In 2008, Davis elected three incumbents to the Davis City Council, meaning that the Davis City Council from 2008 to 2010 would be the same as the one from 2006 to 2008. That will not be the case this year, as neither Mayor Ruth Asmundson nor Councilmember Lamar Heystek will seek re-election.
Moreover, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor who will be Mayor in June, will leave the council at the end of the year as he is now Supervisor Elect Don Saylor having not drawn an opponent for the June election. He will be seated in January. Most likely, that will mean the new council will have to appoint a new mayor and a new councilmember, which should make for some interesting times.
(A quick note, the signatures are handwritten and the city has redacted the signatures themselves, but sometimes people invert the printed and signed version and as a result some are very difficult to read. Therefore, some names will be misspelled and at times, I cannot even decipher who they are. I apologize in advance.).
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We are listing the candidates in alphabetical order:
Joe Krovoza
Occupation: Unversity Development Director
Education and Qualifications:
Public service is a great privilege, and I would be honored to have your vote for Davis City Council so that we may work together to advance the livability of our city. I want to revitalize the thoughtful, innovative, creative, visionary and compassionate traditions of Davis.
In these difficult economic times, I will focus on the best management of our city’s money and environment. I will advance partnerships with the county, university, schools and non-profits to improve services and spend money wisely. I will seek input from seniors, families, youth and those from all backgrounds to find the best solutions.
My volunteering demonstrates my values. I have worked for our creek, parks, students, soccer and biking. The values that led me to these activities will guide me. Raising a family in Davis has provided me with knowledge to improve our school and family
services.
I would be honored to bring my education in law and my work experience in clean transportation, energy, raising funds and creating partnerships to the benefit of the City.
Thank you for considering me for the Davis City Council.
Signers: Janet Krovoza, Charlotte Krovoza, Lorraine Hwang, Leslie Hunger, Robert Canning, Ann Dyer-Bennet, Barbara Kendrick, Ronald Unger, Rita Montes Martin, Richard Marovich, Lisa Yamauchi, Jo Anne Enaebrecht, Kerry Banne Loux, Janet Berry, Thomas Burton, Lois Wolk, Steve Brown, Mariko Yamada, Leo Rainer, Karan Khoshiar, Richard Harris, Doug Fetterly, Angeline Lam, David Campos, Sheila Allen, Nina Wan, Dawn Myers Purkey, Donna Provenza, Gina Daleiden, Helen Thomson.
Form 700: Declared Rental Property on Olympic Drive
Jon Li
Candidate Statement: None
Signers: Eric Stromberg, Jonathan Woalley, John Munn Jr., Karan Khoashiar, Daniel Cohen, Adel Karlee, (unreadable), (unreadable), April Kamen, Michael Flowers, Robert Bodden, (unreadable), Janellyn Whittier, Terrell Whittier, Bill Cavins, (unreadable), Paul Guttenberg, Larry Dietrich, Charles Cunningham, Chris Congleton, Betty Riveres, Rhonda Gruska, Catherine Speck, Merline Williams, (unreadable), Brian Horsfield, Mark Siegler, Brian Dahmen, Manuel Carbahal
Form 700: No reportable interests
Rochelle Swanson
Occupation: Business Owner/Consultant
Education and Qualifications:
Davis deserves leadership dedicated to safe schools, open government, a healthy local economy and a stronger role in regional governance decisions. All my professional and community-based volunteer work over the last 20+ years has led in this direction and to my decision to run for city council. I have built a solid reputation as a leader, facilitating cooperative and constructive discussions that have led to success. I am proud of my track record.
As a parent of four children, the owner of my own business, and President of the Blue and White Foundation, I know first hand the challenges we all face. And unless we have a detailed future plan, we risk a strong and vibrant future. Nobody wants failure.
We all want success. We want to keep strong in Davis the community values that make Davis, Davis.
How?
• By building stronger ties between the city and our schools
• By creating an environment of mutual respect, of open government
• By supporting our local businesses
• By helping bolster downtown vitality and neighborhood convenience
• By making sure issues decided regionally are influenced by what we in Davis environmentally want and fiscally need
I appreciate your vote. www.rochellefordavis.org
Signers: Henry Wolf, Judy Wolf, Steve Boschken, Charles Swanson, Gina Daleiden, Chris Stabinfeldt, Heather Rinch, Sthephen Gelle, Grant Rockwell, Thomas Cross, Alan Fernandes, Mike Stre, Lindsey Satre, Patricia Greene, Charnel James, Tim Taylor, Laura Tomasello, Michael Wyman, Angela Gerould, Lee Pflusich, Will Arnold, Catherine Richardson, Kathran Boschken, Richard Harris, Miriam Fisk, Mason Harry
Form 700: Declared Business interest, the Davis Graduate ($100,000 to $1 million); Declared business, RHS Consulting ($2000 to $10,000); declared real property on Russell Blvd.; Declared Real Property on Brentwood as rental property
Sydney Vergis
Occupation: Transportation Research
Education and Qualifications:
This election must center on planning for our long-term future. We need a cohesive vision that combines economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and that emphasizes working together to nurture our qualify of life.
I will bring a fresh perspective to the Council – one that is based on my professional experience as a Senior Land Use Planner, background in municipal finance, service on two City Commissions (Business and Economic Development, and Tree Commission), and the enthusiasm to work hard for you.
Working together, we can develop thoughtful policies that enhance our community and save taxpayer dollars including:
- Establishing incentives for “green” businesses to locate downtown and in our neighborhood shopping centers, which will create job diversification and provide opportunities to invest locally in a sustainable lifestyle.
- Manage the costs of our planned infrastructure projects through diligent oversight and encouraging conservation;
- Reduce the costs of municipal operations and improve city services by partnering with the County and school districts to increase the use of shared facilities and resources;
- Increase the availability, connectivity, and safety of biking and walking infrastructure to reduce congestion, improve health, and reduce harmful emissions.
To find out more, please visit www.sydneyvergis.com
Signers: Richard Dorf, Elizabeth Weir, Don Saylor, Catherine Haskell, Teresa Kaneko, Judity Wydick, Richard Wydick, Betsey Marchand, Cayce Wallace, Ben Lyberger, George Rooks, Hila Rooks, Alinia Uy Asmundson, Ananya Choudhur, Martha West, Jerry Kaneko, Arun Sen, Calvin Handy, Hillary Olson, Herbert Bauer, Lea Rosenberg, Elisabeth Sherwin, Adam Bridge, Janice Bridge, Delaine Eastin, Helen Thomson, Timothy Tutt, Eileen Tutt, Susanne Rockwell, Brian Sway.
Form 700: No Reportable Interests
Daniel Watts
Occupation: Law Student
Candidate Statement:
Students’ rights – constitutional government – transparency.
Davis city government is broken. I’ll fix it:
- Repeal unconstitutional ordinances banning “annoying” conduct and “bawdy” language (Municipal Code Sections 26.01.010 and 26.01.100).
- Why? To comply with First Amendment.
- Require Davis businesses to obey state law, eliminate fees for credit card purchases.
- See Cal. Civ. Code. 1748.1.
- Direct Davis Police to release aggregate data on race, gender, age of detained citizens.
- Why? To address identity-based profiling
- Annex UC Davis and adjacent areas into city
- Let students vote in their own city!
- Stop Davis PD from beating protesters and blocking non-protesters from observing protests.
- Work with students, not against them.
- Provide free legal services for students whose landlords violate tenant law
- Coordinate with law school, provide legal observers to monitor police abuses during Halloween, Picnic Day, protests
- Use City Council pulpit to draw state attention to UC Davis
- Install bigger, more visible street signs
- Trim trees
- Light streets for safety
Experience:
- 2003: Ran for California governor on “lower student fees” platform
- 006-07: Public school teacher in Japan
- 2007-2008: Public school teacher in San Jose
- 2008-present: ACLU co-chairman and board member, UC Davis School of Law
Signers: Narresh Ravishanker, Rabia Paracha, Tim Miller, Daniel Watts, Phillip Kleam, Ezra Fox, Asheesh Kalra, Samuel Richey, Yuri Kuichko, Myliah Le, (unreadable), William McKerna, Brian Vu, Alexander Sathovsky, Erika Morris, Samuel Carstensen, Lindsay Gold, Eddol Davis, Michael Na, Nairi Chopurian, Brandon Kilian, Negin Wazdani, Anders Nelso, Frank Wild, Jesse Tare, Sarah Jebrock, Victoria Hassid, Alex Hodson, Daniel Raff, Brian Eller, Jacob Peterson, Julie Cowitz, James Tiehm, Rory Allen, Samuel Ford
Form 700: no reportable interests
My inclination is to “bullet vote” for Joe Krovosa. I see little difference between the other 4 candidates and on most issues that are important to me. Councilperson Souza will be at least as reliable as a 3rd vote as any of the 4 other candidates. I’d like to hear an alternative strategic analysis that would lead me to add a second vote to my ballot. Question?… if Joe Krovosa get the most votes and is declared Mayor Pro Tem, doesn’t he then become Mayor if/when Mayor Saylor leaves the Council?
“Bullet voting” is stupid. It is the same as not voting when you have the opportunity to do so.
I support Joe Krovoza and am interested to hear more from the rest. I am looking for reasonable people who will actually do something of benefit to the Davis community as a whole.
Ryan: “Bullet voting is stupid” is not quite an “alternative strategic analysis”.
I’m very happy to see that there are 5 candidates running. I don’t yet know who I support or don’t like, but I am grateful to have a choice. I hope (and expect) over the course of the next two months, the better candidates will distinguish themselves.
The single most important issue the City of Davis faces is how it deals with its labor costs and thus how much it can provide in services–everything from police and fire service to street maintenance to recreation and senior programs and facilities for the disabled and so on.
If we elect a city council which continues in the direction of the last 10-12 years, we will pay an equal amount for services and get much less. We may or may not face bankruptcy, though that is more and more a likelihood. What is surely going to happen if we keep up with our so-called “pro-labor” position on the council is more and more current city employees will be fired. (Yeah, I don’t get it either why firing employees is pro-labor.) The people who are getting fired now are lower-paid parks workers, who cut the grass, trim the bushes, pick up the garbage and so on. We are not yet firing the $200,000 a year firefighters. We have not yet cut out the $175,000 a year deputy department heads (some of whom appear to me to be doing $25,000 a year secretarial jobs).
As such, what we call a “pro-labor” position in Davis is a great loss for those at the bottom of the pyramid of City employees and a continued gain for those at the top–especially those who fund city council candidates and reap the rewards in contracts.
I don’t know why David Greenwald would assume there would be an appointment rather than an election for the empty seat.
Because I don’t think the city wants to pay the $250,000 to $300,000 for a special election.
David Greenwald: With a city council that is in the process of making decisions that stand to cost the city half a billion dollars, there is nothing more important than having council members elected rather than appointed.
Sue Greenwald: Good luck with that.
David Greenwald: Just love these guys who claim to put democracy first but…
[i]”Because I don’t think the city wants to pay the $250,000 to $300,000 for a special election.”[/i]
We won’t have a special election or a need for a special election.
I have assumed for some time now that when Don Saylor leaves the city council to join the Board of Supervisors, his seat would be filled by someone appointed by the remaining four members of the city council. However, a person (who works for the county election office) emailed me and informed me that assumption is wrong and that the precedent suggests, as Sue Greenwald said, the Saylor seat will be filled by someone who wins it by a vote of the people of Davis.
The last time a member of the city council resigned before his term was up–I was informed by my emailer–was in 1978 when Bob Black left. (I think he became a supervisor, too. I don’t really remember that. The emailer did not mention the reason.) Black was replaced by Richard Farrell, who my emailer said was elected in the November, 1978 election following Black’s September resignation.
Don Saylor will win the supervisor’s seat in the June, 2010 election. However, he will not be sworn in as a supervisor until January, 2011. Thus, Mr. Saylor can stay on the City Council until November, 2010, when we have a general election and a new member can win his seat.
Thus David’s assumptions, as I previously had thought, appear to be wrong.
P.S. If any old-timers are reading this who recall the Black resignation of 1978 and the Farrell election, please fill in any details or correct me if I got it wrong. I was 14 in 1978 and not following the comings and goings at City Hall (which, by the way, was then still at 3rd & F, where Bistro 33 is. I have much stronger memories of that place when it was the police station and I was locked up in the jail in the basement.).
A special election cannot occur to fill the unexpired term of a resigning member of a school board, city council etc. until that member in fact officially resigns. Only after that resignation can either an election or an appointment occur.
Don Saylor most likely will not be resigning as a city councilmember and as mayor until the first week of January 2011 when he becomes a county supervisor at which time his seat becomes vacant. The city council can then decide to hold a special election or appoint a successor to Saylor and also choose who will be the new mayor. If the city council decides to appoint someone in January 2011 that person will serve the remaining 18 months left on Saylor’s term. If the city council decides to hold a special election it will not occur until March/April 2011 and the winner will then serve the final 14 months of Saylor’s term.
The question for the city council in January 2011 will be whether it is cost effective to hold a special election for the remaining 14 month term for one council seat that will expire in June 2012? A special election will cost over $200,000. In light of scarce city resources, allowing the other four duly elected councilmembers make an interim appointment seems appropriate.
Rich:
“Thus David’s assumptions, as I previously had thought, appear to be wrong.”
My assumption may be wrong, I don’t know. But, I don’t believe Don will resign his spot until January, so that eliminates the General Election as a possibility.
It was a passing comment that was not meant as anything more than a lead in to the change that will occur on council between now and January. Obviously regardless of how Don’s replacement is chosen, the turnover will be there and that was my main point.
And btw, I’m only predicting that to be the mode of selecting a new councilperson, not advocating for it. I think arguments can be made for election and arguments can be made for appointment. It may be that four people in Davis cannot decide who to select. It may be that the cost proves too prohibitive. Or it may be that the idea of appointing a councilmember rubs people too far in the wrong direction.
Richard Farrell was not elected to the City Council. He was appointed by the city council serving until the 1988 election in which he then lost his race for election to a full term.
In the past forty years only two vacancies have occurred on the Davis City Council and both were filled by interim appointments. These appointed CC members were Richard Weinstock and Richard Farrell.
I would think that, although the 5 Councilmembers in Jan. 2011 could vote to select a replacement for Saylor, the elected Mayor Pro Tem from the Nov. 2010 election is the logical choice to replace Saylor as Mayor. It would adhere most closely to the Davis tradition of selecting its Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem from those who received the most Davis citizen votes in their ballot candidate list. Whether the elected 5th member should be the Mayor Pro Tem(He/she would be the top vote-getter in this special situation) is more problematic.
There have also been appointed Schoolboard members most recently Keltie Jones.
Davisite: Why would Don resign two months before he had to? In fact, he would have to do it even sooner for there to be an election.
[i]”Richard Farrell was not elected to the City Council. He was appointed by the city council serving [b]until the 1988 election[/b] in which he then lost his race for election to a full term.”[/i]
According to the information emailed to me, Farrell served until April, 1980, not until 1988.
[i]”Don Saylor most likely will not be resigning as a city councilmember and as mayor until the first week of January 2011 when he becomes a county supervisor at which time his seat becomes vacant.”[/i]
That sounds like a reasonable guess. On the other hand, the council does not meet in August. If Don were to resign his seat on August 1 (two months after he is elected to the Board of Supes), there would be four months for an election campaign. The elected person could take that seat in early November. And as such, the council would only be without its full panel for 3 months. (In 1978, the council had 4 members for 2 months, according to what I was told.)
Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to accept the third place finisher as an appointment to fill Don’s position?
“Richard Farrell was not elected to the City Council. He was appointed by the city council serving until the 1988 election in which he then lost his race for election to a full term.”
According to the information emailed to me, Farrell served until April, 1980, not until 1988.
Rich,
Sorry for the typo. He served via appointment from 1978 to 1980.
What if you don’t like the third place finisher? What gives them legitimacy, particularly in a field that looks like it only has three legitimate candidates?
Rich Rifkin
03/19/10 – 02:56 PM
…
“Don Saylor most likely will not be resigning as a city councilmember and as mayor until the first week of January 2011 when he becomes a county supervisor at which time his seat becomes vacant.”
That sounds like a reasonable guess. On the other hand, the council does not meet in August. If Don were to resign his seat on August 1 (two months after he is elected to the Board of Supes), there would be four months for an election campaign. The elected person could take that seat in early November. And as such, the council would only be without its full panel for 3 months. (In 1978, the council had 4 members for 2 months, according to what I was told.)
Rich,
Don Saylor has already stated he is looking forward to continuing to serve on the city council and as mayor from June 2010 until the new year when he becomes a county supervisor.
[i]”Don Saylor has already stated he is looking forward to continuing to serve on the city council and as mayor from June 2010 until the new year when he becomes a county supervisor.”[/i]
I didn’t know Don said that. Perhaps he will change his mind or consider resigning his seat early enough so that the election for his replacement can come in November.
I would not like to see the city spend “$250,000 to $300,000 for a special election.”
Does anyone know if it would be legal for the council to appoint an interim member of the council when Don steps down; and the interim appointment would last only until the next regularly scheduled election? If that were possible, then we could have an elected member and a full panel on the council.
Rich,
I think it would be a real mistake to appoint an “interim” council member. The individual appointed as “interim” would likely run as an incumbent whenever the next election would be held. Appointments are very undemocratic, and obviously re-enforce the incumbent council majority.
I have one idea: If a county supervisor has a spouse with insurance or insurance through, for example, having a 3% at 50 retirement, that individual will be taking home over $80,000 a year as supervisor if you count the car allowance that supervisors receive.
If someone runs for council intending to step down after two years to take the supervisor position, as I believe Don Saylor has done, perhaps that individual could donate their first year of supervisor take home pay to help offset cost of the need for the election that they have knowingly created.
Rich: It seems to me that the ball is completely in Don’s court. If he doesn’t want a special election, then he will simply wait until after the November election to resign. He obviously can’t be compelled to resign early.
The question I haven’t seen addressed here is what happens if he resigns as mayor but keeps his council seat? This would give him a say in his replacement. From the perspective of representational government, it would be completely rational for him to adopt the position that he should be involved in appointing his replacement. He was the top vote getter, he was elected to represent the people of Davis, and helping to select his replacement is arguably a form of representation.
I’m not advocating this approach, just pointing it out since some of the calls for a special election are transparently self-serving.
What if you don’t like the third place finisher? What gives them legitimacy, particularly in a field that looks like it only has three legitimate candidates?
Always a risk, I guess. I’ve seen races where I didn’t like any of the candidates. Just a thought. It would give some sense of community choice without paying money for an extra election.
The election is called after the council member leaves in January. Then, the council has 30 days to name an election date or appoint someone. There are three dates in 2011 in which the election could be held. There is plenty of time in which to see if there will be another election held on one of these three dates during which costs could be shared. Again, the member who opted to vacate the post for a much higher paid post could help pay as well. Regardless, democracy is worth the price.
Sue Greenwald and Rich Rifkin ,
“”I have one idea: If a county supervisor has a spouse with insurance or insurance through, for example, having a 3% at 50 retirement, that individual will be taking home over $80,000 a year as supervisor if you count the car allowance that supervisors receive. “”
Why are you two always complaining about people who go out into the job market , decide there profession , better themselves with school ,and work hard to perform there best for whatever they do ?
Are they doing something wrong by working 40 hours a week ? Should they commit there lives to public office or part time work as you two do ?
Not everybody wants to be the king or queen .
[i]”Why are [b]you two[/b] always complaining about people who go out into the job market, decide there [b](sic)[/b] profession, better themselves with school, and work hard to perform there [b](sic)[/b] best for whatever they do?”[/i]
I have never once in my life ever registered, spoken, written or in any other way communicated any complaint of any sort which comes anywhere near what you charge me with, Ava.
Why are you making such a false claim against me? Jealous?
in a field that looks like it only has three legitimate candidates?
I’m curious which three of the five candidates you consider “legitimate.” What makes one candidate more “legitimate” than another?
Should have said “candidates with a legitimate chance of winning.” Right now, that’s how I would handicap the race. I’d be delighted if you prove me wrong on that account.
Rich Rifkin ,
“”I have never once in my life ever registered, spoken, written or in any other way communicated any complaint of any sort which comes anywhere near what you charge me with, “”
How about 75 % of all city workers , state workers , unionized workers , does that ring a bell ?
“Why would Don resign two months before he had to?……”
A better question, David, is why would Don Saylor NOT resign early to permit the Davis voters to select his replacement in the Nov. election. IMO,his time on the Davis dais(the continuing budget crisis, Whitcombe’s project, Newpath scandal) in the Fall would probably not help his political popularity. Supervisor Saylor would be demonstrating his “populist” democratic impulses to the Davis voter, not trying to “game” the system for any special interest’s political advantage. A few month’s vacation/break before assuming his seat as Supervisor would also probably be welcomed.
“A few month’s vacation/break….”
Actually, given that December is usually a “dead” month for Council activity, essentially, if he resigned in at the end of October, the total Council would be effectively short-handed for about one month. This is clearly the best alternative to the city spending $300,000 for a special election or an appointed Council member lacking democratic legitimacy.
If he resigned at the end of October, he couldn’t be replaced on the November election, I don’t believe. He would have to resign in enough time so that the seat was vacant and a special election could be called, that requires the seat be vacant not just the anticipation thereof. Moreover, as has been stated numerous times on here, it is a moot point, since he has already indicated when he is going to resign.
So… resignation at the end of September. As to his intention statement, Don can make an extremely good case(saving $300,000 and making a decision that gives his fellow Davis citizens the ability to democratically choose his replacement) that his resignation in September is a personal sacrifice that he is happy to make for the good of Davis.
It may be earlier than that.
“It may be earlier than that….”
If the controlling party here is Davis rather than the Yolo County Election Board, there should be no problem. We have seen how easy it is to “stretch” Davis city rules with Bob Emlen receiving ” special dispensation” to his requirement to be a resident of Davis to hold our City Manager position.
The controlling party is Yolo County because they have to print the ballot. We know from last year that Measure P had to be put on the ballot by the end of July.
However, this is still a moot point as Don Saylor has given every indication that he will resign in January at the point at which he takes office as a County Supervisor. That was my overriding consideration when I made the statement in passing that seems to have triggered a lot more discussion than some other things that I thought might.
“seems to have triggered a lot more discussion than some other things that I thought might.”
Yes, such as: does anybody have an opinion about Jon Li, and about the impact of his late entry into the race?
[b]AVA:[/b] [i]”Why are you two always complaining about people who … better themselves …?”[/i]
[b]RIF:[/b] [i]”I have never … communicated any complaint … you charge me with, Ava.”[/i]
[b]AVA:[/b] [i]”How about 75% of all city workers, state workers, unionized workers, does that ring a bell?”[/i]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Your false charge has no application to me. I have never in my life complained about or otherwise been critical of anyone trying to honestly better himself. Never, ever, not once.
It’s unfortunate that you think it is a reasonable debate tactic to go on this site anonymously and make stuff up about me which is entirely false. That’s a cowardly and terribly unfair strategy on your part.
If I ever run for supervisor while sitting on the council, I would certainly promise to resign the council seat early enough for the council to hold a special election in November. What we are seeing here is one of the disadvantages of an uncontested election. Had their been an opponent, this issue would have come up, and I suspect that, once the cost to the city had been determined, Don Saylor would have agreed to resign early enough to schedule an inexpensive election to replace him.
Sue G: “If someone runs for council intending to step down after two years to take the supervisor position, as I believe Don Saylor has done, perhaps that individual could donate their first year of supervisor take home pay to help offset cost of the need for the election that they have knowingly created.”
“Again, the member who opted to vacate the post for a much higher paid post could help pay as well. “
Does anyone else notice a bitter tone running through this woman’s remarks? Where hast comity fled?
Mayor pro tem Don Saylor was re-elected receiving the most votes in 2008 and earned the right to serve as Davis Mayor beginning in June 2010. He has a duty to serve until his resignation in January 2010 when his supervisorial term begins.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald’s argument is not about democracy, but about her own politics. Ms. Greenwald for months leading up to the filing deadline stated to the press and to many others seeking support that she was considering a run for supervisor against Don Saylor—which she chose not to do. Now she complains about the traditional custom used in Davis to fill vacancies on the city council by appointment claiming this is undemocratic.
Democracy in many cases allows for and requires that the elected representatives of the people make appointments. As in most California cities, the Davis city council appoints the city manager and the city attorney, appoints all members to city commissions and may make an interim appointment to a vacancy on the city council itself. It will be up to the new City Council to select Don Saylor’s replacement upon his resignation in early January 2010. Sue Greenwald does not like that, hence her argument against having the democratically elected councilmembers select an interim replacement for Mr. Saylor.
Again, her argument is not about democracy, but about her own politics.
“….this is still a moot point as Don Saylor has given every indication that he will resign in January at the point at which he takes office…”
Elected politicians often make the statement that they will serve out their current entire term when running for election to a higher office only to “reconsider” their decision after they are indeed elected to that higher office. In Don Saylor’s case, his reconsideration would not only serve Davis well but himself as well as it would begin his term as a Davis Supervisor on a popular democratic(small d) political “note”.
Vanguardian: I am certainly not bitter, and I have absolutely nothing to be bitter about. What possible personal political gain do I have at this point over this issue? None.
I believe that appointments are undemocratic, and the least that an elected can do when he/she leaves midterm is to resign in a timely fashion so that an election can be held at little city expense.
I am hoping that Don Saylor chooses to save the city money during this time of fiscal crisis. He might not thought through the cost implications when he made his comments about serving up to the last minute.
Interesting that the person who made this hostile comment signs him/herself as “Vanguardian”. The Davis Vanguard seems to have changed its tune since the Wildhorse Ranch election.
Sue Greenwald:
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Appointments are democratic when made by democratically elected city councilmembers carrying out their duties and responsibilities.
There is no expense at all to the city if the city council via interim appointment selects a temporary replacement to fill a council vacancy.
Councilwoman Greenwald: You couldn’t find a single candidate to run this time, not one. Maybe instead of worry about this you could have seen to it that you weren’t the only candidate supporting the left/ progressive agenda in Davis left on the council? And I don’t want to hear your excuses, you flat out didn’t get it done. You’re the leader and you failed us.
[b]BRIAN:[/b] [i]”Councilwoman Greenwald: You couldn’t find a single candidate to run this time, not one.”[/i]
What makes you think it is Sue’s responsibility to do this task YOU have assigned her? You call her “the leader” and say she failed you. However, it seems like you think Sue is supposed to have some magic powers because she serves on the city council.
[b]BRIAN:[/b] [i]”Maybe instead of worry (sic) about this [b]you could have seen to it[/b] that you weren’t the only candidate supporting the left/progressive agenda in Davis left on the council?”[/i]
Are you blaming Sue because Lamar is not running for re-election?
Are you suggesting that “left/progressive” people who wanted to run for council did not because Sue did not go door-to-door recruiting them?
Brian, it seems to me you are directing your anger in the wrong direction. People who choose to run for the council make up their own minds on that.
I’m with “A Vanguardian.” This sanctimonious rhetoric about undemocratic appointments and the bizarre call for reimbursement are so blatantly self-serving that they can’t be taken seriously.
Sue kept talking about running then failed to file. If she had bowed out earlier someone might have come forward. She may not have a responsibility to find a candidate but she is one of the biggest reasons
Don does not have an opponent.
[quote]Appointments are democratic when made by democratically elected city councilmembers carrying out their duties and responsibilities — The Vanguardian[/quote] As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be a real mistake to appoint an “interim” council member. The individual appointed as “interim” would likely run as an incumbent whenever the next election would be held. Appointments are very undemocratic, and obviously re-enforce the incumbent council majority.
[quote]Sue kept talking about running then failed to file. If she had bowed out earlier someone might have come forward. She may not have a responsibility to find a candidate but she is one of the biggest reasons
Don does not have an opponent.– Mr. Toad [/quote]That is utter nonsense. I was quoted over and over and over again in the Enterprise saying that I would prefer if someone else stepped forward. I posted my pleas for someone to step forward on this blog. I made umpteen phone calls imploring potential candidates to run.
On the last weekend before filing, an Enterprise reporter called me and asked me if I would run, and I told him that I was still considering filing. I was then inundated with calls, e-mails, and even people on the street asking me to stay on the council because they felt that I was the council member that they counted on, and that they felt that the council job was more relevant to their concerns than the supervisor job.
Jon Li will be a great addition to the council race. He understands how politics affect the common person / can relate to people in lower economic strata. Furthermore he isn’t going to spend tons of money on his campaign which is the best trend in our council races we can hope for. It isn’t enough to not accept developer money, council races where no-cash candidates can maybe win is a good trend. It might put Bill Ritter and Kemble Pope out of the election business, but that is fine by me.
Don Saylor could take his campaign money and donate it to the county for electing his replacement, or at least offer to. Even though that is somewhat an absurd idea, it might be a smart political move.
But you never made the Sherman statement definitively taking yourself out while in fact many many people were led to believe that you were going to run by both your behavior and statements made by people close to you. As told to me, you stormed out of a Dem club meeting when Don spoke and it was said that everyone knows you are going to run by someone close to you who I would like to remain nameless. So in the end you claim that you didn’t run for your constituents in Davis but I guess you didn’t run because you knew you would lose. Still an earlier departure would have cleared the air for someone else to possibly come forward.