As soon as next week, Davis may have the answer to the first of two key questions created by Don Saylor’s ascension to the County Supervisor position. The question of who is to replace him on the council will be a much longer and more drawn-out scenario than the one that determines who replaces him as Mayor or the one who runs the council meetings.
Former Davis City Councilmember Ted Puntillo joined the push for Stephen Souza to become the next Mayor of Davis. We could be less than a week from finding out who will be the next mayor, but in all likelihood it will not be Mr. Souza.
In a letter to the Davis Enterprise, Mr. Puntillo writes, “I was on the Davis City Council from 2002 through 2006. I know personally how this system works. While being the mayor does not give a person any more of a vote than any other council member, this position acts as a meeting manager who makes sure the council meetings are run as efficiently as possible.”
He continues, “This position is probably more important to the other council members and the city staff than it is to our citizens. The person running the meeting should have experience and a calm and collaborative demeanor that allows all views to be expressed while making sure that meetings are productive and stay on point.”
He adds, “I encourage this council to appoint Stephen Souza to this post in January. He has served honorably since 2004 and has the cool, collaborative manner that is necessary to make sure our council meetings are run properly. I sat next to Stephen for two years and saw first-hand how he operates. His style is inclusive and his intentions always have the citizens’ best interests at heart.”
By his calculation, Sue Greenwald has already been mayor, Joe Krovoza will be mayor soon, and Rochelle Swanson has only been on the council for a short time.
While City Attorney Harriet Steiner left the matter open, the council has generally followed the format of placing the Mayor Pro Tem as the next Mayor.
Ms. Steiner writes, “Government Code section 36801 requires that after each general municipal election the City Council select one councilmember to serve as mayor and one as mayor pro tempore. However, the mayor and mayor pro tempore are not specific “offices” in the sense that the holders possess special rights to them. Rather, the mayor and mayor pro tempore both serve at the pleasure of the City Council.”
She continues, “In addition to ultimately becoming the mayor, the mayor pro tempore performs the duties of the mayor if the mayor is absent or disabled. This would permit the current Mayor Pro Tempore to act as the mayor upon the Mayor’s resignation.”
However, she believes that “While the City Council could decide to do this, it is not required to do so. Absences and disabilities are temporary limitations on the Mayor’s ability to serve. The Municipal Code does not require or preclude the Council from deciding that the Mayor Pro Tempore should serve as mayor upon a vacancy in the office.”
“Based on this, in our opinion, the City Council may appoint any councilmember to serve out the remainder of the current Mayor’s term. The Council also has the full discretion to take any appropriate action with respect to the appointment of a mayor that it deems in the City’s best interests.”
The Council has agreed to come back on January 4, 2011, the day after Mr. Saylor becomes Supervisor Don Saylor, and discuss both the replacement of the Mayor and the process by which Mr. Saylor’s vacant seat would be filled.
However, from a practical standpoint, there seems to be little chance that Stephen Souza would become Mayor unless Joe Krovoza is willing to cede that to him. That does not appear to be his inclination, although he has never stated anything of the kind on the record.
Counting the votes, one realizes that if Mayor Pro Tem Krovoza wants to be Mayor, he probably has three votes to do it. Sue Greenwald would never vote for Mr. Souza, a longtime adversary. Rochelle Swanson would appear more likely to support the Mayor Pro Tem over Mr. Souza. That leaves Mr. Souza with only one possible vote if he chose to run for the position.
From a pragmatic standpoint, Joe Krovoza, who has strong support from both sides of the Davis political divide, would also appear to be a strong choice. He is unlikely to get embroiled in personal political bickering. He is more likely to keep the peace among the current council.
While Mr. Souza has at times been a swing-vote, on key issues he has always sided with the pro-development side of the ledger. He will likely be the most pro-development member of the council once Don Saylor officially leaves. Joe Krovoza has tried to skirt out a more centrist position and has not been involved in past inter-personal feuds on the council.
The one clear disadvantage is the experience factor> However, perhaps we are more in need of change in leadership than a link to past policy mistakes and past political feuds.
In the end, no matter how many Ted Puntillo’s step up, the ball is squarely in Joe Krovoza’s court. If he wants the position, it is his. And we have seen no indication that he doesn’t.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Ted Puntillo’s tenure as Davis Councilperson was characterized by open contempt for the will of the Davis voters. It is not surprising that he now supports Souza who,we remember, bellowed from the dais,”WE(on the Council dais) are the decision-makers!!” Candidate Joe Krovoza pledged to have the Davis voters MORE involved planning the future of their city
daisite2 offered no facts to support the position [quote]open contempt for the will of the Davis voters[/quote]… Ted was nowhere near our greatest council member… that being said, I suspect that the author didn’t like that things didn’t his/her way… Krovoza has violated the Municipal Code in his first month of office… he should assume the office of mayor… he is mayor pro-tem… then he should be judged as to how well he serves…
Ted Puntillo is a sage voice of reason in the Davis community. He has been a dedicated public servant his entire adult life. He has the burnished credentials to offer opinion on the state of Davis politics. He would be a fine choice as well for the interim council appointment.
[quote]”The person running the meeting should have experience and a calm and collaborative demeanor that allows all views to be expressed while making sure that meetings are productive and stay on point.”[/quote] Does it seem odd that Ted, after laying out these criteria, would push for someone who hasn’t consistently displayed such a demeanor.
Two recent incidents illustrate which one of these gentlemen provides more promise to lead a positive, productive council. When Don Saylor stepped away to allow the remaining council members to discuss plans for replacing him, Joe Krovoza did an impressive job dealing with his colleagues and the city staff in a confident, respectful and business-like manner. In my opinion, Joe is ready to take the gavel–isn’t that what we voted for him to do?
Contrast Stephen’s disappointing performance after the council finished cleaning up the Zipcar mess. Unable to let the issue rest without one last zinger attempt, he engaged in an obviously rehearsed colloquy with the city’s Zipcar staffer. “Was there anything in the fact sheet that wasn’t true?” “No.” “Are you going to make any changes in the fact sheet?” “No.” Continuing for several minutes, responses were followed by Stephen’s dramatic pauses and gazing down the row of his colleagues for effect.
Of course, the point they tried to drive home was lost since the conversation simply confirmed that the Zipcar fact sheet bore little resemblance to the original contract that the council approved to initiate the program. I’d say that temperament is more important than any amount of this kind of “experience.”
Bottom line: it really does not matter too much who holds the title as mayor. The mayor has no powers in any significant respects. Whether it is Krovoza or Souza*, the most important decisions are going to be made by the Krovoza-Souza-Swanson bloc on the council, and I suspect the odds are strong that the new member** who replaces Saylor will form a fourth person on that bloc.
In 2011, the most important decisions the counsel will make–or will not make–regard our labor contracts and other matters of the budget. Given the sluggish housing market, no new housing developments will get through the council, including the ConAgra proposal now being floated.
Based on their do-nothing and wait approach since joining the council last summer, I don’t expect the Ro-Jo Show to do anything. Despite the promise that they would adopt a second-tier for pensions for new hires by last June, this council is too afraid to act. They lack guts. We have a council (other than Sue) which is scared to rock the boat. They will just wait until some other council has to bail out the boat they let sink.
* Because Stephen has a lot more experience on the council and because he served on a number of city commissions before joining the council 6 years ago, it makes much more sense to me that Souza would be chosen as the next mayor. It’s not clear to me why Krovoza even ran for the council–he does not appear to be putting in the time it takes to even prepare for council meetings.
** One thing I am certain of about the new member–this majority bloc is not going to pick someone who has a strong, forceful personality who has an ambition to get things done with our labor troubles. This council is far more likely to pick someone who is passive, quiet, inactive and more of a go-along and get-along type.
hpierce: “Krovoza has violated the Municipal Code in his first month of office”
Please explain…
Nice analysis DMG. I greatly respect Ted Puntillo’s work with our Veterans, but I disagree with Ted’s suggestion of who should replace Saylor as Mayor. It would seem to me the logical choice for Mayor is whoever happens to be Mayor Pro-Tem… which is Krovoza.
Correction: “In 2011, the most important decisions the [s]counsel[/s] council will make–or will not make–regard our labor contracts and other matters of the budget.”
I think it does matter who is mayor. The mayor sets the agenda, runs the meetings and has a greater influence on the discussion/process than other members. Note that these are precisely the areas where our City Council has been lacking. Joe is the better choice.
I would not call Stephen Souza “a long-term adversary” of mine. This implies there is something personal going on, which is not the case on my part.
Stephen and I certainly disagree on many planning and fiscal issues. Stephen has voted for just about every housing proposal by developers that has come down the pike, and did not support me on such key fiscal issues as cutting enhanced early retirement benefits, cutting way back on the very expensive and unfair cafeteria cash-out provisions, or reigning in firefighter total compensation. Even on important smaller issues such as Davis freeway signage, Stephen has supported supported LED lighted, moving freeway signs in Davis, while I have opposed them.
However, policy disagreements do not preclude people from being mayor in my book. But a history of unfairness is certainly a factor.
When I was in the majority back in year 2000 when Ken Wagstaff was mayor, we allocated appointments among councilmembers fairly and according to seniority and position. Hence, Susie Boyd and Sheryl Freeman were given the top interjurisdictional and board appointments because they were more experienced and because Susie had received the most votes in the previous election. Mike Harrington and I, as junior members, deferred although presumably we had three votes to give ourselves the most influential appointments.
When Stephen’s faction had a majority, this favor was not returned. In fact, the opposite occurred. I was frozen out of the key interjurisdictional appointments such as SACOG and LAFCO and most boards even though I was both senior and had received the most votes in the previous election. Stephen aggressively pursued this policy, which was far from collegial. In fact, I was even overruled by Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson when, as mayor, I appointed myself to SACOG as is customary.
To me, the important attributes of a good mayor are a wholehearted acceptance of the spirit of the role and a willingness to play by the rules, as stated in our councilmember procedures manual and our rules of order.
This includes fairness in appointments, acting as a “traffic director” during discussion and participating in, but taking a back seat, in debate. A good mayor calls on people to speak in the order that they raise their hands or otherwise indicate, (Don Saylor, unfortunately, called on people to speak in an order HE determined. This tactic can be used to exert inappropriate influence on the direction of the debate, particularly if one who holds position contrary to staff recommendation is forced to speak last).
And finally, I think a mayor should respect the rules of the game as to who is appointed mayor. Stephen was active in a number of council discussions involving changing the rules of the game which would have deprived me of the seat after I had been the top vote-getter (public pressure prevailed in the end), and even supported Ruth Asmunson’s move to consider changing the rules of the game after Joe Krovoza had received the most votes.
While I don’t know how Joe will perform as mayor, he has appeared collegial so far, and when I cast my vote for the next mayor, I will certainly be weighing the factors stated above.
Sue , maybe this is related to your actions at a council meeting , where this blog scolded your actions of treatment of your fellow council members . “”””””When Stephen’s faction had a majority, this favor was not returned. In fact, the opposite occurred. I was frozen out of the key interjurisdictional appointments such as SACOG and LAFCO and most boards even though I was both senior and had received the most votes in the previous election. “”””
[i]”I think it does matter who is mayor. The mayor sets the agenda …”[/i]
For most issues the agenda is determined by a combination of a requisite timetable, projects or protests put forward by applicants and the needs of the law or staff or a combination of the council majority and staff. When you take two members who generally vote along the same lines, as so far we have found with Joe and Stephen*, the items on the agenda under one would likely be no different than under the other.
*The only issue I recall where Joe and Stephen were against one another was with the wood-burning restrictions, where Joe lost on a 4-1 vote.
I don’t discount the potential for some agenda manipulation by a mayor. I just don’t think over the course of the next 18 months the difference in that regard will be large.
I think there could be a real difference in tone or tactics or tolerance for dissent. But from a public policy perspective–that is, what outcomes we get–I doubt there will be much of a distinction, if any, to the general public. I think the difference is much larger to the members of the council, based on egos and ids.
Disagree that mayor doesn’t make much difference. Mayor runs the mtgs and I will that for Don that he is a huge improvement over Ruth in running a mtg.
Also mayor has some say in long range agenda topics and I would think Koe will take All ithers’ wishes into consideration much more than Steve.
Joe is impressive and should be mayor.
Rich Rifkin: “For most issues the agenda is determined by a combination of a requisite timetable, projects or protests put forward by applicants and the needs of the law or staff or a combination of the council majority and staff.”
It is the mayor and city staff who set the final agenda, as I understand it. Commissions work this way and I believe so does the City Council. Former mayor Don Saylor served a six month term on the Davis City Council before moving onto County Supervisor, refusing to give up his City Council seat early, bc he wanted to push forth his own agenda (Saylor’s words not mine). When a mayor acts as a “traffic cop”, s/he can to some degree manipulate what comes forward for discussion and what does not; how long the discussion is on any particular item; to what extent the public is allowed to comment, and so forth. I think you very much underestimate the inherent power of being the Mayor on the City Council or the Chair of a Commission…
[i]”I think you very much underestimate the inherent power of being the Mayor on the City Council or the Chair of a Commission… “[/i]
I think you very much underestimate the inherent power of being a majority voting bloc on the City Council, where the mayor’s agenda on issues of substance* is really the agenda of his closest supporters. As such, the agenda of our next mayor would be nearly identical between the two men who seem to be aspiring toward that position.
I would also add that the top executives of city staff seem to try to accommodate the wishes and needs of the majority of the city council when it comes to shaping the city’s agenda. So in cases where we have had a mayor who could not command a majority of votes on the council, the agenda reflected the views of the majority on the council and not the mayor so much.
I really think, thus, that where you will find a greater distinction between one mayor and another is with how the meetings are run. That probably in most cases does not affect outcome on policy questions**. But it does set the tone for expedience or civility or exposition or other factors with the city council meetings.
*I can think of a couple of minor issues–such as with our ineffectual ‘dark skies’ ordinance–where the mayor was able to put in effect a policy that might not have been done with a different person holding the gavel.
**I invite anyone to suggest a case where the personal style of the mayor likely affected the outcome of a vote on a substantive policy.
New leadership for Davis
Earlier this year voters overwhelming elected newcomers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson to the Davis city council. Both have proven to be independent thinkers, professional in their conduct, who work well with others including their Council colleagues. Upon Don Saylor’s departure, Joe Krovoza as the current mayor pro tem should become our next mayor. Replacing Joe as mayor pro tem should be Rochelle Swanson. Davis needs our leaders to be free of the historical bickering, petty jealousies and disrespectful conduct that have chronically afflicted our “senior” council members and spilled over into the public arena in recent years.
Rifkin: “**I invite anyone to suggest a case where the personal style of the mayor likely affected the outcome of a vote on a substantive policy.”
Two examples come quickly to mind.
1) I suspect Mayor Don Saylor had a lot to do with ultimately changing the vote on the water tank art despite a 4-1 City Council vote to the contrary (against the project). Because the Mayor officially sets the agenda w the City Manager for each meeting, there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that can determine whether issues are brought forth; reagendized; or killed. Saylor built up public pressure behind the scenes, reagendized, and was the catalyst for changing the vote to its polar opposite (approved the project).
2) Asmundson and Souza were the subcommittee of two that nearly killed the Senior Citizens Commission (SCC) about 4 years ago – in a vicious campaign for elimination of the SCC, a lot of which was conducted sub rosa. Mayor Greenwald worked w me behind the scenes in support of saving the commission, allowed me a bit of extra time (5 minutes) during public comment at the City Council meeting that was to decide the commission’s fate to make my pitch (to keep the commission intact and “as is”). You can still see the speech on u-tube to this day, thanks to dmg. Had Sue Greenwald not been Mayor at the time, I suspect the outcome might have been very different…
Rifkin: “I think you very much underestimate the inherent power of being a majority voting bloc on the City Council, where the mayor’s agenda on issues of substance* is really the agenda of his closest supporters.”
I don’t underestimate the power of a majority voting bloc, especially if the majority voting bloc also contains the mayor. I agree w you that is another very important factor in the decision making process/determiner of ultimate outcomes. But the mayor is in essence the gatekeeper, w special access to the agenda, committee appointments, determining time for public comment, and that sort of thing. How many times have we seen a mayor agendize controversial items so they are at the end of the agenda when most of the public who might oppose city staff’s recommendation has long since departed for home bc of the late hour? That is what happened with the Measure P issue (Wildhorse)…
I do not have as much collective experience watching our CC as many on this blog. However, my experience in other venues where I have been on decision making bodies, as chair and non-chair, is that the chair (mayor) has influence in many subtle ways. So I agree with Elaine and SODA.
I also don’t think its quite accurate to say that Jo and Ro will tend to side with Souza. Its probably not unreasonable to say that Sue and Steven are more likely to be on different sides of the issue, though even that generalization is not always accurate (e.g., WHR, though for different reasons).
Thus Joe is more likely to be close to the center of the issue which I think helps.
But the other issue is process/discussion. The mayor does not have complete control be he/she, by presiding over the meetings, has more influence. Just look at the last few months.
[i]”I invite anyone to suggest a case where the personal style of the mayor likely affected the outcome of a vote on [b]a substantive policy[/b].”[/i]
[b]”Two examples come quickly to mind.”[/i]
Your former example amounted to a one time expenditure of $75,000; your latter almost no money at all. I was thinking of [i]substantive issues[/i] as those which either are for many millions of dollars–such as labor contract issues or the water issue–or those which determine the growth and development patterns of Davis.
I’m not saying that those issues you point to are unimportant. Obviously, you care very much about the Senior commission and others have very strong feelings about the painting* on the water tank. But neither is the type I was thinking of.
*I am one who disliked the Sofia Lacin and Hennessy Christophel mural and thought the Civic Arts Comm. missed the boat in directing applicants. I strongly feel that the potential muralists should have been told, “give us something which tells the story of Davis.”
[quote]Earlier this year voters overwhelming elected newcomers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson to the Davis city council.[/quote]Duh… all who ran were “newcomers” to the CC. Hardly a sea-change… had Souza been running, perhaps one could say that Krovoza had a ‘mandate’ had he gotten more votes… that didn’t happen. I believe that Krovoza should be chosen by the council as mayor, if nothing else, to see “what he’s made of”… the the reason cited is ‘charitably’ ‘weak’.
Rifkin: “Your former example amounted to a one time expenditure of $75,000; your latter almost no money at all. I was thinking of substantive issues as those which either are for many millions of dollars–such as labor contract issues or the water issue–or those which determine the growth and development patterns of Davis.”
How about the water issue and the two consultants Sue Greenwald suggested? With Asmundson as mayor, the idea of these conusultants was blocked over and over again – until Sue finally built up enough public support to override the CC majority of 3. Had Sue been mayor, I assure you those consultants would have been front and center long before…
How about the recent city employee contract negotiations? Had Sue been mayor, there would have been much more transparency in the process, I assure you. Perhaps some more concessions on the cafeteria cash-outs would have been possible – but we will never know that – bc Mayor Asmundson made sure to keep the entire process closed to the public.
[quote]hpierce:
[quote] “Earlier this year voters overwhelming elected newcomers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson to the Davis city council.”[/quote]
Duh… all who ran were “newcomers” to the CC. Hardly a sea-change… had Souza been running, perhaps one could say that Krovoza had a ‘mandate’ had he gotten more votes… that didn’t happen. I believe that Krovoza should be chosen by the council as mayor, if nothing else, to see “what he’s made of”… the the reason cited is ‘charitably’ ‘weak’.[/quote]
Not really. Krovoza and Swanson were first time candidates who arguably had not really been involved in Davis politics before running as candidates. On the other hand Sydney Vergis and Jon Li had previously been candidates for the city council. Vergis was a two time candidate (2008, 2010) recruited to run and strongly backed by Souza, Saylor, Asmundson and Puntillo both times. Li is an old-timer who has a long history of commenting on politics in Davis and had previously run for the city council although a long time ago. Only 2010 candidates Krovoza, Swanson and Daniel Watts could claim to be true “newcomers” to Davis politics.