]
Tom Butt Header E-Forum
 
  E-Mail Forum – 2012  
  < RETURN  
  Chevron's Choice of Metal in Richmond Refinery Fix Questioned
November 24, 2012
 
 

Although the final vote counts are still not in, and late campaign expenditures remain unreported, there is enough data to enable an examination of the trends and outcomes.

A total of 29,792 Richmond registered voters  cast a ballot on November 6, based on adding the yes and no votes for Measure N, the item that garnered the most participation. The total votes for Richmond City Council candidates was 71,817, which divided by 3 = 23,939, which means that not all voters exercised their right to cast three votes. This could be due to “bullet voting” where some voters cast only one or two votes intentionally to reduce the chances of competitors, or it could be due to voters just not  being interested enough in the City Council race to vote.

Contra Costa - Election Results_Page_1.jpg

It is not unusual that none of the candidates received a majority of votes cast in this election, indicative of a deep political split among Richmond voters that cleaves along ethnic and racial demographic lines. The map below left is from the Contra Costa County Elections Office, and the map on the right is to help identify precincts with the more familiar neighborhood council districts. The brown represents precincts carried by Butt, and the aqua represents precincts carried by Bates. The green represents precincts carried by Martinez. You can see that Butt was strong south of I-580, in the North and East, the Annex and parts of El Sobrante. Bates carried the Richmond flatlands, Parchester, North Richmond Fairmeade-Hilltop and one El Sobrante precinct. Although pulling enough votes to win, Bell carried only one precinct -- in El Sobrante. Martinez, who did not place but pulled a strong fourth, carried Belding Woods, part of the Iron Triangle and the Panhandle Annex.
Full page photo.jpgplugin-DocumentView-27.jpg

 

In terms of money, the biggest campaign financier was Moving Forward, a committee bankrolled almost exclusively by Chevron to the tune of $1.2 million dollars. All of it went into the Richmond City Council election except for $100,000 that went to unsuccessfully unseat Democratic California state legislators. A smaller player was Richmond First, a committee funded by the Richmond Police Officers Association and Richmond firefighters, Local 188, which moves in lockstep with Chevron.

Although year-end campaign statements will probably show additional expenditures of 10% to 25%, the patterns shown by statements filed just prior to the election will probably remain consistent. Money spent per vote will rise accordingly.

The top cost per vote was Bea Roberson at $16.91. Bates won the expenditure prize with a total of $193,858. Butt had the lowest cost per vote and the lowest expenditure of the three winners.

  • The top vote getter, Nat Bates, with 12,708 votes and 17.68% of the total, got a vote from 48.3% of those who voted. Bates spent $30,531 of the $62,529 he raised, and Richmond First and Moving Forward spent $163,327 on his campaign. In total, $193,858 was spent on his campaign, resulting in $15.25 per vote.

 

  • Tom Butt, second with 11,195 votes and 15.59% of the vote, got a vote from 42.6% of those who voted. Butt spent $51,883 of $61,700 raised (including matching funds), resulting in $4.63 per vote.
  • Gary Bell, third with 15.11% of the vote, got a vote from 41.2% of those who voted. Bell spent $41,213 from the $60,430 he raised (including matching funds), and BAPAC, Richmond First and Moving Forward spent another $104,535 on his campaign. In total, $145,748 was spent on his campaign, resulting in $13.43 per vote.

 

  • Moving Forward spent $71,357 for Bea Roberson, and she spent $21,000 from her own committee, placing sixth with $92,353 and a cost of $16.91 per vote.
  • Moving Forward spent $94,768 against Marilyn Langlois and $93,599 against Eduardo Martinez.

 

Why did Chevron spend so much on Nat Bates? Either they considered him vulnerable and felt compelled to prop him up, or they considered him their highest value candidate, an essential win for Chevron – or both.

Clearly, this City Council race was all about Chevron. There really were no other issues. For a $1.2 million investment, Chevron made sure that the RPA did not maintain its three-member presence on the City Council, and it swapped out one RPA member, Jeff Ritterman,” for one “business-friendly” moderate member, Gary Bell.

If anything, the overt Chevron domination of the election has bred substantial resentment that may come back to bite it.

With at least four members colored in various shades of the progressive tint, the tenor of the City Council is not likely to change much in the next two years.

What is Progressivism? It is a term describing a political movement and ideology in which the subscribers believe in progress, change, or reform, particularly in regard to whom has control over the government. Progressives tend not to like the status quo and see the current political climate as being dominated by corporate interests. Progressives embrace pluralism. Their platform may include social justice, pacifism, environmentalism, and human rights. They believe in the democratic process via more direct voter control, and they champion consumer rights.

While all recently-elected Richmond City Council members are registered Democrats, not all are progressives. Two City Council members, Bates and Booze do not fit the progressive mold. They have consistently voted against measures to implement election reform, protect the environment and slow climate change, enhance public health and safety, and provide public amenities. They have been consistently protective of big business, particularly Chevron.

While the voting pattern on public policy issues will likely remain consistent, there is concern about the comportment of the City Council process, which has been disappointing over the past year and appears to continue to deteriorate. Corky Booze has ramped up his flouting of the rules of order and the democratic process, constantly verbally attacking individual council members, often invoking racial references. Of my 17 years on the City Council, I have never seen anything like it. Similarly, I have never seen members of the audience so consistently disruptive, and profane, using unsubstantiated and repetitive race-based accusations and personal attacks. These people are Corky’s “gallery” that he encourages, and one individual who is obsessed with the notion that the City Council is not doing enough to address violence in North Richmond and unfairly and inaccurately picks out the mayor and the RPA for criticism, although Both Bates and Booze have exactly the same voting record on North Richmond issues. Another always finds something to criticize the mayor and the RPA for personally, even if he favors it. Thank goodness the homophobic and xenophobic Mark Wassberg appears to have taken a vacation after his unsuccessful run for City Council. I can’t imagine who the 1,434 people who voted for him are.


 
  < RETURN