Home Oakley Vanessa Perry Appointed to Oakley City Council

Vanessa Perry Appointed to Oakley City Council

by ECT

The Oakley City Council appointed Vanessa Perry to replace Diane Burgis Tuesday night when she steps down in January to take a seat to the East Bay Regional Park District.

In total, 12 applicants applied, however, a candidate did not show up and another was disqualified. Candidates for the appointment submitted an application and they were told they would be interviewed and questions would be asked of them.

According to the November 6 announcement, candidates were to be interviewed, however, the council during the meeting changed how the process would play out while applicants were in another room. The council stated applicants would make a brief statement to the council in under three-minutes.

After hearing from 10-candidates, each councilperson ranked selected their top two candidates. In the end staff only read the top choices by the council which stated Dave Hansen received one vote, Claudia Alaura received one vote, and Vanessa Perry received three votes.

“The council has the choice to interview three applicants further, or make the decision,” stated City Manager Bryan Montgomery.

Councilman Randy Pope stated it appeared they made a choice after hearing brief statements.

“Unless one of us changes our vote, it looks like a done deal,” said Pope.

Diane Burgis stated selecting Perry would be the best approach.

“We have Vanessa Perry who received three of the votes, so its apparent that would be the best approach. As the person representing the seat to be filled I think its appropriate for someone that is of a similar mindset so I am excited to nominate for appointment Vanessa Perry for my seat,” said Burgis.

The council voted 5-0 in favor of Perry being appointed.

Perry stated during her campaign that she hopes to bring new business to Oakley while working to bring more money and resources to the city.  She also wants to improve neighborhood safety. She also hopes to improve community participation by getting more residents involved in city issues and events.  She is also in favor of Oakley forming its own police department.

Editors Comments:

The following comments are being made after observing the application process which entailed a lot of fumbling around of “what to do” by the Oakley City Council. It’s highly encouraged that the new city council  tighten their appointment process for a much clearer process.

In speaking with several people including applicants, members of the public and other stakeholders, the conclusion was the process was awkward.

  1. Have a clear process from start to finish and follow it.
    In this process, applicants were told one thing when they applied and city council chose to do another Tuesday night.  This appointment was done based off applications and resumes–but at least two councilmembers stated preference was given to those who ran in the most recent election.With no process in place, the rules were made up as they went along. Create a plan and stick to it.
  2. If a City is going to state they will have an “interview process”, actually interview candidates.
    Applicants were given 3-minutes each to tell the Council about themselves.  The council failed to ask any questions to the applicants nor did they perform any sort of vetting of the applicants. Appointing someone to a council position without asking any questions is both dangerous and irresponsible.We get that not everyone who submits an application should be interviewed, but not interviewing someone prior to “hiring” them makes little sense.It appears the council was set on picking the third place vote getter. There is nothing wrong with that, but if that was the plan, just admit it and move forward. People can respect that logic just as they would respect another person being appointed, however, transparency is key.
  3. Do not post submitted applications in public view prior to deadline.
    During last Thursdays release of the City Council Agenda, four applicants (Vanessa Perry, Dawn Morrow, Gregory Folkings and Michael Dupray) were included in the packet for public display. Since Thursday, 8 other applications were submitted. For obvious reasons, this oversight by city staff should never have occurred.By posting completed applications in public view, you have either encouraged or discouraged potential applicants. Post the names, not the applications.Morrow, Folkings and Dupray should not be happy about this lack of judgement by city staff.
  4. Outgoing Councilmembers should not pick their replacements
    In the future, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, outgoing councilmembers elected to other positions should not participate in the appointment process of picking ones replacement.A candidate knowing they would be moving onto another position could have supported, helped, or pushed for a candidate in an election–who in turn, the public may not have voted into office. While the council appointment is biased by nature, few people leaving office actually pick their replacement.It’s unclear if Burgis was biased in this process, however, she should have recused herself.
  5. “Next In” candidate is not always the best applicant
    The council is neither right nor wrong in this appointment using the logic of the most recent “next in” candidate”.  This is no knock on Perry, who received 14.48% of the vote, but the 2014 election is over and the public did not elect Perry.The City Council should have known and realized that the appointment process was a completely different field than what was given to the public in the 2014 election.  For starters, you had 12 applicants versus 5 candidates in the election.

    The results, obviously, would be different just as they are from year to year because fields change.In this case, out of laziness, the council reverted to the 2014 election results even though the “next in” candidate in the 2012 election applied and received more votes and a higher percentage–his field was arguably more challenging than the field in the most recent election.

    The truth is, the “next in” argument is flawed. The “next in” on an election is not always the best candidate for the job. They are simply the next best candidate in that particular field in that given election cycle.

    The reality is Dave Hansen was not given the same preference as Perry simply because his election cycle was in 2012 versus 2014. Going a step further, none of the 10 applicants were given the same preference as Perry.

    If the council had guts, they would have had at the very least a “final two” Q&A with Perry and Hansen being they were the last two candidates to be “next in” during their respective campaigns.

  6. How the process should have played out:
    1.  Applicants submit application
    2. Council rank applications prior to council meeting (50% of applicants move on–in this case, 5 applicants invited to council meeting for interviews.)
    3. Council hears opening statements from 5 candidates (1-min each). As a council, 1 question is asked to the candidates. Council then narrows field to 3-applicants.
    4. Council members each ask a question to the 3-finalists.  Council ranks 3-applicants. If there is a tie, one candidate is eliminated.
    5. In a tie, the top two applicants receive 1-question pre-determined question.  The council then debates and picks a winner.

In alphabetical order, here is a list of the applicants:

  • Claire Alaura
  • Jake Barritt
  • Thurston Brice
  • Michael Dupray
  • Greg Folkins
  • Dave Hansen
  • Joseph Healey
  • Patricia Jewell
  • Andrew Mathias
  • Dawn Morrow
  • Vanessa Perry
  • Sherry Seat

You may also like

5 comments

Frank Dec 10, 2014 - 12:40 pm

Thank you ECT for saying what we are all thinking. This council is a bunch of morons. I think Dave Hansen would have been a fine choice. I also liked Vanessa but no idea who she is other than she ran in the last election. Glad Burgis is leaving. You are right, she should have recused herself.

JimSimmons42 Dec 10, 2014 - 12:42 pm

I am shocked Oakley got this one right. Are you listening Antioch?

Marty Fernandez Dec 10, 2014 - 1:47 pm

Jim, they changed the rules right in the middle of the game just like Antioch does. “The council during the meeting changed the process”. That is neither right or fair but they got the out come they wanted and that is all a politician cares about. The Mantra is ” by hook or crook” with these councils. ALL of them!

David Hansen Dec 10, 2014 - 1:47 pm

I appreciate the article. So people understand, I did not run in this election cycle because as it was time to pull papers we learned our youngest son would be deploying in the fall. The plan was that my daughter-in-law, grandbaby and their dog were going to be moving in with us. It also meant my son would be at our home for about two weeks before deploying to middle east. I did not want to be in the middle of an election campaign during that time and process so I chose not to run knowing there was a good chance that Burgis would win her seat and there would be need for an appointment. Had there been an actual interview process I would have clearly communicated why I did not run in this election cycle. I am not upset that I was not chosen- there were actually several that I felt could do a good job on the City Council. What I am upset about is that a process was publicly stated and then the whole process was changed. It really appears that this was a pre-determined pick with how things played out. Again, I have nothing against Vanessa and wish her well in her service, but I felt that this was a less than honest process. I am disappointed because the City Council did not hold to their word. What they said and what they did were two different things. So they didn’t really appear to go into the process with the intent of picking the strongest choice out of the “new” candidate slate. It is fine if you want to go with the “next highest” but do that at the very beginning and don’t waste the valuable time and effort of those who are willing to take the step of being considered. To me I have lost some respect and trust of our City Council simply because they didn’t follow through (in my mind) with integrity on the process that they stated they were going to follow and to truly have an open opportunity for all who applied to be considered.

Julio Dec 10, 2014 - 1:49 pm

They did the same thing Antioch always does. Change the rules in the middle of the game. Reported right here! They got want they wanted by hook or crook. Good going Montgomery.

Comments are closed.