Earlier this week, I defended Councilmember Stephen Souza from charges of “blocking” – preventing those who wished to sign petitions from doing so. However, in the last few days we have had reports that Mr. Souza may have been a bit too zealous in defending his cause.
He takes this a step forward in the Davis Enterprise with a letter to the Editor: “I am a citizen of this community first and foremost, secondarily I am a representative of the citizens of this community and thereby have a fiduciary responsibility to save the ratepayers as much as I can in what we pay for water in our community.”
He continues, “It is my duty to speak out when I believe that the ratepayers will be harmed on a matter that I have knowledge of.”
It is at this point where I think the line between right and prudence starts becoming the issue. Mr. Souza, as a citizen of this community and of this nation, has the right to speak his mind just as anyone else does.
But that doesn’t mean that speaking out is always the right course of action. There has been a lot of talk this week about Mr. Souza’s conduct and a number of people remind me that he was a bit overzealous back in the Covell Village campaign, as well. And there were incidents then where that overzealousness pushed up against the line, and even crossed the line into bullying.
But I would also point out that, while Mr. Souza is the only councilmember speaking out at this time, he was among four councilmembers who supported the water project. However, we do not see Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson or Dan Wolk getting up into people’s grills, trying to talk them out of signing a petition.
In fact, we have not heard from any of these three at all. So, while Mr. Souza believes this is his duty, it is clear that that view is not accepted by his colleagues.
Those three seem content to let this situation play out. They seem to trust that the facts are on their side and they do not seem to fear a referendum or the will of the people.
Mr. Souza’s letter to the Enterprise continues: “There now are paid signature gatherers at the food stores and Farmers Market misrepresenting the facts.”
The idea of paid signature gatherers has been turned into something nefarious. And I admit, one of my qualms with the whole initiative process is that people with money can pay to get enough signatures gathered to put anything on the ballot.
On the other hand, there are practical concerns at work here. The petitioners have just one month to collect a large number of signatures. They must do so accurately, from people who are registered to vote.
It is not as though these people are making six figure salaries coming into Davis. These are people who are busting their rears for what probably is not much more than minimum wage pay.
Given the constraints here, it makes sense in the compressed timeline to hire a professional firm of signature gatherers who not only can collect the signatures, but can pre-qualify the signatures to make sure that a high percentage of people are eligible.
Are we concerned about the lack of transparency in the raising and expenditure of money? Yes. But that is not the fault of those attempting to collect signatures.
Mr. Souza talks about misrepresenting the facts, but part of the debate in this election is over those facts. There is no agreed-upon set of facts. In fact, Mr. Souza’s own colleague on the city council, Sue Greenwald, disputed his set of facts that he used in the flyer.
Mr. Souza continues, “This misinformation will cause the citizens of our community to end up paying more to meet the regulatory standards we must meet by 2017.”
No it won’t. Stephen Souza, of all people in this community, for the sake of intellectual honesty cannot use this argument. Why? Because he is the one that has always argued that a partial step is not tantamount to approval. Merely putting this on the ballot is not tantamount to approving the referendum that would overturn the rate hikes.
As he himself would argue, were this matter before him on the dais, it merely gives people the right to vote on whether or not they support the council’s actions, it does not address the ultimate question.
Why is this important? Because there is a whole campaign that would need to be run between now and Election Day, and that is the time to dispute the facts and make your case.
Make no mistake, agree or disagree with them, there is a strong and compelling argument to be made for this water project. In the end, I may or may not agree with that argument. But that time has not come. The question now is whether the voters should be the ones who determine whether their water rates go up.
The next step will determine whether the water rates will go up, and that will be the appropriate time for Mr. Souza to speak up.
Mr. Souza concludes, “To not speak out would be irresponsible on my part.”
Apparently Mr. Souza thinks that he is the only one on council being responsible right now.
We find this concerning. Mr. Souza needs to take a huge step back and allow this process to play out.
In the last few days, we have heard mounting anger directed at Mr. Souza from many in the community. A number of them are on the fence as to what to do ultimately on the referendum, but they find the behavior of a seated member of council appalling.
One of those people is Bob Dunning, who wrote earlier this week: “I do find it unseemly for a sitting councilman to be spending so much time and energy trying to defeat a proposal that merely gives us commoners the right to vote on a massively expensive project that has the potential to dramatically affect so many of our lives … a great number of us haven’t made up our minds about the project, but just about all of us would like to have a say in the ultimate decision.”
That’s a problem for Mr. Souza, because the clearest and calmest voice in the room is questioning not the project, but rather Mr. Souza’s conduct and the simple belief that the people should decide.
Mr. Souza has made himself a polarizing figure during a time of election. That does not bode well as he seeks to return for a third term as Councilmember, and he desperately hopes to become mayor.
What history has generally showed us is that the calmest voice is usually the one that wins that, as well.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“but just about all of us would like to have a say in the ultimate decision”
“the simple belief that the people should decide”
One problem with this liine of reasoning is that some of us believe that “the people” already have made their democratic choice, once when they elected 4 of the 5 current council members, and again when we either returned or recycled our protest forms. To me, the use of paid signature gatherers, without stating up front who is paying for their services and how much, looks like some relatively well off folks buying themselves another chance at their desired outcome. This is not about the signature gatherers themselves who I personally have found to be honest about their situation, friendly and making an honest attempt to present the issue in as it has been presented to them in sound bite form. It is about the people who are paying, but not willing to own that action publicly.
While I personally prefer the strategy being employed by council members Krovoza, Swanson, Wolk and Greenwald to that of council member
Souza, I do not think it is “unseemly” for a sitting council member to spend time voicing his concerns as he has a right to do as a private citizen any more than I think it unseemly to hire private firms to do your political work without public disclosure of that action. But as you stated David, just because one has the right and ability to do something doesn’t automatically make it wise or prudent.
Medwoman
“One problem with this liine of reasoning is that some of us believe that “the people” already have made their democratic choice, once when they elected 4 of the 5 current council members, and again when we either returned or recycled our protest forms.”
Referendums are also part of democracy as astutely pointed out by David in an earlier post. He also pointed out that renters have been disenfranchised by the 218 process. Our system is one of checks and balances, so I would think you would embrace this action of democracy.
“One problem with this liine of reasoning is that some of us believe that “the people” already have made their democratic choice, once when they elected 4 of the 5 current council members, and again when we either returned or recycled our protest forms.”
Rusty already made the point I would have about the Prop 218 system.
I would make the point on the elected representatives that I think few if any people realized that this was coming down and so the idea that the representative system can capture this or any one issue I think is problematic. After all, in 2005, 80% of the representatives in Davis favored Covell Village but only 40% of the public. So the representative system distorted the public’s actual views. Why? Because there is no one-to-one capture of issues from voter to representative.
rusty49
I fully support the right of individuals to initiate the referendum process. And as I stated above, just because one has the right and ability to take an action, does not make it either wise nor prudent, It also does not mean that the action is not driven by other than community minded concerns as I believe this one is by at least some opponents of the project. While I believe that Sue and some others are acting out of genuine
Concern for the community, I believe that others are acting solely on their own immediate well being. This also is their right, but not in the best interest of the longterm well being of the community.
[quote]He also pointed out that renters have been disenfranchised by the 218 process. [/quote]Perhaps… yet, many renters do not pay utility bills… many of those who own property in Davis (commercial property, for example) do not live in Davis. You “enfranchise” the former, and “dis-enfranchise” the other, if the referendum is successful. I’m beginning to think this is one of those ‘I asked dad, didn’t like the answer, so I’ll go ask mom’ situations. Those legally obligated to pay the bills, by and large, consented by not protesting, in spite of the extraordinary efforts of the city to facilitate protest. Because of the low “bar” set for the referendum process, I’m fairly sure it will go to a vote, at City expense, and I believe that most voters will be swayed more by rhetoric than facts. More’s the pity.
[quote]To me, the use of paid signature gatherers, without stating up front who is paying for their services and how much, looks like some relatively well off folks buying themselves another chance at their desired outcome.[/quote]
I have an answer to your question of how much. I met my first signature gatherer yesterday at the Nugget. He was a young man. I asked why he was in support of a referendum. He responded that he wasn’t, that he actually didn’t know much about it, and couldn’t vote on it anyway because he actually was a resident of Rocklin and a Sierra College student making a few extra bucks. He told me he was getting paid $1 per signature. We talked for some time, and he hit all of Mike Harrington’s talking points, one after the other. The one that struck me the most was his point that the surface water project would cause Davis to grow to 165,000 people. He paused, and said that he read somewhere that it was more like 125,000. In the end, he asked “so, how about earning me a dollar and sign?” Cute.
In the course of about 10 minutes of pleasant conversation I saw several seniors sign the petition. The man commented in jest, “see, even blocking me, I can get signatures”.
I should add that each and everyone of Michael Harrington’s talking points that this signature gatherer was repeating has been summarily torn apart on this blog. Oh, I forgot, Mike is too busy to debate facts right now, gotta get more signatures, or I mean, gotta pass out more dollar bills.
Oh, I would guess based on the number of signatures I saw, this young man’s time out in front of Nugget paid for his next community college class, so at least someone will be getting a decent education .
[quote]I have an answer to your question of how much. I met my first signature gatherer yesterday at the Nugget. He was a young man. I asked why he was in support of a referendum. He responded that he wasn’t, that he actually didn’t know much about it, and couldn’t vote on it anyway because he actually was a resident of Rocklin and a Sierra College student making a few extra bucks. He told me he was getting paid $1 per signature. We talked for some time, and he hit all of Mike Harrington’s talking points, one after the other. The one that struck me the most was his point that the surface water project would cause Davis to grow to 165,000 people. He paused, and said that he read somewhere that it was more like 125,000. In the end, he asked “so, how about earning me a dollar and sign?” Cute.
In the course of about 10 minutes of pleasant conversation I saw several seniors sign the petition. The man commented in jest, “see, even blocking me, I can get signatures”.[/quote]
[quote]Perhaps… yet, many renters do not pay utility bills… many of those who own property in Davis (commercial property, for example) do not live in Davis. You “enfranchise” the former, and “dis-enfranchise” the other, if the referendum is successful. I’m beginning to think this is one of those ‘I asked dad, didn’t like the answer, so I’ll go ask mom’ situations. Those legally obligated to pay the bills, by and large, consented by not protesting, in spite of the extraordinary efforts of the city to facilitate protest. [/quote]
To those of you who keep insisting the referendum process is “democratic”, please see above comments. Also, remember Pizzagate? I have no problem with the referendum itself, as it is a right, but I do have a problem with the misinformation the referendum signature gatherers/opponents of the project are spewing out/the manner in which opponents are attempting to gather signatures…
Elaine: No offense but your comment shows you really don’t understand the difference Pizzagate and paid canvassing. In Pizzagate students were being paid to vote with Pizza. That’s hugely different from paying people to canvas. If nothing else, the first instance is illegal and the second is perfectly legal.
“but I do have a problem with the misinformation the referendum signature gatherers/opponents of the project are spewing out/the manner in which opponents are attempting to gather signatures”
Do you also have a problem with the misinformation that Souza is spewing trying to stop people from gathering signatures?
What I find fund here is that there is not a commonly agreed upon set of facts. One side argues one thing, the other argues another.
Interesting letter yesterday in the Enterprise. As many have stated on here that often when a city asks the experts for advice that the city will tend to get the answer they wanted to hear or else they might not ask that expert anymore.
“Irony over freeway housing
A few years ago, an article from a well-respected medical journal showed that children who grow up near freeways are more likely to suffer loss of lung function. I cited this article in opposition to the city of Davis’ plans to build low-income housing directly adjacent to Interstate 80.
The city and the developers quickly brought in several air quality experts, including Thomas Cahill of UC Davis, to refute this and to recommend that the city proceed with the project. The implication, of course, was that we knew exactly what caused the adverse health impacts and that we could therefore mitigate them with things such as strategic landscaping. The City Council subsequently approved the project based upon this testimony.
Imagine my surprise to read a recent article in The Enterprise lauding three studies by the very same Cahill “adding to the growing body of data suggesting that very fine and ultra fine airborne particles are clearly linked to serious human health problems.”
Ironically, the article goes on to state that the researchers felt that their study “may offer a clue as to why children who grow up near freeways are more likely to suffer loss of lung function”! I wonder if Cahill and his colleagues would still recommend approval of the housing project right next to the freeway.
It doesn’t take an expert to conclude that we probably shouldn’t be building housing, low-income or otherwise, directly next to a freeway because it clearly jeopardizes the long-term health of its future residents.
Let’s all pay a little more attention to the facts and rely less on so called “expert opinion” the next time the city of Davis proposes a similar project and let’s hold our elected representatives accountable for doing the same.
To knowingly jeopardize the future health of our city’s very own citizens is simply unconscionable!
Kris Kordana, M.D.
Davis”
Since those pesky facts are settled in my mind (seeing as they are published – complete with author’s names and citations/references – as Don has so consistently pointed out for us), I would rather focus on the shocking reality that some uninformed, miseducated adolescent from out-of-town is disseminating misinformation in order to earn a buck . . . Is anyone else the least bit bothered by this? I would hope so!
[quote]In the end, he asked “so, how about earning me a dollar and sign?” Cute.[/quote]
I find this rather disturbing. How many have taken pity on this signature gatherer, and others, only to stick the city of Davis with the bill to actually hold the election?
@medwoman: [quote]… some of us believe that “the people” already have made their democratic choice, once when they elected 4 of the 5 current council members, and again when we either returned or recycled our protest forms. To me, the use of paid signature gatherers, without stating up front who is paying for their services and how much, looks like some relatively well off folks buying themselves another chance at their desired outcome. This is not about the signature gatherers themselves who I personally have found to be honest about their situation, friendly and making an honest attempt to present the issue in as it has been presented to them in sound bite form. [u]It is about the people who are paying, but not willing to own that action publicly.[/u][/quote]Bingo.
And isn’t this brand of “democracy in action” just great? Paid signature gathers lying to Davis seniors on behalf of some “progressives” on a referendum that will allow us to continue to polluting the delta!!
Amazing how many complain about the “DEMOCRATIC” process of a referendum when it just happens to be for something they don’t believe in.
Blah Blah & BLAH. Maybe Steve can stomp his feet and demand to be mayor for a day. Pleeeeeease Steve, just give it a rest Mr. Citizen.
Amazing also that people would actually believe that someone would sign a petition just because the signature gatherer was young, cute and need another buck. Really people??? All they’re doing is giving people who want to sign the petition a better chance to do it. People who don’t want to sign it wouldn’t sign if there were signature gathers on every corner.
“? Paid signature gathers lying to Davis seniors..”
Total BS.. Voter 2012! I spent some time with the young man in front of Nugget and he does not pitch any argument against the surface water project or rate hike. His sole pitch is to ask for signatures if you support a citizen referendum on the rate hike issue. He is polite and respectful to all he approaches, someone that Councilperson Souza could take a lesson from.
[i]”Amazing how many complain about the “DEMOCRATIC” process of a referendum when it just happens to be for something they don’t believe in.”[/i]
It is interesting that the word “democracy” is not mentioned in the Constitution. Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy for good reason.
A republic is different from a democracy. In a democracy, the majority can directly make or block or change the laws, while in a republic, elected representatives do this work and are held accountable at election time.
A problem with pure democracy and political mechanisms that transfer direct policy decision and manipulation power to the people is immediacy. In the design of a republic, the laws are made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a more pure democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, cooler and more capable decision-making heads prevail.
John Adams wrote that “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
I appreciate the number of informed and concerned citizens in this city and value their participating in governance; but allowing one of them to manipulate policy decisions by buying the votes from the emotive and uninformed citizens is an example of a city committing suicide.
“I believe that others are acting solely on their own immediate well being. This also is their right, but not in the best interest of the longterm well being of the community.”
Medwoman…I’m sure that you would have to agree that there are proponents, pushing for the surface water project NOW that are motivated by personal self-interest as well.
[quote]I appreciate the number of informed and concerned citizens in this city and value their participating in governance; but allowing one of them to manipulate policy decisions by buying the votes from the emotive and uninformed citizens is an example of a city committing suicide.[/quote]
Amen.
davisite2 – Could it be that the signature gatherer (assuming it was even the same person) might not have provided you with the same reception given that you did not ask any questions of him and his view on this issue? I’m assuming that, when he asked if you had already had a chance to sign the petition, you said yes and that was more-or-less the end of your pleasant interaction.
“Total BS.. Voter 2012! I spent some time with the young man …”
davisite2:
Are you saying that Davis Enophile is lying?
Or are you saying that that he only tells non-seniors about the conspiracy to grow the city to 165,000?
And BTW … who is paying the young man? Do you even know?
I find all of this just astounding. If Steve Souza hired out of town people to stand outside of grocery stores to explain why citizens should vote for a local issue, Mike Harrington and his friends (including the Vanguard) would skewer him. It is just so hypocritical. All you guys deserve each other.