Deadline Passes with 37 People Applying to CAAC


Yesterday was the extended deadline to apply for the Core Area Advisory Committee (CAAC).  The Vanguard filed a records request with the city and received all 37 applications that were received.

Each councilmember will get two selections from this list of 37.

Here are the 37 names:

  1. Mary Stephens-Dewall
  2. Chris Granger
  3. Brent Hawkins
  4. David Hosley
  5. Sue Barton
  6. Allen Lowry
  7. Darren McCaffrey
  8. Diane McGree
  9. Ashley Muir
  10. Chris Myers
  11. Alex Achimore
  12. Meg Arnold
  13. Rosaria Berliner
  14. Steven Blum
  15. Catherine Brinkley
  16. Joe Burns
  17. Michelle Byars
  18. Maria Cartwright
  19. Judith Corbett
  20. Josh Cunningham
  21. David de la Pena
  22. Sergio Saenz
  23. James Stephens
  24. Deema Tamimi
  25. Steve Tracy
  26. Cynthia True
  27. Georgina Valencia
  28. Randy Yackzan
  29. Chris Neufeld-Erdman
  30. Maria Onorato
  31. Gloria Partida
  32. Denise Peach
  33. Bill Pride
  34. Susan Rainier
  35. David Robert
  36. Eric Roe
  37. Lea Rosenberg

    Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
    Sign up for


About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

18 thoughts on “Deadline Passes with 37 People Applying to CAAC”

  1. Matt Williams

    That is an impressive group of people.  If I were the Council I would rethink the process as it is currently designed.  

    Picking only 10 of those 37 doesn’t send an “inclusive process” message to the community, but rather an “exclusive process” message.  Simply upping the number per Council member from 2 to 3 still leaves more than half of the people excluded.  Perhaps it would be useful to break the process down into focus areas and ask the 37 people to indicate which focus area they most want to participate in.  The resultant focus groups will be blessed with a stronger knowledge base and (hopefully) a more robust recommendation that is brought to an aggregate discussion.

    If there is a concern that the aggregate discussion of the various respective focus group recommendations would be unwieldy with 30+ participants, each focus group could choose two representatives from their group to participate in the “inclusive” aggregate discussion.

      1. Howard P

        “Danger, Danger Will Robinson!”

        Commissioner Robertson expressed concern on the size… I echo it… if many more are added, suspect you will find paralysis…

        Some of the names offered, are, in my opinion, outright toxic… yet would bet they’ll get a seat at the table… others I see as ‘token’… most of the names I do not recognize…

        We’ll have to see…

        All of their meetings, even focus groups, should be open to the public… opportunity for input… and scrutiny… increasing the size of the ‘formal’ group… have serious concerns about an effective process… have little concern of the outcome (if there is one)…

        1. David Greenwald

          “Some of the names offered, are, in my opinion, outright toxic.”

          I would probably argue this point, but that would require specifics and I don’t think that’s appropriate.  So I’m not sure where to go with this.

        2. Howard P

          There is no need to go anywhere… the CC will do what the CC will do…

          Again you pick up on one line, and ignore the rest.

          Do you agree the size of the group be expanded, or not? Do you agree that no matter who is chosen, the discussions/deliberations need to be open to the public, or not?  Do you recognize how the groups deliberations/recommendations are perceived by special interests or the general public based on who directly participates?  Is there a chance, based on the names, that more than one representative will be ‘at the table’ from one of the neighborhood groups (3) that get to pick their own? At least two “votes”?

        3. Matt Williams

          The WAC used a focused subcommittee to conduct an efficient, effective assessment of a specific issue.  The resultant subcommittee report was brought back to the WAC as a whole.

          The Finance and Budget Commission has four currently active subcommittees, and each of those subcommittees reports their month’s activity at each FBC meeting, with suggestions, comments discussion (as well as the opportunity for public comment on each subcommittee report).  Those subcommittees are:

          — Long-Range Forecast of City Needs and Revenues (In-Depth Financial Review) 

          — Information Technology Transformation 

          — Optimization of City Revenues, Assets and Resources 

          — Efficiency, Cost Containment and Fund Balances 

          — Communications

          The result is considerably more work accomplishments in any 30-day period.

        4. Alan Miller

          I would probably argue this point, but that would require specifics and I don’t think that’s appropriate.

          Yeah, pray tell we should have a discussion about who is best to be on a public policy committee and actually mention names.  That just wouldn’t be right.

  2. Cindy Pickett

    Serving on this committee is a significant time commitment, and I thank those who are willing to serve. Just a point of clarification, is it still the case that the new CASP will be a set of guidelines that the City Council can choose to follow or ignore? My worry is that these hard-working folk will devote a lot of effort and time to the project and a new city council that has other ideas will just vote in accordance with their own wishes and values.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      In my interpretation the CASP are going to be guidelines that the council can alter. I still think it is important especially with new state law.

    2. Matt Williams

      Cindy, the 15-member Water Advisory Committee (WAC) understood from the very outset that it was only an “advisory committee” and that the Council could choose to use the advice as they saw fit.  We were all clearly committed to giving the Council the best quality advice that we could.  That was never a problem for any of us individually or collectively.  There were some very heated discussions as a result, but the 15 of us kept our eyes on the mission, and gave our best advice, not once but twice.


      1. Howard P

        Well, my view is that some individuals on WAC were more interested in ‘agendas’ than advice… that said, you and the majority were more focused on ‘the good of the order’ when developing the WAC ‘advice’ (altho’ as a professional, I disagreed with some advice) on the whole, the WAC did a damn good job… thank you for your service…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for