Skull Survey *

23-Apr-18           Results
Sheriff
Dibasilio                 48.7
Garrahan                23.4
Stevens                   27.9

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway                 45.1
Langan                    14.5
Olivera                   40.4

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp                     30.6
Giudici                   29.3
Gustafson              12.7
Stopper                  27.4

* Note: The Skull Survey is the average estimate of the state of the election by a panel of Calaveras voters. As such, the estimates are not based on sampling or any other form of statistical inference based on preferences.

April 17, 2018 | by Ward La Valley

Print this

The June 2018 election for Supervisor in District Five can only be fully appreciated in context with the political history of Rancho Calaveras which, after redistricting, is pretty much all of today’s D5 in Calaveras County, California.

The political party identification rates in District Five are:

Republicans                        2,525     46.1%

Democrats                          1,346     24.6%

Decline to State                1,177     21.5%

Am. Ind.                              268       4.9%

No Supervisor has been returned to office by Rancho voters since the last century — 1998 to be precise, when Terri Bailey was returned to office for a second term.  Ironically enough, the current District Five Supervisor, Clyde Clapp, led an effort to recall the popular Supervisor Bailey in the summer of 2002 (see http://www.recordnet.com/article/20000729/A_NEWS/307299983).

Here is the roster of Supervisors for Rancho Calaveras (and D5) in the last quarter century:

1994       Terri Bailey

1998       Terri Bailey

2002       Victoria Erickson (Bailey did not seek re-election)

2006       Russ Thomas

2010       Darren Spellman

2014       Steve Kearney

2016       Clyde Clapp (winner in November Recall)

2018       Whom will it be???

Kearney’s term was undone by what was viewed as his behind-the-scenes maneuvering to permit a new asphalt plant at an existing industrial facility within the District without it undergoing all required County environmental review.

The asphalt plant became nearly as big a political issue in District Five as the unpermitted-but-still-built golf course development Trinitas became for the whole region beginning in 2009.  But the political reverberations of Kearney’s push for asphalt in District Five are still being felt.

Let’s look at the results of the 2016 Recall election of then-incumbent Steve Kearney (who beat Spellman, who beat Thomas, who beat Erickson, who begat Trinitas, who begat …).

First, Kearney was recalled by a 60%-40% margin, 2,536 to 1,645.  It was not an especially close result.

In the simultaneous winner-take-all election to replace Kearney, Clapp was elected.  The results were:

Clyde Clapp:                       1,186     33.0%    (Against Asphalt, Against Commercial Marijuana)

Bob Bowerman:                    835     23.3%    (Against Asphalt, For Commercial Marijuana)

Bruce Giudici:                        821     22.9%    (Against Asphalt, For Commercial Marijuana)

Dave Tunno:                           669     18.7%    (For Asphalt, Against Commercial Marijuana)

Write-ins:                                  76        2.1%

For the record, after Kearney overcame his initial opposition to Commercial Marijuana, his Planning Commissioner, Dave Tunno, resigned in protest in May 2016, and as we see, ran for Supervisor finishing fourth.

To replace Tunno on the Planning Commission, in June 2016 Kearney appointed CCWD Engineer Ben Stopper, saying “his experience in water and waste water” qualified him for the Planning position.  Stopper, of course – inevitably — is now running for Supervisor in D5.

We may now understand, seen in fuller context, that this 2018 Primary Election for D5 Supervisor is just the latest skirmish in the Twenty-Five Years War otherwise known as Rancho Calaveras politics.

The candidates for Supervisor in this year’s contest are:

Clyde Clapp, Incumbent:     Clapp, who promised not to seek re-election in 2018, is seeking re-election in 2018

Bruce Giudici:     Giudici, finishing a close third in the recall election, is trying to be the first Democrat since the Civil War to represent Rancho Calaveras

Greg Gustafson:     Gustafson, censured by his fellow Calaveras Unified School District Board members in 2014, is succeeding in keeping his campaign a secret

Ben Stopper:     Stopper, the only candidate who has not previously run for office, has evidently been both for and against asphalt and commercial marijuana

Riding the horse-racing metaphor, the election is approaching the Far Turn, which leads to the long Home Stretch.  Actual voting will commence sometime in early May, and some believe over half the votes will be mailed in by Memorial Day.

Who’s Ahead?

So far, it has been a three-horse race.  The Skull Survey, an average of the estimates of a panel of local political observers, shows the race to be virtually a toss-up between Clapp, Guidici, and Stopper.   The latest Survey shows Clapp ahead of Guidici 30.8% to 28.8%, with Stopper right there at 28.4%.  Gustafson has slumped to 11.9%.  If no candidate gets over 50%, the top two finishers compete in the General Election in November.

On paper, the election would seem to favor Clapp and Stopper advancing on to November.  The reasoning is that Clapp, an arch-opponent of Commercial Marijuana, should be in position to pick up those votes in D5 – and that could be a lot of votes.  Stopper, although trying to blur his image as a staunch supporter of commercial marijuana, also enjoys the support of the more traditional D5 special interest groups – commercial interests, certain developers, and the real estate industry.

Giudici, however, might upset that equation.  He has many attractive qualities as a candidate for D5. Although a liberal Democrat on social issues, Guidici, who supports commercial marijuana regulations, is trying to leverage deep concerns among D5 voters over the issue of the County budget.  Calaveras County, like many rural counties, is beset by old and failing infrastructure, under-staffing at all levels of County government including law enforcement, and a growing need to expand services for an aging population.  In response, Guidici, a bean counter by trade, is sounding downright conservative on the need to curb spending and look for ways to increase revenues.  Giudici even publicly questioned the Supervisors’ prudence in granting a raise to (unionized) County employees in light of the pending loss of revenue caused by the Supervisor’s ban on commercial marijuana.  If this works, if Giudici succeeds in becoming the candidate who most successfully informs and reassures D5 voters that at least their supervisor is on the fiscal watchtower – he might overcome the structural advantages of either Clapp or Stopper – but most likely Stopper.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Clapp:                   Clapp’s biggest worry is that he cannot get any more votes than he did last time.  Clapp set modest goals for himself when he ran in 2016, and he met them.  If Clapp cannot articulate a clear reason why he should be returned as Supervisor that involves more than just being against commercial marijuana, he may well look weak against either Stopper or Guidici.

Stopper:              Stopper’s biggest concern is that if he becomes too identified with former Supervisor Kearney and special interests, he will suffer Kearney’s fate at the ballot box.  Stopper is not a natural campaigner and is needing to learn on the job what the other candidates have already had a chance to learn in their previous campaigns.  Like any challenger, but more so, he needs to articulate why he would make a better Supervisor than the incumbent.

Giudici:                 Giudici’s biggest worry is that his background as a social liberal will doom him with the clear Republican majority in D5.  While this may, in a crowded race, in fact help him advance to the General Election by driving Democratic votes his way, a classic, shrill, right-wing attack could rob him of a chance to win the General Election.  If Giudici can’t successfully define what actually makes a good District Five Supervisor, and in so doing define himself, his quest could be undone.

Gustafson:          At this point Gustafson has absolutely nothing to worry about.  Why should he?  Gustafson, who took out papers to run in the 2016 Recall election but never filed them, might as well have not filed them this year – at least so far.  What he may do with the remaining weeks of his campaign is a significant variable in this election.  However, if he were to suddenly burst forth with a campaign it is uncertain what it would be about.  As such it isn’t clear what the repercussions might be.  Speculation is that Gustafson can take votes that might otherwise go to Clapp, but evidence for this is scarce.

In Conclusion

Do not bet the farm on this race.  The smartest play might be a $2.00 bet on the nose for Clapp to win, but who comes in second is almost impossible to predict at this point.  It’s too bad they make you bet before they run the race.

Next up: District Three: Who’s Your Incumbent?

Skull Survey
April 16, 2018

Sheriff
Dibasilio 48.6
Garrahan 24.8
Stevens 26.5

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway 45.2
Langan 13.5
Olivera 41.3

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp 30.8
Giudici 28.8
Gustafson 11.9
Stopper 28.4

Note:  Analysis update to follow!

Skull Survey Results for April 9, 2018

Sheriff
Dibasilio 47.7
Garrahan 26.0
Stevens 26.3

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway 44.4
Langan 13.6
Olivera 42.0

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp 30.2
Giudici 29.2
Gustafson 12.3
Stopper 28.4

Hello —

With better weather and more things to do, we will now publish results of the Skull Survey on Monday mornings.  See you tomorrow!

“So, we’re gonna be okay, is that right?”  asked Mr. Al Segalla, President for Life of the Calaveras Taxpayers Association.

The date was February 27, the occasion was the regularly scheduled Calaveras County Board of Supervisors meeting.  Mr. Segalla and others in attendance had just heard the CAO run through a startlingly upbeat mid-year budget projection, one that predicted a nine million dollar ($9,000,000) “cash-carry”  — that is, a nine-million-dollar budget surplus from the previous year.  The bulk of the surplus is from Measure C funds, the tax on commercial marijuana that voters overwhelmingly passed in 2016.

Although not explicitly asked, and certainly not answered by the CAO, Mr. Segalla, given more time, may have asked, “so, without Measure C funds, is the County budget sustainable in the long run?”

In light of the Supervisor’s reversing policy and placing a ban commercial marijuana in Calaveras County, this would seem to be, pardon the expression, the nine-million-dollar question in Calaveras politics today.

Candidates running for Supervisor in Calaveras County, and by November that number could be in the hundreds, will need to be prepared to deal with this question.  And it isn’t much fun.  As a general rule, candidates don’t like to talk about budgets, and budget priorities, because the issues are complicated, and chances are whatever you say is going to offend some vital constituency or be hopelessly wrong.  And budgets are dull.  Really, the only reason the issue is interesting in this election is because of the passions generated by the issue of marijuana – commercial, recreational, medicinal, whatever.

Does Calaveras County pencil out without Measure C tax money?  Candidates may choose from three possible answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Oh hell, who knows?

And as interesting as this question is, there is another 300-pound gorilla in the politics of the budget: apparently, one year of Measure C taxes is enough to fund the Government for what, three years?  Or just two?  Of course, this is only as long as we don’t fund IHHS – God forbid we actually help old people, but I digress.

What is all too apparent is that taxing commercial marijuana for just one year was a gold mine for Calaveras County taxpayers and citizens.  And just imagine what we could have done with another nine million this year?  And another nine million the next year?  Besides not facing a potential fiscal catastrophe in two or three years, we really could enhance services for senior citizens – and maybe even do something about our bridges and roads.

Or not.  Maybe that’s all just hooey.  Just “smoke dreams.”

But politically speaking, the public record pretty much now begs this question of all candidates running for office in this County: Are we gonna be okay?  For how long?

This story was edited April 8, 2018 for clarity.

Skull Survey
April 2, 2018

Survey Results
Sheriff
Dibasilio     48.2
Garrahan    28.3
Stevens       23.6

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway    45.3
Langan       12.6
Olivera       42.1

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp           31.9
Giudici        28.3
Gustafson   11.8
Stopper       28.0

Due to the Easter Holiday, this week’s Skull Survey will be published tomorrow, April 2.

Thanks!

Skull Survey
March 25, 2018

Sheriff
Dibasilio     46.5
Garrahan   28.5
Stevens       24.9

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway    44.6
Langan       13.6
Olivera       41.7

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp                31.4
Giudici             27.2
Gustafson       12.9
Stopper           28.5

Matt Dillon for Sheriff Committee Meeting. Seated L-R: Sheriff Dillon, Miss Kitty, Festus, and Doc.

Skull Session

Print this story

March 20, 2018

(updated to correct spelling errors)

Edwin R. Murray-Creek: Hello!  Welcome to a special edition of Skull Session!

I’m your host, Edwin R. Murray-Creek.  Tonight we’ll preview the coming Sheriff’s Candidate’s debate, hosted by ThePineTree, to be held Wednesday evening at 6:00 pm, March 21 at the San Andreas Town Hall.

Sharing his expert insights into the politics of law enforcement campaigns in a rural environment is Doctor Galen Adams.  Not many know that Doctor Adams was the political advisor and chief campaign architect for the most popular Sheriff in America – Sheriff Mathew Dillon of Dodge City Kansas, circa 1874.  Most of you know Doctor Adams as “Doc.”

MC:        Doctor Adams ….

Doctor Adams:  Call me Doc.

MC:        Okay, Doc, thank you for coming.  We want to get your thoughts on the Sheriff’s election in Calaveras County, and perhaps get you to venture some advice to the candidates as they prepare for the big debate Battle for the Badge.

Doc:       Well, okay.  That’s why I’m here, I guess!

MC:        So, don’t tell me Sheriff Matt Dillon ever had to debate?

Doc:       Why sure he did!  You think Calaveras County is the only place that has politics?  We had debates every dang election …  right here in the saloon!

MC:        That probably might not a good idea today.  So, what would your advice be to the candidates?

Doc:       Well, like I always told Matt, just go out there and be yourself.  People can spot a phony a mile off.

MC:        That’s always good advice.  But is there anything else?  Is running for Sheriff any different than running for any other office?

Doc:       You’re darn tootin’ it is!  At least in most places.  Oh, I know nowadays there are all kinds of Sheriffs – in some places you even have women running for Sheriff!  And some of ‘em even win!

MC:        Could a woman ever be elected Sheriff in Calaveras County, do you think?

Doc:       Well, I don’t think it woulda’ been possible in Dodge City.  Here, it would have to be some kind of woman to get herself elected Sheriff, I would think.

MC:        Times have changed, Doc … women couldn’t vote in your day.

Doc:       Sure, I know they have.  Shoot, I’ve met a few women that could get elected Sheriff anywhere you say.  See, people want one thing from their Sheriff – they want to have confidence in him.  If that “him” turns out to be a “her,” then they’ll vote for her, not him, know what I mean?

MC:        But isn’t that the same as with a County Supervisor, or any elected office?

Doc:       Okay, sure  – only the kind of confidence I’m talking about is different.  A Supervisor is supposed to pass a budget and give out awards, right?  On the other hand, the Sheriff is who you’re countin’ on to keep you safe from bein’ robbed, or beaten, or worse.  See the difference?

MC:        I think I see what you’re saying ….  So how does all this relate to the specific candidates for Sheriff in Calaveras County this year?

Doc:       Well, it looks to me like they’re all real fine fellers.  Yessir.

MC:        The current Sheriff was appointed, he’s never run for office before.  One of his opponents, Pat Garrahan, ran for Sheriff in the previous election but lost, and the other opponent, Gary Stevens, is not as well known as the other two.

Doc:       It’s always better to be the Sheriff, but it can turn out to bite you too.

MC:        How so?

Doc:       Well, the current Sheriff got himself appointed, but them other two fellers didn’t, did they?  So, forgive me if I pronounce it wrong, all DBasilio has to do is stand up there, be the Sheriff, and give people confidence that he understands what his job is.  He does that, and he’ll be fine.

MC         Hmmmm.  But it sounds like you’re also saying that if he doesn’t …

Doc:       That’s how it can bite.  You don’t have to be perfect, but if folks think you’re not up to the job, they’ll look at somebody else.

MC:        Sheriff Dillon wasn’t always the incumbent, was he?

Doc:       Nope, ‘course not.  There was his first campaign, but that office was, uh, made vacant by a Colt .45 so Matt didn’t have to face an incumbent.  He lost that first debate, too, but it didn’t matter.  And then of course he got himself recalled over that Miss Kitty business…

MC:        What?!?

Doc:       Never you mind, young fella.  You just ask your fool questions.

MC:        So, what debate tips would you suggest to Garrahan and Stevens, the challengers?

Doc:       Well, it’s hard.  You have to be a ‘Sheriff’ without actually being the Sheriff, if you know what I mean?  You either have that quality or you don’t.  Matt had it.  Now, both those challengers, Garrahan and Stevens, are real smart lawmen – and they’re both probably going to try and show just how smart they are by, you know, talking about various “issues” and things like that.  But as long as an incumbent Sheriff holds his own, nobody will remember anything about any dang issues.

MC:        Speaking of issues, in Calaveras County there’s the Marijuana issue – specifically the Commercial Marijuana issue, but feelings being what they are, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Doc:       What are you talking about?

MC:        Didn’t Dodge City have marijuana?

Doc:       What?

MC:        It’s something you smoke, like tobacco.  It’s hemp.  It is both an analgesic and a relatively mild intoxicant.  There’s been a thriving black market for it until recent attempts to legalize it.

Doc:       Sounds like nobody should smoke that stuff – just like opium, right?  Filthy stuff.  Ruins lives.  Reflects moral weakness, I say.  Damn, where is that bartender, anyway?  Can I get you something?

MC:        It’s still a little early for me.

Doc:       Suit yourself.  Now, where were we?

MC:        Marijuana.  The issue is important in Calaveras politics, and it’s important in the Sheriff’s race.  Just how important is hard to say.

Doc:       Well, let me ask you: is there any money behind this marijuana deal?

MC:        I would say so, yes.

Doc:       Well then it gets a little more complicated, don’t it?

MC:        Stevens, one of the challengers, says he “just hates marijuana” and presumably favors the ban on Commercial Marijuana, and Garrahan said a while back that he was against a ban in favor of regulations, but his website is silent on the issue.

Doc:       What does the Sheriff say?

MC:        The Sheriff liked the added tax money commercial marijuana brought to the Sheriff’s Department, and I think he’s worried about what happens after he loses it.  I think the last thing he said was that as long as he gets enough money to keep the citizens safe, he doesn’t care what happens with marijuana.  His website doesn’t say anything about marijuana either.

Doc:       Well, that all sounds like a wash, if you ask me.  What else do they have to fight about?

MC:        Well, let’s see.  Garrahan’s website …

Doc:       Just hold on – I have to ask you – what in tarnation is a “website?”

MC:        It’s like a handbill or a billboard.  Anyway, his website stresses “leadership” and “professionalism” so I guess those are indirect attacks on the Sheriff.

Doc:       Anything to it?

MC:        Well, DiBasilio was a Sergeant, not even an officer, when he went after the Sheriff job and the Supervisors appointed him.  That affronted some folks who thought he was being pushy.  But so far there’s been nothing specific about the Sheriff from Garrahan, so until then I guess you could just call it ‘presumption of guilt.’

Doc:       What about that other feller, Stevens?

MC:        Publicly anyway, Detective Gary L. Stevens has not yet either directly or indirectly criticized the Sheriff.  Doc, you may not know this, but if nobody gets over half the votes in the first election, there’s a runoff between the top two.

Doc:       You don’t say?  Hmmm.  That makes things mighty interestin’ wouldn’t you say?   Hmmmm.  Are you sure you won’t have a drink?  No?  Well, let me see … it seems to me the challengers have to be lookin’ to make the runoff election against the Sheriff, who ain’t likely to come in last.  So, each of the other fellers needs to focus on beating the other, but not so bad as to let the Sheriff get over 50%.  See what I mean?

MC:        Yes, I think so.  Doc, do you have any final thoughts?  Any final words of wisdom for the candidates?

Doc:       Well, I’ve been at this a long time.  I’d say to each candidate, if you walk out of that debate thinking that your campaign is won, or lost, you’re probably wrong.  Nobody cares whether their Sheriff is a sharp talker or not.  This debate is maybe a little important ‘cause it comes early and who knows, it might be the only debate for a while.  But it’s hard work, not a lot of talk, that wins election campaigns.  You got to get out and be with folks every day, every night.  That way, if you really are a Sheriff, people will figure it out.  And they’ll vote.

MC:        And on that note, we’ll conclude this special edition of Skull Session!  Our regular panelists will be back next time, so for now, good bye and good luck.