In case you missed it last week, TV cameras and the news were ready to swoop back down on Davis to watch the expected carnage that would ensue if the council proceeded to attempt to implement new rules sanctioning a councilmember who got out of line in a serious way as we saw back in January. The problem with the rules is that they threatened to bring the police into the political process which invokes images of un-Americanism.
The good news is that the authors of the sanction provision have pulled back for now. The bad news is that at least one of the members of the dynamic duo do not seem to get what all of the uproar was about.
Wrote the columnist back on Tuesday,
“So, it has come to this. Tired of having their distinguished political careers defined by a YouTube moment, Davis City Councilmen Steve Souza and Don Saylor have launched a crackdown on the smackdown between Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilwoman Sue Greenwald.”
He continued:
“Turns out the S-Men visited enforcement procedures for a number of California cities to find out what they do when a child misbehaves. They studied Berzerkeley, Brentwood, Inglewood, Mission Viejo, Santa Monica, Simi Valley and – you’d better sit down – Stockton. I’m telling you now, the day the city of Davis decides to take its governance clues from the city of Stockton is the day I move to Medford.”
(Insert snare drum).
The bottom line right here for the columnist was:
“Removal by Chief of Police? They have to be kidding. They’re going to arrest Sue for getting mad at Ruth? Doesn’t the police chief have better things to do with his time on a Tuesday night?
And finally, ‘Criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/r other members of the Council.’
Talk about a ‘chilling effect’ on the free and open exchange of ideas. Do we really need to threaten council members with criminal charges if they can’t bite their tongue? Especially if all it takes to have a political opponent arrested – and silenced – is a 3-2 vote of the council.”
On Tuesday night, Council had decided to pull the item. However, that did not stop a former Mayor and representative from the ACLU to get up during public comment to let the council know under no uncertain terms that the rules they imposed were overbearing and could have a chilling effect on free speech and minority dissent. Moreover, they could set up the city for legal liability.
You would think that would be enough to kill this, but Councilmember Stephen Souza, while admitting they wrote the item too quickly, did not seem to get what all the fuss was about.
He pointed out that everyone missed in the language the word “may” as in:
“the Council may vote to apply sanctions. Sanctions may include but are not limited to…”
No, Mr. Souza, I do not think we missed the word may. I think we understood that council had discretion as to whether or not to do it under the ordinance you were proposing, the question is whether the council SHOULD have the DISCRETION as to whether or not to remove a COUNCIL MEMBER by the CHIEF OF POLICE under order from either the PRESIDING OFFICER or a MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. We simply do not think the council ought to have that discretion by the presiding officer or a majority vote. We believe that by granting that discretion that the rules have gone too far.
Bob Dunning got it, if all it takes to have a political opponent arrest is a 3-2 vote of the council, that does have a chilling effect on the free and open exchange of ideas. Nor do we want to see members of council face criminal or civil remedies for treatment of staff, the public, or council members.
Most believe that the council already has the right to remove a member from liaison or committee assignments. They probably already have the right to censure a member. And if the member breaks the law – not the rules of the council – but the law, they could be arrested.
The most effective way to deal with these disruptions is actually the practice that they already have in place – call a recess. And if things are too bad, adjourn a meeting.
I have no problem putting additional rules or clarifying procedure in the interest of running meetings a bit more smoothly, however, at some point, you have to realize that politics and police is a dangerous mix and you need to avoid the two as much as possible. Remedies exist without becoming heavy-handed about them.
I would suggest to Councilmembers Souza and Saylor that they consider removing the sanction portion altogether. It sets the wrong tone. I think everyone involved recognizes that things went too far and they will work hard to avoid allowing a repeat. However, this type of item could damage the emerging harmony that has occurred since that meeting in January and ultimately, the price for that could far out-weigh the upside.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David: You needn’t quote Bob Dunning to make a point. None of us need to pan another city to feel better about ours.
Despite its Ozzie and Harriet image, Davis is one of the least civil towns that I have ever known. That smug sense of righteous self-entitlement is reflected well from the dais of the city council. Perhaps this is what Will Rogers meant when he said,”Democracy is where the people get the government they deserve.”
Bob Dunning: “Talk about a ‘chilling effect’ on the free and open exchange of ideas. Do we really need to threaten council members with criminal charges if they can’t bite their tongue? Especially if all it takes to have a political opponent arrested – and silenced – is a 3-2 vote of the council.”
Steve Souza: “the Council may vote to apply sanctions. Sanctions may include but are not limited to…”
What Bob Dunning recognized is the potential for abuse that is encapsulated in the proposed idea of removal by police/civil or criminal penalities. That the Council “may” invoke sanctions sends a clear message that it is up to the City Council MAJORITY whether a “sanctionable indiscretion” has occurred and how that “sanctionable indiscretion” should be handled. In short, sanctions of this sort open the door for bullying… or to say it another way, a tyranny of the majority.
Yet the City Council majority, just because they are in the majority, will not be answerable for abuse of process such as putting controversial items on the Consent Calendar in an attempt to fly issues under the radar screen; cutting off other Council members who express minority views, misrepresenting what a Council member said in closed session, etc. as we have already seen ad nauseum. Will the Council majority vote to sanction themselves for their own misbehavior? I think not.
Furthermore, does anyone honestly think the police will want to be put in the position of hauling a Councilmember off to jail for a difference of opinion or childish spat on the dais? What is the chance the DA would even entertain the notion of actually charging a Councilmember who engaged in a verbal tantrum with a crime? The entire notion of such draconian sanctions reminds me of Theater of the Absurd…
This entire notion of civil or criminal sanctions smacks of “payback”, retribution for Sue Greenwald having spoken uncomfortable truths the Council majority does not want to wrestle with. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone anyone’s behavior in regard to the night in question (except Lamar, who was the only one who acted with the proper decorum). But simple time limits and an agreement not to engage in heresay would solve the problem, eliminating the opportunity for such spats. The City Council is made up of adults, and it is time they started resolving their issues in a more mature manner than suggesting self-serving punitive sanctions.
Davis Council reps inevitably suffer the revealing effects of being in the public spotlight on TV, in person and quoted in the Enterprise week after week. Councilman Saylor planned to get out of the glare of the Council spotlight last year in a bid for the Assembly but he was unsuccessful. Too long a stay on our Council dais is potentially damaging for a politically ambitious Davis Councilperson. Continuous voter scrutiny and TV exposure eventually cuts through the facade that calculating ambitious political types work hard to maintain. Councilman Souza’s history on the dais has always revealed a curious mixture of populist rhetoric and autocratic tendancies(” We are the deciders!”, he bellowed from the dais on one occasion).
Very well said Elaine.
Davisite: It’s more than that, I mean almost every governmental body is on TV these days.
One point I could have made following on your comment about Councilmember Souza, for some reason he has a tendency to draw distinctions using qualifiers, he has at times repeatedly put forward proposals and then backed off saying they were just proposals, or to defend language by saying people missed out on the term “may.” What I have not figured out in watching him is whether he uses these things as excuses or whether he believes them.
I’m sorry Stephen, but when you put up an RFP, you should do that because you intend to take bids, not because you want to see what you get. By the same token, you put discretionary language into rules for a specific reason either as a threat or as intent to act.
Well said, Biddlin. Wish I had said it.
As far as I am concerned the entire “revisions” and “sanctions” suggestions made by Steve Souza and Don Saylor are out of line and have a clear underlying agenda for a Council majority, now or later, to dominate the City Council discussion process.
Anyone viewing the City Council meetings has often seen one or more Council majority members trying to cut off or completely shut down Sue Greenwald trying to comment on or discuss the controversial issues. So the worst thing the Council majority can do now is to try to pass a policy to carry on their new undemocratic recommendations on “Meeting Ground Rules and Procedures Proposed Additions”. They are not fooling anyone on this. This whole issue needs to be dropped at this point because it is evident that it is becoming an ugly attempt to stop discussion and debate on the most important issues.
Agree 100% w/ Biddlin.
“….sanctioning a council member who got out of line in a serious way as we saw back in January.”
This subjective evaluation by David Greenwald is not really relevant to the subject of this piece. It struck me as a continuing effort to “justify” the furor that David Greenwald’s very “heated” articles ,especially his second subjective commentary on the “vestibule” happenings. The character of these Vanguard articles certainly added fuel to the fire that brought forth these draconian sanction proposals.
Davisite:
You know by raising that point, I’m sure at the behest of someone else, since you had previously commented without mentioning it, you actually raise the profile of what was a basic background and that was indeed the subtext of the item on the agenda–they were going to sanction a council member who out of line in a serious way – is that point even in dispute at this point? First, the councilmember has admitted to having done that. Second, to the best of my ability no one has disputed the account in the second article and as you know, you were not there.
David: The thoughts expressed in the above comment were entirely my own as I read your piece that morning. I wrote several comments in the original thread of your past second piece, about what happened in the vestibule which are clear precursors to my comment in question. Let me assure you that I post NOTHING in the Vanguard,at the behest of anyone, that I do not think is something that Vanguard readers should legitimately consider.
[i]The thoughts expressed in the above comment were entirely my own as I read your piece that morning. … Let me assure you that I post NOTHING in the Vanguard,at the behest of anyone, that I do not think is something that Vanguard readers should legitimately consider.[/i]
Look, “davisite2”, you’re entitled by David’s rules to post anonymously. But if you choose to do that, you’re not in a position to make such assurances. I can’t make anything of a phrase like “entirely my own”, if you don’t even want me to know who you are.
Greg Kuperberg: What has my posting under a pseudonym have to do with “making assurances” which were clearly directed to David Greenwald in response to his posting on this thread ??
Please take a minute a try and remove that knot from your shorts.
Is this proposal, which would definitely have a chilling effect on Council discussions, at least partially motivated by a desire to deflect attention?
It is a shame that the story of “incivility” has far overshadowed the story of our City Council majority’s approval of labor contracts we cannot afford.
I hope, at some point, Davis citizens will ask themselves: which is worse – “uncivil behavior” on the dais, or failure to control the City’s structural deficit (as promised by the same councilmembers who now propose sanctions for behavior)? Smackdown on the dais is not pretty to watch, but is our attention on the verbal interactions between councilmembers, rather than on their decisions and actions, a luxury we can really afford?
If we don’t start thinking about what’s really important to us, what’s going to affect our lives for years to come, then we will continue to get “the government we deserve.”