Transparent Pacific Grove has been making a lot of noise about the cost of the June 2 election. The message is simple: this election is wasteful, the council is self-dealing, and November would have been the smarter choice. Here is what they're leaving out.
They Created This Election
Measure C is on the June ballot because Transparent PG put it there.
Last spring, the Pacific Grove City Council passed a compensation update by a 5-2 vote, using exactly the process the city charter allows. In most California cities, that's where the story ends. Council pay is updated by ordinance. No ballot required. No public vote.
Transparent PG, led by former councilmember Luke Coletti, collected signatures on a referendum petition that gave the council two choices: repeal the ordinance or send it directly to voters. The council chose to repeal and committed to bringing it back as a new ballot measure on the June primary. That decision led directly to Measure C.
There is no version of this story in which this election exists without Transparent PG's intervention. The group that forced this vote is now circulating mailers about its cost. That is not accountability. That is gaslighting.
The $63,000 Figure
Their mailer prominently features $63,000, sourced from the Monterey County Registrar of Voters. A full-page Transparent PG ad in the Carmel Pine Cone quotes the same Registrar describing the cost of a November ballot measure as "negligible." Here is what the actual data shows.
At the May 6, 2026 Pacific Grove City Council meeting, former Mayor Bill Kampe addressed that claim directly in public comment, presenting data obtained from the Monterey County Elections Department. Kampe confirmed that the Elections office used the word "negligible" and asked them to define it. Their answer: anything below the upper end of their estimated range, which runs $6 to $10 per registered voter, or $60,000 to $100,000 for Pacific Grove. By that definition, almost any election cost would qualify. The word carries far less meaning than the mailer implies.
The actual 2024 numbers tell a more specific story. In the November 2024 General Election, Pacific Grove was billed $58,000. The Voter Information Guide accounted for $28,000 of that. Ballot measures consumed 85% of Pacific Grove's pages in the guide, at a cost of approximately $24,000. As Kampe put it: "That is well into significant in my book."
But here is the number Transparent PG will never put in a mailer: zero. If they had not forced the repeal of the council's original ordinance, there would have been no ballot measure and no election cost at all. Every dollar of this election's cost traces back to that decision. And while they circulate mailers about the expense of this one election, they are simultaneously collecting signatures to require every future council compensation adjustment to go to the ballot as well. The group complaining about the cost of one election is actively working to guarantee many more.
Why June and Not November
November 2026 is not an ordinary election in Pacific Grove. For the first time, the city will hold district-based council elections. Five seats are on the ballot: four council districts and the mayor.
Every person considering running needs to know whether they can afford to serve before the filing deadline, which falls well before November. At $420 a month, the current stipend has not been updated since December 1998. While California's minimum wage has risen by roughly 194% since then, Pacific Grove council pay has remained unchanged for 27 years. It now works out to less than minimum wage when you factor in meetings, committee work, prep, and community obligations.
A babysitter for a Wednesday night council meeting can run about $23 an hour. At $420 a month, that's more than a day's pay for a single evening of childcare.
For working parents, renters, and anyone without independent wealth or a flexible employer, filing without knowing the compensation is disqualifying. June is the only timeline that gives prospective candidates that information before they have to make a life-altering decision.
The "High Cost, Low Turnout" Claim
Transparent PG describes June as high-cost and low-turnout, and November as low-cost and high-turnout. Two problems.
First, the high November turnout doesn't help a working parent who had to decide in August whether they can afford to file.
Second, June 2 is not a sleepy off-cycle election. It features a contested governor's race, a Democratic challenger to Congressman Jimmy Panetta in CD-19, and a full slate of state and countywide races. Every indication is that turnout will be healthy. June is the statewide primary, an election Pacific Grove was participating in regardless. Characterizing it as a wasteful standalone election is a misrepresentation of what is actually happening.
Who Benefits
Pacific Grove's council compensation has been frozen since 1998. Marina pays its council members $2,000 a month. Seaside pays $2,400. Pacific Grove pays $420. The average one-bedroom rent in Pacific Grove now exceeds $2,300 a month.
The question is not whether $420 a month is generous. The question is, who can afford to serve at $420 a month? People with retirement income, independent wealth, or a spouse's salary to fall back on. People without young children. People who own their homes.
Measure C does not guarantee a more representative council. But keeping the stipend at its 1998 level guarantees a less representative one.
Who benefits when city council service stays out of reach for working people, renters, and parents? And why would anyone be fighting this hard to keep it that way?
June 2 is your chance to answer that question.
Vote YES on Measure C.
