City Councilor Kurt Wright called off a recount Tuesday night and conceded his instant-runoff loss to Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss.Huh?
With about half of the wards tabulated, Wright congratulated Kiss on his victory and asked for the recount to be halted, Chief Administrative Officer Jonathan Leopold said late Tuesday.
Leopold said that with about 43 percent of the votes recounted, the difference between the hand count and the March 3 machine count was about five votes.
“It was clear that the totals were coming in so accurately compared to the machine count that it wasn’t going to affect the outcome,” Leopold said.
Wright said earlier in the day that he requested the recount, “not for me, but at the request of a tremendous amount of citizens who really strongly urged me to do it. I was ready to move on.”
Wright, a Republican, lost to Kiss by a final margin of 252 votes, 4,313 to 4,061 on March 3. That difference amounted to 2.8 percent of the 8,976 valid ballots cast, well within the 5 percent difference in votes established by the Legislature as the threshold for recounts. Only 27 percent of registered voters participated in the election.
Wright called for the recount, in part, to test the accuracy of the instant-runoff system that propelled Kiss, a Progressive, to re-election.
“I hope the recount will confirm the integrity of the process and give citizens a level of comfort with how the system works,” he said.
... I do agree with people like yourself Haik who believe this is the right opportunity to take a close look at how the system worked. This is not about me, it is about the process. I accept the result and am gratified to have come so close...
The count is on!We'll probably learn more about the Wright decision tomorrow, but I think it was the wrong decision. After all, Kurt had stated that he wanted to see how the IRV counting process worked. And a lot of us wanted to be assured it was legit. Now, we've lost our chance.
...And the count off. [Republican candidate Kurt}Wright calls off recount after only wards 1,2,3 and part of 6 are counted. Knodell left early. Russ Ellis stayed late.
Subject: Mayoral Election ConcernsOwen tells me that Shay Totten responded in a disinterested email that he would not pursue Owen's concerns in a 7D story; Ken Picard has at yet not replied.
Ken and Shay,
I'm writing to you because as an election official in Ward 6 I have a concern about the way this election will be handled. Last time we had an IRV election, I was not a Ward Clerk but I believe the issue was probably the same then and for some reason no one brought it up or maybe they did...I don't know.
Anyway, my intention here with this email is just to let you know what my concern is and then if you feel it warrants further investigation or reporting, then so be it.
I will try to explain, but this is not easy to do non-verbally so hopefully you will get the point I'm trying to make:
At the polls and before we open them for voting, we always check each tabulator machine to make sure there are no ballots in the ballot box..that is for the actual ballot box that holds the paper ballots and also the electronic ballot box being the "memory card" that is sealed into the tabulator machine.
To check the memory card to make sure there are no electronic votes on the card we do an opening print out which will have all the races and all the candidates being at zero showing there are no votes cast. We then as election officials sign off on this print out from the machine if all races are pre-set at zero votes. This is an important print out..all the elected officials must sign off on it. We do this for every election and for every tabulator machine that is used.
My concern is, and I do not feel comfortable as an election official running the election this way, is that on the IRV machine I have been informed that we will not be able to do a print out or even an end of night print out from the machine at the polls. So essentially a huge step in the process of election integrity has been removed and centralized at City Hall. The way it is now, I'm supposed to turn on the machine and have people vote without ever being able to get a print out letting me know that the races are pre-set to zero votes on the memory card.
City Hall does a check on each memory card before they are sealed just like every election before they are delivered to each polling location, the difference this time is we are not able to do that print out at each polling location and check the "electrnoc ballot box" to make sure the races are pre-set at zero. There is nothing for us to sign off on and we are supposed to blindly trust the memeory card that City Hall has provided us. I do not feel this is responsible and it does not sit well with me. I'm going to have a bad taste in my mouth for the whole election day. I just can't ignore the fact that a whole step has been removed because the machines do not have the technology to do a print out for IRV programming.
If either of you feel like dicussing this or feel that it warrents any attention please let me know. I think the voters deserve to know and steps should be taken to make sure the next time we have an IRV election that print outs will be possible. At this point in time and esp. with all the issues Burlington has had with elections, we should not be removing steps in the process of election integrity.
I absolutely support IRV, but I do not support the way the city is running the IRV election. The technology to do print outs is somehting that should have been checked into before we ever made a transition to IRV or if that technology is available then why don't we have it?.
Owen Mulligan
Ward 6 Clerk
I have questions about whether it's even legal for a major party to hold a caucus this way. The Democrats and the Republicans in Burlington let you vote in their caucuses regardless of how you self-identify in terms of party, so long as you haven't voted in another caucus. I that think not having voted in another party's caucus is the only legal requirement for participating. I guess Jane (and assistant city attorney Gene Bergman) have a different legal opinion. If anybody out there wants to sue the Progs over this, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge.Pretty astute comments from Mr Bedrosian; BurlingtonPol gets the Burlington pulse, indeed!
The context of all this exclusivity is as interesting as the exclusivity itself. Why are the Progs playing it this way in Ward 2? The simplest answer is usually the right one.
It seems to me the simplest answer is that Knodell is not running again, and the Progs have already chosen the person they'd like to replace her. The secrecy and exclusivity surrounding this caucus are probably designed to create a tightly controlled environment that will ensure the desired winner.
That and the Progs seem to take a sort of holier-than-thou attitude sometimes. Maybe they like to exclude people to a degree. It keeps them in a bubble believeing in their self-importance. Unfortunately for them, that general attitude has been eroding the party's support for years.
Bernie Sanders is a US Senator now. No Progressive will ever rise higher. I predict that at 71 years old, Bernie will win a second senate term, but with a smaller majority than he won over Tarrant. The Progs have already lost one of their four core council seats from Wards 2 and 3. If Democrat David Cain takes Ashe's seat in Ward 3, and if Kiss does not retain the corner office, there will be very little left of the original Progressive movement.
What was once a thriving, inclusive coalition, has become an dying, exclusive party. That's unfortunate. But as they say, "attitude is everything" and Knodell's post clearly exemplifies the very self-rightous attitude Progressives have had for a long time. Progs will deny it, but there is a sort of "two legs good, four legs bad," ends-justify-means hypocrcisy going on there. I've felt it for many years and I'm not alone.
Naturally, I have lost some confidence in our collaboration. What we discussed wasn't carried through nor were changes run by our steering committee. In fact, it seems we were flat out ignored and perhaps mislead (being told not all the trees would be cut only the day before they were, and the land steward was present on site during the cutting). It has been hard to know how to work together under these circumstances, and if that is indeed what the city wants.And the city has released a report on Categate. The Free Press is unaccepting and wants a complete explanation.
It cost $63,900 (including $22,000 for Cate's salary while on leave) to sort through this imbroglio over unauthorized access to e-mail, and to determine that the city waterfront operations' finances are indecipherable to a private accounting firm.The City Election is fast approaching - all of a sudden it's become some sort of vendetta against all-things-Kiss? It will be interesting to see which mayoral candidate the paper supports. Maggie's piece and the editorial testify to the need for more transparency and communication from the municipal authorities.
That penny tax for parks you approved in the November election? About 18 percent of the $355,000 it's expected to raise just slipped out of the coffers. The lawyers and accounting firm sucked up a bit of it.
Mayor Bob Kiss gave the council the report it asked for after the City Council president running for mayor accused the mayor of "spoon feeding" councilors information.
And once again, we don't know much except that the public process of sorting through the shenanigans of government is unruly, and we all ought to have a better understanding of the city's personnel policies.
Yet we still have no real idea what city employee Adam Cate did to launch this investigation.
And there is the little matter of how money was managed -- or mismanaged or forgotten or lost -- at the waterfront. If a private audit cannot figure it out, how will Mayor Kiss?
Perhaps the council, with the power of numbers, might want to delve into this little sideshow.
The public awaits the next report, which ought to be much more detailed than the report given Monday night by the mayor.
Several Burlington city councilors want more information about the firing and reinstatement of the city's waterfront director.But if you go to the last bit of the Briggs article, there's this:
The Parks and Recreation Commission reinstated Adam Cate last week after the administration of Mayor Bob Kiss fired him following a prolonged investigation
Kiss said that while the process was lengthy, "time can't be the measure of a successful process." He added that the Cate suspension and investigation had been a personnel issue. He said it was "certainly not political."C'mon, how disingenuous can he get! Whether good ol' boy or not, all government personnel issues - hiring and firing (or resigning) - whether federal, state or municipal, are 'political.' An uninformed public may accept Mr Mayor's explanation. Open and transparent government in Burlington still needs work. Surely Burlington citizens deserve as much information as possible about 'Categate.'
Come One, Come All, to the Website Launch Party for SWAB VT (Safe Water Advocates of Burlington, Vermont), at Bite Me Organic Pizzeria, 457 St. Paul St., on Wednesday from 6 to 9! Slices are buy-one, get-one-free. The Itinerary is as follows:
6:00: Sign the petition to End Water Fluoridation!
6:30: Documentary Showing: "Professional Perspectives"
7:00: Campaign Leaders explain the nature of SWAB VT's campaign to end water fluoridation, clarify the volunteer opportunities, and hold a Q&A session about fluoridation and the What's In Our Water? campaign.
8:00: www.swabvt.org makes its Debut!
Please, invite three friends to this event, and show up yourselves! The space is small but we want it to be cozy! We can't wait to see you and get this party kicked off right!
Wishing you well,
Carlie, Kevin and Geoff of SWAB VT: Advocating for your right to safe tap water.
Friday, October 10, 2008Haik adds that he will consider a run the following year and
I am withdrawing from the Ward Seven City Council race. After many conversations with my wife, and after serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be a candidate for City Councilor from Ward Seven in the March 2009 election.
I am grateful for all the encouragement to run that I have received from Democrats, Republicans and Independents of the new north end, but this is not my time to run. Seeing to the needs of my children and my family are my priority. For now at least, a run for office would be diversion from that priority, and splitting my time between family and city government would not be of adequate service to either.
I will keep spending a little time working on this blog, and on using it to cover the upcoming local races and the folks who actually do decide to run in them this cycle.I completely understand Haik's reasoning - I know he is thoroughly devoted this his family - and I'm glad that he will continue be civically engaged by covering the candidates and the important issues facing Burlington in the months and year ahead. Thanks, Haik, we're grateful that you care so much.
