Sunday marked a successful fundraiser for the Vanguard. As it turned out, several councilmembers spoke at the event, however, only Brett Lee talked about city issues, as he spoke about a new homeless initiative. In the meantime, Dan Carson spoke on the state of journalism and Lucas Frerichs, arriving later after both Mayor Lee and Councilmember Carson left, also spoke about journalism and the need for the court watch program.
Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida was running Davis Pride Day in the rain and arrived at the end of the event, but did not speak.
Mayor Lee said that he appreciated the work of the Vanguard, “Because there’s more transparency. There’s more information about what’s going on in our community. The greater transparency, the better.”
He described the early morning rain and hail on Sunday morning and noted the people living in “flimsy tents” on the edges of Davis. “While I was home and dry,” he said. “they’re getting rained on.”
And while it stopped raining, “they’re living in mud, in (these) crummy $30 broken down tents.
“Anyone who has been out in the weather, you know that your miserable. There’s not a place where they can go and warm up,” he said. “There aren’t the facilities to allow someone to take a hot 
shower or put on a clean pair of clothes.”
Mayor Lee said that he is supporting the idea of a respite center.
He said, “The idea behind the respite center is that it will be a place where people can go out of the weather…” He said, “We can do this very inexpensively.”
He said that the council has given the city the go ahead to look into using city facilities for this type of program with a budget of up to $80,000.
“The idea behind the respite center is that it’s meant to be a pilot,” he said. “We want to pilot this to show that it can be done, it can be done inexpensively, and also meet the needs of a reasonable portion of people who are currently homeless.”
Dan Carson talked about the state of journalism in Davis. He noted that he had a background in journalism working at the Capitol for a number of years. He went down to San Diego for the Union, covering state and local government for 15 years.
“Here we are and I feel I need to fight here today for an endangered species,” he said. “Competitive community journalism. Fewer and fewer towns like are have any newspaper at all. Even more rare, the situations where there’s competitive news outlets that give you news and insight about your community.”
He said, “I have to be honest. I worry… in this current environment whether any of them will even survive a few years from now.”
He noted that the Bee supplies very little local coverage of Davis anymore, their great coverage of Natalie Corona notwithstanding.
Councilmember Carson also said that when she retired, Debbie Davis invited them all to talk about the decline of the readership of the Enterprise and “how their readership has been hemorrhaging over the years. She mentioned that their paper was down to four full time reporters.”
He noted, “The Vanguard, I really appreciate what you do. But an organization that’s supported through charitable donations is always in a world where you’re living by the skin of your teeth.”
He said, “If you ever step in front of a bus, David, I don’t know what happens.” He added, “You’ve made a huge personal sacrifice to crank out pieces day after day. And provide a sometimes irritating but otherwise necessary alternative viewpoint for the issues of the day in the city. We would be much worse off if you did not provide the wall to wall coverage you do of criminal justice issues and land use debates.
“You generously open your pages to anybody with opposing views,” he said. “But I have to be concerned that that’s all somewhat imperiled down the line.”
Later Councilmember Lucas Frerichs also spoke on the state of journalism.
“I’ve had ups and downs with local media including the Vanguard,” Councilmember Frerichs stated. “I make my decision how I make them. Sometimes the coverage is favorable. Sometimes its not.”
“I think it’s so important to be supportive of local journalism especially in this day and age when journalism and media is totally under attack in this country and recently so,” he said.
Councilmember Frerichs illustrated the decline of the local news coverage. He said that, even five years ago, the Davis Enterprise was still publishing five days a week, now it’s publishing three days a week.
“It’s continuing to shrink in size,” he said. “That’s unfortunate. It’s happening not only in Davis, it’s happening all over this country.”
He said that his wife, Stacie, is the executive director for the Davis Arts Center. They send out their catalogs quarterly. When she started four years ago, they were sending out 10,000 catalogs.
“Just this spring, they’re now sending out 7000,” he said. “This is real and it’s happening in our community – the loss of media and so the importance is so exceptionally important.”
He noted that so many philanthropic foundations are now stepping up to help fund community media. Warren Buffett is buying is community newspapers “because he believes that that’s such an important part of what makes up a community.”
Councilmember Frerichs spoke about Vanguard Court Watch. He noted that back in 2012 when he was first running for council, in April, he was called for jury duty.
“I served on a trial for a week,” he said. “It was a third strike case. The result was we found the gentleman not guilty.”
He said, “I was so appalled by the DA’s going after a harsher sentence than was warranted in this case – the entire jury felt the same way. It was such an eye-opening experience.”
He said that was just one week, but there are people who deal with this day in and day out.
Dean Johansson, who was in the audience, noted that the Vanguard is the only publication that is watching the courts.
“I appreciate and sometimes agree, sometimes disagree with some of the stances in terms of the city issues,” Lucas Frerichs. “But I am so appreciative of the work that the Vanguard does covering the courts. That’s a whole aspect of American society that needs a magnifying glass placed upon it.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Did anyone ask why they are spending $170K per year on a [edited] if there is such need in the homeless community? They could have hired 2 new homeless coordinators and still had enough left over for really nice tents.
I replied. referring to a word that has now been “edited”. My reply was deleted.
for what?
A communications director.
My preference would be for about half of that salary to be dedicated to paying for further outreach to homeless individuals, assessing their needs and helping coordinate their access to services. I’m not an expert on the management structure of the City of Davis, but I would think the communications director could perhaps be a half-time job.
Given all the complaints from various sectors of our little town about not being noticed on street projects, pickle ball courts, etc., I’d say the city badly needs someone to communicate more effectively with the citizenry.
“communications manager” The silence from the city on why they are spending that much on a new junior hire is deafening. Has any resident ever gotten in front of the city council and aid that our biggest need was a new make-work position? And what a coincidence they found a friend to fill that critical need…
Maybe the City will have their new communications manager get back to you on that.
No, my windows are still intact
“City Hires Barbara Archer as Communications and Customer Service Manager”
https://cityofdavis.org/Home/Components/News/News/5457/
She reports to: Diane Parro, Business and Community Engagement Director
David promoted her to Director in his Vanguard article but that was not justified by the press release. It’s likely somewhat of an inside joke at city hall as she is one of the most inarticulate people I have met and her stint at DJU was hallmarked by complete lack of communication and/or transparency.
BTW we could easily buy another “claw” with that money
JH, tell us how you really feel . . . 😉
The guy has a vendetta against the person they hired. City needs to improve their communications. That costs money unfortunately.
Given how proud the CC is about the hire and how extensively they like to brag about it, likely you are right.
“I’d say the city badly needs someone to communicate more effectively with the citizenry”
Maybe they can find a way to say “sorry we can’t do that project, we spent all out money on new employees to tell you ‘sorry we can’t do that project, we spent all out money on new employees'”
And
“Our pension hole seems to be getting deeper so we need to communicate about the new parcel tax”
??? the spending item that shall not be known? WTF? Are we supposed to guess?
Maybe you should get up earlier. That way you can read the unedited version.
😉 ROTFL 😉
Did the Brown Act Police raid the meeting as predicted by the entity the name of which shall not be uttered?
It’s good to hear a concrete proposal like this and the rather pragmatic way they’re going about it.
I think a few months ago there was an article on IWRS and UC Davis Hope doing a gofundme on providing shower for homeless people (which they have been doing). They cited the cost was $500 per quarter, last time I checked their goal has not been met. Is the city allowed to donate/fund the rest so that these volunteers can do what they want before the city gets a new center?
https://www.gofundme.com/irws-showers-program
Greenwald said “and Lucas Frerichs arriving later after both Mayor Lee and Councilmember Carson left…”
Not true, Frerichs arrived while both Lee and Carson were there. Carson was speaking for at least 5 minutes after Frerichs’ arrival (while Lee was still there too).
Greenwald has taken great pains to not describe the event accurately. There was a quorum of three City Council members there at the same time.
Which, in and of itself, is no violation of the Brown Act.
And, even in a distorted view of the Brown Act, that would be not on the “host”,,, it would be on the CC members.
There is no “here”, here… no harm, no foul… not even a technical foul…
BM: nor did I say that there was for certain a Brown Act violation. There might have been one, however, depending on what was discussed. The this article does not describe things accurately.
The larger context is that the whole nature of the event was changed because of the Brown Act issues that I and others raised. There was no longer a Q & A with with 4 council members.
Innuendo. You were there. Was there a Brown Act violation?
Then why was the term “quorum” used? Only applied to business of a body, as far as I’ve heard… your term, not mine. Sure ‘sniffed’ of an accusation of impropriety/violation… nice spin tho’…
“There might have been one, however, depending on what was discussed. The this article does not describe things accurately.”
Notice he admits he doesn’t know what was discussed, yet he brings up quorum implying something and he says it does not describe things accurately except he doesn’t really know.
Something like that, Craig…
“BM: nor did I say that there was for certain a Brown Act violation. There might have been one, however, depending on what was discussed. The this article does not describe things accurately.
The larger context is that the whole nature of the event was changed because of the Brown Act issues that I and others raised. There was no longer a Q & A with with 4 council members.”
How quickly garden variety trolling may cross the line to malicious rumor mongering and qualify one for that old English epithet that rhymes with punt.
Surely David is an irresponsible publisher and wont to publish poorly reasoned and constructed editorials. His own obsession with campaign financing makes your charges both karmically appropriate and hilarious.
bunt?
One wonders why the Vanguard mischaracterized the number of Council members present at the same time if it does not matter…
Probably, exactly one.
Yeah there’s no innuendo there by Rik
Don Shor stated “Innuendo. You were there. Was there a Brown Act violation?”
I know that there were 3 council members all in the room together. That is contrary to what Greenwald reported. A Brown Act violation would depend on what they said and what they heard. I couldn’t hear very well myself and didn’t hear everything that was said, but I was much farther away than the council members were.
So you have zero evidence of a Brown Act violation.
Alan… am also thinking “runt”, or “grunt” (as a dismissive reaction)…
Don Shor: it really depends on what was being discussed and heard. If you provide the transcript I’ll let you know my opinion.
Until then, what is your explanation for Greenwald misrepresenting the presence of three council members (a quorum) at once?
There’s no need to “provide the transcript” of conversations in a room full of people where city council members happened to be present in full view of the audience. You are the one making the insinuation, casting the innuendo, and now doubling down on it. You have no evidence of any Brown Act violation whatsoever. I have confidence that Brett, Lucas, Dan and Gloria are aware of the Brown Act and how to properly avoid violating it when they appear together at events, as they do quite regularly.
Your innuendo has no evidence. You have no proof. Yet you keep making it.
I couldn’t care less how he described it. There is no Brown Act violation by their attendance.
Don: it’s clear that Greenwald mischaracterized the attendance of three Council members simultaneously for the purpose of claiming there were no possible Brown Act violations.
As to the question of whether there were violations, it all depends on what was said and heard by the council members. As the League of California Cities guidance states, it’s a “fine line” in these types of situations.
Rik…
Did DG “take great pains” to be ‘inaccurate’? Goes to intent… documentation, or just… ?
Are you accurate in your “aspersions”? Goes to intent.
Whatever… by your own words, there is little truth within you as far as I can ‘ken’, at least on this topic… and if someone is dishonest/dissembling in small things (I believe this topic meets that test), can they be considered honest in other matters? Mais non… certainment pas… tu est…
The key word in that sentence being irritating.
The few times The Vanguard is not “irritating” commentators can be relied upon to pick up the slack.
I resemble that remark.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/dunning/bob-dunning-these-standards-exist-for-a-reason/
Ron O.: It really is simple. Yet so difficult for some to grasp!
Yes… the “simple” … and their arguments… the Brown act is basically simple, but the “simple” find it ‘hard to grasp’ (another poster, and I agree the law is simple/straightforward)! But I’m a newbie as to Brown Act… only needed to understand its words and legislative intent for ~ 40 years…
Evidence by their own words… ‘hoisted by their own pitards’… as it were…
BM: You have no comment on the ethics of elected officials fundraising for purported news organizations that cover them? Or for news organizations that solicit money from government officials?
It’s a simple question.
Actually two different, and only tangentially related, ‘simple questions’…
Were they “fundraising” (goes to purpose/intent), or buying tickets (suggested donation, pretty nominal) to an event and allowing their names to be used, indicating that they planned to attend?
Was a ‘news organization’ “soliciting” (goes to intent) government officials for money, or letting the officials know that it was having a fundraiser, inviting them, and calling anyone who bought tickets, and having any name recognition, “sponsors”? And a follow up to that would be, did the public officials contribute significant sums of money above and beyond the suggested nominal contribution?
I still see “no harm, no foul”.
BM: I tried to keep it simple and let you answer either of the two questions, but you declined and are still not addressing the issues.
Let’s look at how the Vanguard attempted to “sell” the event before I and others started raising questions.
In the first iteration of the event posting it was titled: “Davis Fundraiser: Meet Mayor Brett Lee” and included a photo of the mayor. The event description stated that the Mayor “will speak….and then take questions.” Subsequently, the event was changed to include four City Councilmembers but the language remained almost identical: “The Vanguard Fundraiser will feature: Davis Mayor Brett Lee, Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida and Councilmembers Lucas Frerichs and Dan Carson, who will speak….and then take questions.”
Because a photo of the entire City Council was used to advertise the event and the event description was all about the City Council’s attendance and participation, it seems very clear that the City Council presenting statements as Council members and conducting a question-and-answer session is central to the purpose of the event.
Note that the Q&A was removed because of the Brown Act concerns. It is also unclear what Council members agreed to do in the first place. Mayor Brett Lee stated:
“I think David did not accurately describe what I agreed to…. I have asked him to update what he posted about the event to more accurately describe the event.”
Rik, your 7:50 post…
Based on what you post, you should consider filing a complaint… not on the VG, or the Davisite, or any other social media, where nothing can be done except to smear folk, vent…but someone/some entity who can investigate and make a determination…
Suggest, for the record, @ a CC meeting, including the remedy you seek…
FPPC: to assist,
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/file-a-complaint.html
IRS: to assist,
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-general-issues-complaints-about-activities-of-exempt-organizations
Yolo County DA?
Fish, cut bait, or have another bottle of whine… you’re not accomplishing anything, as it exists…
And earlier, I did answer and address your questions… you didn’t like the answer…
K
BM: you mischaracterized what the League of CA Cities says about Brown Act violations.
BM: you forgot to provide a link to the complaint form for the CA Attorney General’s office for CA Nonprofit Integrity Act violations. There are some interesting provisions regarding what nonprofits cannot do in regards to fundraising events. You should have a look!
P.S. it is possible to both file complaints and discuss ethically problematic behavior in a public forum.
I’m wondering if there was adequate public notice of the meeting? My understanding is that, and I am not a lawyer, if the public was told in advance that they would be there then they are compliant. With both the Vanguard publishing that the CC members would attend and the Enterprise writing about the fundraiser and the CC members being there it seems the public was notified. Still there might be a legal requirement for the city to publish a notice to make sure they are compliant should anything be discussed that would be considered a Brown Act issue.
https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Open-Government/Open-Public-2016.aspx
There is a world of difference between a meeting of officials of a public body, intended to discuss the business of such body, and an event organized to be open to the public, that officials of a public body happen to attend. It is incumbent on the officials attending such an event to not take the opportunity to discuss specific matters likely to come before them. Generally, to avoid any question of propriety, public officials, attending such an event avoid congregating together, and definitely not discuss “business”.
If one cannot understand the differences, after reading the link I provided, or many other guides readily available, well, …
Let’s see what the League of CA Cities guidance says:
“The Brown Act permits a majority of a legislative body to attend and speak at an open and publicized meeting conducted by another organization. The Brown Act may nevertheless be violated if a majority discusses, deliberates, or takes action on an item during the meeting of the other organization. There is a fine line between what is permitted and what is not; hence, members should exercise caution when participating in these types of events.”
“The board member may have violated the Brown Act by HEARING about the positions of other board members…”
“…a luncheon gathering in a crowded dining room violates the Brown Act if the public does not have an opportunity to attend, HEAR, or participate in the deliberations of members.”
And there’s this too:
“As the Attorney General explains: “This definition makes it clear that the body need not take any action in order for a gathering to be defined as a meeting. A gathering is a meeting if a majority of the members of the body MERELY RECEIVE INFORMATION or discuss their views on an issue….A meeting does not have to be formally announced, agendized, or convened in order to be subject to the Act.” “<https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/open-meetings-3/facs-brown-act-primer/brown-act-primer-what-is-a-meeting-2/>
Which is not inconsistent with what I have posted on this topic… you infer things, unsupported, to push for a negative judgement of folk… pure and simple… whatever…
Your capitalized phrase, which was NOT CAPITALIZED in the source, speaks volumes… you appear to be on a quest, and appear to use any iota/scintilla of weak evidence, to prove your point, inarticulately made…
Please consider, stop the innuendo, the cute ‘leading questions’, please… if there has been wrong-doing, say it plain and clear, file a formal complaint, whatever… but be prepared to back it up… it is difficult to find libel or slander when the offender is using ‘passive-aggressive’ tactics… and those who use those tactics know it well…
BM: I capitalized the phrase to point out that your statement about “world of difference” completely mischaracterizes actual Brown Act guidance. It’s a “fine line” and even “merely receiving information” can meet the threshold for a “meeting .”
BM: it’s too bad that the League of California Cities materials that you cited don’t say what you said they did. And it’s a shame that the Attorney General disagrees with you.
So, if at least one council-member sticks their fingers in their ears and yells “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!, LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!” within five seconds, is it still a meeting?