SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 11, 2012· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Ender concedes, what’s next?

By Mike — Mike Devlin

In a message posted to Facebook, Laurie Ender thanks her supporters and is moving on:

We’re in a minor limbo, because the election results will not be certified for some time, yet Laurie Ender isn’t 100% eliminated. Surely someone smarter than me knows the answer, but I would assume that a concession might be sufficient to move things along, in the event that the results aren’t certified by the next council meeting.

Another issue that seems unclear is who becomes mayor now that the sitting mayor has lost an election in the middle of her term. Frank Ferry is the mayor pro tem, but I don’t see anything in the CA Government Code of the city’s municipal code that suggests Ferry is due for an automatic upgrade. A mayor pro tem (Latin: for the time being)  serves as mayor when the mayor can’t. Some cities have a defined vice mayor complete with a succession plan, but we don’t.

Ferry would seem to have the votes, but by the unwritten order of succession, he skipped ahead of Kellar this year and nominated himself to MPT, with the support of three (Kellar wasn’t pleased). In light of that, and in the wake of Kellar’s commanding victory (not to mention addition of Boydston to the council) some think that the new mayor ought to be Bob Kellar. I wouldn’t expect to see this happen without a fight, or at least some brokered deal where Kellar brings significantly more clout than he had a few months ago.

Comments (92)

  1. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 10:26 am
    The only reason that I prefer Bob Kellar is nominated and elected for Mayor Pro Tem status is that he would then serve a full 12 month term next year vs. whoever becomes Mayor next Council meeting who will only serve an abbreviated 6-month term.
  2. Phil EllisApril 11, 2012 at 10:34 am
    I agree that Bob deserves a full year term as Mayor.
  3. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    Definitely!
  4. mikecApril 11, 2012 at 10:29 am
    Mike, Assuming that after that all of the votes are counted and it’s very close like last time. I guess Ender could request a recount etc, but it seems like Gauny she won’t be requesting a recount and will be moving on. A tip of the hat to the Boydston Campaign, those guys worked their respective butts off and a tip of the hat to Ender, who is exiting with grace.
  5. Timothy Myers SRApril 11, 2012 at 10:34 am
    mikec: When the provisional votes are tallied TimBen will win by more than the thumping victory he already has. Look for more coverage on how TBB kept in close in the vote by mails and then SMOKED Laurie Ender in the poll votes. Someone who knows math must have wised up Laurie Ender on the need to concede.
  6. AnnetteApril 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    Tim, TimBen did better at the polls last time too
  7. MikeApril 11, 2012 at 10:36 am
    It isn’t nearly as close as last time. Gauny left election day 69 votes behind and finished 32 votes behind. Right now, Laurie Ender 588 votes behind. Tips of the hat due to both, I agree.
  8. SCV Republican SupporterApril 11, 2012 at 10:54 am
    The Smart move is to elevate Bob to Mayor.
  9. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 11:01 am
    I disagree, let Frank have the “leftovers” and Bob have the full term during the time frame he should have had in the first place.
  10. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    Frank will probably “finish” Ender’s term and then take his own full term.
  11. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm
    I doubt that Kellar and Boydston would sit still for Ferry taking an 18 month mayor ship, and if they are smart neither will Weste and McLean.
  12. LarMccApril 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm
    Ender was chosen for this ceremonial position by the council. Is there anything that says you have to be a sitting councilperson to be mayor? Perhaps Ferry will make an argument that Ender continue on as mayor, kind of like that guy that was King of San Francisco.
  13. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm
    LarMcc you must be a council member to hold the position of Mayor representing the City of Santa Clarita.
  14. LarMccApril 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm
    Well, I would think so, but I am just throwing crazy thoughts out there.
  15. TiredOfTheHypocrisyApril 11, 2012 at 10:59 am
    How quickly people forget. What’s with all the praise for Bob the Proud Racist? Really, this is who we want as our mayor? We might as well be part of the Antelope Valley with that guy in charge.
  16. NateApril 11, 2012 at 11:05 am
    The mayor really isn’t in charge of much of anything it is pretty much a title.
  17. AdamApril 11, 2012 at 11:28 am
    And it doesn’t even help people win elections apparently.
  18. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 11:06 am
    Tired of… your continuing rag on Bob for comments taken out of context is what is tiring. Sour grapes dear since he won by a HUGE landslide? Or do you believe the electorate buys your BS and overwhelmingly chose Bob anyway? Puhleez…
  19. TiredOfTheHypocrisyApril 11, 2012 at 11:13 am
    Where exactly have I ragged on the old racist in the past? Please enlighten me, Big Bertha.
  20. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 11:23 am
    TOTH go blank yourself. Folks like you are just not worth talking to.
  21. TiredOfTheHypocrisyApril 11, 2012 at 11:26 am
    Seriously, Bertha – you gotta relax.
  22. NateApril 11, 2012 at 12:03 pm
    Whoa Berta what is that?
  23. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    “That” is my reaction to a jerk that insists on perpetuating the same old lie about Kellar and insults me in the bargain by intentionally changing my name and making fun of it and my appearance. A real brave act behind an anonymous keystroke. Like I said, not worth talking to. Or wasting any more keystrokes on either.
  24. CCApril 11, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    kudos
  25. NateApril 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm
    You are not the authority on whether something is or isn’t racist. You have an opinion and so does TiredOfTheHypocrisy. You should be good with that.
  26. AnnetteApril 12, 2012 at 5:11 pm
    Go Berta-I agree with you.
  27. NateApril 11, 2012 at 11:38 am
    His comment wasn’t taken out of context Berta. His comment was inflammatory and offensive to some people and Bob refused to apologize if people took what he said that wrong way. Doesn’t mean he changes his position it just means he says it was a poor choice of words.
  28. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 11:44 am
    Nate I am not arguing this same point with you yet again. We agree to disagree, happy now?
  29. Eric HeilbrunApril 11, 2012 at 11:56 am
    Failure to cite the entire sentence is taking something out of context…I see that TOTH wrote “…. praise for Bob….this is who we want as our Mayor…”. Complete sentences and context can really screw with the spin we want to put on other people’s words.
  30. NateApril 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
    We all know the context… Bob arrogantly refused to apologize for his choice of words. That rant was completely unnecessary and only pandered to a group of extremists. Who like Berta took the if you don’t like the inflammatory words go “F” yourself which is just immature from someone in his position. Unfortunately this is a common theme with Bob he missteps and says… So what I am Bob Kellar.
  31. CCApril 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    Yes Nate, we all know the context so your constant rehashing the non-existent is irrelevant.
  32. NateApril 12, 2012 at 12:42 pm
    I take huge issue with his behavior after…
  33. TiredOfTheHypocrisyApril 12, 2012 at 7:30 am
    Umm…good try, Eric. Bob Keller is an elected official. Keller’s statements, taken any way you want, reveal that he is either a racist or a complete moron.
  34. Eric HeilbrunApril 13, 2012 at 6:23 am
    Is it Kellar’s unambiguous stance on ILLEGAL immigration that makes him a racist, or his use of FIGURATIVE speech that makes him a racist? Would it be fair to say that those that don’t share Bob’s stance on the issue are more likely to ignore the figurative nature of his statement? And if we ever agree on this I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Now please note, I’m not actually saying I have a nephew that’s a monkey.
  35. Timothy Myers SRApril 11, 2012 at 11:19 am
    God does not care about who won or lost this City Council election, but for Believers God will help one cope with their disappointments and trials and make the best of it. I would prefer if former council member Ender had stated that she would leave it in God’s hands rather than taking on the hubris of a personal God plan.
  36. Capt. GeneApril 11, 2012 at 11:33 am
    Find that disturbing do ya Tim?
  37. Timothy Myers SRApril 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    God is the ruler of the universe. He is not my weekly therapist or personal life coach.
  38. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 1:40 pm
    I agree. Jim Rome said it best when he once said “I don’t think God cares about the score of the game… I don’t think God has a three-team teaser on Sunday that he’s looking to make sure comes in.” (Mind you, this was long before Tebow… back in 2002 or 2003 when I was working in radio still.)
  39. mikeApril 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    Are you trying to win the hu-hu-huge post of the day?
  40. NateApril 11, 2012 at 11:45 am
    ” I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie. There is no system. The universe is indifferent.” ~Don Draper #TruFax
  41. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm
    Nate, that is your belief.
  42. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm
    Tim, God is a personal one. Ender is right and so are you. When one door closes, another usually opens because God does have a plan for those that seek it, and humble themselves enough to hear it.
  43. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 1:11 pm
    Forgive the bad grammar. I posted before I read it back.
  44. NateApril 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    Jay, that is your belief.
  45. ScottEApril 11, 2012 at 3:24 pm
    “It’s a fact!” – Mona Lisa Vito (My Cousin Vinny)
  46. Coastal SageApril 11, 2012 at 11:25 am
    Yes, Laurie Ender was very gracious in conceding. However, under the California Elections Code and regulations published by the Secretary of State concerning procedures in local elections, all of the “uncounted” votes have to be counted. The degree of care in “authenticating” the identity of those whose ballots were received in the mail on election day, or delivered to a polling place, or who voted on provisional ballots is to some extent at the discretion of the City Clerk.
  47. MikeApril 11, 2012 at 11:35 am
    Thanks, I knew someone would come through. I think the next council meeting isn’t until the 24th, so they ought to have it wrapped up by then. Am I correct about the MPT position?
  48. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 11:28 am
    This is why we need a City Charter and we need to re-evaluate our council and elections. The fact is that the Mayor’s term should commence and end to coordinate with the end of an election cycle. We don’t elect our President on the first Tuesday in November and swear them in the very next Tuesday. They’re sworn in on a specific date, at a specific time. Our Council should be the same. I’d suggest we draft and pass a charter, immediately, that calls for the election to take place the second tuesday in February, with a runoff, if necessary the second tuesday in April, for the elected to take their seat On May 1 (2nd if Sunday). At that time, the Council shall convene to select its Mayor and pro tem, to serve until the following May 1 (2nd). Why is this so difficult?????? We’re about to be the third largest city in the county… yet we can’t figure this out???????????
  49. MikeApril 11, 2012 at 11:43 am
    I don’t think we would need a charter to do that, nor is it entirely necessary. The whole business of timing a candidate’s mayorship to coincide with an election year is silly and cynical. They shouldn’t appoint someone as Mayor whose council term expires during their mayoral term. But of course, it hardly matters. It matters so little, I feel dirty for having mentioned it at all.
  50. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    I disagree Mike. In non-partisan elections, we should only elect council members who have earned a vote of the majority of the electorate (at least, those casting votes), not just the most of those who ran. If we’re choosing among the nominees put forth by their party, then I am more willing to accept less than a majority decree, but that doesn’t apply here. Apparently, general law doesn’t require such. Nor does it specify election dates, nor terms of office. Which, is really really really sad. The third largest city in Los Angeles county needs a few things: 1.) A charter, drafted by and authorized by its electorate 1a.) The charter should provide for the election of a city council, a city treasurer and a city clerk. ALL ELECTED. 2.) Their own Police Department 3.) Their own Fire Department I’m certain they need more… So I reserve the right to amend this list.
  51. JoeApril 11, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    4.) Their own Library System…which, to be fair, this city council did provide.
  52. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    Charter doesn’t need to provide that. But I agree… the City should run its own Library, and would welcome the day when it its run by the city, and not its selected vendor.
  53. AlpinerApril 11, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    Amen!
  54. Phil EllisApril 11, 2012 at 1:53 pm
    What, no out sourcing. Perhaps we should have municipal employees with huge pensions take care of all operations and then we can be like Stockton.
  55. VenturanApril 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm
    Right, because those are the only two options.
  56. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    As a gov’t employee, currently in the PERS system, I advocate reform. I’ll be paying 4% of my salary out of my own pocket into PERS, and I believe every one should too. Our final compensation should be based on an average of the final 3 or maybe 5 years, not the last year to spike it. Retirement age should be hard fixed at 62, not as early as 50 like some cops and firefighters get (obvious exemptions for disabilities).
  57. lvogelApril 11, 2012 at 3:49 pm
    second hospital
  58. lvogelApril 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    Thought I’d be posting under Todd’s comment: in addition to the mentioned items for the 3rd largest city…..an additional hospital.
  59. LarMccApril 12, 2012 at 6:48 am
    It is impossible to build any new hospitals in the state of California, per Roger Seaver, Henry Mayo CEO. We are doomed apparently to have a third rate hospital, tucked into the west side of our valley serve everyones needs 100 years into the future.
  60. ToddApril 12, 2012 at 7:32 am
    Agreed…. but thats really just a function of our city’s economic development and community development working to bring someone in and clear the land. If redevelopment still existed… oh wait.
  61. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm
    Defined districts for the city council?
  62. BertaApril 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    I do not like the idea of council districts because it sets up antagonistic and competitive issues between districts and representatives. Currently we “hire” all five folks to each work for all of us. With designated districts only one individual works for an entire district creating the potential for the more forceful folks to get more for their district than having all of the them accountable to all of us. We work more cohesively as one city when we all work together without creating fiefdoms that each fiercely protects. If you doubt that, just look at the Board of Supervisors where Gloria Molina blocks Mike Antonovich, etc., it just does not work well.
  63. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 11, 2012 at 8:48 pm
    I couldn’t agree more Berta. It seems the larger we grow as a city, the more inevitable it will eventually be.
  64. spineflower2April 12, 2012 at 8:52 am
    Sounds like an argument that our constitution has soundly rejected. We elect senators and congressmen by district (and do likewise at a state level as well). Only the executive (president, governor, mayor) is elected at large. Why do we feel our fair city needs something different that the founding fathers envisioned? The problem with at large voting for representatives is that if you are in a minority (cough, Castaic, cough), you get NO representation. With local reps, at least you have a voice for your local concerns. This was one of the reasons the west side rejected annexation– “you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.” Polls showed greater support for annexation if there were local representatives. But the incumbents like the present system (they always do), and will fight to keep it in place.
  65. MikeApril 12, 2012 at 9:04 am
    My, what a broad brush you have. To the “Should we annex” question, 53% of voters voted yes. The only area that didn’t support annexation more than staying as-is was Castaic. Westridge, SR and Tesoro all chose the annexation option above the other two. But anyway, it’s ridiculous that the city is about to surpass 250k voters and we have an at-large, top 2/top 3, first past the pole kind of election system. 3rd largest city in LA County and we elect our most senior leaders like we’re an HOA.
  66. ScottEApril 12, 2012 at 9:14 am
    Wait .. we’re NOT an HOA?
  67. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 12:05 pm
    Spineflower you cannot possibly be are unaware that Castaic is not part of the City of Santa Clarita and is in fact administered and governed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. If Mike wants something for Castaic but Gloria et al want it for their area instead you may get zip. Mike is the only one on that Board that gives a poop about Castaic. It is each member protecting his/her fiefdom and too bad for the other guys. How is that working for you? Me, I much prefer having five folks working for all city residents.
  68. ToddApril 12, 2012 at 7:47 am
    We’re big, but not that big IMHO. I do think we need the charter to authorize specific boards and commissions including for Parks, Planning (which we have), Police and/or Public Safety, and Library. The only reason to codify them, is that I believe they’re created out of authority of the council now, which means that the council could dissolve them if they so desired, almost immediately. If its required under our charter, then the people have to authorize the disbanding… aka less political influence (in theory).
  69. NateApril 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    I think there should be competition for a particular seats though, I would also like to see the election moved to November with the rest of votes.
  70. it is what it isApril 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    The solution is disticted City Council members by zip code (allows entry by Stevenson Ranch and Castaic) plus two at-large CC members, plus an elected Mayor who votes to break tie votes. Mayor and at-large members must get majority votes in elections, otherwise there is a run-off of the top two candidates. Move the elections to primary election day, and use two ballots if necessary. Discussion in 3… 2… 1…
  71. Actually It Ain't What It IsApril 12, 2012 at 3:11 pm
    Death match for Supreme Being of The SCV (SBoSCV)
  72. Phil EllisApril 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm
    Other than an absolute tie, what would create the need for a runoff election?
  73. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    Lets put it this way.. if 10 candidates ran for one seat, and all candidates votes were relatively even…. Would you want your city City Council Member to have been elected with as little as 10.1% of the votes? Is there a mandate to govern, when 89.9% of those who voted, picked someone other than you?
  74. Phil EllisApril 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    How long do you think it would take to get a winner and at what cost using your system. I believe many other cities use the same system we do without problems. Is there a mandate to govern with a vote of 50.1%?
  75. Timothy Myers SRApril 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    The solution to that is to use a second preference system. Everyone votes for a first preference and then a second. The first preferences are ranked top to bottom, then the bottom first preference vote getter is eliminated and their second preferences are distributed (and so on) until somewhat has an outright 50% plus one. This is the system they use for Australian parliamentary elections and also for the Mayor of Oakland, CA.
  76. ToddApril 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    One election, and if necessary, one runoff. Top two vote-getters advance to the runoff.
  77. mikeApril 11, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    A 2nd choice system is like having a runoff without the expense.
  78. Phil EllisApril 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm
    Aren’t these 2nd choice systems designed for when one position is being sought? If two seats are being sought, I shouldn’t have to differentiate between my first and second choice. Similarly for when there are three open seats.
  79. Coastal SageApril 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm
    The negative problematic part of a municipality becoming a “charter city” is that it automatically causes a whole boat load of protect-the-public statutes to be N/A to the charter city. As a result, for the average city resident, there is no upside in a city becoming a charter city, unless the charter specifically states “Notwithstanding any statute or case law to the contrary, all California laws and case law applicable to general law cities shall apply to this city.” The whole topic of a charter city’s freedom from many dictates of the Legislature and the courts was discussed at length in “California Zoning Practice” published by the California Continuing Education of the Bar in multiple editions beginning prior to 1978. Bottom line: Forget charter city status.
  80. ToddApril 12, 2012 at 7:55 am
    I don’t think its impossible, nor is it impracticable to attain charter status. Lots of work? Yes. Worth it? Yup. Would you be one that I’d want involved to ensure that the “protect-the-public” is included (as evident by Bell’s abuse), you betcha!
  81. it is what it isApril 12, 2012 at 3:05 pm
    The solution is disticted City Council members by zip code (allows entry by Stevenson Ranch and Castaic) plus two at-large CC members, plus an elected Mayor who votes to break tie votes. Mayor and at-large members must get majority votes in elections, otherwise there is a run-off of the top two candidates. Move the elections to primary election day, and use two ballots if necessary. Discussion in 3… 2… 1…
  82. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm
    Castaic and Stevenson Ranch are not part of the City of Santa Clarita. I am not in favor of your suggestions.
  83. SplashGuardApril 11, 2012 at 11:50 am
    Truth, Justice, and the American Way?
  84. Eric HeilbrunApril 12, 2012 at 4:48 am
    From Tim…”Ironically, nothing would thrill me more than an Ender defeat. (Back to the stoicism and lack of emotion.) It would be a “black swan” event in SC politics and I could not wait to tear through the numbers to find out why it happened.” Looking forward to Tim’s analysis on why it happened. I posted my thoughts, but am interested to see what Tim comes up with using the numbers. I think in a very broad sense, while we joked about “Ender Math”, it really had an impact. The lesson being, that while it is noble to want to do what you think is best for ALL the constituents, when you ignore the passionate minority that actually vote and take the time to attend council meetings, write letters, etc. for the benefit of the indifferent minority that don’t care enough to vote…well, I think we saw what could happen. As an aside, while I’m certain Laurie appreciated Tim’s vote, comments from a regular Signal Sunday Opinion columnist in a public forum that “nothing would thrill me more than an Ender defeat…” has got to be frustrating. Just sayin’…
  85. Leon WordenApril 12, 2012 at 10:31 am
    Hi Eric – Tim Myers doesn’t need to crunch any numbers to figure out why TimBen won. TimBen won for one simple reason. He bet me 10 bucks he’d win. That clinched it. I *ALWAYS* lose when I bet money. No exceptions.
  86. S.C.V. ProgressiveApril 12, 2012 at 11:00 am
    The two biggest follies of this election where Bob Keller’s win and Laurie Ender invoking her delusion of a “god” in her concession status update on Facebook. Good riddance to Laurie! I’m glad TimBen won. Too bad we have to deal with Bob Keller for another term. Really, TOO bad. Oh well, what else can I really expect from this largely Conservative and religious town? Hopefully our Santa Clarita City Council will soon have more Progressives and Athiests/Agnostics/Humanists within it’s ranks. I look forward to the day a Medical Marijuana Dispensary opens in Stevenson Ranch. That’ll get under Keller’s skin and he won’t have the City’s power to stop it!
  87. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 11:54 am
    S.C.V. Progressive I think it is very wise of you to post anonymously. Be careful what you wish for since Stevenson Ranch may one day choose to annex into the city of Santa Clarita. Remember, Mike Antonovich is supposed to retire in 2016. As to the marijuana shops, the federal government may have a different plan regarding the matter, especially if there is a change in the federal administration starting with the White House and Attorney General so I would not crow to loudly if I were you.
  88. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    Nate, I would venture to say I am more familiar with what is or is not racism than someone like you or TOTH. TOTH has a right to his/her opinion and I have a right to challenge his/her and your untrue statements. Live with it Nate.
  89. NateApril 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm
    Please educate us on why you are some self appointed authority on racism.
  90. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    Nathan you have asked this question before and I have answered you multiple times. You just do not like my answer. I understand that you are itching for a fight and I usually accommodate you just for fun, but not tonight dear. I am bored with the same old subject matter so please find a new topic that we can fight about, okay.
  91. NateApril 13, 2012 at 11:08 am
    Do I smell some reverse racism… might need to call Fox News.
  92. BertaApril 12, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    Thanks for the support CC and Annette.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support