After 250 Votes, City Council Remains Deadlocked [VIDEO]

Councilors gathered at City Hall Thursday night to pick a replacement for Joan Lovely.

UPDATED: Despite voting 250 times at City Hall Thursday night, Salem City Council members have so far been unable to pick a replacement for Joan Lovely.

There are six candidates who have applied to fill out the remaining year of Lovely's term. Also the council president, Lovely resigned to become a state Senator.

The two candidates with council experience have been consistently splitting votes tonight.

Steven Pinto, a former two-term councilor at large, who was not reelected in 2011, has five votes.

Lucy Corchado, who served two terms as a ward councilor, has expressed an interest in returning to the council for at least the one year remaining on Lovely's term and has the other five votes.

A candidate will need six votes to earn the seat.

At 11 p.m., councilors took a recess after 150 votes.

As of 12:08 a.m. the councilors were taking their 204th vote.

At 1:05 a.m., the councilors took a recess after their 250th vote.

Click Here for our story previewing the vote, including information about the other residents running for the position.

The Corchado bloc is: Councilors Kevin Carr, Thomas Furey, Robert McCarthy, Josh Turiel and Joseph O'Keefe.

The Pinto bloc is: Councilors Arthur Sargent, Michael Sosnowski, Todd Siegel, Jerry Ryan and Paul Prevey.

Salem Patch will be posting more information as it becomes available.

windpower January 04, 2013 at 06:15 AM
One may want to read between the votes here . At 250 and counting A clear statement is being made to city hall . No matter who gets in the council will be divided on future issues Take the city back
Bill January 04, 2013 at 10:35 AM
This is funny, at some point, maybe around vote 176 it should have been clear that no one is changing his mind. What next, wait for Kim to offer someone a payback to vote for Lucy? As we a learned, Dems do what it takes.
Sinead O'Brien January 04, 2013 at 11:41 AM
250 votes? These are the actions of recalcitrant lawmakers -- never a good thing. (see: Congress). What point was made, other than a wild commitment to wasting time and annoying each other? And windpower makes the best point: this previews a session of entrenched stasis. Where is the leadership? After maybe 10 votes a compromise should have been suggested. Motion to take it to a special public election? That would put the decision in the hands of the people. Anything but this nonsense. I am not discounting the strong feelings of the council members who refuse to budge; I'm saying this procedure is not working.
Marsha Finkelstein January 04, 2013 at 10:06 PM
The biggest problem with your suggestions (and I was frustrated like crazy and I was there) is that the rules come from the City Charter. The presiding chair was O'Keefe and when people (mostly Turiel) to offer some sanity, he kept bringing it back to the rules. It make sense, even though it sucked big time. The Charter needs to be changed, that's for sure. And, yes, the procedure is definitely not working.


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 »