Last year, the city of Belmont received a letter from Kevin Shenkman, a Malibu-based attorney, that threatened costly litigation if we do not transition from an at-large to district-based selection of councilmembers. Shenkman has discovered a flaw in the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 that allows him to collect a significant fee for every letter he issues to cities, school districts, and water boards across the state — or each jurisdiction is subject protracted, expensive legal fights. While his supporters argue that he’s promoting civil rights, in reality, he’s abusing the legislation to disrupt small jurisdictions like Belmont to make a quick buck. Actual civil rights groups in California do not seek to focus on cities smaller than 50,000 residents (Belmont has fewer than 30,000). Shenkman and his ilk have induced changes to district voting in dozens of California cities and over a hundred school districts. Do out-of-town lawyers really know or care about representation in all these communities?
To avoid this costly legislation, Belmont is moving to a district-based voting system for council elections and is discussing the procedure for mayoral election. District-based representatives will naturally be focused on benefits to their own neighborhood priorities.
At this point, we have a choice about how we select our mayor. Let’s keep the mayoral position an at-large elected office that represents the entire city. Let’s not let an outsider profit while fomenting division in our community.
Is it any wonder that surveys and polls re: integrity and ethics routinely assign low numbers for those traits to lawyers? That's probably not fair but all it takes is one lawyer to publicly reinforce the "ambulance chaser" stereotype for everyday folks to give an entire profession a low approval rating.
I don't live in Belmont, however, I have found the back and forth exchanges in the DJ on the topic of district elections very interesting. If the district boundaries have been assigned in a way that promotes fair representation, why not let Belmont residents decide if they want an at-large mayor?
Ray, I live in Belmont and has for more than 40 years. I simply don't see how districts in this small city, that should be called a village, will improve representation to anyone. I don't recall ever seeing any neighborhood accusing our City Council of being overlooked. Allison is correct, this serves no purpose other than enriching consultants and ambulance chasers.
It is wrong and character assassination to say that Shenkman collects a significant fee for every letter he writes. He doesn't collect anything unless the city fights him and the case goes to court. That hasn't happened in Belmont so far. While Shenkman's group has collected fees from some cities, their main purpose is to move cities from at-large to district elections to ensure that minority groups are represented in government. The more districts there are, the better minority groups are represented. That's why five districts in Belmont is better than four districts and an at-large mayor.
I'm not sure Alison's opinion that Mr. Shenkman is abusing what may be a flaw in state legislation rises to the level of character assassination. It would be interesting to actually see the letter Mr. Shenkman sent to Belmont... was it really threatening in the way described by Alison?
Alison does make a good point when she asks, "Do out-of-town lawyers really know or care about representation in all these communities?" I'm also wondering if Mr. Shenkman's law firm would be amenable to sharing how much revenue has been generated for his business as a result of sending letters to cities, school boards and other local government entities.
I'll ask again... if the proposed alignment of districts in Belmont provides for fair representation, why not let the residents decide if they want an at-large mayor?
Ray, look at the video for the Belmont City Council meeting on Tuesday. Nine of the 17 speakers who expressed an opinion about an at-large mayor were against it. So, residents are trying to have input but the Council is ignoring those who disagree with them, as is usually the case in Belmont. Plus, the Council decided on an at-large mayor during two rushed meetings last November, with little chance for resident understanding or input, and has refused to reconsider that decision.
I can see where you're coming from... and your position is a reasonable one. No doubt.
Hmmm... imagine a local city council applying a "because I said so!" style of management. We should not be surprised. However, while I would not volunteer to act as the Belmont Council's apologist, I can understand not making a decision based on which side can muster more people at a meeting. It wasn't too long ago that very vocal and voluble "Defund the Police" supporters made their presence known at city council meetings. I'm OK with them doing so... I'm glad it sparked a serious conversation., but we should remember that most folks in the county overwhelmingly embraced keeping our police properly funded.
Again... if Belmont's current plan for districts provides fair representation, don't you think the voters in Belmont should decide whether their mayor should be an elected at-large position?
I agree, Ray, the voters should decide on an important issue like this. However, the Belmont Council decided on its own last November after giving residents only 10 days to think about it. That's why so many of us are upset about the process.
Yes, Tim... I agree. Many Belmont voters are upset with the process and they should be. An issue like this, that could affect elections for years to come, should be decided by the voters.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(9) comments
Hello, Alison
Is it any wonder that surveys and polls re: integrity and ethics routinely assign low numbers for those traits to lawyers? That's probably not fair but all it takes is one lawyer to publicly reinforce the "ambulance chaser" stereotype for everyday folks to give an entire profession a low approval rating.
I don't live in Belmont, however, I have found the back and forth exchanges in the DJ on the topic of district elections very interesting. If the district boundaries have been assigned in a way that promotes fair representation, why not let Belmont residents decide if they want an at-large mayor?
Ray, I live in Belmont and has for more than 40 years. I simply don't see how districts in this small city, that should be called a village, will improve representation to anyone. I don't recall ever seeing any neighborhood accusing our City Council of being overlooked. Allison is correct, this serves no purpose other than enriching consultants and ambulance chasers.
Thanks, Dirk
I trust your judgment and experience on this matter.
It is wrong and character assassination to say that Shenkman collects a significant fee for every letter he writes. He doesn't collect anything unless the city fights him and the case goes to court. That hasn't happened in Belmont so far. While Shenkman's group has collected fees from some cities, their main purpose is to move cities from at-large to district elections to ensure that minority groups are represented in government. The more districts there are, the better minority groups are represented. That's why five districts in Belmont is better than four districts and an at-large mayor.
Hi, Tim
I'm not sure Alison's opinion that Mr. Shenkman is abusing what may be a flaw in state legislation rises to the level of character assassination. It would be interesting to actually see the letter Mr. Shenkman sent to Belmont... was it really threatening in the way described by Alison?
Alison does make a good point when she asks, "Do out-of-town lawyers really know or care about representation in all these communities?" I'm also wondering if Mr. Shenkman's law firm would be amenable to sharing how much revenue has been generated for his business as a result of sending letters to cities, school boards and other local government entities.
I'll ask again... if the proposed alignment of districts in Belmont provides for fair representation, why not let the residents decide if they want an at-large mayor?
Ray, look at the video for the Belmont City Council meeting on Tuesday. Nine of the 17 speakers who expressed an opinion about an at-large mayor were against it. So, residents are trying to have input but the Council is ignoring those who disagree with them, as is usually the case in Belmont. Plus, the Council decided on an at-large mayor during two rushed meetings last November, with little chance for resident understanding or input, and has refused to reconsider that decision.
Hey, Tim
I can see where you're coming from... and your position is a reasonable one. No doubt.
Hmmm... imagine a local city council applying a "because I said so!" style of management. We should not be surprised. However, while I would not volunteer to act as the Belmont Council's apologist, I can understand not making a decision based on which side can muster more people at a meeting. It wasn't too long ago that very vocal and voluble "Defund the Police" supporters made their presence known at city council meetings. I'm OK with them doing so... I'm glad it sparked a serious conversation., but we should remember that most folks in the county overwhelmingly embraced keeping our police properly funded.
Again... if Belmont's current plan for districts provides fair representation, don't you think the voters in Belmont should decide whether their mayor should be an elected at-large position?
I agree, Ray, the voters should decide on an important issue like this. However, the Belmont Council decided on its own last November after giving residents only 10 days to think about it. That's why so many of us are upset about the process.
Yes, Tim... I agree. Many Belmont voters are upset with the process and they should be. An issue like this, that could affect elections for years to come, should be decided by the voters.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.