The gloves are coming off in what was tame Davis Council Election as an independent group backed by Sacramento-based unions the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340, Operating Engineers Local Union 3 in Support of Stephen Souza and in Opposition to Sue Greenwald has sent out an attack mailer to Davis residents reminding them of Councilmemeber Sue Greenwald’s publicized incident with former Mayor Ruth Asmundson.
The Vanguard spoke with Davis City Clerk Zoe Mirabile, she was unaware of any independent expenditure campaign and said that anyone participating in an independent expenditure campaign in support of or in opposition to candidates would be required to adhere to city municipal codes that requires filings and advanced notice to all candidates.
The City Clerk will be further looking into this matter, but it seems possible that this would be a violation of the City’s Municipal code.
The Vanguard will have further details when they become available.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
And I thought I was tilting at windmills by repeatedly bringing this up. I’m glad somebody is finally ringing the bell on this in a big way. Did you think Sue’s behavior would not be an issue in the campaign? That anyone who doesn’t want Sue re-elected for whatever reason wouldn’t take the best shot they had which is this? Scream and cry foul all you want about dirty politics but the link speaks for itself. If you think we should have more civil discourse in our politics I think you would want to start by having improved public behavior from elected officials.
By the way, if she is like this in public, just imagine what she is like in private.
I got one today. Very sleazy, and a disappointing turn in the nature of city elections.
Thank you for sharing this David. I now know who my 3rd vote will go to: Sue Greenwald. I did not like the drama that was played out between Sue and Ruth but I detest negative politics even more. She has fought for the best interests of residents in Davis and has fought to keep us out of bankruptcy with the overly generous firefighter pay and benefits. The Enterprise had it right! I am voting for Sue, Brett Lee and Dan Wolk and will urge ithers to do the same. Thank you for the work you provide the community by covering breaking news David.
In an elections world where voter turnout is crucial, I have a feeling that this mailing will actually increase Sue Greenwald’s vote count. My suspicion is that the sentiments Anne has expressed above are going to be held by many Davis voters who might not have actually made it to the polls if they hadn’t received the mailer.
The balancing question is, will the mailer produce additional vote count for any of the other candidates? Souza is the only candidate mentioned in the mailer, so he might get some more votes, but will Wolk, Frerichs or Lee get any additional votes as a result of the mailer? I can’t see any way that is going to happen.
JMHO
When I saw the tagline that the unions are “in support of Stephen Souza and Opposition to Sue Greenwald,” my reaction was that this is going to kill off any hopes Stephen has to win office.
But it was just suggested to me by a political operative in Davis–someone smarter than I am?–who said the only reason they put Stephen’s name on this mailer was to harm him. In other words, the operative thinks that the unions favor Wolk, Frerichs and Lee and sent out this mailer to destroy Sue and Stephen.
I should add that the operative said that the motive for these unions to viciously attack Sue is all about the water project, which plumbers and pipefitters and the others expect to make a lot of money from.
What Toad says, that this is about “Sue’s behavior,” is, of course, total nonsense. It’s about Sue’s positions on issues which put have upset the people behind this attack. If she were in favor of more money for the fire fighters and West-Yost’s $200 million sewage treatment plant and the water works they want, these unions would not care about “Sue’s behavior.”
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.
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.
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.
That is a very interesting take Rich.
I can’t imagine any of the three unnamed candidates even vaguely supporting this kind of tactic. In fact I would fully expect all three of the unnamed campaigns to come out with statements within the next 24 hours condemning the mailer.
I could be wrong, but that is my expectation.
Rich only the two words you have in quotes are accurate the rest is out of context. If you want to make the argument go ahead but don’t attribute it to me. What I said is more nuanced and you should recognize that.
[quote]But it was just suggested to me by a political operative in Davis–someone smarter than I am?–who said the only reason they put Stephen’s name on this mailer was to harm him. In other words, the operative thinks that the unions favor Wolk, Frerichs and Lee and sent out this mailer to destroy Sue and Stephen.–Rich Rifkin[/quote]I am the political operative who mentioned to Rich that whoever masterminded this was no friend of Stephens and was probably trying to help a third candidate.
Rifkin, Your political operatives are incorrect. The unions love Souza. I have a couple of friends who are high ranking in unions and they (unions) did not endorse Lee but have endorsed Souza and Frerichs. The spin that is now stated to save Souza is that they did this to help Sue. I have only one word for this: sleazy!
I will vote the Enterprise endorsements.
Knowing or at least strongly believing the mastermind here to be Bill Camp of the Central Labor Council, all three unions as well as the firefighters is under the guise, I believe they honestly thought this would help Souza.
Negative campaigns can act in weird ways. She is probably pleased as punch that people are saying that this will change their vote in her favor. Most people who are voting for Sue have made up their minds already. I think it will steer some people away from voting for Sue and maybe some will give Sue a sort of sympathy vote.
Anne said . . .
[i]”Rifkin, Your political operatives are incorrect. The unions love Souza. I have a couple of friends who are high ranking in unions and they (unions) did not endorse Lee but have endorsed Souza and Frerichs. [b]The spin that is now stated to save Souza is that they did this to help Sue.[/b] I have only one word for this: sleazy!”[/i]
Your bolded words are confusing Anne. Can you clarify?
I will vote the Enterprise endorsements.
To clarify, the final words on my post above were a pasting error from Anne’s comment. As Sue has pointed out, I can’t vote in the election since I live outside the City limits.
Somebody just Google the street address on the ad, get the phone number, and find out who is behind this.
Sue: [i]”I am the political operative who mentioned to Rich that whoever masterminded this was no friend of Stephen’s and was probably trying to help a third candidate.”[/i]
Regardless of whether Sue is right or not (as to the unions’ feelings about Stephen), it seems to me that in the end this really, seriously, severely and extraordinarily hurts Stephen Souza.
I know on a personal level it hurts Sue–anyone with human feelings who was subject to this kind of dirty tactic would be hurt personally–but, as I told Sue a few minutes ago, I think this kind of attack will backfire. I have faith that most voters in Davis will be repulsed by this sort of vicious bullying by the unions. The voters in Davis are smart enough to recognize that this is just a form of corruption by the unions: They are not interested in the public well-being. They are interested in putting the public’s cash in their pockets.
Even if Bobbie Weist had nothing to do with this–I would not be surprised to learn he was talking with Bill Camp and the other union bosses for months about attacking Sue–the other unions have the same problem when it comes to interferring in Davis’ politics: They don’t live in our community. They are simply trying to take our money. Eighty-percent of the fire union, Local 3494, lives outside of Davis, many in the Bay Area. I doubt many union members from the pipefitters & plumbers live here, either. But they sure want to get projects built which afford them extremely highly paid jobs with massive benefits at our expense.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Somebody just Google the street address on the ad, get the phone number, and find out who is behind this.”[/i]
Don, given the number of businesses and companies that come up for that address it looks like it is a mail aggregation address.
I am still in shock over this shameful mailing. My first comment to Davisites is: Throw this nasty mailer in the garbage and do not look back. Do not engage in this ugliness!
I’d like to share the email I sent to Sue:
Sue,
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the bottom of my heart I am truly sorry that this has happened to you and to this election.
Sincerely,
Stephen
[i]”Somebody just Google the street address on the ad, get the phone number, and find out who is behind this.”[/i]
I did that, this morning. It came back as a company called Advantrics* ([url]http://cufr.ucdavis.edu/contact.htm[/url]), and the person listed was Eric Overfield. However, I suspect that company has nothing to do with this. Advantrics probably moved or went out of business.
*They are website developers.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”I know on a personal level it hurts Sue–anyone with human feelings who was subject to this kind of dirty tactic would be hurt personally–but, as I told Sue a few minutes ago, I think this kind of attack will backfire. I have faith that most voters in Davis will be repulsed by this sort of vicious bullying by the unions.”[/i]
I concur Rich. Sue and I have had and continue to have our differences, but they are always face to face and nose to nose. Heated and strongly felt . . . but never vicious or dirty.
Why don’t you call Bill Camp and ask him before speculating about him?
[b]@David Greenwald: [/b]David, Jim Burchill [b]TOLD[/b] me he was involved with the water project advocacy for the unions and with the PACS. When I hear hoofbeats, I think of horses, not zebras.
[b]@Rich Rifkin:[/b]I was not speculating that the unions were supporting a candidate other than Stephen; I was speculating that the operative hired to mastermind the attack might have had an independent agenda. No one is dumb enough to put their favored candidate’s name on a hit piece. Show me one example.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”I did that, this morning. It came back as a company called Advantrics*, and the person listed was Eric Overfield. However, I suspect that company has nothing to do with this. Advantrics probably moved or went out of business.
*They are website developers.”[/i]
Rich, just a few of the businesses listed for that address
Bucher Victor G CPA is located in Davis, CA on 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103
McGowan James M CPA is located in Davis, CA on 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103.
SUNWEST FOODS INCORPORATED, DAVIS, 1477 DREW AVENUE SUITE 103
Advantrics LLC 1477 Drew Avenue, Suite 103. Davis, CA 95618
United States Foods 1477 Drew Avenue, Suite 103. Davis, CA 95618
Judge Dan McGuire 1477 Drew Avenue, Suite 103. Davis, CA 95618
Maintenance Connection Inc 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103
Boler Marc C CPA Boler & Assoc 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616
Mainini Pamela A CPA 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103. Davis CA 95618
It sounds like this is just a sleazy attempt to influence the election outcome. I believe that Steve Souza had nothing to do with this. I believe that Sue Greenwald had nothing to do with this. I will disregard this mailing piece and throw it away if I receive it. I suggest that others do the same.
Ugh. This bomb was in our mail today. Despicable and nasty. Shame on anyone who thinks this might be acceptable political discourse.
So Sue votes against the interests of this union. They send out a mailer taking what they think is their best shot at her showing her at her worst, which by the way is pretty bad and left her vulnerable to such an attack when she behaved in this way on camera. Is it nasty, yes, but is it unfair?
What is unfair is putting Steve’s name on it. Maybe they did it because they foolishly thought it would help him or maybe they did it because they thought it would hurt him. Who knows? But since Steve is denouncing it we should accept that.
What this mailer illustrates, and what I think the voters need to weigh, are these two points. Is Sue’s behavior on water, if you support that, worth putting up with her behavior as a public official.
“Bucher Victor G CPA is located in Davis, CA on 1477 Drew Avenue Suite 103”
That’s Saylor’s treasurer
[quote]By the way, if she is like this in public, just imagine what she is like in private. – [b]Toad[/b][/quote]Why don’t you get to know Sue and find out for yourself?
Are you willing to accept this snippet of Sue’s 12 years of public life as being representative of Sue – in public or private?
I would be willing to bet that no one one this blog – or elsewhere in Davis – hasn’t said something or reacted to something, sometime in the last decade that they would prefer to forget.
For councilmembers, the camera is rolling every minute when they’re on the dais. On controversial issues, emotions can run high. I’m much more concerned with having our Council make good decisions than with them making nice with one another.
[quote]Thank you for sharing this David. I now know who my 3rd vote will go to: Sue Greenwald. [b]- Anne[/b][/quote]I suspect Anne’s reaction will be shared by many in Davis. But there is a much better reason to vote for Sue.
Davis citizens who are concerned about the City’s financial situation should do whatever it takes to keep Sue on the council. All of the new guys talk about fiscal responsibility. (I’m including Dan as a “new guy” here.) At least one of them, probably two, will be elected, and hopefully they will walk the walk. Sue, OTOH, has been a strong voice for fiscal responsibility and controlling labor costs for years.
It is crucial that we retain one KNOWN fiscally responsible council member who will stand up to the unions. Two of the other guys will get elected, anyway.
Is this really funded by the city employees and firefighters? What’s their connection with the plumbers? What issues (city staffing, compensation, etc) were listed in the mailer?
“Knowing or at least strongly believing the mastermind here to be Bill Camp….”
Would you care to provide a little proof, particularly about how you “know” who is behind this? Guessing or strongly believing something requires no facts.
I haven’t gotten my copy yet, but what’s reported is sleazy. Of course, far worse has been said in the Vanguard about our council members. Too bad Sue can’t just say that this stuff never happened, instead, we’ll spend our time arguing about what she really said and what the context was.
I expect Ruth Asmundson will also disavow the use of her name on this mailer if asked. I am certain that she would not approve of this – regardless of whom it is intended to hurt or help.
Damn, it’s Judge Dan McGuire! What’s the penalty for him to be sending this out without a prior filing with the city?
The mailer is vile. Enough ad hominem attacks, already. Sue does her homework, saves us money, and is not afraid to speak up and say “But the emperor has no new clothes.” Especially in these hard economic times we need her voice on the council, period. I am voting for her.
Allied Printing did the print job.
So far what I’ve been able to get tracks to building trades which leads us away from fire and towards water.
Just talked to Vic Bucher, it’s not him, but someone in his building. When I tried to talk to him I was told his response was, “I don’t know anything about it.”
Probably a union printer, too.
[b]@David Greenwald:[/b](I started writing this earlier, so I’ll just complete it). David, I don’t agree with your analysis. The firefighters and these building trade unions are competing for the same pot of money, i.e., the tax/ratepaying capacity and tolerance of the citizens. Their interests are opposed. Some building trade unions are responsible for this, as well as the person they hired to construct the attack, who is likely a local person with his/her own agenda. Again, IMHO it is someone who backs a candidate who is seen as competing with me and Stephen.
I think we can assume it wouldn’t be Lee or Wolk associated with this silly mailer. Likely it’s someone associated with Ruth A. That points
to Lucas.
[i]”… it is someone who backs a candidate who is seen as competing with me and Stephen.”[/i]
That may be the case … about one individual who played a part in this attack. But I doubt it.
The motivation of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340 and the Operating Engineers Local Union 3 is to win union jobs in the construction (and perhaps operation) of the water works project. That seems hard to argue against. It then makes no sense to me that those unions would oppose Stephen Souza. No one has been a stronger supporter of the water works project than Stephen*.
The argument that “no one would put the name of a candidate they support” on a hit piece like this one is based on the assumption that the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340 and the Operating Engineers Local Union 3 are not stupid and are politically sophisticated. I don’t know enough about these people to know if those assumptions are right or wrong. But I never rule out stupid.
And this tactic was really stupid. It will destroy Stephen’s chances to win office. It will backfire. It will bring more votes to Sue from people whose minds are not yet made up. They will see this as a vicious and dirty and unfair assault by an outside group trying to make money off of the people of Davis. And a lot of the blame will be placed on Stephen, even though I completely believe he had nothing to do with this and had no idea it was about to be published.
*Even in actions outside of the Council or the Woodland-Davis water committee, Stephen has tried hard to defend the water works. For example, when Mike Harrington was paying for signatures to overturn the water rate increase, Stephen was prominently trying to dissuade people from signing that referendum, largely because Stephen believes the water works is needed and is in the best interests of Davis. (I don’t question Stephen’s motives for his support of the water works.) No public figure in Davis has worked harder to promote the water works than Stephen.
[quote]The argument that “no one would put the name of a candidate they support” on a hit piece like this one is based on the assumption that the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340 and the Operating Engineers Local Union 3 are not stupid and are politically sophisticated. —-[b]Rich Rifkin[/b][/quote]The Plumbers and Pipefitters don’t construct these attacks, they hire an operative — usually a local local one. The operative is someone who has experience with campaign pieces. An even a very, very dumb operative would know that you don’t attach you candidate’s name to a hit piece.
My best guess is that the person who was hired was heavily emotionally vested in Davis politics, wanted to see both me and Stephen off the council, and had their own favorites that they wanted on.
They certainly did a disservice to their clients.
I concur with you Rich. I don’t think this came either directly or indirectly from any of the candidates . . . and I too don’t rule out stupid as a prime mover in the creation and mailing of this.
One thing that hasn’t been discussed thus far is the cost to produce and mail such a piece. It sounds like it was a broad mailing (not broad enough to reach El Macero) which translates to substantial cost. In rough numbers, 50 cents apiece for postage and 50 cents apiece for printing adds up in a hurry. Do any of the actual campaigns have that kind of money?
Whoops! My keyboard skipped too many letters rendering above incomprehensible.
So again, the Plumbers and Pipefitters don’t construct these attacks, they hire an operative — usually a local one. The operative is someone who has experience with campaign pieces. And even a very, very dumb operative would know that you don’t attach your candidate’s name to a hit piece.
My best guess is that the person who was hired was heavily emotionally vested in Davis politics, wanted to see both me and Stephen off the council, and had their own favorites that they wanted on.
They certainly did a disservice to their clients.
I was able to confirm that it was James McGowan in that office and he works with Jim Burchill.
CPAs McGowan & Baker. They are CPAs of James Burchill.
I don’t usually chime in on these kinds of things, but I just have to say something.
Don’t let your vote be manipulated. Make your own decisions based on the record of the candidate, information you learn about the candidate from them directly.
If you say “I’m not going to vote for … because of this…” then you are being manipulated.
If you say “I’m going to vote for … because of this…” then you are being manipulated.
Was this ad sponsored by Steve/Sue/Brett/Lucas/Dan/Ruth/Don or whoever else people have thrown into the discussion we may never know, but someone is trying to manipulate votes. Make up your minds on the facts, on the record of the people.
And with that, I’ll step back out of the discussion.
My comment was meant to be a question David. Can you find out if the CPA firm is affiliated with West Yost & Associates?
Thank you, Jim Burchill , for giving Sue a shot at being MAyor again
Gidero did it in 2004 And put Steve Souza in office
Burchill and Steve Souza also did the Souza Blockers during the water referendum got us hundreds of new valid signatures from pissed off Davis voters thank you, Burchill and Souza, for putting us over the top we barely cleared the minimum count Luv you guys!!
[quote]I think we can assume it wouldn’t be Lee or Wolk associated with this silly mailer. Likely it’s someone associated with Ruth A. That points
to Lucas[/quote]
What a load of hogwash. I don’t believe Lucas would have anything to do with this for an instance. I think it is an “anybody but Sue” person, who also doesn’t like Steve Souza. Maybe someone did a poll and found out that their favored candidates weren’t doing well, so they created this mailing piece….OMG! It sounds like Guidaro!
Ryan: It’s Burchill
[quote]Likely it’s someone associated with Ruth A. That points
to Lucas.–[b]Eagle Eye[/b][/quote]This was very hurtful to Ruth, Stephen and myself.
David, of course that begs the question is it Burchill alone or is he using someone else’s money?
Have a message into him, though I believe he ducked my call.
SUE: [i]”The Plumbers and Pipefitters don’t construct these attacks, they hire an operative … even a very, very dumb operative would know that you don’t attach you candidate’s name to a hit piece.”[/i]
DAVID: [i]”I was able to confirm that it was James McGowan in that office and he works with Jim Burchill.”[/i]
SUE: [i]”My best guess is that the person … wanted to see both me and Stephen off the council.”[/i]
If David is right, then Sue’s best guess is wrong.
Jim Burchill and Naomi Burchill (wife?) are listed as supporters of Stephen Souza. See the list here ([url]http://stephensouza.com/endorsements[/url]). Neither Jim nor Naomi Burchill is listed as an endorser of Lucas Frerichs, Dan Wolk* or Brett Lee, and all three of them have long lists of endorsements.
*Someone named Kiyomi Burchill is listed as a Dan Wolk endorser.
Kiyomi Burchill is his daughter and she I believe works either for the Speaker or Steinberg. She was also head of the Sacramento Young Dems at one point.
[i]”Jim Burchill and Naomi Burchill (wife?) are listed as supporters of Stephen Souza.”[/i]
According to the white pages online, Jim and Naomi (Sakai) Burchill reside at the same West Davis address.
Just have to say to David that you are somewhat complicit in this. One of the QR codes on this hit piece goes directly to the YouTube video that YOU posted. You can call it “news” or justify it any way you want, but you played a huge role in taking this incident viral, which did a huge disservice to both Sue and Ruth. As you know, the video was taken completely out of context, and once it’s on YouTube, there’s no stopping it.
It says right on it the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Why not take them at their word. They have the motive and the means. Its an independent expenditure. I think that means the candidates had nothing to do with it.
Now that I’ve gotten it in the mail. It is surely a hit piece and as no fan of Sue for lots of reasons i’ve suggested to those who haven’t seen it that they look at that clip because it is so damaging to her but I didn’t have anything to do with sending it out. Still it is only one piece of the puzzle and if your going to send out a mailer you shouldn’t focus just on that as a reason not to vote for Sue. I would think you should have a few other reasons as well. After 12 years in office certainly her opponents can give you many reasons not to vote for her. I know I can, so, to spend all that money and focus just on this one worst thing is pretty low. Even by the low riveting standards of Mr. Toad who croaks from the darkness of Toad Hollow.
It isn’t the worst I’ve ever seen though. I once got one from Tim Lefever with a big picture of the guy who murdered Polly Klaas on it trying somehow to tie Vic Fazio in. That one was beyond over the top. This one is from a bunch of union guys that see Sue as a problem keeping them from getting a lot of work. They are taking their best shot at her trying to get people to see Sue at her worst. Low, but its not the worst that has ever been in my mail. At least, unlike Lefever’s picture of Richard Allen Davis, they had the decency to fuzz up the photo of Ruth.
“It says right on it the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Why not take them at their word. “
They are part of it, but they didn’t create the brochure themselves. I was able to track down the consultant who did it and that is James Burchill.
@ CrillyButler, David is not responsible for this. Sue & Ruth had a hiostory of bickering back and forth during council meetings. They both share responsibility for unprofessionalism at times. They hold and held public office and have provided us with many examples of how not to act. I have agreed with Ruth on some issues and with Sue on some issues. I am giving Sue my third vote.
Thank you for keeping us informed David. Ignore the apologists.
And, don’t forget to check into possible involvement of the APWU of the AFL-CIO.
“As you know, the video was taken completely out of context,”
Why do you say it was taken out of context Crilly? I would honestly like to know because I was so appalled by it that I have not spoken to Sue since I saw it, what was it 3 years ago? Once in a while Sue tries to talk to me and I might utter a few words as I walk away but that’s it because I have felt that Sue’s rabid inhumanity to Ruth was the behavior of someone that I could no longer associate with in any way. I have always suspected that this was a big weight on Lamar and instrumental in him choosing not to run again, something I found sad because he I think he would have been easily re-elected and I liked him. So please explain to me what am I missing. I would honestly like to know.
Truly shameful.
Sue – I support you and deeply appreciate your fiscally responsible attitude and all your efforts – often having to remain steadfast and focused in spite of your opposition. Without you as a watchdog who knows how worse off we would be? Keep up the good work. Stay focused on fixing this city.
I hope the Pipefitters Union is exposed in the Enterprise over this to discredit all their future messaging.
I think the mailing was inappropriate on all levels. I hope that we find out who mailed it and who was behind it.
I do not believe that personal attacks of this nature benefit anyone or our community.
[i]”I hope the Pipefitters Union is exposed in the Enterprise over this to discredit all their future messaging.”[/i]
The Enterprise has a story on this situation ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/union-campaign-mailer-attacks-greenwald/[/url]).
You can also read my brilliantly sublime, thoughtful, informative, all around awe-inspiring Enterprise column ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/pena-history-will-soon-disappear/[/url]) today online.
Rifkin: are you going to post our link on the Enterprise site?
“Why do you say it was taken out of context Crilly?”
The conflict between Sue and Ruth that night began during the closed session prior to the public board meeting. Sue took a stand on an important issue during the closed session. During the public session, Ruth totally misrepresented Sue’s closed-session position. Since the session was closed (no video and no transcript), there was no way for Sue to dispute this. Sue confronted Ruth about it, asking her why she was lying. Sue could have said this more tactfully, but after enduring a year of this kind of treatment by Ruth, she may have simply had enough.
Ruth’s anxiety attack was not Sue’s fault. Some people are born prone to suffer them (too many neurotransmitter receptors at the post-synaptic cleft) and stress can easily lead to their onset. Ruth suffered them before that night and probably will again. Being a city councilmember or mayor is often stressful.
Rather than jumping to conclusions based on half the story, it seems to me that you owe Sue the courtesy to at least talk with her about this rather than immediately shunning her. Her heroic efforts on the council are for the benefit of all of us, you included.
[i]”Rifkin: are you going to post our link on the Enterprise site?”[/i]
If you want me to, then I will.
Seems fair. Plus we have a picture of the flyer up in case someone hasn’t checked their mailbox yet.
i get all that Crilly but what was it Sue said after Ruth had collapsed “Some people don’t have what it takes to serve.” Please correct me if I’m wrong its been a while and I don’t want to look at the tape again. That line, what ever the exact wording was, is what did it for me Crilly. It was one of those speak ill about the dead before they are buried moments. The incivility put me off completely. it was a Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks moment with Ruth playing Sumner and Sue lost my vote forever.
[i]”Sue could have said this more tactfully, but after enduring a year of [b]this kind of treatment by Ruth[/b], she may have simply had enough.”[/i]
One thing most Davis residents don’t understand is how badly Sue was treated by the Council majority at that time. Among the five on the Council, Sue had the most expertise and knowledge on a variety of topics, including the water project. (Sue was continually debriefing experts at the state and at UCD.) Instead of allowing Sue to serve as one of the Council’s two reps to the Woodland-Davis group, the majority kept her out of the loop. On other committees where Sue was the most informed among the members of the Council, they took away all of Sue’s committee assignments where she cared very much to represent Davis. They only would assign her to committees that no one else wanted.
In a highly partisan body, that is politics. However, with all five people elected at large by the people of Davis, this majoritarian abuse was done at the expense of the people of Davis, not just of Sue. But for last minute interference by Bill Emlen after long pleasings by Sue, the others on the Council never would have been exposed to the fact that the City’s consultant, West-Yost, was giving the City terrible advice on the sewage treatment plant. Sue’s doggedness in pursuing an independent opinion from sewage treatment engineers brought this information forward. It saved the ratepayers of Davis about $100 million.
If you don’t understand that the majority was terribly abusive to Sue and that they abused her in spite of what it cost the rest of us, you cannot understand the tension which underlined that argument between Sue and Ruth.
“It was one of those speak ill about the dead before they are buried moments.”
Having an anxiety attack, Toad, has nothing to do with the dead or dying. You’re doing what others with an agenda have also done–blowing this incident way out of proportion. Not a shining moment in the history of the Davis city council, but not, by far, it’s most ignominious.
If you’re going to judge Sue, why judge her on the 1% and not on the other 99% as well. No one fights harder for YOU and the city you love than Sue.
CORRECTION: “But for last minute interference by Bill Emlen after long [b]pleadings[/b] by Sue …”
[i]” The incivility put me off completely. … Sue lost my vote forever.”[/i]
No one knows who you are, so no one cares who has your vote. However, your views on every issue I can think of (expressed under your pseudonym) have made it clear that you and Sue do not agree on politics, and for that reason you would not support her, regardless of your perceptions about her civility.
Of course you have every right to support or not support any candidates for Council on whatever basis you choose. But I do find it highly ironic that here you are saying your dislike of Sue–going so far as to shun her in public–is due to your belief that she is uncivil, given that in your various comments about Sue over the years have been terribly impolite, especially insofar as you are hiding behind a fake name. I think you need to look in the mirror if you want to dislike someone whose words lack proper civility.
The part that includes Souza may very well simply be a part of the full (perhaps excessive) committee name. We may very well see some positive mail in the future promoting Stephen. I’d have to look at the committee disclosure requirements under the municipal code to see if they are required to go into as much detail as they did.
Forgive my political naivete, but there has been no end of character assasination, demonization, innuendo, guilt by association, false accusations, and speculation regarding nefarious schemes unsupported by the facts these past couple of weeks on the Vanguard. This is true even in this thread. The moment a terribly ineffective, yet true hit piece is distributed, there is no end to the moral outrage. Somebody needs to clue me in on the moral standards we’re operating under.
-Michael Bisch
“If you don’t understand that the majority was terribly abusive to Sue and that they abused her in spite of what it cost the rest of us, you cannot understand the tension which underlined that argument between Sue and Ruth.”
Why do you think that was Rich? Do you think it happened for no reason?
“If you’re going to judge Sue, why judge her on the 1% and not on the other 99% as well.”
But that is the human condition Crilly. Ask any high school teacher. It isn’t the 99 kids who worked hard, did their best and were polite that is in the mind of the teacher at night, its that 1 who was over the top, rude and obnoxious.
Rich, Sue knows exactly who Mr. Toad is, as do lots of others here. From my observation he customarily addresses her directly. Not always, but more often than not. The fact that Sue chooses to ignore him is of course her choice, but it does feed the very criticism he voices about her.
JMHO
Thanks Matt, but I’m a big old Toad. I can accept that as a condition of my desire to use a nom de plume and croak from the darkness of Toad Hollow that I am open to constant ridicule. i can defend myself, but thanks for trying to help me out.
[i]”Why do you think that was Rich? Do you think it happened for no reason?”[/i]
I think they viewed her as too uppity and too brash. They were all being funded by the firefighters and doing the bidding for the firefighters and they were aghast that on that issue and many others she challenged them. When they said they were acting fiscally responsible and they told the public that, despite the huge liabilities they had built up, Sue did not go along with them. She made them uncomfortable by presenting uncomfortable evidence. They responded by treating her badly.
It was more-less the same thing all over again with the water projects. It should come as no shock that today’s attack on Sue is from someone who expects to profit from building an overengineered unionized water works. The majority of the Council when this conflict took place were all very comfortable with the project their donors devised, and they did not want to hear that there was a better alternative. So instead of politely listening to what Sue had to say, they treated her terribly and took away all the committee assignments she had on which she could do some good for Davis.
Again, if this kind of thing happened at the state level–such as when Darrell Steinberg stripped Lois Wolk of her committee assignments after she bucked the firefighters over the first bankruptcy bill–it is to be expected. Men like Steinberg are dirty players. That’s how he got his power. However, it should be different in Davis because all members of the Council serve the same constituency. Only some of them appear to be serving their financial backers ahead of the ordinary residents.
Geez, I called out a whole slew of Vanguardians for hypocritical moral outrage at 7:55pm and an hour and a half later, no response. I’m beginning to wonder whether I’m typing utilizing invisible ink.
-Michael Bisch
Hey, has anyone heard from Michael Bisch lately?
(That, ah say, that’s a joke, son.)
“Hey, has anyone heard from Michael Bisch lately?”
Who?
Maybe the Community Values Forum shouldn’t be focused on the council candidates tomorrow night, and instead focus on Vanguardians. Regardless of one’s stance on candidates or issues, integrity of behavior (by posters on this site) does seem to be lacking a bit.
I don’t think anyone here, whether they are for or against Sue, would say that the mailer wasn’t distasteful. But, speculating that it was this person or that person behind it isn’t upholding moral integrity either IMHO.
It goes farther back than that Rich. At least back to 2004. Remember when Sue won for mayor in 2004 and there was a move by Ted, Steve, Ruth and Don not to seat her as mayor. This was, I think, before the whole firefighter thing, but interestingly played out as payback last year when Sue helped deny Steve a chance to be mayor.
Anyway, when you have a 4-1 majority you can run the show. So there must be something else. Something I have written about extensively, something you smooth over as “brash” but I have described as belligerent. Either way I think we are describing the same thing. In your mind its policy in my mind its personality. But as I described after a recent council meeting. Sue does not come prepared.
For all who say she works hard and knows the issues, she sure seems to wing it by the seat of her pants at council meetings, and, as a result, uses lots of council time flailing about hoping to throw enough mud that she can find something to stick. The last time I was there as she was flailing about you could see from the other members body language that they felt she was wasting their time. On one issue in particular someone else, I forget which council member it was, after several minutes of her droning on almost incoherently, directed her to the language she was after on the page right in front of her. Meanwhile other members were rolling their eyes or their faces were turning red with embarrassment.
As for the idea that Sue was the victim as I recall it was Ruth who went to the hospital and Sue was the one who didn’t have the good sense to stop.
Still it is time to move on, and, if you have been paying close attention to the campaign, as I have been from the bowels of Toad Hollow, it seems that a new era is coming to Davis. It seems that all the candidates want something new. Dan wants housing for young families with kids particularly those who grew up here, Lucas wants innovative in-fill (despite what his detractors have been saying), Brett wants senior housing, Sue wants a business park and Steve wants a water project, something I interpret as him wanting all of these things. I have only used what I have heard from the candidates themselves here not any commenters.
The question for Davis, as in all politics, is how do you build consensus to get anything done. Personally I think whoever the other four members of the council are next term they will get more done for the community if the fifth member is someone who can work with them instead of being a drain on the energy of everyone else in the room.
These of course are not the only issues. This community faces many problems from water and sewer to housing to employee contracts. The days of papering over our problems are gone no matter who wins. The question for me is who can get the job done not who will keep it from getting done.
Rich Rifkin said . . .
[i]”In a highly partisan body, that is politics. However, with all five people elected at large by the people of Davis, this majoritarian abuse was done at the expense of the people of Davis, not just of Sue. But for last minute interference by Bill Emlen after long pleadings by Sue, the others on the Council never would have been exposed to the fact that the City’s consultant, West-Yost, was giving the City terrible advice on the sewage treatment plant. Sue’s doggedness in pursuing an independent opinion from sewage treatment engineers brought this information forward. It saved the ratepayers of Davis about $100 million.”[/i]
Rich, in your comment above you are straying far, far away from the facts. Carollo Engineers was the contractor on the engagement that produced the March 2008 sewer plant design, not West Yost. West Yost was one of four subcontractors identified by Carollo in their contract with the City. The others were EDAW, Fugro West, and Burks Toma Architects. In Staff’s presentation to Council the proportion of the Carollo engagement performed by West Yost was estimated to have been 17% of the engagement.
Carollo’s engagement, as designed by the City under direction from the very City Council you are criticizing, was for a “total solution,” which should contain a robust water reuse capability (estimated at $51-91 million by itself), onsite solar power generation (estimated at $3 million), wetlands improvements (estimated at $5 million) and new Administration/Lab/Operations buildings (estimated at $10 million). Once Carollo’s $207-250 million estimate cam in for such a “total solution” the $69-109 million for all those bells and whistles requested by Council were removed. Carollo produced exactly what they were asked to produce, and Council, very correctly, choked on the price tag. In fairness to Sue, she was instrumental in that price tag choking process.
Rich it is also important to note that the City did not select West Yost for the 2008 WWTP Upgrade design project, they selected Carollo Engineers.
Carollo Engineers selected West Yost to be a subcontractor for specific tasks in the engagement. The July 22, 2008 Staff Report (available in the packet materials link on the City website) from Bob Weir and Kevin Smith to Council contains a copy of the Consultant Agreement. Here are a few selected excerpts from that Agreement.
Page 6 of the pdf file:
[i]Consultant Agreement
Carollo Engineers
Secondary Process Replacement Project CIP No. 8119
This Agreement, made and entered into on this twenty second day of July, 2008, by and between the City of Davis, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and Carollo Engineers, located at 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, California, 94598, hereinafter referred to as “Consultant.”
Witnesseth: Whereas, City desires to retain certain professional design services for Secondary Process Replacement Project, CIP No. 8119; and
Whereas, City desires to engage Consultant to provide these services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services, and Consultant has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.[/i]
Page 13 of the pdf file:
[i]13.Assignment; Subconsultants; Employees
b.Subconsultants; Employees. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of Consultant hereunder. No subconsultant of Consultant will be recognized by City as such; rather, all subconsultants are deemed to be employees of Consultant, and it agrees to be responsible for their performance. Consultant shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees and subconsultants, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or subconsultant of Consultant fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, Consultant shall be discharged immediately from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.[/i]
Page 37 of the pdf file:
[i]Task 8.5 Management of Subconsultants
This is an on-going activity that shall be performed throughout the project. Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues; review/approve work product; integrate work product with the Consultant’s work effort; mitigate design issues that arise between Subconsultant/Consultant/City; control subconsultant budgets and schedules, keep City staff informed of the subconsultant work progress, establish meeting as necessary with subconsultants, coordinate review of deliverables.[/i]
Page 48 of the pdf file:
[i]Lead West Yost Staff
Bruce West Dave Anderson Lindsay Sadler Dave Ewing Scott Heald Gary Rice Mary Young[/i]
Here too it would be interesting to know more . . . specifically did the City actually pay West Yost directly for the work performed by the listed West Yost employees, or did they pay Carollo?
Due to new information that I have received, I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim.
Rich, one final point regarding the WWTP upgrade . . . one of the ironic aspects of the “total solution” components is that Brett Lee and I were asked to give a water presentation at the United Methodist Church on Sunday, and one of the questions we got from the audience was, “What is the City doing to implement the kinds of aggressive water reuse programs that other cities around California and Arizona have already implemented?” Our answer would be very different if the WWTP Upgrade still had water reuse in it.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Due to new information that I have received, I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim.”[/i]
Tell us more Sue.
I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim in today’s mailing. I will no longer be defending the other party.
“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.
“I will no longer be defending the other party.”
Why?
Matt, you don’t understand the wastewater treatment plant issue at all. The cost estimates had been up to $250 million. Then the reuse and solar were taken out, reducing the estimated costs to about $200 million (probably $180 million if you take into account construction cost deflation). Then Tchobanoglous and Schroeder redesigned the plant and got the price estimates down to $80 to $100 million. The $80 to $100 million cost reduction does not involve the removing of the reuse and solar.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, you don’t understand the wastewater treatment plant issue at all. The cost estimates had been up to $250 million. Then the reuse and solar were taken out, reducing the estimated costs to about $200 million (probably $180 million if you take into account construction cost deflation). Then Tchobanoglous and Schroeder redesigned the plant and got the price estimates down to $80 to $100 million. The $80 to $100 million cost reduction does not involve the removing of the reuse and solar.”[/i]
Sue, I understand it perfectly, and my understanding is supported in black and white detail by the City’s wastewater documents that are available on the City website. All one has to do is put the numbers into a spreadsheet category by category and the picture becomes crystal clear.
The documents from Carollo Engineers show an estimate total that ranged from $207 million to $247 million depending on the level of water reuse that was included in the WWTP upgrade “total solution” requested by Council. The estimate for the water reuse capability was the only component of the “total solution” upgrade that had an estimate range, and the documents show that that range was $51-91 million. Therefore when you subtract the $51 million from the $207 million total, you get $156 million (similarly $91 million subtracted from $247 million yields $156 million). Then when you remove remaining bells and whistles requested by Council . . . solar power generation (estimated at $3 million in the documents), wetlands improvements (estimated at $5 million in the documents) and new Administration/Lab/Operations buildings (estimated at $10 million in the documents) the $156 million is further reduced to a baseline plant upgrade estimate of $138 million.
That $138 million baseline was reduced the final $43 million to the May 19, 2010 Brown and Caldwell estimate for the Charette Design of $95 million. You can easily confirm that the Charette Design estimate is not a range of $80-$100 million, but rather a single number of $95 million by simply going Brown and Caldwell’s document that is on the City website.
As you have pointed out above, that last $43 million reduction is a combination of construction cost deflation (because of the effects of the Recession) and the technological changes to the process that came from the Charette team’s design.
The above numbers (easily auditable) confirm that your efforts (to convince your fellow Council members that $207-$247 million was too much to spend on a WWTP “total solution” upgrade) successfully brought the WWTP upgrade cost down to $95 million. I don’t know a single person who is disputing the fact that you were the catalyst that was responsible for that $112-$152 million savings for the City.
What the numbers also show is that there was no gross negligence on the part of Carollo Engineers in coming up with the $207-$247 million estimate range in the first place. Working with Bob Weir and Keith Smith from the City, the Carollo team (which included West Yost as a subcontractor for 17% of the total team effort) produced exactly what the Council asked for . . . the costs to implement a WWTP upgrade that was a “total solution.” Please explain to me why no gross negligence on the part of the Carollo Engineers team is “a bad thing” in your eyes.
“But, speculating that it was this person or that person behind it isn’t upholding moral integrity either IMHO. “
I don’t think you get it, this is not speculation everything here tracks to James Burchill.
Jim McGowan works with Burchill, the PO Box on the return address tracks to a company where Burchill is the President, this is not speculation at all.
Say you are right its these guys, who I assume were paid by the union on the hit piece. Why does it matter? Are you connecting some dot or other or are you saying there is some sort of conspiracy involved? What is so important about these guys? I don’t know them.
You don’t believe it is important to know why they sent the piece?
Sue: I need you to either explain your comment/ accusation or I will have Don Shor pull it.
David: Pulling the comment/accusation would be a very bad idea. Sue has made the statement and now needs to own it.
Sue has floated two different theories that have had the net effect of smearing the campaigns of all four of her competitors. 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. This would be perfectly just if she could have kept her mouth shut about her competitors. Instead she decided to inject herself into the effort to figure out what happened and, as a consequence, has an ethical responsibility to explain herself.
psdavis has a good point David. If Sue’s comment proves to be unfounded, it will probably recycle the issues raised in the Sac Bee endorsement article. So whether her comment is unfounded or not, there is a rather interesting ancillary story in the works.
[u]David[/u]/[u]psdavis[/u]:Sue’s not the only one whose speculating has run rampant in these posts. Now, it looks like one of her posts has been [s]pulled[/s] protected Don.
It must have been a really, really nasty personal attack on someone, the very thing about which we’ve all been complaining, attempting to analyzing and providing her almost universal sympathy.
What did she have to say? Only David and psdavis and Sue can tell us now. At the very least, they need to characterize the post and provide the name of the target (without the details that make it a nasty attack that’ll get pulled).
Don will refuse to discuss what was pulled and why, but (as David requested), but Sue needs to “explain your comment/ accusation….”
If there is a basis for her charge then it will get posted. If not, then I don’t want this board to be the point of unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo or at least more than some would say it already is.
[quote]“You don’t believe it is important to know why they sent the piece?”[/quote]
We know [u]who[/u] sent the piece; it’s listed on the piece. We know [u]why[/u] they sent it: to discredit Sue Greenwald’s candidacy.
There might be a story hiding in here somewhere. At first glance, the tick-tock public investigation and ongoing speculation seems to have generated a lot of heat for little reason.
Let’s see how things look after 24 hours of random speculation/attacks in all directions. Will anything of significance have been unearthed? Will it have been worth the smears it encouraged along the way?
Will there be anything reported that couldn’t have been accomplished better (or, at least, as well) in a quiet way while the “culprits” were being identified?
One thing I think is worth finding out: Was it illegal for the union to have mailed anything before filing with the city? If so, what is the penalty?
[quote]“If there is a basis for her charge then it will get posted. If not, then I don’t want this board to be the point of unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo or at least more than some would say it already is.”[/quote]Very good. Thank you. In the meantime, as some folks like to say: “You don’t believe it is important to know why she posted the (now-secret) charge?”
JustSaying: I do and I will be following up on that as well as other aspects of this story. When there is something that I can reasonably confirm, I will report it.
“Was it illegal for the union to have mailed anything before filing with the city? If so, what is the penalty?”
According to the City Elections code they had to notice all parties and the city clerk within 24 hours. I believe that they followed the law closely enough by faxing it to the city clerk’s office.
JustSaying: I haven’t pulled anything.
To Matt Williams: Thanks for setting the record straight on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade…
Rich and Matt are offering widely differing accounts on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. You’d be doing us Vanguardians a huge service by huddling up, comparing notes, and offering a consensus account of what transpired. David, various candidates, and various bloggers have made this a key campaign issues, and we voters could use some clarity. Indeed, a separate article devoted to this issue would be quite helpful.
-Michael Bisch
mmaxtg said yesterday that “The part that includes Souza may very well simply be a part of the full (perhaps excessive) committee name.”
That is in fact the case. You can see the committee’s info on the Calif. Secretary of State’s site at http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1347329
Once the committee is required to file with the SOS (I’m not sure of the deadlines), then detailed information about persons and organizations contributing to the committee will be accessible at that URL.
Also, other posters here have mentioned disclosure rules for independent expenditures (which is what this was, in spite of Stephen Souza’s name showing up in the committee’s official name). State rules are available at the Calif. Fair Political Practices web site at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/