How they voted
By Matt Artz
Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 at 1:57 pm in Uncategorized.
Wasserman’s Top Five
Bacon
Bonaccorsi
Chugh
Dutra
Salwan
Sue Chan’s Top Five
Bonaccorsi
Dutra
Salwan
Moina Shaiq
Zlatnik
Natarajan’s Top Five
Bonaccorsi
Chugh
Dutra
Salwan
Zlatnik
Harrison’s Top Five
Bacon
Bonaccorsi
Chugh
Dutra
Salwan
Bacon’s two votes came from Wasserman and Harrison.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
December 15th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Martz, Were these ranked or in any order?
December 15th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
They were not ranked. Council will rank on Thursday.
December 15th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Council needs to appoint someone who can hit the ground running, particulary now due to complex issues caused by city’s revenue shortfalls etc. Kind of makes sense the way the Council members voted. Assuming that they would want to get someone on the Board who is very familiar with issues and knows how the City works, I think all of them wasted one vote.
Now, it is time to focus on 4 out of the 6 called for interviews, so I would think. Best of luck Council.
December 15th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
The agenda for Thursday’s interviews is available: City Council Special Meeting Agenda
http://www.fremont.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=689
December 15th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Chinmoy, you are sounding more and more like Fazlur Khan.
December 15th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Probally one from the following may be on the council.
Dr. Raj Salwan
Developer with big purse, large contributions to various candidates, hosting most of the democratic party dinners.
Yogi Chugh
Chairman, Tri Cities Democratic Party, contributing to the democratic party, projecting the candidates, getting bogus endorsements to the candidates and former
President of Federation of Indian American.
Dutra
Developer with big purse and contributor to various candidates
December 15th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Don’t count out Bonacorsi and Zlatnik.
December 16th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Chinmoy,
You think all of them “wasted one vote”?
Would you mind saying who you think didn’t even deserve consideration from the Council (and yet managed to get unanimous support)?
December 16th, 2010 at 9:27 am
And yet again, we struggle to explain a process which should have been clearly understood and defined PRIOR to the start of the process.
Here is a link to the 12/14 webcast –
http://www.fremont.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=687
Council discussion of the topic starts at 1:32:00.
At 1:39:50 After all council members have submitted their votes and while the votes are being tallied Natarajan (again) asks for explanation of the “process going forward” An explanation of which should have included the total number of finalists to be selected . . . . This is Anu’s second request for explanation of the processes that council will use, her previous request occurred in the council meeting of 12/7.
At 1:40:50 while viewing the results of the tally, Wasserman suggests that the council take the top 4 to interview, but then changes that suggestion to allow for 4 or 5 – - and a day later its expanded to 6.
Folks – one objective of our council is to maintain a modicum of credibility and transparency of process and this appointment in particular, for many reasons, will carry significant sway with involved constituency.
The seeming absence of a process which was understood by all PRIOR to the initiation of selection, is compounded by repeated attempts to secure a comprehensive understanding and the result is highly damaging to the integrity of all invovled.
I say again, this council sorely needs someone familiar NOT with the way things are done in Fremont, but how they SHOULD or COULD be accomplished. The process of change may be uncomfortable for those unfamiliar, but will ultimately be of benefit to the greater Fremont.
December 16th, 2010 at 11:30 am
The fun starts at around 1:18 -
http://www.fremont.gov/Archive.aspx?ADID=680