One of the greatest lessons from Watergate has apparently been lost on the latest generation of leaders, and that is that no matter how badly you believe you acted, the worst thing that you can do is try to cover up your crimes.
It is not, in fact, the crimes of Watergate – shocking as they probably should have been for operatives working under the President’s reelection committee to have broken into the offices of political rivals – but rather the elaborate and yet clumsy and hasty ways in which they attempted to hide these facts from the American people that led to the only resignation we have had of an American President.
As I review the top local stories of 2011, it is stunning to me how much trouble is caused from not being upfront and honest about policies and their shortcomings from the start.
These days it is almost impossible to hide things from the citizens – there are public access laws, weak and pathetic as they are, there is the 24-hour news cycle and there is the social network. There is the fact that every person is a potential reporter, with a cellphone and camera and an ability to upload these things to vast audiences instantaneously.
The pepper-spray incident, in many ways a minor transgression by the police, was amplified by the fact that the whole world is always watching now. No longer is it an accident, such as with Rodney King, where an individual happened to be testing out a toy video camera and caught the end of a high-speed chase.
Now everyone has a video recorder and a camera in his or her phone. You cannot hide. I have been over videos of the pepper-spray incident for hours, but I am stuck in the same place I was at the start. Lt. John Pike calmly shook the pepper spray can for a minute, and when that failed to rouse the protesters, he calmly stepped over them, and then bathed them in pepper spray.
And I do mean bathe. He emptied the can on them, calmly, slowly and methodically. That will be the last action that he takes as a law enforcement officer.
The question is what happens with his boss Chief Annette Spiccuza, her boss Vice Chancellor John Meyer, and his boss Chancellor Linda Katehi.
My guess is that the chancellor will survive, despite the exact wrong approach to crisis management. First, she issued a statement saying this was regrettable but necessary, then she issued an apology, then she blamed it on the police while still taking responsibility (whatever responsibility means in the social-media age).
UC President Mark Yudof understands the culture of the time. He ordered multiple independent investigations, first getting former LA Police Chief William Bratton to head up a private security company’s investigation, and then getting former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso to lead the clean-up crew.
Still, for our purposes, UC Davis’ pepper-spraying fiasco is the side-show to the Vanguard’s main focus, which is watching the Davis City Council and City Hall make a mess of every situation put before them.
This year began with a great measure of hope as the tone and climate on the council changed with the exit of former Mayor and now Supervisor Don Saylor, and the arrival of Dan Wolk.
But the messy clean-up job was prolonged by the fact that a new city manager was not hired until September, then extended by the fact that one issue – water – has monopolized his time.
While the water fiasco is the most serious problem, frankly the Zipcar fiasco illustrates the problem that we face in this community, because it was so unnecessary. Fact is, the Zipcar is a worthwhile program of car sharing that is being implemented across the country, particularly in college towns as a way to provide a vehicle to people who do not need an automobile on a regular basis.
The program was never funded from the general fund, and is now breaking even to the point where it should not cost the city another dime.
The problem is that the council, on the first meeting of their new session with Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, sailed through the agenda in record time without doing sufficient scrutiny on the contract that they were agreeing to.
The city would not get away with this, and within a few months they were being pounded on the issue by Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. At this point, the prudent course would be to admit your oversight, and fix the contract that had huge holes and potentially left the city open to liability.
No, that’s not what they did. Instead, they had Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza put out an op-ed, and the city put out a FAQ sheet correcting the misinformation put out by the media.
The problem is that the media was right and the city was relying on oral rather than written agreements to assert that the media was wrong. City staff hung two of its councilmembers out to dry on this before finally admitting to and correcting the problem.
This was a relatively minor transgression, only because the project literally does not cost the city anything. However, the city would not learn from this lesson.
And so on September 6, the city council passed rate increases advertised at 14%, but when you actually analyzed the rate differential at the lowest tier, which goes from $1.50 per unit to $1.90, it was not a 14% rate increase.
However, if you read the fine print you notice that, in fact, that 14% rate increase is actually based on a 20% conservation assumption.
Moreover, it appears even one of the councilmembers was confused, as Dan Wolk told Bob Dunning: “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
Three months to the day later, the council had to rescind those rates, with Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson calling the rate structure implemented on September 6, “clearly untenable” and arguing that she would not “support a rate going [up] that doesn’t have a rate study behind it.”
Unlike many, and to her credit, she admitted her mistake, “That was a mistake, I regret not sticking to my guns in September and only doing the one year.”
The interim public works director would also have to admit his mistake. Mr. Clarke wrote on November 3:
“The confusion and the misperception that the city has been less than forthcoming stems from the way in which the rate increase was characterized in staff reports. While staff attempted to point out in our reports and at our dozens of communitywide and interest group meetings all the factors impacting the rates, we didn’t do a very good job of differentiating clearly among the actual rate increase, the increase in customer water bills and the total increase in revenue.”
“The overall amount an individual household’s bill will change varies based on usage. As many people have correctly observed, the maximum rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and adopted by the council represent more than a 14 percent increase for each year (14 percent was cited in a staff report as being the average annual rate increase for single-family residential users). “
One of the things you should learn is that if you do it right the first time, it might be unpleasant but it limits the unpleasantness to a single episode.
Sadly, the city could not even learn that when it hired its new city manager at a rather substantial pay increase.
You can make the argument that hiring the right city manager is a good move, despite the high costs.
The problem is, not only did the council botch the initial figure (by a good amount), but they now have to explain to the employees, that they are trying to squeeze, that the city manager gets a raise but they have to take pay cuts and benefit cuts and pay more into their pensions.
Sadly, we could go on. While issues like water and the budget will continue to dominate the headlines in the city, the real legacy will be whether the council and Steve Pinkerton can clean up the way that city staff, on a regular basis, handle their mistakes.
Mistakes will always happen – no matter how much time, care and energy goes into making decisions. Being upfront and honest about them goes a long way toward restoring public trust and making major projects like the surface water project much more feasible.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]And I do mean bathe. He emptied the can on them, calmly, slowly and methodically. That will be the last action that he takes as a law enforcement officer.[/quote]
Has Lt. Pike been fired? I hadn’t heard that such an momentous event has taken place. Please refer me to a link or some proof that this has happened…
[quote]Mistakes will always happen – no matter how much time, care and energy goes into making decisions. Being upfront and honest about them goes a long way toward restoring public trust and making major projects like the surface water project much more feasible.[/quote]
Being upfront and honest about mistakes requires that the mistakes be obvious. What we don’t know is if the past “mistakes” made were intentional obfuscation or unintentional/inadvertent lapses. Sometimes it takes a more objective public to: 1) uncover any subterfuge; 2) bring inadvertent mistakes out into the open, since those working on the issue so closely do not always see the forest for the trees. But the public itself is not without fault, since oftentimes opponents to a city project will either a) make unintentional mistakes themselves through ignorance and/or lack of knowledge/understanding of the issues; 2) or say anything no matter how untruthful/uncivil (sling mud) to sabotage the success of the project at all costs.
What I would like to see moving forward is a more careful vetting of projects and the staff reports that support them; and a more civil and thoughtful public that takes the trouble to get themselves educated on the issues…
“Has Lt. Pike been fired? I hadn’t heard that such an momentous event has taken place. Please refer me to a link or some proof that this has happened…”
I didn’t say he was fired, I said that will be his last action, that is a prediction. Do you disagree?
[quote]I didn’t say he was fired, I said that will be his last action, that is a prediction. Do you disagree?[/quote]
Your statement was: “That will be the last action that he takes as a law enforcement officer.” It sounds like a “fact”, not a “prediction”. Personally, I think it is anybody’s guess what will happen… there were so many wrongs on all sides…
I’m predicting that part will be a fact. While I understand your point, they have to blame someone or they will have a riot and worse on their hands, so the lowest fish gets tossed.
Amazingly, tthe latest issue of the Wall Street Journal… the headline front page article on all the events of 2011 lists the pepper spray incident as the very first.
I think the larger story being missed here is the breathtaking speed that video can go viral and influence the opinion of the nation. Do some deep thinking about the event and all the attention seems unjustified… especially in consideration of all the REAL events going on that should stir our moral outrage (and given the later videos that came out showing a more malicious crowd). What makes news? How does the choices made be those that deliver us our news influence public perceptions? How can those perceptions be exploited for gain by some at the expense of others? How might human decision-making be corrupted by the risk of this exploitation?
Who is watching the media?
Why should anyone “watch” the media?
I got a nice new watch for Channukah.
[i]http://breguet.watchprosite.com/img/watchprosite/breguet/73/raw/breguet_image.2213973.jpg[/i]
Alas, the watch I got was not the Breguet shown above.
test:
[img]http://breguet.watchprosite.com/img/watchprosite/breguet/73/raw/breguet_image.2213973.jpg[/img]
Re: Pike as top story.
I don’t think, long-term, the pepper-spray story was the biggest in Davis or our region. I think the big story is the water works story. I think the second biggest is the reprieve on rate increases we will be getting in the next two years from CalPERS. I think the third is the continuing poor economy and how that is harming local business, the housing market and the finances of UC Davis and especially student fees*. I think the fourth largest story is the very large number, albeit a minority, of faculty who have called for the resignation of Linda Katehi. For me, the pepper-spray story comes in at number five, but mostly because it placed a black mark on UCD as a whole.
*I don’t think the pepper-spray story had anything to do with student fees, even if some students were there to protest them. I think it was mostly the story of a police force which lost sight of when it is appropriate to use non-lethal force and when not to, and even more this failing by one single police lieutenant. I do expect that Pike and Spicuzza will be fired (or retired). I don’t expect Katehi will quit or be fired.
Why should anyone “watch” the media?
Why not? Actually, I like those quote marks, making “watch” a special word Rifkin riffs on. As the saying goes, “the medium is the massage.” Sadly much that runs out of media outlets is as exciting and watchable as warm bathwater we slip into.
Being a new observer of local politics largely via this forum, I was surprised and a bit dismayed to see how part of the marketing strategy of the city council for their policy proposals seemed to include obfuscating or up-front dismissing the assured or possible liabilities/costs of their proposed or existing new projects:
–the water project (mixing up rate increases and projected bill increases; two distinct measures; who knows if this was simple incompetence or disingenuous public relations ploy or both)
–obfuscating the size of the pay boost amount for the new city manager
–minimizing the potential costs of Zipcar; mainly parking space guarantees, insurance liability costs and staff time
–approval of lavish pension contracts (not addressed until 2011, as I understand it)
–others
This forum helps us citizens and taxpayers to keep an eye on what decisions are City leaders are making; as they have demonstrated that they have misled the public on important issues, whether deliberately or inadvertantly. They should understand that they are under scrutiny and transparency is demanded–congratulations David, I think this forum is a big help in this direction; hope it doesn’t just lead to more sophisticated tactics to bamboozle the public; fortunately there are a number of smart and knowledgable contributors to this forum.
Rather than treating each new policy proposal like a fresh gung-ho MBA out to sell gizmos for Madison Avenue; perhaps consider presenting, up-front, both the costs as well as well as the benefits (i.e. the reality), of each policy proposal. Otherwise there may be blowback.
If only the operations of the federal government had been under such intense public scrutiny, maybe the big sell-outs of the American public to big corporate and finance interests would not have occurred!
“”””they were being pounded on the issue by Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning. “””””
Bob Dunning , he’s a real journalist , sick em Bob !
[quote]This forum helps us citizens and taxpayers to keep an eye on what decisions are City leaders are making; as they have demonstrated that they have misled the public on important issues, whether deliberately or inadvertantly. They should understand that they are under scrutiny and transparency is demanded–congratulations David, I think this forum is a big help in this direction; hope it doesn’t just lead to more sophisticated tactics to bamboozle the public; fortunately there are a number of smart and knowledgable contributors to this forum.
Rather than treating each new policy proposal like a fresh gung-ho MBA out to sell gizmos for Madison Avenue; perhaps consider presenting, up-front, both the costs as well as well as the benefits (i.e. the reality), of each policy proposal. Otherwise there may be blowback.
If only the operations of the federal government had been under such intense public scrutiny, maybe the big sell-outs of the American public to big corporate and finance interests would not have occurred! [/quote]
Nicely said!
Since Murdoch and Fox took over the Wall Street Journal, it went straight downhill. More color photographs, less actual news, and effectively the beginning of the right wing echo chamber as far as ideas and introducing new terms goes. And yes, I know the New York Times is often the beginning of the left wing echo chamber so lets now argue about liberal media or whatever.
So, I’m not surprised to see the top Wall Street Journal story as the pepper spray incident, since it points more to high cost of a “left-wing liberal college” education and less to injustice on wall street.
The Wall Street Journal is the only major news paper still striving to report news and not opinion… except for the opinion section.
The way I see it, the WSJ giving the incident any coverage is indication of balance. It was a crucible event for the Occupy crowd, and another media black-eye for law enforement.
The New York Times is a leftist propaganda tool… not even worthy of the “newspaper” label. There is left opinon inbedded in all of it… the choice and placement of stories, the common writing style of the “journalists”… and the staff columists are ALL FAR LEFT.
From a respected study:[quote] [url]http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm[/url]
One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative.
Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that “The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.” Paul Sperry, in an article titled the “Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal,” notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division “Nazis.” “Fact is,” Sperry writes, “the Journal’s news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea.”[24]
Third, a recent poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that a greater percentage of Democrats, 29%, say they trust the Journal than do Republicans, 23%. Importantly, the question did not say “the news division at the Wall Street Journal.” If it had, Democrats surely would have said they trusted the Journal even more, and Republicans even less.”[/quote]
I do my own studies on media bias. I can tell left biased because I get pissed off reading it, watching it and listening to it. I am only half pissed off reading the Wall Street Journal.
[url]http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm[/url]
I believe I have previously explained to you the problems with that study, right?
What resources do you cite to refute it?
I think the authors used a creative and valid method to measure bias. It is even validated by the standard behavior of people posting to this blog… we tend to reference sources that validate our views. Count the number of references to left and right-leaning think tanks and you have a reasonable measure of bias.
Most concerning to me and others that care about the country degrading into another European mess is the control of the narrative. The old and new media is predominately left biased. Journalism is a once-respected profession now dominated by people with a liberal worldview.
If you are a liberal, it is more likely that you feel all warm and fuzzy about the general state of the media except for Fox News. If you are conservative, you thank God for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal since almost nothing else of any significant performs to expectations of unbiased reporting.