Meeting Adjourned Prior to Action Taken
Meeting Adjourned Prior to Action TakenThe second time the Mayor retreated into the vestibule where she began getting medical attention from an off-duty firefighter. She would later be taken to the hospital. The Vanguard understands that her blood pressure rose greatly but has no further details on her condition at this time.
Councilmember Greenwald appealed to Councilmember Lamar Heystek to confirm her version of events, which he did. She then proceeded to repeatedly call the Mayor a liar on the dais. At one point making the comment, “This would go a lot quicker if you would stop lying.”
At this point, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor began presiding over the meeting. Councilmember Stephen Souza made a point of order, requesting that Councilmember Greenwald be ruled out of order. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor ruled her out of order, Councilmember Greenwald appealed but her appeal failed by a 2-2 vote with Mayor Asmundson sitting at this point in the audience.
Councilmember Greenwald then resumed her comments. Mayor Asmundson would then re-assume her place on the dais and take back over the meeting, but that would be short-lived. When she attempted to end debate, Councilmember Greenwald vociferously objected, berating the Mayor once again.
At this point, the Mayor mentioned her anxiety attack and that she had been to the emergency room several times in the last few years due to these type of conflicts. They attempted to close debate but that vote required a 4-1 vote and failed 3-2.
Mayor Asmundson once again stepped aside. Councilmember Greenwald made the comment that some point are not cut out for public office.
Councilmember Heystek began his remarks but by this point the Mayor was receiving medical attention in the vestibule. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor recessed the meeting.
Tensions increased during the recess.
After lengthy consultation with the City Manager, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor reconvened the meeting, withdrew his motion and adjourned the meeting.
In the interest of the public, I have attached to this article about a ten minute YouTube clip, it begins at the start of the confrontation and ends with the Mayor Pro Tem requesting a recess.
I have decided not to provide commentary, although I have very strong views on what happened and at several points during the recess had to actually intervene in order to maintain peace.
The public can watch this clip and determine who is to blame on their own.
I suggest that the City Council view this clip, in it, it shows a number of mistakes that were made along the way that perhaps could have avoided the incident altogether.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For some reason this screen is grey and hard to read.
Thanks for providing this video.
I agree with Sue 100%. I am sorry that our Mayor has head health issue (I also suffer from high blood pressure) but we, the citizens of Davis, deserve an honest accounting of our finances. How can debate on this crucial issue be restrained, while our City Council can spend hours on much less crucial issues ?
We are ginf to asked to accept lower City services and continued higher taxes while a few get sweetheart deals–how is this not an issue for discussion.
I hope our Mayor will tend to her health and not run again for City Council.
You’re the second person complaining about a gray screen and I don’t see it, anyone else having problems.?
Its seem OK now.
Since I’m back let me say it again:
Right on Sue!
I think that the votes ratifying the contracts are not valid because the Mayor was ill during the votes and prior discussion.
If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen (or something like that)… Ruth is trying to act like a thug but doesn’t have the constitution for it. She needs to either quit lying or go home.
Don and Saylor are corrupt and content with it. Clearly Ruth has issues with her corruption- perhaps guilt? She should go home and leave the Boss Hog stuff to the people who enjoy it.
I realize that underlying issues and the interpersonal dysfunction among councilmembers are serious concerns…but I have to say that Gunrock’s Boss Hog reference is priceless! The Mayor’s running of Council meetings has always puzzled me.
“I think that the votes ratifying the contracts are not valid because the Mayor was ill during the votes and prior discussion”
There were no votes taken on the ratification.
How were the labor contracts endorsed by the City Council then?
Why aren’t the City jobs benefitting the City residents instead of the city workers? San Francisco and other cities require tax dollars to be spent benefitting city residents:
Share
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Joshua Arce, Brightline 415-860-2150
MANDATORY LOCAL HIRING ON ITS WAY TO SAN FRANCISCO
Supervisor John Avalos Proposes Legislation To Guarantee San Franciscans Go To Work On City-Funded Projects
January 27, 2010, San Francisco, CA—Other cities do it, why don’t we? Oakland, Richmond, and Los Angeles are just three examples of California cities that have harnessed the economic development and job creation potential of so-called “mandatory local hiring,” or requiring that a certain percentage of construction and non-construction jobs created by city dollars stay local, putting residents to work and boosting the local economy.
San Francisco is about to join the club, thanks to legislation proposed yesterday by Supervisor John Avalos that will require local hiring on all San Francisco-funded projects. Jobs are currently at the center of policy-making discussions between Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors, and community advocates have long held that mandatory local hiring, as opposed to “good faith” local hiring, is critical to any effort to reduce unemployment in San Francisco, particularly in pockets of the city where joblessness has lingered in double-digit territory since well before the economic downturn.
In issuing his request to update San Francisco’s “good faith” hiring statutues to mandates, Supervisor Avalos identified policy goals of “creating jobs for San Francisco residents,” “combating systemic poverty and supporting community development,” and “harnessing environmental benefits” by “reducing greenhouse gas emissions asociated with commuting.” Both the Mayor and Supervisors have highlighted the importance of putting San Franciscans to work, and the Avalos legislation supercharges the path of workforce development reforms initiated by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Eric Mar, David Campos, and David Chiu, as well as by Mayor Newsom.
“As my friend [long-time Bayview-Hunters Point activist] Espanola Jackson always says, ‘we’ve been hearing about good faith since the 60’s: it didn’t work then and it definitely doesn’t work now,'” said Brightline Executive Director Joshua Arce. “This legislation kicks off a discussion between all city stakeholders while signalling the end of the ‘good faith’ era of local hiring.” The proposal has already earned the support of the Southeast Jobs Coalition, who said it will put “hundreds, if not thousands of San Franciscans to work,” and the measure is expected to attract widespread community interest in the coming weeks.
[edit] Moreover these folks have nothing but contempt for a rational political dialogue. Sometimes tempers will flare and people will get upset…who cares?..what we need is an open honest discussion. It is clear that Saylor, Souza and our mayor do not want that on this issue.
I think this exchange gives us a clear picture of the kind of dialogue that goes on in closed session. This would be considered a hostile work environment in any business.
Sue is out of line when she yells and attacks her fellow members. It is difficult to not walk away from her and to continue to listen to her.
When she is calm, her comments specifically made regarding the agenda item seems appropriate, but there is a reference that she has already talked for some time. And then she drifts and appears that she will never wrap it up. The matter has already been decided in closed session and Sue seems to believe that it is important “for her honor” to describe at length her side of the closed session discussion and beyond. Getting her “voting record” into the minutes is her sole purpose, it seems.
I don’t believe that Ruth should run for office again. And I don’t believe that Sue should either. I think we can do better with a significant change in representation.
I was interested in hearing what Sue had to say, I think she had some valid points. I disagree with her when she says her comments would be shorter if they would let her finish uninterrupted because she would talk all night if you let her. Ruth was out of order with the things she said about Sue, even though I agree with what she said. When Sue put Lamar on the hot seat by forcing him to verbalize whether he heard Sue make a motion in closed session was a new low for Sue. Lamar looked like a whipped dog.
Ruth’s airing of dirty laundry the way she did was something I wish she had not done. I have seen many of these child-like exhibitions from this council but this may be one of the worst.
I disagree with Ryan that Sue yelled at anybody. She performed remarkably well, given the circumstances. I’m relieved that she’s a Council member.
It’s too bad that certain other Council members resort to being so disruptive. I’d appreciate it if they’d refrain from trying to prevent us hearing what Sue has to say.
Oh, come on, Shawn. Sue yelled at Ruth. It’s there for all to see.
I realize that this thread is about personalities and behavior. But please avoid personal attacks.
Ryan: Thank you.
I just suffered for 11 minutes watching a most embarrassing and fruitless council debate. What point is there in picking sides? It all was just a total and absolute failure.
David: You don’t hold back very often. Is there more to this story than just this? Save us now from debating who was morally justified in throwing the bigger tantrum. Please steer this discussion to something other than another blathering list of comments about who supports who.
The reason I did, is that I think everyone takes something different out of it and brings in their own perspective. I have mine, but I’m not sure it’s any better than anyone else’s. I will say as bad as it may look on video, it was worse at the time.
I’ll also say that what happened outside was far worse than what happened in front of the cameras. I have not decided what is appropriate to be shared at this point, but a few of you have likely seen my facebook entry which gives a little glimpse.
Thank you to that off duty firefighter who gave medical help to Ruth . These heros are a true blessing to the City of Davis .
Again thank you for your services in time of need , the outcome could of been a lot different without you .
After seeing the video(thanks David), it is clear that Sue “lost it” when Ruth continued to insist that what Sue was describing as happening in closed session was UNTRUE;-)escribing it as “untruthful” or “grossly inaccurate” would probably have been preferable. Lamar confirmed Sue’s description and all Ruth had to do was acknowledge that her recollection was not accurate and the issue would have been closed. Her refusal implicitly publicly suggested that Lamar also was now complicit in denying that her recollection was accurate. It is up to the Davis voters to decide whether Ruth Asmundson was DELIBERATE in her false statement or just COULD NOT REMEMBEER the facts. Either way,as if we needed more evidence, it is abundantly clear that it is past time for Ruth Asmundson to retire from elected office and,if she chooses, continue generously to serve her community in some volunteer capacity.
It wasn’t just the eleven minutes that were on the clip. Sue was getting wound up long before that because of the answers she was getting from Paul Navazio. Their behavior is the subject of the discussion. If one doesn’t want to hear it……
I’m not sure why a politician who doesn’t have the votes will continue to waste so much time at this level of politics.
I also think people use the “gravity” of the matter at hand to excuse bad (read: absolutely horrible grade-school level) behavior. Unfortunately, “just this one time” only leads to more bad behavior later.
I can’t see how anybody can defend their “honor” while sacrificing their dignity.
If Ruth retires (which she should: she disagrees with another CC member and has “anxiety attacks”, give me a break Ruth, that’s politics!)watch out voters for her handpicked successor Sidney Vergis, we need balance (and new ideas) on our City Council; if we elect Vergis, she will just continue the pro-developer, pro-special interest agenda of Asmundson-Saylor….will truly independent candidates for CC please step up, there are many of us in town who are eagerly willing and able to help work on your campaigns, in a non-developer, non-special interests funded, truly “grass roots” campaign (just like we proved was able to be done in the Measure P election)!
This discussion seems to be moving away from the substance. Being a City Council member is a thankless job with almost no pay and requires one to spend a ridiculous amount of money, more than many people make in a year, to be competitive in an election.
I too would prefer civil discourse, but I think we should demand honesty, integrity and competence from our City Council members.
Using that standard its clear our Mayor is not up to the job, nor is Saylor (unfortunately he may be representing us at the County soon).
“I’m not sure why a politician who doesn’t have the votes will continue to waste so much time at this level of politics.”
Councilperson Greenwald’s use of the Council “bully pulpit” while in the minority vote has been critical in bringing issues to the public’s attention that would otherwise NEVER have been publicly explored by the Council majority. Her effectiveness was made abundantly clear in the Measure X(Covell Village) and Measure P(Wildhorse Ranch) campaigns. Her style may not be the most politic but she is unbending in publicly defending her positions. The Davis voters have offered their judgement at the polls of her record and performance.
I second Greg’s post.
Greg and I were able to get 75% of the (No on P)vote only spending a few thousand dollars. Yes, we had help in the form of a dreadful Yes on P campaign and yes the housing market was dreadful and yes electing City Council people is not the same, but we also don’t need 75% of the vote.
We need people who care about Davis to run. WE both have small children and busy jobs but someone needs to step up.
I wanted to throw a few quotes that Crystal got from Sue and Ruth out here.
[u]From Ruth:[/u]
Asmundson was taken by ambulance to Sutter Davis Hospital, then transferred to Woodland Memorial Hospital where she was admitted and spent the night. She was undergoing heart stress tests today.
‘I’m feeling better,’ she said this morning. ‘But this chest pain is kind of lingering.’
‘I was shaking and had chest pains,’ the mayor said today. ‘I could feel my blood pressure.’
When she arrived at Sutter Davis, her blood pressure reading was high, Asmundson said, and the doctor recommended that she undergo further tests. She hoped to be released from Woodland Memorial today.
[u]From Sue:[/u]
While Asmundson waited, Greenwald entered the hallway and approached City Manager Bill Emlen. He could have prevented the situation from developing, Greenwald told him, had he backed her up during the meeting.
Greenwald also made a comment suggesting Asmundson might be feigning illness.
‘I definitely sympathize if she has constitutional problems that make it difficult for her to deal with policy conflicts, but I think she owes me an apology,’ Greenwald said in a phone interview later Tuesday night.
Greenwald said she was frustrated because Asmundson interrupted and attacked her reputation during the meeting.
‘There’s a certain point, you’re a human being and if a person lies and you expect people to tell the truth, it is very upsetting,’ Greenwald said. ‘I am polite up there (on the dais). I am not used to this type of lying about what I have done in closed session when it can’t be verified on tape.
‘That’s particularly egregious and upsetting because they could say I did anything in closed session.’
I don’t agree with David’s take on the conflict, and I think he should have spent a lot more time discussing the substantive points that were made during the agenda item. I should also point out that Don Saylor had to end the meeting because when Ruth walked out (twice) because he was afraid that he didn’t have three votes left to pass the PASEA MOU.
Ruth, (who had already interrupted me on a few occasions while I was trying to give my presentation and had tried to call a vote without discussion of the motion) said she had agreed with me and had supported me on the issue of the cafeteria cash-out. I pointed out that she was claiming to agree with me on the issue, but is in fact the swing vote against my position.
So she simply responded to my comment by saying that I had made no motions to lower the cafeteria cash-out by 75% during closed session, which was not the case.
Again, Ruth Asmundson was being straight-out untruthful about my motions in closed session. When I pointed this out, she repeated her untruthful assertion.
Closed session is a problematic institution, because the public has no way to assess the actions of their elected leaders during these closed sessions. I don’t like closed session; I believe that all council meeting should be conducted in open session.
But because we do conduct much of our most important business in closed session with no minutes or video record, it is critically incumbent upon councilmembers to refrain from misrepresenting what their colleagues say during these sessions. I am not a political animal who calculates every utterance to maximize my political advantage, and if someone repeatedly lies about my motions in closed session, I feel moral outrage.
Again, currently the city of Davis allows non-public safety employees who have a spouse who has health insurance to take home up to $17,800 cash in addition to their salary. This benefit, which is not even calculated in our total compensation figures, costs the city a whopping $4 million a year.`By lowering this “cashout” by 75%, we could probably maximize our savings at around $3 milllion a year. This savings could go into a fund to pay the unfunded retiree health liability, thereby protecting both the city and the retirees.
During closed session, I took all possible actions to lower the cafeteria cash-out to 25% of the value of the insurance. This probably would have maximized city savings from this expensive and highly unusual benefit. Instead, the council majority voted to “cap” it at almost $18,000, and called this a “major structural reform”. By refusing to make the needed reform of this extraordinary, very expensive and highly unusual benefit — a benefit which isn’t even fair among employees since only those with spouses with health insurance receive it — the council majority has put the city on a course toward a fiscal train wreck. The city will have to start paying the retiree health unfunded liability in only about 8 years.
There were many other important points concerning the MOU that were discussed before Ruth left the meeting which David neglected to include in his report.
I will have a full report on the substance of what was discussed tomorrow, unfortunately what happened last night detracted from that.
David: I don’t have a facebook account. Why so dramatic?
Skip: You say this article and the following discussion are about behavior. If it has to be so, then maybe Sue Greenwald who is now leaving comments can address your concerns about behavior, starting with herself.
So Sue, this is about behavior, not the specifics of the MOU. Would you care to comment on behavior?
Frankly what happened last night was pretty dramatic and I have to consider very carefully what I put out on this.
David: Looking forward to your report on the substance, now that I’ve been corrected that today we’ll be discussing behavior.
Enophile: Understand it’s a tough call on what to report and when. My rationale was that this was obviously going to be the topic of discussion and the content and substance would be lost and there are key points that Lamar and Sue raised that need to really be discussed. Today doesn’t seem conducive to that discussion at least to me, does it to you?