Published February 20, 2012 | 
On tomorrow’s Mayor and Common Council agenda is an item certifying the City Clerk’s election pursuant to Charter section 11 and San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 2.56.130(B).
Published February 8, 2012 | A detailed legal analysis of the recount process in California are on the legal blog.
| Registration & Turnout |
| 71,881 Voters |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Precinct Turnout | 12,192 | 16.96% |
| Total | 12,192 | 16.96% |
| City Clerk, City of San Bernardino |
| 170/170 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| GEORGEANN ”GIGI” HANNA | 6,066 | 50.01% |
| AMELIA SANCHEZ-LOPEZ | 6,064 | 49.99% |
| Total | 12,130 | 100.00% |
Gigi Hanna won by a slimmer margin than 50.01 percent, the number was just rounded up from 50.000824402308326 percent of the vote. By contrast, Amelia Sanchez Lopez received .499917559761674 percent of the vote. In comparison, there were 12,108 votes in the final certified results of the Primary Municipal Election, which means that there were 22 more voters in this election than in the General Municipal Election.
There was a tie vote in the March 1979 vote for 7th Ward Council in San Bernardino between Robert McBay and the eventual winner, Jack Strickler. The vote was tied 1284 to 1284 before the Council broke the tie with a coin flip.
here was an election contest to the results of the General Election in May 1, 1979 between Ralph Hernandez, Luther Fair and one other candidate for the 3rd Ward seat. The initial election results were that Fair won, then the official canvass said t that Hernandez won by four votes, then the recount was 793 votes for Hernandez and 790 votes for Fair. Fair filed an election contest. Judge Patrick Morris decided that Hernandez received 796 votes, and Fair received 794 votes. The decision was reversed and remanded by the Fourth District Court of Appeal on March 12, 1981. After remand, Judge Morris found 791 votes for Hernandez and 783 votes for Fair. It went to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the judgement confirming Hernandez’s election was upheld on December 23, 1982. As far as I can tell, though, Hernandez was sworn in before the first Common Council meeting in June in 1979.
Published December 1, 2011 | During the election, I attempted to handicap the election. I did not write about the uncontested races (at least directly), so I mainly discussed the 3rd, the 5th, the 7th and the City Clerk and City Attorney races. I have already looked back at the 5th and 7th Ward Council races. What happened in the 3rd Ward race?
The incumbent certainly has the edge in this and in all races. Since the year 2000, the incumbent has won all of the city-wide races (Mayor, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer). Since 2001, there have been 15 council elections in San Bernardino involving an incumbent. Of those 15 elections, only four candidates have beaten incumbents: Virginia Marquez beat Esther Estrada by 30 votes in the 1st Ward in November 2009, Jason Desjardins beat Dennis Baxter by 80 votes in the 2nd Ward in November 2009, Chas Kelley beat Joe Suarez in the 5th Ward election in November 2003 in a landslide, and Rikke Van Johnson beat Betty Dean Anderson in the 6th Ward by 79 votes in the 6th Ward in the same election.
Based on this data, I would give the edge to the incumbent, and I would be surprised if John Valdivia won. I would expect the more affluent areas of the Third Ward (the area adjoining Cooley Ranch in Colton will provide most of the voters. A key difference between the 1999 and 2003 races and today is vote by mail. I would expect that the Mayor would be more popular in the Third Ward, so that the endorsement would prove valuable. I would expect the impact of the fire union walking precincts in the Third Ward would have less impact than, say, in the Fifth Ward. Crime is probably an important issue to residents of the Third Ward as it is city-wide, and I think the statistics are less important than how people feel about the issue. I think John Valdivia’s endorsement by the POA can help him on that point. The gradual decline in city services city-wide could have an impact on the race (for example, street lights and potholes not being repaired). Both candidates have made jobs an issue, and the economy has hurt the Third Ward, particularly Hospitality Lane.
In short, the biggest surprise for me on election day was not just that John Valdivia won, but the margin. The lesson from the 3rd Ward is that if your constituents do not think you are doing a good job, or that if you do not reflect their ideology, you can be voted out, even if you are an incumbent. Two things have been stated by various anonymous wags on the Internet. One is that the election was decided by “low information voters.” I think that the contrary is true, only motivated voters vote in municipal-only elections. I think you see a consistency in the number of votes in the Third Ward from 1999 to 2011. In 1999, there were 902 votes cast in total. There were 915 cast in 2007. There were 1,123 in 2011. If anything, November 2006, when Tobin Brinker first won, there was a Congressional election (in a Democratic year in a Democratic ward). Tobin Brinker recived 1,344 votes in that election. The second whisper from the anonymous pundits is that the infusion of money on behalf of John Valdivia bought the election. I don’t think that is true either. If that were true, then Jan Misquez would have won in 2003. The numbers suggest that John Valdivia ran a good campaign, including get out the vote, and more importantly, that Tobin Brinker lost 977 votes over five years. That suggests a council person that was not meeting the needs of their ward, not a bought election nor low information voters.
Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter.
Published November 28, 2011 | Published November 23, 2011 | Over on the other blog, there was an attempt at handicapping the City of San Bernardino races.
The last post was “Using Historical Data to Handicap the Seventh Ward Race” on October 4, 2011
The conclusion was:
So, with Paul Sanborn sitting this one out, and Council Member Wendy McCammack taking advantage of Mayor Patrick Morris’ legal difficulties, and Professor Jim Mulvihill not adding any new ideas or tactics from his previous races, it is safe to say that Wendy McCammack will win a fourth term as 7th Ward Council Member.
Here are the results, again:
| Member, City Council SAN BERNARDINO Ward 7 |
| 20/20 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| WENDY J. MCCAMMACK | 1,361 | 57.26% |
| JIM MULVIHILL | 1,016 | 42.74% |
| Total | 2,377 | 100.00% |
As predicted, Wendy McCammack won. She won by her second highest percentage, and her third highest vote total:
November 2, 1999: 717 votes, 28.2 percent
March 7, 2000: 2767 votes, 56.4 percent
November 2002: 1310 votes, 71.47 percent
November 2007: 1510 votes, 53.15 percent
November 8, 2011: 1361 votes, 57.26 percent
Published November 22, 2011 | As I discussed yesterday, the City Council considered make an additional appropriation to pay for already incurred outside counsel bills. I watched the proceedings on the City’s meeting portal today. Below is a summary:
City Attorney James Penman stated that there was a 60 percent increase in lawsuits over the last two years. As indicated in the staff report, City Attorney Penman said 40 of 124 cases outside counsel, 84 cases were handled in-house by Deputy City Attorneys. Five of those cases [from the agenda: Maria Mejia, Salvador Melgoza, and Guadalupe Melgoza v. City of San Bernardino, et al. - United States District Court, Case No. EDCV 11-00452 VAP; Andrea Orona v. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1008022; San Bernardino County Transportation Commission v. West Colony Community Association - San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1004025; Joe Taylor v. City of San Bernardino - San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1100841; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Samer Kodeih, et al - San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1109915.] were discussed in closed session involving “young” Deputy City Attorneys. Those cases would have cost much more if farmed out. If the bills for outside counsel are not paid, the law firms could withdraw and sue for damages. City Attorney Penman said, most notably, that it “clear the money is there” and “the election is over it’s time to move on and do the City’s business.”
The floor was opened to discussion. Council member McCammack produced a spreadsheet which was not visible on my screen. She said that she was “shocked by the numbers.” She said that the City Manager’s budget increased by 63 percent, and nine city departments had increases in their budgets. She reiterated an earlier discussion point that “doesn’t make sense to reduce budgets of the departments that can create revenues.” Council member McCammack said that the City should use the City’s liability reserves, because “if City Attorney budget not restored . . . that $3 million [in the reserves] won’t be enough.”
City Manager McNeely said that the nature of the increase in the City Manager’s Office is moving CDBG into the office, and that the creation of the call center moved existing employees to the City Manager, and there was other reorganization.
Mayor Morris interjected that this item (paying outside counsel) was “not an overview or recalibration of the entire City Budget.”
Council member Tobin Brinker asked if City Manager McNeely had a recommendation. City Manager McNeely’s response was not entirely into the microphone but he said that he had a concern on his part that these would be brought forward at every council meeting, and recommend, if there is a need to make a correction, do it once. His concern is the ability to handle with the reserve fund only having closer to $2 million dollars. City Manager McNeely said that what prompted this was a memo from the finance department that the City Attorney was going over his budget. When pressed by Tobin Brinker, the Manager said that he was not recommending approval, but that the Council had the power to make policy.
Council member Virginia Marquez said that if the money will come from $2 million dollar reserve, that doesn’t leave much in reserve. City Manager McNeely chipped in to say that Mr. Penman also alluded to another fund with $500,000 that may be allocated, but that because of other contingencies a 1.3 million dollar reserve fund balance on June 30, 2012 was projected. City Manager McNeely said that there was already a $760,000 deficit this fiscal year.
Council member Jenkins said that outside counsel contracts were approved by Council, and still within the budget caps within the contracts. Council member Jenkins declared “something is wrong with the system” because the previous item on the agenda was just the opposite.
Council member Rikke Van Johnson, said this was asking for more money, and that he was not supporting the item.
Wendy McCammack revised her figures and removed CDBG expenditures and revenues from the City Manager’s budget, and said the Manager’s budget was still up by 17 percent, She said that the decreases have all been in departments that can create revenues. “3 million won’t be able to cover the judgments.”
Council member Tobin Brinker said that Council was having the debate for over year, the real debate is whose budget it is coming out of, outside counsel will be paid. The real debate is which fund does it come out of, and that’s the sticking point. He said he needs to see changes in the City Attorney’s Office, its budget grows, and that he is opposed to this agenda item. He kicked the can down the road by saying that the City Attorney can work with his replacement (John Valdivia), and that he (Tobin Brinker) was going to oppose this effort.
Council member Jenkins asked the City Attorney if he had any problem with using the General Government Fund. City Attorney Penman said that the source of the money was up to the Council, but that the City has six jury trials set for June 30, 2011.
City Attorney Penman told Council member that the book (budget figures) released by the City Manager showed that the City Attorney’s Office did cut 18 percent, including a position cut and made other cuts. The book also showed that there were increases in other departments. The City Attorney said that his department was not alone, his was not the only department out there, he was not bluffing, and that bad things will happen. “Attorneys will start withdrawing, and they will start suing and we will lose.”
Council member Jenkins made a motion after some confusion about whether Council member Johnson had made a motion. The motion was to take $140,088.93 from the General Government Professional Contractual Non-Departmental Fund with the remainder Litigation-Outside Counsel budget.
There was a speaker. Then the Council voted: Marquez, Brinker, Shorett Johnson No; Jenkins, Kelley, McCammack yes. Council member McCammack set a substitute motion to deduct the amount from 2012-2013 FY City Attorney budget. That too was defeated by the exact same vote. City Attorney Penman, before the vote, reiterated that the lawyers will withdraw, the City will default or lose lawsuits, and the legacy will be bankruptcy. The voters had heard the arguments, the voters said no, “go ahead and defy them.”
Copyright 2011 Michael Reiter