As the Alameda County Board of Supervisors considers changing their recall procedures, some residents have begun to question whether the move is an earnest effort to modernize the county charter or a blatant power grab.
“This repeal is much, much more extensive than the county is presenting to the public,” said Jason Bezis, an attorney for the Alameda County Taxpayers Association. “It’s overreaching, what they’re trying to do.”
Questions first arose in October after the county’s lawyer, Donna Ziegler, prepared a report highlighting problems with the county’s current recall rules for elected and appointed officials. According to Ziegler, the county’s laws contained decades-old procedures that were “a detriment to ensuring lawful, competent, and timely recalls.” Her report recommended that the county adopt the state’s recall language instead.
The move quickly prompted outrage from groups in the midst of pursuing a high-profile recall effort against Pamela Price, the reform-minded district attorney who has been criticized for ethical concerns and her approach to sentencing.
But some believe the procedure change could have far-reaching impacts beyond the Price recall campaign.
According to Bezis, the new rules would strip the public of its ability to recall appointed county officers — including Ziegler herself. That power, Bezis says, has existed in the charter since it was adopted in 1926.
In an open letter to the board, the taxpayers association said the proposed amendment would “eviscerate the county’s recall law that has been essential to holding county bureaucrats directly accountable.” Appointed county officials, often the highest-paid local government employees, are unelected, and under current recall procedures they still ultimately answer to the public.
Under the new recall rules, employees such as the county administrator and the registrar of voters could not be recalled. This is common in other jurisdictions.
Although the power has infrequently — if ever — been employed, the possibility of recalling county officials is more relevant than ever. Just last week, a broad coalition of Democratic-aligned groups called for the dismissal of county registrar Tim Dupuis over election integrity concerns. They promised further measures if their demands are unmet.
“This charter amendment really is a major power grab to protect unelected county bureaucrats,” Bezis said.
District 3 Supervisor Lena Tam, for her part, said the adjustments to recall language was not intended to strip power from the public, protect appointed officials or interfere with the Pamela Price recall effort.
“Our board is saddled with a set of charter provisions from 97 years ago that are just not workable,” said Tam. “We’re basically trying to clean it up.”
Tam said the recall procedure change would help clarify outdated language. But Tam also expressed a willingness to respond to constituent concerns. On Tuesday, Tam asked to postpone a vote on the recall amendment until the county could develop a fact sheet to address questions about proposed charter rules.
Tam noted the board of supervisors has taken no position on the effort to recall Price, who was elected as district attorney last year.
“We can’t clear up a person’s political viewpoint, but we’re hoping to make sure there’s more clarity and dispel some of the misinformation out there,” Tam said.
The board will discuss the amendment next on Nov. 14.
