According to my super scientific survey, it's a tie between current Mayor Ed Selich and current Mayor Pro-Tem Leslie Daigle for Newport Beach's next appointed mayor.
So the Daily Pilot has weighed in with their own article about Daigle possibly being passed over for the Big Seat too now. Here's my previous take as well.
Well...according to even Daigle herself, she's already assuming that she's going to be passed over.
“It is ironic that while nationally, young and/or women elected officials are advancing, just the opposite may be happening in Newport Beach,” Daigle said.
Of course Daigle is saying this after being a Planning Commissioner for ONE (maybe TWO) meetings before getting Appointed to the Dais over many, many other MALE City's Leaders ...most of which who were (and still are) fixtures in Newport Beach's Business (President of the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce) and Political (Planning Commissioner, Parks Beaches and Recreation Commissioner) activities.
It's fascinating that Newport Beach's last female Mayor Jan DeBay says that she,
"...doesn’t think the so-called glass ceiling is holding Daigle back"
While Former Mayor Evelyn Hart was more...delicate about this issue by suggesting that a Mayor needs two years (in reference to another 1 year Mayor Selich term) to get anything worthwhile done.
“I think that Leslie Daigle would make a fine mayor; however, I do see some real advantages of having a mayor for two years,” Hart said. “If a mayor wants to try to really accomplish something, there’s no way they would be able to do something in one year’s time, so I think I see more of an advantage of having a two-year mayor.”
But I don't remember her, or anyone else for that matter, saying this when Steve Rosansky was Mayor, when Don Webb was Mayor, when John Heffernan was Mayor...
So Daigle the Great continues by saying...
“We have a time-honored tradition of rotation,” Daigle said. “Whether the mayor has done a good job or bad job, this is our system.”
Interesting how Daigle considers it her RIGHT to be the next Mayor as opposed to a PRIVILEGE.
And I'm not too sure the City of Newport Beach should have someone in the Big Seat who feels as though it's her RIGHT to be Mayor.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Can Leslie Daigle Count to Four?
In light of the Winship's post below, it's time again to ask that question.
Who will be Newport Beach's next mayor?
Typically it's the Mayor Pro-Tem, who's bumped up to the hot seat.
But...
The "One" in line has had an interesting time on the City Council, first getting appointed to her City Council seat after ONE (maybe two) meetings as a Planning Commissioner,and barely beating someone who had already withdrawn from the 2006 City Council race, still owing her Political Consultant dough from that race (as of June 30, mind you...)
So...will Mayor Pro-Tem Leslie Daigle (who's been EXTREMELY quiet lately...no fabricating issues, no "fascinating" opinion pieces, no Environmental Lessons, no Community Tours) be able to Count to Four?
Can Leslie Daigle get three others on the City Council to unleash her ego and jumpstart her rumored campaign for the 2010 Assembly primary race by voting her in as Mayor of Newport Beach?
The past year with Mayor Ed Selich at the helm has been relatively quiet for him.
The previous year with former Mayor Steve Rosansky...well...not soo quiet for him.
What will the next year bring?
And will three others on the Newport Beach City Council risk all kinds of "Fun Times" on the City Council by letting Leslie be the City's Figurehead?
Looking at the City Council roster...and who might support her?
After hours of cigar smoked discussion, my guess?
4 to 3 - in favor of Mayor Daigle.
A Democrat/Socialist led (in the White House and Congress) US of A.
An increasingly unpredictable Sales-Tax raising California Governor.
A County of Orange who cannot be trusted to stand up to the Unions, so we have to do their job and vote on Union Pension Increases.
and now...
Welcome to the Mayor Leslie Daigle era...
Who will be Newport Beach's next mayor?
Typically it's the Mayor Pro-Tem, who's bumped up to the hot seat.
But...
The "One" in line has had an interesting time on the City Council, first getting appointed to her City Council seat after ONE (maybe two) meetings as a Planning Commissioner,and barely beating someone who had already withdrawn from the 2006 City Council race, still owing her Political Consultant dough from that race (as of June 30, mind you...)
So...will Mayor Pro-Tem Leslie Daigle (who's been EXTREMELY quiet lately...no fabricating issues, no "fascinating" opinion pieces, no Environmental Lessons, no Community Tours) be able to Count to Four?
Can Leslie Daigle get three others on the City Council to unleash her ego and jumpstart her rumored campaign for the 2010 Assembly primary race by voting her in as Mayor of Newport Beach?
The past year with Mayor Ed Selich at the helm has been relatively quiet for him.
The previous year with former Mayor Steve Rosansky...well...not soo quiet for him.
What will the next year bring?
And will three others on the Newport Beach City Council risk all kinds of "Fun Times" on the City Council by letting Leslie be the City's Figurehead?
Looking at the City Council roster...and who might support her?
After hours of cigar smoked discussion, my guess?
4 to 3 - in favor of Mayor Daigle.
A Democrat/Socialist led (in the White House and Congress) US of A.
An increasingly unpredictable Sales-Tax raising California Governor.
A County of Orange who cannot be trusted to stand up to the Unions, so we have to do their job and vote on Union Pension Increases.
and now...
Welcome to the Mayor Leslie Daigle era...
Monday, November 10, 2008
Electing a Mayor...how bad could it be?
Slime is rampant in politics. Deep slime comes with ambiguous
process and ambiguous options for electeds! Demagoguery comes
when "the people" are not informed fully....or are occluded
from the process of Representative Government.
Newport Beach has a 20th Century process which has served the
people (those that really don't care much) well for now over
100 years! It is very much like watching Fess Parker as Davy
Crockett when he ran for Congress from Tennessee. "Hey, have
a drink on Davy and send him to Congress!". Those were great
days...when we elected concerned veterans from World War II,
dedicated and caring people ran for office that loved their
community and wanted to keep it a lovely place to live. It was
a time when perhaps the biggest issue to be faced was a defaced
Pulic Restroom or an errant tree growing in front of someone's
ocean view plain!
But today is today and the great Irvine Company, as well as
the various Sons and Madam's of the Irvine Company have all
taken it upon themselves to guide and direct the fortunes of
Newport Beach. Allowing groups like Greenlight, Stop Polluting
Our Newport or even the Airport Working Group are certainly
not worth considering in any regard. Those groups have seen
their day....done their work for the power structure and are
no longer viable. "Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach" is a
newbie. CCNB is looking to protect our community from the
rabid influx of Rehab Homes and Drug Rehab facilities in Newport
Beach. They follow on the heels of the group of daring do
environmentalists and concerned citizens that fought changing
the location of the new City Hall to Fashion Island. So far,
both groups haven't won much yet. CCNB has been fighting the
Rehab issue for several years and found that lots of people we
would not expect..were deeply involved ..one way or the other.
The truth is: We have no City Leader that "the people" can go
to and ask for a "policy decision" or vote out if they are
insensitive to our needs. Lord knows that our City Manager
Homer Bludau..has been doing his best to fill the void, but
the problems are even bigger than what the designated Newport
Beach Bureaucracy can handle fairly or logically. We need as
a citizenry to find Leadership that can in fact Lead. Right
now, there is a sloppy configuration of 7 individuals all or
mostly supported by a back room group and power structure, all
with their own back pocket considerations which makes finding
the direct leadership we seek - rather unconvincing!
Those presently elected would be the first to argue that they
have a wonderful group of people that work together and that
this loose and relaxed oligarchy does everything either almost
perfectly or in the best way possible! Odd..that this basic
theme has been ongoing for just about 35 years. Remember the
great upheaval the election of Dick Nichols caused? They acted
as if the end days had come. One lone voice had them beside
themselves!
The issue is plain: We need someone willing to offer policy
choices to the electorate! We need someone that actually can
run "for something" rather than just because they know someone!
Ed Selich couldn't even get anyone to run against him in this
last election! Ed, by the way is a very nice guy but not
exactly Mr. Excitement!
To the point...we need to elect a Mayor! Irvine does so...and
has not fallen off the San Andreas fault! Why can't Newport
Beach have an elected Mayor too?
How about two things: "Vote for a Mayor!" and let's also "Vote
for Restricting Rehab Homes!" Oh, we have to change the Charter?
Great! Then let's do it! Time for Newport Beach to become the
City that it is - with all the warts and an elected leader!
process and ambiguous options for electeds! Demagoguery comes
when "the people" are not informed fully....or are occluded
from the process of Representative Government.
Newport Beach has a 20th Century process which has served the
people (those that really don't care much) well for now over
100 years! It is very much like watching Fess Parker as Davy
Crockett when he ran for Congress from Tennessee. "Hey, have
a drink on Davy and send him to Congress!". Those were great
days...when we elected concerned veterans from World War II,
dedicated and caring people ran for office that loved their
community and wanted to keep it a lovely place to live. It was
a time when perhaps the biggest issue to be faced was a defaced
Pulic Restroom or an errant tree growing in front of someone's
ocean view plain!
But today is today and the great Irvine Company, as well as
the various Sons and Madam's of the Irvine Company have all
taken it upon themselves to guide and direct the fortunes of
Newport Beach. Allowing groups like Greenlight, Stop Polluting
Our Newport or even the Airport Working Group are certainly
not worth considering in any regard. Those groups have seen
their day....done their work for the power structure and are
no longer viable. "Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach" is a
newbie. CCNB is looking to protect our community from the
rabid influx of Rehab Homes and Drug Rehab facilities in Newport
Beach. They follow on the heels of the group of daring do
environmentalists and concerned citizens that fought changing
the location of the new City Hall to Fashion Island. So far,
both groups haven't won much yet. CCNB has been fighting the
Rehab issue for several years and found that lots of people we
would not expect..were deeply involved ..one way or the other.
The truth is: We have no City Leader that "the people" can go
to and ask for a "policy decision" or vote out if they are
insensitive to our needs. Lord knows that our City Manager
Homer Bludau..has been doing his best to fill the void, but
the problems are even bigger than what the designated Newport
Beach Bureaucracy can handle fairly or logically. We need as
a citizenry to find Leadership that can in fact Lead. Right
now, there is a sloppy configuration of 7 individuals all or
mostly supported by a back room group and power structure, all
with their own back pocket considerations which makes finding
the direct leadership we seek - rather unconvincing!
Those presently elected would be the first to argue that they
have a wonderful group of people that work together and that
this loose and relaxed oligarchy does everything either almost
perfectly or in the best way possible! Odd..that this basic
theme has been ongoing for just about 35 years. Remember the
great upheaval the election of Dick Nichols caused? They acted
as if the end days had come. One lone voice had them beside
themselves!
The issue is plain: We need someone willing to offer policy
choices to the electorate! We need someone that actually can
run "for something" rather than just because they know someone!
Ed Selich couldn't even get anyone to run against him in this
last election! Ed, by the way is a very nice guy but not
exactly Mr. Excitement!
To the point...we need to elect a Mayor! Irvine does so...and
has not fallen off the San Andreas fault! Why can't Newport
Beach have an elected Mayor too?
How about two things: "Vote for a Mayor!" and let's also "Vote
for Restricting Rehab Homes!" Oh, we have to change the Charter?
Great! Then let's do it! Time for Newport Beach to become the
City that it is - with all the warts and an elected leader!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Effectiveness of $250,000 IE's
When Keith Curry and I tried to introduce to the Newport Beach City Council the idea of giving the people of our city a say before their public employee unions bullied themselves a better pension agreement, Dolores Otting stood up at the council meeting and said something to the effect that "this is a move from the Lincoln Club, and they didn't support my candidacy; in fact, I didn't have any big money people blah blah blah". How that justified her rejection of an idea so fundamentally fair and necessary for our city is beyond me, and apparently 75% of the people in Orange County agree (see Measure J's landmark passing yesterday).
But what I have been mystified by throughout this campaign is the change of heart Dolores appears to have had about the support of one's campaign. While apparently is what offensive to her that God and country loving Americans like myself and other LC members would give $500 whopping dollars to Keith Curry, apparently rallying with $250,000 of independent expenditure money from Jack Croul was just fine. I actually happen to think it was - I don't begrudge this guy the right to waste his money on whatever grudge and political score he wants. I believe in the first amendment, and despite some of the extraordinary things one reads even on the comments section some time of this excellent blog, a candidate is not "in bed with big business" when someone freely supports the candidate they believe in. Quid pro quos are already against the law, and no slanderous mailer can make lemons out of lemonade. So, I reiterate, IE's, Jack, 250k, Dolores - it's all good by me. It is a free country. BUT, I have to say, it may not be a wise investment for the rest of us looking to spend 250k in the future to dethrone a city council member. As one will see from the below exact election results, this 250k ADDED 1,000 votes to Keith Curry's margin of victory. I have to think that if I ever get tempted to do an IE, this would scare me a bit.
2008 Results - Curry win by 2924 votes
Vote Count
Percentage
KEITH D. CURRY
16,606
54.8%
DOLORES OTTING
13,682
45.2%
2006 Results - Curry wins by 1999 votes
Vote Count
Percentage
KEITH D. CURRY
13478
54.0%
DOLORES A. OTTING
11479
46.0%
I hope Keith will govern the city well. I think he will. I believe there is a lot of good happening in the city, and I believe there is a lot of work to be done. I hope those of us who love the city will calm the rhetoric a bit, and move on with the job of civic responsibility and improvement.
But what I have been mystified by throughout this campaign is the change of heart Dolores appears to have had about the support of one's campaign. While apparently is what offensive to her that God and country loving Americans like myself and other LC members would give $500 whopping dollars to Keith Curry, apparently rallying with $250,000 of independent expenditure money from Jack Croul was just fine. I actually happen to think it was - I don't begrudge this guy the right to waste his money on whatever grudge and political score he wants. I believe in the first amendment, and despite some of the extraordinary things one reads even on the comments section some time of this excellent blog, a candidate is not "in bed with big business" when someone freely supports the candidate they believe in. Quid pro quos are already against the law, and no slanderous mailer can make lemons out of lemonade. So, I reiterate, IE's, Jack, 250k, Dolores - it's all good by me. It is a free country. BUT, I have to say, it may not be a wise investment for the rest of us looking to spend 250k in the future to dethrone a city council member. As one will see from the below exact election results, this 250k ADDED 1,000 votes to Keith Curry's margin of victory. I have to think that if I ever get tempted to do an IE, this would scare me a bit.
2008 Results - Curry win by 2924 votes
Vote Count
Percentage
KEITH D. CURRY
16,606
54.8%
DOLORES OTTING
13,682
45.2%
2006 Results - Curry wins by 1999 votes
Vote Count
Percentage
KEITH D. CURRY
13478
54.0%
DOLORES A. OTTING
11479
46.0%
I hope Keith will govern the city well. I think he will. I believe there is a lot of good happening in the city, and I believe there is a lot of work to be done. I hope those of us who love the city will calm the rhetoric a bit, and move on with the job of civic responsibility and improvement.
Should Someone At Least Win Their Own District?
Newport Beach votes for their City Councilmembers in Districts.
If you are running for City Council in District 2. You need to live in District 2.
You represent District 2. You are called District 2's City Councilmember.
But the entire City gets to vote for you.
So while you are associated with being District 2's Representative, you are voted at large.
But...
You should at least represent your District and your District should want you as their Representative right?
Interestingly enough...
District 2's Councilman Steve Rosansky didn't win his own District in the 2008 election.
Out of the 3049 people living, or registered to vote, in District 2 who voted for the City Council race -
District 2 also had the lowest voter turnout as compared to the rest of the City too, bringing out only 51.4% while Citywide, Newport Beach had 58.5% come out to vote.
What does this mean?
The people who know Steve Rosansky best (his neighbors) didn't want him as their City Council Representative, while the people who don't live or work next to him do...
In case you are curious...
In the District 7 race between Incumbent Keith Curry and Challenger Dolores Otting, as voted by District 7
If you are running for City Council in District 2. You need to live in District 2.
You represent District 2. You are called District 2's City Councilmember.
But the entire City gets to vote for you.
So while you are associated with being District 2's Representative, you are voted at large.
But...
You should at least represent your District and your District should want you as their Representative right?
Interestingly enough...
District 2's Councilman Steve Rosansky didn't win his own District in the 2008 election.
Out of the 3049 people living, or registered to vote, in District 2 who voted for the City Council race -
- Steve Rosansky got 1481 votes - 48.5%
- Gloria Alkire got 1568 votes - 51.5%
District 2 also had the lowest voter turnout as compared to the rest of the City too, bringing out only 51.4% while Citywide, Newport Beach had 58.5% come out to vote.
What does this mean?
The people who know Steve Rosansky best (his neighbors) didn't want him as their City Council Representative, while the people who don't live or work next to him do...
In case you are curious...
In the District 7 race between Incumbent Keith Curry and Challenger Dolores Otting, as voted by District 7
- Keith Curry had 2827 votes 59%
- Dolores Otting had 1939 votes 41%
Congratulations - Here's to the Power of Incumbency
First off, congratulations to Councilman Steve Rosansky and Councilman Keith Curry on their successful re-election campaign.
To say that this election cycle wasn't contentious...well...it wasn't like having the 13 candidates from two years ago, but this election was certainly fascinating.
Lots and lots of money was spent...and the status quo for Newport Beach was kept.
Thus the power of incumbency.
Regardless of how much money was spent, how much mail was mailed, none of that really made too much difference.
Consider this...my neighbor is as Conservative as it gets.
She likes to consider herself well informed.
She voted for McCain,
Voted Yes on 8
Voted for all the Republicans (in partisan offices) and that's all that really mattered to her.
But when it came down to the down ticket items...
She voted for our City's incumbents.
Why?
Because life in Newport Beach is great.
Why change it.
None of the money spent, none of the mailers, none of the newspaper articles made a difference to her.
Heck...she didn't even know about any of them.
Never noticed.
All she cared about was McCain and Prop 8.
Costa Mesa kept it's Incumbents and the top vote getter was the former popular Mayor.
Irvine (who's money spent DWARFS Newport Beach's spending) kept their status quo.
Throughout Orange County...only a very few incumbents lost.
Nationally -
Incumbent Crack-smoking Marion Barry was easily re-elected to the DC City Council.
Incumbent Convicted Felon Alaska's US Senator Ted Stevens still holds a slim lead.
So congrats to Steve and Keith on their victories.
And congrats to Newport Beach for keeping Newport Beach's status quo...
To say that this election cycle wasn't contentious...well...it wasn't like having the 13 candidates from two years ago, but this election was certainly fascinating.
Lots and lots of money was spent...and the status quo for Newport Beach was kept.
Thus the power of incumbency.
Regardless of how much money was spent, how much mail was mailed, none of that really made too much difference.
Consider this...my neighbor is as Conservative as it gets.
She likes to consider herself well informed.
She voted for McCain,
Voted Yes on 8
Voted for all the Republicans (in partisan offices) and that's all that really mattered to her.
But when it came down to the down ticket items...
She voted for our City's incumbents.
Why?
Because life in Newport Beach is great.
Why change it.
None of the money spent, none of the mailers, none of the newspaper articles made a difference to her.
Heck...she didn't even know about any of them.
Never noticed.
All she cared about was McCain and Prop 8.
Costa Mesa kept it's Incumbents and the top vote getter was the former popular Mayor.
Irvine (who's money spent DWARFS Newport Beach's spending) kept their status quo.
Throughout Orange County...only a very few incumbents lost.
Nationally -
Incumbent Crack-smoking Marion Barry was easily re-elected to the DC City Council.
Incumbent Convicted Felon Alaska's US Senator Ted Stevens still holds a slim lead.
So congrats to Steve and Keith on their victories.
And congrats to Newport Beach for keeping Newport Beach's status quo...
Monday, November 3, 2008
Dolores and the raffle
The apparent announcement by the Dolores Otting campaign that they will cancel her fundraising raffle and refund all contributions made in consideration for raffle tickets is an acknowledgement that the raffle was illegal.
Specifically, from what I understand the raffle violated the following seven laws;
1. Violation of Penal Code Section 320. The raffle itself was illegal. Political campaigns are specifically not defined as “eligible organizations” under state law for purposes of conducting a raffle.
2. Violation of Penal Code Section 320.5 (C) (f). This section states “A raffle may not be advertised, operated, or conducted in any manner over the Internet, nor may raffle tickets be sold, traded, or redeemed over the Internet.” From September 9-October 20, Dolores Otting’s web site advertised the raffle and provided a down load to a raffle entry form.
3. Violation of Penal Code Section 320.5 (C) (h) (1). This section states “An eligible organization may not conduct a raffle authorized by this section unless it registers annually with the Department of Justice”. In addition to not being an “eligible organization” this raffle was not registered with the Department of Justice.
4. Violation of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1.25.030 (Count 1). The fair market value of the six day Honolulu vacation offered as a raffle prize exceeds the $500 contribution limit of the Newport Beach Code.
5. Violation of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1.25.030 (Count 2). The fair market value of the Cancun vacation, which includes “economy airfare for two, two free nights in a five star hotel and round trip ground transportation to Cancun International Airport” exceeds the $500 contribution limit of the Newport Beach Code. (Airfare alone is approximately $500 per person).
6. Violation of the Political Reform Act. The source and fair market value of the Cancun vacation have not been reported in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This is now more than two weeks since Ms. Otting assured voters that disclosure would be forthcoming.
7. Making false statements under penalty of perjury. On October 6, 2008, Dolores Otting signed her FPPC Form 460 attesting to the following statement “I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing and reviewing this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein and in the attached schedules is true and complete. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”. This report listed a $495 in-kind donation of the Honolulu vacation by “Lesna Orozco”. Public statements by Linda Orozco confirm that the donation of the vacation was solely by Linda Orozco and that Lesna Orozco did not make any contribution of value to the campaign. This makes the reported donation a false statement.
So tomorrow is a big day for our country and our city. And in both cases, the votes seem obvious to me.
Specifically, from what I understand the raffle violated the following seven laws;
1. Violation of Penal Code Section 320. The raffle itself was illegal. Political campaigns are specifically not defined as “eligible organizations” under state law for purposes of conducting a raffle.
2. Violation of Penal Code Section 320.5 (C) (f). This section states “A raffle may not be advertised, operated, or conducted in any manner over the Internet, nor may raffle tickets be sold, traded, or redeemed over the Internet.” From September 9-October 20, Dolores Otting’s web site advertised the raffle and provided a down load to a raffle entry form.
3. Violation of Penal Code Section 320.5 (C) (h) (1). This section states “An eligible organization may not conduct a raffle authorized by this section unless it registers annually with the Department of Justice”. In addition to not being an “eligible organization” this raffle was not registered with the Department of Justice.
4. Violation of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1.25.030 (Count 1). The fair market value of the six day Honolulu vacation offered as a raffle prize exceeds the $500 contribution limit of the Newport Beach Code.
5. Violation of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 1.25.030 (Count 2). The fair market value of the Cancun vacation, which includes “economy airfare for two, two free nights in a five star hotel and round trip ground transportation to Cancun International Airport” exceeds the $500 contribution limit of the Newport Beach Code. (Airfare alone is approximately $500 per person).
6. Violation of the Political Reform Act. The source and fair market value of the Cancun vacation have not been reported in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This is now more than two weeks since Ms. Otting assured voters that disclosure would be forthcoming.
7. Making false statements under penalty of perjury. On October 6, 2008, Dolores Otting signed her FPPC Form 460 attesting to the following statement “I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing and reviewing this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein and in the attached schedules is true and complete. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”. This report listed a $495 in-kind donation of the Honolulu vacation by “Lesna Orozco”. Public statements by Linda Orozco confirm that the donation of the vacation was solely by Linda Orozco and that Lesna Orozco did not make any contribution of value to the campaign. This makes the reported donation a false statement.
So tomorrow is a big day for our country and our city. And in both cases, the votes seem obvious to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)