in the November council race have served eight consecutive years. Whether Starr's term-limit plan is in effect more than a couple of months, however, remains to be seen.

Voters on March 3 will decide on a different term-limit measure, one proposed by City Manager Alex Nguyen with the support of the council. If a simple majority of Oxnard voters side with the city's term-limit plan, Starr's version would be moot.

Council did not discuss the vote to put Starr's proposal in place. After emerging from closed session, City Attorney Stephen Fischer piggybacked on an earlier comment by a speaker who urged council to enact the term limit act instead of spending money on placing it on the ballot.

"In an effort to save the costs of an election on the term-limit measure ... my recommendation is to adopt this ordinance," Fischer said, adding that in March, voters will have the opportunity to consider the city's term limit measure and other "good governance measures."

The city's proposal is Measure B, which not only sets term limits but prohibits gifts to officials from lobbyists and enacts campaign contribution limits.

Councilwoman Carmen Ramirez said she believes Starr's proposal of a two-term limit is not sufficient but still voted to enact it.

"I'm going to move to adopt this ordinance now so we avoid an election later on," Ramirez said.

Whether it was a cunning maneuver or a way to save money depends on who you ask.

Starr called it a "Machiavellian act."

"I'm disappointed that the council would deceive the public like this," Starr said. 

In an early Wednesday morning email to his supporters, Starr urged them to vote against Measure B and called the latest council action "dastardly."

Term-limit standoff

If wastewater rates were the central theme to the bitter feud between Starr and the city four years ago, term limits appear to be the battle cry as we enter 2020. It's a curious dispute considering both sides want term limits.

Both proposals seem similar. Starr wants the limit to be two consecutive four-year terms. The city's Measure B proposes three consecutive four-year terms as the limit.

There is another difference. Starr considers the council member and mayoral seats to be the same. Under Starr's initiative, which is now in effect, a council member who served one term and then became mayor and served one term would then be termed out. In other words, the term limit counts regardless if it is served as a council member or mayor.

More:Aaron Starr lawsuits target Oxnard for campaign contributions measure, records response

Under Measure B, the mayoral and council member positions are considered separate. A council member who served three terms could move on to become mayor and serve another three terms. 

Mayor Tim Flynn said having experience as a council member is important and helpful when becoming mayor. That's the route he took.

"For any higher office, it’s incumbent to have experience," Flynn said. "You should first serve in the legislative body that you seek to preside over."

But Starr considers Measure B an act to protect incumbents. Essentially a person can term out as a council member, become mayor, and return to being a council member in a never-ending cycle, Starr said.

Ramirez said the scenario of an official going back and forth between council member and mayor positions is not realistic.

Measure B isn't only about term limits. It sets an individual campaign contribution limit at $750 for the mayor, city clerk and city treasurer; $500 for council members.

Starr is challenging the campaign finance aspect of Measure B in federal court. He filed the lawsuit last month arguing that such contribution limits infringe on the First Amendment. 

Battling initiatives

Last May, Starr unveiled his plans to get five measures on the November 2020 ballot. The measures aim to set City Council term limits, change city treasurer duties, change how city meetings are run, add a self-certification program to the permitting process and tie future sales tax revenue to the condition of the city's streets.

Around the time Starr was ready to submit voter signatures supporting his initiatives, Nguyen announced his proposals that would become Measure B. Unlike a citizens initiative, a city-led ballot measure doesn't include a signature gathering process and would qualify for the March ballot. The earliest that Starr's initiatives could go before voters would be in November.

On Tuesday the council had several options. It could place Starr's term limit initiative on the November ballot or adopt it as is. The council could also decide to challenge it in court as it decided last week for the initiatives to change city treasurer duties, change how meetings are run and withhold Measure O revenue depending on the quality of the city's streets.

By deciding to adopt Starr's term limit initiative, the city is betting on the passage of Measure B. If voters support the city's ballot measure in March it would replace Starr's initiative.

Ramirez dismisses the idea that it was a sneaky move.

"It’s not sneaky, it’s right out there in front," Ramirez said Wednesday. "It’s a clear choice for voters if they’re an informed voter. If you’re an informed voter, you know what the council did and you’ve got a choice." 

Starr doesn't see it that way. He said most voters won't know term limits now exist and they would be voting in a city alternative to change it.

Alicia Percell, Starr's wife who has been actively advocating for the five initiatives, said the council is taking away the right of the public to choose.

"They didn't adopt it tonight because they wanted it to go into effect," she said. "They wanted to kill it."

For now, the only one of Starr's initiative that voters can weigh in on in November is a permit simplicity measure that allows for the self-certification of building permits.

Flynn called this initiative "dangerous" and "ill-advised" but said it doesn't rise to the level of being illegal. He considers the others illegal.

"The three ballot measures we are going to challenge, we believe they’re illegal," Flynn said. "So when someone says, 'Why don’t you allow the voters to decide?' well, we have a duty."  

In the morass of these battling ballot measures, there's one thing they agree on — the mayoral term should be four years, not two. In both the city's and Starr's initiatives, the mayoral term is extended to four years. That means regardless of the election outcome in March, the next mayor will serve a four-year term.

Wendy Leung is a staff writer for the Ventura County Star. Reach her at wendy.leung@vcstar.com or 805-437-0339. You can also find her on Twitter @Leung__Wendy.

SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM Get the latest Oxnard headlines on your phone with a digital subscription.