More of the same
Several decades ago San Antonio voters put term limits for council members in place to force turnover in San Antonio’s city council. At the time council members seemed to be elected for life or their next political gig with very little challenge. It was only the occasional voter distaste with a council member that brought out a challenger and created a change in council. Term limits forced council members to retire from the office, at first after two terms but later extended to four terms in 2008. But even with term limits are we really getting the change in city council people were looking for?
Term limits came about in San Antonio in 1991 after a voter referendum put two two-year term limits into the city charter. The effort was driven by C. A. Stubbs, leader of the Homeowners Taxpayers Association, and was intended to eliminate career politicians in council. Stubbs and others contended that unlimited terms created an atmosphere of graft within city government, possibly benefiting special interest groups and businesses associated with city services. Voter approved the limits and subsequently voted down an attempt to change the limits by former Mayor Ed Garza in 1994 by a margin of two to one.
Finally in 2008 former Mayor Phil Hardberger spearheaded an effort to change the limits from two two-year terms to four two-year terms. That change would only apply to council members elected after 2008 but not to any who had been elected prior to the charter change. Possibly seeing too much change in city council with little time to effectively put programs into place, voters passed the referendum by 52%, a clear indication voters wanted change but not sure if the change would provide the dynamics expected in city council.
This year marks the final term for those council members held under the old two term limit and creates a shift in council for longer terms. Four of the ten council members term out in this election, leaving open seats in their districts. In two of those districts (District 1 and District 7) the races have drawn at least four viable candidates for the seat. One of the other districts (District 10) has a strong frontrunner and the other district (District 4) has a potentially close race depending on who you talk to.
But if you really look at two of those districts could be a continuation of the prior administration. In District 7 Cris Medina, former chief of staff to Councilman Justin Rodriguez, is running for his boss’s seat and seems to be the early leader in the race. Backed by Rodriguez, former mayor and SAISD trustee Ed Garza, and SARA Director Roberto Rodriguez, it’s evident Medina has the backing of what would be considered some of the establishment of District 7.
In District 4 Leticia Cantu, fiancé to Councilman Philip Cortez and former staffer to several council members, is backed by the mayor and several business members outside her district. She also has the backing of the police and fire unions as well as several PACs. The interesting part is that Cantu has had a long relationship with city council over the past several years with little time away from the environment. Elaine Wolff wrote in Plaza de Armas that Cantu’s campaign is essential an “Army of Two,” citing Cortez’s presence at many events Cantu appears at.
With the other six seats in an incumbency position it’s easy to see that in the upcoming election eight of the ten seats in council will potentially be more of the same. Two of the incumbent seats could be under fire in the election, namely District 3 thanks to Councilwoman Jennifer Ramos’ potential conflict of interest issues with WellMed and District 5 where Councilman David Medina is in his third match with Lourdes Galvan. Just a note, Ramos, Galvan, and Medina served as staff to council members before their elections to council.
While I’m not taking a position against either Cris Medina or Leticia Cantu, I do find it interesting that even before the debates begin people and organizations that would normally be associated with incumbents have already sided with them as if they were the incumbents in the districts. That hints at an expectation of a continued cozy relationship that had been fostered during their tenure in staff positions.
What it doesn’t signal is the dynamics people were expecting when term limits were first voted in. It doesn’t demonstrate a desire to bring new talent into the offices. It basically says that the surest path to a council seat is through a council staff position. It really means potentially more of the same.
Cantu is a joke, just heard her at a neighborhood meeting and she is the epitome of how a candidate talks the talk in order to get elected then forgets about those that elected her. She spoke of how she did all these wonderful things as an assistant yet she failed to inform everyone that she as an assistant had no vote on council. You are absolutely right! No assistants of her caliber or previous experiences especially the bad ones should ever be elected to council – Is everyone in District 4 listening!
Leticia Cantu should not even have qualified as a candidate. She lists her residence as Cortez residence. First, she should have had her own established residence and second being an assistant should have disqualified her, as she did nothing on her own merit. I agree that a city council staff position should not be a path to a council seat, but more than that it should be established that anyone running for a council seat should be a resident of the district for at least 10 years, with an established residence in their own name (rent or own). The fact that she is not yet married to the ineffective councilman should have been an instant dis qualifier…District 4 residents got little from Cortez, with Cantu we can only expect more of the same.
SO, they finally married…had not heard…still, she should not have qualified as a candidate.