In yet another election with a dismally poor voter turnout, local business owner Travis Mitchell and incumbent Diane Hervol each captured 510 votes for Kyle City Council Place 1, according to today’s unofficial tally. Incumbent Shane Arabie easily won re-election, winning 533 votes (57.56%) to 393 for bartender Randall Lloyd. Neither Mitchell nor Lloyd had ever held a political position — elected or appointed — prior to the election. All the proposed charter amendments, except the one involving the dismissal of the Finance Director, passed handily.
Only a paltry 6.04 percent of the city’s 17,409 registered voters cast a ballot and the Hervol-Mitchell tie officially buries the notion of "Why should I bother to vote? My vote doesn’t count anyway."
The tie vote apparently triggers an automatic recount. Provisional and overseas ballots still need to be tabulated and, apparently, when all that’s said and done, in the rather unlikely event the election results are still knotted, another election will have to be held.
"I’m disappointed," Hervol said. "I worked really hard, but I am determined to work even harder the next time."
Mitchell said he "went from being very dejected" when the early voting results were announced "to being bewildered. No one thought I could come back when only 300 votes were cast today, but I’ll be forever thankful to all those voters who showed up for me today."
Mitchell only won 34.62 percent of the absentee votes against Hervol’s 65.38 percent, according to the returns posted by Hays County. Hervol also won 51.14 percent of the early voting to Mitchell’s 48.86 percent. But Mitchell rebounded to win today’s totals 57.67 percent to 42.33 percent for Hervol, an indication of who had the superior election day get-out-the-vote effort.
Arabie, elected to his first full three-year term (he was first elected in 2014 to fill an unexpired term) said he was "elated" over the results. "They are a reflection of the work we put forth. Now I’m happy it’s over."
Arabie also called the overwhelming support of the charter change recommendations an endorsement of "just how well the Charter Review Commission did its job. I could not be happier about these results." He said he believed the rejection of the one proposed charter change had more to do with the way it was worded than because of its substance and believed the low turnout in today’s election would not be repeated now that the municipal voting will be moving to November.
Lloyd said he was resigned to the outcome even before the votes weere tabulated.
"I find of figured that’s how it would turn out," Lloyd said. "I wish Shane the best of luck and look forward to talking with him soon." Lloyd did not rule out another City Council campaign in the future. "It just might happen," he said.
The charter election turned out like this:
Prop. 1:Shall Sections 4.03 (g) (o) (p), 5.11 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to eliminate provisions which have become inoperative because they have been superseded by state law; replace obsolete references; update terminology to current legal usage, and to eliminate obsolete transitional provisions? For: 806 (81.5%); Against 183 (18.5%)
Prop 2: Shall Section 3.05 of the City Charter be amended to require submission to the qualified voters of the City to add causes to remove any elected officer to also include habitual substance abuse and conviction of a misdemeanor involving a crime of moral turpitude which are crimes involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, deliberate violence, or that reflect adversely on an elected official’s honesty, trustworthiness? For: 871 (86.49%); Against 136 (13.51%)
Prop 3: Shall Sections 4.01 and 4.03 of the City Charter be amended to authorize the City Council to recommend and approve appointments to all City Boards and Commissions? For: 643 (65.08%); Against: 345 (34.92%).
Prop 4: Shall Section 4.03 (a) of the City Charter be amended to eliminate the requirement of Council confirmation on the dismissal of the Director of Finance? For: 468 (48.9); Against: 489 (51.1%).
Prop.5: Shall Section 4.05 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that neither the Mayor nor Council shall instruct the City Manager or any city employee to hire or terminate any city employee and require the Mayor and Council to go through the City Manager for administrative and management functions of the City? For: 765 (78.3%); Against: 212 (21.7%)
Prop. 6: Shall Section 5.02 of the City Charter be amended to move the City’s general election date for the Mayor and Councilmembers from May to November and approve a transitional provision extending terms of those elected in May 2016 and those expiring in May 2017 and May 2018 to November 2017, November 2018 and November 2019? For: 702 (72.6%); Against 265 (27.4%).
Prop. 7: Shall Section 7.10 of the City Charter be amended to clarify that the City Attorney shall report to the City Manager but remain appointed by the Mayor and City Council? For: 718 (74.48%); Against 246 (25.52%).
Prop. 8: Shall Section 8.09 of the City Charter be amended to require two authorized signatures, one must be either the City Manager or Finance Director, for checks, vouchers, warrants or withdrawal of funds from city depositories? For: 859 (88.28%); Against 114 (11.72%).
Prop. 9: Shall Section 8.11 (e) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt not have a repayment period greater than the life of the asset(s) being funded? For: 836 (86.54%); Against: 130 (13.46%).
Prop 10: Shall Section 8.11 (f) of the City Charter be added so that any issuance of debt or instrument of obligation exceeding 5% of the annual assessed valuation of the city shall only be issued with a binding referendum being placed on the ballot and such expenditure approved by the voters? For: 802 (83.8%); Against: 155 (16.2%).
Prop 11: Shall Section 13.10 of the City Charter be added so that all meetings, hearings and workshops of the Council, any Board, Commission or Committee of the City shall comply with the Texas Open Meetings Act and shall provide a time for public comment? For: 912 (91.75%); Against: 82 (8.257%).
I must admit, those 82 votes against Prop. 11 is a real head-scratcher. I prefer to think there are 82 semi-misguided souls out there who simply robotically voted against all 11 proposed charter changes. I only hope there are not actually 82 deranged wackos out there who really believe all city government business should be conducted in secret, behind closed doors, with the public permanently excluded from any and all deliberations and decision-making.
One can always hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment