Democracy is not a clean system. It is messy because it is about process first and results second. We have ideals of free elections, open government, freedom of speech, freedom to express a variety of ideals. It is the marketplace of ideas that embodies our governmental bodies.
I have said over and over again, my very top consideration for government spending is on schools. Why? Because without a quality and accessible education to all, we have no future. We rely on our schools to educate our youth, train our next generation of leaders, educate our workforce and spawn innovation.
Education is an investment, first and foremost, that gets returned each time individuals enter the workforce and pay their taxes. I believe that America’s greatness rested not only on its K-12 system of free public education but on its vast network of public universities that even today, under fire, are the envy of the world.
But that is being threatened in times of economic hardship. Our students already are less than competitive with their counterparts in numerous countries around the world. As other countries have emulated our model of education, we have reduced our investment, in real terms, over the last half century.
Davis voters have a chance to at least slow that decline next week, when they vote on Measure A. However, and sadly, this election is now as much about public process as it is about education.
The League of Women Voters was an organization founded back in 1920 to promote suffrage and to help the newly-enfranchised woman to exercise her responsibilities and rights as a voter.
Sadly, this very organization that stood for the very foundations of democracy is itself a culprit in Davis of undermining those democratic principles.
It is appalling that an organization that was founded to promote suffrage would exclude the No on Measure A side from its debate.
They have shown themselves, in my view, in recent years to be out of touch. Sadly, the city has given them special status, waiving their fees for the use of Community Chambers and allowing them to be the sole sponsor of the council appointment forum.
Based on what I saw in 2010, I thought it was a mistake to do that, but the council put their trust in the brand name that is familiar to everyone and was supposed to represent, above all else, fairness and neutrality.
Instead, what we have seen is not only favoritism, but random decisions.
In 2009, the LWV excluded Councilmember Sue Greenwald from the Measure P debate. I supported that decision to the anger of some, but I did so because I believed there were good reasons to exclude a public official from a debate. It would have created the appearance of official sanction from the governmental body, which would be inappropriate.
As a result there was no LWV forum. I lamented that at the time, but now I recognize it was probably just as well.
However, since that time, the League has shown that their decisionat that time was, in fact, capricious. The very same league allowed the very same Sue Greenwald to be the representative on the Measure Q debate over the sales tax. No one batted an eye.
Now they have done something similar by allowing Sheila Allen to participate in the forum.
Again, it does not matter what the policy is as long as it is consistent. And they weren’t consistent.
I believe the strengths and weaknesses of Measure A stand on their own. There was no good public purpose served by the LWV excluding the No on Measure A side from the debate. In fact, I think it is has harmed the Measure A process for yet another very public misstep to have occurred.
Supervisor Rexroad is wrong. Following proper democratic process is far more important to me than the issue of Measure A and not one person can claim, based on the volume of articles the Vanguard has done on Measure A and education, that this is not a critical issue to me.
But without democracy, we have no protections. The next time it may not be Measure A, but rather the league may determine who the candidates in a city council election are who can participate. They may determine not to have opposition to the next Parks Tax in their debate. Who knows.
The LWV needs to come together and figure what they are. Are they still the fighters for the democratic process or have they merely morphed into apologists for the status quo and the establishment?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I believed that LWV was a democratic organization. Now I see that they are mostly interested in supporting their own agenda.
They have lost their credibility. Too bad.
I believed that LWV was a democratic organization. Now I see that they are mostly interested in supporting their own agenda.
They have lost their credibility. Too bad.
I get blamed for a ton of stuff — and am ok with that. Not sure how I got involved in this.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
I get blamed for a ton of stuff — and am ok with that. Not sure how I got involved in this.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
Well put, David. I’m saddened by this apparent betrayal of democractic princiiples by the LWV and even our local City Council.
We, the public, should contribute to the Vanguard. I promise I will.
Well put, David. I’m saddened by this apparent betrayal of democractic princiiples by the LWV and even our local City Council.
We, the public, should contribute to the Vanguard. I promise I will.
I hope in the future we will wean ourselves off off LWV. They have proven themselves to be biased and not particularly competent either. There are other organizations in our City who could do a much better job.
The ultimate sanction is simply to now make LWV irrelevant.
I hope in the future we will wean ourselves off off LWV. They have proven themselves to be biased and not particularly competent either. There are other organizations in our City who could do a much better job.
The ultimate sanction is simply to now make LWV irrelevant.
“The ultimate sanction is simply to now make LWV irrelevant.”
Were they ever relevant? I’ve always thought they should’ve been titled the League of Democrat Women Voters. Did they ever represent conservative women?
“The ultimate sanction is simply to now make LWV irrelevant.”
Were they ever relevant? I’ve always thought they should’ve been titled the League of Democrat Women Voters. Did they ever represent conservative women?
Did they ever represent conservative women?
On measure P they didn’t seem to represent anyone since 75% voted no.
But they are relevant to the extent that they are the official forum.
Did they ever represent conservative women?
On measure P they didn’t seem to represent anyone since 75% voted no.
But they are relevant to the extent that they are the official forum.
Dunning’s column says that the LWV was billed for 812.50 for the use of the facility and video services. To add to it he reported that district sup. Roberson also spoke.
“But also present and speaking — in fact, leading off the presentations — was Roberson, apparently not at all chastened by the fallout over his recent inappropriate Measure A endorsement letter to selected seniors that explained why “the District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax.”
While Roberson later apologized for both the timing and the content of what was clearly a campaign mailing on District letterhead, he had no problem appearing on the dais in what can only be described as a “Yes on A” forum, when it was obvious the loyal opposition had been left out of the debate.”
Dunning’s column says that the LWV was billed for 812.50 for the use of the facility and video services. To add to it he reported that district sup. Roberson also spoke.
“But also present and speaking — in fact, leading off the presentations — was Roberson, apparently not at all chastened by the fallout over his recent inappropriate Measure A endorsement letter to selected seniors that explained why “the District is seeking voter approval for a parcel tax.”
While Roberson later apologized for both the timing and the content of what was clearly a campaign mailing on District letterhead, he had no problem appearing on the dais in what can only be described as a “Yes on A” forum, when it was obvious the loyal opposition had been left out of the debate.”
Dr. Wu,
I’m not aware of the LWV being an “official forum.”
More to the point is whether they serve a purpose. A group that purports to provide non-biased information for voters becomes useless when it takes sides.
Dr. Wu,
I’m not aware of the LWV being an “official forum.”
More to the point is whether they serve a purpose. A group that purports to provide non-biased information for voters becomes useless when it takes sides.
Who is that hansome man on the right? hee!
Who is that hansome man on the right? hee!
Rusty,
In my opinion, Roberson as an individual has every right to speak his own views on any topic on his own dime and with his own time. His views are especially valuable when it comes to school issues. The difference with his advocacy postcard is that he was spending taxpayer money to produce and mail that on district letterhead, and his mailer had all the appearance of pushing a yes vote.
But just because he is a district employee, the top employee in his case, does not mean that on his own he cannot or should not take sides in the Measure A debate.
Rusty,
In my opinion, Roberson as an individual has every right to speak his own views on any topic on his own dime and with his own time. His views are especially valuable when it comes to school issues. The difference with his advocacy postcard is that he was spending taxpayer money to produce and mail that on district letterhead, and his mailer had all the appearance of pushing a yes vote.
But just because he is a district employee, the top employee in his case, does not mean that on his own he cannot or should not take sides in the Measure A debate.
Interesting link: [url]http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/10/your-guide-to-the-guides-everyone-elses-endorsements-of-the-ca-state-propositions.php[/url]
The LWV sided with the CA teachers union on every inititave other than prop 27 “Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting”. I understand that the LWV “strongly opposed” this initiative, while the CTA “weakly supported” it.
Here is a link to the history of all LWV endorsements of CA propositions since 1996: [url]http://www.ca.lwv.org/lwvc/action/proprec.html[/url]
I don’t have time to go through this, but it would be interesting to calculate the percentage of support matching left-leaning organizations versus right-leaning organizations.
Interesting link: [url]http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/10/your-guide-to-the-guides-everyone-elses-endorsements-of-the-ca-state-propositions.php[/url]
The LWV sided with the CA teachers union on every inititave other than prop 27 “Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting”. I understand that the LWV “strongly opposed” this initiative, while the CTA “weakly supported” it.
Here is a link to the history of all LWV endorsements of CA propositions since 1996: [url]http://www.ca.lwv.org/lwvc/action/proprec.html[/url]
I don’t have time to go through this, but it would be interesting to calculate the percentage of support matching left-leaning organizations versus right-leaning organizations.
[i]”Who is that hansome man on the right?”[/i]
Since we have two of you on this blog, I just looked up the meaning of “Musser” under name origins ([url]http://genealogy.familyeducation.com/surname-origin/musser[/url]). Musser is related to Moser. And a Moser is from German: [quote] 1. South German: topographic name for someone who lived near a peat bog, Middle High German mos, or a habitational name from a place named with this word.
2.North German (Möser): metonymic occupational name for a vegetable grower or seller, from an agent noun based on Middle Low German mōs ‘vegetable’. [/quote] The more you know …
FWIW, we have two Greenwalds. That name is also German, meaning green forest.
[i]”Who is that hansome man on the right?”[/i]
Since we have two of you on this blog, I just looked up the meaning of “Musser” under name origins ([url]http://genealogy.familyeducation.com/surname-origin/musser[/url]). Musser is related to Moser. And a Moser is from German: [quote] 1. South German: topographic name for someone who lived near a peat bog, Middle High German mos, or a habitational name from a place named with this word.
2.North German (Möser): metonymic occupational name for a vegetable grower or seller, from an agent noun based on Middle Low German mōs ‘vegetable’. [/quote] The more you know …
FWIW, we have two Greenwalds. That name is also German, meaning green forest.
To Musser: And of course we know that handsome man on the right got his good looks from his mom!
To dmg: Excellent article. One thing that was not mentioned is the smell of the school district in this mess. I blame both the LWV AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for stooping so low. The school district has done itself more harm than good. For heaven’s sake, from what I understand there were only 3 people present in the audience at the forum, and only proponents of Measure A at that. Why would the school district risk so much (reputation, credibility) for so little (to convince zero people)? What was the school district thinking? As for LVW, I doubt there will be anyone rushing to participate in any of their forums, if they can ever again find a venue to take them! High praise goes to Joe Krovoza for making the LWV cough up the cost of the fee waiver – in other words this group was never entitled to one. And Sue Greenwald was right yet again on another issue, to complain about not being allowed to argue against Measure P… while allowed to argue for Measure Q…
To Musser: And of course we know that handsome man on the right got his good looks from his mom!
To dmg: Excellent article. One thing that was not mentioned is the smell of the school district in this mess. I blame both the LWV AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT for stooping so low. The school district has done itself more harm than good. For heaven’s sake, from what I understand there were only 3 people present in the audience at the forum, and only proponents of Measure A at that. Why would the school district risk so much (reputation, credibility) for so little (to convince zero people)? What was the school district thinking? As for LVW, I doubt there will be anyone rushing to participate in any of their forums, if they can ever again find a venue to take them! High praise goes to Joe Krovoza for making the LWV cough up the cost of the fee waiver – in other words this group was never entitled to one. And Sue Greenwald was right yet again on another issue, to complain about not being allowed to argue against Measure P… while allowed to argue for Measure Q…
On a somewhat related note [url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education[/url]
ERM: [i]Why would the school district risk so much (reputation, credibility) for so little (to convince zero people)? What was the school district thinking?[/i]
That comment misses some context. As with City Council meetings and School Board meetings, these things are broadcast on the local access cable network. I don’t know if this was broadcast live as it happened, but it is being rebroadcast a few times this week on DCTV, apparently in an agreement with LWV:
[url]http://davismedia.org/schedule/today[/url]
Note Thursday, April 28 & Saturday, April 30.
So maybe there are zero or three in the audience, that’s not the only audience that is anticipated.
Why don’t you all form an organization called the “League of Men Voters”. You can have a regular public information forum in the back room of Sudwerks over beer at election time.
To wdf1: To broadcast this fiasco? How shameful – but then obviously the LWV and the school district seem to have no shame…
I’m confused about the concern raised regarding Roberson participating in the forum. Before you all flame me, I agree the the LWV should have included a “no on A” representative. And I agree that the letter mailed to seniors by the district was very poorly done.
However, regarding Roberson, in his professional capacity, taking a position on Measure A, I think he was exactly right to do so. The school district placed the measure on ballot, which signifies that they believe the measure should be passed. Given that set of conditions, the administration of the district can’t possibly be viewed as “neutral”, nor should the voters expect them to be. There are many, many examples of elected political officials taking a stance on measures before the voters. If citizens place an initiative on the ballot that would harm the school district, I would expect the district to take a public position on that.
So can someone who thinks Roberson was wrong to publicly advocate on Measure A please explain why?
Adam Smith: “So can someone who thinks Roberson was wrong to publicly advocate on Measure A please explain why?”
He associated himself w a rigged forum… which paints him w the same taint as the LWV…