All eyes of the city were undoubtedly on last night’s city council meeting. The meeting itself went off relatively smoothly, although one councilmember privately suggested that everyone was walking on eggshells.
Several members of the public came to speak during public comment expressing condemnation for last week’s conduct by some and imploring the council to move on with basic decency in the future.
Here are the Councilmember’s comments:
“I have nothing prepared. I have no prepared comments. I could not bring myself to watch the tapes of the council meeting until yesterday. Initially I was just angry that my position had been misrepresented. But when I watched the tape, I saw a person really crumbling under the strain.
It was crumbling under the strain of years and years trying to fight, in closed session, seeing what was happening with the city budget, with our labor negotiations, seeing that it was unsustainable, fighting some of the changes that had occurred, and failing and failing, and seeing these labor contracts. Seeing no significant, not anywhere near sufficient changes made, and seeing it presented and trumpeted as big savings.
My reaction was absolutely unprofessional. It was nothing again Ruth, I like Ruth. I really do like Ruth when she’s not angry at me for disagreeing with her. I probably like her more than anyone else on the council…
I totally overreacted and I feel terrible about it. I think in the future I’ll try to force myself to watch the tapes to make sure that I don’t do this again.
I would like to in my defense say that everyone familiar with Davis politics who has any agreement on my positions and fighting for fiscal responsibility, fighting against some of the enhanced benefits that can’t be undone, fighting for contracts that are sustainable, understands my level of frustration, knows how long I have been predicting that we were basing our long term projections on a housing bubble, back since maybe 2004 I was saying these budgets were being balanced on an unsustainable bubble.
My frustration has been building and I have often as a minority of one, sometimes a minority of two, had a real rough time and sometimes you guys haven’t been very nice to me as you know. We can all improve, that’s what we’re focusing on tonight, focusing on what I can do to improve. I think I can watch the tapes and be sure that I’m advocating hard but not going over the edge. That is the critical thing.
I just want to make it clear that I really do like Ruth, she’s a civil servant that served with no interest in higher office because she thinks she’s done the best for the community and the best way she can. In many ways, we agree more than most on the council on the issues and things underlying the issues like fiscal responsibility. I like her and would like to thank all of the people that have shown me support and there have been a lot of them during this week and I want to thank all of the people who have shown Ruth support because we both needed it.
I think we can come out stronger and I want to thank everybody who has expressed feelings on both sides. I want to take full share of the blame on this particular instance, it is most of it.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza also apologized for failing to act to prevent what occurred last week.
Mayor Ruth Asmundson was in the Philipines, with a somewhat poor connection that cut in and out and it was difficult to discern her comments but she too offered an apology.
Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor presided over the meeting and attempted to set an early tone by asking Councilmember Heystek to read some of the council rules and guidelines to the council and also he ran the meeting with much stricter protocol than is the norm, addressing people formally rather than by first name.
A big test of this approach will come in future meetings when the Mayor returns and the council is less wary of drawing additional negative attention to itself in the community. The entire experience was an eye-opener for many and several citizens came down to speak.
Prior to Councilmember Greenwald’s comments, several members of the public came forward during public comment to register their concern and urge better conduct in the future.
Cayce Wallace read the Kindergarten classroom rules. These included no yelling, be honest, be respectful, take turns, no biting, spitting, or hitting, and no bullying.
“We really need you guys, there a lot of important Davis matters at hand and we need you guys to represent us. I ask that you please follow these kindergarten rules.”
Another Davis Resident Sally also spoke.
“The city council represents the city as its body of elected officials and are employees of its citizens. As your employers we have the right to expect civil behavior from you. We have the right to expect you to follow the laws regarding a hostile or violent work environment. Unfortunately, the reported behavior of Ms. Greenwald in last week’s meeting was uncivil, hostile, and would be considered violent under the codes that regulate work place behavior.”
Justin Kudo, a member of the Human Relation’s Commission also expressed concern:
“The behavior that I saw on the dais was embarrassing, I believe that councilmember Greenwald felt very strongly about the results of the labor negotiations. But however valid her criticisms may or may not have been was lost during the total breakdown of civility in these chambers. I was stunned to see a councilmember being so overtly hostile and derisive with the rest of the council, making personal attacks and replacing the structure of the council meeting with chaos. Councilmember Greenwald’s statements in closed session could have been clarified in a much less disruptive manner, but the incendiary language that was used suggested that this was possibly more about personal concerns than the interests of the community.”
Don Fouts, no stranger to council meetings also offered his thoughts:
“When I opened last Wednesday evening’s Enterprise, I must say I was taken aback by what I read although I was not necessarily surprised. When I watched the replay on Thursday night’s re-telecast, it re-confirmed what I had read in the Enterprise. As a 35-year Davis resident, I was embarrassed and outraged that this could take place. Ms. Greenwald’s behavior has been uncivil and for her to say that she was not rude, disruptive or abusive, history simply proves that not to be true. I have witnessed many city council meetings and have witnessed her being demeaning to city staff and to her fellow councilmembers. This is not the first time, but it’s probably the worst.”
I have said my piece in the past. I think it is important to distinguish between the issues and conduct. I fully support the councilmember on the issues. I hope that in the future she stays true to her words tonight and conducts herself within the guidelines that we have set forward as a community.
I hope with this apology that we set this matter to rest and continue to work towards the betterment of all Davis. As always, the councilmember and members of the public are welcome to submit their own pieces to the Vanguard but this will be my final official say on this matter.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sue’s apology was a really, really good idea. It certainly helped the city council restore order and function again. And it helps salvage her reputation.
I can’t say that my thinking has gone back to where it was 9 days ago. The apology also has a number of strange features. However, my philosophy is that apologies don’t have to be perfect. This one was certainly a big improvement over no apology.
My reaction was absolutely unprofessional. I totally overreacted and I feel terrible about it.
Nicely done.
Great. Let’s move on to discussing substance rather than personalities. I’m tired of seeing so much attention focused on the scandal of it all when there is a lot of work to be done.
We’ll see how long this new era of mutual respect on the dais continues before Councilperson Greenwald is again interrupted or silenced by mayor Asmundson(with the complicity of Saylor and Souza). We’ll also see if Ruth Asmundson takes a few moments when she returns to the dais to also publicly apologize to Councilperson Greenwald and to the Davis voters for her public misrepresentations of Sue Greenwald’s position on critical budget issues that were decided(on a 3-2 vote) in closed session.
Davisite, exactly. But maybe Ruth can’t apologize because it might bring on another anxiety attack, we can’t chance that can we? Who will be villianized for that?
Davisite & rusty
Tho’ not nearly as long as Sue’s, listen to the broadcast again… Ruth did offer an apology…
David…. It is INTERESTING that you made the editorial decision to not even mention that Ruth Amsundson also had apologized nor a hint of the substance of her apology that could be discerned even with the poor connection.
hpierce: How dare you bring objectivity to this forum!
Davisite, what are you implying? Are you saying “selective apologyzing” is being employed here? Now that would be unfair wouldn’t it?
Agree with Davisite2
And, I would rather be called a liar rather than be told infront of the camera that I caused someone to go to the hospitol. I thought that was much lower than what sue did. She needs to apologize directly to Sue when she gets back. I could not be on a city council as I am not a perfect but I hope that Sue does not step out and abandon what she has given her heart and soul too, and even maybe part of her sanity. Please keep trying Sue. -It was a nice appology in my opinion.
I appreciated Sue’s apology and her remorse over her behavior. It was a good apology. It seemed heartfelt. Her behavior in the meeting was quite civil – humble even – after the public comment.
However, and I hate to drag this out any longer, but I have to say I’m skeptical of its authenticity given that only four hours before, she was on here slamming David for making this a big deal and sending the mass media after her. In fact, she suggested that her behavior and the conflict at the meeting last week was not a big deal and she was only being attacked for it because David complained about it.
There’s a huge difference between these two people. Maybe something happened between 3pm and 6:30pm yesterday. Maybe the public comments were moving. Maybe it’s just political posturing. Maybe there was a huge swing in attitude after rewatching the meeting (although Sue mentioned that happened earlier in the day). I don’t know.
Ultimately it doesn’t really matter, as long as the attitude of maintaining civility and constructive discourse prevails on the city council. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
I too commend Sue for taking the high road. The best way to avoid future interuptions is for Council to adopt formal comment/discussion timing rules. That way Ruth will be out of order if she interupts Sue, and Sue will need to formulate her comments so they fit into the alloted time.
What you saw is what you get , Sue showed her true colors last week , Sue will not change that is her true self !
Justin, your concern is valid, but I think the answer is there in Sue’s words. It wasn’t until she viewed the video yesterday that she saw the full extent of the situation.
Again, Sue deserves credit for puublicly, and on the record, acknowledging that her “reaction was absolutely unprofessional.”
[quote]Avatar said . . .
What you saw is what you get , Sue showed her true colors last week , Sue will not change that is her true self ! [/quote]
Avatar, in a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, how would you describe your perfect Council member?
“in a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, how would you describe your perfect Council member?”
One that sees things my way……….
She had nothing prepared. Always the problem because it leads to more rambling and incoherance.
She attacked David, the messenger, without watching the video until yesterday.
She kept Davis from building into the housing bubble but what is her excuse now?
She is either just a bully who has been caught after many episodes the water report, the finance committee and the council last week or politically savvy who knows the only way she can get any attention for her issues is by making a scene. If its the latter she has done more damage to her own reputation and political career than she knows.
Don is laughing all the way to Woodland.
Funny you see it that way, I always saw it as some of the other council members who bullied Sue.
Lets move on folks. Sue’s apology is consistent with her behavior yesterday on this blog. Many os us do not believe that this blog really supports Sue.
As I said yesterday (in an entry that was deleted along with 20 other entries–all of them quite civil)reporting what happened is one thing but this blog went out of its way to go after Sue. Even Dunning was more sympathetic. And the picture of Sue with the caption about City Council dysfunction lingered for a while. All of the actions on this blog have plausible deniability and I, for one, have tried to give David the benefit of the doubt, but I do see a pattern here. If “progressives” continue to slam Sue we will be worse off for it.
I hope our City Council will be more civil but I doubt it and blaming Sue for all the CC’s problems ignores a systen which has systematically limited debate on fundamental issues.
[i]The best way to avoid future interuptions is for Council to adopt formal comment/discussion timing rules. That way Ruth will be out of order if she interupts Sue, and Sue will need to formulate her comments so they fit into the alloted time.[/i]
Matt, I might have agreed with you in the abstract, but you’re missing something. The council already has formal comment and discussion rules. They are a modification of Robert’s Rules of Order called Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. They were invented Dave Rosenberg [b]of Davis[/b], even though they are used all over California and have also spread to Minnesota.
As you might expect, the Mayor has the authority to enforce limits on discussions. So at least some of these accusations that Ruth has been “interrupting” Sue are bogus. Look at this video ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbWEbQTIKQ[/url]) of a city council hearing over water supply. Ruth tried to limit questions that she said amounted to debating the witness. In response, Sue yelled at Ruth that she was WRONG to limit the questions. She vowed to continue in defiance of Ruth’s authority, and at that point the hearing fell apart.
Either Ruth has the right to “interrupt” members of the city council to enforce the rules, which are perfectly adequate as they stand, or she does such a terrible job that she shouldn’t be the mayor.
If this is what passes as an acceptable apology in Davis, then we’ve set the bad pretty low.
The biggest disappointment is that Sue elected to use part of her moment in the spotlight to take a cheap shot at her colleagues. “It was nothing against Ruth, I like Ruth. I really do like Ruth when she’s not angry at me for disagreeing with her. [u]I probably like her more than anyone else on the council[/u] …”.
The “I really do like my adversary” is the oldest cliché in the political book. There is no love lost between these two, and the incident last week will only make the animosity worse. Sue’s contrition is not rooted in regret that she wounded a friend or colleague but in regret that she made herself look like a nut-case on TV. So the “they like her even less than I do” defense just doesn’t cut it.
The other theme woven through the statement was the excuse (that you often get from children) that “they made me do it.” Trying to cast herself as the long-suffering victim that finally cracked under unbearable pressure belies Sue’s long and sordid history of such behavior that is not memorialized on video.
I suppose the “I probably like her more than anyone else on the council” quote could also be construed to mean Sue likes Ruth more than her other colleagues. If she’s saying “I like Ruth more than Lamar” … then its no wonder that he’s leaving the council.
[quote]Justin, your concern is valid, but I think the answer is there in Sue’s words. It wasn’t until she viewed the video yesterday that she saw the full extent of the situation.[/quote]
Well that’s the thing. She said she watched it in the morning, before she railed on David. So it still doesn’t add up. I also winced a bit when she said she hadn’t seen the video until Tuesday morning, but had spent the weekend defending her actions and continuing to attack other individuals involved. I’m not insinuating dishonesty, but I just find the behavior extremely erratic.
I’m just hoping that maybe re-watching the video, having this scene, seeing the regional embarrassment it has brought to Davis, and seeing this disappointment of the members of the community is enough to stop this thing from happening again.
“…but this will be my final official say on this matter.”
You promise David? (it might hurt your readership numbers if you don’t keep putting up some “hit pieces” on Sue)
[quote]If she’s saying “I like Ruth more than Lamar” … then its no wonder that he’s leaving the council. [/quote]
She mis-spoke when she said that. I think more than a few people were surprised to hear what she said, and her correction was quite clearly made in respect to Lamar.
Greg S.,
See, here’s where there’s a complete breakdown in reason and objectivity. You’ve got news stories that explain the civility of the city council falling apart, which summarize the events of council meetings, talk about community response, and you dismiss them as hit pieces driven by an imagined vendetta over… Measure P was it?
Then you’ve got crap that actually has nothing to do with council meetings or the community like Sydney Vergis’ “boyfriendgate” story, and that passes without comment. Or hell, read any story about Souza or Saylor on here and tell me if you can find one nicer and more respectful to either of them than the recent Sue Greenwald stories… I bet you can’t.
Quite the contrary to your comments Greg, I believe this is exactly where the Vanguard can be a useful tool to the community: to bring community events, council meetings, and public responses to light.
And before you attack me for this one too, I’m certainly no David Greenwald apologist. In fact I have quite a few problems with this blog and its author on numerous occasions. But posting videos of council meetings and talking about them isn’t one of them.
Mr. Toad:
“She kept Davis from building into the housing bubble”
Measure J (passed before Sue was on the council) and a whole bunch of hard working grass roots activists stopped Davis from building into the housing bubble.
[i]If this is what passes as an acceptable apology in Davis, then we’ve set the bad pretty low.[/i]
I tend to agree, we have set the bar pretty low. But not too low. I don’t think that it helps to hold out for a fabulous apology.
[i]I probably like her more than anyone else on the council[/i]
I totally agree that this part was weak, and not just because she put herself above the rest of the city council. It truly rubs me the wrong way to be love-bombed by people who are not close friends and relatives. People can tell me that they like me or they love me if it’s actually true. Otherwise it immediately brings out the ice in me, because it violates my emotional space.
There are a number of videos and transcripts that go against the claim that Sue likes Ruth, not by any means just the one from last week.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
Matt, I might have agreed with you in the abstract, but you’re missing something. The council already has formal comment and discussion rules. They are a modification of Robert’s Rules of Order called Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. They were invented Dave Rosenberg of Davis, even though they are used all over California and have also spread to Minnesota.
Either Ruth has the right to “interrupt” members of the city council to enforce the rules, which are perfectly adequate as they stand, or she does such a terrible job that she shouldn’t be the mayor. [/quote]
Greg, do the RROO have specific set time parameters? I would be surprised if they do. It is clear that something far less broad needs to be put into place. Specific minute limits work well in the Public Comment periods, they certainly should work well for the Council Members. 2 minutes is far to short, but 5 minutes as a “standard” for each Council member in each “round” of the discussion could work. If a specific issue warrants more than 5 minutes per Council member, then a motion extending the “standard” time could be made prior to beginning the discussion period to set a specific higher limit for the specific agenda item being discussed.
[i]and not just because she put herself above the rest of the city council.[/i]
Or in the other interpretation, not just because it’s tacky to place some supposed friends above other supposed friends.
Greg K:
I’m not holding holding out for a fabulous apology. In point of fact, I think Sue should apologize loud and clear to the community. Her conflict with Ruth is just an annoying side show as far as I’m concerned.
Matt: [i]Greg, do the RROO have specific set time parameters?[/i]
I haven’t looked, but it would make no sense if they did. (Here ([url]http://daverosenberg.net/articles/RulesOfOrder.htm[/url]) is Dave Rosenberg’s own copy of his rules.) Instead, the committee chair, in this case the mayor, has the right to set time parameters. But look at this video ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZhrSWlxAYg[/url]) to see what happened once when Ruth tried to do exactly that. In this case, I tend to agree that Ruth was heavy-handed in cutting Stephen Souza short. She seemed to realize it, though, when she offered Stephen some of her own time within the limits that she set. Moreover, she had a reasonable concern in mind; she wasn’t setting a limit for no reason.
But then Sue jumped in with yet another attack on Ruth’s authority. Statements like “I’m trying to teach you how to be a mayor” are an outrageous violation of the spirit of Rosenberg’s rules, and probably their letter as well.
Finally, if you look at the title of that video, you can see whose side David took as recently as last year. I don’t agree with his interpretation of that incident, but some people seem to take his past support for granted.
Davis Resident: [i]In point of fact, I think Sue should apologize loud and clear to the community. Her conflict with Ruth is just an annoying side show as far as I’m concerned.[/i]
Obviously I agree that there is more to address than just what happened last week. But here too, let’s please not haggle over apologies. The woman showed some contrition; you can interpret it partly as an apology to the community. The more important question is where the city council goes from here, not what words Sue chose yesterday.
Greg K: “The more important question is where the city council goes from here, not what words Sue chose yesterday.”
I agree with this statement. IMO, her words are only relevant to the extent that they demonstrate unequivically that Sue is still Sue.
Personally, I didn’t see any sincere contrition.
[i]Personally, I didn’t see any sincere contrition.[/i]
Even an insincere apology can become sincerely felt over time.
What seems to be so absurd is that all of the focus of misbehavior seems to be focused on Sue’s frustration with Ruth’s bullying and shutting down of Sue’s comments on this critical fiscal issue. Ruth has been a bully and been SO unfair to Sue and the public when they try to comment on issues, particularly when the comments are not consistent with Ruth’s point of view.
This Council has been the most dysfunctional when Ruth was mayor running the meetings four years ago, and now. Ruth does not know how to run a meeting fairly and democratically and she should step down NOW as mayor. There is no doubt in my mind that Ruth will resume her same bullying style when she gets back from her vacation in the Philippines.
When Ruth gets back from her vacation she needs to apologize to the rest of the Council (especially Sue) and the public for her bad behavior and change her belligerent and antagonistic attitude.
So fed up
Well said, you hit the nail on the head. Ruth will let some of the other council members go on and on just to turn around and shut down Sue for the same thing. I’ve heard Sue cry foul about this many times and how unfair it is to her to be pointed out. Ruth needs to change her ways too or we as citizens will call her on it.
Matt Williams
Avatar, in a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, how would you describe your perfect Council member?
Thats so easy , Bob Dunning , of course .
[quote]Greg Kuperberg siad . . .
I haven’t looked, but it would make no sense if they did. Instead, the committee chair, in this case the mayor, has the right to set time parameters. But look at this video to see what happened once when Ruth tried to do exactly that. In this case, I tend to agree that Ruth was heavy-handed in cutting Stephen Souza short. She seemed to realize it, though, when she offered Stephen some of her own time within the limits that she set. Moreover, she had a reasonable concern in mind; she wasn’t setting a limit for no reason.
But then Sue jumped in with yet another attack on Ruth’s authority. Statements like “I’m trying to teach you how to be a mayor” are an outrageous violation of the spirit of Rosenberg’s rules, and probably their letter as well. [/quote]
I respectfully disagree that it would make no sense. One of the clear problems with the current system is that dealing with time is almost always taking time away rather than giving more time.
We all know that $1.00 is worth a whole lot more to a person if you give it to them and then tell them that they have to give it back versus if you show them the $1.00 and tell them that they can’t have it.
99% of the time a preset default amount time for discussion will be more than enough. For the other 1% a simple motion to expand the time allotment to a specific number of minutes will address the need for full discussion of the matter at hand.
RROO are not only for the benefit of the participants in the meeting, but also for those citizens who choose to attend the meeting. Think back on the infamous Council meeting where the Measure P vote was approved. The discussion of the prior adgenda item was ridiculously long, and as a result it was the wee hours of the morning before the fireworks really started. Lots of citizens had to leave before the item was heard.
For those interested, here’s the YouTube video
link ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVU9ZnfvmhA[/url])
Had some technical difficulties otherwise it would have been up this morning.
FYI- I was agreeing with the 8:30 comment by Davisite2 and did not know about the actual audio ability in reference to his 9:29 commment.
[i]I respectfully disagree that it would make no sense.[/i]
Maybe you could argue it either way. As it turns out, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order don’t set any specific limits. Moreover, I hope that you can agree that no possible fine print in the rules of order has any bearing on a line like, “I’m trying to teach you how to be a mayor”. We’re supposed to learn better behavior than that in junior high school; it shouldn’t need Dave Rosenberg’s wisdom.
Not to mention that: (1) Sue was talking over Ruth when she said it instead of waiting to be recognized. (2) Just to make her meaning entirely clear, she said it with a smug tone and demeanor. (3) Her pretext for berating Ruth was that Ruth had limited Stephen’s time, not Sue’s own time, which doesn’t fit the excuse that Ruth allots time unfairly to her “side”.
Greg, I hear you loud and clear. My thought in being so prescriptive is to minimize to the greatest extent possible the discretionary situations. With the possible exception of Lamar all the current Council members have demonstrated that they really can’t deal with these kinds of situations well. Ruth is authoritative. Don is parental. Sue is . . . Steve’s sins vary with the situation, but he clearly has them. So setting up a system that minimizes the opportunities for conflict seems to match the cast of characters.
Speaking of characters, wrap your mind around a hypothetical reconstituted Council where Lamar’s seat is filled by that ex-Council member most closely associated with the Measure P brouhaha. Arggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!
David…. It is INTERESTING that you made the editorial decision to not even mention that Ruth Amsundson also had apologized nor a hint of the substance of her apology that could be discerned even with the poor connection.
David… I did find your brief statement,on a third reading, that mentioned that Ruth Asmundson apologized. Was it really so garbled that no content could be discerned ??
It was not only difficult to understand, she said it at a different point in time and I had trouble finding it on the recording.
I listened last night and did not hear Ruth’s apology. Could someone paraphrase for me?
do you need someone to give you the ‘time-stamp’?
Without writing it down I recall it as a simple ‘I’m sorry for whatever happened that didn’t need to’… not Ruth’s words, but what I took out of it…
David… you did find it tho’?
So I watched Sue’s statement on the video, and I have to say that it came across better than in the transcript. My first instinct today was pretty good. This apology was a lot better than no apology.
Having seen the video, I don’t think that it’s fair to doubt the sincerity of Sue’s apology. It’s too easy to reduce what everyone has to say to yes, she means it, or no, she’s putting on act; yes, he’s telling the truth, or no, he’s lying. This is a person who profoundly does not like to lose face. It’s really pretty obvious that she needed to apologize for what happened last week; it’s just not that easy to face a big public group and do it. Yes, her apology had a number of disingenuous features. Yes, it was a self-interested apology. Yes, she was angry with David for contributing to her loss of face. For all of that, I think that she really did mean her apology to a degree. Self-interest is often a framework for sincerity — that might sound like a contradiction, but it’s only human.
I think that staying suspicious sends the wrong message. It could easily lead to, “See, I tried, but it didn’t do any good.”
But I also think that Sue’s cheering section here really isn’t doing her any favors, even though she might feel gratified. This is not about keeping score between Sue and Ruth, or between Sue and “the council majority”. Sue’s apology is about Sue salvaging her own reputation and maintaining (or repairing) her own sense of judgment. So it does not help her to egg her on, and it also doesn’t help any good cause.
I might argue that David is one of the people who has made that mistake in the past. Last year he posted a video in which Sue started to badger Ruth in a way that was completely uncalled for. Yes, Ruth had been heavy-handed in this session, but she and Stephen were smoothing things over when Sue jumped in and made a mess of it. It was totally inappropriate to say things like “I’m trying to teach you how to be a mayor”. Instead of stepping away from this behavior, David confirmed it with the video title, “Mayor Asmundson Brazenly Shreds Notions of Open Meetings and Public Discourse”.
Should Ruth also apologize? Was her apology good? I didn’t catch what she said, so I don’t know. Maybe yes, her apology was helpful or a better apology would be helpful. But the key point here is that the situation is not remotely symmetrical. Sue herself acknowledged that much.
Sue already apologized, move on. It’s pathetic reading the analyses here, “did she mean it”, “was it genuine”, “no sincere contrition”.
It reads like an episode of Dr. Phil.
“Without writing it down I recall it as a simple ‘I’m sorry for whatever happened that didn’t need to’… not Ruth’s words, but what I took out of it…”
If this is accurate, it is NOT an apology as we all understand the meaning of that word; there is no public recognition of her part in precipitating this incident. Anyone who has followed Ruth Asmundson’s tenure on our Council should not find this at all surprising. I again find it INTERESTING that David Greenwald chose not to make any comment on the nature of Ruth’s “apology” nor comment on the difference between the two apologies which, in retrospect,could cast Councilperson Greenwald’s loss of temper in a perhaps more sympathic light.
Interesting that there is no apology to staff or Emlen in particular who Sue called “boy.” It reminds me of the lyrics to an old Dylan song about another child of Maryland that goes:
“Yes you who philosphize disgrace and criticize all fear,
bear the rag deep in you face for now is the time for your tears.”
Phiosophize
Philosophise? Philosophize?
Hope you know what I mean.
Maybe Sue should have to walk the streets and knock on doors so she can apologize directly to every Davis citizen. Would that make all of you happy? I doubt it.
Geez, get over it!
Rusty: I have generally found that telling people to “get over” something, actually incenses them and produces the opposite reaction. This will pass. The more you post like that, ironically, the more you will keep it alive.
“The more you post like that, ironically, the more you will keep it alive.”
Now that’s really funny coming from you David.
I mean you talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Who was it that wrote three articles within a week about Sue?
Who had Sue’s story with her picture continually flashing at the top of the home page?
You’ve done more to keep this story alive than anyone.
Not surprisingly you missed my point, I’m not the one who wrote, get over it. I was simply suggesting that if that was your goal, you were not going about it the right way.
davisite2… I should have gone to the clip before writing… it is at the beginning of the streaming video clip for consideration of the PASEA MOU (for any who want to hear it for themselves)… as I heard it (it isn’t the greatest reception), Ruth said “… I’m sorry for what happened and occurred at the last council meriting, and I hope that we can put that past, and work together for the best interest of the community.” Let’s move on and think about ‘lessons learned’ rather than beating the issue to death.
[quote]Sue already apologized, move on.[/quote]
and
[quote]Geez, get over it![/quote]
Rusty49, there are 59 comments on this blog entry (now 60), 8 of which are yours. The conversation had pretty much dried up at 40 comments. It might be best you heed David’s advice, or perhaps follow your own.
(for example, this totally unproductive comment is precisely what David is referring to) [wink]
Like I said, get over it!
Since you’re keeping count that makes 9.
yeah really, what do you ppl want her to do..grovel?
get over it.