The 2012 Davis City Council campaign, which had been fairly dull and predictable, suddenly turned very interesting on Tuesday as voters were sent an attack mail piece purportedly to be against Sue Greenwald and in favor of Stephen Souza.
An independent group, backed by Sacramento-based unions the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340 and Operating Engineers Local Union 3, sent out an attack mailer to Davis residents reminding them of Councilmember Sue Greenwald’s publicized incident with former Mayor Ruth Asmundson.
While the group had not notified the city or candidates of their formation prior to the mailer, the city clerk’s office did receive notification via mail and fax on the group’s expenditures.
The 410 Report confirms that Jim McGowan, a CPA on Drew Aevenue in Davis, is the treasurer of the group. The Vanguard had tracked Mr. McGowan, who works closely with James Burchill, through the address on the mailer.
It also lists Bill Haley and AC Steelman, both notable union organizers and both from Sacramento as principals.
The 496 Independent expenditure report shows $25,000 spent by the three unions with IBEW Contributing $5000 and the other two $10,000.
Further confirmation of Mr. Burchill’s involvement comes from the fact that the mailer’s return address was PO Box 85 in Davis, which is held by NEKJ. NEKJ is a political consulting firm company based in Davis. The president of the company is James Burchill.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald almost immediately implicated Mr. Burchill.
She wrote on the Vanguard early Tuesday afternoon, “A number of months ago, Jim Burchill of James Burchill & Associates approached me and told me that he was representing a building trades union, and that they really wanted the surface water project. He told me that the union was going to spend serious PAC money in our city election, and that I could be the beneficiary if I supported the project.”
She added, “I interpreted this as a threat as well as a bribe, i.e., that if I didn’t support the project, they were going to engage in serious Karl Rove style attacks.”
“I tried to explain to Jim that my job was to represent the best interests of citizens of Davis, and that although I was extremely sympathetic to the union members’ desire for jobs, our combined wastewater, surface water project costs, water rights purchase and related new infrastructure was still around $300 million, which was very high for a city of our size, and that I felt obligated to pursue less expensive approaches,” she said.
Among Mr. Burchill’s clients are not only the building trade unions who would be involved in the construction of the project, but also Angelo Tsakopoulos himself who as the owner of the company that owns Conaway Ranch, stands to make huge amounts from the water deal approved back in December of 2010.
The Vanguard was unsuccessful reaching Mr. Burchill, who appeared to duck our call after his assistant informed the Vanguard he was there, but soon thereafter the call immediately went to voicemail and there was never an attempt to return the call.
“I am afraid that this deplorable action by an outside PAC will intimidate many good, brave citizens from going into local Davis politics for a long time to come,” Ms. Greenwald said on the Vanguard.
She fears this is an effort to undo the fiscal savings she has achieved for the city.
“This is all about my attempt to save money on this project, the combined expenses of which were extraordinary for a city of our size,” she said.
“There’s so much money involved that the stakes are very, very high for many, many people. This is big money, huge money. It’s a sign of how huge the project is. It’s a consequence of how expensive the project is.”
The Vanguard spoke with Councilmember Stephen Souza, who deplored the tactic and clearly fears this will backfire on him. He told the Vanguard that the mailer could not have hurt him more if it were intended to do so.
James Burchill and his wife are listed as endorsers of Mr. Souza’s campaign.
In an email to Sue Greenwald posted on the Vanguard he wrote, “I was just made aware of this mailer/article on the Vanguard. I am sick over this. I truly enjoyed spending some time with you and Mike last night and commiserating over the nonsense that we must endure through these elections at times.”
“It is horribly ironic that such an awful mean thing like this would come out today, after such a pleasant evening last night,” he continued. “You do not deserve to be treated this way, nor to have a hard moment in time singled out to attack you. This is terribly wrong.”
“I had absolutely nothing to do with this, nor did I authorize the use of my name by this PAC, nor have I been in communications with them. This mailer was done entirely without my knowledge,” he said.
“I feel violated with you. I don’t want to be affiliated with this mudslinging smut. I will stand by you and say this is not okay. This is not what we can allow Davis politics to become,” he added.
“You and I have differing views on many issues, but I will defend you on this and say ‘shame on you’ to those who bring this ugliness to our citizen’s doorsteps,” Mr. Souza said. “From the bottom of my heart I am truly sorry that this has happened to you and to this election.”
The other three candidates were quick to condemn this mailer, as well.
“On behalf of myself and my campaign, I unequivocally condemn this attack mailer,” Dan Wolk said in an email to the Vanguard and the Enterprise. “It is not worthy of our community and may violate our city campaign ordinance. I had hoped this election could remain positive and focused on the current and future challenges facing our city, not the acrimony of the past.”
He added, “I urge all those participating, candidates and others, to refrain from this type of campaigning for the duration of the campaign.”
Lucas Frerichs told the Vanguard that he condemned this kind of attack, saying that this is not what this community needs. He called this “a new low.”
He said, “I think it’s reprehensible. I think it’s disgusting. Running for City Council should be based on the merits of the candidates.”
“I think the mailing was inappropriate on all levels. I hope that we find out who mailed it and who was behind it,” Brett Lee added. “I do not believe that personal attacks of this nature benefit anyone or our community.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Angelo Tsakopoulos himself who as now owner of the company that owns Conaway Ranch, stands to make huge amounts from the water deal approved back in December of 2010.”
Why is it always Conaway? Wasn’t it Conaway run by Gidaro that did something with Harrington that everyone was so upset about that all the local Dems took a group photo protesting right before the election. When was that 04, 06? How much does Conaway get from the water? Compared to what they get from LA its relatively small but is it really enough for AKT to do a hatchet job or is this a gut check sucker punch because Sue voted against the Conaway deal?
Look for more dirty tricks. These people want the cash from building the water plant, and Souza is their long time lapdog
Whatever the motives and who ever the real culprits are, they have probably handed Sue the top spot .
No, Dan Wolk is still going to win the top spot.
Qualifiers: No discussion on how disgusting this tactic is, that’s been covered totally, and then some. No comments on any personalities involved, not involved, the sufferers, and the potential beneficiaries, by accident or design.
I read this lurid tale and it reminds me of numerous espionage and counter-espionage histories. Is this information or mis-information, several layers deep. Take each purported “bad guy,” is he/she an agent, double-agent, or just collateral damage? People who live in the same office complex, and possibly nothing more, are immediate named suspects.
What makes my suspicion level hit the red-line is how shabby the concealment level was for an entity that does this professionally. Are they that inept or is this meant to unfold exactly as it has–for now?
Maybe I’ve been reading too many of these kinds of stories, but this whole sordid affair does not pass the “smell test,” and one can take that more than one way.
One thing for certain, this particular political consulting group is now on life support and these named labor unions are going to be receiving lots of questions. Aside from sex, nothing intrigues more than a juicy political scandal.
Sturm und Drang vs Hometown Legacy . I think if Sue doesn’t overplay the victim card, she takes it .
“I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim in today’s mailing.” -Sue Greenwald
Maybe I’m really dense, OK, bring on the wisecracks, but I’d be grateful if someone would explain to me what lines were crossed by the mailer. And how is Sue a victim? Are the quotes in the mailer fabricated? Are the contents of the mailer false? Is the mailer distorting Sue’s record? Was Sue harmed by the information presented in the mailer or harmed by her own actions?
And what about the perps? Did they disclose their identity or are they operating under the cover of anonymity? Have they attempted to conceal their agenda? Have they attempted to mislead the voters or are they broadcasting pertinent information to the voters that should rightly be considered when casting votes?
Why the concern over the identity of the consultant hired to design and distribute the mailer? Do individuals and organizations engaged in political campaigning typically hire consultants or is this unusual and harmful to the voters in some respect? Does the identity of the consultant somehow change the quality of the information being presented to the voters?
There have been numerous false charges made, distortions, innuendo, etc. on the Vanguard these past weeks with zero moral outrage. Sue for one accused the Bee of slander (a pretty serious charge against a newspaper!). What exactly is it about this mailer that is generating such outrage?
Based on all the foregoing, the mistake that the perpetrators seemed to have made is in not disseminating false and misleading information; perhaps then the outrage would have been muted.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
“Due to new information that I have received, I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim.”
Tell us more Sue.
[b]Matt Williams 05/09/12[/b][/quote][quote]“Due to new information that I have received, I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim.”
Are you saying the hit piece did not hurt Steve, or are you saying he’s one of the perpetrators?
I have to assume it’s the later because it is very hard to believe that there won’t be serious blow-back from his name being associated with the sponsors.
[b]psdavis 05/09/12[/b][/quote]
I pulled a comment because I’m attempting to contain that discussion to the other article.
I guess I don’t follow the ‘inside baseball’ of Davis politics close enough, but until I received this mailer and watched the actual video, I was not aware of Council Member Greenwald’s unprofessional and frankly embarrassing behavior. Maybe someone who follows the council can explain whether this behavior was an aberration, or a regular occurrence.
I was considering voting for Greenwald (again), but after watching how she conducts herself at council meetings, I have to question whether she has the temperament to be effective. Maybe 12 years on the council is long enough.
This is a smart town, and we appear to be blessed with several smart and energetic new voices. Maybe it’s time to give some new voices a chance to be heard.
Thoughts?
One thing this mailer will probably ensure is a high voter turnout. In yesterday’s thread the poster named Anne clearly stated how her previously waivering vote for Sue had been transformed into a firm vote for Sue. Mark Murphy’s post above seems to indicate that the mailer has caused him to get more engaged in the election. If there are lots of Annes and Marks out there, the polls and the mail balloting will be very busy.
FWIW, I don’t see any validity to a Tsakopoulos connection.
Tsakopoulos is going to be paid by the JPA for the 10,000 acre feet of water each year regardless of whether the water project goes forward or doesn’t. The Davis Council election doesn’t change the signed legal agreement between Conaway and the JPA in any way.
Mark Murray
“I was considering voting for Greenwald (again), but after watching how she conducts herself at council meetings, I have to question whether she has the temperament to be effective. Maybe 12 years on the council is long enough. “
I am speaking as someone who has not yet decided on all of my votes. What you saw in this clip did not happen in a vacuum. While I do not defend this particular bit of bad behavior, I do believe that it should be taken in the context of a very large amount of “bad behavior” directed at Sue from other members of the City Council. Sue and Ruth notoriously did not get along. What is not shown are multiple times at meetings when Ruth was very dismissive of Sue. I think that this particular episode in which Sue had a genuine grievance in terms of Ruth willfully misrepresenting her position expressed in closed session was not Sue’s general way of behavior but a culmination of frustration over very shoddy treatment by certain other council members. Whether or not this tempermental outburst is sufficient to disqualify her from office is something each person has to decide for themselves. But, speaking as a doctor, it is factually incorrect and very self serving to claim that another individual is responsible for one’s own medical illness, in this case panic attacks, and very naive for anyone to believe that Sue caused Ruth’s visit to the ER.
Interesting questions Michael.
For me the reason that this mailer is generating my “outrage” is that I really don’t like negative politics at any level, and for the most part until this election Davis has been negative politics free. So I see this mailer as a crossing of the Ebro.
With that said, Sue’s comment about Souza in yesterday’s thread adds a whole new dimension to the outrage. If her comment proves to be unfounded, it will probably recycle the issues raised in the Sac Bee endorsement article. In fact, whether her comment proves to be unfounded or not, there is a rather interesting ancillary story in the works.
Matt: I was listing Mr. Burchill’s interests here, I’m not suggesting that he did this at the behest of Tasakopoulos. The building trades connection is the most clear one I can see, particularly since the unions are listed on the IE title.
[quote]“While the group had not notified the city or candidates of their formation prior to the mailer, the city clerk’s office did receive notification via mail and fax on the group’s expenditures.”[/quote]Yesterday, this was reported as a violation of city codes regard advance filing and candidate notification. Do you know whether the penalty is significant or just another cost of doing business?
“Yesterday, this was reported as a violation of city codes regard advance filing and candidate notification. Do you know whether the penalty is significant or just another cost of doing business?”
It was reported as a possible violation. However, between the time when I first talked to City Clerk Zoe Mirabile and the close of business they received a fax and it appears the law says within 24 hours, so I would say even if they did not adhere to the exact letter of the law, they were close enough to avoid anything major.
[quote]“Maybe I’m really dense, OK, bring on the wisecracks, but I’d be grateful if someone would explain to me what lines were crossed by the mailer.”[/quote]Sue offered her take on your question in yesterday’s story/comments, but her concluding comment has been pulled because it exceeded the NPA (Nasty Personal Attack) quotient.
When someone characterizes Sue’s charge in language suitable for [i]Vanguard[/i] sensibilities, we’ll get to know what lines were crossed, at least in her opinion (or when David confirms it, he’ll report it).
In the meantime, David and Sue have identified the Burchill family as the chief villain. Their daughter, of course, “works either for the Speaker or Steinberg” and, apparently, was the leader of the Sacramento Young Democrats when she was young, David reported. That pretty much should tell you all you need to know, DT Businessman.
@medwoman: I agree that we should always be examining the larger context. However, we don’t really know what occurred in that closed meeting. So, it’s impossible for us to use that meeting in terms of knowing the context. He said/she said (or she said/she said) doesn’t help us in this case.
Irrespective of what occurred or didn’t occur in that closed meeting, and irrespective of Sue’s experience of other council members, our elected officials have a duty to uphold the highest standard of ethical/moral behavior. That includes ALL council members and their behavior toward one another.
How we handle and react to conflict defines, in part, our character. The bigger concern (and this pertains to all elected officials) is whether there is a [i]pattern[/i] of unacceptable behavior. This election seems to largely be about issues, but I think the more important question has to do with ethics and moral behavior.
[i]”The 496 Independent expenditure report shows $25,000 spent by the three unions with IBEW Contributing $5000 and the other two $10,000.”[/i]
Since the money contributed by the unions exceeds the $100 limit for council campaigns and the mailer explicitly was sent on behalf of one candidate and as an attack on another, does this action violate the City’s campaign finance laws? And if it does, what will the City do about it?
The City Council should immediately instruct the City Attorney to sue the people behind the mailer for the violation of our 2005 elections code that was adopted right after Gidero did his independent expenditure campaign. An injunction is in order.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, Ruth voted for every single thing the Burchill water and union crowd wanted for 8 years. Now the payback for her courtesies: they plasted her color photo laying sick on a gurney and sent it to every household in Davis? Sad.
The mailer is going to pump up Sue’s vote count by many hundreds, if not thousands, like the Gidero dirty trick did in 2004 against me and Stan Forbes.
[i]”I was not aware of Council Member Greenwald’s unprofessional and frankly embarrassing behavior. … I was considering voting for Greenwald (again), but after watching how she conducts herself at council meetings, I have to question whether she has the temperament to be effective.”[/i]
You would make a good referee for professional wrestling*. You were looking the other way for all the mistreatment of and rudeness to Sue Greenwald by the others on the Council at that time, but you turn your head back and see (on the video) Sue’s reaction to a lot of provocation which had been building for months and you, the wrestling ref, point to Sue and conclude she is to blame? That is just what Burchill and the others trying to profit from wasteful spending in Davis want you to do. That is why Davis is hundreds of million of dollars in debt and no longer able to fund basic services (like a full police force).
———————
*When I was a kid, they used to have matches every few weeks at the Memorial Auditorium called “Big Time Wrestling.” My dad, my older brother and I used to go to see Peter Movilla and Pat Patterson and Mad Mountain Mike and Haystack Calhoun and the Masked Man. It was just a local circuit–the guys who wrestled in Sacramento also fought in Oakland, Los Angeles and some other West coast markets. Hank Renner was always the announcer. It was long before the national emergence of the WWF. The refs were always looking in the wrong direction when the bad guys were doing their dastardly deeds; then they would look back and blame the good guys for all that was wrong.
As the famous television commercial said, WHERE’S THE BEEF?
If Sues outburst, in response to years of abuse by fellow council members, is all that they have to attack her with, their attack rings pretty hollow and will be perceived by savvy Davis voters as just what it is. If you have no legitimate policy issues on which to attack a contender you go after their personality.
Sure Sue can be abrasive. And the benefits of her effectiveness and tenacity far out weigh any problems caused by her personality.
Personally, I think Ruth got what she had coming from Sue. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
“Now the payback for her courtesies: they plasted her color photo laying sick on a gurney and sent it to every household in Davis? Sad.”
It’s a stock photo, it’s not Ruth.
[quote]Mike Harrington: Look for more dirty tricks. These people want the cash from building the water plant, and Souza is their long time lapdog [/quote]
I find this comment as nearly offensive as the mailer. Mike is a declared endorser of Sue Greenwald.
“While she is the victim of a cheap shot by Burchill (and perhaps some unknown associates), she is also trying to ride the wave of public indignation.”
Cheap Shot: An unfair or unsporting verbal attack on a vulnerable target.
I’m really not getting it, but maybe it’s because I’m so new to the Davis political scene. If the content of the mailer is accurate, how is it a cheap shot? It’s only a cheap shot if it’s a distortion or if it’s delving into irrelevant issues not pertinent to the election.
Which brings up the main story in my mind. Why isn’t the character of the individual candidates a central issue of the campaign? Do the candidates foster or undermine dialogue? Do the candidates have the wherewithal to constructively engage even with those with whom they may disagree, particularly other council members? Do the candidates solicit or reject input from residents, stakeholders, and partners? Do the candidates blow with the political winds or do they act upon their convictions? Do the candidates have the necessary leadership qualities? Do the candidates flip flop? Are the candidates capable of prioritizing and focusing upon agreed upon priorities? Do the candidates have a history of undermining community priorities? Are the candidates intelligent, inquisitive, innovative, intellectually honest? Do they engage in ad hominem attacks, falsly portraying the arguments of those with whom they disagree? Etc.
The character of the individual candidates damn well should be evaluated by the voters. And the voters certainly can’t propertly evaluate the candidates if information regarding the candidate’s character isn’t being presented to the voters. I’m not focusing on Sue or Stephen here; I’m advocating that ALL candidates should be evaluated. Where is this happening?
There is a pattern here on the Vanguard of consistently focusing on distractions instead of on substance.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]Mike Harrington: “The City Council should immediately instruct the City Attorney to sue the people…” [/quote]
Why is suing people Mike’s only response to… well, everything?
Sue has stood up to the monied interests in this town–unions, developers, etc. This is not paddycake folks.
While our new Council is better than the old one it would be a huge mistake, in my opinion, to assume that Sue will not continue to make a difference on the Council. WE need her voice.
[quote][u]Mike Harrington[/u]: “Look for more dirty tricks. These people want the cash from building the water plant, and Souza is their long time lapdog.”
[u]Ryan Kelly[/u]: “I find this comment as nearly offensive as the mailer. Mike is a declared endorser of Sue Greenwald.[/quote]Interesting observation, Ryan. Given that Mike’s nasty personal comment falls into the okay side of the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s NPA (Nasty Personal Attack) line, one has to wonder just how vile Sue’s comment must have been to have caused it to be pulled by the good-taste censor.
Let me see … aren’t you guys who act me above the same ones who thought the Sept 6 fraudulent water rates should go into effect, and who thought the current surface water plant design is just peachy? Yep, I think I see the same names.
correction: “”attack me”
David, I would urge you to exercise your censorship with extreme caution when it involves public comments, in a public forum, by a public official, running for public office.
-Michael Bisch
“I’m really not getting it, but maybe it’s because I’m so new to the Davis political scene. If the content of the mailer is accurate, how is it a cheap shot?”
I think this question is a little bit like trying to explain why a joke is funny which in that sense, if you don’t get it, you won’t.
People are objecting because:
1. They do not like political attacks
2. Because the mailer was sent out from outside interests trying to influence policy and the make up of Davis’ governing board
3. Because the real objection is not her behavior but how she voted on the water issue
Someone I spoke with yesterday said that the mailer could have worked had it been a clearly identifiable community group who took issue with the level political discourse in this community. But it wasn’t, it amounts to bait and switch.
Feel free to censor pubic comments, in a pubic forum, by pubic officials, runninng for pubic office.
To Mark: While the video linked is the most extreme episode of Sue’s behavior it is not the only incident. Its tough being on the wrong side of four to one votes all the time.
Remember when Wesley Chesbro was on the Board of Supervisors he was always the one vote but he never lost control of his emotions. He never acted out or threw tantrums. What happened to him? The people eventually rewarded him for his dignity and he now serves in the legislature.
Contrast this with Sue Greenwald, when talk of her running to move up to Supervisor was hot, most every elected person lined up behind Don Saylor for a photo op at his announcement to run for Supervisor in Central Park. They were there left, right, and center. This wasn’t about politics it was about personalities. I have sat in a few City Council meetings over many years and I have seen it up close. Its pretty disturbing really.
While I have policy differences with Sue, differences that readers here suggest color my view of Sue, I can honestly say that I have never in all my years of participating in politics, going back as far as the Reagan Memorial Grove and the Speed and Greed Freeway debate, never seen any sitting elected official so dishonor the title of Honorable.
“People are objecting because:
1. They do not like political attacks
2. Because the mailer was sent out from outside interests trying to influence policy and the make up of Davis’ governing board
3. Because the real objection is not her behavior but how she voted on the water issue”
I have been commenting on the Vanguard for quite some time that your objections #1 and #3 has been ongoing on the Vanguard for weeks.
#2 is new only in that it’s an outside group instead of an inside group. There are many individuals and groups trying to influence policy and the makeup of Davis’s governing group. What does it matter if they’re using factual information to do it? Are you saying you don’t want the voters to make informed decisions based on facts? Conjecture, demonization, and innuendo are preferrable?
-Michael Bisch
Michael:
After reading your response I think it comes down to this – you are never going to understand why everyone in this community is objecting to this.
David, you exaggerate in trying to detail why “people are objecting.” Who said they objected because the mailer “was sent out from outside interests”? Who said their “real objection is not her behavior but how she voted on the water issue”? “Bait and switch” from “someone you spoke with yesterday” is odd.
The reason for the overwhelming objections is you first reason, none of us like negative “political attacks.” We are offended by the nasty approach. It’s Sue and her supporters who spent the day trying to turn this into something more than it is and to paste blame to a variety of other innocent parties.
To suggest it could have “worked” (whatever that means) if had been “a clearly identifiable community group who took issue with the level of political discourse” is an odd observation. It is what it is (“taking issue…”). Who pays attention to the small text about the “local” union?
There’s a hint of irony that Sue’s nasty [i]Vanguard[/i] comments about the union pointing out her nasty behavior and nasty comments in a nasty way had to be be censored themselves–thereby, feeding into some folks’ feeling that this is a [i]modus operandi[/i], not just a one-time slip.
No one likes this approach, but lots of studies have showed this kind of negative ad is effective. How the candidate and her supporters react to the increased attention it brings to the race would seem to be critical in turning around the intended impact. No doubt, you did Sue a favor in pulling her conclusions.
[quote]I guess I don’t follow the ‘inside baseball’ of Davis politics close enough, but until I received this mailer and watched the actual video, I was not aware of Council Member Greenwald’s unprofessional and frankly embarrassing behavior. Maybe someone who follows the council can explain whether this behavior was an aberration, or a regular occurrence.
I was considering voting for Greenwald (again), but after watching how she conducts herself at council meetings, I have to question whether she has the temperament to be effective. Maybe 12 years on the council is long enough.
This is a smart town, and we appear to be blessed with several smart and energetic new voices. Maybe it’s time to give some new voices a chance to be heard.
Thoughts?
[b]Mark Murray[/b][/quote]Mark: Aberration or regular occurrence? Fair question.
Sue supporters have been pushing the excuse that Sue just “lost it” after a decade of abuse by her colleagues. This position is really not supported by the record.
The episode on the video is without question the most extreme example of Sue’s bad behavior pattern that I have ever seen in the council chambers. However, if you rate this incident as a 10, IMO Sue routinely gets into the 4 to 6 territory.
Moreover, my recollection is that David Greenwald reported that she became even more unhinged in the foyer. It’s one thing to lose your cool from the dais, but quite another thing to pursue the argument as people are trying to disengage.
Probably more disturbing is that several council members have intimated over the years that she is routinely confrontational and out-of-control in closed session – when the cameras are not on. Her allies on the council will no doubt refute this, but the complaint is very credible.
It is also common knowledge that members of various committees that she is assigned to don’t want to work with her, and council members from other jurisdictions that she has come into contact with hold her in low regard.
At some point, the argument that individuals like Don and Ruth were so mean to her that the behavior is both justified and understandable no longer holds water. Is there a vast conspiracy to disrespect and marginalize Sue? Couldn’t it be that she is disrespected and marginalized because of her long-standing conduct over the last twelve years (both while the cameras are running and in private when she has less social restraint)?
Whatever your position on this, my argument is that it doesn’t matter. Sue has had a long career on the City Council and it is now time for the voters to term her out. Like her or don’t like her, her fault or someone else’s fault, who cares. The facts are that whenever Sue is involve there is excessive unnecessary drama and things just don’t get done effectively. We can’t afford this any longer. In addition, her presence on the council also disincentivizes other quality people from running (including progressives) that don’t want to serve with her.
[quote]“After reading your response I think it comes down to this – you are never going to understand why everyone in this community is objecting to this.”[/quote]Because he doesn’t get your jokes? Or, because your explanation is both inadequate and non-responsive to his inquiry? Michael is asking legitimate questions. To kiss them off as just a reflection of his intellectual inadequacy is pretty patronizing.
Just Saying:
I think it’s more fair to say I oversimplified it rather than exaggerated. I was trying to explain someone who really did not understand.
“Who said their “real objection is not her behavior but how she voted on the water issue”? “
Does it really matter specifically who? I talked to a lot of people yesterday and yes, I think the fact that it was an outside group magnified the outrage.
But here’s a quote from Dunning: “Because Davisites tend not to like pink slime with their breakfast cereal and also don’t like outside groups like the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 447 attempting to influence local elections…”
People are offended by nasty approaches but this was worse because of how it was veiled and packaged.
“There’s a hint of irony that Sue’s nasty Vanguard comments about the union pointing out her nasty behavior and nasty comments in a nasty way had to be be censored themselves”
Actually you are leaping to conclusions, Sue never made a nasty comment, she simply accused someone of doing something when she lacked evidence to substantiate it and would not explain her accusation.
“No one likes this approach, but lots of studies have showed this kind of negative ad is effective.”
But usually not in Davis. There are also a lot of studies that show people have gotten used to negative ads and they often backfire on the intended beneficiary.
I agree. Public forums like this should not be censored unless it’s profanity or the like being removed, otherwise it’s an incomplete record of the public discussion.
I don’t like reading the Vanguard knowing that what I read could be incomplete and edited to promote a certain viewpoint. That’s not how public commentary should work in a free democracy.
David, I’m either doing a poor job of conveying my point or you’re intentionally avoiding it. My observation of the election coverage on Vanguard over the past couple of weeks indicates that there has been a trememdous amount of negative campaigning ongoing by individuals and/or organizations. I include the possiblity of organizations because there is no way of knowing whether some individuals are working in a concerted fashion and/or are members of organizations due to the anonymous postings (I don’t have an issue with anonymous postings; I’m simply pointing out that it results in uncertainty). This negative campaigning has not been accompanied by any outrage. That indicates to me that the outrage expressed over the mailer is selective.
What’s particularly striking is the negative campaigning on the Vanguard has in many instances been based on demonization, innuendo, and other underhanded tactics, and not fact based; whereas, the mailer is entirely fact-based (is it not?). Do we condone negative campaigning only if its local and unsupported by the facts, and then condemn outside party negative campaigning based on facts? I’m asking what’s the community standard here?
Please note that I have yet to engage in negative campaigning, although I don’t have an issue with it so long as it is fact based. If a candidate does something negative, it’s true, and it’s relevant, then it should be weighed by the voters. I’m a strong believer in voters casting votes based on all relevant information. I’m discouraged by the fact that’s likely not going to be the case because many attempts to foster a substantive election debate are being undermined with distractions, irrelevant information, misinformation, and other common techniques.
-Michael Bisch
David, not even this assertion of yours is supported by the facts.
“…everyone in this community is objecting to this.”
It’s not supported by comments on the Vanguard or on the Enterprise blog. The comments are mixed.
-Michael Bisch
If you want to see what David pulled down from Sue look at the 7:22 post by DT Businessman he has reposted it.
I assume David knows this and since there has been outcry has left it up as a quote.
Toad, you’ve lost me. The only Sue quote that I posted at 7:22am is:
“I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim in today’s mailing.” -Sue Greenwald
That’s not the quote that David censored, in fact, the quote here is still up on a related thread from yesterday. Besides, the quote is harmless. I know nothing about the quote that David censored. Based on the quote above, it looked like Sue was going to start laying in to Stephen, but there’s no way of knowing without David reposting Sue’s comment.
It really is a strange state of affairs to have a blog pull a comment from a public official, running for public office, made in a public forum. It’s a real head scratcher.
-Michael Bisch
psDavis has obviously seen the quote. Perhaps he will recount it for us. David, the content of whatever Sue said might very well be rumor and innuendo. But her making the statement is a fact. She said it, you pulled it (or maybe Don did at your behest).
-Michael Bisch
Michael Bisch: “[i]What’s particularly striking is the negative campaigning on the Vanguard has in many instances been based on demonization, innuendo, and other underhanded tactics, and not fact based…[/i]”
Michael, arguing based on facts requires that the participants in the discussion actually do the work necessary to learn what the facts are, and to be able to document those facts so that others may be able to evaluate them. Rumor, innuendo and ‘demonization’ are much easier, and admit it, so much more fun!
What I don’t understand is why you expect that the discussion on the Vanguard should be factually based. It only takes a casual review of the comments made by our host over the past few days to understand that facts and relevance are not always his primary concern.
David Greenwald: “[i]Knowing or at least strongly believing the mastermind here to be Bill Camp[/i]”
Factual?
David Greenwald: “[i]That’s Saylor’s treasurer[/i]”
Relevant?
and my personal favorite:
David Greenwald: “[i]I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety…[/i]”
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story as my brother likes to say.
I found the mailer to be repugnant and counterproductive as I am completely turned off by negative political ads. Like you though, I see the mailer as being factual, and I have heard no one dispute the accuracy of the comments included in it. Even so, four of the five candidates responded to the mailer by distancing themselves from the content, the approach and the responsible parties. Unfortunately, one responded with the same unsubstantiated speculation and innuendo (now deleted) expressed by our host and many other posters here.
I don’t believe that the City can afford to continue with this petty, ‘you are with me or against me’ approach that has become so common in the Davis politic and so clearly demonstrated by certain public figures, past and present politicians, and their supporters. We need cooperative efforts, listening to each other, respecting opinions other than our own, making decision based on facts and data, and acknowledging that no one has a monopoly on ‘the right answer.’ Four of the five candidates to my satisfaction have demonstrated that they embody this approach and in my mind the City will be well served if any three of the four are elected. Unfortunately, the fifth candidate continues to demonstrate a public approach that is the antithesis of collaboration, cooperation, and respect, and is therefore not a good fit for our present and future needs.
Michael: I did not see a post from Sue other than the cryptic statement last night that she would no longer be defending Steve. The only post that I know was removed was my repost of the requests for clarification by Matt and then by myself that were originally posted late yesterday on the previous thread. What makes you think David removed a post from Sue?
“I think it’s more fair to say I oversimplified it rather than exaggerated. I was trying to explain someone who really did not understand…..Does it really matter specifically who? I talked to a lot of people yesterday and yes, I think the fact that it was an outside group magnified the outrage?…People are offended by nasty approaches but this was worse because of how it was veiled and packaged….Sue never made a nasty comment, she simply accused someone of doing something when she lacked evidence to substantiate it and would not explain her accusation.”
It’s obvious Michael understands what you’re saying. He disagrees, and asks for the bases of your comments–just as I ask where you cames up with the “fact” that everyone dislikes the mailer for the three or for very specific reasons you cite, since it certainly isn’t a conclusion one can draw for the many comments in the Vanguard. So, instead of pointing out anything in the comments re. the two Vanguard articles you suggest you’ve talked to lots of people and refer me to your new authority on what everyone thinks, Bob Dunning. What you’ve really provided is what you think; when I get to Dunning’s column, I’ll see what he thinks.
I’m pleased you’ve decided not to allow anything in the Vanguard that accuses someone of something without evidence to substantiate it. (A joke.)
“But usually not in Davis. There are also a lot of studies that show people have gotten used to negative ads and they often backfire on the intended beneficiary.”
I know you’re aware of the studies to which I referred. I’m not familiar with any that find they’re not valid in Davis. This kind of campaigning is damaging.
#4 reason to object is that the video is taken out of context.
____
In fact, Ruth’s behavior was extremely childish and irresponsible (i.e., blaming someone else for her phony “anxiety attacks”) – disrupting the meeting in order to put on a side show rather than responding directly and apologizing to Sue for lying. Quite the drama queen. Having had some dealings with Ruth, I learned not to trust her.
Michael Bisch wrote:
“If the content of the mailer is accurate, how is it a cheap shot?”
in regards to the “cheap shot” taken at Sue Greenwald. Michael’s question reminds me of the old saying: “The trouble with a specialized education is you never stop paying for it.” A specialized mind cannot comprehend context, therefore it remains obsessed with isolated, albeit accurate, facts. The mailer is a cheap shot because it does not take into consideration why Sue took umbrage with Ruth, who for many, many months provoked Sue while Sue was voicing valid points in City Council chambers.
Regardless of whether the mailer is factual, or in proper context, in my view, it is an politically motivated attack advertisement (although I’m still not sure who the beneficiary was intended to be.) Revealing facts is important; there is a way to have done this without it being objectionable. It isn’t good for healthy political debate.
That said, in the end, this is very, very revealing about Sue’s interpersonal capabilities and maturity. It is completely appropriate for Sue to cry foul about a negative attack ad…the rest of her response reveals why very few people want to work with Sue. Instead of simply protesting, moving on and staying on the high ground, Sue turns vindictive and ugly. This is the same type of response we’ve observed time and time again, on the dais of the council and in person. In my view, whatever positive attributes she has are far outweighed by her inability to accept and work constructively with other points of view. Many of you have decried the way the council works together…we need leadership and capability, not sniping and incivility.
Some of you have rejected the Chamber’s endorsement of Souza. If that is your view, then Brett Lee seems to be a much better choice than Sue.
eagle eye: Your comments about Ruth are offensive.
Here’s what happened outside the chambers in the words of eye-witness David Greenwald –[quote]The story begins as Councilmember Lamar Heystek was beginning his comments on a critical issue facing Davis, that we have discussed time and again regarding the MOU process. But quickly he realized that something was wrong in the vestibule. An off-duty firefighter was administering medical attention to Mayor Ruth Asmundson outside. Realizing the potential severity of the situation, Councilmember Heystek paused his comments and Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor called a recess.
I gathered up my seven week old foster daughter and was about to head out to see how the Mayor was doing and if I could lend assistance. Councilmember Greenwald bolted straight for me, and I told her I didn’t want to hear it. She wanted to carry on about the discussion and I was not interested in doing so. She attempted to appeal to me, but I told her that her conduct up there was appalling, she was hurting our cause, and when she persisted, I told her she looked like an idiot up there. She turned to a stranger to appeal to him and I made my way outside.
Outside of the council chambers while a firefighter was administering assistance to the Mayor, Councilmember Greenwald continued to try to argue the issues that had been argued at the dais. People told her this was not the time to carry on this discussion.
At one point she attempted to continue a discussion with the Mayor while the Mayor was receiving medical attention.
She earlier made a comment suggesting that the Mayor was feigning illness. I directly heard her say mockingly that she felt like fainting, someone better call the fire department.
She said: “Perhaps I should pretend to faint and I will get just as much attention”
The low point of the evening came as they made the decision to move the Mayor into the side conference room. Councilmember Greenwald continued to try to appeal to City Manager Emlen. The City Manager told her this was not the appropriate time to have this discussion, but the Councilmember could not take the hint. She then made a final comment ending it with a very derisive “boy.” The last comment incensed Bill Emlen and he angrily lunged out of the conference room and straight towards Sue Greenwald, getting up into her face.
Not knowing what was about to ensue, I stepped into the middle of it and physically separated the two with one hand as I held the sleeping baby in the other hand.
The Councilmember spun away and went towards Mayor Pro Tem Saylor and began to instigate conflict there, after heated words, I attempted to pull her away from the Mayor Pro Tem.
To me the most appalling aspect of all of it was the apparent lack of concern by Councilmember Sue Greenwald for the health and well-being of the Mayor. There is a time to argue the issues and a time to let them go. Surely this was a time to let them go.
She continued to attempt to appeal her case to me and eventually I told her that I found it remarkable that it was everyone’s fault–the Mayor, Emlen, Saylor, even Lamar Heystek for not coming to her defense stronger, but her own.
I have to tell the public here how shaken this incident left me. As I left the building, after Mayor Pro Tem Saylor adjourned the meeting I met my wife Cecilia in the parking lot. She had come to pick up the baby on the way home from work. I had to stand outside for a half-hour to calm down.
The public was clearly appalled by what they saw on the YouTube video, but unfortunately that paled in comparison with what happened outside.
[b]David Greenwald 01/28/10[/b][/quote]If you think this is an isolated incident, then ask around in the political community for other first hand accounts of misbehavior.
[quote]Moreover, my recollection is that David Greenwald reported that she became even more unhinged in the foyer. [/quote]Now that this is mentioned, I too seem to recall hearing from David that additional things were said by Ms Greenwald (and others?)along the lines that Ruth was “faking” her condition (while para-medics were attending to Ms Asmundson), and that David said he felt a need to position himself (physically) in a manner to try to keep things from ‘escalating’. David, am I remembering this correctly? Care to report on what you saw/heard in the foyer?
The post just above mine should answer all questions.
Thanks for the comments eagle eye and Briankenyon. I wouldn’t know about the context, particularly because I didn’t participate in the closed session. There’s a number of Vanguardians who apparently did participate in the closed session since they vouch for Sue. However, from the perspective of someone that wasn’t in the closed session or at the council meeting, i.e. I share the perspective of most residents of Davis and the region, the episode reflected poorly on Greenwald, Asmundson, the Davis City Council, and the community. Asmundson chose not to campaign again. Sue is campaigning.
-Michael Bisch
Forgive my slow typing… see psdavis quotes of David. That’s what I remember hearing from him, as well.
I wish to express yet again that it would be exceedingly odd NOT to weigh the temperment and fitness of each candidate to hold office. We are not selecting a 3rd baseman for a sandlot game. This election is for a 4 year term on the city council at a time where the community is confronted with very serious challenges. Are the voters supposed to pretend the Greenwald/Asmundson event didn’t happen? It did happen
What the voters should be examining is whether it was an isolated event or part of a pattern and reflective of the individuals involved. It is unfortunate that it took a campaign piece from some Sacramento unions to spur the evaluation, frankly, David or Dunning would have been more appropriate; nevertheless, here it is.
-Michael Bisch
Michael Bisch-(battered voice of reason and DDBA honcho)David and Rich have been Sue’s loyal apologists for the couple of years I’ve followed Davis politics . As long as she stands against any growth,none of her antics or ill informed views matter. I had no doubt that she would be re-elected to block the water projects and fantasize about cityscapes that don’t exist, now she could well out-poll the rest of the field and her poor colleagues will have to bear the brunt . Don doesn’t give me the local dispensation, so I have to be circumspect in my comments, lest I offend someones delicate sensitivities in the formerly pure and incorruptible hamlet of Davis . BTW Sue definitely figured in our decision not to relocate our funky little business and funky little family to Davis .
Even if Eagle Eye is correct about Ruth. If I say time out, I am sick, the only humane thing is to help, anything else is inappropriate. For someone else to continue on without regard for the well being of the person who claims sick is so wrong.
It has been two years since I read this passage PS, thank you for reposting it. I remember thinking at the time it was so over the top that Sue was unfit to serve and said so under whatever nom de plume i was using at the time. I have been a dogged detractor ever since. When people say I would be the same just based on policy differences its a fair argument. However, that is wrong. If you think that it would be unreasonable for someone to conclude after watching the video and reading David’s first person account that Sue is unfit to serve then blame it on policy differences. But, if you think that a reasonable person could look at the tape and read the article and decide enough is enough then please take me at my word.
Like it or not the plumbers hit piece did its job. Sadly, it is unrealistic to expect that Sue could get through the campaign without the community revisiting this sorry affair. In the aftermath, Ruth retired and Lamar decided not to run again. I was hoping Sue would have the good sense to bow out too, so, the community could move forward from her era of divisive politics. I’ve been focused on it for some time here from the darkness of Toad Hollow not just to be malicious in an attempt to beat Sue because of policy differences but also because of the fitness to serve question, a drum I have been beating for over two years since this story broke. I am sorry that by choosing to run Sue made the fitness to serve question one the community must grapple with in deciding who should lead Davis going forward.
lol, the bottom line I see here is the mailer is factually accurate. I don’t see anything wrong with this ad….
Sue greenwald is not a terrible person, but she does not play well with others as a city council member. Its one thing to stand up for what you believe in on principle, its another thing to pick fights all day long. Enough’s enough.
91: “Sue greenwald is not a terrible person,”
I agree by the way and have tried to stay focused on the fitness question although I will admit that from time to time I have let my rhetoric run away so I’m sure someone could find something I wrote that is over the top. So let me apologize for that. People have tried to put the word hate in my mouth but I have never used it to describe how I feel about Sue. It is one word that I know I never used.
Mr. Bisch, By “context” I was referring not only to the events of the evening in question, but months and months previous to that of imperious behavior by Ruth toward Sue in the council chamber.
Repeat a lie often enough and people begin to accept it as the truth. Famous saying. Famously true.
If you look at Sue Greenwald’s tenure on the Davis City Council, you do NOT see a history of misbehavior, tantrums or unprofessionalism. In fact, Sue has shown almost superhuman restraint in dealing with her fellow councilmembers. She has essentially been on the minority side of every council on which she’s served, and has fought for the citizens of Davis against peripheral sprawl, the destruction of our downtown, and most recently a bloated and exorbitant water project. If she were as unrestrained and combative as some on this blog suggest, how is it that she has often been able to persuade those on the opposing side to come around and, in the end, support her well-reasoned, thoroughly-researched, and fact-supported positions? This has happened time after time and year after year.
Despite being marginalized, impugned, ignored and dismissed time and again, her calm, factual and persistent message has made a difference on issues immportant to Davis citizens–even when everyone else on the council was voting in support of the special interests that funded their campaigns and future political aspirations.
To simply repeat this lie that Sue is some hysterical and abusive shrew flies in the face of the truth. She doesn’t back down, but she makes sure that the facts are behind her in a well-reasoned and persuasive manner. That’s the Sue that I’ve known and supported for years, and that’s the Sue that supports this town, even when no one else on the council will.
Sue is routinely disruptive, rude, and disrespectful of the process when a controversial issue is before the council. Someone really ought to compile a video to illustrate this (as a rebuttal to the Sue apologists).
All very good points Crilly. The one factor you include in your analysis is the economic realities we all face going forward. Sue has shown herself to be very, very good at managing the costs (expenses) portion of our community’s Income Statement. However, an Income Statement contains both Revenues and Expenses and Sue’s unwillingness (some would say inability) to focus on collaboration and consensus building in creating, pursuing and implementing Revenue building initiatives means that the City’s bottom-line (the net combination of Revenues and Expenses) misses opportunities for reducing actual or impending deficits.
Said another way, with Sue as an effective catalyst the City has harvested most of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to Expense reduction. What is left is 1) the much more difficult Expense reductions, and 2) creating and pursuing Revenue increase opportunities. Both those categories need (dare I say beg for) skills and experience as an ambassador/emissary. Is there anything in your experience that causes you to associate Sue Greenwald with the words emissary, ambassador, consensus-builder, collaborator?
I actively supported and walked neighborhoods for Sue four years ago because I felt she was right for the times. Unfortunately, she has in the last four years shown me that she is not right for the times we face in the next four years.
JMHO
Ooops . . . the first sentence should read, [i]”The one factor you do not include in your analysis is the economic realities we all face going forward.”[/i]
Brian, one of the major challenges in conducting any discourse with Sue is that she knows no boundaries . . . especially with respect to 1) the time of her comments, and 2) asking questions during the “questions period” of a Council meeting. Several mayors have attempted to try and get Sue to A) limit the time of her comments/questions, B) not “loop” her comments so that she repeats the same point (sometimes verbatim) more than once during her alloted comment period, and C) not lecture the Staff or “experts” brought to Council to provide testimony during the questions period. No amount of effort has caused her to even minimally address those basic courtesies.
It is almost like Sue relishes the role of community martyr, and “volunteers” to be the target of the behavior you call “imperious.”
Further, anyone who has provided “expert testimony” from the Staff Table in Council Chambers knows full well that “imperious behavior” has not been the sole province of Sue’s Council peers. Sue can, and does, behave imperiously with the best of them.
Matt: Great analysis. Why do you think she behaves this way? It’s extraordinarily destructive to the city in the long run.
psdavis, the only honest answer to that question is, [i]”I really don’t know.”[/i] Only she can answer that.
psdavis: “Why do you think she behaves this way? It’s extraordinarily destructive to the city in the long run.”
Yes, exactly!
It may be that Sue got fed up dealing with council members who are on the council simply to help their friends and themselves.
Sue has been the one person who has the best interests of Davis residents at heart.
I hope with Sue, Swanson, Joe, and Wolk on the council there will be less
inside dealing and more focus on what’s good for the community.
Okay, we’ve proved James Burchill is “behind” the mail piece and we were promised we’d find out “why” the union did it. Two days later, what’s the answer? A lot of crap has been tossed every which way. Sue’s supporters are really upset. Her detractors are troubled, but aren’t outraged. Everything is pretty much as it was two days ago.
So, David, who is this Burchill dude and why should we care? We knew that the union doesn’t want Sue reelected. Do we know anything else after all this commotion?
Look up Burchill’s client list. It’s pretty impressive (as such lists go). He’s definitely a pro with many years of experience in the Davis area.
I’m really having trouble accepting the theory that he didn’t anticipate that the mailer would do serious damage to Steve. It just isn’t passing the smell test.
Is there any other example of Burchill screwing up big time?
Did Steve do anything or take a position that might cause the unions to throw him under the bus?
Matt: We already know Sue’s answer – [i]they made me do it.[/i]
I have a 7 year old who’s favorite explanation is ‘they made me do it.’ Blaming (or justifying) your own bad behavior by pointing at someone else doesn’t work for a 7 year old. Why should it work for Sue?
The quote from David, at the time, speaks for itself… the “hit piece” is reprehensible, for its apparent violation of City Code, more paper to be recycled, etc. Ms Greenwald needs to take responsibility for her past (and future) actions/words. We have 3 “newbies” on the council… less than 2 years experience… I’m not going to vote for 5 “newbies”..;. if that is discrimination, guilty as charged.
So netting that down hortense, one of your votes will go to either Steve or Sue . . .
Do you see one of the two of them as an effective mentor to the “newbies”?
Wow, I had forgotten how bad that whole incident was with Sue & Ruth. Its amazing how time will soften your memory of things. I remember thinking that Sue was gone politically after that incident. I’ve never seen an elected official behave so badly, and I’ve seen some pretty disfunctional local elected bodies. (Anyone familiar with the Richmond City Council?) Anyways, I disgress. I find Sue to be an enigma. It is easy to understand the Sue apologists, who basically believe that she is the champion of their causes, when no one else on the council shares their view. They claim that anyone else that disagrees with them and/or Sue is simply someone who has been bought by some interest or another. They just can’t understand how a reasonable person might disagree with them. Then you have the Sue detractors that will point out her lack of professionalism, inability to play nice with others, and shrillness that turns off all but the apologists. Many of these folks have differing views than Sue on some of the important policy issues that face the city, where I think that reasonable people might disagree. I generally tend to think that most people, particularly the citizens and frankly all of the current council members truly have the best interests of the city at heart. I don’t believe that any of them are bought and paid for, I just believe that some of them have viewpoints similar to their supporters. Sue’s biggest problem (and there are many) is that she thinks she is always the smartest person in the room, and that meetings should function around and to serve her needs and purposes. I think she may lack the ability to empathize, and has difficulty seeing any other perspective but her own. She is rude, shrill, self-centered and unfortunately for her detractors, sometimes very right and right on significant fiscal matters that nearly everyone will agree are extremely important to the City. How inconvenient. When Sue has a good idea, if it is something that is picked-up by the City or other councilmembers, I often feel that it is in spite of Sue, and that she is by far her own worst enemy. How many times has she reminded us all on this very forum that it was she and she alone that saved the city $100 million on the sewer treatment plant design? Who wants to agree with someone like that, even if they are right? I think the other part is that she also has many ideas that others feel are truly worthless, so trying to figure out when to pay attention and when she is just wasting everyone’s time could be part of the problem.
So, for the Davis voter, is Sue’s representation of the City on the City Council worth all of the problems and issues she brings along? Is her voice so important and unique that we should put up with all of her distructiveness? While I’m finding myself perhaps a bit surprised to say this, despite all of the truly negative aspects of how Sue conducts herself, or fails to conduct herself, she’s been right on enough really important fiscal matters that I’m perhaps willing to put up with all of the rest of her a bit longer. I don’t like it, I don’t condone what she does, and I may never admit it publicly, but on the whole, the City may be better with than without her as a councilmember. Just don’t expect it to be a smooth ride. I just hope that if Sue is re-elected, and I think she will be, that she perhaps will do a bit of self-reflection on how she conducts herself, and whether that best serves her constituency or whether it is significantly counterproductive. If she cleans-up her act, she may just find that her colleagues are more willing to listen to her. Sue, you are elected in spite of your behavior, not because of it. You should have been a hero to the community for saving us the $100 million on the sewer treatment plant. Learn to treat your colleagues and others with more respect, and maybe they in turn will be receptive to your good ideas. Anyone else feel the way that I do?
From the Civility Card by professor K. Reardon :
“When those in power call for civility there are ways to determine whether it is merely a ruse – an excuse for driving political gaming underground where maneuvering masters are at their best and, in government, a means of quieting debate and thereby diminishing democracy.
Like so many social amenities promoted by the powerful, however, civility of a type is the hallmark of requisite silence about anything worthy of discussion. “
Beautifully said.
“Learn to treat your colleagues and others with more respect, and maybe they in turn will be receptive to your good ideas.”
They said the same kind of stuff about Nixon in 68 and we know how that turned out.
newshoundpm said . . .
[i]”Learn to treat your colleagues and others with more respect, and maybe they in turn will be receptive to your good ideas. Anyone else feel the way that I do?”[/i]
I feel very much the way you do newshoundpm, but after weighing all the factors have come to the decision that Sue’s ability to make an incremental difference on the Council is a thing of the past, not of the future.
As I’ve noted above, Sue is much more at home cutting costs. She has neither the skills to increase revenues, nor the interest in increasing revenues, and if the City is to have a better bottom-line in the future it is going to be because it has [u]both[/u] managed its costs and increased its revenues.
There are two ways for the City to increase revenues, 1) take a larger bite of a pie that is either staying the same size or shrinking, or 2) make the pie bigger. Sue has shown us in her years on the Council that she really doesn’t have any affinity for making the pie bigger. Worse than that, all the “sins” you list in your thoughtful post actively conspire to either make the pie smaller, or at best keep it the same size.
So let me close by posing the following two questions to you . . . [i]Would you choose Sue to be your ambassador if you were looking to expand your newshound business? Is Sue a person who you would want managing the customer service portion of your newshound business?[/i]
‘
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.
Yay Sue!
Brilliant quote posted by pansuegun above.
When there are complex, important, and inherently contentious issues before the council; I would certainly feel queasy to see them all rubbing each others shoulders. Sometimes a certain amount of frank and strongly emphasized disagreement, even anger (contained of course) is called for and appropriate. Open debate is healthy, and I would certainly hope that there are some issues that councilmembers genuinely feel strongly about; I would prefer to see open expression rather than a lot of pussyfooting around (and later taking it behind the scenes).
I applaud Sue for having the courage to stand up for her convictions; even when it often entailed standing up against the big boys who lurk behind some of the issues facing the council.
Remember: without the power of Sue’s Sept 6th lone NO vote to the water rate increase, and her un-seconded motion to put the project on the ballot, the water referendum committee would most likely not have been able to collect the signatures fast enough. THank you, Sue. Your actions on Sept 6 earned my support this time.
The rest of you voters reading this: never, ever forget that the project as approved by the CC majority would most likely have bankrupted Davis. And — if we stop or change the project, we might even get a two-fer, and prevent Woodland from being bankrupted by its share of the project. The developers and water interests own all five members of the Woodland CC, but maybe if Davis withdraws from the JPA, we can save the average lower income residents up there from what those CC mambers are doing to its residents and small businesses.
As David G commented this morning: why do you think those trade unions sent that mailer? Because they hate Sue, a good Democrat who routinely votes for the little person, the small business in Davis? Not hardly. They did it to knock out her NO vote on the existing project, and support Souza, their YES vote.
Others in and around Davis are also spending to influence the political process, but the mailer is public due to our disclosure laws.
Michael, your first paragraph above is pure hogwash. You and Ernie were going forward with the Referendum regardless, and we all have benefited from the end result of your effort. Are you really trying to say that your signature collectors were citing Sue’s vote as an argument for signing? I can’t imagine that they did that even once. The Referendum effort transcended Sue at the starting gate and never looked back.