Okay I just read the Enterprise editorial on how to solve the “problem” of Don Saylor leaving the council, and my first reaction is that this must be a late April Fool’s Joke. Talk about a solution in search of a problem, this is one.
But apparently the Enterprise has gone the comedic route, because they came up with a hare-brained scheme if I ever saw one.
No they’re serious! Maybe???
“THE BEST SOLUTION, which we strongly advise Saylor and his fellow council members to follow, is this: Saylor should step down at the first council meeting in July, his colleagues should immediately call for a Nov. 2 special election to replace Saylor, and then they should appoint Saylor to fill the vacant seat for the next four months.”
Good grief. When Bob Dunning is the voice of reason over at that paper I really have to start to worry. Bob Dunning wrote on the ACTUAL April Fool’s Day, he writes:
“Assuming he serves until January as promised – and as he has a legal right to do – the council can still avoid that costly special election by going the appointment route, but the fly in that ointment is Sue Greenwald, who’s been on the losing end of so many council votes recently that she’s not likely to trust her colleagues on this one either.
Sue would rather spend the money and let the voters decide, even though there is precedent for the appointment process. If history is our guide, the council eventually will appoint a white male named Richard. It’s happened twice, but whether that’s coincidental or required by law is unclear.”
Don Saylor will become a County Supervisor on January 3, 2011. He is planning to stay on the council until that time and do the job that he was elected to do.
He told the Davis Enterprise he plans to serve for mayor for six months focusing on issues such as the budget, water, and improving communications between council members.
He also said that he thinks that having three members of the council departing at the same time would be problematic.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald is adamantly opposed to the idea. She posted on the Vanguard, “I think it would be a real mistake to appoint an “interim” council member.” She continued, “The individual appointed as “interim” would likely run as an incumbent whenever the next election would be held. Appointments are very undemocratic, and obviously re-enforce the incumbent council majority.”
She later posted, “The election is called after the council member leaves in January. Then, the council has 30 days to name an election date or appoint someone. There are three dates in 2011 in which the election could be held.”
Now the Enterprise is hopping on the bandwagon not so much trying to pressure Saylor to resign, but in favor of an odd solution. They want to cut the baby in half or eat it, depending on the metaphor you most prefer and whether you prefer Jonathan Swift or the Holy Bible.
Under their scenario:
“Saylor should step down at the first council meeting in July, his colleagues should immediately call for a Nov. 2 special election to replace Saylor, and then they should appoint Saylor to fill the vacant seat for the next four months.”
Furthermore, they should make him Mayor:
“Because Saylor was the top vote-getter in the 2008 City Council race, he will become mayor following this June’s election. When they appoint him in July to occupy his old seat until November, council members should make him the mayor at that time, too.
That solution allows Saylor to serve almost all the time he would have had if he waited until January to quit. Normally, the council has very few meetings around the end-of-the-year holidays. So if he leaves in early November, he will miss only a few meetings.”
They continue:
“If Saylor and his colleagues follow our advice, all five seats on the council would be held by people who were democratically elected, the city would avoid wasting money on a special election next year, and Saylor would serve all of the time on the council he had planned, save a few meetings at the end of the year.”
I am kind of hoping that this is the Davis Enterprise’s version of “A Modest Proposal” and that this is either satire done for effect or this is a late April Fool’s Joke, because this is just a hokey solution in search of a problem.
We have more important things to worry about like the other column I wrote today focusing instead on what will happen to the fiscal future of the city and will 45 firefighters continue to run this town?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Perhaps I am missing something here but he Enterprise’s plan seems a reasonable one to me.
You thought it was reasonable for Saylor to resign, be reappointed, and somehow there would be an election too? You thought that was reasonable or even possible?
The Enterprise proposal makes as much sense as anything else I’ve heard.
Don: Are you saying all the proposals that you’ve heard are ludicrous or that you think this one is reasonable? To me it’s stupid. We’ve always appointed people to fill vacancies whether it be council or school board, why are we changing that now?
[i]”To me it’s stupid. We’ve always appointed people to fill vacancies whether it be council or school board, why are we changing that now?”[/i]
That is untrue for the City; it is true for the schools. The normal routine for the City of Davis has been to have a special election. I just exchanged emails with Richard Farrell, this morning. He was telling me about his experience in getting elected in the special election held to replace Bob Black, when Black resigned to become a supervisor.
NOTE: The person who calls himself A VANGUARDIAN was wrong in telling me on a previous post that Farrell was appointed.
David, it is very odd to criticize the Enterprise idea without showing what better, practical plan you have. A criticism only makes sense in context, and you have a column completely void of context.
Here are the choices which form the context:
1. Saylor remains on the council and serves as mayor until January and the council replaces him with an appointment. That saves the cost of a new election, but it is undemocratic. As the editorial points out, the 5th vote on a divided council is [i]the deciding vote[/i]. Sue Greenwald, in my opinion, has been spot on in saying it does not serve our democracy to give all that power over to someone for two years who was never elected;
2a. Saylor remains on the council and serves as mayor until January; the council calls for a 2011 special election four months later and has only four members for four months, risking a lot of 2-2 votes. That is democratic, but it would cost $240,000 that the City of Davis does not have.
2b. Saylor remains on the council and serves as mayor until January; the council calls for a 2011 special election four months later and appoints an interim member. That still costs $240,000 we don’t have. It gets rid of the tie-vote situation. But the member appointed would have a great advantage if he ran in the special election. And at least for four months that interim appointed member would have a great amount of power he was never elected by the people to have.
3a. Saylor resigns in July, early enough for a November special election; the council has 4 members for the next four months, risking the tie votes; and the 5th member takes the open seat in November. That would save $170,000 (out of the $240,000 election cost). It is democratic. But the big problem is that Don Saylor has publicly stated he won’t do that. Saylor was democratically elected to serve on the city council. He was the top vote-getter and thus earned the right to be mayor. This option means two weeks after he becomes mayor he has to leave the council and have no formal role in governance for 6 months. It’s pretty obvious why that is not attractive to him.
3b. (The Enterprise Plan) Saylor resigns in July, early enough for a November special election; the council appoints Saylor as the interim member; and Saylor serves as mayor until November. That would save $170,000 (out of the $240,000 election cost). It is democratic. It allows Saylor to serve almost all of the time he was elected to serve as mayor in that role. Because Saylor, as interim member, will be leaving for the Board of Supervisors, an interim appointment won’t have the natural consequence of giving the appointed person an undue advantage in the November election. And at all times, all five members of the council, including Saylor during the interim period, will have been elected by the people of Davis to represent them.
3c. Saylor resigns in July, early enough for a November special election; the council appoints AN UNKNOWN as the interim member. That would save $170,000 (out of the $240,000 election cost). It is nearly democratic. But Saylor will not go along with that, because it denies him the opportunity to serve as mayor, when he was elected to that job. It also gives the appointed member a great advantage in the November election. And it makes the council less than democratic for the four months leading up to the November election.
[i]”Talk about a solution in search of a problem, this is one.”[/i]
You are just completely wrong in this statement, if you don’t understand that we face three tough problems in this regard: 1. $240,000; 2. Democratic or undemocratic representation; and 3. A functional city council which does not bog down in 2-2 votes.
[i]”(Saylor) told the Davis Enterprise he plans to serve for mayor for six month focusing on issues such as the budget, water, and improving communications between council members.”[/i]
What is so smart about The Enterprise plan is that Saylor can do all of that and the city still saves $170,000. After the November 2 general election, the council will likely meet only 3 more times before the Christmas break. That means a November 2 exit is really not all that much different from a December 31 exit.
FWIW, a couple of years ago I wrote up a brief history of Davis and found this nugget from my 1978 file: [quote] [b]November 7[/b] – Richard Farrell (5,706) defeated Jerry Adler (4,527), Brian Smith (2,517) and Tom Usherwood (1,146) to replace Bob Black on the city council. Mr. Black had resigned to take his seat on the Board of Supervisors.[/quote]
Sorry Vanguard, but I could not disagree with you more. The concept of Saylor resigning early to save the city from a $250,000 special election that he is causing the need for is perfectly logical and a great solution. I for one am strongly opposed to the City Council appointing a fifth member. The concept of the Council appointing another Council member is a ridiculous idea and should be eliminated as an option. The public needs to make that decision, not the remaining Council. This is a moral issue as well an obvious call for democracy. I’ll bet any poll would agree with that.
Let’s start a petition now for Saylor to resign early and put the City Council seat vote on the November ballot. Saylor is bailing out on his Council seat early and responsible for this entire problem at the worst time financially for the city. Don Saylor needs do the right thing and either: 1) leave his Council seat just a few months earlier to save the city the $250,000 special election cost, or 2) Saylor himself should pay for the City Council special election himself that he is causing the need for, not the public.
“The concept of Saylor resigning early to save the city from a $250,000 special election that he is causing the need for is perfectly logical and a great solution.”
There isn’t going to be an election. There is going to be an appointment which will not cost the city a dime.
Emptyprise makes perfect sense. Amazing in itself. Saylor was elected, won the most votes, etc. The proffered plan seems entirely reasonable and prudent. Good solid solution. Only the most severely polarized won’t see that, as indicated so far in the comments.
[i]”There isn’t going to be an election. There is going to be an appointment which will not cost the city a dime.”[/i]
That is probably true. It does not mean it is a good solution, a democratic solution or even close to the best solution, but it is the one I expect to take place.
So for most of the next two years, the deciding vote on labor contracts, budget questions, pension reform, water projects, development controversies, zoning changes, low-income housing, environmental policies and every other difficult decision which our council makes will be an undemocratic vote, decided by a person who was never chosen by the people of Davis.
I realize, of course, that the person appointed will be chosen by (three of the) people who were elected. But that is not democracy.
The person chosen will likely be in one or the other of the two principal factions in Davis politics, even if that is an unknown at the time he or she takes the seat. The result, again, will be undemocratic 3-2 votes on all major issues.
Oops, sorry! Should have written “…as so far indicated“.
[i]”That is untrue for the City; it is true for the schools.”[/i]
It isn’t even entirely true for the schools, though lately — such as when John Poulos left — it has been true for them.
When Susie Boyd was first elected to the school board, she replaced Rev. Darrell Darling. Darling, a Methodist minister, left Davis to head up a new church in Santa Cruz. Boyd won that office in a special election (held on the date of the general election, just as the Enterprise editorial suggests be done for Saylor’s seat).
Rich, I don’t understand the claim that it’s somehow undemocratic to appoint. You mention:
[quote]So for most of the next two years, the deciding vote on labor contracts, budget questions, pension reform, water projects, development controversies, zoning changes, low-income housing, environmental policies and every other difficult decision which our council makes will be an undemocratic vote, decided by a person who was never chosen by the people of Davis. [/quote]
From 1974 to 1977, the United States was governed by an individual who had never faced a single vote by the people of the US, was that undemocratic or was the fact that there was the constitutional amendment that set procedures to replace a Vice President and then a President, did that make it democratic. By the same token, there are procedures on the book that allow the city council to appoint a replacement until the next election. We don’t have a pure democracy in this country anyway, we have a representative republican form of government, where we install rules for governance and this would fall within those rules for governance.
Given the likely make up of the next council, it seems likely that we would end up through an appointment process with a moderate, compromise candidate and frankly that might be a better outcome than what will happen with an election.
It is interesting that the effort here is led by Sue Greenwald, who never got anyone of her people to run this time, what makes her think she will be more successful in the future?
“it seems likely that we would end up through an appointment process with a moderate, compromise candidate and frankly that might be a better outcome than what will happen with an election.”
That is a pretty funny assessment. So, it is “better” to have someone selected by 3 council members than to have someone selected by the voters?
Depends on what you define as better. Democracy for the sake of democracy seems a bit self-defeating in this instance.
[i]”From 1974 to 1977, the United States was governed by an individual who had never faced a single vote by the people of the US, was that undemocratic …”[/i]
Of course it was undemocratic. That does not make it wrong or make it not the best possible solution for that specific problem. But clearly it was undemocratic.
[i]”… or was the fact that there was the constitutional amendment that set procedures to replace a Vice President and then a President, did that make it democratic.”[/i]
No, the Constitutional arrangement(x) is not democratic in that highly unusual case in which we lost a democratically elected VP and President in about 10 months. However, I think, given practical realities, it is (and was) the best solution among all choices.
[b](x) Note: The U.S. Senate was originally an undemocratically elected body. The Constitution was amended to rectify this lack of legitimacy in our federal upper chamber.[/b]
We fortunately have a (mostly) democratic solution in the case the presidency is vacated. That is, we elect his VP, too. But in the very unusual case (as with Gerry Ford) where both the VP and the Prez leave, there just is no practical solution (at the federal level of government) which is also democratic.
But in Davis, we do have a practical and democratic solution: just what The Enterprise is advocating. The key here is that this plan causes the fewest possible injuries:
*It does not hurt Don Saylor. The fact is that he has the right to want to stay on the council, because that is what the people elected him to in 2008. And, under our ordinance, he has the right to serve as mayor.
*It does not hurt us (very much) financially, unlike an election held by itself in April.
*It does not hurt precedent, in that we hold special elections in Davis for vacated seats.
*It does not hurt democracy. But an appointment would.
*It does not hurt the chances of candidates who would run for this open seat, as appointing anyone but Saylor would.
[i]”Given the likely make up of the next council, it seems likely that we would end up through an appointment process with a moderate, compromise candidate and frankly that might be a better outcome than what will happen with an election.”[/i]
If arriving at an outcome, in terms of the policy-preferences you believe are best, is your goal, then why have any elections?
What distinguishes democracy from all other systems is its legitimization of policy choices. The government of China might make some very good decisions on building its infrastructure. But every decision made by the undemocratic government of China is illegitimate. (Note: I would not say that having an appointed member of the city council makes our council illegitimate, like the government of China. But it surely is less legitimate than having 5 elected reps.)
Also, I think your notion that a “moderate” will hold that seat is likely wrong. No doubt, if the four members of the council — presumably Sue, Stephen, Sydney and Joe — agree on one person, they will believe at that point in time that appointed person is not entirely on one side or the other of our political divide. However, after a few votes, I suspect one side will be very happy with the anointed one and the other side will think they made a mistake and selected an anti-Christ.
I guess what surprises me is the hostile and derisive tone of this commentary and the comments. Rich has done a better job of outlining the options than I could do. Of the options presented, the Enterprise suggestion is the most democratic, costs very little, avoids creating an artificial incumbent, and allows continuity on the council. So it may not be the best option, or the worst, but it certainly isn’t deserving of the opprobrium that has been visited on it here.
Brian’s arguments for an appointment just do not “hang together”. The only explanation that I can see is that he feels that a democratically elected representative replacement for Saylor rather than a Council- appointed one may not pursue the policy direction that he desires for the next Council.
David and I exchanged some emails on this. He told me he thinks The Enterprise idea is not enforceable and may be illegal. I tend to agree on the enforceable part. As to the illegal, I don’t see why it would be. However, this is what I told him how such a plan could be put into effect: [quote]Ultimately, it will rely on Don Saylor believing that Sue, Stephen and the two new people will appoint him to serve in the interim and will vote him back in as mayor until November. If Saylor does not believe that, he won’t do it.
To make it most likely that the other four will follow through with this plan, they will have to publicly (not behind the scenes) agree to it in advance in June.
They can put forward a “sense of the council resolution,” which is non-binding but lays out what they would like to see happen if Mr. Saylor resigns his seat on July 6. That would have to entail a series of votes, suggesting whether they would like to call a special election in November if Saylor resigns, suggesting whether they would appoint an interim member if Saylor resigns, suggesting if they would appoint Saylor as the interim member if one is appointed, and suggesting if Saylor should be the mayor if he is appointed.
Again, all legally non-binding, but likely morally forceful, if it is done in public, as it legally has to be done.[/quote]
Saylor needs to submit his resignation prior to the final filing date for the November election, effective on the day the new council member is to be seated. [Mar 27th 2010]
Nothing illegal. Keep it simple. He just has to resign effective 3 January.
[quote]Perhaps I am missing something here but he Enterprise’s plan seems a reasonable one to me.
[/quote]
I agree.
The concept of Don Saylor “saving” the City the cost of a special election would be a valid point only if the City was required to have a special election to replace him – but that does not appear to be that case. For that reason, it is not a good argument to use to attempt to persuade Don to accept the Enterprise proposal.
However, the resignation/interim appointment/election option is the best and right thing to do, because it provides the most democratic solution to the fallout on the Davis City Council of Mr. Saylor’s midterm departure.
[quote]Given the likely make up of the next council, it seems likely that we would end up through an appointment process with a moderate, compromise candidate and frankly that might be a better outcome than what will happen with an election.
[/quote]
I don’t think so. Look at other appointments made by the Council. For any position of importance, the appointments are usually quite polarized. (The makeup of the Housing Element Update committee several years ago illustrates this point well.) In any event, it is wrong to choose or advocate for a particular process on the basis of the expected outcome. Our City Council does way too much of this already.
It will be interesting to see Don Saylor’s response to the Enterprise proposal (if he responds to it at all). On the one hand, Don is a master of political gamesmanship. This would argue for him sticking with his current plan, which he probably believes is most likely to produce an appointee most aligned with his political agenda. OTOH, Don is also prone to making grand gestures that keep him in the spotlight and cost him little. (Remember his promise to direct the proceeds of his fundraising efforts to charity if Sue Greenwald decided not to run against him?) I could see him ultimately going either way on this issue, basking in the attention for several weeks or months, and finally announcing his decision to great fanfare.
[u]An outpouring of public sentiment might persuade Don Saylor to change his current plan – especially if Sue Greenwald, Stephen Souza, and leading candidate Joe Krovoza publicly pledge their support for the Enterprise proposal.[/u]
I have to agree with The Enterprise on this one. DPD may not like the source of the idea, but it seems to be an answer to many of the problems posed by Don’s choice to seek higher office before his job was finished.
I think the Enterprise idea is an excellent one, if it is legal. I think we should try to find out if is.
I am puzzled by the demeaning tone in David Greenwald’s post, and I am puzzled why he doesn’t think it is a problem to appoint, rather than to elect council members.
I see absolutely nothing undemocratic about our duly-elected representatives appointing an interim council member under the existing rules.
Furthermore, I find it unseemly for a sitting member of the City Council to use this blog as a vehicle to further polarize our community.
I can’t imagine why it is unseemly for a public official to participate on a public blog. I wish all the council members would discuss issues more at venues like this.
Count me among those who think the Enterprise plan is the best proposal advanced to date. The only thing appointment has going for it is that it’s cheap. A special election may be the most democratic, but it’s expensive. The Enterprise plan strikes a good balance between the two, and gives Don almost as much time in the mayor’s seat as he’d have if he stayed on until January.
I agree Don, I think public participation by councilmembers and other elected officials is a strength of this type of forum. I can’t possibly see what is unseemly about it.
First, thank you Butler for beating the spread. But for that bogus charging call with 13 minutes left against Hayward, Butler would have won.
[b]JACK:[/b] [i] “I see absolutely nothing [u]undemocratic[/u] about our duly-elected representatives appointing an interim council member under the existing rules.”[/i]
What distinguishes a democratic process from an undemocratic one is not whether the rules allow for one or the other method. A democratic process is democratic because the group which empowers a legislator to legislate is the people. Anything less is less than democratic. In the U.S. for our first 100+ years, we had an undemocratic process to select U.S. senators. That was changed in our Constitution because people who are selected in an undemocratic process, as our senators were, tend to not behave democratically. That is, the people believed that senators were not responsive to popular concerns, because they did not have to face the people.
In The Enterprise plan, “our duly-elected representatives” would still appoint “an interim council member,” Jack. That is, they would appoint Don Saylor to serve from July to November, until a democratically elected candidate won that office. That plan satisfies your concern. It also is democratic, in that Saylor himself won the popular vote for the city council in the first place.
If instead, the council appoints, say, someone who has raised a lot of money for the folks on the city council, that person will be in a position to make very important decisions — likely breaking 2-2 votes — but won’t have a popular mandate for any decisions he makes. I’m not saying that is illegal. But surely it is not optimal, from a point of view of having democratic legitimacy on the city council.
[b]JACK:[/b] [i]”I find it unseemly for a sitting member of the City Council to use this blog as a vehicle to further polarize our community.
I find personal attacks of this sort to be just what pushes so many people away from politics. You come on here unidentified and spit on someone who not only was popularly elected by the people of Davis multiple times, but works full-time, essentially for free, for the people of Davis; and your attack against her is without merit. How is Sue “polarizing our community” by saying, “I think the Enterprise idea is an excellent one, if it is legal”?
That is polarizing?!
Don wrote: “I can’t imagine why it is unseemly for a public official to participate on a public blog. I wish all the council members would discuss issues more at venues like this.”
David wrote: “I agree Don, I think public participation by councilmembers and other elected officials is a strength of this type of forum. I can’t possibly see what is unseemly about it.”
What I find unseemly is a councilmember (that was elected to represent the entire community) pursuing a political agenda on a political blog. This, of course, is my personal opinion. With respect to “participation” – all I see is Sue Greenwald taking shots at Don Saylor with very little risk that he will respond online.
Regarding the question of polarization, Sue has been pushing several themes since the filing deadline passed.
(1)Saylor should resign.
(2)Appointment of an interim councilmember is undemocratic.
(3)Saylor should pay out-of-pocket for a special election.
(4)Saylor should submit to the Davis Enterprise compromise.
And all this is packaged with a subtext of nefarious intent by Saylor and his current and future colleagues on the city council. Plenty of red meat for the progressive community; with further community polarization as collateral damage.
The [url]SoS[/url] website has the pertinent dates for Statewide election: adopt those. Why the Enterprise picked June is beyond me, when the timeline could just as easily begin (as I’ve written) in November.
“Why the Enterprise picked June is beyond me…”
A June election, with the UCD students preparing or already having left Davis for the summer, minimizes their participation in our city elections. I would be interested to hear from our blog resident- Davis- historian whether this date was chosen for city elections after the temporary political sea-change that occurred on the Council when Davis resident UCD students did acquire the right to vote in Council elections(early 70s?)
[i]”Why the Enterprise picked June is beyond me, when the timeline could just as easily begin (as I’ve written) in November.”[/i]
Neutral, what are you talking about? The Enterprise did not pick a June election.
June 8 is when the statewide primary is being held. The tradition in Davis has been to hold city council elections on the same date as the statewide primary in even-numbered years. That is the day Don Saylor will be elected to the Board of Supervisors and two new members of the Davis City Council election will win office to replace Ruth and Lamar.
The date noted in the Entperprise editorial is July 6. That is the last date that the Davis City Council will meet in which they can legally call for a November 2 special election.
State law states that a special election “shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election.” November 2 minus 114 gets you back to July 11, which is a Sunday. Our city council meets on Tuesdays. So the last date that Saylor can resign in time for a November 2 special election is July 6.
Jack, given the political differences between Don Saylor and Sue Greenwald, it’s not unreasonable to think, if you are a Saylorite, that Sue’s motivation in suggesting process is a political attack against Don. However, your “polarization” list seems pretty weak and it seems like you are being closed-minded, just because one of the advocates is Sue Greenwald.
[i]”Sue has been pushing several themes since the filing deadline passed:
(1)Saylor should resign.”[/i]
Out of context, that might seem polarizing. But in context it is perfectly reasonable. The notion that he should resign (early enough to hold a November special election for his council seat) is to save the city of Davis $240,000.
[i]”(2)Appointment of an interim councilmember is undemocratic.”[/i]
It is by defintion. That does not mean it is illegal. I cannot see how it is “polarizing” to suggest a more democratic solution which also happens to be our precedent in the City of Davis when a council member resigns mid-term. Was the council “polarizing” in 1978 when they voted to replace Bob Black in a special election that November?
[i]”(3)Saylor should pay out-of-pocket for a special election.”[/i]
That is stupid. However, it is fair to be critical of Don Saylor if his decision to stay in his seat ends up costing the taxpayers of Davis $170,000 in added election costs.
[i]”(4)Saylor should submit to the Davis Enterprise compromise.”[/i]
Now you are being stupid, here. For all you know, Don Saylor likes the Enterprise plan. It lets him serve as mayor about 90% of the time he would have if he stayed on the council until the end of December; he would save the taxpayers $170,000; and he would be replaced by an individual who has the support of the people of Davis.
EDIT: “The notion that he should resign (early enough to hold a November special election for his council seat) is to save the city of Davis [s]$240,000[/s] a net of $170,000 — that is, $240,000 in election costs in 2011 minus $70,000 in election costs for Nov. 2.
Rich wrote: “That is stupid.” “Now you are being stupid.”
Rich,
I really don’t mind your insufferable pedantic preening; and, please, keep the personal attacks coming if it makes you feel better. BTW, the “stupid” rhetoric is something I would normally expect from a child.
Alternatively, why don’t you try to maintain a bit more civility to help mitigate polarization in our community, and I will promise to try and do the same?
Yes, please stop using terms such as “stupid.” To all participants: if you disagree with a view expressed here, just say so. You don’t need to characterize individuals or their arguments.
[i]”why don’t you try to maintain a bit more civility to help mitigate polarization in [b]our community[/b], and I will promise to try and do the same?”[/i]
You moved to Davis? I have no idea who you are. I don’t think you have any right to tell me I am uncivil when you are attacking me or others by name.
Rich,
You attacked me. I merely responded in kind.
Questioning my bona fides because I’m anonymous adds no weight to your arguments. In point of fact, I’ve lived here longer than you … but that’s irrelevant.
So how about it? Let’s play nice, OK?
[quote]Sue has been pushing several themes since the filing deadline passed….And all this is packaged with a subtext of nefarious intent by Saylor and his current and future colleagues on the city council.[/quote]There is absolutely no “subtext of nefarious intent” concerning Saylor from me. If I were interested in standing in the way of Saylor’s already stated political ambitions, I would have run for supervisor and brought up all of the issues in which Saylor had voted against the desires of the vast majority of Davis citizens (most citizens I talk with don’t pay much attention to city politics and don’t even know that Saylor voted for Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch and the current fiscally ruinous cafeteria-cash).
In fact, I am not “out to get” Saylor, even though I don’t agree with him on many issues. I merely think that appointing city council members is a bad idea. If ever win a supervisor seat or any other seat mid-term, I would definitely resign my council seat in time to allow the city to hold a democratic election to replace me. It would be the least I could do.
And why not? I few months vacation after 8 or 12 years of service would be a big plus
[i]”In point of fact, I’ve lived here longer than you …”[/i]
I moved here (as a baby) in 1965. I have no idea who you are. It doesn’t much matter. But if you are going to rip me for my supposed “insufferable pedantic preening” and rip someone else for being “polarizing” when you failed to show why, all I can think is that you are not from Davis and have never visited and are simply a troll who likes to whine when he says something which is not smart and someone rightly points out how not smart that point was.
Rich: time to let it go. Keep this from getting personal.
Rich: I ripped you because you elected to call me and my arguments stupid. Don’t try to bully me, and it won’t happen again. As David said – time to let it go.
Sue:
You’ve stated that you believe that an appointment of Saylor’s replacement would be undemocratic, and that a special election would constitute a wasteful expenditure that we can’t afford. You then suggest that Saylor should remedy the situation (as you’ve framed it) by resigning early or reimbursing the City out-of-pocket. Do I misunderstand your position?
Regarding the subtext of nefarious intent, if Saylor doesn’t capitulate and a council majority supports the appointment option … do you believe that this would constitute an effort by the majority to maintain control of the council by exploiting an undemocratic process?
[i]”Rich: I ripped you because you elected to call me and my arguments stupid.”[/i]
I regret using the word stupid. I am sorry.
What I first called stupid was Sue’s notion that Don should pay out of his pocket the election costs. [quote]“(3)Saylor should pay out-of-pocket for a special election.”
[b]That is stupid.[/b][quote] I still am perplexed why you think Sue is being polarizing in prefering the Enterprise plan, which, for all you know, is just what Don Saylor wants to do. I don’t think Don wants to hurt the City of Davis. He does not personally profit by staying on the council for three more meeting. So he very well may be attracted to the non-polarizing idea of saving the city $170,000 and permitting a special election in November.
Ooops. I hit “add comment” when I meant to press “preview.” Let me try that again, this time with better HTML mark-ups.
[i]”Rich: I ripped you because you elected to call me and my arguments stupid.” [/i]
I regret using the word stupid. I am sorry.
What I first called stupid was not you or your comments. Rather, I used that word to describe Sue’s silly notion that Don should pay out of his pocket the election costs. [quote] “(3)Saylor should pay out-of-pocket for a special election.”
That is stupid.[/quote] I still am perplexed why you think Sue is being polarizing in prefering the Enterprise plan, which, for all you know, is just what Don Saylor wants to do. I don’t think Don wants to hurt the City of Davis. He does not personally profit by staying on the council for three more meeting. So he very well may be attracted to the non-polarizing idea of saving the city $170,000 and permitting a special election in November.
Rich: I concede your point, retract my objection to your first use of the word stupid, and accept the apology. Moreover, I agree with you that Sue’s proposal for out-of-pocket reimbursement is a non-starter.
On a similar note, I did not intend to imply that Sue’s endorsement of the Enterprise proposal was polarizing. Rather, I meant that her posts on the Vanguard stretching back to when she played the “undemocratic” card several threads ago have been polarizing. Sorry for the confusion.
To quote Dunning: “Worse yet, we’re starting to fight about it. Surprise. Surprise.” In my personal opinion, that was the intent of raising the undemocratic charge and the subsequent calls for payment or resignation. Regardless of what Saylor now decides to do, the well has (regrettably) already been poisoned.