This column should be about the future and the new leadership that is about to take hold in Davis. We have been waiting for this day and now with the gang of three down to a gang of one it is here.
What that means policy-wise we may not know for some time, but as anyone who has been even remotely following the Davis City Council for the last seven years knows, what happened Tuesday would not have happened under previous councils.
He laid it all bare for everyone to see.
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.”
“In 2008, I was 381 votes short of being the top vote getter, that’s pretty close,” the Councilmember continued. “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.”
Aside from the Vanguard, there were four other media reporters, bloggers, or columnists who reported or commentated on this event – of them only Bob Dunning apparently was watching the same feed as we were. Only Bob Dunning had the courage to speak truth to power. The rest offered some sort of awkward apology that ignored what was actually happening and tried to whitewash and paint over the ugliness.
I have often been concerned about Stephen Souza’s role as a “silent partner” on another blog that periodically covers the Davis City Council. I do not know what that means and as an elected official, I think we need to know more about it.
What I do know is that on Tuesday night, it meant that Will Arnold whitewashed what happened on the dais even as he observed it.
Kemble Pope who normally would have that task, was apparently in Texas. He made the comment, “Many thanks to Mr. Adler for a very thoughtful, informed and concise description of the situation for mayoral succession.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Pope apparently was unaware that Jerry Adler was factually incorrect in his description of the mayoral succession, most particularly and inexcusably in describing himself as the author of the ordinance, when in fact the authors of that ordinance were not Jerry Adler, but Lois Wolk and Maynard Skinner.
Instead of offering a factual description of the process, he offered a scenario that would allow him to advocate for Stephen Souza first to become mayor and then mayor pro-tem.
Far from thoughtful, informed and concise, his description was both deceptive and self-serving.
It gets worse however, as Mr. Pope later writes, “To our readers – I hope that you can appreciate how difficult this post was to write.”
It sounds like he is about to be critical of his silent partner but then goes on to say, “Stephen Souza has served our community with dedication, honesty and enthusiasm for over two decades; the citizens of Davis are lucky to have him as an unpaid guardian and promoter of the Davis way of life.”
He continues, “I would also like to note that I started this blog over 2 years ago after many hours of discussion with Stephen about how we could best change the insidious tenor of incivility that permeated not only the City Council but the public at large.”
Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge the huge role that Mr. Souza himself has played in creating that incivility and why it was necessary for Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson to take leadership positions in order to foster the very thing he claims to be advocating.
More appalling still, however, is his concluding remarks where he states, “While I applaud any movement toward a more civil discourse in this community, I must humbly remind you of John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone.””
So we are to blunt our criticism of our elected officials and not hold them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves or everyday citizens? That is a very dangerous standard to set, one that allows for the kind of apologism that we see in his own words.
I wonder what was so difficult about writing this post, as there is no introspection or criticism of the person whose campaign he ran or whose advise he seeks. The community should be left to wonder precisely what role Stephen Souza actually plays in this enterprise, as apparently he is above reproach even after the public spectacle that he made of himself.
So we are left to Bob Dunning to speak truth to power about what happened on Tuesday night, and fortunately Bob Dunning does not disappoint.
As Mr. Dunning puts it, Stephen Souza should have just stayed home.
“For reasons known only to him, Souza wanted desperately to put ‘Mayor’ in front of his name and he didn’t care how many folks he ultimately had to share that title with,” Bob Dunning writes.
“This plan, Souza cleverly argued, would allow literally everyone on the dais to experience first-hand what it felt like to be mayor, and that could only be a good thing for ‘respect, compassion and civility’ and, presumably, world peace,” he continues. “He could have just said that he really, really, really wanted to be mayor one day and since he didn’t get the most votes the last time he was on the ballot, this plan was his best shot at the title.”
Bob Dunning describes clearly how this put Mr. Souza’s colleagues in a difficult position.
He continues, “Undaunted by the unanimous smackdown by his colleagues, Souza made one more plea for a title he could call his own when it came time to select the mayor pro-tem.”
“Stephen basically argued that he was owed the slot for all the good things he’s done in his life,” Bob Dunning writes.
“In other words,” Dunning writes that Stephen Souza is saying, “I’ve earned this. Being close has to count for something.”
The clear message, though, is delivered at the end of Bob Dunning’s collumn where he sees what everyone else has seen, “The guard has changed and Stephen is clearly the odd man out. As much as he says he’s willing to give up all those evenings in the cause of public service, this was one of those nights when he might have been better off to simply stay home.”
Everyone else but the people who were apparently supposed to be writing on this.
A long time ago I wrote a column entitled, “Fair And Balanced is Sometimes Less Accurate.”
Looking back, it is one of the most poignant things I have written in my approaching five years of commentating on Davis Politics.
Sometimes the truth is ugly. Sometimes the one side is wrong and the other side is right. Civility is often a word that is used to paint over the truth.
And yes, we want a council that does not argue and bicker. That does not devolve into petty fights. That is a reasonable thing to ask for and with the current leadership in place, I think we will see a lot more of that.
Stephen Souza has served this city for years, and for that he deserves our gratitude. But he is not owed anything for that service other than what he has rightfully received.
As I remarked yesterday, the most remarkable thing about Stephen Souza’s comments and plea was that he was only speaking about himself, never about the community and why his appointment would be in the best interest of the community. It was about him and getting that title, and that is why above all else he should not have it.
That’s not leadership. That’s ego. And he allowed that ego to get in the way of his better judgment. For that reason, he is not the best choice to lead on this council.
Unfortunately, thousands of people who live in Davis did not watch the events on Tuesday night and would never know this, based on the news coverage.
That is why I created my site, and why, despite all my criticism of Bob Dunning over the years, I think he plays a vital role in this community because sometimes the truth needs to be laid bare for all to see, ugly as it may be.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Well said David.
This is the second time in recent memory you’ve praised Dunning though. I’m shocked.
Dunning… David… Dr. Wu… me… “even a stopped clock is right twice a day”…
Bob Dunning , great reporting , you rock !!!!!!!!!!!
DMG, excellent reporting by the Vanguard and good analysis of the media’s coverage, or in some cases lack there of.
[i]”The clear message, though, is delivered at the end of Bob Dunning’s [b]collumn[/b] where he sees what everyone else has seen, “The guard has changed and Stephen is clearly the odd man out.”[/i]
From my perspective, there have been three major issues/votes since Joe and Rochelle joined the council: 1. the lousy labor contracts plus the vacuous discussion about our budget troubles; 2. the rushed water deal; and 3. the picks for mayor and mayor-pro tem. On two of the three, Stephen was clearly [i]not[/i] the odd man out.
On the one where Souza clearly was, his erstwhile allies had something personally to gain by taking the jobs as mayor and mayor pro tem for themselves, and he obviously had something personally to gain by taking one of those slots for himself. That was the sole issue where there was a limited pie and giving him a slice would have meant hunger for the Ro-Jo Show.
But so far when it comes to issues that have a far greater affect on the public, the taxpayers and the ratepayers, all the evidence suggests our Council has a group of three, and Stephen is one of them.
I don’t say this with glee. I say it with serious disappointment. I look forward to having Joe and Rochelle break away from “the old guard.” But, please, don’t tell me those two are anything different on issues of substance before they have taken a single vote or even made a single statement to prove otherwise. Every vote of substance shows them no different than Don Saylor or Ruth Asmundson.
As far as I can tell, the “new guard” is just the same as the “old guard,” when it comes to solving our fiscal problems or at least not making us worse off.
Let’s hope that Councilperson Souza returns to the Council dais with more sensitivity and recognition of his role as the representative of OUR INTERESTS. The seduction of the ego that accompanies being a part of the city leadership for any significant length of time, I have learned from personal experience in different but similar circumstances, is often extremely difficult to resist for ordinary mortals.
This entire issue seems like “big fish, little pond syndrome”, where the title is more important than substantive issues. However, I think it is way too early to really say how this new City Council will shape up, and where they will come down on the important issues. So far the new City Council’s track record has been less than stellar IMHO, but I also recognize it takes a bit of time to get one’s feet wet in a new position. I am merely cautiously optimistic, in that the “gang of three” is no longer in existence, but that doesn’t mean what we have now is necessarily/ultimately going to be any better…
I think we are making too much of this. Of course Souza wanted to be mayor along with all of the open doors and opportunities that the office holds. (Remember that Ruth Asmundson enjoyed near celebrity status in her visits to her homeland as the first Philippinia-american mayor of a U.S. city.) His disappointment is understandable. He didn’t get the job he 1)felt he was qualified for and 2) felt that he deserved after his years of service. Tragic, but I don’t think this deserves two articles on the blog.
Off this topic but a subject covered in the past by the Vanguard: It seems that the City of Davis’s system which sends out email alerts of upcoming City meetings is now functioning. I got an email today telling me about next Tuesday’s meeting. Perhaps the most interesting item–the DACHA lawsuit–will be in Closed Session discussion. The Council will also hear a report about the Olive Drive railroad fence.
Thank you Mr. Rifkin:
What is even more interesting is that the Agenda shows that DACHA itself has now made a claim against the City/RDA. SO DACHA appears now to be on its way to suing the City.
2. Claimant: Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association
Agencies Claimed Against: City of Davis and Redevelopment Agency
The Public funds fiasco continues.
I think it was Mayor Asmundson) who said that DACHA was not supposed to use public funds to pay for legal costs. However,it appears that City staff approved making public funds available to DACHA to hire their new lawyer (Hefner)in 2009 and then in 2010 City Staff approved about another $30,000 being made available to DACHA to pay Hefner. City staff will not give details of how much in public funds have been provided to DACHA. These actions were taken by city staff but there is no public record of these actions being approved by the City Council.
Hopefully, the new leadership on the Council will be more demanding of info from city staff about the use of public funds for priavate purposes.
The City funds provided to Hefner were used pay for a perjurious statement by the DACHA president. Is that a good use of public funds?
And if DACHA received about $30,000 to pay for its legal fees from public funds why is DACHA trying to get TPCF/NP to pay $45,000 which includes the same $30,000 in public funds they also received. Is this a possible double dipping using public funds? How much more public funds has city staff given DACHA or Hefner?
David Thompson, President,
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Rifkin: “Off this topic but a subject covered in the past by the Vanguard: It seems that the City of Davis’s system which sends out email alerts of upcoming City meetings is now functioning. I got an email today telling me about next Tuesday’s meeting. Perhaps the most interesting item–the DACHA lawsuit–will be in Closed Session discussion. The Council will also hear a report about the Olive Drive railroad fence.”
I noticed the same thing, and was glad of it. Thanks to city staff for fixing the problem…
Dunning can actually claim higher journalistic ground because he did not speak at the mic.
In fact, I assume all Davis Enterprise reporters are also not allowed to speak at the mic by their editor. This is the difference between reporting and blogging.
Strange that Kemble Pope seems to think he can “sweep” Stephen Souza’s terrible performance “under the rug.” And get away with that in the Internet Age. I mean, c’mon, with the Davis People’s Vanguard, we have our fly on the wall there in Council Chambers. Tellin’ it mainly like it mostly is…
As for Stephen Souza’s motives in bringing up Biblical references, does he really care that much about sitting in what Bob Dunning calls “The Big Chair.” The Bible has been put to some might petty uses, but that’s a good one for sure, inferring people who voted down his pipe dream were “sinners” for doing so. I’ll sure never vote for Stephen Souza in any future election, nor will I pay any serious attention to Kemble Pope, who is obviously just as disengaged as Stephen Souza.
[quote]So much for the Era of Good Feelings
By Bob Dunning | Enterprise columnist | January 07, 2011
COLLEGIALITY RUN AMOK – after the dust cleared in the Community Chambers Tuesday night, we had a new mayor, a new mayor pro tem and one disgruntled long-time councilman –
The notion that this council would win the Miss Congeniality title suddenly went out the window as Stephen Souza, now in his seventh year on the council, was first told that ‘no,’ he could not be mayor and second that ‘no,’ he could not be mayor pro tem – those jobs went instead to newcomers Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, both still in their rookie seasons on the dais –
Being mayor has never been about longevity, and it should never be about rewarding someone for length or quality of service – it generally goes to the guy with the most votes, and in that regard, Joe Krovoza is clearly the man of the hour –
The sad thing here is that while Joe and Rochelle tried to remain above the fray, Sue Greenwald felt compelled to take some shots at her longtime nemesis, Steve Souza, and Souza came across as caring mostly about what title he could salvage from a long and frustrating night –
When Stephen’s turn to vote for mayor came, the tally was already 3-0 for Krovoza – the sporting thing at that point would have been for Stephen to simply say ‘this wasn’t what I envisioned, but I think we should start out on the right foot here, so let’s make this unanimous.’ – instead, clearly miffed by what had transpired, he abstained – the exact same scenario unfolded when it came time to select the mayor pro tem – again, Stephen abstained –
Perhaps by next Tuesday Stephen will have come to his senses and will call for a reconsideration of his votes – if that’s possible – and make both votes unanimous after all – it would be the right thing to do and would go a long way toward healing the current rift –
FACEBOOK CONFESSION – in a Facebook post sent to me by one of his many ‘friends,’ Stephen Souza put a strange spin on Tuesday night’s happenings – ‘Sometimes,’ Steve wrote: ‘no matter how good you try to be, you have to pay for the sins of others. In politics, this is even more true. Last night I payed for my sins and the sins of others.’ –
Overlooking the fact he misspelled ‘paid,’ 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 –
It wasn’t about any past ‘sins,’ real or imagined – it was about doing what the voters expected –
A GIRL NAMED SUE RESPONDS – in response to the musings of the Above-Pictured Columnist a day or two ago, Councilwoman Sue Greenwald writes: ‘One thing that many people are unaware of is that the council is forced to operate under the Brown Act open meeting state law, which does not allow us to talk with each other about council business outside these meetings.’ – is she suggesting the state of California create a special ‘Davis exception’ to the Brown Act because of the contentiousness of our meetings? –
Adds Sue: ‘All council members work day and night for no pay, and we pour our hearts and souls into the job. So it is not surprising that everyone feels passionately. Because of the Brown Act, we are not allowed to work things out in a normal fashion. We can’t talk privately over a period of time to negotiate and adjust our thinking and emotions in the fashion that human beings are constituted to interact. Members are hit from left field with upsetting news while the cameras are running, and within minutes of a final vote.’ –
Sounds like Sue is giving cover to Steve for the way he reacted to his ‘bad news’ with the cameras rolling – but does she seriously want to do away with the Brown Act? –[/quote]
AV: Sue Greenwald: “Members are hit from left field with upsetting news while the cameras are running, and within minutes of a final vote.’ -“
I think Sue Greenwald makes an excellent point here…
Sue Greenwald: “Members are hit from left field with upsetting news while the cameras are running, and within minutes of a final vote.’ -“
Musser:
“I think Sue Greenwald makes an excellent point here…”
And that point is what?
cd: “And that point is what?”
When one receives a huge disappointment, w the cameras rolling, it is sometimes hard to keep inside the emotions one is feeling. To express that disappointment in a way that is not inpolitic can be difficult – not everyone is trained to school their features and speech in order to show a poker face to the world. Some are better at this than others. Being imperfect is part of being human…
And I would add “to err is human, to forgive divine”…