Despite Election, Three Councils Not Yet Set
Note: Grand Terrace Portion of Article.
San Bernardino County Sentinel
Friday, November 19, 2010
..... In Grand Terrace, councilman Walt Stanckiewitz, who was first elected in 2008 and has two years remaining on his term, was elected mayor. He replaces Maryetta Ferré, who did not run. Simultaneously, Bernardo Sandoval was elected to the four-year term on the council that is now held by incumbent councilwoman Bea Cortes. Sandoval won by a comfortable margin in that race, which featured four candidates. Sandoval’s 1,250 votes or 36.43 percent easily outdistanced the total of the runner-up, Richard Loder, who had 790 votes or 23.03 percent. Former city manager Tom Schwab was third with 788 votes or 22.97 percent. Cortes managed 603 votes or 17.58 percent.
In a specially-called race to fill the two years remaining on the council term of former councilman Jim Miller, who resigned earlier this year, Darcy McNaboe edged the only other candidate in that race, Sylvia Robles, 1,693 votes or 51.02 percent to 1,625 votes or 48.98 percent.
During the campaign, both Stanckiewitz and Sandoval cast themselves as reformist candidates, as did Robles.
The victorious McNaboe was perceived as a supporter of the status quo.
In December, Stanckiewitz, Sandoval and McNaboe will come together with incumbent councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia, largely perceived as a defender of the status quo herself, to make a decision about how to fill the gap created by Stanckiewitz’s departure from his council post to fill the mayor’s role.
It is unclear at this point whether the four-member council as it will be composed in December will be able to reach a consensus on an appointment. There appears to be an even 2-2 split on the council between those wanting to continue the policy and traditions of the past and those wanting to revamp much of the way Grand Terrace City Hall operates.
If the council deadlocks over a choice, then it will have to turn the decision over to the city’s voters – at some expense – or otherwise allow the governor to make the appointment.
Stanckiewitz said he is hopeful the council can hash its differences out and come up with an acceptable compromise appointment and avoid the expense of an election.
“As soon as the other two members are seated, we will have to come to some kind of a decision,” the mayor-elect said. “I especially hope everyone would come to the conclusion that running the expense of an election, which would cost the city at least $40,000 is not an alternative. I think at the first and only meeting we will have next month we will at least will be able to make a decision on how we will seek applicants for the position.”
Noting that the “clock is ticking,” Stanckiewitz said that the time constraints imposed on the council by state require expeditious action. “if we go that way [i.e., making an appointment] we will have to finalize it by the first meeting in January. After the vacancy comes up, we will have thirty days from the time we are seated, which means we will have until January 14th to do something since we will have only one council meeting before that 30 days expires. We will be busy on the first meeting in January.”
Going by the election day numbers, Robles would appear to be a logical choice to fill the gap. But she ran opposite McNaboe in a hard fought campaign, meaning McNaboe and potentially Garcia might not want her on the council dais.
While Stanckiewitz said of Robles that he had received “a lot of emails” recommending her and that he considered her a “viable candidate,” he said “I am only one vote. And I don’t want to influence the vote ahead of time. I don’t want to go beyond that. If Sylvia becomes our candidate of choice, she is going to have to win over other people on the council.”
Stanckiewitz said the council does not have to get locked on to choosing his replacement from the list of people who ran in the election.
“It appears to me we are getting more and more people interested in what is going on at City Hall,” he said. “A lot of people have been awakened. Out of this might come some people who want to get involved. We might have the opportunity to attract some new blood. We will only see if we get applications over the holidays. I would hope we have some previously uninvolved people come forward. We will look at everyone who is interested to see who can do the best job in this slot. I think the council as a whole will want to come up with someone acceptable to both sides, if there has to be two sides, who is not beholden or loyal to one side or the other. We want someone loyal to Grand Terrace who doesn’t have a political agenda.”
Stanckiewitz said he thought the representation of him as a polar opposite of his strongest running opponent in the mayor’s race – Doug Wilson – was inaccurate and he said it was equally wrong to assume that he and McNaboe are at odds.
“I can work with Darcy,” he said. “At the end of the day I believe she will be trying to do the right thing for Grand Terrace. Toward the end of the campaign she acknowledged some change in the city is okay. And I’ve always believed and said there are some very good things about our city.”
While admitting he and McNaboe might not be in consonance on everything, Stanckiewitz said he was confident they can come to some amicable terms for the sake of the city.
“I sincerely hope so, or it’s going to be a miserable two years for all of us,” he said. “I’m hoping that which has gone on over the election cycle will settle down so we will all be looking at what is in the best interest of the city and we will move forward.”
Gramps has some thoughts:
I never liked the use of the phrase political ambitions or political agendas,being used as being some sort of a pejorative against a candidate or appointment seeker. Voters or the Selectors should have a right to know what those ambitions or agendas are prior to voting, but the fact they exist is not a negative feature of some one who is running for office or applying for a vacancy appointment.
What is meant by these two phrases. Having a political ambition is to have a goal to be seated in a public office. What is wrong with that? Nothing. the Why some one wants to be elected is far more important. Is a person selecting office for social, personal or financial reasons? Is a person seeking office for a true civic service. The other meaning could be that a person sees election to the City Council as a stepping stone to higher office. I am not sure that is a bad thing either as long as that person serves on the council well, and is not an embarrassment as a representative outside the community when they conduct themselves with the title they have been bestowed upon by Grand Terrace citizens.
Having a political agenda is also not a negative. Knowing a persons political agenda is helpful to the electorate. We should know the issues an individual holds to be important, as it predicts the type of actions they may take if elected or appointed.
The having Political Ambitions or Political Agendas is not a negative, it is not knowing what they are or if they are not in service to the electorate when it is bad.
I suppose there is a way to select a person who has no "Political Ambitions" (desire to run for office in the future), or a political agenda, (no issues of interest) but do we really want that?
Well, for an appointment it may be interesting some day to appoint a member of our community who can not run for election due to their Religious Practices. For example a devoted Jehovah's Witnesses would not have Political Ambitions or want to run in the next election, however they may have a Political Agenda or issues they would bring to the City Council if appointed.
None of the Current or Near Future City Council Members would be sitting on the Council Dias making a decision regarding a Council Appointment if they did not themselves have Political Ambitions or a Political Agenda. What they should be looking for is what is the Ambition and Agenda and is that voice going to be of service to the community as an added voice on the Council.
Let's end the use of these terms as a pejorative of those seeking office or addressing the City Council during a meeting as their use does nothing to resolve an issue or advance the interests of the community. Unless the person using the phrase goes on to explain what it is about a persons Political Ambition or Political Agenda is so detrimental and adverse to the civic conversation it must be belittled or attempted to be waived aside by such a remark.
Gramps
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Gramps has some thoughts:
I never liked the use of the phrase political ambitions or political agendas,being used as being some sort of a pejorative against a candidate or appointment seeker. Voters or the Selectors should have a right to know what those ambitions or agendas are prior to voting, but the fact they exist is not a negative feature of some one who is running for office or applying for a vacancy appointment.
What is meant by these two phrases. Having a political ambition is to have a goal to be seated in a public office. What is wrong with that? Nothing. the Why some one wants to be elected is far more important. Is a person selecting office for social, personal or financial reasons? Is a person seeking office for a true civic service. The other meaning could be that a person sees election to the City Council as a stepping stone to higher office. I am not sure that is a bad thing either as long as that person serves on the council well, and is not an embarrassment as a representative outside the community when they conduct themselves with the title they have been bestowed upon by Grand Terrace citizens.
Having a political agenda is also not a negative. Knowing a persons political agenda is helpful to the electorate. We should know the issues an individual holds to be important, as it predicts the type of actions they may take if elected or appointed.
The having Political Ambitions or Political Agendas is not a negative, it is not knowing what they are or if they are not in service to the electorate when it is bad.
I suppose there is a way to select a person who has no "Political Ambitions" (desire to run for office in the future), or a political agenda, (no issues of interest) but do we really want that?
Well, for an appointment it may be interesting some day to appoint a member of our community who can not run for election due to their Religious Practices. For example a devoted Jehovah's Witnesses would not have Political Ambitions or want to run in the next election, however they may have a Political Agenda or issues they would bring to the City Council if appointed.
None of the Current or Near Future City Council Members would be sitting on the Council Dias making a decision regarding a Council Appointment if they did not themselves have Political Ambitions or a Political Agenda. What they should be looking for is what is the Ambition and Agenda and is that voice going to be of service to the community as an added voice on the Council.
Let's end the use of these terms as a pejorative of those seeking office or addressing the City Council during a meeting as their use does nothing to resolve an issue or advance the interests of the community. Unless the person using the phrase goes on to explain what it is about a persons Political Ambition or Political Agenda is so detrimental and adverse to the civic conversation it must be belittled or attempted to be waived aside by such a remark.
Gramps
