Folks have been talking about the odd anomaly in the final results for the Burbank General Election since those numbers were released on Friday, April 15, 2011. The 95 vote difference between the city council contenders, Emily Gabel-Luddy and Bob Frutos, got most of the attention, however, some have been curious about the sudden increase of more than 450 votes for “Yes” on Measure U.
Burbank resident Kevin Muldoon asked about the big jump in votes for “Yes” on Measure U, last Tuesday at the city council meeting. Another B-town resident, Eric Michael Cap, followed-up with an e-mail to City Clerk, Margarita Campos, about the matter.
Late this afternoon, Campos sent out an e-mail with an explanation to Cap, that said basically — it was typo. Here’s that e-mail.
Dear Mr. Cap,
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify an issue brought up by Mr. Kevin Muldoon during a public comment portion of the Council meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 2011. My understanding of Mr. Muldoon’s comment was that there was a 400-count difference in the tabulation of the Measure U totals between election night on April 12 and the certification of the final results on April 15. Upon further review, my staff noticed that the press release posted on April 15 had a transposed figure in the Measure U number – (5,720 as opposed to 5,270). Posted right below the press release was the official precinct-by-precinct spreadsheet which indicated the correct number. The press release (linked below) has been updated to note the change in the transposed figure. I regret any confusion this may have caused.
Margarita Campos, CMC Burbank City Clerk
Also, the error appeared in a brief press release sent out to the media and to those residents on the city hall e-mail list on April 15. By the way, last Tuesday the city council passed a resolution declaring or accepting the results of that General Election.
At the same meeting, Campos delivered a length explanation as to why the city is not allowing a recount of the city council race in that election. I’ll have more on that later.