Should Morgan Hill voters approve Measure A? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Morgan Hill voters should pass Measure A in November 2026.

The measure would let the City Council choose the treasurer, instead of voters.

What supporters say

• A chosen treasurer might help Morgan Hill get cheaper loans, which could save money.
• The change would fit the city’s current setup, where a finance team handles much of the daily work.
• The measure might save about $40,000 each year, plus the cost of a treasurer race.

What critics say

• The measure would end voters’ right to choose the treasurer every four years.
• A treasurer picked by the Council might feel less free to question city leaders.
• The study about cheaper loans may not apply to Morgan Hill.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; check how strong the proof is.

Measure A would change Morgan Hill’s City Treasurer from an elected position to one appointed by the City Council. Voters must weigh possible administrative and financial benefits against the loss of direct electoral control.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure A is that it could bring the treasurer’s formal role into line with how the city already manages its finances. Treasury work includes protecting public funds and overseeing banking, investments and accounting. But much of the daily work has already been assigned to the Finance Director and Finance Department. An appointed treasurer could therefore fit more naturally into the city’s professional finance structure. 1

The city also says the measure could save money. Its materials estimate about $40,000 in annual savings, along with the costs of holding a separate treasurer election. That estimate is plausible, but it has not been independently reviewed by a Morgan Hill fiscal analysis. It should be viewed as a projected benefit, not a confirmed budget result. 3

There is also a broader financial argument. A peer-reviewed study of California cities found that municipalities with appointed treasurers had borrowing costs roughly 13% to 23% lower than similar cities with elected treasurers. The study linked part of the difference to refinancing expensive debt. If appointment itself helped produce those results, Morgan Hill could gain more than the administrative savings identified by the city. 2

The case against

The clearest cost of Measure A is institutional. If it passes, Morgan Hill voters would no longer choose the treasurer directly every four years. The change would take effect when the current treasurer’s term ends in 2028. Rejecting the measure would preserve the existing elected office, its four-year elections and its current qualifications. 4

Appointment could also make the treasurer less independent from the council and city administration. A county voter-education document describes a common California arrangement in which appointed city treasurers serve at the council’s pleasure, with the council able to set qualifications. That does not show that a future Morgan Hill council would misuse its authority, but it does point to a real change in accountability: voters would no longer be the direct check on the officeholder. 5

The borrowing-cost research is not proof that Measure A would produce the same result in Morgan Hill. The study compared existing cities rather than tracking one city before and after a change from an elected to an appointed treasurer. Appointed cities may differ in size, debt practices, management or other ways that also affect borrowing costs. The local savings estimate and any borrowing benefit therefore remain uncertain. 6

In practice, the measure may change less about daily financial work than about who formally holds the office, who chooses that person and how the office answers to the public. The record does not independently quantify the effects on oversight, qualifications, retention or the treasurer’s relationship with the council.