City of San Bernardino

    Some updates since the last report:

    3rd Ward Council: John Valdivia (Incumbent) Committee to Re-Elect John Valdivia 3rd Ward, City Council 2015, ID#1338703

    5th Ward Council:  Henry Nickel (Incumbent)  http://henrynickel.nationbuilder.com

    6th Ward Council Roxanne Williams http://www.roxannecanwin.com

    7th Ward Council Leticia Garcia (No website or Facebook Page yet found, but announced on Facebook.

    City Treasurer: No update.

    City Clerk: Gigi Hanna (Incumbent) https://www.facebook.com/pages/Committee-to-Reelect-Gigi-Hanna-San-Bernardino-City-Clerk-FPPC-1340217/245037742204878

    City Attorney: Gary Saenz (Incumbent) News story

     

     

     

    Today (April 10, 2015)  Leticia Garcia announced she is running for the 7th Ward Council seat. Jim Mulvihill is the current 7th Ward Council Member. He was first elected in the recall election on November 5, 2013.

    Previously, on Friday, March 27, 2015, City Attorney Gary Saenz announced he is running for re-election for City Attorney. He was first elected in the recall election on November 5, 2013.

    The other elections on November 3, 2015 are:

    • Ward 3 Council
    • Ward 5 Council
    • Ward 6 Council
    • Ward 7 Council
    • City Treasurer
    • City Clerk

    John Valdivia is the 3rd Ward Council Member.  He was first elected on November 8, 2011. His website does not currently have any information about whether he is running for re-election.

    Henry Nickel is the 5th Ward Council Member. He was first elected on February 4, 2014 in the Special Election to fill the vacant seat left on the resignation of Chas Kelley, consolidated with the General Municipal Election. I haven’t seen an announcement, but his website, http://henrynickel.nationbuilder.com has an image that says “Re-Elect Henry Nickel for City Council Ward Five,” so it would be safe to say he is running again.

    Rikke Van Johnson is the 6th Ward Council Member. He was first elected at the Primary Municipal Election, November 4, 2003.  His website remains from his campaign for Mayor in 2013. There is no information about whether he is running for re-election.

    David C. Kennedy is the City Treasurer. He was first elected in the March 5, 1991 at the Primary Municipal Election. His campaign activities are minimal, if any. His first election, he ran against Southern Pacific conductor Wolfram Schlicht and former Family Services Agency supervisor William A. McKinnon. He ran unopposed in 1995 and 1999.  He handily beat David R. Oberhelman on November 4, 2003. He again ran unopposed in 2007 and 2011.

    Georgeann “Gigi” Hanna is the City Clerk. She was first elected on February 7, 2012 in the General Municipal Election. She has not announced a re-election campaign as of this date.

    Here’s a roundup of unofficial numbers from the County of San Bernardino Registrar of Voters.

    There were two measures put on the ballot by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino to amend the Charter of the City of San Bernardino.

    Measure Q would have effectively repealed Charter Section 186, and was defeated:

    Measure Q – City of San Bernardino
    182/182 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 7,112 44.68%
    NO 8,804 55.32%
    Total 15,916 100.00%

     

     

    Measure R amends the Charter of the City of San Bernardino:

    Measure R – City of San Bernardino
    182/182 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 8,532 54.76%
    NO 7,048 45.24%
    Total 15,580 100.00%

     

    Former Fourth Ward Council Member Neil Derry lost his bid for one of three City of Redlands Council Seats, getting more votes then only Tabetha Wittenmyer, who dropped out, and newcomer John Harrison Montgomery:

    City of Redlands – City Council
    58/58 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    JON HARRISON 7,820 23.37%
    PAUL T. BARICH 6,587 19.69%
    JOHN HARRISON MONTGOMERY 2,274 6.80%
    JANE DREHER 5,551 16.59%
    NEIL DERRY 2,682 8.02%
    TABETHA WITTENMYER 1,489 4.45%
    PAUL W. FOSTER 7,056 21.09%
    Total 33,459 100.00%

     

    The City of Highland rejected a move to a ward system, which will probably result in a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit.

    Measure T – City of Highland
    38/38 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 2,304 42.92%
    NO 3,064 57.08%
    Total 5,368 100.00%

     

    Former 2nd Ward Council Member Susan Longville won in a crowded field for a seat on the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District Board, beating City of San Bernardino Board of Water Commissioners Commissioner Wayne Hendrix, and former Fourth Ward Council candidate Joe Arnett, and San Bernardino Unified School District Board of Trustees Member (and Congressional District 31 primary candidate) Danny Tillman:

     

    an Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Dist – Div 3
    138/138 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    MELODY HENRIQUES MCDONALD 2,383 20.12%
    WAYNE HENDRIX 2,474 20.89%
    SUSAN LONGVILLE 3,538 29.87%
    STEVEN GUTIERREZ 1,045 8.82%
    JOE ARNETT 942 7.95%
    DANNY TILLMAN 1,461 12.34%
    Total 11,843 100.00%

    In Congress, Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar leads Paul Chabot for the California Congressional District 31 race:

     

    U. S. Representative District 31
    509/509 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    REP – PAUL CHABOT 38,488 48.96%
    DEM – PETE AGUILAR 40,123 51.04%
    Total 78,611 100.00%

     

     

     

     

     

    As discussed before, before, and before, the San Bernardino Police Department, by council action and by action of the voters to amend the Charter of the City of San Bernardino in 1937 and 1939, expanded as the City came out of the Great Depression into the early World War II period.

    The Mayor and Common Council again put another police-related Charter revision on the ballot on November 3, 1942, a special municipal election consolidated with a California general election.

    There were a total of seven propositions for the City of San Bernardino (competing for attention with California and County propositions and measures).  They were labeled Propositions 20 through 26, and three passed, and four failed.

    Since the focus is on the expansion of the San Bernardino Police Department and the run-up to the addition of section 186 to the Charter of the City of San Bernardino in 1955, the item of interest was the second of seven, Proposition 21.

    Proposition 21 (1942) also known as Proposed Charter Amendment No. Two

    That Section 181 of the City Charter of the City of San Bernardino be amended to read as follows, to-wit:

    “Section 181. The Police Department shall consist of a Chief of Police, and such officers and other policeman as the Mayor and Common Council may from time to time determine.”

    The voters approved it by 62.96 percent:

    Proposition No. 21: (Police) Yes        5,326
    No 3,133
    Total 8,459

    The 1942 amendments are very close to today’s section 181, last passed in the 2004 (operative 2006) Charter:

    Section 181. Police Department – Membership. The Police Department shall consist of a Chief of Police, and as many ranking officers, police officers and other employees as the Mayor and Common Council may from time to time determine.

     

     

    Yesterday, I wrote about the campaign and election to set minimum wages for San Bernardino Police Officers in the form of section 181-A.

    The opponents, who, other than Councilman Timothy Sheehan were not named contemporaneously in the San Bernardino Daily Sun, said that the moves would be costly, particularly in light of earlier promises to hire more police officers to meet the growing needs of the growing city.

    According to a budget proposal detailed in the San Bernardino Daily Sun on July 15th  under the line item “Police department Charter Amendment,” an increase for the next fiscal year (1939-1940) attributable to the amendment was $11,188.89.  San Bernardino Daily Sun, July 15, 1939, Page 11.

    When the City passed the budget on July 18th, the total increase was roughly $75,000 over the 1938-1939 budget.  The Police Department’s estimated expenditures in 1938-1939 were $66,930.01.  The FY 1939-40 amount budgeted was $83,916.39. That figure doesn’t include the traffic division, which was also impacted by 1939’s Charter Amendment No. 1, but it also involved hiring three new officers. A charter amendment in 1937 allowed the City to hire more officers. The traffic division’s budget increased from $16,998.51 to $19,115.30.

    The total 1939-1940 budget was $615,810.88, a 14 percent increase over 1938-39’s $540,614.22.  How did the City propose to pay for the increase?  Through a tax increase from 18 cents to 21 cents.  San Bernardino Daily Sun, July 19, 1939, Page 11.

    If you recall from yesterday, the union advertisement said there was plenty of money in the traffic court fund to pay for the increases.  The budget presented in the newspaper only gave expenditures, and not revenues.  While there was a tax increase, the amount directly attributable to the charter amendment, assuming no tax increase was needed to pass a budget equal to FY 1938-1939, would be $11,188.89 (charter salary increase)/$75,196.66 (budget increase) = 14.88%.  So, of the 3 cents (presumably property) tax increase, 4/10ths of a cent was attributable to the Charter Amendment.

    The questions not answered so far are would the San Bernardino Police Department faced attrition if they had not received raises, would they have been able to recruit qualified candidates for the new positions, and whether, without the charter amendment, they would have received raises through collective bargaining versus putting minimums in the Charter.

    Over on the law blog I wrote about The Roots of San Bernardino Charter Section 186: Chapter One.

    Here is some political context for the Charter Amendment, which added to the then-existing 1905 Charter section 181A. Section 181A was an embryonic Section 186, setting minimum police salaries.  The text is on the legal blog.

    The question submitted on the ballot, as shown in Ordinance 1621 passed on February 14, 1939,  was

    1.  Shall Proposed Charter Amendment No. One, adding a new Section entitled Section 181-A, providing for and establishing a minimum rate for salaries in certain classifications in the Police Department, be ratified?

    Ordinance 1621 was not without a dissenting vote: Councilmen W.N. Herkelrath, Dr. George Shafer and Howard L. Holcomb voted for it, Councilman Timothy Sheehan voted against it, and Councilman Atwood was absent.  “Councilman Sheehan, who has consistently voted against placing the salary amendment on the ballot, again voted in the negative when the charter election ordinance was presented. San Bernardino Daily Sun, February 15, 1939, Page 5.

    One day before the election, the Sun ran an article about the proposed measure:

    Voters Will Ballot On Police Salaries

    Effort Being Made to Amend City Charter So Higher Wages Can Be Fixed

    Voters of San Bernardino will ballot on Monday on salary increases for police officers and determine whether minimum salaries shall be fixed in the city charter.

    In the past such salary matters have been determined by the mayor and common council.

    Members of the police department, acting with the permission of the civil service commission, city council and mayor, have conducted an active campaign in behalf of the measure.

    TO FIX SALARIES

    Opposition to the measure has not been organized.

    The measure seeks to provide ultimate minimum salaries as follows: Patrolmen, special officers and plain clothes officers $175 per month; desk sergeants $190, patrol sergeants $190, motorcycle officers $185, traffic sergeants $200.  The beginning salary for patrolmen, special officers and plain clothes officers would be $135, advancing $5 each six months until the minimum of $175. The beginning salary of motorcycle officers would be $155, advancing $5 each six months until the minimum of $185.

    Present salaries are: patrolmen, $145 after one year of service; motorcycle officers, $160 per month; desk and patrol sergeants $150; motorcycle sergeant $175.

    The increases would be patrolmen with five years seniority $30 per month, desk and patrol sergeants $40 per month, motorcycle officers $25 per month, traffic sergeants $25 per month.

    Arguments in favor of the proposition have generally taken the following line:

    The San Bernardino police salaries are below those in such cities as Colton, Redlands, Riverside. The largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, Pasadena, start their patrolmen at $190 to $200. The larger cities all have pension or retirement systems, which San Bernardino does not have.  Sergeants in larger cities are paid $250 per month.

    San Bernardino police officers are required to furnish their own equipment, such as uniforms $43, shirts $7.75, guns $34, handcuffs $11, billy or baton $4, ammunition, shoes and other incidental, Sam Browne belts $10 to $12, telephone in home. Motorcycle officers pay $25 for a pair of pants.

    Pay is stopped after seven days of illness.

    The occupation is extremely hazardous.  Insurance rates for police officers are beyond their means.

    OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS

       Arguments mot frequently heard in opposition, include:

    Such matters as salaries for police officers should be fixed by the mayor and common council and not frozen into the city charter where they could be changed only by a vote of the people.

    The adoption of the proposal would mean an increase in taxes, which would be considerable in view of the fact that if police officers are to have such increases all other city employees are entitled to similar treatment.

    The city council should assemble the police salaries paid in all of the smaller cities of Southern California and adjust the San Bernardino salaries accordingly, after informing the public what salaries are paid in other cities.

    The charter amendment ignores the question of retirement for officers beyond normal age limits.

    The salaries proposed are higher than those earned by most taxpayers in private employment.  San Bernardino Daily Sun, March 19, 1939, Pg. 7.

    In what appears to be a full page advertisement purchased by the amendment’s proponents in the same issue of the Sun, the proponents stated with a banner headline “CITIZENS SUPPORT POLICE MEASURE.”  In column one is the headline “APPROVAL VOICED BY TAXPAYERS – Citizens Committee Sees No Increase in Tax Rate If Measure Voted – LEADERS IN FAVOR-Underpay and Dangers in Police Work Require Adjustments, Belief.”

    Column one continues:

    Active support of Police Amendment No. 1 which involves a standard rate of pay for members of the police department is finding wide, enthusiastic support, according to James L. King, prominent local attorney and chairman of the citizens’ committee furthering the ballot measure.

    Expressions from business, church, fraternal, labor and civic groups have pledged support to the proposition, according to the committee.

    Leaders from may walks of life have given expression that a favorable vote should be case. Outstanding among the open statements of support are the following from prominent San Bernardino citizens:

    W. Ronald Brown, Base Line Electrical contractor: “I am heartily in favor of Amendment Number One, the Policemen’s salary measure. Many reasons could be advanced but mainly I support it because it is economically sound, and socially right. I am asking all of my friends and associates to vote for this measure.”

    Rabbi Norman Feldheyn [sic, should be Rabbi Norman Felheym]: “A prerequisite for law enforcement without corruption is a law enforcement department whose members are paid a decent living wage. An affirmative vote on proposition No. 1 will help to acquire the type of law enforcement we need in San Bernardino.”

       William H. (Billy) Baldwin, former chief of police: “I have always been in favor of good wages for good police officers. It is deplorable that our officers are paid such a small wage.

    “During my thirty years as a policeman in San Bernardino, and as chief of police– two and one-half years-I was faced with danger hundred of times. Today, even though our department is equipped with the latest implements to combat crime, our  policemen face greater dangers than we did years ago. Our present criminals, dope crazed and with brains clouded with liquor, often kill and maim at the slightest provocation.

    “The San Bernardino police department today is the most efficient in the history of San Bernardino. In order for that efficiency to continue, it is necessary that proper wages be paid, therefore I strongly urge the passage of the Police Salary Amendment, Proposition No. 1.”

    Rea Smith, Secretary, San Bernardino Central Labor Council: “The contention of labor organizations is that all labor should be worthy of its hire. Since our Police department is greatly underpaid, I strongly urge the passage of Proposition No. 1.”

       T.W. Duckworth, Attorney: “I believe the members of our Police department should have higher salaries than they are now receiving.”

    Rev. F.W. Rollins, President Ministerial Association: “Speaking as a private citizen I strongly urge the passage of Proposition No. 1. If we are to maintain the present standard of high efficiency of our Police force, an adequate wage must be paid the personnel.”

       Wm. T. Hunter, Manager Towne-Alllison Store No. 1. “Charter Amendment Number One must pass if we are to retain and replace men of high calibre on our police force. I urge support of this important measure.”

    John K. Tibbits, former publisher: “Twenty years of observation and study of our city’s police force and systems, convinces me beyond any shadow of doubt the city’s interests would be best served if a favorable vote is given Amendment Number One. Efficiency, character requirements and educational standards are encouraged and follow in the footsteps of well paid, satisfied employes [sic]. The police officers of this city have long been at a disadvantage with other lines of employment. It is high time that this situation be corrected and a new impetus given the popular movement for higher public service and appreciation.”

       Stanley Mussell, former District Attorney: “I believe that the police officers in San Bernardino are underpaid and I therefore favor the adoption of City Charter Amendment Number 1 establishing a minimum salary.”

    The remaining portion of the parade are largely “TRAGIC PICTURES TELL THEIR STORY.” This includes a picture of Special Agent Buford A. French, of the ATSF Police, who was shot to death on November 11, 1932. The picture shows Special Agent Buford A. French lying dead below a train, with his gun nearby.  According to the Officer Down Memorial Page, he was shot by a hobo.  Another is a graphic photo of the dead “bandit” who shot Officer Thompson in Needles in 1935.  Another shows the car who hit Officer Milleman on Foothill Boulevard on February 12, 1939. Officer MIleman, according to the caption, was still in the hospital.

    The middle of the pictorial features a short piece: “Every Boy Wants To Be A Policeman” . . . and so did Teddy Moore, above, 10 year old son of Mrs. Dallas Moore, widow of the late officer, Henry F. Moore, who was killed in the line of duty while an officer in the city Police Department, New Year’s eve 1937. Officer Moore was just 31 years old when killed.”

    “Teddy’s father like all other officers of the Police Department, was burdened down with the excessive drain upon his small salary, to keep up uniforms, equipment, household expenses for several children, pay on insurance premiums, which came high. But, when tragedy hit this family and the bread winner was taken while in the line of duty, Teddy’s mother, Mrs. Dallas Moore, found that there was not sufficient money from the small insurance policy to meet expenses and carry the children through school and give them the necessary things essential to growing children.

    “Mrs. Moore found it necessary to seek employment which takes her away from the home eight hours a day and all because of the fact that San Bernardino Policemen are not receiving just compensation for the services and protection they are giving to the taxpayers and general public.

    “Don’t let such a thing happen to your boy, if he happens to become a policeman when he grows up. Vote Yes, Amendment Number One Policemen’s Salary proposition, and insure better conditions and protection for those who protect you.

    The advertisement states that the Police Department is self supporting, and that “Amendment No. 1 will not increase the expense upon the taxpayers is shown by records of the Police Court, over which Judge Donald E. Van Luven presides. Fines and forfeitures over a period of years, disclosed by the record offer ample support of the income the city derives from law offenders.

    The advertisement concludes with the story of four (then) active police officers who were injured on the job.

    There didn’t appear to be any organized opposition to the measure. The San Bernardino Police Officers Association bought the ad mentioned above, and another the next day offering rides to the polls.

    After election night, the count stood at 5,173 yes votes, and 5229 no votes.  There were 138 absentee ballots to count.  The law allowed up to a week for them to come in, and they were counted on March 27, 1939.

     

    Turnout for the election (it’s not clear if the number includes the absentee ballots was said to be only 11,322 for 18,576 registered voters), which was 60.94 percent. The sources for those numbers (with different figures of registered voters), comes from the Sun on March 22 and 23, 1939, both on page 13.  The final vote was the measure passed by three votes.

     

    Yes 5,264
    No 5,261
     Total 10,525

    The vote wasn’t decided until  seven days after election day, when the final vote was canvassed at City Hall.  The Sun sets the scene like this:

    POLICE PACE FLOOR

        While members of the city council tallied the absentee voters’ ballots, 20 police officers and leaders of the move to obtain increased salaries for members of the force paced the floor on the council chamber, anxiously awaiting the final result of the amendment.

        Fearing that it was impossible to obtain the required majority of the absentee votes, most of the police officers had abandoned hope for passage of the amendment.

        Every one of the 32 negative votes caused a furore [sic] in the council chamber. Ninety five of the absentee ballots contained yes votes, while 10 persons did not vote on the amendment.

    . . .

        Sergeant A.L. Luce, chairman of the committee in charge of the amendment, issued a statement following the announcement of the final result.   He said:

     “The police officers wish to express their deep gratitude to the voters of the city of San Bernardino and pledge to continue giving the public service commensurate with the increased salaries.” San Bernardino Daily Sun, March 28, 1939, Page 11.

    The City of San Bernardino was created by the California Legislature as special charter City on its first go around in 1854.  It was dissolved by the Legislature in 1863. It was reincorporated in 1869, and again on May 15, 1886 as a City of the Fifth Class. It remained so until 1905 when a charter was adopted.

    After an aborted attempt to hold a freeholder election on December 15, 1903 (scuttled by the Board of Trustees), the City called a special Municipal Election on July 30, 1904.  Here are the unofficial results, as reported by the San Bernardino Daily Sun, August 2, 1904.

    To give context to these numbers, registration was approximately 2000, turnout was 415 (approximately 20 percent)  and the population in the 1900 decennial census was 6,150, and the 1910 population was 12,779.

    The potential freeholders campaigned as slates.  Here are the results winners in bold:

    Candidate                     1st Ward   2nd Ward 3rd Ward 4th Ward 5th Ward    Total

    R. Hammond 8 19 20 5 21 73
    Henry Price 7 19 19 7 21 73
    S.P. Waite 7 28 20 8 17 80
    W.R. McNeil 4 19 8 10 12 53
    P.J. Chase 7 22 19 6 20 74
    J.B. Wilffey 7 20 19 8 19 73
    Lewis Slater 7 25 20 12 19 83
    C.E. Walker 8 29 22 8 19 86
    G.A. Atwood 7 28 9 13 15 72
    Horace C. Rolfe 38 104 40 46 44 272
    A.M. Ham 19 75 17 31 27 169
    W.S. Hooper 38 93 34 44 39 248
    F.W. Gregg 23 71 24 29 24 171
    John Andreson, Sr. 45 100 39 40 42 266
    F.B. Daley 39 81 39 31 35 225
    R.F. Garner 15 57 14 31 20 137
    Oscar Newburg 15 60 15 26 22 138
    E.J. Gilbert 9 42 10 26 19 106
    L.D. Houghton 37 76 38 28 29 208
    I.R. Brunn 39 67 32 21 32 191
    George M. Cooley 27 92 27 37 40 223
    Hiram M. Barton 32 110 38 46 44 270
    Geo. E. Mills 10 34 29 15 28 116
    W.M. Parker 28 80 32 32 31 203
    John H. Morgan 10 19 8 7 10 54
    James Murray 41 61 33 17 25 177
    D.A. Grovesnor 22 33 34 14 22 125
    J.J. Hanford 43 84 37 29 41 234
    M.L. Cook 37 75 29 35 34 210
    R.A. McClanahan 15 35 21 13 28 112
    Joseph Ingersoll 42 75 37 27 35 216
    A.G. Kendall 43 99 40 42 49 273
    J. W. Cattick 38 81 37 32 40 228
    Total 63 142 70 64 76 415

    Also receiving votes were the following who were not nominated, but people voted for anyway: 1st Ward: John G. Eikleman 1 , 2nd Ward: J.A. Cole, Byron Waters, J.W. Waters, Black, Dunn, Joseph Cadd, Morris Katz, Jo. Brown, J.B. Phillips, J.S. Bright, P.B. Hockaday, Joseph E. Rich (1 vote each), E.E. Katz (3 votes),; 3rd Ward: Louis Wollf, G.F. Woods, (1 each); 4th Ward: Henry Goodcell, B.F. Conaway, W.S. Boggs, G.W. Miller (1 vote each); 5th Ward: Seth Marshall, Howard Surr, J.M. Hurley, D. McGandier and Mark B. Shaw (1 each).

     

     

     

     

    For historical and non-news purposes, here are the final certified results in the General Municipal Election with consolidated Special Municipal Election for the City of San Bernardino.  The source for these numbers is the SB ROV and the Agenda packet for Resolution 2940:

    Last Updated: February 11, 2014 3:39 PM

    Registration & Turnout
    77,588 Voters

     

     

    Vote Count

    Percent

    Precinct Turnout

    3,316

    4.27%

    Vote by Mail Turnout

    8,929

    11.51%

    Total

    12,245

    15.78%

     

    San Bernardino City – Mayor
    166/166 100.00%

     

     

    Vote Count

    Percent

    WENDY MCCAMMACK

    5,242

    43.15%

    CAREY DAVIS

    6,905

    56.85%

    Total

    12,147

    100.00%

     

    San Bernardino City Ward 4 – City Council
    36/36 100.00%

     

     

    Vote Count

    Percent

    FRED SHORETT

    2,032

    65.87%

    ANTHONY JONES

    1,053

    34.13%

    Total

    3,085

    100.00%

     

    San Bernardino City Ward 5 – City Council
    15/15 100.00%

     

     

    Vote Count

    Percent

    KARMEL ROE

    316

    11.82%

    RANDY WILSON

    806

    30.14%

    LARRY A. LEE

    542

    20.27%

    H. W. NICKEL

    1,010

    37.77%

    Total

    2,674

    100.00%

    Write in: Member, City Council 5th Ward Richard Castro Votes :13 (Source: February 11, 2014 Public Notice from the ROV.

    From the  Registrar of Voters.

    San Bernardino City USD
    230/230 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    KAISAR AHMED 3,322 12.12%
    DANNY TILLMAN 5,543 20.22%
    SONIA FERNANDEZ 2,783 10.15%
    BARBARA FLORES 5,483 20.00%
    JOE NAVARRO 1,187 4.33%
    ABIGAIL M. MEDINA 4,506 16.43%
    JUDI PENMAN 4,596 16.76%
    Total 27,420 100.00%

     

    SB City- Mayor
    166/166 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    RICHARD T. CASTRO 745 6.68%
    DRAYMOND ”DRAY” CRAWFORD 633 5.67%
    MATT KORNER 245 2.20%
    CHAS A. KELLEY 531 4.76%
    RICK AVILA 1,307 11.71%
    CAREY DAVIS 2,614 23.42%
    H. W. NICKEL 900 8.06%
    WENDY J. MCCAMMACK 2,750 24.64%
    KARMEL ROE 231 2.07%
    RIKKE VAN JOHNSON 1,205 10.80%
    Total 11,161 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 1- City Council
    36/36 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    JOHN J. ABAD 205 21.53%
    CASEY DAILEY 212 22.27%
    VIRGINIA MARQUEZ 535 56.20%
    Total 952 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 2- City Council
    14/14 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    BENITO J. BARRIOS 549 55.23%
    ROBERT JENKINS 445 44.77%
    Total 994 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 4- City Council
    36/36 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    FRED SHORETT 1,332 48.02%
    KATHY PINEGAR 587 21.16%
    ANTHONY JONES 855 30.82%
    Total 2,774 100.00%

     

    SB City- Recall James F. Penman Question
    166/166 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 6,601 59.75%
    NO 4,447 40.25%
    Total 11,048 100.00%

     

    SB City- To Succeed James F. Penman
    166/166 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    GARY D. SAENZ 5,046 56.53%
    TIM PRINCE 3,880 43.47%
    Total 8,926 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 3- Recall John Valdivia Question
    26/26 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 364 37.41%
    NO 609 62.59%
    Total 973 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 3- To Succeed John Valdivia
    26/26 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    ROXANNE WILLIAMS 496 100.00%
    Total 496 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 7- Recall Wendy J. McCammack Question
    17/17 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 1,256 57.09%
    NO 944 42.91%
    Total 2,200 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 7- To Succeed Wendy J. McCammack
    17/17 100.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    NICK GONZALEZ 254 13.62%
    JOSHUA D. WILLIAMSON 141 7.56%
    MICHAEL ”MIKE” THOMAS 407 21.82%
    PAUL W. SANBORN 300 16.09%
    JIM MULVIHILL 763 40.91%
    Total 1,865 100.00%

     

    San Bernardino City USD
    12/230 5.22%
    Vote Count Percent
    KAISAR AHMED 1,801 11.94%
    DANNY TILLMAN 3,103 20.56%
    SONIA FERNANDEZ 1,625 10.77%
    BARBARA FLORES 3,030 20.08%
    JOE NAVARRO 607 4.02%
    ABIGAIL M. MEDINA 2,348 15.56%
    JUDI PENMAN 2,575 17.07%
    Total 15,089 100.00%

     

    SB City- Mayor
    0/166 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    RICHARD T. CASTRO 411 7.08%
    DRAYMOND ”DRAY” CRAWFORD 357 6.15%
    MATT KORNER 115 1.98%
    CHAS A. KELLEY 343 5.91%
    RICK AVILA 647 11.15%
    CAREY DAVIS 1,227 21.14%
    H. W. NICKEL 475 8.18%
    WENDY J. MCCAMMACK 1,459 25.14%
    KARMEL ROE 117 2.02%
    RIKKE VAN JOHNSON 653 11.25%
    Total 5,804 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 1- City Council
    0/36 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    JOHN J. ABAD 112 22.05%
    CASEY DAILEY 106 20.87%
    VIRGINIA MARQUEZ 290 57.09%
    Total 508 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 2- City Council
    0/14 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    BENITO J. BARRIOS 292 52.14%
    ROBERT JENKINS 268 47.86%
    Total 560 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 4- City Council
    0/36 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    FRED SHORETT 694 44.86%
    KATHY PINEGAR 364 23.53%
    ANTHONY JONES 489 31.61%
    Total 1,547 100.00%

     

    SB City- Recall James F. Penman Question
    0/166 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 3,418 59.60%
    NO 2,317 40.40%
    Total 5,735 100.00%

     

    SB City- To Succeed James F. Penman
    0/166 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    GARY D. SAENZ 2,579 55.27%
    TIM PRINCE 2,087 44.73%
    Total 4,666 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 3- Recall John Valdivia Question
    0/26 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 200 36.04%
    NO 355 63.96%
    Total 555 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 3- To Succeed John Valdivia
    0/26 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    ROXANNE WILLIAMS 280 100.00%
    Total 280 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 7- Recall Wendy J. McCammack Question
    0/17 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    YES 574 55.95%
    NO 452 44.05%
    Total 1,026 100.00%

     

    SB City Ward 7- To Succeed Wendy J. McCammack
    0/17 0.00%
    Vote Count Percent
    NICK GONZALEZ 118 13.83%
    JOSHUA D. WILLIAMSON 77 9.03%
    MICHAEL ”MIKE” THOMAS 174 20.40%
    PAUL W. SANBORN 140 16.41%
    JIM MULVIHILL 344 40.33%
    Total 853 100.00%

    Finally!  Today is the San Bernardino Primary Municipal Election and the Special Municipal Election regarding the Recall.

     

    The Primary Municipal Election is for Mayor, 1st Ward, 2nd Ward and Fourth Ward Council Members.

    The Recall Election is for Third Ward and Seventh Ward Council Members, and City Attorney.

    Also, there is a school board (aka Board of Trustees) election for the San Bernardino City Unified School District election, wherein three positions will be elected.

    In the Mayoral, 1st Ward, and Fourth Ward elections, if no one receives a majority of votes, there will be a General Municipal Election in February (known colloquially as a run-off) between the top two candidates.  There will also be a Special Municipal Election in February for the vacant Fifth Ward Common Council seat.

    If the Third Ward Council Member, Seventh Ward or City Attorney are recalled, they will be removed from office upon certification of the election.

    If there is a winner in any Primary election, and no need for a General Municipal Election, the winner will not be sworn in until March when the existing terms expire.