DPOC Vote Rigged For Pulido

Earlier this evening, the Democratic Party of Orange County made their endorsements for the local offices in Orange County. This year had the fewest number of contested races in recent memory, with only three races coming up for a vote. The most controversial was the Santa Ana Mayor’s race between Miguel Pulido and Alfredo Amezcua. Unfortunately, Endorsement Committee Chair Florice Hoffman decided to give the proverbial middle finger to Democracy and rig the vote for Mayor Pulido.

After the two speeches were given, which I must say, both did fairly well, the vote was taken. Unfortunately rules were put in place to prevent the candidate from going “negative”. In other words, Al Amezcua could not tell the Dems present that Miguel has been double dipping on his health insurance and car allowance. He was not allowed to inform the delegates present about Mayor Pulido’s past endorsement of Lupe Moreno, the Latina Minutewoman and Rosemarie Avila, who once mentioned AIDS is God’s punishment to gays.

The attendance was also pitiful, with only 24 of the potential 48 voting members there, in other words, they barely made quorum. When the vote went down, I counted the votes, it was 11 for Pulido, 9 for Amezcua. Definitely NOT the 60% that a longtime Democratic fixture like Miguel needed to get for the endorsement. One would think with his 26 years in politics, he should have been able to run away with the endorsement. Now here is where things get interesting. Suddenly Chairman Frank Barbaro walks up to the podium to stand by Florice Hoffman and they call for all eligible delegates to raise their cards. They do and suddenly it is announced Miguel Pulido has won the 60% threshold, 13 votes to 8 votes.

Outrage filled the room as people demanded that Alfredo had 9 votes and demanded to know where two extra votes for Pulido had come from. Florice then claimed she had now cast a vote, even though she was forbidden as chair of the meeting and then demanded that they were going to continue with the agenda. There were calls by Marti Schrank and Mani Kang to division of the room, where supporters of each side go to a section of the room to get a fully accurate count. Frank Barbaro outright ignored them and responded by threatening to escort anyone out who was disagreeing with the decision and Florice kept demanding to move on with the agenda. I have long liked Frank Barabaro, but I was deeply disappointed with his clear and blatant shilling for Mayor Pulido and his taking part in Pulido’s Mexican style “Democracy.”

The nine people who voted for Alfredo Amezcua were rightfully outraged and all were willing to go on record as having voted for Alfredo. All nine are voting members of the Central Committee. They are:

Mohammed Amin
Mani Kang
David Sonnenborn
Marti Shrank
Giovanii Jorquera
Ken Burke
Zeke Hernandez
Misha Houser
Ken Arnold

By my count, that is nine votes. So even with Florice’s imaginary 13 votes, the total would be 22, which would put Pulido under the 60% needed to get the endorsement. What took place was Mexican style (or Iranian style) Democracy pure and simple. Porfirio Diaz looked up from hell tonight smiling on Florice Hoffman for her blantant vote rigging for the Mayor. I challenge Florice, and Frank Barbaro, to prodice all thirteen names of the people who voted for Miguel, since by all counts from independent observer Henry Vandermeir, it was 11.

Now it has been proven there were NINE votes, so even with Florice’s imaginary 13, Miguel Pulido does NOT have 60% at this point. So will the DPOC stand up for Democracy and void this vote and call a new one at the next meeting. I do hope Gustavo Arellano and R. Scott Moxley join me in demanding that Mexican style Democracy has no place in the Democratic Party. This cannot be allowed to stand.

After the meeting, Marti Schrank, an Amezcua supporter and a longtime Democratic activist let her anger be known and vowed to continue the fight. Marti, you are our Corregidora. She too is going to fight to stop the new Porfiriato. We don’t need another Porfirio Diaz or Mahmood Ahmadinejad running the Democratic Party.

  27 comments for “DPOC Vote Rigged For Pulido

  1. art lomeli
    September 3, 2010 at 9:29 am

    The endorsement to Pulido was a sham. The chairwoman of the group, Florice counted votes that were not there. We where able to get the names of 9 votes for Al. 20 voted that means Pulido received 11 votes. 60% of the vote is needed for endorsement The chairwoman, Florice says she counted 13 votes and 20 voted. This count gave Pulido the 60%. They had figured out the numbers to get the 60% ahead of time….it was obvious.

    As Claudio points out the 9 votes to Amezcua gives Pulido less than the 60% needed to give the group’s support. It is why Florice and Barbaro were so dead set on no re-count and threatening eviction from the meeting to those that were pointing out the error in counting by the Chair, Florice.

    The audience objected to the count she did not allow a re-count because it would of exposed the fraud. She voted when parliamentary rules prohibit a chair from voting, allowing only to break a tie. She did not acknowledge delegates wishing to call for a re-vote.

    This was a heart breaking example of democracy not applied. A huge disappointment from a Democrat group that is supposed to champion Democracy.

    I believe we should send a protest letter specifying the breakdown in parliamentary rules. The chair told me they did not have to follow parliamentary rules , that she could decide whatever she thought. I reminded her of Robert’s Rules of Order and Democracy to no acknowledgement of either from her.

    I was told Barbaro is a personal attorney for Pulido. Is this a conflict for Barbaro to be making decisions when he represents Pulido on legal personal matters?

  2. Santa Ana Voter
    September 3, 2010 at 10:48 am

    It is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.

    When will the chair’s vote affect the result? On a vote which is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, he or she can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 392-93; see also Table A, p.190 of RONR In Brief.]

  3. Santa Ana Voter
    September 3, 2010 at 10:51 am

    That being said. 12-9 is not the 2/3 vote required for endorsementa and it looks like Pulido bought off Florice Hoffman the same way he bought off Sean H Mill and Art Pudroza. With cold hard cash.

    • Money Money Money
      September 3, 2010 at 10:59 am

      Are you sure Art was bought off with cash? Then how is his home still in foreclosure and why is he still broke? Maybe he went and blew it on more trannie(not the van tran kind) hookers.

  4. Disgusted
    September 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Several members called for a division which was completely ignored:

    From RR:
    25. Division of the Assembly, and other Motions relating to Voting. A Division of the Assembly1 may be called for, without obtaining the floor, at any time after the question has been put, even after the vote has been announced and another has the floor, provided the vote was taken viva voce, or by show of hands, and it is called for before another motion has been made. This call, or motion, is made by saying, “I call for a division,” or “I doubt the vote,” or simply by calling out, “Division.” It does not require a second, and cannot be debated, or amended, or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. As soon as a division is called for, the chair proceeds again to take the vote, this time by having the affirmative rise, and then when they are seated having the negative rise.

    • Claudio Gallegos
      September 3, 2010 at 2:07 pm

      That is precisely what Marti Schrank did, and she was ignored and threatened to be expelled from the meeting. Mani raised his hand, but would not listen to myself or Henry Vandermeier’s calls to approach the chair and tell him to call division.

  5. art lomeli
    September 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Zeke Hernandez a member of the assembly was in the front row of the audience. He asked for a re-count and was ignored by the chair, Florice and Frank Barbaro.

    • Repulsed
      September 3, 2010 at 6:20 pm

      SOOOOO What happens now?

  6. Hector
    September 4, 2010 at 12:30 am

    So what’s up with Art Pedroza all of a sudden getting kissy kissy with Pulido after ripping him for years in his blog? What kind of deal did Pulido cut him? DId he promise him that seat he’s running for on the school board? With all the sucking sounds coming out of the Orange Juice blog you’d think you were in a Bangkok whorehouse. So Pedroza now carries Miguel’s water. What a chump he is. Where can I contribute money to your lawsuit against him?

  7. David Sonneborn
    September 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I am one of the nine voters for Amezqua. While I concur that the vote needs to be re-assessed, I dissociate myself with Claudio’s obviously more emotional and accusatory editorializing comments. This is an issue that must be considered and handled by the facts. Let us all hope that this will happen.

  8. art lomeli
    September 4, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    David Sonneborn on September 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

    The ball is really in the court of the nine members that voted. Your vote was nullified by the Chair , Florice.

    If I was a member of an assembly. Was asked for a vote and was part of a vote who’s outcome was nullified by purposely miscounting, I would be angry and seeking recource in a very energetic and intelligent manner.

    You and the other 8 members need to demand that your votes be ratified. You 9 are a part of a group of Democrats who traditionally champion Democracy. You 9 were not given the benefit of Democracy in this instance.

    You 9 need to approach your democratic assembly and demand your vote be ratified, only then can the rest of your membership and outsiders looking in feel comfortable with the service you provide to your members and the public.

  9. Anon
    September 4, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    What’s going on? The city employees did not recommend to endorse Pulido but somehow he got the endorsement of SEIU and the CLC. What’s really going on?

  10. DPOC violates State Constitution
    September 5, 2010 at 9:55 am

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 6. (a) All judicial, school, county, and city offices shall benonpartisan. (b) No political party or party central committee may endorse,support, or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office.

  11. Hector Padilla
    September 5, 2010 at 10:55 am

    The obvioulsy poor manner in which this was handled is nullified by the extremely paranoid rantings of this guy Claudio. I mean seriously dude?!! Youre comparing this situation to Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and Porfirio Diaz??!!

    You really need to see a psychiatrist dude.

    • September 5, 2010 at 11:24 am

      I don’t see how Claudio’s comparison nullifies anything. The obvious failure to ensure the validity of the vote when the tally was challlenged connot be nullified by the objections to that failure, no matter how over the top.

      • Claudio Gallegos
        September 5, 2010 at 12:02 pm

        Chris

        Hector is obviously (if thats his real name) an OJ apologist. Fact is there are people who are on that Central Committee, or once worked for it, who rail and rail about Ahmadinejad’s election stealing and yet sat silent as people in this smaller group had their vote disenfranchised. Now I admit Iran is a much graver situation, but what exactly is the difference. Both Ahmadinjad and some of the so-called Pro Democracy liberals on our Central Committee did the same thing and chose to rig an election because they did not like the outcome of it. Pure and simple.

        As for Porfirio Diaz, I advise you “Hector” to read Mexican history and you will suddenly see the parallels between Pulido and Diaz. The similarities on how Diaz sold his country out to Western Europe and the USA at the expense of poor Amerinds and Mestizos is almost identical to how Pulido has sold his city out to all his developer and consultant buddies in SOuth OC who build, build build and provide NO parks for the children or suck up the city budget with contracts for the consultant or planning firms to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! At the expense of the descendents of Porfirio’s victims.

        A

  12. Florice Hoffman
    September 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Let’s set the record straight.

    1. Al Amezcua was allowed to apply for an endorsement even though his application was received passed the deadline of Friday, August 27, 2010 at 5pm. I checked with Al at the central committee meeting on August 23, 2010 and he assured me he had the application and he knew the deadline. His application was not received until late Tuesday, September 31, 2010.
    2. Al Amezcua brought at least ten supporters to the meeting who were loud and obnoxious and threatened the chair and myself and others during and after the meeting. Under the party rules only Democrats can attend central committee meetings and his supporters were not all Democrats.
    3. The endorsement rules are in the bylaws and posted on the internet and even though I explained the rules at the meeting Al Amezcua and his supporters did not understand the rules.
    4. Al Amezcua has a copy of the central committee members and did not contact any to ask for their vote.
    5. Immediately after the vote, only a supporter and not a member of the central committee requested a recount. The proper motion if made would have been a voice vote. Zeke Hernandez a member of the central committee requested a recount after we moved on to the next agenda item.
    6. There was no independent observer that counted the votes at the time of the vote and the polling was done by harassment and intimidation after the meeting.
    7. After the meeting, Al Amezcua said that he wanted the party to have a no endorsement position. If that was his position then why did he request an endorsement and not ask for any endorsement of a candidate.

    Finally, I will not be intimidated by bullies. As usual Claudio can not get his facts straight and is not an impartial reporter. Prior to this meeting, I did not personally endorse either of the mayoral candidates. Today I fully endorse Miguel Pulido for Mayor. I stand with the DPOC and the Orange County Federation of Labor and all the Democratic Santa Ana city council members. Miguel Pulido’s record on labor issues is my deciding factor. (Claudio is still fighting One Broadway Plaza, I guess.)

    • September 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      Florice,

      As I was not at the meeting I cannot speak from personal observation as to what happened at the meeting. While Claudio spoke with me about his perspective, I have spoken with several of the Central Committee members who are questioning the results of the vote.

      I do not concur with Claudio’s assertion that the vote was rigged. I do not believe that you or Frank Barbaro would do that. The fact that you allowed for a late application for endorsement verifies that there was no predetermination, since if there were, you simply would not have allowed his application to move forward for consideration. I do however believe that it is possible, if notlikely, that the votes were not accurately tallied.

      When a vote is so close, and there are objections, it isn’t that unreasonable to make sure the results were correctly tallied, in fact it’s prudent. It is exceptionally prudent when your vote as Chair of the process determined the outcome.

      Are you suggesting that one or more of the people who are listed as voting for Al were bullied and intimidated into saying something that was not true? Are you saying that Claudio is misrepresenting that those individuals voted as he described?

      The Labor Federation endorsement has nothing to do with the DPOC endorsement. I presume you are not suggesting otherwise.

      Also, other than seeking an endorsement, what other way is there for a candidate to prevent an endorsement? If Al had not sought the endorsement Miguel Pulido, by virtue of being the only candidate to apply, would have automatically received the endorsement of the DPOC.

    • September 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      Also, now that the endorsement meeting has been adjourned there is no remedy. It isn’t like you can reconvene that meeting with only those who attended the original meeeting being able to vote, and conduct a do over.

      It would not be fair to allow a different meeting of the central committee to nullify the action of the endorsement meeting because that would in effect allow people who were not present to vote, and possibly exculed people present at the endorsement meeting who might not be at the central committee meeting.

      Which brings me back to my original point that it is best to resolve these disputes at the time, even if it means reopening an item once you have moved on to another.

    • Claudio Gallegos
      September 7, 2010 at 11:20 am

      Thank you Florice for responding to the post. As for your attempt to “set the record straight”, it would have been more helpful to address the main concern, which was the “miscounting” of votes for Alfredo Amezcua. So lets go over your points one by one.
      1. Well thank you for making sure he got his questionnaire in. That had NOTHING to do with my post though. I never made an issue with the application process. If your point is trying to say Pulido got no special treatment, and a vote was allowed, save it. Mexico claimed for many years to hold a “Presidential election” every six years, only to find out many of those were nothing more than shams to make it appear a “Democracy” actually existed.
      2. They only became loud after the flawed count was announced. They were quiet and courteous before that. While I do not condone the shouting by those supporters that went on, since I felt proper parliamentary procedure was more appropriate in this situation, I understand why they were mad. Nice try at the straw man argument at the end, it’s a public meeting, anyone can attend and trying to claim they all were not Dems, did you know you are supporting a Mayor who once endorsed the Latina Minuteman Lupe Moreno and who once endorsed Rosie Avila AFTER she publicly said AIDS was God’s punishment to gays. I guess Miguel gets a free pass after your pile on John Hanna act four years ago.
      3-4. Straw man arguments that have nothing to do with my grievance with the DPOC Central Committee. Nice try at changing the subject Florice..
      5. Wrong and an outright lie. Marti Schrank could be heard trying to call for a division of the room, to the point that even Frank singled her out to be quiet when he threatened to remove those who were shouting. As for moving on, YOU were the one who wanted to move forward with the agenda awfully quickly. In the 7 years I have been involved with the DPOC, everytime there was an issue with the initial hand count, Frank or whoever was chairing the meeting never even hesitated to call for a division of the room, or call for the supporters to stand up to be counted and then the opposing side to stand up and be counted. Common sense demonstrates this should have been done Florice, I would think an educated lawyer like you who has been to more meetings than I would have thought of that. So this begs the question, did you rig this vote, or were you just incompetent?.
      6. Wrong again. Former Political Director Henry Vandermeir was counting the votes to verify as well. He is not a Santa Ana resident, and is not involved in the race in any way shape or form. Now are you saying the 9 who voted for Alfred were “intimidated” into voting for him. First, you are now ADMITTING your count was flawed and that 9 people DID indeed vote for him, which, if Miguel truly got 13 votes would nullify the endorsement anyways because 13 is not 60% of 22. As for the 9 being intimidated, WHO was intimidated by Al’s camp into voting for him. Name names Florice if this is true.

      7. I think Chris Prevatt took care of this argument in an earlier post. Again, another poor attempt at the straw man argument.
      Finally, I will not be intimidated by bullies. As usual Claudio can not get his facts straight and is not an impartial reporter.
      Now onto your final points. Instead of taking responsibility for either being corrupt or screwing up(which one is it) since you admit now that 9 voted for Al, you attack me. And you announced at the meeting your own personal vote for Miguel. No one is fooled Florice, you planned to endorse him all along.
      Now for your biggest straw man of all, making this about OBP. Guess what, Alfredo Amezcua ALSO SUPPORTS ONE BROADWAY PLAZA, so I know what I am getting should he be elected. Unlike other people you cavort with, I do not base my support on candidates on one issue. As a SANTA ANA RESIDENT, VOTER AND TAXPAYER (note not Orange Hills) I want a Mayor who is out there in the community who will listen to the community and will work hard to address public safety, public works and access to open space. That is why this SANTA ANA RESIDENT supports Alfredo Amezcua.

  13. Florice Hoffman
    September 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    correcting 1) above. The Application was received Sept. 1

  14. art lomeli
    September 7, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Claudio,

    You are 100% correct. The issue is the intentional miscount, violation of parliamentary rules and lack of a democratic process at the meeting in question by the chair of the group, Florice.

    Her spin points, defensive in nature because she can not defend a deliberate miscount, are irrelevant to the damage of nullifying the desires of nine delegates due a deliberate miscount by her.

    Florice wrote:

    “7. After the meeting, Al Amezcua said that he wanted the party to have a no endorsement position. If that was his position then why did he request an endorsement and not ask for any endorsement of a candidate.”

    The spin here is unbelievable. Al asked for a no endorsement when she was presented with the names of the nine votes for him while the delegates were still at the meeting. Nine votes for Al produce less than the %60 vote for Pulido necessary for endorsement.

    This from a chair of the OC Democratic Party. A educated person , an attorney I believe. Shame on you for presenting such an comment so much out of context.

    Based on this can any one argue the presence of an agenda by Florice?

Comments are closed.