FLASH --Measure A win is ROCK SOLID. 

6/11/10  Updated figures published today at 4:42 PM by the Solano County

 Registrar of Voters are: 8785 YES vs. 8353 NO.  This puts YES on A ahead by

 432 votes for a healthy lead. Too few votes remain uncounted to influence the

 outcome. 

 BINDING ARBITRATION IS GONE FROM THE VALLEJO CITY CHARTER.

McWilliams explains that the vote counting process has evolved (largely because of the multiple recounts and confusion during the Cloutier/ Davis mayoral race in Vallejo) into a process that is slower, but more focused on accuracy.

It is considered statistically unlikely that the remaining 14,000 or so ballots county-wide (largely mail in ballots) will significantly impact results on Vallejo ballot Measure A, which will implement the removal of binding arbitration from the Vallejo City Charter, or councilmember Michael Wilson's (apparently failed) bid for State Assembly.  Updated results are expected tomorrow.

Measure A Wins

Wilson Trailing

6/9/10

By Marc Garman

As of 2:16 am, the “Unofficial Results” posted by the Solano County Registrar of Voters indicate that Measure A, which will remove the binding arbitration provision from the Vallejo City Charter, has won. The posted tally of 7014 in favor and 6560 opposed to the measure gives the “Yes” side a 3.34% lead.

VIB was present at the Registrar of Voters in Fairfield until after midnight in hopes of getting the latest numbers after the internet reporting system went offline. Registrar Ira Rosenthal explained that in spite of having more ballot counting machines than in the last election, the large number of “write in” candidates, which require manual entry, was “just killing” the process. This led to the count not being completed pending finalization until such a late hour.

With the hundreds of thousands of dollars more spent by the “No on A” side backed by union special interests, the results are nothing less than astounding. This clearly represents a paradigm shift in Vallejo as well as a change in attitude and perception on a national level.

With binding arbitration provisions in the current contracts Vallejo has with several of its unions, nothing is likely to change until those contracts expire (starting in 2012, I think). After that, we will see what effect the removal of binding arbitration has on the city moving forward.

Among the unanswered questions: What's next? Specifically, with safety unions legally prohibited from striking, will Vallejo's IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) strike? And might the city do as Ronnie Reagan did and replace them? I for one hope we can see Vallejo move forward without another divisive and disruptive episode.

P.S. At last check, Vallejo City Councilmember and State Assembly Candidate Michael Wilson was trailing Michael Allen by more than 800 votes.

  Who benefits if Yes on Measure A wins?

By JD Miller, CPA

6/7/10

To decide how you’re going to vote on June 8th, why not ask yourself who wins if Measure A wins?

If Measure A wins, it won’t put more money in the pockets of J. D. Miller, Jim Libien, Byrne Conley, the three citizens who signed the petition to remove binding arbitration. It won’t put more money in the pockets of the small group of volunteers who dedicated hundreds of hours of their valuable time to get the message out to all of you reading this.

You will win because your City Council will have the power to decide to spend all of your tax money.

Your City Council could decide to spend some of your tax money to fix your streets and support Senior Center services, as well as other important services you want and pay for.

Your City Council could invest some of your tax money in economic development to create more job opportunities for you and your children.

 No On Proposition 14, the “Eliminate Small Parties Initiative”

By Joe Feller

6/7/10

The new Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Abel Maldonado, while a State Senator, agreed to vote for a budget with the consideration that Governor Schwarzenegger would approve this “reform”.  Why would a career politician get behind this style of reform which doesn’t seem to help his career? One only has to look at who is financing this reform.

First, let us look at the consequences of this initiative. The very first thing is that this initiative would likely eliminate many 3^rd parties in California. One of the easiest ways for a third party to gain ballot status is by California Election Law #5100 which states

* 1. During the previous gubernatorial election, the party needs to get 2 percent of the vote for any office voted on throughout the state, not just the governor’s office. In the 2006 election, that 2 percent threshold was 173,588 votes. That’s the number to be applied for this election, in 2010. (The number should rise after the current election, assuming more people vote than last time.)