Yesterday, Abel Guillen finally conceded in the race to replace Sandre Swanson against sitting Vice Mayor Rob Bonta. Honestly though, it was a bit of a nail biter at the end because while Rob Bonta was in the lead, it was ever so slight and according to results watchers, with each precinct that rolled in Rob Bonta’s lead shrank considerably.
However, I think we all — and Rob Bonta included — we’re a little too confident that he would sweep this run off election given his showing in the earlier election. What the campaign underestimated was the sheer force of Abel Guillen volunteer machine which, from what I understand, mobilized a strong get out the vote campaign for him.
So what does this mean for the City Council? Well Rob Bonta will head off to Sacramento and third place finisher Stewart Chen will fill out the balance of his term and then — possibly — run for re-election in 2014. For Stewart Chen’s vacated seat on the Hospital Board, there is no automatic appointment, instead the Hospital Board will appoint someone to fill that seat. So, for folks who are interested in serving on the Hospital Board but didn’t want to necessarily go through the whole campaign process, this is your chance. Hopefully, as before, the Hospital Board will have an application period for interested parties.
And what does this mean for the nascent Recall Bonta campaign, well a bunch of wasted time and money and the most ridiculous campaign slogan ever. I mean, 32 to 1 ain’t fair was pretty bad, I didn’t think that David Howard could do any worse than that, but Bonta Been Bought is pretty terrible as well. So not only did the Recall Bonta campaign back fire in that it didn’t effect his Assembly race, they’ll have to pack up the Recall Bonta campaign as well since there’s no seat to recall him from. Lose – Lose.
In other tallies, did you all see the comment from Mike McMahon regarding his prediction poll:
And the winner in election prediction contest is………….. actually three entries. Commonsense, blogmaster Do and JKW were the only entries out of 25 to correct predict the three individuals who finished in the top three for both CC and BOE races. Lauren had the CC race nailed getting the correct order for CC and Commonsense was the only one to get the correct finishing order for the BOE race. As for Measure D, JKW had the better prediction compared to Lauren and Commonsense.
Overall out 25 entries only three correctly predict Stewart Chen coming third, two correctly predicted TonyDaysog second place finish. 18 predict Marilyn Ashcraft would finish first. Three correctly predicted Trish would finish first, one person had Barbara Kahn finishing second and three had Niel Tam finishing third.
One word: woot! That’s about the extent of my gloating for this election cycle. High fives to my fellow predictors.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
The charge that Bonta was bought by developers is baseless, inappropriate and absolutely false.
He was bought by UNIONS, not developers.
Comment by Jack Schultz — November 14, 2012 @ 6:48 am
rob bonta is also developer owned … he was more than ready to sell the golf course to ron cowan / and had no problem violating the city charter to let developers build crowded homes with no parks for kids
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 7:18 am
I guess it all depends on how you look at things, you could say Rob Bonta was supported by unions, and voted against the Cowan project. Its all in the eyes of the beholder.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 14, 2012 @ 8:24 am
Right on, John.
Comment by JKW — November 14, 2012 @ 9:11 am
It is still troubling that Rob Bonta has shown himself ready, willing, & able to violate our City Charter, more than once, without apology, when it suits his purpose. That is not simply a way of looking at things. It’s a lack of integrity. You just elected a new lawmaker who doesn’t respect the laws already in existence.
Comment by vigi — November 14, 2012 @ 9:20 am
Vigi, Thank you for your opinion, we all have them.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 14, 2012 @ 10:11 am
opinions are nice, but ..violating the city charter you are sworn to protect is wrong … and it will always be wrong
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 11:21 am
two wrongs .. don’t make a right
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 11:36 am
Mom, as I said, it is your and Vigis opinion that he broke the city charter, two opinions don’t make a wrong.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 14, 2012 @ 11:49 am
the passing of measure D in Alameda by 80% should tell you something about the way people feel about rob bonta! You are gullible … ill give you credit for that!
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 1:33 pm
What does Measure D have to do with Rob Bonta? It’s silly to extrapolate a vote on a Measure that no one came out against and apply that to an elected official who won his race.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 14, 2012 @ 2:15 pm
2 opinions also dont make a fact. “mom” congrats on overlooking the direct vote for Rob as a way to gauge how people feel about him.
Comment by notadave — November 14, 2012 @ 2:21 pm
Mom,, the election of Rob Bonta should tell you something about the way people feel about Rob Bonta! he could not have done it without the fine citizens of Alameda supporting him. thank you for your vote.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 14, 2012 @ 2:32 pm
like I said, you are gullible … keep your opinion to yourself or respect others opinions
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 4:56 pm
#13
Actually I think what made the race close is that a lot of the fine citizens of Alameda voted against him.
Comment by frank — November 14, 2012 @ 5:12 pm
#15
good point
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
rob bonta is over rated and has no real accomplishments
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 8:11 pm
rob bonta is not a leader .. he is a follower
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 8:42 pm
follow the money
Comment by mom — November 14, 2012 @ 8:42 pm
sorry Frank and Mom, the election didn’t turn out in your favor. Rob Bonta won and that is not just my opinion.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 15, 2012 @ 8:07 am
mom, you for got about how Bonta lied to us about Benghazi.
Comment by M.I. — November 15, 2012 @ 8:33 am
He did win. I confess I thought he’d win by more, but he won & all of us here in the Reality Based Community accept that he won.
Living in Reality, though, we know what he is: bought & paid for by public employee unions, ambitious as hell for himself, Alameda is merely tool for him.
It is what it is.
Comment by Jack Schultz — November 15, 2012 @ 8:59 am
It is not my opinion that Bonta violated our City Charter when he voted, instead of abstaining, during his very first council meeting. The Charter says new council members must “take no action” for a specified time after election. A vote is an action, either way it goes. Some of you must have failed English at a very early grade level. Back to grammar school with you.
Comment by vigi — November 15, 2012 @ 11:13 am
Again, its a matter of opinion, I just went and read the section you refer to again. My opinion and I would guess the city attorneys opinion would have been that Mr. Bonta did not vote to “remove,suspend, request resignation, or reduce the salary of the Temporary city manager. You can have your opinion and believe that you are correct, I would simply disagree with you.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 15, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
have some more gullible pie
Comment by mom — November 16, 2012 @ 7:59 am
I think I will, while your enjoying your sour grapes mom.
Comment by John P.(L) — November 16, 2012 @ 9:04 am
We have been through this before. As someone who had many years as a personnel officer in civil service, and had to learn the “rules of the road” to do my job at the County of Alameda Auditor Controller Agency, I get this one.
The “take no action” is specific to changes in the three positions named in the charter only. The City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Clerk. The changes are specified as adversary personnel actions. The vote had to do with notifying Ms. Gallant the INTERIM City Manager, a person on a contract with a specific ending time and a requirement for notification if the contract were not to be renewed, that her contract would not be automatically renewed. This would allow the Council to find a PERMANENTLY appointed City Manager some time in the future, and beyond the date that the “take no action” would be in force. So Ms. Gallant was not terminated as the City Manager, because she was not the City Manager, and she was not terminated because she could have applied for the position which would be opening up for the City Manager. She chose not to do that. A non-renewal of a contract with a specified ending date is not a termination in Civil Service Personnel Rules. And as to the City Attorney, who had accepted a job and was being sworn in in the new City and lied about it to at least one council member, well, such behavior would never be condoned in either private industry or public service. She resigned.
So Rob’s “violation” was no violation. He voted to send a letter. The action the letter specified took place after the time period in which he was supposed to ‘take no action” with respect to the three named personnel, and the person to whom the letter was sent was not in one of those three named positions. An interim is like a temp, especially if they did not ever hold tenure in another City Civil Service positon, which she did not. She was the interim finance director before, and so did not hold permanent status with the City.
You may approve of Mr. Bonta or not for a lot of things, but this accusation is based on people not understanding how Civil Service works, or how labor law with respect to temporaries or interims works. It would be my guess that the Council sought advice of outside Counsel before they acted to send the letter. That’s just a guess, but I bet they did that and were advised that they were on solid ground. It would have been the prudent thing to do. I do recall that outside counsel was available to them at that meeting.
Comment by Kate Quick,. — November 16, 2012 @ 10:03 am