In some ways, I found it interesting reading the Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning’s column yesterday and the repeated references to Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Sue Greenwald fighting during council meetings. There is definitely a rather toxic clash of personalities going on here. On the other hand, it’s a bit of a cop out to view it as both sides fighting. But that is clearly what the public sees.
I see a larger problem and it extends beyond the issue of interpersonal relations. I feel like the Mayor is systematically shutting down discourse and discussion in the name of expediency of getting home on time. If she were somewhat equal-handed about it, it might be less of a problem. But I have never seen her tell anyone else to stop talking other than Councilmember Greenwald.
On this particular Tuesday, it was one of the times I did not agree with what Councilmember Greenwald was saying. The issue was New Harmony. She was trying to make her point. She may have been a little long-winded. She was also a little pointed, drawing distinctions with Mayor Pro Tem Saylor. Mayor Asmundson cut her off. Councilmember Greenwald objected. Words were exchanged and she went on.
After a few more minutes, the Mayor decided that Councilmember Greenwald had said enough. She tried to cut her off again. The problem is that once a person is interrupted it actually prolongs speaking, which it did in this case. It prolonged it because first they fought and second the Councilmember stammered around for a minute or two because her train of thought had been interrupted and she had to try to figure out what points she still wanted to make. Had the Mayor simply let the elected Davis City Councilmember speak, it would have gone quicker.
As I said, this is not about defending a particular councilmember. The roles were reversed last year when Mayor Greenwald cut off Councilmember Souza from speaking. That too was wrong.
Councilmember Greenwald is a polarizing figure in this community. She has a strong group of supporters but another group of detractors. What I think is important is that whether one supports or opposes the Councilmember, we need to think of the bigger picture absent ideology, ideas, or personalities.
To me this is an issue of democracy and democratic process in our community. I believe that this process has been cut off by this current mayor. It began when she announced that there would only be 15 minutes for public comment.
There was a “joke” in the recent Dunning column that we should do away with public comment. I realize it was indeed an attempt at humor, but the thing people need to realize is that the Brown Act which governs open public meetings requires opportunities for the public to speak. Now it does allow what it calls “reasonable” limitations on speech. But it does require public comment.
Personally I think the Brown Act should be the minimum requirements for public agencies rather than the standard operating procedures. The public in my view has the right to address their government. When comment period is cut off in the name of finishing the meeting earlier, it is problematic.
Even more so is that the public’s elected officials should have the right to speak and to question public policy. Particularly since councilmembers do not have their own staff.
The Mayor may not like Councilmember Greenwald. The Mayor may disagree with councilmember Greenwald. But the voters of Davis put Councilmember Greenwald into the seat not once, not twice, but three times. Like her or hate her she speaks for a segment of the community, and those people have just as much a right to be represented as the people that Mayor Asmundson represents.
For all of the talk about “Ruth and Sue” fighting, I have never once seen Councilmember Greenwald precipitate the fight. Mayor Asmundson has generally precipitated it by trying to cut the Councilmember off. I have never seen the Councilmember go out of her way to start a fight with the Mayor. I just haven’t.
The bottom line for me, is that this is not the direction I would like to see public discourse in this community continue. I believe that each councilmember should be able to speak their mind. If there is a heavy agenda, and the Mayor wishes to allot a specific amount of time for each person to speak and is equitable in how she holds them to that time, that would be fine. However, if she is merely and arbitrarily deciding when to cut people off, that opens her to scrutiny and it seems unfair that Sue Greenwald is always the one being cut off and singled out and it is not clear that she is always the one that talks the most. In fact, quite the contrary, on this particular occasion, she had intentionally sequestered her time, forgoing questions so she could speak more in comment period. That seems reasonable to me. The way the Mayor handled it was not reasonable.
My belief is that Councilmembers as elected officials need the opportunity to speak and to speak without interruption by the Mayor–regardless of whether she (or you) agree or disagree with her.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The constituency for whom Sue Greenwald speaks is not some small, isolated pocket in the netherworlds of Davis. She speaks for a huge section of core Davis, within which she overwhelmingly beat all the other candidates. She also speaks for a significant portion of the rest of us. The way Ruth consistently treats her is rude at best, and abusive at worst, and as you say, flies in the face of both democracy and civility. What’s remarkable is Sue’s unwillingness to bow down in the face of it. She continues to unfailingly stand up for Davis. Thank you Sue!
Ruth’s antagonism is not just toward Sue Greenwald, but to the public in general. Ruth has substituted town hall meetings as a poor replacement for public comment. The City Council has now suspended meeting with its commissions jointly as it used to. Commissioners are expected to express their opinions at one of the town hall meetings, relegated like the rest of the public to a back seat.
IMHO, the town hall meeting is nothing more than a method of cubbyholing public commment out of the public eye. For instance, are the town hall meetings televised? Only three people showed up at the last town hall meeting. Obviously the town hall meeting as Ruth has envisioned it is not working for the public, but is for her. It has cut down on public comment, which was the goal.
I am not necessarily a fan of any on the City Council, but Ruth has become arrogant, self-absorbed, and contemptuous of the public and the city’s own commissions. She is clearly in the pocket of developers, saying we must grow, just as a baby must grow. I won’t even dignify that stupid comment w a response.
What is also interesting to note is the selectivity Ruth exhibits to various commenters. People who wanted to talk about trouble in the Middle East were allowed to take up an entire City Council meeting discussing an issue the City Council has no business even talking about. Foreign affairs is not within the City Council’s purview, the last time I looked at the description of the duties of City Council members. What a collosal waste of time and resources. But it conveniently allowed discussion of more pressing issues such as the City Budget to be tabled. How convenient. Color me cynical.
The bickering between Ruth and Sue is unseemly, childish, and unbecoming a City Council member. Clearly Ruth rules with an iron fist. Mayor Asmundson is not given the nickname “Mayor Imelda” for nothing.
I was told only three people from the public went to the last town hall meeting.
If Ruth or other council members are in such a hurry to get home perhaps they should not have run for city council. It’s not our (members of the public) problem that you have a certain time that you have to be in bed. This applies to all of the council members. Perhaps they should meet weekly like they use to and have shorter agendas instead of developer driven agendas.
In Congressional hearings, which are run much like our council meetings (save the public comment portion), there is normally a 5-minute or 10-minute clock on each member of Congress when he or she is asking questions of an expert or giving an opinion. I wonder if the council employed that technique*, it might not smooth over some of the tension, brought about by the [i]perception[/i] that a member is filibustering or just going on too long. I certainly agree that it is improper for an elected member of the council to be arbitrarily cut off. As Crilly says about Sue — and it’s really true of all of the members — she is not speaking for herself, but really for a large percentage of Davisites, often a majority. Thus, if a member is cut off prematurely, that might be shutting up half or more of the city.
On most issues, most members of the council use only about 5 minutes to ask questions of staff (or some expert at the meeting). Thus, if the clock on each were set at 10 minutes, the mayor would never have to arbitrarily cut anyone off. In cases where a member had a follow-up after his or her round of questions was completed, a second round of 3 minutes each could be allotted. And when it came time for members to explain their votes, after all the Q&A was done, a 3-minute clock would (I think) be enough. These times would all serve as maximums, so a round of questions might last 20 minutes, if each member only used 4 of his 10 minutes max.
* I know Ruth has done this a few times in the past. However, it doesn’t seem to be a standard procedure.
Back in Berkeley, one pundit referred to wrangling at the Berkeley City Council meeting as “kindergarten with microphones.”
I couldn’t agree with you more David. I think it’s time we start a recall campaign, or sincerely commit to getting this woman out of power during the next council elections. I have seen her bellitle, interrupt and demean Sue, and this it’s embarassing to Ruth, as well as the Davis city council, and it’s also undiplomatic and unprofessional on the part of the mayor. Clearly Davis residents should be made aware of this and will vote for someone that truly has the resident’s interests in mind.
Thanks again for bringing to light what many people are thinking.
If you actually clock it, Don Saylor monopolizes the most time at the mike. Further, Saylor supports Asmundson when she cuts of Greenwald. Because Asmundson foolishly takes on the role of Saylor’s attack dog, Saylor largely avoids criticism. But most of the public who actually watch the council meetings see that Greenwald is simply rudely cut off when she articulates views that the council majority does not want to hear. The problem is that most of the public does not watch the councilmeetings, and is left with the characterizations of the press and the blogs.
And I don’t see why you would call Sue a “polarizing figure in Davis politics”. Sue came in first, second or third in every district in the last election, meaning she won in every district. Don Saylor, on other hand, came in last in a number of districts.
Which is polarizing: Coming in first and last, or winning by a sufficient margin in every district?
Nasty little racist remark calling yourself “Madame shoes” in a snide little reference to Imelda Marcos because the mayor is Filipino.
The process part of the article reminds me of what Lyndon Johnson once said “When you have a majority you don’t need a debate.” I know its Davis but suffering Sue’s tirades can grow old awefully fast especially when she is not going to convince anyone to vote with her.
As for Sue’s position at least she is consistent being against every housing proposal that comes along. I think this time the excuse was an air quality issue from being too close to I-80. Of course Sue’s pet idea, building on the PGE site, is also pretty darn close to I-80. I wonder how she reconciles this inconsistancy?
[i]Nasty little racist remark calling yourself “Madame shoes” in a snide little reference to Imelda Marcos because the mayor is Filipino.[/i]
I agree that the “Imelda Marcos” comment by Cynical was out-of-bounds, though I don’t know if “racist” is the right perjorative. The Philippines is a mixed-race and polyglot country.
[i]”As for Sue’s position at least she is consistent being against every housing proposal that comes along. I think this time the excuse was an air quality issue from being too close to I-80. Of course Sue’s pet idea, building on the PGE site, is also pretty darn close to I-80. I wonder how she reconciles this inconsistancy?”[/i]
It is my understanding that the issue of air quality — because New Harmony is designed principally for single mothers with kids they cannot afford to rear* — is that toxic freeway air supposedly harms the lung development of very young children. Thus, it is not preferable to build housing where children will grow up which is so close to that flow of air.
As you state, a housing development on the PG&E site also would be near I-80. However, I don’t think it is Sue’s desire to see Section 8-style housing built there. I think her vision is market-rate townhouses and condominiums that would principally provide “downtown style” homes for “new urbanite” adults. In other words, it would not be chock full of small children with tender lungs.
For what it’s worth, I have no doubt that there is some truth to the Lancet study about “freeway air.” But I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to vote against a specific development. Much of Davis is within 500 feet of I-80 or CA-113. That is one factor that people with kids need to account for when deciding where to live. As long as the potential buyers or renters are informed about the issue, I think it makes more sense to allow them to make the decision. There likely are other drawbacks living somewhere else.
* According to the developers, low-income single-parent families will be most of the prospective tenants.
Notice they Lamar Haystick isn’t part of the problem , probably because he is asleep or has his finger in his nose .
[i]I agree that the “Imelda Marcos” comment by Cynical was out-of-bounds, though I don’t know if “racist” is the right[/i] [b]pejorative.[/b]
The PG&E site is NOT close to the freeway. Please, once again, look at the map.
Sue is correct, if you look at a map, that part of second street is adjacent to Olive. I-80 doesn’t run up against it until it runs under Pole Line.
All of Davis is near the freeway but how many feet is it? Anyway where should we put this New Harmony housing then? Covell Village or the Canery?