Campaigning for city council seats and the mayor’s spot has evolved into an expensive proposition in Westminster over the years. With the city covering about 38 square miles and holding a population of roughly 110,000 people, it takes a healthy “war chest” to put forth an effective and thorough campaign.

All candidates for both council and mayor have the challenge of “covering the entire city” to get voters to be aware of them and what they stand for. Everyone runs “at large” which means the candidates need to cover all voters from stem to stern.

Campaigning takes hefty effort

The two key ways to reach Westminster voters are to go door-to-door, wearing out a lot of shoe leather, or to send mailings — either to all voters or to a select “shot group.” Walking the neighborhoods is a time-consuming job, but effective when candidates connect with voters who are home. Mailing campaign materials is also effective, but expensive with today’s postal rates. Plus, several candidates tend to send oversized postcard mailers, which can get overlooked by voters. Any way you slice it, campaigning in an “at-large” election is a hefty effort.

Cash funds raised to date

To show you the level of funds at play for the 10 city council candidates, I want to share the first campaign finance reports, which were due in the city clerk’s office by Oct. 13. Here is a summary of cash funds raised (not including in-kind funds) for each candidate:

Michael Melvin, $1,000

Debbie Bergamo, $1,020

Jason Blanckaert, $1,143

Mark Clark, $2,316

Steve Caulk, $2,464

David DeMott, $7,004

Anita Seitz, $10,631

Maria de Cambra, $18,638

Shannon Bird, $23,088

Nathan Pearce failed to submit a campaign finance report.

Additional funds are very likely to be received and subsequently reported late in October, with the final report due in December.

At-large approach is out of date

Westminster voters approved the city charter in 1958. The community was small at that time, both in physical size and population. The 1960 federal census reported a population of just over 13,000 and the land area encompassed less than four square miles. Provisions regarding the election of city council candidates called for all candidates being elected at-large. At the time, this approach made good sense.

However, as mentioned above, Westminster has grown in quantum leaps in the ensuing years. Today, having all members of city council run at-large is not reflective of Westminster’s size and the demands placed on candidates. Having a portion of the city council seats represent smaller geographic areas would be more responsive and effective.

It should be noted that in the current list of council candidates, no one lives south of 92nd Avenue. For people living in the southern part of the city, I would think they would like to have one or more candidates who would live in the area who could represent their needs and wishes.

Suggestion: A ‘blended’ approach

The structure of electing city council members could be divided into two categories — at large and by district. Westminster lends itself to three districts — north, south and west. So, there would be three members elected at-large and three elected by district plus the mayor. Each district would currently represent approximately 36,000 residents.

This “blend” would be a better representation of the people, reflecting needs/issues of each distinct area. Candidates would choose whether they are running for an open “district” seat or “at large” seat. Candidates in the former category would have to live within the district which they are hoping to win. It would take a city charter amendment passed by the voters to change the current “at large” election approach.

Big bucks needed

Regardless of the structure to be used to represent the people of Westminster, campaigning is an expensive proposition. An effective campaign, with the exception of door-to-door campaigning, will cost on average $15,000 or more. That is a lot of money to raise or come from personal funds.