Bob Dunning said it best that Stephen Souza probably should have stayed home on Tuesday night. At the very least he should have paid much closer attention to the inclinations of his colleagues.
Instead he laid himself out to bare, to all his colleagues and his community, really for no good purpose. He accomplished very little other than making his colleagues uncomfortable and showing himself to be less than dignified in his approach.
On his Facebook page he wrote, “Sometimes no matter how good you try to be you have to pay for the sins of others.”
He continued, “In politics this is even more true. Last night I payed [sic] for my sins and the sins of others.”
I believe what Mr. Souza is trying to say is that he paid because the council in the past was uncivil and the new council wanted to avoid reliving the past.
There is truth to that. Rochelle Swanson noted, “I don’t know if it’s noticeable, but I think the tenor of the room significantly changed in the last 20 minutes.”
But to take the approach that Stephen Souza paid for the sins of others, I think, ignores his role in those sins. Never once did Stephen Souza put a stop to past nastiness or tell his colleagues that this was enough.
Occasionally he tried to keep the peace, but more often he just played along. Oh sure, there were the outbursts where he declared himself the decider. More often there were the moments when Mayor Ruth Asmundson unreasonably limited the length of council questions, and instead of providing the third vote to extend question period, Stephen Souza decided just to read his questions really fast.
But ultimately, Stephen Souza misses the boat here, not because, as Sue Greenwald argued, he treated her unfairly during their time on the council together. Because most assuredly he did treat her unfairly, even if at other times he attempted to extend a mangled olive branch and give her a few overripe olives, such as earlier this year when he attempted to give a few committee and liaison assignments when it was very clear that Don Saylor had apportioned them unfairly.
No, Stephen Souza misses the boat because he failed, as he often has, to take responsibility for his own sins. Often when caught with a publicly unpopular proposal, he has suggested that he is merely posing the question for discussion as though somehow that absolves him of the idea of merging the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission or stripping the human rights ordinance of any enforceable teeth.
On Tuesday, the problem was not the sins of the past, but the sins of the present.
Had he merely proposed the ludicrous Mayor-sharing idea, we might have been able to write it off as yet another of Stephen Souza’s all-too-clever ideas that really was a self-serving attempt, in this case to avoid the reality that he knew his colleagues were inclined to back the Mayor Pro Tem as the next Mayor.
We might have overlooked the moment when he likened the title of Mayor of the City of Davis to “bounty.” He told his colleagues, “It would be very unique to see a three and a half year term, so therefore I thought we had this extraordinary opportunity before us. There is bounty in the 18 months that we can split amongst three other councilmembers.”
But as we all know by now, he did not stop there. He put his colleagues in a horrible position. First, forcing Joe Krovoza to awkwardly speak for himself. And then putting Rochelle Swanson into the position of having to be the deciding vote in her own favor.
The sin of this night was that there was no higher purpose for Stephen Souza other than to get a title for himself.
He said, “I think all of that service, that closeness of an election – in spite of knowing that the Mayor Pro Tem doesn’t have but a ceremonial position and title – I would like to have it be part of my service to the community.”
“So I would plead to you as my colleagues to at least give me the opportunity, to at least give me that title,” he concluded.
He begged, he pleaded, he prostrated himself, he acted in the most undignified way and all he could do afterwards, other than basically storming out of the meeting, was to suggest that he paid for the sins of others.
On that night, he himself sinned, and he himself needs to come to terms with that. The behavior that he exhibited on Tuesday night is the very reason why he should not be Mayor, or at least not be made Mayor by his colleagues.
He will have the opportunity to go to the community in 18 months and beg them to make him the mayor of the town. Perhaps he will have most success in that venue.
Wrote Bob Dunning last night, “I think Steve has completely missed the point as to why he wasn’t selected as mayor and Joe Krovoza was – the simple fact here is that Joe got the most votes in the most recent election – something Stephen has never done – and the public fully expected that Joe would be named mayor once Don Saylor resigned.”
I think there is another reason that Stephen Souza did not get to be selected as either Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem – he wanted it too much. Watch the video. Watch how both Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson are uncomfortable trying to speak to themselves, or even vote for themselves. They are humble and modest.
On the other hand, Stephen Souza practically begs for it as some sort of way that it would complete him or validate his long career.
It would be nice if Mr. Souza would humbly apologize to the Davis community for his undignified display on Tuesday night, but it is probably asking for too much at this point.
It is most definitely time to move on, as we have serious issues that we must tackle and we need to find a way to fill the council vacancy. I can only hope we look towards an individual who exemplifies the critical values that have been missing on council for as long as I have been following it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It is most definitely time to move, we have serious issues that we must tackle and we need to find a way to fill the council vacancy.”
I’m no Souza fan by any stretch of the imagination and he totally embarrassed himself last Tuesday night which I’m sure he’s been regretting this whole week but after 3 articles on this I think you David need to move on.
This is a column rather than an article, and Souza’s response needed to be highlighted. But there will be moving on.
I agree with rusty. Lots to talk about; for example:
1. Jerry,s new scheme to redistribute funds/responsibility to locals.
2. State/Municipal bankruptcies (see Illinois which may be a test case).
3. Border,s bankruptcy.
Last night I payed [sic] for MY SINS(my caps) and the sins of others.”
Councilperson Souza did in fact acknowledge his “sins” although we are only left to speculate what he feels that they were. As to the misspelling of “paid”, is this DMG’s or Steven’s sin?
That would be Stephen’s sin as Dunning noted last night.
I have a somewhat different take on all of this. I cannot remember the exact circumstances, but at some point the Sacramento Bee did not support Souza because of his bullying tactics, and said so. At that point, Souza’s reputation preceded him for all the world to see, and it was not good. Both Asmundson and Souza attempted to single out the Senior Citizens Commission a few years ago, in a vicious campaign that was ugly beyond all reason – which played a part in the Sac Bee’s assessment. Only public outrage and a petition from 138 irate seniors put a stop to the attempt at the commission’s elimination.
As time went on, Souza joined with Asmundson and Saylor, in cutting off public comment as much as possible, and ramming through their own pet agenda. All three became quite unpopular w many citizens. The “gang of three” had a reputation for bullying Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald, and not just occasionally. I can remember the attacks against Heystek in the beginning were unbelievably cruel and uncalled for – raising public outrage. There were even nastier things taking place behind the scenes. The “gang of three” seemed to be in league w Bill Emlen, the former City Manager, which made for an impossible situation.
Eventually, bc of such bad publicity and over time, Heystek actually began to see the wisdom of working with Steve Souza. And towards the end of Heystek’s tenure on the City Council, Steve Souza began to reinvent himself, and at times became the swing vote that did not necessarily go along with the “gang of three”. My feeling is that Souza perhaps was beginning to realize that his reputation for being a bully in league with the “gang of three” was not helping him politically.
When Souza said he was paying for the “sins of others”, he may very well have been referring to Asmundson and Saylor when he joined them as the “gang of three”. But when one joins a group of bullies, the taint does not necessarily/automatically wash away just bc at some point one distances oneself from the aggressors/bullies in question. In politics, one “builds” a reputation. One wrong move, if severe enough, can cost a politician dearly.
Souza does not seem to realize he has gained a somewhat permanent reputation for being a bully along with Asmundson and Souza. This behavior alienated many citizens, and a change in position, though laudable, can also be seen as self-serving rather than sincere. The best thing Steve Souza can do for himself now, is to work very hard w the new City Council, to address the city’s pressing needs, and leave the past behind as much as possible.
However, I do not necessarily fault Souza for asking to be Mayor, or Mayor Pro-Tem. If you don’t ask, you won’t get. The problem is that Souza tried to “game the system” and gain the position of Mayor while the “gang of three” was still in power. Fortunately Sue Greenwald put a stop to such shennanigans, by being forthright in pointing out what the “gang of three” were trying to pull. The taint of the “gang of three” is still very much w Souza, no matter how much he would like to shed it and make a new start (like flypaper).
What Souza is failing to grasp is that the “gang of three” is dead and gone, was highly unpopular during their tenure, and a new day has dawned in which Souza no longer has the leverage he once had. I fully understand his disappointment and frustration, but past actions speak louder than words. Souza needs to work very hard to shed his old image, and make the monumental effort to work with the new City Council, that has an entirely different makeup and tenor. Souza also needs to focus on the fact that his re-election is not that far off.
I don’t see his “lapse” in this case as all that terrible – sometimes disappointment is hard to swallow, as is the wave of change when one is no longer the power broker. It is a part of politics, pure and simple. The Democrats in Congress, e.g. Nancy Pelosi, are going through the same thing, as a Republican majority takes back the house. Time to turn from beating this dead horse, and Souza’s minor lapse (he’s human), and move on to more substantive matters of greater import to the city.
As much as the new City Council appears to be more collegial, lets see how they actually handle the issues of the day – and serious issues they are. This city is faced with a tremendous fiscal crisis, including the costs of the water/sewer project – a runaway juggernaut that leaves a lot of questions unanswered…
ERM, great response, I never even thought that the “sins of others” might be referring to Saylor and Asmundson and “his sins” might be for being allied with them.
rusty49: “ERM, great response, I never even thought that the “sins of others” might be referring to Saylor and Asmundson and “his sins” might be for being allied with them.”
Frankly, it was my first thought when I read dmg’s analysis of the situation. Souza, towards the end of the “gang of three’s” tenure, tried on more than one occasion to distance himself from Asmundson and Saylor. In fact Lamar Heystek was instrumental in coaxing Steve Souza to support the new Carlton Plaza Davis Assisted Living Facility, which I think truly turned the tide in its favor – for which I will always be grateful that the right thing was done.
Saylor was the only one on the City Council who did not vote for Tansey Thomas and myself to continue on the Davis Senior Citizens Commission – even tho the two of us had given years of dedicated and outstanding service – in what seemed a self-serving pro-development attempt to stack the commission with CHA supporters. To their credit, neither Souza nor Admundson went along w Saylor on this one. I believe both Asmundson and Souza have maybe come to realize that Saylor’s “agenda” has not necessarily been in the best interests of the city and perhaps was to both their political detriment. Obviously I cannot get into the minds of any one of these three people, but from what I know of much of what has gone on behind the scenes, I believe my assessment is fairly accurate…
Dr. Wu: [i]”1. Jerry’s new scheme to redistribute funds/responsibility to locals; 2. State/Municipal bankruptcies (see Illinois which may be a test case); 3. Borders’s bankruptcy.”[/i]
Re: muni bankruptcies: You might be interested in this argument ([url]http://seekingalpha.com/article/243507-municipal-bonds-apocalypse-now-or-buying-opportunity[/url]) against the predictions Meredith Whitney made on 60 Minutes, which you commented on last week.
Re: Borders: The Street ([url]http://www.thestreet.com/story/10959790/1/is-borders-bankruptcy-bound.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN[/url]) reported this yesterday: [quote]Investors received a shot of optimism late in the week, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Borders is in discussions with restructuring advisors and is not seeking bankruptcy lawyers. According to reports, Borders hired FTI Consulting and is in talks with Jefferies & Co. It has also been working with one of its lenders, GE Capital, about new debt that could replace its current credit line, Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. [/quote] If Borders goes out of business–which I suppose is possible–that won’t have a terrible effect on the finances of the City of Davis. It might even be a positive. That location is very successful, and I would imagine the owners of Davis Commons will have no trouble replacing Borders*. That said, for me, Borders is my favorite store in downtown. It’s a nice place to grab a book or magazine and have a coffee. A large number of UCD students are in there every day studying and I suppose drinking coffee. So on that level, it’s closure would be a loss for Davis.
*It would not surprise me if Barnes & Noble or maybe a local like Avid Reader replaces it. Or it could be something like a larger Gap or other clothing retailer.
Correction: “So on that level, [b]its[/b] closure would be a loss for Davis.”
[quote]ERM: I cannot remember the exact circumstances, but at some point the Sacramento Bee did not support Souza because of his bullying tactics, and said so.[/quote]
[quote]In search of a new political dynamic in Davis – Greenwald, Escamilla-Greenwald , Saylor are best able to tackle a range of issues
Sacramento Bee, The (CA) – Monday, May 12, 2008
This year, as in previous Davis City Council elections, growth and housing (or the lack of both) are major issues.
The city had a showdown on growth with its 2005 vote on Covell Village, a proposed housing development, which this page supported as did four of five members of the City Council. Despite that support, the citizens of Davis rejected Covell Village.
This election pits moderate pro-growth candidates who supported Covell Village against slow-growth candidates who did not.
On the pro-growth side are incumbents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis. On the slow-growth side are Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald and challengers Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (no relation to the mayor) and Rob Roy.
While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear. Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department. On the basis of their positions on those issues, we endorse Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald.
A UC Davis graduate and longtime student and city activist, Escamilla-Greenwald is the former head of the Davis Human Relations Commission. In that capacity she was instrumental in exposing legitimate concerns from African American and Latino residents of a strong perception of police bias. Her efforts led to the resignation of the city’s former police chief and the hiring of an ombudsman to handle citizen complaints. Even though she is a labor representative in her professional life, Escamilla-Greenwald has been forthright in her concerns about the generous pay raises and retirement benefits given to Davis firefighters that threaten city finances.
Greenwald was also a strong supporter of police reform. As a member of the council she has been a forceful and vocal opponent of overly generous firefighter pay raises and retirement benefits. As a result she has not gotten the firefighters union endorsement or their contributions.
Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters’ contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining. Greenwald can be counted on to resist union pressure.
Roy declined to sit for an endorsement interview with The Bee, so we have no way to evaluate his qualifications.
Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience.
The slow-growth candidates we’ve endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis.[/quote]
[quote]rusty49:
I’m no Souza fan by any stretch of the imagination and he totally embarrassed himself last Tuesday night which I’m sure he’s been regretting this whole week but after 3 articles on this I think you David need to move on. [/quote]
— Thankfully both the Vanguard and Bob Dunning covered this story in honest and complete detail as no other media outlet did so. Without the Vanguard and Dunning the community would be in the dark about much of what transpired Tuesday night.
—Interestingly Souza does not seem to understand or regret his actions of Tuesday night. He continues to post on his Facebook page the excuse that he is paying “for the sins of others” not taking responsibility for his own egocentric and bullying behavior over the years. Souza has not shown any recognition of his own petty conduct at Tuesday’s city council meeting or apologized for it. Instead he has defended himself as having done nothing wrong, casting himself as a victim.
—If it is good enough for Bob Dunning to write three consecutive columns on the extent of Souza’s continuing self serving behavior, and the fallout of it, it is certainly newsworthy for the Vanguard to cover it as well.
To Another View: Thanks for the excerpt from the Sac Bee article!
“—If it is good enough for Bob Dunning to write three consecutive columns on the extent of Souza’s continuing self serving behavior, and the fallout of it, it is certainly newsworthy for the Vanguard to cover it as well.”
Sure, pile it on by no means. Kick the guy when he’s down, kick him again and again.
We should not forget that there were two councilmembers who behaved pretty much as adults, and two that should be reminded that they need to ‘work and play well with others’. That is supposed to be learned in pre-school/kindergarten, but sometimes that just doesn’t sink in, for whatever reason.
Rich
As far as Borders, you will rarely find a firm announce they are going to go bankrupt until it happens (same with countries and currency devaluations)– since it then becomes inevitable. But it is very very likely it will happen, e.g., see http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/borders-group-merger-or-bankruptcy-filing-inevitable-expert-says/
[quote]A top bankruptcy expert at the University of Michigan Law School said recent events indicate Ann Arbor-based Borders Group Inc. is toppling toward a bankruptcy filing or a merger with competitor Barnes & Noble.[/quote]
I think such a bankruptcy would hurt our downtown. A merger with B and N would be better but seems less likely.
[quote]rusty49:
“—If it is good enough for Bob Dunning to write three consecutive columns on the extent of Souza’s continuing self serving behavior, and the fallout of it, it is certainly newsworthy for the Vanguard to cover it as well.”
Sure, pile it on by no means. Kick the guy when he’s down, kick him again and again. [/quote]
— Souza has continued to speak on the matter after the city council meeting both in public and on his Facebook page failing to acknowledge any responsibility for his poor judgment. His persistence over the past days has given both the Vanguard and Dunning additional fodder to comment on.
— Again, Souza has not shown any recognition of his own petty conduct at Tuesday’s city council meeting or apologized for it. Instead he continues to defend himself as having done nothing wrong, casting himself as a victim.
Rusty49 writes: “Sure, pile it on by no means. Kick the guy when he’s down, kick him again and again.”
Rusty49, sorry, but it is news. People want to understand why Stephen Souza thought he deserved to go to the head of the line and get to sit in “The Big Chair,” even though he didn’t have the votes. It’s rare we see a politico be so nakedly political.
[quote]hpierce
We should not forget that there were two councilmembers who behaved pretty much as adults, and two that should be reminded that they need to ‘work and play well with others’.[/quote]
Agreed! Both Joe and Rochelle have set a new tone for civility and collegiality, which is most welcomed. But they will have to be on guard as their two “senior” colleagues Stephen and Sue are prone to pettiness and jealousies. That misconduct has paralyzed and polarized previous councils and must be prevented if at all possible.
“Sure, pile it on by no means. Kick the guy when he’s down, kick him again and again. “
This was the first time we had Souza’s reaction to the events on Tuesday night, I’m sorry but it needed to be reported and responded to.