I debated long and hard whether this was an appropriate topic for today’s column, but finally was pushed into it by a comment made last night by the chair of the Water Advisory Committee on the Vanguard.
Elaine Roberts Musser said: “With such open hostility shown to WAC members, as expressed in the above two comments, is it any wonder the WAC members made the decision they did? Perhaps if some of you toned it down and asked nicely…”
Water figures to be one of the most contentious issues in the community over the next ten or eleven months, and if members of the Water Advisory Committee really cannot take the heat, then perhaps they ought not be on the committee.
I do not mean to be harsh, but there are going to be moments of contention. However, I am appalled that the city council to this point has not insisted upon these meetings being fully open and on television.
The chair suggested that members of the committee were uncomfortable being on TV – but this is not about the comfort of the members of the committee, it is about transparency and democracy.
Frankly, I am still steamed that on December 16, 2011, the chair of the committee called me out in a comment on the Vanguard, writing: “What I have not seen is the Vanguard in attendance at the WAC meetings. That does not serve the community well, and it continues to lead me to skepticism about the objectivity of the Vanguard in regard to its position on the surface water project. Before casting aspersions on this committee, the least the Vanguard can do is be present and listen to what is being said.”
I have always had good relations with Ms. Musser, even as we have disagreed on issues from time to time. But she did not bother to ask me why I was not in attendance – if she had, she would have learned that I had a conflict with the meeting time – I had another obligation at the same time.
On Friday, we learned that I will likely not be able to make many, if any, of the meetings as they conflict with prior obligations in my schedule. I had actually informed the chair of these conflicts, but I understand this is not about meeting the scheduling needs of a non-member. They have to schedule their meetings when they have to schedule their meetings.
Still, it would be nice if I could record the meetings on TV and watch them later. However, that option is not available.
Other suggestions were that I could read the minutes and read the documents – but that misses critical discussion by the committee and minutes are notoriously thin on details about the various arguments that will be raised in the ordinary course of discussion.
Another suggestion was that I send an intern. I have a lot of experience with interns. I love working with students. But there is simply no way that an intern is going to be able to watch a meeting on water and offer any sort of critical analysis that Vanguard readers are accustomed to.
This again is not about me, but if the chair thinks it is important enough to call us out on multiple occasions for non-attendance, then perhaps it is important enough to make the meeting accessible to those of us who have prior and unalterable obligations.
The easiest and most straightforward way to do this is simply to put it on TV. That way ensures that everyone can watch it regardless of his or her schedule.
And yet, for someone so concerned with non-attendance, Elaine Roberts Musser is very slow to offer up workable suggestions and very quick to offer up flimsy excuses.
“I personally would have had no difficulties appearing on camera. As you point out, I do it all the time,” she said. “However, the decision to not televise these meetings was a consensus decision at our very first WAC meeting by the entire WAC membership with no particular reasons given.”
There was no promise to take the issue back up before the committee, now that the concern has been expressed publicly, and to explain to the committee why it is important.
Instead, she offered that there were minutes and that “the Vanguard is always free to send someone they trust to cover the meetings.” Easier said than done, particularly on an issue as complex as water.
She added, “I encourage anyone who feels strongly about the issue of televising the WAC meetings to voice their concerns during public comment at the next WAC meeting, either in person or in writing…”
Granted, she said in writing, but there is a small level of absurdity. The fact is that I am going to take this up, all right, but not with the WAC, I am going to go over their heads to the city council.
The bottom line is that these meetings need to be televised and that the chair of the committee should at least check before calling people out for non-attendance.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I will be emailing the council and staff asking that the meetings be televised.
David
I am in agreement that it would be best to have the meetings televised. I also have conflicting obligations that preclude my attending.
However, you have put forward a seemingly viable alternative for you within your own post.
“Another suggestion was that I send an intern. I have a lot of experience with interns. I love working with students. But there is simply no way that an intern is going to be able to watch a meeting on water and offer any sort of critical analysis that Vanguard readers are accustomed to.
Perhaps you could send an intern who could film the meeting. You could then view it later, perhaps even with the intern, thereby both seeing the entire eent with an observer who was present and also use it as a teaching opportunity for the development of critical analysis.
The city televises other commissions, ie: planning commission, so I don’t see any reason why the most important issue to come along in years can’t be televised too.
I am going to take the high road here. Rather than address the very personal nature of the complaints in this article, the only thing I will say is this. If anyone believes the WAC meetings should be televised, s/he may feel free to lodge a complaint either in person or in writing with the WAC and/or the City Council as is their right. The Vanguard and members of the public have many options at their disposal to “attend” the WAC meetings as many commenters have suggested…
“The Vanguard and members of the public have many options at their disposal to “attend” the WAC meetings as many commenters have suggested”
This is not a true statement – many commenters have not suggested that. I don’t see a good substitute for televising it, I appreciate Medwoman’s suggestion (though she also agrees the best method is televising it), but it’s not that practical from my perspective.
I am baffled as to why you have not advocated televising the meetings and I think you were out of line to call me without checking with me as to why I was not there in December.
I agree with David, there’s no valid excuse for not televising the meetings. I think with a little pressure applied the council will see it that way too. With all that has already come down as far as the rate fiasco and what many believe a lack of transparency I don’t think the council will want to chance a backlash from not televising.
[quote]I am baffled as to why you have not advocated televising the meetings and I think you were out of line to call me without checking with me as to why I was not there in December.[/quote]
1) The Vanguard and other commenters on this blog have been critical/threatening/in attack mode in regard to the WAC –
BEFORE the WAC even had a chance to meet;
AND once the WAC first met were very critical of the WAC,
without bothering to attend the WAC meetings;
or send someone else to attend; make a personal/written request
of the WAC to televise meetings.
2) I do not decide singlehandedly what the WAC will do. It is a group decision.
3) The Vanguard or any member of the public may make a request of the WAC and/or City Council that WAC meetings be televised.
This is off topic, but usually Sunday the Vanguard runs an off topic column. Former football coach at Penn State Joe Paterno died…
“2) I do not decide singlehandedly what the WAC will do. It is a group decision.”
No one said otherwise. But I still have not heard a commitment or any inclination on your part to go back to the WAC this week and let them know that there is public concern about the lack of televised meetings and that you think they ought to re-consider the decision.
Can you imagine the outcry if the city council decided not to televise their meetings because of some criticism from the public?
[quote]No one said otherwise. But I still have not heard a commitment or any inclination on your part to go back to the WAC this week and let them know that there is public concern about the lack of televised meetings and that you think they ought to re-consider the decision.[/quote]
How would you know what I am thinking/going to do? You have never asked me!
[quote]Can you imagine the outcry if the city council decided not to televise their meetings because of some criticism from the public?[/quote]
The WAC members are unelected volunteers, who did not sign on to such an onerous task (we have to read literally thousands of pages of documents) to be pilloried/villified/called names by the public: a) before the WAC even had a chance to meet; b) by critical citizens who never even came to a single WAC meeting. I have no doubt every one of the WAC members takes their job seriously, much as a juror who is required to take a fresh look at a case without having come to a preconceived verdict. Instead of raising a ruckus in a NEGATIVE way, why not simply make a civil request to the WAC and/or the City Council to have the meetings televised?
I, too, think that the WAC meetings should be televised if possible and taped for later televising if not, for the sake of transparency.
DCTV may have interns willing to take this on. Contact Davis Media Access [url]http://davismedia.org/[/url]
[quote]I, too, think that the WAC meetings should be televised if possible and taped for later televising if not, for the sake of transparency.[/quote]
Since you asked so nicely, I will be happy to bring this issue to the WAC! But I would suggest sending an email or appearing in person, so that the WAC knows there are a number of citizens who feel this way.
This reminds me of the latest movie version of “Robin Hood”. Russell Crowe, playing Robin Hood to Cate Blanchette’s Maid Marian, verbally spars with the hero Robin Hood, giving him a hard time. The inimitable Russell Crowe, playing Robin Hood, before he is willing to cooperate with her demands says “Ask me nicely”! As the old adage goes “You get more with honey than with vinegar!”
I realize that televising the meetings would be preferable. But if you want to record them, download Audacity. Get a reasonably good microphone and set it in the middle of the table. Tell people not to mumble. Tape the audio of the meetings and save it as an mp3. This is not difficult. Get me the file on a flash drive and I will normalize it and upload it to a server.
[url]http://audacity.sourceforge.net/[/url]
I have a recorder that does all of that by itself.
“How would you know what I am thinking/going to do? You have never asked me!”
I have actually asked you on multiple times, and you have simply ignored the question.
[i]I have a recorder that does all of that by itself.
[/i]
But you’re not going to be there.
TV will not make for a better process; it will stifle constructive discussion and lead to ‘grandstanding’ and ‘speechifying’ as members ‘perform’ for the cameras.
By all accounts, the WAC is doing exactly what they were asked to do. Their meetings are open to the public and are available to anyone who cares to attend. Let them finish their work without prejudging the validity of their conclusions.
OK David, OK Elaine, We get it. Elaine is pissed because David has taken a few shots and not been in attendance at WAC meetings. David is steamed because Elaine has criticized his lack of attendance and not bothered to ask why he was not there. Both of you, GET OVER IT!
When you take on a public function such as the WAC or the Vanguard you will be subjected to criticism and comments you feel are unfair. Perhaps one of you should be the adult here and pick up the phone for a civil discussion and some suggestions of how to move on. I’m not sure the Vanguard is the appropriate place for your personal anamosities to be vented.
Obviously there is an interest in having the WAC meetings televised for those of us who have not made Elain’s commitment to spend literally hundreds of hours working on the water import issue. Please post the email address where we can request that the meetings be made more transparent by televising them. Obviously David does not fail to attend the WAC meetings because he is not interested. This guy has a lot of irons in the fire. Lets cut him a little slack for not attending literally every meeting in this meeting happy town.
You two both have demonstrated you commitment to this community. I really hate to see you both wasting your precious energy taking shots at each other.
It is ridiculous to personalize and spend time arguing over a simple request that the City Council formally appointed WAC and its meetings be televised. Everyone is this community should have the opportunity to be informed about their deliberations, not just those with time to attend.
The city has 15 or 20 commissions and committees that meet regularly. To my knowledge, only the city council meetings are televised. So it would be exceptional for this committee to have its meetings televised.
Planning commission and I believe often social service commission also are televised. Others in council chambers too I believe.
I’ve also seen the bicycle and parking commission meetings televised.
So the simplest would be for them to move the meetings to the council chambers?
Community Chambers, where the Council meets, is set up to video any meeting, as long as they have a camera operator present. The bicycle and parking commission meetings were televised when they met jointly with the Council. Even though those Commissions routinely meet in Community Chambers, the meetings are not generally televised.
Don’s comment is correct – moving the water committee meetings to the Chambers would allow easy televising. I also agree that anyone who agrees to serve on a public commission/committee/board should not object to televised proceedings. I am personally camera shy, but I believe the public interest should come first, and conducting a televised meeting is no different than an open meeting before an audience.
[quote]Please post the email address where we can request that the meetings be made more transparent by televising them. [/quote]
I’ve put in a request to find out who you should email to ask the WAC that its meetings be televised…
Even the Supreme Court releases audio.
Mr Toad
I could be wrong, but I believe that the members of the Supreme Court have accepted a much more prominent public role and are significantly better compensated than are the members of our WAC ; )
Perhaps Elaine could confirm or deny.
For the record I attended the first meeting of the WAC, and Elaine was one of the WAC members who stated her support of televising the meetings. The Vanguard may want to contact some of the other WAC members present that night to hear from them directly about where they stand on this issue. Elaine is one of the very last people who should be being criticized on this issue.
From a practical perspective, getting 15 people seated behind the dias of Council Chambers will more than likely be logistically a challenge.
@Matt Williams: We routinely videotape workshops around tables below the dais.
@Matt Williams: We routinely videotape workshops around tables below the dais.
That is very good to hear Sue. I simply haven’t seen that done.
[quote]Mr Toad
I could be wrong, but I believe that the members of the Supreme Court have accepted a much more prominent public role and are significantly better compensated than are the members of our WAC ; )
Perhaps Elaine could confirm or deny.[/quote]
LOL WAC members volunteer their time free of charge!
To all who want WAC meetings televised and wish to advise the WAC of your concerns with respect to this issue (or any other subject matter) – you can use either email address below so that your emails will be read during WAC public comment:
DJensen@cityofdavis.org
water@cityofdavis.org
Just ignore the ‘> before the email addresses. I don’t know why the computer put them in…
Thanks Elaine, I’ll check back here for the email address where folks can request that the WAC meetings be televised. R.B.
[quote]Thanks Elaine, I’ll check back here for the email address where folks can request that the WAC meetings be televised. R.B.[/quote]
You are more than welcome!
It is just a guess, but I suspect that because Elaine is the chair of this committee, she felt it was inappropriate to vocalize an opinion about the appropriateness of televising the committee meetings out of respect for her other committee members. There was apparently public discussion about the topic at the WAC meeting, and Elaine probably did not believe that a forum other than the WAC meeting or a City Council meeting was an appropriate place to comment further, particularly given that a vote had been taken on the matter. If some version of this represents her reasons, I applaud her for that. She expressed why she believed other committee members didn’t want it televised, but didn’t take advantage of their lack of public participation in this forum to push or even defend her own position on the matter, despite most making the wrong assumption about what her position actually is. She did it the right way. She told people what the proper channels were for voicing their concerns.
To newshoundpm: Thankyou!
newshoundpm, I think you have summed up the situation perfectly.
I can say that because I was in attendance at the meeting as a member of the public and observed the discussion.