How Badly Do They Want to Be On the Council?
But before we go any further, I have to question some things from the outset. At last night’s meeting only two of the ten candidates stayed for the entire meeting. That would be Kari Fry and Walter Bunter. Good for them. Regardless of where they stand on the issues, that should give them a huge leg up.
Obviously, in two weeks it will no longer not be voluntary. But so much of this job is not mandatory anyway. It is like anything in life, you produce what you put into it. I want to see people on the council committed fully to doing this job, learning everything they can, and serving the city.
The one-month period between the filing deadline and the selection process is not a long time. It is a test period, and frankly, everything is a test. Once the candidates signed up on the dotted line, they needed to fully immerse themselves in the process, to watch, to observe, to learn.
On Monday, I noted that the council candidates this time had an extremely short turnaround. As I stated on Monday, I am a bit concerned about the entire field. While a number of individuals bring interesting skills and experiences to the mix, most lack the kind of particularized knowledge of Davis government that are needed to run the city.
The process is so truncated that there is almost no time to really learn. One opportunity is to go to the council meeting where several critical issues were discussed last night as we have discussed on these pages in the last few days.
That concern is tremendous but largely unavoidable unless we do what the City of Woodland did last night , when they named former Supervisor Tom Stallard to replace Jeff Monroe on their council. We did not have a former officeholder sign up, and so everyone was going to be met with a huge learning curve.
The process did them no favors and that they could not control. But showing up last night is something that they could control – and seven candidates failed as far as I am concerned.
Last year we had an election cycle. One of the candidates came to every council meeting, and that was Rochelle Swanson. Other candidates went to several council meetings. I never once remember seeing Sydney Vergis at a council meeting, or maybe only once in the previous two years in fact, between her council runs.
Now, while I would question that commitment, at least one could argue that the case that the candidates in 2010 had to make was to the voters of Davis. So if going to the council meeting meant the loss of time to connect with voters, it was somewhat understandable.
In this process however, the voters are all at the council meeting. They are the four members at the dais.
As I mentioned on Monday, the learning curve here is just tremendous. I once again hearken back to my first meeting with Joe Krovoza, back in November 2009. He was obviously a bright guy, as most of the current applicants are, but he lacked working knowledge of the Davis political system and city government.
However, he then ran a seven-month campaign, in which he learned a ton and met with numerous people in the community and wasn’t seated for another month. These candidates do not have that eight-month period to learn before taking office.
In a week, one will be selected to the council and a week after that will have his/her first council meeting. That is about six weeks after most of them decided to throw their hats into the ring.
In eight months it will be October, and the selected member will have been on the council for most of that time. It took people like Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, again two bright people, several months to get their feet wet on the council.
Given what this council is going to have to face with budget changes, setting up the next round of MOUs, and dealing with unfunded liabilities and pensions, the new member is going to have to hit the ground in a dead sprint.
The process is what it is. But it also requires candidates being “all in.” How many of the candidates have met with the councilmembers? How many have met with city staff? Department heads?
One of the things that impressed me about Rochelle Swanson was that she met with everyone prior to the her election. She already had a leg up on the competition, even though her target was the voters and not four councilmembers. I just do not see that commitment from a large number of these candidates.
Issues matter. Anyone who reads this page knows that they certainly matter. But commitment matters too. This is a huge job and a huge responsibility and the voters of Davis deserve someone who is going to put in the work and the time, even though they will be at a disadvantage and perhaps at times overwhelmed.
We will find out so much in the next week about how these people think and what they think they will do. But actions speak louder than words and I hope that the council remembers who showed up when they did not have to and who did not.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]I never once remember seeing (former council candidate) at a council meeting [/quote]OK… does that mean they weren’t “engaged” by downloading agendas, staff reports, etc. and watching the Council meeting on cable?
[quote]…the voters are all at the council meeting…[/quote]Cute. I think, NOT… their ‘interests’ may be, but I believe 95% (or more) of the electorate do not read agendas, staff reports, attend CC meetings, nor watch the broadcasts/streaming video. Unless Ruth and Sue got into a “hissy-fit”…
Off the top of my head, reasons why most candidates were no shows:
1) They got into the ‘race’ somewhat-to-truly interested in the job. (The what-the-hell-let’s-see-if-sticks group).
2) They all did indeed have more important matters to attend to last night. Some no doubt were washing their hair – assuming they have some.
3) They had gotten their schedule ‘o process the day they filed, and likely didn’t need it explained to them from the dais. (Last name first, first name last, fill in the boxes, no check marks, the camera is on when you see the red light, etc., ad naseum).
4) They have all lived in Davis long enough to have interacted with, gotten to know, and are pretty sure they’ve read, every document the City has produced for the past, say, three years.
5) With the current composition of the Council there is no way they will truly be able to break the years-long consistent 3-2 majorities, effectively nullifying their vote. In fact, it would be easier to just put a blow-up doll in the fifth seat.
6) The fix was in from the beginning, and nine people have totally wasted their time. (No wait. That really probably could have happened.
7) They all have telekinetic and psychic abilities, and are, in fact, megalomaniacal aliens intent on taking over our planet one Council at a time.
Ah well, enjoy the show. And by the way, good rant David. Never a dull moment around here . . .
David:
I think you make a good point here. One thing about our current council is that they all (even those I don’t agree with) have shown a commitment over time.
We have a number of people in town who I think would be excellent candidates. I have asked a few about going on CC and invariably the answer is that its just too much work.
Give what I have seen of the candidates all seem very green. If you add a lack of commitment you have a problem.
I do think that the low salaries are inappropriate for the amount of work CC people have to do. Davis has tons of mid level people making six figure salaries with generous benefits, but CC members make a pittance. This is penny wise and pound foolish. Sure, many people would serve with or without a salary, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other good people who are effectively precluded from serving by the low salary–indeed we only need to look at former CC member Heysteck to find an example.
Just not seeing the point here. All the missing candidates could have been watching the CC mtg from their television sets if they have cable. Could have also downloaded agendas and staff reports from internet.
However, from a strictly campaigning/PR point of view, it would be wise to show up to the CC to make yourself known to the people (CC members) who are going to be the ones to decide on who gets chosen…
I concur with Elaine. Do not see what the issue is AT ALL, furthermore, they could have been watching the meeting at home.
When I was looking to be appointed to the Planning Commission, I made my comments then went home. I thought that staying would be presumptuous. I trusted that the Council would appoint me or whichever other applicant they thought was best for the city. I didn’t want to influence (or guilt people by my presence) them away from choosing whoever they thought was legitimately the best choice.
I was watching the meeting from home while I was working on a brief that is due on Friday in a very important case involving a parent’s attempt to obtain records related to his son. I was also making dinner for my wife and myself.
If being chosen to fill this vacancy means demonstrating the winningness to compromise all personal and professional commitments, then I will withdraw my name from consideration in a heart beat. I am involved. I care about my City. But if I cannot balance that involvement and caring with other things involvements and concerns, then this isn’t worth any further effort.
This isn’t a campaign and I am not interested in PR the way a candidate in an election would be. That, for me, is the point and a strength. If I am wrong about that, I sure want to know before I show up at the forum tonight and waste everyone’s time.
Boylan out.
Given the choice between a candidate who has a depth of experience in Davis politics, but one I am not convinced is motivated by representing the best long-term interests of the Davis taxpayers and one who is new to the scene but I believe is especially bright and whose principal motivation is to represent the taxpayers, I would choose the latter every time. I think, if the council picks someone smart, he or she can get up to speed on the details pretty quickly, if so motivated.
That said, I think David’s point has some real validity: not attending the meetings signals disinterest and a lack of motivation. (It’s entirely possible that last night was just an oddity, due to family concerns or work or whatever.)
On a previous post, someone said that Sue and Stephen have an incentive to pick a person who won’t be a threat to their re-election chances in 2012. Sue (with complete honesty in my opinion) dismissed that as a possibility.
My guess and hope is that the council will choose a new member who has the capacity and energy to quickly get up to speed on what is important with regard to the city’s finances. I think all four now on the council understand what our primary problems are, though I am not sure they really know how to solve those problems. If they pick someone sharp, maybe the 5th member can guide the more experienced people to the right solutions.
FWIW, I just watched all of the candidates’ video. For my money, the three who came across as the most impressive were:
Kari Fry, Sherelene Harrison and Kerry Loux.
I don’t think any one of the 10 is a shoo in. Dan Wolk obviously has the best name recognition, so he might still be the favorite. Outside of direct involvement in the two big issues of Davis politics–growth and finance–I think this is on the whole a good group. All of them seem smart enough to me to do the job.
In life, just showing up is sometimes more than half the battle. Kudos to those who spent the time to do so. The time commitments for public office are significant, and I commend those who are willing to make such a commitment for their community. Maybe someone could watch the public hearing on cable, but there is a difference to what one sees on cable and what one may observe in person. Those who attend meetings in person know and understand that. By attending in person, you also have the opportunity to participate, and not necessarily just with those elected or the staff, but with those in the community to help better understand a comment or a viewpoint. If potential candidates don’t show up to such meetings, it may be indicative of their level of commitment, and part of that may be that they simply are overcommitted to too many other things to be able to as actively engage in the process. This doesn’t make such a person a bad person, but maybe they don’t have enough time to be a council person. The commitments of time go far beyond just attending the meetings.
Rhino – I refuse to accept that only those with either no job, and therefore with lots of spare time, or are so wealthy that they have excess leisure, are qualified to serve in public office. I have a job – luckily with flexible hours. I have a family. I am hoping the time commitments necessary to nurture both won’t disqualify me from serving on the Davis City Council.
[quote]” 90% of life is showing up.”
Woody Allen[/quote]
Okay, Wu – you got me there.
Knowing this is a digression, I also point out:
How wrong Emily Dickinson was! Hope is not “the thing with feathers”. The thing with feathers has turned to be my nephew. I must take him to a specialist in Zurich.
[quote][i]”90% of life is showing up.” [/i]
[b]–Woody Allen[/b][/quote] FWIW, I googled “woody allen showing up” (without the quote marks) and discovered that in about half the citations Woody supposedly said “80%”, while in the rest he is quoted as saying “90%” or “75%” or “50%.” I don’t know which is right and which is wrong.
I do know, because I have his book, “The Insanity Defense,” that Woody Allen said this about showing up: [quote]The people or parties revolted against are called the “oppressors” and are easily recognized because they seem to be the ones having all the fun. The “oppressors” generally get to wear suits, own land, and play their radios late at night without being yelled at. Their job is to maintain the “status quo,” a condition where everything remains the same although they may be willing to paint every two years.
When the “oppressors” become too strict, we have what is known as a police state, wherein all dissent is forbidden, as is chuckling, [b]showing up[/b] in a bow tie, or referring to the mayor as “Fats.” Civil liberties are greatly curtailed in a police state, and freedom of speech is unheard of, although one is allowed to mime a record. [/quote] Just by chance it sounds to me like he is talking about Egypt under Mubarak. Then again, these oppressive measures tend to be universal.
I got the distinct impression he was talking about Manhattan in the early 1960’s.
Let’s try not to get too far off-topic, please.
I am curious how the applicants feel about this process so far.
So far I am the only applicant I know of participating here. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the process seems comprehensive and intended to provide the public with uncommon input and exposure to the applicants. I am quite impressed.
But then, my positive impression could likely be the result of my naiveté.
[i]”Let’s try not to get too far off-topic, please.”[/i]
Just out of curiosity, what is the danger of going off-topic? In other words, who is harmed by it? Who loses money or honor or skin cells if a thread moves tangentially away from the original theme?
I recognize why you don’t want comments which are obscene or vicious. But once all has been said which needs to be said about, say, whether it is vital that the February 10 attend February council meetings, I don’t see why anyone should worry that others might want to quote Woody Allen.
[i]”… the process seems comprehensive and intended to provide the public with uncommon input and exposure to the applicants.”[/i]
I watched your DCN video today and thought you did fine in introducing yourself to the community and to the council. However, you were the briefest of all of the candidates and did not get into any issue areas which you think are most important. That made me wonder, was your thinking that this video was simply a brief introduction and that other forums are better for discussing issue areas? Or would I be right to think that your belief is that, if you are selected by the other four on the council, that you want to contribute at first to the issues the others believe are most important, and therefore you should not tell them “this is what we need to be doing”?
was your thinking that this video was simply a brief introduction and that other forums are better for discussing issue areas?
Yes. Exactly. I also wanted to set myself apart, anticipating that most candidates would use all of their three minutes and read from a script. I was right. I hoped those differences would be noticed and noted favorably. I was wrong.
You live and you learn. What the heck, maybe next time, eh?
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, the reason why I was wrong was because the statements of my competitors, although longer than mine and read from a script, were substantively really good – and, in the face of that short and impromptu doesn’t really rate.
As I said, live and learn.
Mr. Boylan –
The videos were my first introduction to the candidates and I was very impressed by yours. You would have been my top choice (but, unfortunately, I don’t get to vote).
Last night I watched the Candidate Forum – from the comfort of my living room. It had a very different feel than the videos. I appreciate that the City is going to the effort to let us deprived voters know all of you.
Good luck!
Deprived? How so?
Merely a reference to the fact that the fifth city councilperson will be selected without a vote of the residents.
On the other hand – I think this campaign process has some distinct advantages:
– the candidates don’t have to raise a gazillion dollars to run (certainly a benefit to the less wealthy candidates), –
-and the voters don’t have to listen to months of dubious campaign promises
Maybe we should try an abbreviated process like this during the next election season 🙂
Yes, I agree. The primary reason I decided to apply to fill the vacancy is because this is not an election. I don’t have the money to invest in such a quixotic adventure and I don’t have the stomach to kiss up to power and ask people for money to finance my campaign which, if I took it, would obligate me to that person. I don’t care what the theory is about campaign contributions – at its root it is a bribe and a way to buy influence. It is a contract that potentially interferes with an elected official’s duty to do what is best and right . If I can’t or won’t do any of that, elected office is not for me.
But this vacancy offers the benefits of serving, the chance to make a real difference for the better, even if so short a time, without the risk of losing my soul and sense of smell in the process (not to say anyone on the City Council has lost their soul; I suspect they are stronger than I am in that regard).
With that said, I don’t think I have much of a chance. I’m not saying that to garner sympathy (there is no point or profit in that). I am just being realistic. My fellow applicants are truly a fine group of candidates. The odds for any one of us isn’t good because of the large number of excellent choices. It is simple math.
[i]On the other hand – I think this campaign process has some distinct advantages: – the candidates don’t have to raise a gazillion dollars to run (certainly a benefit to the less wealthy candidates), – [/i]
I very much agree, 2cowherd. I think the greatest weakness of our democracy–its most corrupting element–is the private financing of campaigns for public office.
I don’t think in Davis–outside of the efforts of the firefighters union and some housing developers–most members of the council have been corrupted or appear to be corrupted. However, I think the large amount of money (usually now tens of thousands of dollars) that it takes to win a seat on the council precludes people who either don’t have much personal wealth or don’t have connections to a large group of friends and friends of friends who have money or just generally find the process of begging for money disgusting.
[i]”My fellow applicants are truly a fine group of candidates. The odds for any one of us isn’t good because of the large number of excellent choices. It is simple math.”[/i]
I agree with this.
Although this field on the whole lacks direct experience with some key issues facing our city, I think the people who chose to run are all in all quite impressive. If you compare these candidates to any field which has run in previous council elections, I think this group compares well.
I think the large amount of money (usually now tens of thousands of dollars) that it takes to win a seat on the council precludes people who either don’t have much personal wealth or don’t have connections to a large group of friends and friends of friends who have money or just generally find the process of begging for money disgusting.
Yep. But not much anyone can do about it. In these United States it is now well-established that the act of contributing money to a candidate for public office – whether the donor is a natural person or a corporation – is recognized as protected political speech. An Arizona public campaign finance law was invalidated because the prospect of poorer candidates obtaining public funds “chills” the constitutional rights of wealthy candidates by discouraging them from running for office if public matching funds means they can less easily outspend their opponents.
Wrap your head around that one, my moderate conservative brother. When you do, you will be afraid, as I am.
The one thing most Americans tend not to think about when it comes to privately financing campaigns for public office is that these financiers almost always want more and more government money in return. So government expands as the costs of private campaigns go up. If you want less government, particularly less government which mostly benefits a special interest group, it only makes sense to have publicly financed campaigns, where the money funding the campaigns does not result in 10:1 givebacks to the donors.
That said, with the hope that the nannies will remove all of my posts or ban me permanently, let me go off topic:
[img]http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/David M Greenwald.jpg[/img]
You sure know how to kill a conversation, Rich…