On Tuesday night, with everyone home and most of them asleep, the clock about to strike midnight, Mayor Ruth Asmundson, herself leaving council in a little over two months, opened discussion to the possibility of having a council discussion as to who becomes the next mayor.
It nearly turned into another late night fight, however, wiser heads prevailed as Don Saylor ultimately by implication put an end to the possibility of toying with the Mayor selection process at this time.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald immediately went on the attack. She said, “It’s inappropriate for one council to bind the hands of another council.” She noted as well that the city council does not have time for this discussion. It was mentioned in the preceding discussion by City Manager Bill Emlen that May had an extremely packed agenda with the budget and other business.
“That’s a decision for the next council to make,” she said, “We could spend three days discussing and arguing about this and the next council could change our decision, so why waste the time?” She added, “outgoing people should not influence the policy of the next council.”
The Mayor quickly responded that this would not be about selecting the next person to be Mayor, only the process by which they are selected.
Councilmember Greenwald asserted, “The only reason to bring this up now is to try to micromanage who is selected by the next council.”
Stephen Souza pointed out that we make policy all the time that bleeds over. He suggested he would like to hear a presentation on the municipal code that went over the policy and procedures that would lay out who would become Mayor in the event of a vacancy. He would also like to hear about how other communities handle the action of filling a vacancy.
This move certainly does not seem necessary and the municipal code specifies that that the Mayor Pro Tem would take over as Mayor during times when the Mayor cannot run meetings. That is really the only official duty of the Mayor anyway in the weak mayorship that Davis has. It seems very clear that whoever becomes Mayor Pro Tem in June should become Mayor in January when Don Saylor steps down.
That should be an acceptable solution unless you have a predetermined outcome in mind.
Councilmember Greenwald saw through this canard by her colleague calling it “self-serving.” “You want to be the next Mayor,” she said, “but the next Council will decide who’s the next mayor. As it stands now, it’s the person who gets the most votes the next time.”
To which Stephen Souza quipped, “I’m sure glad you can read my mind, my wife can’t even do that a lot of the time.”
Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor pretty much put an end to this discussion by agreeing with Sue Greenwald that the time to discuss these matters is when there is an actual vacancy. And regardless, “My participation in the discussion of any process is not appropriate.”
With three apparent votes opposing the discussion the matter was pretty much closed. Regardless of what happens, I believe that Sue Greenwald is correct, the matter should be discussed when the vacancy comes up, not in anticipation of the vacancy, and certainly not by a Council that will only have two members still seated when the issue comes up for real discussion. Allow the next council to set the rules by which they can select the next Mayor.
I will go on the record now suggesting that the next Mayor after Don Saylor should be whoever gets the most votes in June and is seated as the Mayor Pro Tem in July. If that does not happen, then Council will have a fight on their hands. This is akin to discussion in 2006, when Council publicly made intonations that they would look into ways to deny Sue Greenwald the Mayorship that she had rightfully earned by being the top vote-getter in 2004. Any attempt to change the rules midcourse and attempt to make Stephen Souza the Mayor, will precipitate a fight.
And frankly it is not the fight we need to make. The business that the council has before it, the budget in particular is vital to this community. People need to understand the risk that we face with the structural problems in our budget that were unresolved in the last rounds of labor discussions. Until we deal with those, all of these issues are side-fights and battles for political power in a city about to fiscally collapse under the weight policy enacted over the last eight years by much of this outgoing council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]And frankly it is not the fight we need to make. The business that the council has before it, the budget in particular is vital to this community. People need to understand the risk that we face with the structural problems in our budget that were unresolved in the last rounds of labor discussions. Until we deal with those, all of these issues are side-fights and battles for political power in a city about to fiscally collapse under the weight policy enacted over the last eight years by much of this outgoing council.[/quote]I also made that point Tuesday night, David.
“Councilmember Greenwald saw through this canard by her colleague.” David, the article switched from news to opinion here, which is your prerogative, but I like it better when opinions are about what policies should happen, not what another person is thinking. Too commonly, people attribute unwarranted bad motives to others’ thoughts. (The Harvard Negotiation Project folks, authors of “The Third Side” agree with me here.)
Adrienne Kandel
In retrospect, what bothered me was opinion stated as a assertion, in addition to my pet peeve of thinking we know what others think. I appreciate the policy discussion on why it’s best to go with top June vote-getter, and I’d appreciate any respondent’s policy discussion on why to instead go with previous election runner-up.
David: What is your position on rotating the mayorship? I just watched the streaming video, and it is clear that this is why Ruth raised the issue. Good idea or bad idea?
1. Council members, as they are when a vacancy actually exists, should vote/affirm who will be the new mayor.
2. The default should be the person who has the title mayor pro tempore at that time.
3. Council members, as they are when a vacancy actually exists, should vote for who will be the new council member to fill the vacant councilmember position.
4. In selecting the new councilperson to fill the void, the council should be cognizant of those who have run for the position before… Maynard… are you still up to the task?
David… you missed (probably due to your age) the interesting one… before the current rules, there was an interesting set of “facts”… in those years, when there were 3 seats open (every 4 years), I posit that an interesting phenomenon took place… in a large field, most people have strong feelings about their 1st two picks, less so on their third. Observe the elections where Julie Partansky and Debbie Nichols-Poulos were first elected. In my recollection/opinion, neither were the ‘strong candidates’, but a lot of people thought they would be interesting to see how they would serve… since (in my opinion) they were consensus candidates as a third pick, they actually both were the highest vote-getters. Debbie was denied her chance to serve as mayor, in a power-play orchestrated by Mike Corbett, Dave Rosenberg, and Ann Evans. Jerry Adler attempted a reverse ploy, by suggesting that Ann Evans, Mayor at the time, be selected to continue in that role. I was in the chambers at the time, and there was a significant pause, as Ms Evans considered the possibility. She decided to stick to the “arrangement”, and cast the deciding vote to make Corbett the Mayor…
Although, on many levels, I really care less about who is mayor, as opposed to who is on the Council, I still believe that my 3 points should be how the City proceeds.
Shouldn’t be an “official post”, but David, I note that the “timestamp” on postings doesn’t take DST into account… no worries, just an observation.
I noticed that the other day too, we had this problem last time change as well. Thanks.
hpierce: Not only before my time, but before I came to Davis. But I think your example illustrates precisely why I believe we ought to leave the current rules in place, allow the winner to become mayor pro tem and then mayor. I think it has worked well and it gives an award, nominal and thankless as it might be sometimes, to the person who finishes first. Like you, I don’t care that much about who is mayor, but I did not like the perception of Souza trying to angle for the position and putting Ruth up to it.
[quote]But I think your example illustrates precisely[/quote]
Why the “but”? I think we’re in basic concurrence… 0r do you feel a need to disagree?
The but was meant to play off the previous sentence, Before my time, but I think your example… Don’t read too far into it.
We are of one mind on this issue… no gamesmanship…
[quote]Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor pretty much put an end to this discussion by agreeing with Sue Greenwald that the time to discuss these matters is when there is an actual vacancy. And regardless, “My participation in the discussion of any process is not appropriate.”
[/quote]
To an even much greater degree, Ruth’s participation in such discussions is inappropriate. Why would she even try to initiate the discussion of a process that will occur (unless Don Saylor changes his mind) six months after she is no longer on the council?
[quote]Why would she even try to initiate the discussion of a process that will occur (unless Don Saylor changes his mind) six months after she is no longer on the council?[/quote]If you will carefully watch the streaming video, you will see that Ruth brought up the question because we are in a unique position in the next 30 days to consider a rotating mayor model. The next mayor has announced he is leaving mid-term. The next mayor pro tem has not yet been elected. As a consequence, we have the **option** to go to a rotating mayor model without depriving an incumbent of their expectations of time as mayor or mayor pro tem.
As I posted above, I have no idea if this is a good or bad idea. I also don’t think it’s fair to read any nefarious intent into Ruth bringing up the topic. I’ve heard the model being floated from time to time, and we simply have an unusual opportunity to consider it in May without any adverse consequences to an incumbent. Fair enough.
IMO the reason it was not obvious what Ruth’s reasoning was is that Sue interrupted her and seized the floor before she had a chance to make herself clear. After an ugly exchange involving Steve, Don threw a wet blanket on the conversation. By the time Ruth got the floor back and explained herself, the dialog was already so hopelessly poisoned with accusations that there was no hope of a rational discussion. Moreover, Ruth’s second attempt to comment was also interrupted by Sue – effectively squelching any further discussion of the topic.
As a preemptive response to the attacks I will likely receive for posting this … I encourage anyone that disputes these observations to watch the video for themselves. I will post a timeline with the precise time stamps if necessary. Could Ruth have been more forceful in getting her point across? Yes. Could Ruth have maintained better control of the meeting? Yes. Does Ruth deserve to be slammed because she raised the topic? No.