At the Davis City Council Meeting two weeks ago, Bill Ritter issued a complaint about the conduct of Councilmember Sue Greenwald at a Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) Meeting the night before. Until this past Tuesday evening Councilmember Greenwald served as liaison to the Commission. The complaint was referred to the subcommittee on commissions which is comprised of Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza.
On Tuesday the subcommittee came back with their findings. The council has a Procedures Manual for Council Members. The fifth chapter defines the “Role of Commission Liaison” which reads as follows:
Each member of the Council is assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with one ore more city commissions. The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the City Council and the advisory body. The liaison also helps to increase the Council’s familiarity with the membership, programs and issues of the advisory body. In fulfilling their liaison assignment, members may elect to attend commission meetings periodically to observe the activities of the advisory body or simply maintain communication with the commission chair on a regular basis.
Members should be sensitive to the fact that they are not participating members of the commission but are there rather to create linkage between the City Council and commission. In interacting with the commissions, Council members are to reflect the views of the Council as a body.
Typically, assignments to commission liaison positions are made at the beginning of a Council term. The Mayor will request liaison assignments which are desired by each member and will submit recommendations to the full Council of the various committees, boards and commissions which City Council members will represent as a liaison. In the rare instance of disagreements, a vote of the Council will be taken to confirm appointments.
The subcommittee apparently listened to the audio recording from that meeting and returned with the opinion that
“the Council Liaison did overstep the role of liaison at the September 14 FBC meeting by repeatedly attempting to direct and/or influence commission discussion and by voicing personal opinions rather than representing the Council position.”
The subcommittee argued that the process for removing the liaison is less clear. They argue that while
“Council requires no special policy to change a sitting Council liaison, the Subcommittee recommends adding verbiage to the Council Procedures Manual to make it clear when and how a Council member can be removed or reassigned from liaison duties.”
The council majority then proceeded to move to remove Councilmember Greenwald from her position as liaison to the commission. Before they could act on that motion, Councilmember Greenwald resigned (“quit”) her position. Councilmember Lamar Heystek was then put in as her replacement in order to make the decision look like it was not about policy but rather about conduct.
For her part, Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued that while she may have crossed the line, and she certainly got overly emotional on issues that she considered very important, she felt this was done under unusual conditions.
“The meeting that you’re talking about is a very unusual one. I’ve never done that before and I probably will never do that again.”
Councilmember Lamar Heystek found himself in a difficult position, and he first opposed the changes to the language, opposed the removal of Councilmember Greenwald, and then abstained from voting on himself as replacement while at the same time accepting the position.
My View of What Happened at the Finance and Budget Commission Meeting
For me this is an issue about process and conduct rather than policy. As I mentioned previously I most often agree very strongly with councilmember Greenwald. on issues going to the Finance and Budget Commission In fact, on many of the most important issues facing the city–the short-term budget, the longer term problems of unfunded liability and pensions, Councilmember Greenwald and I are in complete agreement. At the same time, I disagree with her on this particular issue, but agree with her probably 95% of the time if not more often.
On the night in question, the issue at the time was the Fiscal Analysis of the Wild Horse Ranch Development Project. As people who read this blog well know that is an issue of contention, and Councilmember Greenwald has been an outspoken critic of the project and the process. That is certainly her right and much of the time to her credit.
On this night in question, the Councilmember sat at the table with the commission acting in her role as liaison. During public comment, she announced that she would be speaking as a member of the public, she got down from the table, stepped up to the podium and spoke. She acted completely appropriately at this point in time.
However, as the discussion wore on, and became more heated lines became blurred. She vacillated between sitting at the table and sitting in the audience with a member of the public.
The lines were crossed at one point in the discussion however. A member of the commission had made a motion to ask the council to delay their actions so that the commission would have additional time to evaluate the fiscal impact of the project. The motion received no seconds and therefore died.
However, this was not the end of the discussion. It was at this point that Councilmember Greenwald got up from her seat in the audience and sat at the table. She then expressed the fact that she was appalled by the lack of a second and she berated the chair of the commission for failing to second the motion. She told the commission, at this point, completely blurring the lines, that they had to act.
The chair asked for the motion to be reentered, he then seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. After much further discussion, the body eventually voted for the motion.
As a matter of policy, it was not an unreasonable request. As a matter of proper procedure it was a rather egregious. To use Councilmember Souza’s words, it was a violation of the procedures manual.
There are some who are undoubtedly argue this is about policy. Councilmember Souza though agrees with Councilmember Greenwald on this issue, in fact, he derided Mr. Ritter two weeks ago when Mr. Ritter brought the issue forward. However, once he listened to the recording, his views of the matter clearly changed.
Should the council have removed her from her position? That’s an even tougher question that I am struggling with even now. There are those who would argue this was ex-post facto. However, the council has clearly always had the determination as to who would be the liaison to which commission and thus always the power to make changes. They added wording to strengthen the policy, but even the staff report suggests they probably already had the ability. Bottom line of course is that she clearly and disputably violated existing policy.
In the end, I would have preferred to not to have to write this column. There are many more important issues in this community than this one–some of them occurred at Tuesday’s meeting and will be addressed in subsequent columns. However, being at that meeting two weeks ago, and having the meeting NOT televised and sparsely attended, I felt the need to bear witness to what happened.
Let me finish with a question for people on this matter–I could probably obtain an audio recording from the meeting and post it on the Vanguard and then people can judge what happened for themselves. Is that something people are interested in or is it time to move on to other issues?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Your description is fine enough. Anyone who has paid attention realizes that Sue Greenwald’s position on development is completely off the charts and that her conduct is often beyond what one would consider appropriate. Her passion often trumps her reason and lacking the skills of persuasion needed to be a successful politician she often becomes a bully. She resigned from the commission rather than be further humiliated by her conduct. It is sad that someone so unreasonable has the support of so many in the community.
DPD: I would keep the audio in case she does it again, and move on. I agree, most of the time it is about process. Most of my comments that are adverse to her are about her process problems.
As to Parlin Wildhorse, for the life of me I cannot understand why, on substantive policy grounds, she would try so hard to knock down a small, reasonable little project that has so many benefits? For example, when is the last time that we can remember Sierra Club ENDORSING a border project????? But here, that is exactly what they did.
Seriously, all I can come up with as to her vapid opposition is some sort of power struggle she is in with project propopents. Because for reasons of merit, and political strategy, she should have voted for it, or at least voted her NO, then let it go.
Moving beyond the immediate issues concerned, to something mentioned in the Vanguard report, should city council members have a vote on a citizens committee and one on the city council too? One person:one vote seems a prudent policy and a leveling influence during debate.
Barry: Not sure if you are suggesting that they get a vote on the Commissions, because right now they do not have a vote, they are merely there to advise and inform.
As to Parlin Wildhorse, for the life of me I cannot understand why, on substantive policy grounds, she would try so hard to knock down a small, reasonable little project that has so many benefits?
There goes Mike Parlington with his “reasonable little project with so many benefots” mantra again!!!
Mike, how many the “false claims” that Parlin has made with this project, such as “REALLY AFFORDABLE” (REALLY???), and the whole notion of “4 million net benefits to the city” (which is in thier ballot statement, quite an overreaching claim that Sue has fought the validity of such claims, as she should if she is truly representing the interests of the City and its citizens and NOT developers’ rights)
Sue Greenwald is not the only CC member that has questioned aspects of this project; look at Souza’s comments from the 9/15 meeting, where he said some harsh things about the affordability claims and even publicly stated the project “will likely lose” (yet no one from the pro-Parlin/Vanguard crew is going after him).
Face it Mike Parlington, You are a Sue Greenwald hater and trying to make a Yes on P vote a No on Sue vote, and for that, you should be ashamed!
“yet no one from the pro-Parlin/Vanguard crew is going after him”
Huh? You somehow think David is likes Souza? Did you forget this article?
The Puzzle of Souza’s Vote ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2936:the-puzzle-of-souzas-wildhorse-vote&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
I would very much like to see the video of what happened. I would also point out that for any sitting City Council member, especially Asmundson, Souza or Saylor, to sit in judgment over Greenwald, is very much the pot calling the kettle black. All three (Asmundson, Souza, Saylor) flout process and overstep their bounds whenever it suits, but somehow don’t find themselves in any kind of trouble for it. Why? Because they are in the majority and have the “bully pulpit”. Shame on all three of them for doing this. It makes all three look like what they are – petty bullies. They have the power, so they used it to whip a fellow Council member that keeps showing them up.
Secondly, if the City Council claims it had the right to remove Greenwald anyway, then why the necessity for adding new language? Who is kidding who – they punished Greenwald retroactively. Add the language, that gives the warning. If she does it again, if she did do anything so terrible, then the means to remove are there in black and white for all to see ahead of time.
It would also seem to me the Chair of the Budget and Finance Commission should be able to control his own meeting. He is a grown man and doesn’t need the City Council majority to come to his rescue.
Well, Bill Ritter, are you happy now? Is this what you intended? I hope not. A public humiliation (public spanking by three) as was dished out to Greenwald seems over the top, especially in light of the repeated misconduct of the Council majority itself (and what they have done is far, far worse).
Is this what city government has stooped to – if you are in the political minority, beware, because the political majority will play “gotcha” whenever they get the chance? How absolutely petty, vindictive, and childish. Frankly, I am ashamed to live in a city that arrests people that snore, worries more about toads than its citizens, and engages in petty politics to neutralize the opposition.
Make no mistake – the City Council majority will do anything to neutralize anyone that opposes their views. Sue Greenwald should be satisfied in knowing she obviously is hitting them where it hurts, if they have to stoop to this sort of nonsense to silence her voice.
Watching this from home, it looked more like kids fighting in the sandbox than grown adults. The entire thing was disgusting.
“Should the council have removed her from her position? That’s an even tougher question that I am struggling with even now. There are those who would argue this was ex-post facto. However, the council has clearly always had the determination as to who would be the liaison to which commission and thus always the power to make changes. They added wording to strengthen the policy, but even the staff report suggests they probably already had the ability. Bottom line of course is that she clearly and disputably violated existing policy.”
City staff does whatever the City Council majority tells them to. Come off it!
“Make no mistake – the City Council majority will do anything to neutralize anyone that opposes their views. Sue Greenwald should be satisfied in knowing she obviously is hitting them where it hurts, if they have to stoop to this sort of nonsense to silence her voice.”
What really happened is Sue gave them an iron clan reason to remove her from the commission where her voice is most effective and most needed. If this report is accurate, Sue blatantly violated her charge, that’s not “hitting them where it hurts,” rather it is acting inappropriately. For as Smart as Sue is, she gave them a reason to remove her. She has to be smarter than that–they are gunning for her.
At the 7/28 CC meeting, both Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor (who now are publicly admonishing Sue Greenwald) both stated they felt they “needed more time” to review the true fiscal impacts/analysis of the WHT project before they were ready to approve it for a Measure J vote (look at the archive video for evidence), yet they both shortly later agreed to vote for Lamar’s motion for a Nov election!
Why can Ruth and Don have momentary objections to the fiscal “fuzzy math”, and yet if Sue wants to continue to question and fight the issue as far as she can for the voters’ truth, she is labeled as “inappropriate”
BB Rebozo: That is why Sue has the “support of so many in the community”: she may do things unorthodox, but unlike the rest of our CC, she clearly puts citizens’ concerns over developers!
“Is this what city government has stooped to – if you are in the political minority, beware, because the political majority will play “gotcha” whenever they get the chance?”
Are you excusing Sue’s behavior? Did you witness it? You admitted you did not hear the tape. So shouldn’t you listen to the tape before you judge them? Isn’t that reasonable?
The City Council liaison is supposed to reflect the views of the City Council? How does that work? The City Council itself does not have “one view”. This makes absolutely no sense.
You seem to be trying to change the subject here. So let me ask you point blank–were you are the meeting in question in this article and if so, do you defend Sue’s conduct? Thanks.
As a liaison to council, yes. As an individual, no. It’s just like a commissioner, there are reasons why commissioners are requested to make it clear they speak for themselves rather than for the commission. Why would you expect the council liaison to do otherwise?
Wake up “progressives.” Sue Greenwald’s resignation as liasion to a key council commission left the progressive movement “waving in the breeze.”
By opposing the best “green” project ever proposed for Davis, without any substantive argument, Sue destroyed the credibility of progressives who supported her position and endangered the progressive movement as a whole.
I do not support development on peripheral ag lands, but consider the WHR proposal(Measure P)a small, well-designed infill project, pure & simple.
So the bottom line is this: progressives sold Measure J as a tool to encourage environmentally-sound, small infill projects. Now we have the prototype of just such a project on the table, and Greenwald opposes it.
Opponents of Measure J claimed it was a no-growth measure, while proponents claimed it was a tool for progressive, green infill. And now we have just such a project (WHR: a small, truly-green, infill project) on the ballot (as Measure P) and Sue & her supporters oppose even that.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if we use Measure J to stop all development, no matter how small, green or innovative, there will be a community backlash that will jeopardize the renewal of Measure J.
I say Yes on Measure P (& thanks to Sue for resigning).
You seem to be trying to change the subject here. So let me ask you point blank–were you are the meeting in question in this article and if so, do you defend Sue’s conduct? Thanks.
No, I was NOT at that meeting, but I defend Sue as does Elaine Roberts Musser who wrote the following on the other Vanguard story posted today on Tues CC:
In an extremely ugly exchange, an attempt was made to remove minority Councilmember Sue Greenwald as liaison to the Budget and Finance Commission, ostensibly because she had previously overstepped her authority. The City Council majority conveniently passed a novel rule that night, giving authority for a City Council majority to remove a fellow member deemed to have violated standards laid out for improper liaison behavior. What followed was a concerted effort to humiliatingly subject Councilmember Greenwald to this new rule ex post facto, as the city attorney sat silent.
Sue HATERS out there, beware, you may barking up the wrong tree for Yes on P!
I actually like Sue, I’ve voted for her at least four times and I would vote for her again. But if she did this, then she crossed the line by quite a ways. This has nothing to do with Measure P and everything to do with process. The No on P side has been arguing over the process by which Measure P was adopted, this is also a process issue.
Truth-seeker:
How could any progressive be transformed into (as you put it) a “Sue-hater” without just cause? Seems to me that Sue has given us myriad reasons to lose faith in her.
First, she opposed the concept of Measure J from its inception. Second, even when she has been out-voted and appointed as a minority “liason” to council commissions, she has sought to impose her (individual) opinion over the will of the council majority.
So, who does Sue really represent? The Council majority who appointed her as a “representative? The “progressives” who believed she would support small, green infill projects (to help defuse the need for huge peripheral developments)or only herself, with a 100% record of opposing everything?
David, do we get to hear the tape?
The actions in question by Councilmember Greenwald at the F & B Commission was not the first time she has been acting as a member instead of a Councilmember. I have been there many times to see so with my own eyes.
David, in my opinion you are joining in the political bullying because you are now a developer advocate.
David knows full well that the real story is that the Finance and Budget Committee is not presented with the material they need in a fashion that allows them to ferret out problems. Paul Navazio does all the talking, and he rarely points out anything that doesn’t confirm the council majority mantra that everything is fine.
No one can fathom the amount of time and the number of staff members I have to talk with to put together what is actually happening fiscally. It is virtually detective work. I have to ask the exact right question of one staff, then ask the exact right follow-up question of a different staff member, that ask a third staff member why a discrepancy exists, then ask Paul how is model accounts for it, etc.
Paul is extremely intelligent, understands the issues, and he is great to talk with in private. He grapples with the issues on a very high level.
The problem is his reluctance in public to raise issues which would displease the council majority.
No commission member has the time or the familiarity with the issues to do the necessary detective work. Usually, I try to gently point out what I have learned on these technical issues. If I can’t do that, the meetings are just too frustrating.
David Greenwald, you wrote nothing about the technical information that I was trying to convey, i.e., the fact that the finance director had refused to acknowledge that that his fiscal analysis had taken a small onetime revenue that disappears in 15 years to pay for a recurring annual deficit, and then said the Wildhorse Ranch project pays for itself, without pointing out that it only pays for itself because the fiscal forecasts lasts only fifteen years.
There is no reason a councilmember should liaison should not be able to point out technical issues.
Further, you do not point out that Don Saylor frequently asserted his direction over that commission. I had one report of a former commissioner tell me that he was seriously bullied by Don Saylor for suggesting that a supplementary tax should not be a foregone conclusion.
The council has never suggested removing Ruth Asmundson for her frequent violations as Mayor, or Saylor for his interventions.
It is one thing to call in a councilmember in and quietly suggest that they play a less active role. It is another thing to selectively use the rule as the basis to launch a public political attack.
The criticism was not directed only at the meeting when I was frustrated by the Wildhorse Ranch onetime payment that lasted only the life of the 15 year model. I was criticized for “constantly bringing up the unfunded liabilities”, when I should have been praised for it.
But frankly, if I can’t play some role in pointing out technical problems that Paul has not pointed out, I really did want to resign, because the commission cannot be effective given the type of information they are currently provided.
And it is disgraceful for David to join in the political bullying, but was pretty much what I expected.