Bob Dunning’s column this weekend lights into Matt Rexroad. It’s not that we necessarily blame him for this, but the problem is his analysis is incomplete and seems to assume this is about a paycheck. It may well be for Matt Rexroad, the problem is that the analysis is incomplete precisely since it stops with Mr. Rexroad.
Bob Dunning writes: “Now that born-again voting rights advocate Matt Rexroad has bullied, threatened, intimidated and ultimately conned the Davis City Council into switching to district elections, I guess we’re all just supposed to grin and bear it.”
He continues: “After all, the decision has been made and it was unanimous, though not a single councilmember seemed happy about bowing to Rexroad’s demands.”
The problem, however, is here: “Still, just to be sure I was clear on exactly why our council succumbed to the pressure, I went back and read Rexroad’s almost comical ‘Notice of Violation of California Voting Rights Act’ letter to the council that started this ball rolling early last month.”
The problem, of course, is that the reason the council succumbed to the pressure is that the cost of fighting it is prohibitive for the council when the threshold for establishing RPV (racially polarized voting) is extremely low and no one has prevailed – even cities with deep pockets like Santa Monica which spent millions fighting it.
But my main problem with Mr. Dunning’s article is that he assumes Mr. Rexroad is the one behind this, rather than being the messenger. Even without the identity of those behind it, that’s a problematic suggestion.
He assumes this is about money for Mr. Rexroad, writing, “The California Voting Rights Act is a cash cow for attorneys who successfully bring suit.”
He concludes: “Then again, these tactics clearly work. Rexroad is the winner here. The only winner.”
But wait a second, Matt Rexroad is the attorney, not the plaintiff here. Maybe Mr. Rexroad’s motivation is the $30,000 payoff he gets for representing his clients, but, then again, maybe that is simply an added bonus.
This is why I think it was important for us ten days ago to report on just who was behind the lawsuit. I was disappointed that none of the folks I contacted responded to my inquiry. Mr. Rexroad simply indicated that his clients were not comfortable coming forward in this environment – but never disputed that JB Martinez and Karan Brar were, in fact, the plaintiffs here.
Former ASUCD President Michael Gofman, who sits on the College Republicans Board, wrote a letter to council – he read my Facebook message sent on August 16 but never responded.
I emailed the two young men clearly behind the suit and never received a response.
There was never a correction. And, really, the evidence was overwhelming.
Mr. Martinez and Mr. Brar were photographed at the council meeting. According to a well-placed source, they were highly engaged during the staff presentation taking notes and photos of the slides.
In addition, another College Republican Board member, Jenna DiCarlo, the Communications Director of the College Republicans, wrote a letter to the editor. And leading up to the meeting three College Republicans: Janel Magee, Ryan Gardiner, and the aforementioned Michael Gofman wrote emails to council.
Mr. Dunning may or may not be right to insinuate that Matt Rexroad’s motivation is monetary, but the problem is, the College Republicans get no cash reward for their efforts. The $30,000 is simply attorney fees and would in fact, according to my sources, be illegal for Mr. Rexroad to share with his clients.
I highly doubt that six College Republicans (at least) set out to initiate a lawsuit against the city of Davis in order to line the pockets of Mr. Rexroad.
But by cutting off the criticism and analysis at Mr. Rexroad, we are missing a big piece of this picture. I get it – they don’t want to talk. It is a corny excuse that they are fearful to come forward in this environment. There is no environment. Very few people came to the council meeting. Those who did were largely “usual suspects” and those who spoke were very analytical.
This community is not raging with pitchforks ready to tar and feather these young men. On the contrary, though a number of notable people privately emailed me thanking the Vanguard for our work and agreeing with our analysis, there was no outcry of anger directed against any of these students.
My concern here with Mr. Dunning’s column is that, first of all, it falsely insinuates money as the prime mover here, when clearly the College Republican involvement notes there is something else, another angle here that is being missed by assuming that Mr. Rexroad is the mover rather than the messenger.
Second, Mr. Dunning continues to downplay the dilemma that the city faced.
He pointed out Mayor Brett Lee’s comments: “Personally, I found the demand letter fairly offensive and I don’t think it was really coming from a place of sincere desire to improve governance of Davis or improve the representation of traditionally underrepresented groups in Davis.”
He could have pointed out Dan Carson’s comments as well: “I think it’s inappropriate for a former city councilmember and County Supervisor who resides in Woodland, who after he retires from public office, turns around and hits the city with a demand letter that says, if you don’t do what I say right away, I’m going to take away millions of hard-earned tax dollars that belong to your city. That’s really wrong.”
The bottom line – all five councilmembers had problems with this process. I join them. But none of them voted to do anything other than suck it up and make the best of it. There is a reason for that – and for reasons I don’t really understand, Mr. Dunning continues to deny that.
But we have only scratched the surface here – we don’t know the full extent of the game and that bothers me because we are not playing with our own deck.
We need to look past the lawyer here to the clients to see the game for what it is – whatever that may be. The problem is, Mr. Rexroad isn’t the only winner here and we don’t know why.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Why Are Davis College Republicans Behind the CVRA Suit? They Aren’t Talking
embed for Vanguard:
Rexroad is only a “winner” if he currently has a shortage of clients in his practice, and therefore available billable hours that would be lost without this client. If that isn’t the case, then all he is doing is squeezing in incremental/additional work (billable by the hour) into an already full work schedule.
Rexroad isn’t getting paid for doing nothing. He is getting paid for actual legal work performed on a time and materials basis. To the best of my knowledge, the $30,000 is a cap not a guarantee. If there is not actual legal work for Rexroad to devote time to, then the actual bill the City will have to pay will be less than $30,000.
If there is a villain in this drama, it is not Matt Rexroad, it is the legislators who passed the CVRA and Governor Gray Davis who signed it.
Matt… if more than two hours of the attorney’s time, 2 hours of a paralegal, and one hour of an Admin Asst is charged, think “padding” (would be interesting to see an itemized bill for services rendered, and I hope the City demands that prior to any payment)… it sure looks like a form letter, with some local nuances added… would be interesting to compare with similar ones delivered to other public agencies…
Will not ‘hold my breath’ expecting that the public will ever see the detailed invoice… assuming it is demanded by the City…
The $30,000 is not a blanket payment. They have to demonstrate (reasonably) that the hours are billable.
In theory, yes. I have relatives in MO… “show me” the “demonstration” “…(reasonably) that the hours are billable. [And reasonable means “going rates”]
I have given my estimate on ‘reasonable’ hours that could be charged. Don’t know about reasonable hourly rates…
As I say, looks like a form letter, tweaked to fit Davis… [why, does the word ‘tweak’ remind me of Miley Cyrus?](admittedly off-topic)
“If there is a villain in this drama, it is not Matt Rexroad, it is the legislators who passed the CVRA and Governor Gray Davis who signed it.”
Let’s not be too quick to exonerate Rexroad or the students. Many dramas have more than one villain. I am willing to distribute blame as earned. Certainly, some goes to the legislators who drafted the law pretending that what works in one community will be what works for all regardless of individual factors, and the governor who signed such a law. However, that does not mean that Rexroad and/or the students are not using the law for their own, possibly cynical purposes. I fail to see anything high minded about holding a community economic hostage to one’s own goals.
Forward thinking with a little bit of planning sprinkled in could have avoided this. The administrators and Board of DJUSD demonstrated that kind of forward thinking and planning in the very same community that the City exists in.
The student s were simply following the tried and true sign that is posted on many an Administrative Assistant’s desk, “Your failure to plan does not constitute an emergency for me” and translating it into “Our attention to planning under the provisions of the Law does actually constitute an emergency for you.”
Are you saying that the students shouldn’t have considered exercising their rights under the provisions of the Law?
Are you saying that they shouldn’t have sought legal advice in their attention to planning?
Are you saying that Rexroad should have refused to provide legal services to the students, one of which was an employee of his firm?
Bottom-line, the poorly conceived provisions of the CVRA are the “root cause.” I believe your comments are focusing on secondary causes as low-hanging fruit, and in the process you are letting the root cause skate.
Agree with Tia. While I completely agree that the law is poorly written, the fact that the students and Rexroad are doing so for cynical purposes – potentially should not be overlooked.
Craig… if I was in your shoes, I would not have used the word “potentially”… would have left it out.
But, I’m not in your shoes…
If I say potentially, I can’t be sued for libel as easily
Fair enough…
Craig, what do you see as the students’ “cynical purposes”?
That’s part of the problem, right? We don’t know their purpose because they haven’t told us. Another reason I used the term potentially. But at the end of the day, they used a law that was intended to promote easier entry for people of color for potentially other more cynical purposes – whether it was attempting to get a Republican elected or possibly just messing with liberal Davis.
Craig, you misstate the purpose of the Law when you use the term “people of color” The Law’s intention was to make it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in “at-large” elections. The students are on record in past comments that their experience is that Conservative Republicans are a statistical and philosophical minority in Davis, and that arguably conservative voices are being disenfranchised.
Where that argument has particular resonance is in land use planning where the electoral lines between liberal and conservative get very blurry. Your oft-repeated stance on land use planning would appear to align you with the students, but here you are excoriating them. I suspect they would argue that you are a poster child of the disenfranchisement that conservative Republicans face in Davis.
FWIW and for the record, my personal voter registration is Democrat, and with the exception of the second Ronald Reagan election I have voted for the Democratic candidate for President every election since 1968.
Craig and Matt… you both seem to be missing the language of the law… NOT “persons of color”, but “protected classes”… not the same… think Venn diagrams, or, ‘all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square’…
Find it slightly amusing that “protected classes” can be abbreviated, “PC”…
Bill, I suggest to you that the students would say that they are protected under the term “language minority group” since Conservative Republicans clearly speak a different “language” than the Liberal Democrat majority in Davis. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Matt – you should know that the term “minority” is disfavored. People of color is the term of art.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/03/30/295931070/the-journey-from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color
Craig, step back from the precipice. The language provided was/is taken directly from the text of the Law. If you have a beef with that statutory language I suggest you get in touch with Assembly Members Alejo, Bonta, and Roger Hernández and/or Governor Grey Davis.
dis·fa·vor
/disˈfāvər/
verb
past tense: disfavored; past participle: disfavored
regard or treat (someone or something) with disfavor.
“the hypothesis was favored and disfavored by approximately equal numbers of scientists”
“My computer ‘disfavored’ the word ‘disfavored’.”
Wow – there’s even a problem with the quote.
Seems to me that the word should be “exhibit”, not “inhibit”.
Probably not the place for you to weigh on this particular issue. Telling people of color what to call refer to themselves as is probably not the place of a white man.
You’re ignoring history and race relations by persisting in this. I don’t believe as a white man it is my place to tell other people what they should or should not refer to themselves as.
I don’t either. Nor did I. But, I personally find the term racist, which purposefully creates an entirely inaccurate “us” vs. “them” scenario – in which neither are one homogeneous group. The article I posted above notes the following:
Do you believe it is the place of a black, hispanic, or asian man (or woman) to tell other people what they should, or should not refer to themselves as? Or, do you reserve such judgments for white males only?
I don’t see it as racist. Identifying differences in people is not racism. It is a way to create an inclusive description and to recognize commonalities that those populations have. That’s not to say that there are not differences in the experiences of populations – African Americans have a very different experience than Latinx who have a very different experience than Asians.
Within reason I probably agree.
Maybe your ‘we’ don’t, but my ‘we’ do.
English please?
Two possibilities… Alan is using ‘the Royal form of I (“we”)’, or, he is speaking for many others that he knows, and considers ‘his’ (friends,etc)…
In either case, je d’accord (en anglais, “I agree”)…
I’d rather twist and decimate the language for my own nefarious purposes, then use it properly.
Moi, aussi… (ou, ‘Aussie’)…
So, you are using circumstantial evidence against people of color and calling it ‘overwhelming’ to prove they are behind something. That sort of thinking leads to wrongful application of the death penalty in North Carolina (see other article from today).
Believe the anonymous tip is direct evidence backed by circumstantial evidence.
Dunning’s column continues to illustrate is lack of ability to apply reasoning to controversial issues. His responses always mirror the knee-jerk reaction of the “man in the street” who is ignorant of the underlying issues. Even when presented with contradictory facts, he refuses to revisit and recant. (Remind you of someone?) His columns would be funny as parodies of the willfully ignorant report Roland Hedley if some of his readers didn’t take him so seriously. Looking forward to his retirement.
Yep. And more than one others…
That’s very Zen of you.
Good thing there isn’t closed circuit TV, or bloggers with cameras, to ‘out’ people who come to public meetings.
“Usual Suspects” being a demeaning term for people who show up at City Council meetings regularly and express their civic right to speak — but who one doesn’t agree with. I may point out that one ‘usual suspect’ — who doesn’t speak at the meetings and non-the-less finds their way to disseminate their civic right to speak to a large(-ish) audience daily and digitally and afterwards — can regularly be found at the ‘press’ table on the far right as you walk into the room.
That would be extreme, even for Davis and it’s questionable underbelly.
All skewering aside, good work under-covering the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. And especially for getting that guy-I-later-learned-was-classifiable-as-“Asian” to give a thumbs up for the camera.
There might be when the first Republican in years takes a district council seat in the Fall 2020 election.
(although, being students, they might be long gone . . . )
I took Mr. Rexroad’s statement as referring to the “environment” on the Vanguard. But really, it might apply to some of the council members, as well (based upon their statements, above – which I don’t necessarily disagree with).
In any case, it’s difficult for me to believe that there’s some sinister, wide-ranging plot or conspiracy, beyond what’s already visible.
“Usual Suspects” being a demeaning term for people who show up at City Council meetings regularly and express their civic right to speak — but who one doesn’t agree with. ”
I think the usual suspects is whether or not one who is agreed with.
Craig… your point is valid… but on certain subjects, you tell me the subject and I can readily guess who will be in the chambers… look at who posts on what on the VG… “usual suspects” apply here, as well…
As one of “the usual suspects” both here in the Vanguard and at Council Chambers, I wholeheartedly agree with Bill’s point.
Craig, if you understood the provenance of the term “the usual suspects” you would not find it demeaning at all.
I’m the one who called it demeaning, or rather implied it was being used to demean. Which is arguable, I suppose. Only her hairdresser knows for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXkzl2I5CH8
I thought this was one of Dunning’s best columns ever. It was also f-ing hilarious, but none of the humor was quoted. The V seems to conveniently forget that Dunning is primarily an entertainer. Who makes political points through that entertainment. He leaves stuff out because it wouldn’t be entertaining. See news section for the #ahem# facts.
[This is similar to a certain POTUS who is also primarily an entertainer. And makes political points through their humor. Which the left-wing doesn’t take as humor and goes ape-S over. Not that I am comparing Dunning to POTUS as I know Dunning is no fan. And of course it could be quite rightly argued that it is below the office of the P to be goading people with political satire. But the point is — see it for what it is and deal with it, lest we get another four years of this dude.] — Remove bracketed if you wish DS.
I do agree with the V that there is more to the story — though it’s quite clear to me and others this is a ploy to get an R on the council. I quite imagine they have run the numbers and believe it can be done. What motive if not money, but power?!!!
I don’t think it’s too difficult to figure out. We can rule out the desire to increase the voting impact of racial minorities—that’s not a Republican priority. (The original CVRA was passed on a party-line vote, and signed by Gray Davis.)
I agree with Alan that the intent is to increase the likelihood of electing one or more Republicans to the Council. If one or more districts are created to increase protected minority class representation, then other districts will necessarily have lower minority representation and are, thus, likely to be relatively more conservative-leaning. The latter might, e.g., be comprised of older voters (e.g., a district including WDAAC and URC), or of more affluent voters. While, in Davis, this may not ultimately be an effective strategy, it’s a matter of improving the odds, not guaranteeing results.
I still don’t understand all the angst. If Gray Davis was the one who signed this then it has been on the books for nearly twenty years. That means we should have dealt with it long ago, especially since all of our near neighbors have done so. Does it really matter why some group has decided to push the community to follow State law? Even if they are successful with their postulated goal and manage to elect a conservative to the CC, it is still only one vote, so the ‘worst’ result that is likely to happen is a serious discussion on cost containment.
“That means we should have dealt with it long ago, especially since all of our near neighbors have done so. Does it really matter why some group has decided to push the community to follow State law? Even if they are successful with their postulated goal and manage to elect a conservative to the CC, it is still only one vote, so the ‘worst’ result that is likely to happen is a serious discussion on cost containment.”
Fear not for the possibility of the election of a “conservative” is remote , how ever the districts are carved out.
True dat, if it’s a true conservative. The era of the City Council with Jerry Adler was great, because he questioned everything the council did and brought up the cost-impact and non-unicornian side of things. It was quite refreshing. Lots of 4-1 votes, but a very well-need voice!
The danger of having too many conservatives is they will probably vote for and support the developers and investors in bad developments like Trackside. (Pardon, there is something wrong with my argument in the above sentence, I just can’t quite put my finger on it . . . )
One person one vote!
Yes… one vote for one office, once every four years…
In-lieu of one vote for 2 or 3 offices, every two years…
True democracy in the former… (???)
But there are several points to offset that. One is that in a district election, you greatly reduce the number of votes needed. The second is that areas of town get representatives to represent the interests of the district. It’s a trade off.
Of course its a trade off and no system is perfect. But in a system where fewer votes are needed fewer dollars are needed. Also in a system where people on one side of Russell get two or three votes and others living on another side get none, because of historic boundaries, smaller districts provide better chances of certain unprotected classes overcoming traditional barriers to entry.
That’s my point – there are trade offs – the downside is you only get to vote for one person and every four years. On the upside, you’re vote counts more and you are assured of more proximate representation.
I know people don’t like to hear this but voting while important is actually a fairly low impact exercise. Even at the council level, your vote is perhaps 3 in 45,000. There are other ways to better impact the outcome than by voting alone which is why people put in money and volunteer their time.
Except for the Senate and the Electoral College
Except for the Senate.
Wrong.
That under Federalism small states get as many senators as large states is a different solution designed to protect small states from the tyranny of the large states. Still within each jurisdiction you get one person one vote. At least since we went to popular elections of Senators.
But my vote in California is worth far less than a vote in Montana for either the Senate or Electoral College. Whether the rationale you mentioned justifies that inequity, is in the eye of the beholder.
Says the person from a populous state.
It’s all based on math and the one person one vote standard.
It is not based on “math”… at least simple math… there are at least 2 former CC members, who probably never would have served under district elections… Nichols-Poulos and Partansky… they both ran in a general election, with three open seats… they were likely a lot of folks’ “third choice”… and they both ended up being the highest vote-getters…
History is a “B” isn’t it… ‘under-represented’ folk should take notice of history…
Under current rules, an under-represented person could vote for their choice, and not vote for any other open position… there’s the math…
Ok… this one person one vote thing… every four years, one person gets one vote for a State Assembly office, and a state Senate office… every six years, one person gets one vote for a House of Rep office, and a Senate office.
Currently, in Davis, every 2 years one person gets to cast one vote for 2-3 open CC seats. 1 person, one vote, for each ‘office’.
Those who spin that district elections get closer to one person one vote, and that it “dilutes” a voter’s influence, are ‘spinning’, or have other motives…
Which leaves the campaign financing issue… which isn’t really about ‘democracy’, unless you ‘spin’ it.
There definitely seem to be other agendas…
Currently, one person can vote for five folk to represent them on CC over a four year period. Soon that will be one. [should have been 3rd PP above]
[I tried to add this to previous post, still had 2 minutes on the “shot clock”, and was “locked out”… VG admin should look at that…]
The problem is every time I have the web people look at it, it doesn’t have the problem.
I understand the “cleanup” (for other reasons, which were appropriate), but hope the VG realizes it was not just me with ‘the problem’… 2 others pointed it out as well… it is real…
Suggest it be ‘fixed’, or eliminate the “shot clock” for self-editing… just a suggestion…
[Random thought… might happen only when ‘posting traffic’ is high…]
Thread cleanup: 30+ comments removed.
Let me tell you, son. It was ugly.