.
News Alert
Police Release Photos of Bike Thief Caught on…

UPDATE: Thirteen Seek City Council Seat

Applicants are scheduled to be interviewed by the Newark City Council on Jan. 31.

Thirteen individuals are seeking for an appointment to fill a vacant seat on the city council, according to Newark City Clerk Sheila Harrington.

The list of applicants include in the November election and planning commissioners Robert Marshall and Bernie Nillo.

Here is the full list of applicants:

  • Ronald Brazil
  • Roberto Khamseh
  • Andrew Limtiaco
  • Robert Marshall
  • Bernie Nillo
  • Danny Radcliff
  • Angelina Reyes
  • Michelle Romero
  • Donna Sisk
  • Richard Watters
  • Christopher Wecks

City council members voted for an meeting, citing that the process would save the city approximately $100,000.

City council will to interview the applicants in a public. That meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m.

The deadline to apply for the vacant seat was 5 p.m. Thursday. The term of the open council seat is from the date of the appointment to November 2013.

Editor's Note: This report was updated 9:55 a.m. on Monday to add an additional council applicant.

Kirsten January 06, 2012 at 05:48 PM
12 people!? Where were all the people when it was election time for open city councils seats? They didn't want to put in the time or effort in the real election? Makes me wonder why they are all coming forward now. I really hope the city council appoints Mike Bucci. He made the effort to run and he came in third in the polls. I think the city has already spoken on who they want!
Nadja Adolf January 06, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Richard Watters, the ethically challenged Ohlone College Board member (as revealed in the Fremont Argus) will be the likely candidate selected since he has long ties to the Newark political machine. I think they should appoint Mr. Bucci - but that isn't likely to happen.
Nadja Adolf January 06, 2012 at 06:44 PM
Normally I would support Jack Dane; but the voters preferred Mr. Bucci. Donna Sisk might also be appointed since Shirley also has strong connections with the Newark political machine. It's basically between her and Watters.
Rob January 06, 2012 at 07:32 PM
I agree with Kirsten's comments above. Where we're all the people when it was election time. The only good choice for the seat would be MIKE BUCCI. He do come third in the poles. What does Newark Voters voice don't count now, they should... It's a no brainier MIKE BUCCI needs to be in that seat. He is Newarks voice for a better Newark..
Jennifer Hicklin January 06, 2012 at 07:59 PM
I agree with Kristen. Where were all of these people when we needed them the first time? I voted Mike Bucci the first time and will do so again if ever given the chance. I truly feel that Mike is the only choice. If it sends up being Watters or Sisk it will just prove that Newark isn't listening to it's voters, but is just happy with more of the same. Hope that doesn't happen. MIKE BUCCI FOR A BETTER NEWARK!!
Chris January 06, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Though I understand and agree with the decision not to dump $100,00 plus into a new public vote, i'm am very uncomfortable in leaving that decision up to "OUR" elected officials, for that strips us citizens of our one and only say-so. It's a slap in the face to the candidates who put their heart, soul, finances, and sleepless nights preparing and running a campaign for several months. How can we put our faith in a person who chose not to run the process in the months leading up to the election, to now simply sign a paper, interview and possibly be seated? I feel disrespected, as should all who voted. I have faith that our city council will make the right decision and appoint either Mike Bucci or jack Dane!
James January 06, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Simple. With Mike and Jack being the only two exceptions, everyone else knew they didn't have a chance in hell with the Voters. But now that it's more like a Job Interview than a Campaign, they now have much better chances. I trust that the Powers that be will pick the most asinine, Boring, Nazi to Tow the line.
Kirsten January 06, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Since the interview is public I think everyone should plan on going. This might be the only chance we have to see who is going to be our next council person.
Jacob M. January 07, 2012 at 12:01 AM
I still don't get it. If you just want someone who has run for council, why pick Bucci? Nillo has run; Marshall has run; and Dane has run, and I think if you check the votes, all three got more votes than Bucci in various elections.
Jacob M. January 07, 2012 at 12:02 AM
In fact, I think some of those guys have run several times for Council.
Jacob M. January 07, 2012 at 12:03 AM
So, the question remains, who is the most qualified considering what a Council member has to do?
Nadja Adolf January 07, 2012 at 09:35 AM
The reason is that Mr. Bucci and Mr. Dane both took the time and effort to run in the last election. Although I voted for Mr. Dane and not Mr. Bucci, since Mr. Bucci had more votes it seems reasonable that he should be appointed. I think that Mr. Bucci or Mr. Dane should be appointed since the others didn't make the effort this last election. I'd really rather have an election - if local government really saw the cost of an election as a liability, they would move the city council elections to coincide with the other elections, instead of holding them in an off year.
Nadja Adolf January 07, 2012 at 09:37 AM
My take on it all? If the city government were really deeply concerned about the costs of a special election they would hold the council elections in regular election years instead of in off years. That way we could save money. This sudden concern about election expenses sounds like an excuse, given that the city spends around that much to hold council elections in the off years.
Brash Brazen January 07, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Putting an initiative on the November ballot to overrule the cities unwarranted ban on cannabis dispensaries would be a much better use (waste) of the cities resources & insure a much larger turnout than another popularity contest amongst the obviously unqualified to hold public office.
Jennifer Spedowfski-Martin January 09, 2012 at 07:50 PM
I certainly hope that the council takes into account that Mike Bucci and Jack Dane took the time out of their lives to run a campaign, discuss the issues and meet with the citizens. It's really to fill out an application after the fact. I feel like this is a waste of time and money when clearly, the person who came in 3rd, Mike Bucci, should be the one nominated to fill the vacant spot. The city has already spoken.
Paul January 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM
What a joke 12 people and only 2 of them went the right way to become a city council member what a waste if time and money when the schools and fire dept and police dept are hurting to get money and you sit there and waste every body time..
Paul January 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM
If the Newark City Council don't choice Mr Mike Bucci or Mr Jack Dane I will be at every city council meeting and I will question everything the council votes on GOOD or Bad,so use your head NEWARK CITY COUNCIL,pick who the people of Newark voted for and not your FREINDS.
Paul January 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM
NEWARK CITY COUNCIL YOU SHOULD BE A SHAME OF YOURSELF
Michelle Romero January 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Hi everyone, I have read and appreciate your comments and concerns regarding the Newark City Council vacancy. I am one of the candidates who applied to fill the vacancy but did not run in the Nov. election. As a strong advocate for voting rights and civic engagement, I should tell you that in my case, while I grew up in Newark I only recently moved back within the city bounds and became eligible to apply. Before, I technically lived in Fremont. Recognizing that some may not be familiar with me, I have set up a simple website where you can read more information. Please also feel free to send me an email with any questions or concerns regarding my candidacy to info@MichelleRomero4Newark.org. All the best, Michelle Romero (Candidate For Newark City Council)
Christopher Wecks January 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I appreciate and agree with those that noted that our city's next placing nominee, Mike Bucci, is a great guy and a logical first choice for the vacancy. I voted for him during the election. I’ve told him all of this myself. I, too, am among the 12 applicants listed above, and feel responsible for accounting for my actions. A year ago, when my wife and I considered running, our lives were in turmoil. My daughter has cancer, and we were undergoing intensive chemotherapy. We ended up deciding that it wouldn't be fair to anyone to attempt a council run. Today, I'm glad to say that my daughter is doing great. Our lives are more stable, and were there an open election process today for council, my decision to participate would be appropriately in the affirmative. However, we have this appointment process instead. I felt that the best thing I could contribute, given this method for choosing the seat, was a robust and open conversation about my ideas and qualifications. Great ideas can change Newark for the better. Regardless of who is chosen for the role, my and my fellow applicants’ ideas shared through the process will be added to the toolbox of ideas the council has at its disposal. I think that’s a win for the city. I hope that answers why I'm doing this, even though it won't change anyone's mind about who should be appointed. If you have any ideas or comments, please feel free to email me at Christopher.Wecks@gmail.com. Thanks for your your passion.
Danielle January 13, 2012 at 09:46 PM
I support Michelle Romero for her seat! I feel she will offer a new perspective and help to change Newark for the better. She makes an effort to hear our voices (those of us who are often times considered to young to make a change) She has my full support and I hope others of you will read her website and see where she stands on the issues. http://www.michelleromero4newark.org/
Nadja Adolf January 14, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Michelle Romero's website offers no specifics; just vagaries, like offering young people the "American Dream" through job opportunities and education. No plan. It's sort of like being in favor of Mom and apple pie without offering a recipe for the apple pie. Pursuing state and federal solutions to Newark's budget? Ummm.... the state and federal governments are also running serious deficits. I'd like to see some strategy and tactics; every candidate is in favor of improving things - but no one has any actual plans on how they intend to do so.
Nadja Adolf January 14, 2012 at 09:10 AM
But I do agree very strongly with Ms. Romero's take on increasing sales taxes as a very regressive approach to budget shortfalls. In fact, raising sales taxes is downright stupid. So is taxing the alleged "rich", since the truly rich will simply move out of state, as they have been doing for years - compare how much more expensive Tahoe property on the Nevada side is compared to Tahoe property on the California side. The rich are very interested in living in income tax free Nevada.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »