City of Oak Harbor decide no change in the latest election

In  a disturbing display of pack voting, nothing has changes the in the Oak Harbor City Council Election. We have one on the most important elections in years and the residents have shown they really do not care who their leaders are and no want fresh ideas, they do not want to see these candidates changed at all and they are good with the status quo. Shame on them,


CITY OF OAK HARBOR Oak Harbor Councilmember Position 7

Michael (Mike) Piccone

1,180 44.03%

Danny Paggao

1,500 55.97%

CITY OF OAK HARBOR Oak Harbor Councilmember Position 6

William A. (Skip) Pohtilla

1,154 43.86%

James M. (Jim) Campbell

1,477 56.14% Total Votes 2,631 100%

CITY OF OAK HARBOR Oak Harbor Councilmember Position 5

Joel Servatius

1,370 51.12%

Sandi Peterson

1,310 48.88% Total Votes 2,680 100%

Lucas Yonkman

1,068 39.21%

Bob Severns

1,656 60.79% Total Votes 2,724 100


  1. Not sure what is disturbing about Americans exercising their right to vote?
    You say this is a disturbing display of pack voting but as long as the Mayor’s Tea Party candidates would have been elected then no problem?
    Your right this was a very important election for our city but where your wrong is when you say the voters have shown they don’t care.
    You say shame on the electorate…..
    I say shame on you for trying to gloss over the fact that this was a referendum against the mayor by simply stating that the people don’t care. Your wrong the people do care.

    1. The mayor is a tea party member? That Is news to me …

      Oak Harbor votes by who is popular not who has the best ideas for change. We have a electorate who votes on who is popular not who will be the most effective in change. The voters don’t care, it has been proven time and time again. We will soon see who votes for the people with th upcoming votes, some of which nave already been made. It is not about who can do the best for Oak Harbor it is who can do the best for those visions of Oak Harbor. I am not sure the most expensive vision is always the best vision for our city. In a short time we will see those people who have lived their lives here voted out of the city with increased fees and taxes. I am not sure that it is your vision of a better city but it is not mine. We have already seen the most expensive choices made by this council and do expect the same in the future.

      We need a council that thinks for themselves and the citizens not one who continues to vote for the most expensive options. Remember it is the residents that pay, not the council and this is what the people have voted into office. Welcome to a city where you cannot afford to live and your children do not have a chance to stay with higher paying jobs. As it is now you either work for the city, the navy or the Wal Marts, hopefully your children make the right move and move away as soon as possible so the they also have a chance at more of a same with Wal Mart or other minimum wage employees as their employer. It is not here in Oak Harbor that they will find that, here you will only find a city, cou nty or government job to pay a liveable wage.

      Good luck Oak Harbor you will need it. I hear Fred Meyer is on the way to pay your minimum wage jobs for your children…

  2. I am having trouble with some of the ballot totals esp. with the hospital bond. About 28,000 totals ballots were cast in Island County as of the Nov. 7 tabulation. I find it difficult to believe that about 7,000 people failed to mark yes or no for the hospital bond.
    It takes 5 taxpayers to demand a re-count which must be requested within two days of certification. Of course the demanding group must foot the bill for the re-count unless successful.

    1. Save your money…. Camano Island residents are not located in the hospital district and as such dont have a vote on it.

      1. I am still waiting for the evidense that Scott Dudley is a Tea Party member or just another figment of your vivid imagination,

  3. Wow, you are surprised that the american system favors incumbents? Once again, an example of a structural problem, not a candidate problem. You could have solid term limits, in all areas, including the supreme court and agency chiefs, as well as all elected officials, at all levels, but that would be unconstitutional, huh?

Comments are closed.