Tonight the Human Relations Commission at 6:30 pm outside of council chambers will take up this issue at the behest of chair John Dixon. I am not certain how this relates to the charge of that commission, but it is quite apparent that for whatever reason Dixon is carrying the water on this for the council majority.
One thing that strikes me is the thin skin of some of the members of the council majority who at times have found insults and incivility where it was not intended or at least would have been better left unsaid. At the meeting last week we have such a case. Mayor Sue Greenwald at several points in the meetings expressed strongly her dissatisfaction with the length of the agenda, fearing that the meeting would go well into the night–and it did. City Manager Bill Emlen was insistent throughout that the length of the meeting was necessary. At no point did the members of the council majority disagree with the city manager.
Finally at nearly midnight, the mayor complained in a brief statement about the length of the meetings and accused the council majority of insisting these late meetings by limiting the number of nights that the council would meet. While Asmundson, Souza and Saylor took umbrage at this accusation, back in August and September, it was in fact, the express desire of the city council to limit the number of nights that they would meet. Souza in particular complained that he had never made such statements, however, he did approve of the meeting schedule that was set last summer that included fewer meetings on the long range Calendar. This was chiefly Councilmember Saylor that pushed that through, but Souza went along with it.
Sue Greenwald stated:
The public does not like meetings that go past 11:30 and I don’t think we can make good decisions past 11:30 and yet the council majority has been consistently insisting that we have fewer meetings and that they run longer and the council majority is also has also been to be frank about it been going on and on and on with detailed questions… But the public doesn’t like it when the meetings go to late and I’m trying as mayor to do a reasonable job in pacing out meetings so that they can be over by 11:30 and the council majority is insisting that they go on until all hours of the morning.
This prompted a very angry response from Ruth Asmundson.
Asmundson:
I’m sorry the council is not insisting it’s just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run the meeting more efficiently… If we have a more efficient meeting then we can finish all these things.
Asmundson’s charge led to a lengthy exchange in which heated words were said in all directions. The situation deteriorated at this point and I think needlessly so.
What I found most stunning about Asmundson’s complaint that Mayor Greenwald did not run a more efficient meeting is that Greenwald had been consistently throughout that evening attempting to move the process along–pleas that for the most part went unheeded by any of the councilmembers–and that the vast majority of time was spent by the council majority and not the mayor.
This prompted me to do an analysis of how this meeting was spent.
I went back through the recording of the meeting and examined and computed the length of time that each council member took with their questions and with their comments and motions. Included in the respective councilmember’s time is the amount of time a staff member spends answering their questions; however staff reports are not counted. I counted staff response to direct questions since this is part of the time being taken on each item that a particular member has control of.
I will also note that four consent items were pulled–two by Saylor that Souza wanted to pull as well, one by Asmundson and one by Heystek. The mayor did not pull any items.
Here is the total time spent on the consent items and then Items 5 through Item 8 at which point the dispute occurred.
|
Saylor |
39 |
|
Asmundson |
35 |
|
Souza |
26 |
|
Heystek |
25 |
|
Greenwald |
18 |
In watching the replay of the meeting, there are three key things that used up a tremendous amount of time.
First, there was 30 minutes of public comment during the agenda item on Rancho Yolo.
Second, the Rancho Yolo agenda item was extremely complex requiring a number of different motions to approve and tease out the staff recommendations. That used up a tremendous amount of time.
Third, and this one is the one most attributable to a member of the council, Councilmember Saylor made a number of motions on the issue of conflicts of interest that cause that process to drag on much longer than it would have had they simply approved the staff recommendation.
None of these factors are attributable to the ability of Greenwald to effectively run a council meeting. Had the Mayor tried to interfere, the council majority would have given her a strong rebuke and rightly so.
Moreover, none of this should infer that any of these things should not have occurred or that councilmembers ought to speak less. I think the council needs to properly deliberate, my complaint would be simply that the agenda was too long and the items too complex to have as many items as they did.
Asmundson’s complaint is simply not borne out by the facts as I compute them. The meeting did not go too long because the Mayor did not run an efficient meeting, the meeting went on too long because there were too many items and they were complex items and councilmembers took their time to deliberate.
The Mayor certainly at times does not run the most efficient meetings. At other times the Mayor is indeed combative. However, this attack upon the Mayor as being an inept presiding officer or taking up too much of council time is in this case simply inaccurate. The Mayor has had her good days and she has her bad days, but the criticism from the “Gang of Three” is unfair.
My reading of the council rules suggests that the Mayor should play a much larger role in the creation of the agenda than she has.
As I suggested in a blog entry last week, it would appear the presiding officer under Rosenberg’s Rules would have much greater latitude:
“The presiding officer is responsible for preparing the agenda and order of the meeting, conducting the meeting and maintaining order.”
If the Council Ground Rules is the authorizing document, the presiding officer would be responsible for preparing the agenda. There may be a more fleshed out version however that more fully explains this power. But using this right now as the document, I do not think the city manager is in compliance.
In practice it seems that the mayor does not have the power to agendize items at her discretion. This is in part a function of the city manager model. It is also in part a function of this being a minority mayor. However, at least according to the ground rules, this is not a formal arrangement of power.
Regardless, if Councilmember Saylor is truly interested in civility, he needs to take charge and admonish his allies, not just his perceived adversaries. I do not see that occurring, which is why his plea looks more like a political tool than anything intended to create meaningful and more civil dialogue in community discourse.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
It’s three against one and it will only get more heated as the council election grows nearer. Mayor Greenwald needs to steel herself and give as good as she gets. Her intellect and experience, if calmly but firmly expressed, will neutralize the gang of three’s attempt to garner election campaign “points”. Wasn’t it Asmundson who pressed for ending the meetings early when she was Mayor? To anyone watching the council meetings it is obvious that Asmundson is not” firing on all cylinders” past 11PM.
It’s three against one and it will only get more heated as the council election grows nearer. Mayor Greenwald needs to steel herself and give as good as she gets. Her intellect and experience, if calmly but firmly expressed, will neutralize the gang of three’s attempt to garner election campaign “points”. Wasn’t it Asmundson who pressed for ending the meetings early when she was Mayor? To anyone watching the council meetings it is obvious that Asmundson is not” firing on all cylinders” past 11PM.
It’s three against one and it will only get more heated as the council election grows nearer. Mayor Greenwald needs to steel herself and give as good as she gets. Her intellect and experience, if calmly but firmly expressed, will neutralize the gang of three’s attempt to garner election campaign “points”. Wasn’t it Asmundson who pressed for ending the meetings early when she was Mayor? To anyone watching the council meetings it is obvious that Asmundson is not” firing on all cylinders” past 11PM.
It’s three against one and it will only get more heated as the council election grows nearer. Mayor Greenwald needs to steel herself and give as good as she gets. Her intellect and experience, if calmly but firmly expressed, will neutralize the gang of three’s attempt to garner election campaign “points”. Wasn’t it Asmundson who pressed for ending the meetings early when she was Mayor? To anyone watching the council meetings it is obvious that Asmundson is not” firing on all cylinders” past 11PM.
They could start the meetings earlier, say 4:00 pm and get some of the more tedious business type items out of the way and then take up the public hearings type items at 6:30 pm. The meetings would take just as long, but occur during normal waking hours.
I’d like to hear Asmundson’s analysis of why the meetings go late with the information that you provide here. Maybe they should schedule a few more meetings to get through the city’s business.
They could start the meetings earlier, say 4:00 pm and get some of the more tedious business type items out of the way and then take up the public hearings type items at 6:30 pm. The meetings would take just as long, but occur during normal waking hours.
I’d like to hear Asmundson’s analysis of why the meetings go late with the information that you provide here. Maybe they should schedule a few more meetings to get through the city’s business.
They could start the meetings earlier, say 4:00 pm and get some of the more tedious business type items out of the way and then take up the public hearings type items at 6:30 pm. The meetings would take just as long, but occur during normal waking hours.
I’d like to hear Asmundson’s analysis of why the meetings go late with the information that you provide here. Maybe they should schedule a few more meetings to get through the city’s business.
They could start the meetings earlier, say 4:00 pm and get some of the more tedious business type items out of the way and then take up the public hearings type items at 6:30 pm. The meetings would take just as long, but occur during normal waking hours.
I’d like to hear Asmundson’s analysis of why the meetings go late with the information that you provide here. Maybe they should schedule a few more meetings to get through the city’s business.
Why don’t you just rename your blog the “We love Sue and Lamar unconditionally and We totally hate Don, Steve and Ruth” blog.
Why don’t you just rename your blog the “We love Sue and Lamar unconditionally and We totally hate Don, Steve and Ruth” blog.
Why don’t you just rename your blog the “We love Sue and Lamar unconditionally and We totally hate Don, Steve and Ruth” blog.
Why don’t you just rename your blog the “We love Sue and Lamar unconditionally and We totally hate Don, Steve and Ruth” blog.
Poor them, why don’t you make arguments against what is printed here rather than throw glib and sarcastic barbs?
Perhaps you can substantiate Ruth’s statement–quantify it? Eh?
Poor them, why don’t you make arguments against what is printed here rather than throw glib and sarcastic barbs?
Perhaps you can substantiate Ruth’s statement–quantify it? Eh?
Poor them, why don’t you make arguments against what is printed here rather than throw glib and sarcastic barbs?
Perhaps you can substantiate Ruth’s statement–quantify it? Eh?
Poor them, why don’t you make arguments against what is printed here rather than throw glib and sarcastic barbs?
Perhaps you can substantiate Ruth’s statement–quantify it? Eh?
What does calling Don Steve and Ruth a gang mean? What is the definition of gang-of-3? What does that label r mean? Sounds glib and sarcastic and mean spirited to me.
What does calling Don Steve and Ruth a gang mean? What is the definition of gang-of-3? What does that label r mean? Sounds glib and sarcastic and mean spirited to me.
What does calling Don Steve and Ruth a gang mean? What is the definition of gang-of-3? What does that label r mean? Sounds glib and sarcastic and mean spirited to me.
What does calling Don Steve and Ruth a gang mean? What is the definition of gang-of-3? What does that label r mean? Sounds glib and sarcastic and mean spirited to me.
The terminology “gang of three” refers to a close voting bloc and is in common usage in politics. It is not meant to connote a gang in the way we might think of in the other topic.
The terminology “gang of three” refers to a close voting bloc and is in common usage in politics. It is not meant to connote a gang in the way we might think of in the other topic.
The terminology “gang of three” refers to a close voting bloc and is in common usage in politics. It is not meant to connote a gang in the way we might think of in the other topic.
The terminology “gang of three” refers to a close voting bloc and is in common usage in politics. It is not meant to connote a gang in the way we might think of in the other topic.
gang of… is part of Davis political history and relates to a group of council members who are out of sync with the voters they were elected to represent. The gang of five unanimously supported building a commercial development on what is now the southern half of Central Park . A grassroots-initiated SOS referendum
cancelled this project and the Davis voters removed this council from office at their next opportunity.
gang of… is part of Davis political history and relates to a group of council members who are out of sync with the voters they were elected to represent. The gang of five unanimously supported building a commercial development on what is now the southern half of Central Park . A grassroots-initiated SOS referendum
cancelled this project and the Davis voters removed this council from office at their next opportunity.
gang of… is part of Davis political history and relates to a group of council members who are out of sync with the voters they were elected to represent. The gang of five unanimously supported building a commercial development on what is now the southern half of Central Park . A grassroots-initiated SOS referendum
cancelled this project and the Davis voters removed this council from office at their next opportunity.
gang of… is part of Davis political history and relates to a group of council members who are out of sync with the voters they were elected to represent. The gang of five unanimously supported building a commercial development on what is now the southern half of Central Park . A grassroots-initiated SOS referendum
cancelled this project and the Davis voters removed this council from office at their next opportunity.
I don’t mind it when people disagree–in fact I enjoy it somewhat. However, when I spend a number of hours doing the research for a piece and the response is gee, you don’t like Don-Steve-Ruth and you do like Lamar and Sue, well geez, I don’t think that has ever been in doubt or disputed.
It would be more interesting if we could discuss some of the larger points raised rather than my quoted usage of “gang of three”…
I don’t mind it when people disagree–in fact I enjoy it somewhat. However, when I spend a number of hours doing the research for a piece and the response is gee, you don’t like Don-Steve-Ruth and you do like Lamar and Sue, well geez, I don’t think that has ever been in doubt or disputed.
It would be more interesting if we could discuss some of the larger points raised rather than my quoted usage of “gang of three”…
I don’t mind it when people disagree–in fact I enjoy it somewhat. However, when I spend a number of hours doing the research for a piece and the response is gee, you don’t like Don-Steve-Ruth and you do like Lamar and Sue, well geez, I don’t think that has ever been in doubt or disputed.
It would be more interesting if we could discuss some of the larger points raised rather than my quoted usage of “gang of three”…
I don’t mind it when people disagree–in fact I enjoy it somewhat. However, when I spend a number of hours doing the research for a piece and the response is gee, you don’t like Don-Steve-Ruth and you do like Lamar and Sue, well geez, I don’t think that has ever been in doubt or disputed.
It would be more interesting if we could discuss some of the larger points raised rather than my quoted usage of “gang of three”…
It’s great to get historical perspective on Davis politics, because of how situations seem to repeat themselves and the citizens of Davis repeately show our political leaders that they are actually in charge of what happens in Davis.
Ruth shouldn’t have criticized Sue’s handling of the meetings when she had no real basis for doing so, and owes Sue an apology. Sue will have to tighten up the meetings even more and limit discussion to have the meetings end earlier. That’s what Ruth is recommending when she suggested that Sue was not running efficient meetings, correct? Or maybe the group can reassess their schedule and have a few more meetings.
I don’t think that the blog loves Sue unconditionally. She’s been soundly criticized on this blog where deserved. Lamar has not provided much fodder for criticism.
It’s great to get historical perspective on Davis politics, because of how situations seem to repeat themselves and the citizens of Davis repeately show our political leaders that they are actually in charge of what happens in Davis.
Ruth shouldn’t have criticized Sue’s handling of the meetings when she had no real basis for doing so, and owes Sue an apology. Sue will have to tighten up the meetings even more and limit discussion to have the meetings end earlier. That’s what Ruth is recommending when she suggested that Sue was not running efficient meetings, correct? Or maybe the group can reassess their schedule and have a few more meetings.
I don’t think that the blog loves Sue unconditionally. She’s been soundly criticized on this blog where deserved. Lamar has not provided much fodder for criticism.
It’s great to get historical perspective on Davis politics, because of how situations seem to repeat themselves and the citizens of Davis repeately show our political leaders that they are actually in charge of what happens in Davis.
Ruth shouldn’t have criticized Sue’s handling of the meetings when she had no real basis for doing so, and owes Sue an apology. Sue will have to tighten up the meetings even more and limit discussion to have the meetings end earlier. That’s what Ruth is recommending when she suggested that Sue was not running efficient meetings, correct? Or maybe the group can reassess their schedule and have a few more meetings.
I don’t think that the blog loves Sue unconditionally. She’s been soundly criticized on this blog where deserved. Lamar has not provided much fodder for criticism.
It’s great to get historical perspective on Davis politics, because of how situations seem to repeat themselves and the citizens of Davis repeately show our political leaders that they are actually in charge of what happens in Davis.
Ruth shouldn’t have criticized Sue’s handling of the meetings when she had no real basis for doing so, and owes Sue an apology. Sue will have to tighten up the meetings even more and limit discussion to have the meetings end earlier. That’s what Ruth is recommending when she suggested that Sue was not running efficient meetings, correct? Or maybe the group can reassess their schedule and have a few more meetings.
I don’t think that the blog loves Sue unconditionally. She’s been soundly criticized on this blog where deserved. Lamar has not provided much fodder for criticism.
the “gang of ___” reference comes originally from the gang of four, in the second half of the chinese cultural revolution in the 1970s, where four radical party members were basically in control and later scapegoated for the turmoil when they fell out of power following mao’s death in 1976.
bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC. the dig being that the original term was a maoist reference, and the progressives were on the left.
the “gang of ___” reference comes originally from the gang of four, in the second half of the chinese cultural revolution in the 1970s, where four radical party members were basically in control and later scapegoated for the turmoil when they fell out of power following mao’s death in 1976.
bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC. the dig being that the original term was a maoist reference, and the progressives were on the left.
the “gang of ___” reference comes originally from the gang of four, in the second half of the chinese cultural revolution in the 1970s, where four radical party members were basically in control and later scapegoated for the turmoil when they fell out of power following mao’s death in 1976.
bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC. the dig being that the original term was a maoist reference, and the progressives were on the left.
the “gang of ___” reference comes originally from the gang of four, in the second half of the chinese cultural revolution in the 1970s, where four radical party members were basically in control and later scapegoated for the turmoil when they fell out of power following mao’s death in 1976.
bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC. the dig being that the original term was a maoist reference, and the progressives were on the left.
don’t you think that the gang term just lumps the 3 together like they have no individual distinctions in how they think, act, etc, why don’t you just call them the Borg if you think they are so undifferentiated. As for no fodder on Lamar, that’s because he constantly cowtows to Sue, and that “madame mayor” business he does is nauseating.
don’t you think that the gang term just lumps the 3 together like they have no individual distinctions in how they think, act, etc, why don’t you just call them the Borg if you think they are so undifferentiated. As for no fodder on Lamar, that’s because he constantly cowtows to Sue, and that “madame mayor” business he does is nauseating.
don’t you think that the gang term just lumps the 3 together like they have no individual distinctions in how they think, act, etc, why don’t you just call them the Borg if you think they are so undifferentiated. As for no fodder on Lamar, that’s because he constantly cowtows to Sue, and that “madame mayor” business he does is nauseating.
don’t you think that the gang term just lumps the 3 together like they have no individual distinctions in how they think, act, etc, why don’t you just call them the Borg if you think they are so undifferentiated. As for no fodder on Lamar, that’s because he constantly cowtows to Sue, and that “madame mayor” business he does is nauseating.
It is not that they are undifferentiated, it is that they vote as a solid voting bloc. They probably vote together 95 out of 100 times if not more. Most of their differences that do arise are on small issues.
I’m actually also taken aback by how informal the members are with each other. I think a bit more decorum is needed on this board, they should address each other formally at board meetings rather than using their first names.
I don’t see that as Councilmember Heystek cowtowing, I see him address everyone in the formal manner rather than by first name. I think that is how the others should act.
Regardless that is a rather minor complaint if I’ve ever heard one.
The only issue I think I disagree with Mr. Heystek on is the issue of choice voting.
It is not that they are undifferentiated, it is that they vote as a solid voting bloc. They probably vote together 95 out of 100 times if not more. Most of their differences that do arise are on small issues.
I’m actually also taken aback by how informal the members are with each other. I think a bit more decorum is needed on this board, they should address each other formally at board meetings rather than using their first names.
I don’t see that as Councilmember Heystek cowtowing, I see him address everyone in the formal manner rather than by first name. I think that is how the others should act.
Regardless that is a rather minor complaint if I’ve ever heard one.
The only issue I think I disagree with Mr. Heystek on is the issue of choice voting.
It is not that they are undifferentiated, it is that they vote as a solid voting bloc. They probably vote together 95 out of 100 times if not more. Most of their differences that do arise are on small issues.
I’m actually also taken aback by how informal the members are with each other. I think a bit more decorum is needed on this board, they should address each other formally at board meetings rather than using their first names.
I don’t see that as Councilmember Heystek cowtowing, I see him address everyone in the formal manner rather than by first name. I think that is how the others should act.
Regardless that is a rather minor complaint if I’ve ever heard one.
The only issue I think I disagree with Mr. Heystek on is the issue of choice voting.
It is not that they are undifferentiated, it is that they vote as a solid voting bloc. They probably vote together 95 out of 100 times if not more. Most of their differences that do arise are on small issues.
I’m actually also taken aback by how informal the members are with each other. I think a bit more decorum is needed on this board, they should address each other formally at board meetings rather than using their first names.
I don’t see that as Councilmember Heystek cowtowing, I see him address everyone in the formal manner rather than by first name. I think that is how the others should act.
Regardless that is a rather minor complaint if I’ve ever heard one.
The only issue I think I disagree with Mr. Heystek on is the issue of choice voting.
“bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC.”
I think that’s right, Wu. My memory on this is a bit sketchy, but I think it started with the first Dave Rosenberg council in 1984. The left-faction on that council was Rosenberg, Mike Corbett, Ann Evans and Deb Nichols-Poulos. I think Dunning dubbed them “The Gang of Four” (as you suggest, in homage to China’s infamous 四人帮). The minority of one was Gerry Adler.
I’m not really sure if the Jiang Qing Gang of Four was the first association in history with the “Gang of…” appelation. But I’m fairly certain that all groups given that “Gang of..” name ever since have been done with the original Gang of Four in mind.
FWIW, if you want to read a very interesting book about Mao, one in which Jiang Qing is highly featured, I highly recommend The Private Life of Chairman Mao by Li Zhi-Sui, who was Mao’s personal physician and attendant for many years. It is very revealing about what a sick, disgusting person Mao was. And it is quite a good overview of Chinese history during Mao’s lifetime.
“bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC.”
I think that’s right, Wu. My memory on this is a bit sketchy, but I think it started with the first Dave Rosenberg council in 1984. The left-faction on that council was Rosenberg, Mike Corbett, Ann Evans and Deb Nichols-Poulos. I think Dunning dubbed them “The Gang of Four” (as you suggest, in homage to China’s infamous 四人帮). The minority of one was Gerry Adler.
I’m not really sure if the Jiang Qing Gang of Four was the first association in history with the “Gang of…” appelation. But I’m fairly certain that all groups given that “Gang of..” name ever since have been done with the original Gang of Four in mind.
FWIW, if you want to read a very interesting book about Mao, one in which Jiang Qing is highly featured, I highly recommend The Private Life of Chairman Mao by Li Zhi-Sui, who was Mao’s personal physician and attendant for many years. It is very revealing about what a sick, disgusting person Mao was. And it is quite a good overview of Chinese history during Mao’s lifetime.
“bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC.”
I think that’s right, Wu. My memory on this is a bit sketchy, but I think it started with the first Dave Rosenberg council in 1984. The left-faction on that council was Rosenberg, Mike Corbett, Ann Evans and Deb Nichols-Poulos. I think Dunning dubbed them “The Gang of Four” (as you suggest, in homage to China’s infamous 四人帮). The minority of one was Gerry Adler.
I’m not really sure if the Jiang Qing Gang of Four was the first association in history with the “Gang of…” appelation. But I’m fairly certain that all groups given that “Gang of..” name ever since have been done with the original Gang of Four in mind.
FWIW, if you want to read a very interesting book about Mao, one in which Jiang Qing is highly featured, I highly recommend The Private Life of Chairman Mao by Li Zhi-Sui, who was Mao’s personal physician and attendant for many years. It is very revealing about what a sick, disgusting person Mao was. And it is quite a good overview of Chinese history during Mao’s lifetime.
“bob dunning began using it (in the 70s? 80s? help me out here, rifkin) to refer to a progressive majority on the city council, with gerry adler being the odd moderate out, IIRC.”
I think that’s right, Wu. My memory on this is a bit sketchy, but I think it started with the first Dave Rosenberg council in 1984. The left-faction on that council was Rosenberg, Mike Corbett, Ann Evans and Deb Nichols-Poulos. I think Dunning dubbed them “The Gang of Four” (as you suggest, in homage to China’s infamous 四人帮). The minority of one was Gerry Adler.
I’m not really sure if the Jiang Qing Gang of Four was the first association in history with the “Gang of…” appelation. But I’m fairly certain that all groups given that “Gang of..” name ever since have been done with the original Gang of Four in mind.
FWIW, if you want to read a very interesting book about Mao, one in which Jiang Qing is highly featured, I highly recommend The Private Life of Chairman Mao by Li Zhi-Sui, who was Mao’s personal physician and attendant for many years. It is very revealing about what a sick, disgusting person Mao was. And it is quite a good overview of Chinese history during Mao’s lifetime.
David,
I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on this: how do you feel about the idea of having the council itself choose the mayor?
David,
I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on this: how do you feel about the idea of having the council itself choose the mayor?
David,
I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on this: how do you feel about the idea of having the council itself choose the mayor?
David,
I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on this: how do you feel about the idea of having the council itself choose the mayor?
I’m not that keen on that idea. I’m not a big fan of the current system. I know Mayor Greenwald is horrified about direct elections, but I’ve seen it work pretty well in other similar locales. If I had to choose between the current system and a council voted mayor, I’d choose the current system, at least there is a modicum of having the mayor determined by the people. I don’t think having a minority mayor is the worst thing in the world.
I’m not that keen on that idea. I’m not a big fan of the current system. I know Mayor Greenwald is horrified about direct elections, but I’ve seen it work pretty well in other similar locales. If I had to choose between the current system and a council voted mayor, I’d choose the current system, at least there is a modicum of having the mayor determined by the people. I don’t think having a minority mayor is the worst thing in the world.
I’m not that keen on that idea. I’m not a big fan of the current system. I know Mayor Greenwald is horrified about direct elections, but I’ve seen it work pretty well in other similar locales. If I had to choose between the current system and a council voted mayor, I’d choose the current system, at least there is a modicum of having the mayor determined by the people. I don’t think having a minority mayor is the worst thing in the world.
I’m not that keen on that idea. I’m not a big fan of the current system. I know Mayor Greenwald is horrified about direct elections, but I’ve seen it work pretty well in other similar locales. If I had to choose between the current system and a council voted mayor, I’d choose the current system, at least there is a modicum of having the mayor determined by the people. I don’t think having a minority mayor is the worst thing in the world.
the cultural revolution is the first time the phrase 四人幫 (gang of four) appears. from what i can tell, it’s the locus classicus of the term.
and i’m pretty much in line with david here WRT the mayor. directly elected is best, followed distantly by the status quo, followed by a council-elected one. and unolike with the city council elections, a single race for mayor would be a good use of the choice voting system, since it would put to rest all those complaints about who represents the majority, instead of getting mayors with 20% or less.
as for the council, i suspect using roberts rules would help rein in the testiness a bit, but mostly the demeanor of an elected body is going to reflect the temperment of the people making it up. for whatever reason, davis city councils have been ill-tempered and petty for the past decade and a half or so, on both sides of the supposed prog-mod political divide. perhaps they represent a cranky electorate? At any rate, i can’t get too worked up about it, not being one of the 5 council members. no skin off my back if they can’t get along.
lamar would be a good mayor, from the looks of it. too bad he got just under the threshold to edge asmundson out.
the cultural revolution is the first time the phrase 四人幫 (gang of four) appears. from what i can tell, it’s the locus classicus of the term.
and i’m pretty much in line with david here WRT the mayor. directly elected is best, followed distantly by the status quo, followed by a council-elected one. and unolike with the city council elections, a single race for mayor would be a good use of the choice voting system, since it would put to rest all those complaints about who represents the majority, instead of getting mayors with 20% or less.
as for the council, i suspect using roberts rules would help rein in the testiness a bit, but mostly the demeanor of an elected body is going to reflect the temperment of the people making it up. for whatever reason, davis city councils have been ill-tempered and petty for the past decade and a half or so, on both sides of the supposed prog-mod political divide. perhaps they represent a cranky electorate? At any rate, i can’t get too worked up about it, not being one of the 5 council members. no skin off my back if they can’t get along.
lamar would be a good mayor, from the looks of it. too bad he got just under the threshold to edge asmundson out.
the cultural revolution is the first time the phrase 四人幫 (gang of four) appears. from what i can tell, it’s the locus classicus of the term.
and i’m pretty much in line with david here WRT the mayor. directly elected is best, followed distantly by the status quo, followed by a council-elected one. and unolike with the city council elections, a single race for mayor would be a good use of the choice voting system, since it would put to rest all those complaints about who represents the majority, instead of getting mayors with 20% or less.
as for the council, i suspect using roberts rules would help rein in the testiness a bit, but mostly the demeanor of an elected body is going to reflect the temperment of the people making it up. for whatever reason, davis city councils have been ill-tempered and petty for the past decade and a half or so, on both sides of the supposed prog-mod political divide. perhaps they represent a cranky electorate? At any rate, i can’t get too worked up about it, not being one of the 5 council members. no skin off my back if they can’t get along.
lamar would be a good mayor, from the looks of it. too bad he got just under the threshold to edge asmundson out.
the cultural revolution is the first time the phrase 四人幫 (gang of four) appears. from what i can tell, it’s the locus classicus of the term.
and i’m pretty much in line with david here WRT the mayor. directly elected is best, followed distantly by the status quo, followed by a council-elected one. and unolike with the city council elections, a single race for mayor would be a good use of the choice voting system, since it would put to rest all those complaints about who represents the majority, instead of getting mayors with 20% or less.
as for the council, i suspect using roberts rules would help rein in the testiness a bit, but mostly the demeanor of an elected body is going to reflect the temperment of the people making it up. for whatever reason, davis city councils have been ill-tempered and petty for the past decade and a half or so, on both sides of the supposed prog-mod political divide. perhaps they represent a cranky electorate? At any rate, i can’t get too worked up about it, not being one of the 5 council members. no skin off my back if they can’t get along.
lamar would be a good mayor, from the looks of it. too bad he got just under the threshold to edge asmundson out.
My preferences for choosing the mayor would be:
1. Directly electing the mayor, while having 6 other members of the council elected in district elections;
2. Continuing our current first-past-the-post system, but allowing the council to choose its own leadership, including the mayor.
3. Our current system with a mayor chosen by chance, whereby the highest vote gainer is maybe most of the time not the most popular candidate.
4. Allowing Vladimir Putin to serve as an autocratic mayorski, where all civil liberties are lost and the KGB runs the DPD.
5. Any system in which “Davisite” could serve as mayor.
My preferences for choosing the mayor would be:
1. Directly electing the mayor, while having 6 other members of the council elected in district elections;
2. Continuing our current first-past-the-post system, but allowing the council to choose its own leadership, including the mayor.
3. Our current system with a mayor chosen by chance, whereby the highest vote gainer is maybe most of the time not the most popular candidate.
4. Allowing Vladimir Putin to serve as an autocratic mayorski, where all civil liberties are lost and the KGB runs the DPD.
5. Any system in which “Davisite” could serve as mayor.
My preferences for choosing the mayor would be:
1. Directly electing the mayor, while having 6 other members of the council elected in district elections;
2. Continuing our current first-past-the-post system, but allowing the council to choose its own leadership, including the mayor.
3. Our current system with a mayor chosen by chance, whereby the highest vote gainer is maybe most of the time not the most popular candidate.
4. Allowing Vladimir Putin to serve as an autocratic mayorski, where all civil liberties are lost and the KGB runs the DPD.
5. Any system in which “Davisite” could serve as mayor.
My preferences for choosing the mayor would be:
1. Directly electing the mayor, while having 6 other members of the council elected in district elections;
2. Continuing our current first-past-the-post system, but allowing the council to choose its own leadership, including the mayor.
3. Our current system with a mayor chosen by chance, whereby the highest vote gainer is maybe most of the time not the most popular candidate.
4. Allowing Vladimir Putin to serve as an autocratic mayorski, where all civil liberties are lost and the KGB runs the DPD.
5. Any system in which “Davisite” could serve as mayor.
“The White-Boned Devil” is a really good biography of Jiang Qing, too.
“The White-Boned Devil” is a really good biography of Jiang Qing, too.
“The White-Boned Devil” is a really good biography of Jiang Qing, too.
“The White-Boned Devil” is a really good biography of Jiang Qing, too.