Difference between revisions of "Council voting"

From Berkeleypedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(March 3, 2018)
 
(31 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Berkeley City Council meetings can be epic in duration and drama.  Five hour meetings are not unusual owing to the ambitious agendas and the extensive public comment sessions.
  
 +
In the end, council members must cast their votes on the matters before them.  How do they use those votes?  What do their voting patterns tell us about the (dis)alignment between individual members?
  
== Format ==
+
== Individual Performance ==
  
City Council meetings are divided into two sections:  the Consent Calendar and the Action Calendar.   
+
Council members may vote '''Aye''', '''No''', '''Abstain''', be recorded as '''Absent''', or '''Recuse''' themselves from a particular matter.   
  
 +
'''Unanimous votes were excluded from this analysis.'''
  
== March 3, 2018 ==
+
=== How members voted (2019, to date) ===
  
{| class="wikitable"
+
This is a straight count of votes cast by members who were not absent.
|'''Item'''||'''From'''||'''Recommendation'''||'''Outcome'''
+
 
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
|-
|30. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Reform and Expansion From: City Manager||From: City Manager||Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion:1. Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Title 14 to expand eligibility for Residential Preferential Parking to specified areas, allow Residential Preferential Parking in areas zoned Mixed Use Residential, authorize new meters in West Berkeley to manage commercial parking adjacent to residences in mixed-use areas, add a cap on the number of annual permits residents may purchase, and2. Adopt a Resolution raising permit fees to eliminate the Programs operating deficit and rescinding Resolution No. 66,895-N.S. effective March 1, 2018.1. Adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 7,589N.S. Second reading scheduled for February 27, 2018.2. Refer to the City Manager to explore options to amendments to the ordinance related to the cap on permits for situations such as caregivers, child care, and others. 3. Continue the public hearing for recommendation #2 to February 27, 2018.
+
!Member!!Aye!!No!!Abstain!!Recuse
|
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
| '''Action''' || '''Ayes''' || '''Noes''' || '''Abstentions''' || '''Absences'''
 
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: 9 speakers. M/S/C (Maio/Worthington) to include the severed portion of the ordinance in Section 14.72.090.A.1.||arreguin, hahn, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio||harrison, worthington|| ||  
+
|Arreguin||104||6||0||0
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Maio/Worthington) to:||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||  
+
|Bartlett||87||5||0||0
 
|-
 
|-
|}
+
|Davila||66||22||12||0
 
|-
 
|-
|33. Amending BMC Chapter 9.04: Tax Rate for Non-Medical Cannabis Businesses||From: Mayor Arreguin||Recommendation: Adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 9.04 to modify the business license tax rate for Non-Medical Cannabis Businesses to $50/$1,000 gross receipts (or 5%).
+
|Droste||73||6||8||0
|
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
| '''Action''' || '''Ayes''' || '''Noes''' || '''Abstentions''' || '''Absences'''
 
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Hahn/Worthington) to extend debate for 20 minutes. Vote: All Ayes.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||  
+
|Hahn||98||10||2||0
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Hahn/Worthington) to extend debate for 20 minutes. Vote: All Ayes.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||  
+
|Harrison||82||14||2||0
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/Failed (Wengraf/Hahn) to refer the issue of tax rates for non-medical cannabis to an ad hoc committee of the Council.||hahn, droste, wengraf||arreguin, worthington, davila, bartlett||harrison, maio||  
+
|Kesarwani||96||8||5||0
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: 31 speakers. M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to 1) adopt first reading of Ordinance No. 7,590N.S., second reading scheduled for February 27, 2018; 2) refer to the Community Health Commission to study the health effects of cannabis and possible funding recommendations for allocating the tax revenue; 3) request that staff explore variable or progressive tax rates based on license types; and 4) request that the Mayor involve regional stakeholders regarding tax rate equity.||arreguin, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, maio|| ||hahn, wengraf||  
+
|Robinson||93||12||1||0
 
|-
 
|-
 +
|Wengraf||64||17||2||0
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
=== How members voted [percentages] (2019, through July 5) ===
 +
 +
This table shows how members cast their votes as a percentage of their overall voting record.
 +
 +
{| class="wikitable sortable"
 
|-
 
|-
|35. Proposition 218 Clean Stormwater Fee Initiative, Fee Report, and Ballot Procedures||From: City Manager||Recommendation: Adopt two Resolutions:1. Approving the Stormwater Fee Initiative and Fee Report.2. Approving the Ballot Procedures under the Proposition 218 Fee Initiative Process for the Stormwater Fund.
+
!Member!!Aye!!No!!Abstain!!Recuse
|
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
| '''Action''' || '''Ayes''' || '''Noes''' || '''Abstentions''' || '''Absences'''
 
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: 0 speakers. M/S/C (Droste/Hahn) to adopt 1) Resolution No. 68,334N.S. (Stormwater); and 2) Resolution No. 68,335N.S. (Ballot Procedures) as revised in Supplemental Reports Packet #1.||arreguin, hahn, worthington, davila, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||harrison, bartlett
+
|Arreguin||94.55 %||5.45 %||0.00 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|}
+
|Bartlett||94.57 %||5.43 %||0.00 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|38b. Companion Report: First They Came for the Homeless Encampment From: City Manager||From: City Manager||Recommendation: Take no action on the Homeless Commissions resolution to provide the First They Came for the Homeless encampment with a permanent location for a tent city, but adopt the Commissions concurrent recommendation to develop a broader policy on homeless encampments throughout the City. Financial Implications: Staff time
+
|Davila||66.00 %||22.00 %||12.00 %||0.00 %
|
 
{| class="wikitable"
 
| '''Action''' || '''Ayes''' || '''Noes''' || '''Abstentions''' || '''Absences'''
 
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Maio) to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||  
+
|Droste||83.91 %||6.90 %||9.20 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Maio) to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||worthington
+
|Hahn||89.09 %||9.09 %||1.82 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Maio) to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:35 p.m.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||  
+
|Harrison||83.67 %||14.29 %||2.04 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: 27 speakers. M/S/Failed (Droste/Wengraf) to approve the recommendation in Item 38b.||droste, wengraf||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett||maio||  
+
|Kesarwani||88.07 %||7.34 %||4.59 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
|Action: M/S/C (Harrison/Hahn) to refer Item 38a back to the Homeless Commission with the chart of questions provided by Council and request that the commission develop a more specific policy that is broadly applicable.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett||droste, maio||wengraf||  
+
|Robinson||87.74 %||11.32 %||0.94 %||0.00 %
 
|-
 
|-
 +
|Wengraf||77.11 %||20.48 %||2.41 %||0.00 %
 
|}
 
|}
|-
+
 
|39b. Companion Report: Storage at Premier Cru From: City Manager||From: City Manager||Recommendation: Take no action on the Homeless Commissions resolution to provide storage for unhoused persons at the Premier Cru complex, and instead allow staff to explore various locations that would be feasible given the available budget. Financial Implications: None
+
== Voting Correlation ==
|
+
 
{| class="wikitable"
+
Berkeley voters with limited time for lobbying may wish to concentrate their efforts with the members who are most likely to support their interests. 
| '''Action''' || '''Ayes''' || '''Noes''' || '''Abstentions''' || '''Absences'''
+
 
|-
+
These charts depict the correlation between members across all votes in a calendar year. These are created as follows:
|Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Maio) to hold over Items 39a and 39b to March 13, 2018. Vote: All Ayes.||arreguin, hahn, harrison, worthington, davila, bartlett, droste, wengraf, maio|| || ||
+
 
|-
+
* A vote is recorded for each member;
|}
+
* Each "aye" is scored as "1"
|-
+
* Each "no" is scored as "-1"
 +
* Abstentions are scored as "0"
 +
* '''Unanimous votes are ignored''' since these have no explanatory power with regard to intra-council dynamics
 +
 
 +
Higher numbers (greener cells) indicate that the two members are more closely aligned;  negative numbers (more red) signal opposing views.
 +
 
 +
=== 2019 (through July 5) ===
 +
 
 +
[[File:Council-Voting-2019.png||center]]
 +
 
 +
=== 2018 ===
 +
 
 +
Caveat: Robinson and Kesarwani were only in office for one meeting and so their data should be ignored.
 +
 
 +
[[File:Council-Voting-2018.png||center]]

Latest revision as of 07:14, 5 July 2019

Berkeley City Council meetings can be epic in duration and drama. Five hour meetings are not unusual owing to the ambitious agendas and the extensive public comment sessions.

In the end, council members must cast their votes on the matters before them. How do they use those votes? What do their voting patterns tell us about the (dis)alignment between individual members?

Individual Performance

Council members may vote Aye, No, Abstain, be recorded as Absent, or Recuse themselves from a particular matter.

Unanimous votes were excluded from this analysis.

How members voted (2019, to date)

This is a straight count of votes cast by members who were not absent.

Member Aye No Abstain Recuse
Arreguin 104 6 0 0
Bartlett 87 5 0 0
Davila 66 22 12 0
Droste 73 6 8 0
Hahn 98 10 2 0
Harrison 82 14 2 0
Kesarwani 96 8 5 0
Robinson 93 12 1 0
Wengraf 64 17 2 0

How members voted [percentages] (2019, through July 5)

This table shows how members cast their votes as a percentage of their overall voting record.

Member Aye No Abstain Recuse
Arreguin 94.55 % 5.45 % 0.00 % 0.00 %
Bartlett 94.57 % 5.43 % 0.00 % 0.00 %
Davila 66.00 % 22.00 % 12.00 % 0.00 %
Droste 83.91 % 6.90 % 9.20 % 0.00 %
Hahn 89.09 % 9.09 % 1.82 % 0.00 %
Harrison 83.67 % 14.29 % 2.04 % 0.00 %
Kesarwani 88.07 % 7.34 % 4.59 % 0.00 %
Robinson 87.74 % 11.32 % 0.94 % 0.00 %
Wengraf 77.11 % 20.48 % 2.41 % 0.00 %

Voting Correlation

Berkeley voters with limited time for lobbying may wish to concentrate their efforts with the members who are most likely to support their interests.

These charts depict the correlation between members across all votes in a calendar year. These are created as follows:

  • A vote is recorded for each member;
  • Each "aye" is scored as "1"
  • Each "no" is scored as "-1"
  • Abstentions are scored as "0"
  • Unanimous votes are ignored since these have no explanatory power with regard to intra-council dynamics

Higher numbers (greener cells) indicate that the two members are more closely aligned; negative numbers (more red) signal opposing views.

2019 (through July 5)

Council-Voting-2019.png

2018

Caveat: Robinson and Kesarwani were only in office for one meeting and so their data should be ignored.

Council-Voting-2018.png