Not endorsing it is sometimes worse than just saying no

Martha Cox, who attends Encinitas council meetings as an observer for the local League of Women Voters organization, asked the council Thursday night to pick a "seasoned veteran" who would promise not to run for election in 2012, saying that would be the fairest way to handle the situation.

Her comments drew a loud round of applause from audience members, but council members didn't put the requirement on the application. [LB spies say the reaction actually wasn't very strong.]

Councilwomen Teresa Barth and Kristin Gaspar ---- the two council members who served on a subcommittee that created the application process, said they both decided against including an election vow.

"We wanted to leave it wide open," Barth said, adding that candidates can mention that they won't run in 2012 when they speak to the council and they can put the vow in their application paperwork, but they're not required to do so.

Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/encinitas/article_3775aced-58ce-5380-aa15-06b6667b5cfb.html#ixzz1a6oxXwX3

LB burning question: Barth is the one quoted as appearing to defend the council's action. Does Barth disagree with the Martha? If she agrees, why not suggest that this question formally be put to all the candidates? That would put the council on record that they believe this question is important and should be addressed by all the applicants, not just those that are willing to go on record (but why would they bother when the council sends the signal that this is not critical).  

If it is not on the questionnaire, will Barth be asking the candidates this question at the public hearings?

 If  she agrees with the Martha and those who clapped in support , she will have to ask the question because it needs to be on record.  Isn't it a lot easier to just put a yes/no question on the application questionnaire and move on?