tt comment jun 5 2015

I'm wondering if Santiago has a grasp of reality.

The no-confidence vote occurred across Mon and Tue, May 18 and 19, 2015. 

Before the vote, Santiago arrogantly and defiantly  "said":http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2015/05/13/City-fire-chief-stays-calm-on-pending-no-confidence-vote.html :

q.
"The vote is really *inconsequential to me,* because I understand how a vote like that takes place. It *isn’t truly representative of all the members* of this department."
q..

Also from that Blade story ahead of the vote:

q.
Chief Luis Santiago said the vote follows a disagreement with a *small faction* of the department.
q..

And:

q.
The Local 92 union represents about *490* privates, lieutenants, and captains in the department.
q..

The vote "tally":http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2015/05/20/Union-has-no-confidence-in-fire-chief.html :

*  319 against Santiago - *87%*
*  46 for Santiago - 13%
* total votes cast: 365
* voter turnout: *74%*

Small faction? Inconsequential? Not truly representative? 

Regardless, Santiago will have this stain on his career.

q.
Mr. Romstadt  called the vote *“an historical event,”* and said it was the *first-ever vote of its kind in Toledo’s history.*
q..

After the vote, Santiago has, in my opinion, made "bizarre":http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2015/05/21/Fire-chief-won-t-resign.html statements and/or implications that question his ability to lead.

q.
Chief Santiago *questioned the meaning of the vote* because, he said, it remains unclear what members were told in advance and how the votes were processed.

“It’s *tough for me to come to a conclusion* on that based on those two items,” he said.
q..

74 percent voter turnout and 87 percent voted against Santiago. What's the question? It's pretty obvious what to conclude.

The excuse line from above:

q.
... it remains unclear what members were told in advance ...
q..

Is Santiago implying that Toledo firefighters are morons?