Updated Election Results
County Elections has released the latest election update. Aceves is now 32 votes ahead of Brock in Goleta and with 1% of the absentees and 3,000 provisionals in the County left to count -- why hasn't Anderson conceded?
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 11/19/2006 09:58:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
28 Comments:
Why hasn't Anderson conceded? Who knows, but his immature, unprofessional and undiplomatic stubborness and denial is a perfect illustration of why he was not fit for the job of Sheriff.
Because all of the absentee and provisional ballots left still could be 100% for Anderson instead of Brown.
This is all assuring that the future political and consulting career of Anderson is toast. He is a sore and bitter loser, and people will not forget that.
Margaret Connell will be sorely missed. What a loss. Guess she was too intelligent, and wasn't polarizing enough to draw out the votes, in the face of the hundreds of thousands of out-of-area dollars poured into the challenger's races. Wonder which side of the proverbial developers fence Aceves will sit on....
The real question is, why can't they count the votes?!?!
Thank you Sara, or should I say gentlemen for finally putting something of value on your blog.
You want to know why they can't count the votes?
Well...with thousands of people turning in their ballots with coffee stains, water stains, crayon marks, lewd comments, inproperly bubbled, multiple bubbled, write-ins with illegible handwriting, etc. the machines won't read them. That's where humans step in. And it's a slow, methodical proccess to make sure everything is done correctly.
Time to educate people on how to actually vote correctly.
For 11:25 am: Anderson is over 7,000 votes behind with 3,000 votes to count. Take this to the bank - he will release a statement which will blame everyone but himself. It has always been that way with Anderson. His senior staff is sincerely excited about working with Brown. They are looking forward to the change.
RE: Anderson
I was a supporter but am totally disgusted about how he has handled himself. It's a perfect illustration of the old proverb about the best insight into a man's character is seen through adversity.
Regarding Anderson: I am deeply disappointed in the way he has handled his deafeat. A gracious concession should have been made to Brown and a "thank you" to Anderson supporters after the first release of the updated totals, showing Brown's lead increasing. I supported Jim Anderson in the general election and thought him to be a nice man, but I am dumbfounded at the totally classless and petty character traits he's exhibiting in his defeat. It is inexcusable and smacks of a third world banana republic politician's action instead of a first world American democracy and the peaceful transfer of power.
In other words, Bill Brown, I look forward to meeting you someday and have high hopes for your coming administration at the Sheriff's Department. If you do bring honesty, integrity and be true to your word that everyone will start with a clean slate, then I will support you in the future with the same enthusiasm and dollars that I supported your opponent with. Good luck and I will be watching! :-) dd
Those on the outside seem surprised at Jim Anderson's actions since election night. But this is a trait that those of us on the inside have seen for the past four years. No one is perfect - not Carpenter and not Thomas, but they were head and shoulders above Anderson in honesty and integrity. Brown will be a refreshing change. He is a good man.
Watched the Goleta City Council meeting live tonight---what a genuine tearjerker! "Farewell" comments by all the outgoing [defeated] Councilmembers. Margaret Connell's words were especially poignant. Jonnie was quite choked up. Jean Blois didn't even mention any of the others in her comments---talked about seeing a play over the weekend. No class there.
There is a rumor that Anderson may be filing a federal law suit over the election. They may try to claim that Brown's candidacy is a violation of the Hatch Act, which disallows executives who receive any federal funds from running in a partisan election. While the sheriff's position is non-partisan, Anderson advertised support from the Republican Party and may try to claim that it caused the election to become partisan. Just rumor, but not surprising from a sore looser.
Hmm, interesting. I heard rumors before the election that Brown was warned his candidacy COULD be a violation of the Hatch Act.
This was because he was being strongly supported by democrat party officials and Anderson was being strongly supported by republican officials, thus making it a de facto partisan race. In this same rumor it was reported that this “potential” violation was brought to the Attorney General, a Brown supporter, who declined to take action even though the Feds had administratively ruled it was a violation.
Interestingly enough, after Brown was supposedly notified of the violation he dropped all Democratic party references in his campaign, although Anderson never did drop his party references.
Thanks for making it clear that these are all rumors! Party committees however support non-partisan candidates all the time and receiving federal funds in the form of retirement beneits (I assume) should not keep one from being able to run for office.
6:43 AM -- I don' blame Jean after Hawxhurstlead an attempt to keep her from being Mayor a few years ago.
Ummm 9:28 a.m. - a retiree on a federal pension has no problem with the Hatch Act because they are "retired" so that's not an issue. Party committees can support anybody they want to, and that's not a problem either. The Hatch Act deals specifically with the candidate and the money trail that flows from the feds to the candidate's control (if there are $$$), and THEN (and only then) if the race is non-partisan AND a challenger receives partisan support (through endorsements and contributions). If somebody connects enough dots to think there is a violation, then the OSC (special counsel's office) reviews a complaint and renders a negative or affirmative opinion. It's actually a lot more complicated than that and extremely difficult (and practically unheard of) to prove a Hatch violation in a local race.
So, could you clarify your comment a little better? dd
My understanding is DD is correct about it. The problem Brown may have ran into was the fact that LOPD received substantial funding through federal grants, which brought him under the Hatch Act.
Anderson lost, big time.
Get. Over. It.
Brown is not a Federal official, and any federal funds for LOPD were for that City agency, not the Brown political campaign. Believe it or not, the candidate for Sheriff kept separate from his role as Police Chief.
Oh man, these Anderson/Cochrane lapdogs really never know when to quit----anyone interested in the ACTUAL MEANING AND INTENT of the Hatch Act look no further than the well-informed website of the Office of Special Counsel; http://www.osc.gov/ha_state.htm
I actually spent a good half-hour perusing the various documents, guidelines, advisements, etc.
To say that Cochrane/Anderson is "stretching reality" is an understatement. Brown never came close to violating the spirit OR intent of this law, which is primarily designed for Federal Employees and in VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES, others.
Anderson is just looking for any way to not have to do the honorable thing and concede because----well, because as many many of us have known for a loonnng time, he lacks honor.
Good riddance.
Hey FDS, I just read it and it clearly states that local officials DO fall under the Hatch Act.
Uh, where's the honor, I don't know what you read, but the link you provided was quite clear that there could be a violation. The only thing that is debatable/open for interpretation is whether or not Sheriff COULD be considered a partisan office because of party involvement.
But, either way: BIG DEAL! It clearly states that a violation is punishable by termination from your employment (or loss of grant money). He isn't going to be COP of Lompoc anymore, so who cares!
So why would Anderson not be in similar violation of the Hatch Act? Surely the Sheriffs here get federal money too.
Or is the point Mutually Assured Distruction?
The Hatch Act, when debated and passed, was refered to at the Incumbent Protection Act, as it does not apply to elected office holders, only challengers.
It was designed to keep partisan support and endorsements firmly in the column of the incumbent, and rountinely it is applied to federal and state races, as local elections don't usually garner enough interest (or understanding) of the Hatch laws.
IMHO, the sheriff's race would be difficult to apply a Hatch Act violation to. dd
Letters: Does he have GPS for 'new direction'?
Ron Fink, Lompoc
November 30, 2006 12:00 AM
It's official. The county elected a political opportunist as sheriff. When Bill Brown takes over in January, he will have some big boots to fill, but is he up to it?
He promised a "new direction," but his policing record in Lompoc seems to indicate he may not know which way to go.
Lompoc has suffered two gang-related murders this year. Drug sales and use, according to Chief Brown, are "epidemic" in the city, while there have been no serious efforts to lock up the dealers. Crimes go unsolved and officers are swamped with calls.
His answer according to press reports was, "community policing and alternatives to the traditional tail 'em, nail 'em, and jail 'em form of law enforcement."
That holistic approach may sound nice, but it didn't work. Neither did a highly touted gang injunction; apparently all that did was move the gang members to another spot in town.
Get ready Santa Barbara County, a real lawman who believed in locking crooks up has been replaced with a snake oil salesman.
So Aceves beat Brock by 55 votes in the end.
As long as Brown keeps staffing levels adequate, the county will remain as safe as it has been. Brown is KNOWN for cutting staffing and hanging his officers out to dry and creating tremendous officer safety issues.
Before we all dance around because Brown won the job, let's see how he does before declaring he'll be "great". Brown's going to have a rude awakening - he just stepped into a job he's not prepared for, from a department of 50 people to 705 employees and over 1,000 inmates.
The DSA president may be Brown's best buddy, but the membership can turn on both of them just like they did on Anderson.
Brown will need all the luck AND good will from his employees that he can get.
Lighten up Hattie. I don't think the poster was "whining" at all. It seems to me the poster was just letting us know what is being "said" elsewhere in the county.
Good or bad, time will tell.
So, if Brown does a lousy job, will you admit it here, just as quickly as you tout his cause? Just curious, that's all.
Hattie said: "an era of refreshing and innovative leadership under Bill Brown".
Well, Hattie, Brown's first decision as Sheriff-elect was a hum-dinger. Keeping Shemwell as Undersheriff??? Wow, not a good omen.
It is pretty well known that Shemwell was one of Anderson's biggest mistakes and one that haunted him during his entire tenure. And, now Brown is going to keep him around? Oooookay......
For all our sakes, I sure hope he can do better than that.
The injunctions have worked great. Crime is down, gang members are rarely seen in public together. THe schools are safer and more. To say they just moved to a new spot is ridiculous and the words of an ignorant fool
Post a Comment
<< Home