About Janet's "Secret" Ballot...
Posted by: Jubal | 06/10/2008 9:17 PM
Sup. Janet Nguyen has been getting a lot of flack over her proposal during today's Sheriff vote to conduct a straw poll in writing, prior to holding the actual vote: specifically, that she was proposing a secret ballot.
I received a couple of calls later today stating that was not the case, so I watched the archive video of Janet's motion and sure enough, that isn't what she proposed.
Here's what she actually said:
I'm given to understand that the purpose behind Sup. Nguyen's straw vote formulation was to frustrate Sup. Moorlach's plan to reserve the final -- and presumably tie-breaking -- vote for himself.
Gamesmanship aside, I still think the whole idea of a straw vote was weaselly. Just vote up or done on a candidate: that's what they're elected to do.
And at the time Janet made her motion, it was a moot point: Supervisor Norby's motion to appoint Paul Walters was made and seconded. A straw vote was pointless because the Supervisors' preferences were momentarily to make themselves known.
What a circus.
I received a couple of calls later today stating that was not the case, so I watched the archive video of Janet's motion and sure enough, that isn't what she proposed.
Here's what she actually said:
With that in mind, I propose that the vote from each district be cast in writing, identified specifically as the vote from that district, so that in essence we all would be voting at the same time. This will reduce any further consideration entering into our vote. that's what I would propose: the straw vote, but in writing, Mr. Chairman.How that was garbled in translation to the wider world, I don't really know.
I'm given to understand that the purpose behind Sup. Nguyen's straw vote formulation was to frustrate Sup. Moorlach's plan to reserve the final -- and presumably tie-breaking -- vote for himself.
Gamesmanship aside, I still think the whole idea of a straw vote was weaselly. Just vote up or done on a candidate: that's what they're elected to do.
And at the time Janet made her motion, it was a moot point: Supervisor Norby's motion to appoint Paul Walters was made and seconded. A straw vote was pointless because the Supervisors' preferences were momentarily to make themselves known.
What a circus.
CATEGORY:
OC's Next Sheriff
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Yep, weaselly it was. I saw it as a way of not actually having to say the words herself, on camera for the whole world (at least her district) to see.
Moorlach pretty much screwed this one up. Why did he keep calling on Norby to start each round of comments/Walters lobbying? Had he gone to his Vice Chair Bates or Nguyen to start, a lot this circus act wouldn't have occurred. Moorlach knew that Norby and Campbell were definitely voting for Walters, yet he kept giving Norby a chance to take control. Bring Campbell back and Chairman. He's the only one who gets it up there.
Thank you for clarifying that Jubal. Democrats like Sean H. Mill, still hungover from their drunken honeymoon with Hoa Van Tran, are still reeling, lashing out with inaccurate and vicious charges.
My initial reaction was the same as OC in the Know. But, it is not uncommon for electeds to see how their colleagues vote before making up their minds. Many accused Janet of this when she was on the GG City Council. It sounds like she may have actually been trying to eliminate this possibility.
Unfortunately, she has bred so much mistrust that even when she might be doing something right, everyone has legitimate concern to question the intent.
Captain-
Odds are, if Janet is doing it, it's not the right thing.
Criticizing her is usually a safe bet considering she's in the wrong 99% of the time.
For the remnant thinking that the selection of Sandra Hutchens as the new Orange County Sheriff was an apolitical, thoughtful, deliberate, objective decision with the best interest of the County at large in mind, consider the Bob Murray scoring previously published (also below), and supervisor Moorlach’s rationalization of his vote:
Adams-33
Walters-32
Anderson-28
Hunter-27
Beemer-26
Babka-25
Hutchens-25
Martin-25
Hunt20
A couple of questions follow:
Why was the magic number of candidates to be interviewed by the board stopped at 9? Why not five, or ten for that matter?
Based on Moorlach’s reasoning, a number of candidates from the list would have been just as viable, but not even considered – why?
Then there is the secret ballot, rationalized as not a secret ballot
Translation: We claimed the fix was in, prior to the official interview process, we think the facts support the claim.