Commentary: Subcomittee and Staff Look Ill-prepared in Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Deliberations

Share:
In many ways this was entirely of their own doing. In April, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pulled a consent agenda item off the consent calendar and moved to allow city staff rather than the city commissions subcommittee of Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson look into changes in the anti-discrimination ordinance. At the time, we reported that Councilmember Heystek respectfully but firmly pointed out to the subcommittee that they lacked legal training and moreover they had originally missed the provision. Councilmember Souza’s defense was that they were not even aware of the provision in the anti-discrimination ordinance that authorized the HRC to “investigate” and “mediate” charges of discrimination. Heystek responded that proved his point–the council subcommittee had not done their homework and that he lacked confidence in their ability to handle such an important and complex task. Nevertheless, the council voted 3-2 with Heystek joined by Mayor Greenwald in dissent, to authorize the subcommittee to look at the anti-discrimination ordinance.

This criticism would come forth again on Tuesday as the Council subcommittee would come forward with their recommendation first to delete the provision and then to alter it. Without Councilmember Heystek’s work, the council would have never been aware of this flaw to begin with as in October of last year, when the council was re-writing the authorizing ordinances and resolutions for all the commissions, neither Souza nor Asmundson had read through the anti-discrimination ordinance. As it turns out, they had not read it in June of 2006 when they shut down the HRC for doing what in retrospect was their job.

In addition to simply not knowing the provision within the anti-discrimination ordinance, there were several other appalling aspects of the subcommittee’s work as presented on Tuesday evening. First, somehow between October when the issue first arose and June, and between April when the subcommittee was authorized to look at this question and June, no one asked the city attorney her opinion as to whether the city had to change to ordinance to make it consistent with the resolution. It was her opinion that they did not have to change the ordinance that led Councilmember Souza to withdraw his recommendation for making changes to the ordinance. How could that question not have arisen until there was a public recommendation?

Second, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson made the original recommendation in the council agenda:

“The subcommittee recommends that Section 7A-15(c) of the city’s Anti-discrimination Ordinance should be deleted.”

However, at the meeting it turns out they altered that recommendation without any sort of notice to the public or their colleagues. Instead of deleting that section, they altered it, substituting the HRC for the “city” and “city manager.” This change was literally made at 5:30 on Tuesday evening.

Third, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson admitted that they had not read the minutes from the 1986 original deliberations until 6:00 Tuesday evening. In fact, the only reason they saw these minutes at all were that Councilmember Heystek requested of Kelly Stachowicz all the records from the 1986 proceedings and then all the councilmembers received copies of those proceedings. Asmundson claimed that there was no information in them that was useful, but this is simply not true. First, the council voted by a 4-1 margin to approve it. The one dissenting vote was Councilmember Jerry Adler. Mr. Adler at that time made a string of legalistic motions to alter various parts of the ordinance that he thought were problematic. He did not raise one objection however to the section in question. Second, the minutes also contained a list of citizens who at the time spoke in favor of the ordinance, citizens who are still in the community now and are in fact allies of the council majority. It is in fact a veritable “who’s who” list of Davis residents.

Fourth, it was not clear from the deliberations that either council or staff understood the wording in the ordinance. It was only when Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the ordinance itself contained the key provision that precluded any findings of the commission’s investigation and mediation from being admissible in a court of law, that Harriet Steiner acknowledged that there were in fact distinctions between the legal definition of “investigate” and “mediate” and a more general and common language usage.

The language reads:

“The findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action.”

This section in fact indicates and clarifies that when the ordinance speaks of investigate, it does not mean a legal investigation that would have subpoena and more importantly, “adjudicatory” power. Rather, it was meant to be a more informal means of findings out facts and making recommendations to the actual body with legislative authority, the city council.

Fifth, following from this, it was clear that neither staff nor council really understood the history of the commission or its functions. This is especially appalling given that Councilmember Souza was a longtime member and in fact chaired this commission. Bill Ritter, a former chair, told the council that city had a times hired independent investigators to follow up more formally on HRC findings. In fact, as the three former chairs sitting in the audience pointed out, the HRC never had, used, or sought adjudicatory power. The council apparently had little understanding of what the HRC did or how it operated.

This is not surprising in light of the dispute last year, that in my opinion, was largely distorted and blown out of proportions. The council depicted an HRC out of control and bent on subverting the will of council. In fact, what happened was that as a series of complaints against the Davis police arose, the HRC had public meetings to determine the nature of the complaints against the police. They appointed a subcommittee to investigate those complaints led by Jann Murray-Garcia. That subcommittee released their report in February, but by that time the council had already gone another direction in terms how to approach the problem and opted for an Ombudsman rather than Civilian Oversight. The HRC, never took up the issue again formally, although some of their members were involved in pubic protests over the handling of the Buzayan and other cases. None of these actions overstepped the bounds of commission. The council had every right to do as they did and go a different direction, though the tone of the meetings and Councilmember Puntillo’s denouncement of their work as “not worth the paper it was written on” was decidedly unprofessional and in poor taste.

Nevertheless, one must in the end question this particular subcommittee, which has seemed to not only fail to perform their duties in an adequate and timely manner with regards to the HRC, but it also badly blundered with another recommendation that in the end they had to withdraw–the recommendation to merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services commission. (For an overview of that process click here and also here.

The basic facts here are surprisingly similar, but play out over a longer time frame than the anti-discrimination ordinance. The subcommittee issued their initial recommendations for the merger in a consent agenda item and it was only because Councilmember Heystek asked for the item to be brought back later that we discovered that there was a full blown resolution for the merger of the two commissions. Souza would later claim this was brought forward for discussion, but it was not. It was a full blown resolution with a recommendation for merger and it was in a consent agenda item that would not be discussed unless someone pulled it.

When objections to the merger arose, Souza took it to each of the commissions, the Social Services Commission approved it, but the Senior Citizens Commission refused and in fact made a very public complaint about it. At one point, Mr. Souza in fact, berated and attempted to browbeat the chair of that commission, Elaine Roberts Musser, and the rest of the commission, but they would not back down. After a series of very public hearings, included a devastating speech by the chair before the council (see the you tube video of it here), the council not only backed off but attempted to make it appear as though they had not really intended to do anything more than “raise the issue” for the “purposes of discussion.”

The historic record of this however does not bear it out and in the end like the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Senior Citizens Commission prevailed when Souza and Asmundson did a hasty reversal in the middle of the proceedings.

What is also interesting is that in both cases, the subcommittee of Souza and Asmundson did the primary work. Councilmember Don Saylor in neither controversy said a whole lot and in fact he did not make a public assertion of his view on either matter and allowed his colleagues and allies to essentially hang themselves.

There has been some controversy about the amount of work done by subcommittees as opposed to the entire body. I am of two-mindsets on the issue because on the one hand, I prefer public deliberations on staff prepared items. On the other hand, I think much of the preparation work can be done outside of formal meetings. What is clear however is that the council should think twice before assigning Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson to work together on a subcommittee. They have made two pretty large miscalculations that have in essence wasted both the council’s time as well as the community’s time. The amount of work that the Senior Citizens Commission and their chair had to do must have been tremendous. Instead of pushing forward with their duties they were forced to fight for their existence.

This process played out in a rather embarrassing way for both city and staff. Frankly both the subcommittee and the staff should be embarrassed at both their lack of knowledge but more importantly their lack of preparation on this item.

I am very grateful that the council did the right thing in the end on this issue, just as they did on the Senior Citizens Commission merger, but that should not excuse the steps that were taken in the interim and especially the lack of preparation and notification to the public.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

80 thoughts on “Commentary: Subcomittee and Staff Look Ill-prepared in Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Deliberations”

  1. Anonymous

    Yeah, the issue is settled. You got anything else to talk about?

    Commentary: Anti-discrimination ordinance meeting re-cap exceeds 4-post expectations; 5th post expected.

    And for Saturday: Anti-discrimination ordinance vote underscored need for advocates for drinking in the park. Homeless to stage ‘drink-in’ to protest open container ordinance. Frat boys announce support.

  2. Anonymous

    Yeah, the issue is settled. You got anything else to talk about?

    Commentary: Anti-discrimination ordinance meeting re-cap exceeds 4-post expectations; 5th post expected.

    And for Saturday: Anti-discrimination ordinance vote underscored need for advocates for drinking in the park. Homeless to stage ‘drink-in’ to protest open container ordinance. Frat boys announce support.

  3. Anonymous

    Yeah, the issue is settled. You got anything else to talk about?

    Commentary: Anti-discrimination ordinance meeting re-cap exceeds 4-post expectations; 5th post expected.

    And for Saturday: Anti-discrimination ordinance vote underscored need for advocates for drinking in the park. Homeless to stage ‘drink-in’ to protest open container ordinance. Frat boys announce support.

  4. Anonymous

    Yeah, the issue is settled. You got anything else to talk about?

    Commentary: Anti-discrimination ordinance meeting re-cap exceeds 4-post expectations; 5th post expected.

    And for Saturday: Anti-discrimination ordinance vote underscored need for advocates for drinking in the park. Homeless to stage ‘drink-in’ to protest open container ordinance. Frat boys announce support.

  5. Vincente

    Some people are touchy, I think there is critical new information presented in this article. For instance, the pattern of lunacy by Souza/ Asmundson is appalling. I’m sure by tomorrow we will have moved on to other topics, but I also think it is crucial to draw these links for the public.

  6. Vincente

    Some people are touchy, I think there is critical new information presented in this article. For instance, the pattern of lunacy by Souza/ Asmundson is appalling. I’m sure by tomorrow we will have moved on to other topics, but I also think it is crucial to draw these links for the public.

  7. Vincente

    Some people are touchy, I think there is critical new information presented in this article. For instance, the pattern of lunacy by Souza/ Asmundson is appalling. I’m sure by tomorrow we will have moved on to other topics, but I also think it is crucial to draw these links for the public.

  8. Vincente

    Some people are touchy, I think there is critical new information presented in this article. For instance, the pattern of lunacy by Souza/ Asmundson is appalling. I’m sure by tomorrow we will have moved on to other topics, but I also think it is crucial to draw these links for the public.

  9. Anonymous

    A few things I still don’t get:

    1. Why did Souza want to merge those two commissions?

    2. Why didn’t the council majority simply ram the changes through, Saylor would have joined them on almost thing?

    3. Why is Souza so lazy and cocky to admit he’s lazy?

  10. Anonymous

    A few things I still don’t get:

    1. Why did Souza want to merge those two commissions?

    2. Why didn’t the council majority simply ram the changes through, Saylor would have joined them on almost thing?

    3. Why is Souza so lazy and cocky to admit he’s lazy?

  11. Anonymous

    A few things I still don’t get:

    1. Why did Souza want to merge those two commissions?

    2. Why didn’t the council majority simply ram the changes through, Saylor would have joined them on almost thing?

    3. Why is Souza so lazy and cocky to admit he’s lazy?

  12. Anonymous

    A few things I still don’t get:

    1. Why did Souza want to merge those two commissions?

    2. Why didn’t the council majority simply ram the changes through, Saylor would have joined them on almost thing?

    3. Why is Souza so lazy and cocky to admit he’s lazy?

  13. Anonymous

    During the last Council election campaign and contest between Lenzi and Reisig , the Asmundson/Levy ticket was going nowhere until they latched onto and hyped the police civilian oversight issue ,the HRC and the Buzayan case as a quite effective wedge campaign tool. Councilman Souza was a willing accomplice to this campaign strategy and joined right in, apparently much to his discomfort now as he tries to be reelected on his public record. Saylor, as the behind-the-scenes Svengali of the Asmundson/Levy ticket(and ardent supporter of Reisig)was busy working the puppet strings. Well, the council election campaign season is almost upon us again. To paraphrase, fool me once, its your fault, fool me twice and it’s mine.

  14. Anonymous

    During the last Council election campaign and contest between Lenzi and Reisig , the Asmundson/Levy ticket was going nowhere until they latched onto and hyped the police civilian oversight issue ,the HRC and the Buzayan case as a quite effective wedge campaign tool. Councilman Souza was a willing accomplice to this campaign strategy and joined right in, apparently much to his discomfort now as he tries to be reelected on his public record. Saylor, as the behind-the-scenes Svengali of the Asmundson/Levy ticket(and ardent supporter of Reisig)was busy working the puppet strings. Well, the council election campaign season is almost upon us again. To paraphrase, fool me once, its your fault, fool me twice and it’s mine.

  15. Anonymous

    During the last Council election campaign and contest between Lenzi and Reisig , the Asmundson/Levy ticket was going nowhere until they latched onto and hyped the police civilian oversight issue ,the HRC and the Buzayan case as a quite effective wedge campaign tool. Councilman Souza was a willing accomplice to this campaign strategy and joined right in, apparently much to his discomfort now as he tries to be reelected on his public record. Saylor, as the behind-the-scenes Svengali of the Asmundson/Levy ticket(and ardent supporter of Reisig)was busy working the puppet strings. Well, the council election campaign season is almost upon us again. To paraphrase, fool me once, its your fault, fool me twice and it’s mine.

  16. Anonymous

    During the last Council election campaign and contest between Lenzi and Reisig , the Asmundson/Levy ticket was going nowhere until they latched onto and hyped the police civilian oversight issue ,the HRC and the Buzayan case as a quite effective wedge campaign tool. Councilman Souza was a willing accomplice to this campaign strategy and joined right in, apparently much to his discomfort now as he tries to be reelected on his public record. Saylor, as the behind-the-scenes Svengali of the Asmundson/Levy ticket(and ardent supporter of Reisig)was busy working the puppet strings. Well, the council election campaign season is almost upon us again. To paraphrase, fool me once, its your fault, fool me twice and it’s mine.

  17. Richard

    I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.

    Historically, the Davis political establishment has loathed transparancy an open debate, being fearful of its ability to prevail, which, based upon this council majority, is certainly an understandable.

    Heystek, however, is effectively pressing for both, and we should anticipate a major counterattack against him in the near future, with all weapons, behind the scenes sinuendo (an LA Confidential term), Enterprise columnists and editorials and personal attacks, all part of the mix.

    Hopefully, he’s ready for what may be coming.

    –Richard Estes

  18. Richard

    I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.

    Historically, the Davis political establishment has loathed transparancy an open debate, being fearful of its ability to prevail, which, based upon this council majority, is certainly an understandable.

    Heystek, however, is effectively pressing for both, and we should anticipate a major counterattack against him in the near future, with all weapons, behind the scenes sinuendo (an LA Confidential term), Enterprise columnists and editorials and personal attacks, all part of the mix.

    Hopefully, he’s ready for what may be coming.

    –Richard Estes

  19. Richard

    I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.

    Historically, the Davis political establishment has loathed transparancy an open debate, being fearful of its ability to prevail, which, based upon this council majority, is certainly an understandable.

    Heystek, however, is effectively pressing for both, and we should anticipate a major counterattack against him in the near future, with all weapons, behind the scenes sinuendo (an LA Confidential term), Enterprise columnists and editorials and personal attacks, all part of the mix.

    Hopefully, he’s ready for what may be coming.

    –Richard Estes

  20. Richard

    I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.

    Historically, the Davis political establishment has loathed transparancy an open debate, being fearful of its ability to prevail, which, based upon this council majority, is certainly an understandable.

    Heystek, however, is effectively pressing for both, and we should anticipate a major counterattack against him in the near future, with all weapons, behind the scenes sinuendo (an LA Confidential term), Enterprise columnists and editorials and personal attacks, all part of the mix.

    Hopefully, he’s ready for what may be coming.

    –Richard Estes

  21. davisite

    Observation on Davis local politics:
    The make-up of our City Council is too important for the future of our city to be determined based upon long-standing personal friendships.

  22. davisite

    Observation on Davis local politics:
    The make-up of our City Council is too important for the future of our city to be determined based upon long-standing personal friendships.

  23. davisite

    Observation on Davis local politics:
    The make-up of our City Council is too important for the future of our city to be determined based upon long-standing personal friendships.

  24. davisite

    Observation on Davis local politics:
    The make-up of our City Council is too important for the future of our city to be determined based upon long-standing personal friendships.

  25. casual observer

    Anonymous 8:44 – Your post was a good one. I too wanted to see something different today. I can’t wait for the Saturday edition, it should be great.

    Of course I’m not compelled to read this blog but curiousity gets the better of me.

    The overwhelming post here seems to detest the so called Gang of Three. How in the heck did they get elected? Does that mean that the majority of people in Davis don’t think the way you do?

    If they are there for their next term, then it will be very telling. If not, then it is an indication that you are right.

  26. casual observer

    Anonymous 8:44 – Your post was a good one. I too wanted to see something different today. I can’t wait for the Saturday edition, it should be great.

    Of course I’m not compelled to read this blog but curiousity gets the better of me.

    The overwhelming post here seems to detest the so called Gang of Three. How in the heck did they get elected? Does that mean that the majority of people in Davis don’t think the way you do?

    If they are there for their next term, then it will be very telling. If not, then it is an indication that you are right.

  27. casual observer

    Anonymous 8:44 – Your post was a good one. I too wanted to see something different today. I can’t wait for the Saturday edition, it should be great.

    Of course I’m not compelled to read this blog but curiousity gets the better of me.

    The overwhelming post here seems to detest the so called Gang of Three. How in the heck did they get elected? Does that mean that the majority of people in Davis don’t think the way you do?

    If they are there for their next term, then it will be very telling. If not, then it is an indication that you are right.

  28. casual observer

    Anonymous 8:44 – Your post was a good one. I too wanted to see something different today. I can’t wait for the Saturday edition, it should be great.

    Of course I’m not compelled to read this blog but curiousity gets the better of me.

    The overwhelming post here seems to detest the so called Gang of Three. How in the heck did they get elected? Does that mean that the majority of people in Davis don’t think the way you do?

    If they are there for their next term, then it will be very telling. If not, then it is an indication that you are right.

  29. Anonymous

    “…. How in the heck did they get elected? “

    As you remember, Lamar Heystek was 100 votes short of being our current Mayor Por Tem. As I said, fool me once… etc.

  30. Anonymous

    “…. How in the heck did they get elected? “

    As you remember, Lamar Heystek was 100 votes short of being our current Mayor Por Tem. As I said, fool me once… etc.

  31. Anonymous

    “…. How in the heck did they get elected? “

    As you remember, Lamar Heystek was 100 votes short of being our current Mayor Por Tem. As I said, fool me once… etc.

  32. Anonymous

    “…. How in the heck did they get elected? “

    As you remember, Lamar Heystek was 100 votes short of being our current Mayor Por Tem. As I said, fool me once… etc.

  33. Anonymous

    “…detest the so called Gang of Three.”

    I do not think that the word DETEST is appropriate as this suggests that it is personal. The Gang of Three has demonstrated a troubling authoritarian,paternalistic bent in their style of governance, has been unresponsive to the Davis electorate, has demonstrated a distain for those whom they represent and has been radical(not conservative) in their desire to disembowel our General Plan, citizen commission functions and Davis’ long-standing, referendum- validated positions on rate of growth. They have been duplicitious to a fault and have, in my view, lost the credibilty and trust that is essential for our elected representatives.

  34. Anonymous

    “…detest the so called Gang of Three.”

    I do not think that the word DETEST is appropriate as this suggests that it is personal. The Gang of Three has demonstrated a troubling authoritarian,paternalistic bent in their style of governance, has been unresponsive to the Davis electorate, has demonstrated a distain for those whom they represent and has been radical(not conservative) in their desire to disembowel our General Plan, citizen commission functions and Davis’ long-standing, referendum- validated positions on rate of growth. They have been duplicitious to a fault and have, in my view, lost the credibilty and trust that is essential for our elected representatives.

  35. Anonymous

    “…detest the so called Gang of Three.”

    I do not think that the word DETEST is appropriate as this suggests that it is personal. The Gang of Three has demonstrated a troubling authoritarian,paternalistic bent in their style of governance, has been unresponsive to the Davis electorate, has demonstrated a distain for those whom they represent and has been radical(not conservative) in their desire to disembowel our General Plan, citizen commission functions and Davis’ long-standing, referendum- validated positions on rate of growth. They have been duplicitious to a fault and have, in my view, lost the credibilty and trust that is essential for our elected representatives.

  36. Anonymous

    “…detest the so called Gang of Three.”

    I do not think that the word DETEST is appropriate as this suggests that it is personal. The Gang of Three has demonstrated a troubling authoritarian,paternalistic bent in their style of governance, has been unresponsive to the Davis electorate, has demonstrated a distain for those whom they represent and has been radical(not conservative) in their desire to disembowel our General Plan, citizen commission functions and Davis’ long-standing, referendum- validated positions on rate of growth. They have been duplicitious to a fault and have, in my view, lost the credibilty and trust that is essential for our elected representatives.

  37. Vincente

    Well Ruth got elected because she’s a well known, long time resident, who doesn’t offend people and was married to a former respected official.

    Souza and Saylor got elected by tricking enough progressives into them thinking they were one of them. That plus the Gidarro shenanigans.

  38. Vincente

    Well Ruth got elected because she’s a well known, long time resident, who doesn’t offend people and was married to a former respected official.

    Souza and Saylor got elected by tricking enough progressives into them thinking they were one of them. That plus the Gidarro shenanigans.

  39. Vincente

    Well Ruth got elected because she’s a well known, long time resident, who doesn’t offend people and was married to a former respected official.

    Souza and Saylor got elected by tricking enough progressives into them thinking they were one of them. That plus the Gidarro shenanigans.

  40. Vincente

    Well Ruth got elected because she’s a well known, long time resident, who doesn’t offend people and was married to a former respected official.

    Souza and Saylor got elected by tricking enough progressives into them thinking they were one of them. That plus the Gidarro shenanigans.

  41. Don Shor

    Richard said…

    “I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.”

    I agree. I don’t even care if I disagree with Lamar at times. He does his homework and he’s respectful. Public service at its best.

  42. Don Shor

    Richard said…

    “I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.”

    I agree. I don’t even care if I disagree with Lamar at times. He does his homework and he’s respectful. Public service at its best.

  43. Don Shor

    Richard said…

    “I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.”

    I agree. I don’t even care if I disagree with Lamar at times. He does his homework and he’s respectful. Public service at its best.

  44. Don Shor

    Richard said…

    “I think that the emphasis upon Souza has resulted in people missing the real story here, or, at least, not giving it the proper emphasis, the performance of Lamar Heystek.”

    I agree. I don’t even care if I disagree with Lamar at times. He does his homework and he’s respectful. Public service at its best.

  45. darnell

    Let me do the pile-on for Lamar. I didn’t suport him in the last election and certainly don’t agree with everything he says, but if the election were today he’d get my vote.

  46. darnell

    Let me do the pile-on for Lamar. I didn’t suport him in the last election and certainly don’t agree with everything he says, but if the election were today he’d get my vote.

  47. darnell

    Let me do the pile-on for Lamar. I didn’t suport him in the last election and certainly don’t agree with everything he says, but if the election were today he’d get my vote.

  48. darnell

    Let me do the pile-on for Lamar. I didn’t suport him in the last election and certainly don’t agree with everything he says, but if the election were today he’d get my vote.

  49. Anonymous

    Not only is
    Lamar good on the issues he got the street in front of my house fixed too. Lamar is the best we have seen in a long time. Lamar for supervisor.

    Ron Glick

  50. Anonymous

    Not only is
    Lamar good on the issues he got the street in front of my house fixed too. Lamar is the best we have seen in a long time. Lamar for supervisor.

    Ron Glick

  51. Anonymous

    Not only is
    Lamar good on the issues he got the street in front of my house fixed too. Lamar is the best we have seen in a long time. Lamar for supervisor.

    Ron Glick

  52. Anonymous

    Not only is
    Lamar good on the issues he got the street in front of my house fixed too. Lamar is the best we have seen in a long time. Lamar for supervisor.

    Ron Glick

  53. Anonymous #5

    Anonymous – You’re correct about Levy/Asmundson “latching on” to try to score some points.

    Did you notice Souza trying to score points with the police by bringing up HRC and their ability or right to look into and refer complaints about police? He did this on Tuesday. It was so disgusting!!! Doesn’t he realize that the public knows what he’s doing and it’s LAME? Obviously not.

  54. Anonymous #5

    Anonymous – You’re correct about Levy/Asmundson “latching on” to try to score some points.

    Did you notice Souza trying to score points with the police by bringing up HRC and their ability or right to look into and refer complaints about police? He did this on Tuesday. It was so disgusting!!! Doesn’t he realize that the public knows what he’s doing and it’s LAME? Obviously not.

  55. Anonymous #5

    Anonymous – You’re correct about Levy/Asmundson “latching on” to try to score some points.

    Did you notice Souza trying to score points with the police by bringing up HRC and their ability or right to look into and refer complaints about police? He did this on Tuesday. It was so disgusting!!! Doesn’t he realize that the public knows what he’s doing and it’s LAME? Obviously not.

  56. Anonymous #5

    Anonymous – You’re correct about Levy/Asmundson “latching on” to try to score some points.

    Did you notice Souza trying to score points with the police by bringing up HRC and their ability or right to look into and refer complaints about police? He did this on Tuesday. It was so disgusting!!! Doesn’t he realize that the public knows what he’s doing and it’s LAME? Obviously not.

  57. Anonymous

    Casual Observer – When you have the Emptyprise as your PR rag and there is no other way to get the truth out to the public they will believe the lies and not know what is going on at council meetings.

    It’s important to get this stuff out there. I know Doug Paul reported extensively on this issue, but I will give him kudos for doing so, because we the Emptyprise has their “PROTECTIVE SPIN” on issues. Protect the establishment.

    Remember: Debbie Davis is friends with Puntillo’s wife. Puntillo/Saylor/Souza the three former stooges on council.

  58. Anonymous

    Casual Observer – When you have the Emptyprise as your PR rag and there is no other way to get the truth out to the public they will believe the lies and not know what is going on at council meetings.

    It’s important to get this stuff out there. I know Doug Paul reported extensively on this issue, but I will give him kudos for doing so, because we the Emptyprise has their “PROTECTIVE SPIN” on issues. Protect the establishment.

    Remember: Debbie Davis is friends with Puntillo’s wife. Puntillo/Saylor/Souza the three former stooges on council.

  59. Anonymous

    Casual Observer – When you have the Emptyprise as your PR rag and there is no other way to get the truth out to the public they will believe the lies and not know what is going on at council meetings.

    It’s important to get this stuff out there. I know Doug Paul reported extensively on this issue, but I will give him kudos for doing so, because we the Emptyprise has their “PROTECTIVE SPIN” on issues. Protect the establishment.

    Remember: Debbie Davis is friends with Puntillo’s wife. Puntillo/Saylor/Souza the three former stooges on council.

  60. Anonymous

    Casual Observer – When you have the Emptyprise as your PR rag and there is no other way to get the truth out to the public they will believe the lies and not know what is going on at council meetings.

    It’s important to get this stuff out there. I know Doug Paul reported extensively on this issue, but I will give him kudos for doing so, because we the Emptyprise has their “PROTECTIVE SPIN” on issues. Protect the establishment.

    Remember: Debbie Davis is friends with Puntillo’s wife. Puntillo/Saylor/Souza the three former stooges on council.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for