If the city clerk and staff had had their way, Gordon would be forced to run against Springer for one spot alone



Maybe there is a God in Heaven.

The only reason why Frutos and Talamantes did not both immediately ascend to instant re-election status last Tuesday night was because of a state law change made two years ago. If it had been up to Burbank alone they’d both be in like Flint right now, and with Gordon forced to slog it out with what was looking to be an increasingly corrupted (or corruptible) Sharon Springer.

Tuesday’s immediate vote count made it appear as if both those incumbents had exceeded the 50 percent threshold. But the late ballot returns obviously watered down these results when it drove Frutos below that limit and boosted Guillen into a runoff that everyone thought on Tuesday night would only involve Gordon and Springer. There are two seats still open now for April, and thus four candidates in the race.

Several years ago we attacked the City of Burbank for its refusal to count these same kind of late-arriving votes. The city clerk had a strict “election day” ballot-arrival deadline and no one was going to change it. Glendale did things differently, and we thought Burbank should also allow election day postmarks to be counted as well. Like why not?

The state legislators obviously thought the same, and Burbank is now forced to do the right thing.

How disappointing for staff though, right? Just like the developers, they’d much rather have “collegial” Sharon Springer in there than rude old David Gordon, who everyone knows always asks so many pesky and irritating questions. Now he has a much easier chance of winning.

So might Guillen. It’s seems time to dust off the old contentious issues again too now, like studios and developers. In Burbank they’re timeless.

Maybe Talamantes is right. Change is good, people! The new rules have helped the dissenters.



Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “If the city clerk and staff had had their way, Gordon would be forced to run against Springer for one spot alone

  1. Anonymous

    Those who hate Gordon only do so because they have lots to hide. His questions have them afraid because they are afraid of the truth getting out.

  2. The smear piece in the Leader is so sleazy. Take note voters: Sharon isn’t the nice lady she pretends to be. She had me fooled once but no more. In League with Rogers in a disgusting smear because she won’t be able to win on her ideas.

    • Nancy

      Sharon Springer is an utter disappointment ! It is unbelievable how she has changed and jumped into the mud pit with Mr Rogers. No idea but lots of mud should be Sharon’s campaign slogan.

      • semichorus

        She was played by the Cusumanos, that’s for sure. So was Rogers– unless he helped to scheme this amateurish tactic.

    • E.C.

      David Spell don’t leave out Harrop and his buds at that sleezy Burbank Democratic club. Sharon cannot point out their help and support enough. Pity she does not understand what a bad influence they are on her personality. Cheers all.

  3. Anonymous

    The city hall faithful has jumped all over the false story.

    • Adam

      The city hall faithfuls are a cesspool of corruption and Rogers is deep in that swamp along with Fruitos. Both Rogers and Frutos have a desperate need to be a part of the so called power crowd both fuck the rest of us at every turn just to feel important while the funniest part is how the city hall faithfuls use both Rogers and Fruitos as nothing more than court jesters.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s