« Greenline Coalition Just Part of Kirk Campaign | Main | Mudflinging Begins With Gruendl »
October 13, 2006
Rate the Debate
 |
| The League of Women Voters debate was tonight
and it covered both the City Council candidates and the 3rd District Supervisors
(two separate debates). This photo was taken at the end of the night. The
blur in the foreground is Dan Herbert who was smiling as he walked past this long exposure shot. I could go into detail over who won the debate, who was weak or lacked substance, who seemed confident, etc. But I think those things can be very subjective. I thought the candidates that I support did very well. This debate probably won't change anyones mind, and very few Chicoans saw the debate. The way the debate is described in the paper will be pretty vanilla, so unless there's a scorcher of an editorial it will cause a tiny ripple in the campaign. So instead of hashing out the debate I’ll spend some time discussing the low-lights and high-lights of the night. |
| $180million In Legal Fees: Dan Herbert misstated the
cost of legal fees caused by the Fogarty law suit as $180million (he then
caught himself and restated $180K). Next Michael Dailey made a joke referencing
the new $180million deficit that was just uncovered. But he was so dead-pan
most of the audience didn’t get it right away. I thought it was funny. Tom Nickell on Things Green: Tom likes “green urbanization”, “green buildings”, “green technology”, “green beans”, “Greenpeace”, “Green Day”, and the “Green Bay Packers”. He’s pretty green for Chico City Council. Chico City Council Saves World Under Gruendl: At the end of the night Scott Gruendl was covering a litany of things the City of Chico has accomplished with him as mayor. One of the last things he mentioned was that under his leadership Chico had “slowed global warming”. I AM NOT KIDDING! Pumping Poop: Mark Sorensen said one area Chico could grow could be where the Blakely (sp?) property is (south of Chico, West of 99). Gruendl said it would be too expensive to pump poop over the ridge, and Paradise was expecting to grow there. I’m still trying to figure out which ridge the poop would have to be pumped over. Egg-head Brigade: Mary Flynn said she was proud to have only 1 out of 250 donations coming from a business. All the rest are just regular Joes. But if you look through her campaign filings you’ll see a slew of self employed people (which are pretty much businesses). But more interesting is that 45% of her donations come from people employed by public agencies, mostly professors and teachers. A good number of those are CSU Chico professors. Supervisor Debate Ends Badly: Steve Bertagna and Maureen Kirk had a few heated exchanges. I thought Bertagna did a better job. He did call the Greenline Coalition a sham which is very “current event” in relation to this blog. At the end Maureen Kirk pleaded to be given an extra minute to make her prepared closing statement. When they bent the rules to allow it, she fired off a number mean-spirited salvos at Bertagna. It was really bad form. She had actually prepared a bunch of accusations to throw at her opponent. |
 |
Posted by Lon at October 13, 2006 12:08 AM
Comments
I received this email from Maureen Kirk today:
Lon,
I did not ask to bend the rules. Please see the forward and you will see that the rules included a two minute closing.
Maureen Kirk
----- Original Message -----
From: Sharon Wallace
To: maureenkirk@
Sent: 10/11/2006 9:55:41 AM
Subject: Thursday Oct. 12th LWV candidate forum & format
Dear Steve and Maureen ~
I realize you are both seasoned candidates, so Ive been a bit lax in getting a message out to you regarding forum format. Some of the format has changed, though, so hopefully this last minute information will serve as a reminder of some general things, while also drawing your attention to a few differences and interesting elements for this go-around.
With that preface, please allow me to briefly describe the format and rules for our upcoming (Thursday 7-9 pm) candidate forum in the City Council Chambers.
1) Please arrive and be seated at the dais prior to 7 pm so that we may promptly begin with your forum for Butte County Supervisor 3rd District.
2) The forum for Chico City Council candidates will follow approximately 35-40 minutes later.
3) All candidate and political campaign literature should be placed outside of the forum hall (in the lobby) on the table provided.
4) Each candidate should be prepared to give a 2 minute opening remark, and consider answering the following in that statement: As seasoned representatives of Chico, how many hours do you expect the job of County Supervisor to require, and how do you anticipate dividing up or spending that time?
5) Our panelists will then take turns asking questions of the candidates. The first candidate's response to a specific question will be allowed 2 minutes, with each subsequent candidate response being given 1 minute to offer a rebuttal or additional thoughts on the subject. This should keep the forum moving along in both a lively and balanced manner.
6) Each candidate will be given time for a final 2 minute closing or wrap-up remark, as well.
If you have any concerns or further questions about the forum, please feel free to contact me directly.
Good Luck & We're looking forward to seeing you on Thursday!
Sincerely,
Sharon Wallace, Voter Service Chair
League of Women Voters of Butte County
Posted by: Lon at October 13, 2006 01:47 PM
As a response to Maureen's email I would say that the moderator(s) of the League of Women Voters (LWV) debate changed the format mid-stream a couple of times. One of these changes dispensed with the closing statements.
Both Steve and Maureen were given a guestion about priorities at the County level. Steve Bertagna answered the question, and then the moderator said "well that sounds like a closing statement".
She then said they would dispense with closing statements (they changed the format), and Maureen could answer the question as a "closing statement". Maureen then answered the question.
After that each candidate answered an additional question that was written by an audience member. And that was the end of the debate.
It was after the last question that Maureen said she had shortened her previous answer expecting to have another closing statement, and she wanted more time. The moderators looked around at each other for several seconds. Then they granted the additional change in the format.
Steve Bertagna made a brief closing statement, and then Maureen read a rehearsed attack on Bertagna.
I don't want to make too much of the "bending of the rules". But if you're going to attack somebody they should have a chance to respond. That didn't happen.
Posted by: Lon at October 13, 2006 02:28 PM
The Chico ER has posted video of the league of women voters debtate at this URL...
http://www.chicoer.com/newshome/ci_4495328
If you move the slider on the bottom of the video screen to about 42 minutes you will see the debate end, Maureen ask for additional time for a closing statement, and then she reads a pre-written attack on Steve Bertagna.
Posted by: Lon at October 15, 2006 09:40 AM
With regard to the County portion of the forum - it stuck me as odd that the bulk of the questions aired related to preserving things (water, open space etc... ) while the League screened all questions about the Candidates approach to economic development and job creation in the County. After all, the General Plan does have an Economic Development element, and knowing how well each Candidate understands and supports or opposes its policies would have seemed relevant.
The other notable thing was the statement by Candidate Kirk that development is supposed to occur in the urban areas and not the County.... I'm less cynical than some, so I'll assume her meaning intended a distintion between urban and rural development, to which sensible people would agree.... but I doubt others would be so indulgent.
The County building, planning and development services departments handle a significant amount of work serving today's and tomorrow's unincorporated residents and businesses. And Supervisor's are routinely called upon to decide on the merits of such projects in relation to the County's plan and land use policies.
Since most people could easily interpret Maureens statement literally (i.e. development should not occur in the County) I would think she might want to clarify the statement.
Posted by: Bill Brouhard at October 16, 2006 01:28 PM