There are lessons that the fledgling Measure I campaign is going to need to learn ironically from the Mitt Romney campaign. There are certainly a number of reasons that Mitt Romney ultimately failed in his bid to unseat President Obama, but while many people look to a variety of issues, an early factor was a barrage of campaign ads in the spring and summer by the Obama campaign that the Romney campaign never adequately responded to.
A November 7, 2012 article in the Washington Examiner cited GOP strategist Frank Luntz who said that he “found himself going back to those months in the spring and summer when Obama inundated Romney with negative ads about Romney’s wealth, or Bain Capital, and Romney didn’t really fight back.”
“Barack Obama was able to define Mitt Romney before Mitt Romney defined Mitt Romney,” Luntz explained. “The people in places like Ohio had decided that Mitt Romney was not a decent guy before they realized that he actually was a decent guy. [The campaign] didn’t respond. These ads crushed them, and they were on week after week with no response from the Romney campaign.”
That is the danger that the Measure I campaign finds itself in today. They have two formidable problems.
First they are not organized as of yet. The water referendum group formed over a year ago to gather signatures to put the September 6, 2011 council approved water rates on the ballot. They have been preparing for this moment, lying back and waiting for their time.
At the same time, Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning gets five columns a week and has a built in audience. While the Measure I campaign gets organized, Mr. Dunning is already framing the debate.
It is difficult to compete with the amount of column inches that Mr. Dunning commands even during the best of times, however, right now there is no one who has the ability to counter his message.
The second problem just compounds the first. By the time the Measure I campaign can get organized it will be the holiday’s, which means it might be a month before we see an organized campaign ready to respond to the barrage of Bob Dunning columns.
Bob Dunning will using Frank Lunz’ words define Measure I and the issues of the campaign before the Measure I campaign can do so.
Just before Thanksgiving the Vanguard met with Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson. At that point they said they wanted a campaign on the merits of the project, not on process.
At that time, I warned them that putting the Prop 218 rate setting process after the ballot was going to be a problem. This week that has become clear as Bob Dunning has parlayed that issue into a suggestion that there was a nefarious effort to keep the voters in the dark.
Writes Bob Dunning, “For obvious reasons, the City Council – which chose the exact wording on the ballot – decided it was better if the general public was kept out of the loop on the actual financial facts and figures. So much for informed consent.”
Mr. Dunning implies nefarious intent here – and perhaps the city deserves that criticism simply because they left it open – but my reading of the meeting and decision-making process is that the council followed legal advice where it should have been receiving political advice from someone, anyone. They left the issue open, and now Mr. Dunning is going to make them pay for it.
And he is going to use his five columns a week as a drumbeat to pound the city on this issue over and over again.
We can see this reemerge in his Friday column, as he uses reader feedback and a way to reiterate his point.
First he cites an individual who writes, “Hey Bob – when we vote on this water deal, will it be a two-thirds vote like the school tax? Will there be a senior exemption?”
Mr. Dunning then responds: “… no and no … interestingly, the school parcel tax, which was mere chump change compared to the $113 million water project, did indeed require two-thirds approval … the water tax/fee/assessment/highway robbery requires only a simple majority … and unlike the school parcel tax, there will be no exemption for seniors, who may wish to cut back on those eight glasses of water a day the doctor recommends …”
He continues citing someone else on the water rate issue itself.
The individual writes: “It’s unbelievable that they’re trying to slip the new water rates past us with a 218 process instead of putting the rates on the ballot with the project up-or-down vote.”
Bob Dunning gets to respond: “…surprises me, too, Jax, since ‘full disclosure’ and ‘open and transparent’ are phrases this council has used from the get-go…now it seems as if the modus operandi is the less information the public has, the better…”
The reader adds, “All this is leading to another referendum because many voters are going to be disillusioned by the rates and the unfairness of the 218 process.”
Mr. Dunning responds: “… don’t know how or why 218 passed, but the provision that you need a ‘majority protest’ to block higher rates is about as undemocratic as you can get … a fair fight requires both ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes, with the one getting the most votes winning … in fairness, the council didn’t create Prop. 218, but nevertheless appears to be using it to its advantage at this point …”
The reader notes: “You would have thought that they learned the first time. Just put the rates on the ballot, and if they aren’t sure of what the rates might be, then hold off until they know. What’s the rush?”
Bob Dunning concludes: “… amen to rushing into $113 million deals with the city of Woodland … to be clear, even if the rates were on the ballot, they couldn’t be approved with a ‘yes’ vote … that would still have to come through a 218 process … but rates on the ballot would at least allow us all to know exactly what we’re voting for … or against …”
Bob Dunning is already painting a picture. The city is the Mitt Romney campaign. They will not be able to respond to these issues for weeks. In the meantime, the election might already be lost before it even begins.
Remember, the ballots go out in February, which means by the time the city and the Measure I campaign can start to respond, they will have just four weeks or so before people start voting.
Can the city recover? Perhaps. But as I note, it’s hard to fight against a columnist who buys his ink by the gallon and is apparently accountable to no one.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From the Bob Dunning Critique Blog:
“Can the city recover? Perhaps. But as I note, it’s hard to fight against a columnist who buys his ink by the gallon and is apparently accountable to no one.”
Who should Mr. Dunning be accountable to? He should write his columns according to what he feels and believes to be right.
David, are you accountable to anyone?
I’ll get into this issue more tomorrow. Mr. Dunning has an editor, and there are fairness guidelines. Is the Enterprise prepared to allow for equal time and column space to the other side of the story? Otherwise the paper becomes a vehicle for the campaign.
I like to think I’m accountable to my readers. When I get things wrong, my readers correct me. When I push too far, my readers push back.
David:
“I like to think I’m accountable to my readers.”
I agree with you there. I’m sure Bob Dunning is also accountable to his readers to a certain degree. They can choose to read or skip his column. There are a couple of weekly columns in the Enterprise that I never read. But that being said, I don’t want the newspaper or the City dictating to Mr. Dunning or other columnists what they can and cannot write.
There is an issue of fairness here that concerns me. I don’t have a great solution to it
“I don’t want the newspaper or the City dictating to Mr. Dunning or other columnists what they can and cannot write.”
Then I think you can relax, and rest assured that there is no evidence whatsoever that the city has ever attempted to tell Mr. Dunning or any other columnist what they can and can’t write.
Medwoman, I think you need to relax, I never said that they did. I was just responding to David saying that Bob Dunning “is apparently accountable to no one”, as he shouldn’t be.
Dunning calls them as he sees them, and he does it fairly.
David: This project was first conceived to supply water for a Davis population of well over 100,000 under the 1988 general plan.
The city has spent millions and millions to push it through.
How can you possibly say the pro-campaign is getting off to a late start??
That’s the project portion of the equation. What evidence do you see of n actual campaign? Here’s an interesting test, Dunning fired the first volleys this week, lets count how many days before we see a campaign response?
David: the project proponents are saddled with bad facts and law. Oh, and a big budget. We’re the little guys up against a huge operation. We shall see how it turns out
The spirit of the 2011 surface water rate referendum is being violated. The rates are still not on the ballot
“
Dunning calls them as he sees them, and he does it fairly.”
Complete agreement with the first assertion. Significant disagreement with the second.
“Keeping the unwashed masses in the dark”. Most of the unwashed masses had he ability to attend WAC and or CC meetings, watch them on TV or read the minutes. This is hardly a debate conducted behind closed doors or a deal being brokered in smoke filled rooms between parties hoping to obscure their own financial benefit. Although you would not be able to discern this from reading only Dunning’s “fair” representation.
The question is not does Dunning have the right to say whatever he wants in his own column, just as does David on his own blog. Of course he does, and no one is attempting to muzzle him. But let’s not pretend that there is not bias where it clearly exists.
“We’re the little guys up against a huge operation.”
Whether you are or not, Davis is still small enough for the little guys to win – especially if the debate gets framed before the campaign starts. Right now you have a tactical advantage.
“Keeping the unwashed masses in the dark”.
I would think that not putting the actual rates on the ballot is “keeping the unwashed masses in the dark”.
“Mr. Dunning implies nefarious intent here..”
“nefarious” is a loaded and hyperbolic description of what is going on. Having been involved in citizen-initiated political actions for near two decades now, it has ALWAYS been the case that the city staff and Council , while mouthing platitudes, allow citizens to make decisions by referendum only when they have their political “backs against the wall”. The Council majority and city staff have NO interest in or commitment to populist principles but rather attempt to control the information(and misinformation) available for the voter’s consideration.
[i]The Council majority [/i]
I think it’s time to retire this term, since the ‘majority’ on this issue is unanimous.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”The spirit of the 2011 surface water rate referendum is being violated. The rates are still not on the ballot.”[/i]
Michael you bring up a really good point that illuminates an interesting provision of the California Elections Code that applies to all elections. Section 9051(b) states “The ballot label shall contain no more than 75 words …” I’m as close to water rates as any person in Davis at this point in time, and I can’t imagine how Bob Dunning or anyone can craft a 75 word Ballot Measure text that would include any meaningful information about the rates.
Do you see any solution to that incredibly austere limitation?
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”I would think that not putting the actual rates on the ballot is ‘keeping the unwashed masses in the dark’.”[/i]
rusty, can you take a stab at some text that might bring us out of the dark in 75 words or less?
Yes Matt, I’m glad that you asked. One way might be by having the actual percentage that rates will go up and not the convoluted way they tried to push the hidden conservation rates last time.
Just a simple addition to the language, for example:
“Average user rates will go up 250% by 2018 if approved”
There you go, 11 words and numbers and it gives voters and idea of what they’re in for.
If that doesn’t work then get the actual rate charts finished so that they can be posted in the ballot supplement.
Or better yet, as an ex.:
“Average single family water bill will go from $40 to $137/month by 2018”
It is questionable whether that would suffice. But it probably does not have to be. You simply put the rates in the ordinance referred in the ballot language.
Davisite2
“Having been involved in citizen-initiated political actions for near two decades now, it has ALWAYS been the case that the city staff and Council , while mouthing platitudes, allow citizens to make decisions by referendum only when they have their political “backs against the wall”. The Council majority and city staff have NO interest in or commitment to populist principles but rather attempt to control the information(and misinformation) available for the voter’s consideration.”
I think that you just made an excellent case for the word “nefarious” being aptly chosen here. Your claim seems to be that all council members
Will choose to to hide things or misrepresent things to the public when their political “backs are against the wall”. Do you really believe that all our past and present council members have had exactly the same dedication to furthering their own political careers even at the expense of the well, being of the citizens of Davis ! Really ! You see the motivations and actions of as disparate players as Mike Harrington, Don Saylor, Sue Greenwald, Lamar Hayesteck, the Wolks, Joe Krovoza and Brett Lee as being identical in attempts to deceive the public. To the word “nefarious” with regard to this description of the council, I would add the word paranoid to your representation of your experience.
Matt: just put the rates in the ordinance
DMG: [i]A November 7, 2012 article in the Washington Examiner cited GOP strategist Frank Luntz who said that he “found himself going back to those months in the spring and summer when Obama inundated Romney with negative ads about Romney’s wealth, or Bain Capital, and Romney didn’t really fight back.”[/i]
In the analysis of the 2004 presidential campaign, a similar thing happened to John Kerry. He got “swift-boated” at a time when he didn’t have the resources to fight back.
Matt Williams has been very effective in presenting responses to Dunning. If Williams is up for writing regular responses, I’m sure the Enterprise would oblige. To do so adds credibility for the paper as a local forum for public discussion, regardless of which way their editorial board chooses to go.
I don’t see the pro-I side as helpless in this. Every city council member signed on to the yes argument. Each of them is politically savvy and has resources and connections to put substantial political capital on the line. After all, how did they get elected? Question is how much will they get behind their cause.
Harrington: [i]Dunning calls them as he sees them, and he does it fairly.[/i]
As long as you two are in agreement?
“Each of them is politically savvy and has resources and connections to put substantial political capital on the line. After all, how did they get elected? Question is how much will they get behind their cause.”
What are the rules in regard to council members campaigning for a ballot measure?
Same rules as apply to you or me
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: just put the rates in the ordinance”[/i]
Mike, I don’t have any problem with that. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Ordinance isn’t enacted by Council until after the election is complete.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Yes Matt, I’m glad that you asked. One way might be by having the actual percentage that rates will go up and not the convoluted way they tried to push the hidden conservation rates last time.
Just a simple addition to the language, for example:
“Average user rates will go up 250% by 2018 if approved”
There you go, 11 words and numbers and it gives voters and idea of what they’re in for.
If that doesn’t work then get the actual rate charts finished so that they can be posted in the ballot supplement.”[/i]
rusty, given that the average for 16,433 water accounts means that 8,216 will be above the average and 8,216 will be below the average, how is reporting the average on the ballot anything other than misleading? Further, since there currently in Davis are 19 different water classes, your 11 words and numbers ballon to 209 words, which far exceeds the 75 word limit. How do you propose rectifying that.
Further, your 11 words don’t deal in any way with the project itself, only the rates of a single class. How many words do you think it will take to cover the project issues?
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”If that doesn’t work then get the actual rate charts finished so that they can be posted in the ballot supplement.”[/i]
When you say the ballot supplement what are you referring to?
rusty49 said . . .
[i]Or better yet, as an ex.:
“Average single family water bill will go from $40 to $137/month by 2018″[/i]
Why only Single Family Residence customers? Don’t apartment dwellers deserve Dunning’s protection?
Growth issue said . . .
[i]”It is questionable whether that would suffice. But it probably does not have to be. You simply put the rates in the ordinance referred in the ballot language.”[/i]
Sounds like a plan.
wdf1 said . . .
[i]Matt Williams has been very effective in presenting responses to Dunning. If Williams is up for writing regular responses, I’m sure the Enterprise would oblige. To do so adds credibility for the paper as a local forum for public discussion, regardless of which way their editorial board chooses to go.[/i]
It is interesting that you suggest that. On November 20th I sent Debbie Davis the following suggestion in an e-mail.
[i]”Debbie, I just went to the online version of the Enterprise and saw Bob Dunning’s column for today. Its content didn’t surprise me because Bob and I are in the midst of a 100 e-mail flurry on this very topic since Friday. With that said, I believe that in the days and weeks leading up to the March ballot there is a substantial Bully Pulpit opportunity that it would be a good idea to address.
Bob’s opinions on the subject of water are just that, opinions. I respect those opinions, even honor them, but I don’t always agree with them. What that poses is an opportunity for the Enterprise to expand Bob’s opinion sharing from a once a day event to a twice a day event. All his wonderful and witty expostulations on non-water issues and events would go in his regular column, while his water feelings would go in a Brooks and Shields or Buckley and Vidal style point-counterpoint covering the water issues/thoughts of the day.
Sometimes the initial thoughts would come from the point and sometimes from the counterpoint. It could be a very informative, lively and reader increasing addition to the Enterprise between now and March.”[/i]
Debbie’s response was:
[i]”Hi Matt:
I’m very intrigued by this idea. Let me chat with Bob about it and we’ll get back to you. In the meantime, would you be interested in my publishing this submission as an op-ed piece this week, since it’s timely?”[/i]
followed the next day by this follow-up e-mail.
[i]”He wasn’t a big fan of the idea, basically saying that he doesn’t like to be pigeon-holed into taking a “counter” position, just to be counter. “I am really open-minded about this as we work through the process. The council may yet come up with something on rates that I think is workable,” he wrote me.
“Plus, the ballot language is already set. Not much to debate there. I may well write a column or two about the wisdom of the project, but I don’t see it as being anywhere near as regular as Matt does, unless something strange happens.
“The same for the rate structure. Within the next couple of weeks, the city will have a firm rate structure in place with real numbers that will be sent out as part of Prop. 218 noticing. At that point, there’s not much to debate. Some commentary, for sure, but again, probably not a lot.”
So, I’ll abandon the point-counterpoint idea, but I welcome submission of opinion pieces of all types. I have lots of space to devote to local opinion — columns and letters — so let’s fill it!
(Starting with Sunday, when I’ll publish your response to Bob’s recent column.)
Happy Thanksgiving,
Debbie”[/i]
I believe like you that this kind of back and forth dialogue would be good for the community. It is a shame that Bob wasn’t a fan.