THE VANGUARD Analysis of the Race and the Emergence of the Chamber –
While Davis City Council races are rarely determined by money, money can be an indicator as to who is contributing to whom and how much.
While Dan Wolk continues to lead all comers in contributions received to date, Lucas Frerichs, the last of the five candidates to enter the race, has exploded already into second place.
Dan Wolk, in the period starting January 1 and ending March 17, raised a solid $6820, putting his overall campaign total over $20,000. While his support draws from all over the political divide there is a strong business, and also development, component to his donations, to date.
The same can be said for challenger Lucas Frerichs, who is drawing money from across the political divide, but also from a number of business and developer interests. His first report lands him with $11,605 in campaign contributions.
Councilmember Stephen Souza made the decision to forgive a loan to himself. He raised around $3550 for the period ending March 17 and has a reported cash balance of about $5160.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald reports $2775 in contributions for the last period but also a $5000 loan from herself to produce a total of $7975 for the period. With only $22.75 in expenditures, she has nearly all of her money on hand.
If there is a cause for concern, it has to be with Brett Lee. He only raised $972 for the period. He has only raised $3172 in contributions for the total course of his campaign. He has loaned his campaign $5650 to keep things afloat and produce an ending cash balance of $3212.
Vanguard Analysis
None of this is hugely shocking news and most of it re-affirms where we believed things stood a few weeks ago.
Right now, Dan Wolk is in position to finish first in the race. We believe that Lucas Frerichs could finish as high as second, but at the moment he is probably not there just yet.
We believe that one of the incumbents is in jeopardy. Both Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald have drawn money mainly from their bases. We believe at this point that Sue Greenwald is in a stronger position than Stephen Souza as her base is more intact.
A Davis Enterprise columnist handicapped the race last Sunday. We do not necessarily agree with his analysis, but we note that about Stephen Souza he said, “Hard for a two-term incumbent to bring up the back of the pack, but Souza has some serious fence-mending to do before anyone’s going to grant him a third term.”
He added, “He does have a consistent core of supporters, but they are nowhere near as large in number as those supporting either Greenwald or Wolk. Cracking the top three is going to be a formidable task for Steve this time around.”
From our perspective, Stephen Souza has two primary problems. First, he was on the wrong side of the fiscal issues, taking money from firefighters for years as well as voting to implement the budgets that have taken the city to the brink of fiscal disaster.
Second, he has done little things that have irritated core voters, whether it was support for Covell Village, his actions on the water referendum, or his maneuvering to become mayor.
However, we do not believe he is in fifth position at this point and if the election were held today, he could be re-elected.
Sue Greenwald emerges with more of her core voters intact, and we believe that will ultimately carry the day. While she has been contentious in nature at times, there are perhaps nearly as many voters who actually will be voting for her as against her, for these reasons.
We do not like the idea of Dan Wolk as the anointed one. He has made some good decisions. But recently he has gotten a bit too cute, pandering to constituencies. His vote on Crown Castle perhaps has gained some him some support, but has also irritated some of his colleagues. Likewise, the vote on Davis Diamonds seemed politically calculated. In both cases he was perhaps sincere, but also politically-minded.
On the other hand, he cast a critical deciding vote on the budget last year, which could not have been easy, and he worked hard to fix the water vote of September 6.
Lucas Frerichs shows great strength, emerging with over $11,000 his first two months into the election. We are concerned with his ties to the more development-friendly elements in this community, as well as to those who have some ties to some of the fiscal problems. We hope he can gain a broader base, if he indeed beats one of the incumbents.
Finally, we are disappointed in the candidacy of Brett Lee. His lack of contributions frankly reflects the lack of visibility in the community. He was the first one to announce, but the least known. In the next two and a half months he needs to forge out a base and make himself a name. At this point, he holds up the rear in our view, despite Bob Dunning’s analysis.
Emergence of the Chamber
Filing for the first time as a PAC for candidates in elected office is the Chamber of Commerce. In our conversation with new Executive Director Kemble Pope, he wishes to be more visible and bring business issues forth to the community. He certainly made waves a few weeks ago with his pointed comments toward the city’s economic development staff.
They have filed their paperwork but have not been active, as of yet.
In a press release sent out Thursday afternoon, Kemble Pope announces the first City Council Candidate Debate for March 29th, next Thursday, at the Community Chambers from 6:30 to 8 pm.
The Chamber says, “In 1997, the Chamber created a Political Action Committee to “support (or oppose) local, county or state ballot measures which impact the business environment in Davis.” Formed and operated under the guidelines of the California Secretary of State, the Davis Chamber PAC is financially separated from the membership organization. The sole funding source for the PAC is voluntary contributions by individual members of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. No funds from the operating budget of the Chamber are used to support PAC activities.”
Over the years, the Chamber PAC has supported a variety of local measures including “Yes for Our Students” in 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2008; “Yes on City Parks” in 1998 and 2002; and “Yes on the Davis Library Branch” in 2007.
The Chamber PAC’s guidelines have been recently modified to allow for the possible support of local candidates for elected office.
The Chamber writes, “Like communities across the globe dealing with the economic recession, our community has been through a very difficult period of adjustment in the past five years. Our schools and city are confronted with significant structural budget deficits. The Davis Joint Unified School District and City of Davis have cut a number of services affecting our quality of life with talk of more service cuts still to come.”
They add: “Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented with yet more proposals under consideration to fund remaining services. Deferred maintenance on streets, water, and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life. Yet many community opinion makers insist that we must maintain the status quo and abdicate our collective responsibility to effectively address these challenges to our quality of life. The Chamber PAC believes that our community and elected officials must take a more proactive role in this time of uncertainty.”
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics; it would much rather focus on policy, projects, and job creation to improve our quality of life. However, it would be irresponsible not to act. “Business as usual” is no longer a viable course of action. It is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable,” they continued.
“Our community deserves elected officials and government staff who are willing and able to work constructively with community organizations and private industry to find solutions for today’s problems,” they write. “We intend on mobilizing our resources to encourage our community to support or oppose ballot measures and elect a city council that will focus on already identified community challenges, craft effective strategies to meet them, and execute those strategies in a timely fashion.”
Filings (click to enlarge)
Lucas Frerichs
Sue Greenwald
Brett Lee
Stephen Souza
Dan Wolk
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is one voter who is much more interested in a CC candidate’s views on the important issues this City faces than on the amount of money they have raised. A candidate that puts forth some plausible solutions to the City’s budget problems, our unfunded pension liabilities, the surface water project, growth concerns, and the ever increasing speed limits in our community will get my vote.
I suppose the conventional wisdom is that a candidate must spend $40,000 to $50,000 to run for City Council as a serious candidate. I do not believe this. In fact I am turned off by this notion.
If the positions of the candidate are reasonable and reflective of the broad community, I think a campaign can be run for far less.
How many glossy brochures and large ads does it take to “sell” someone?
I am very grateful and appreciative for those who have contributed to my campaign thus far and I do acknowledge my campaign does need additional funds between now and election day. My campaign however is a grassroots campaign and I have in fact turned down several developer contributions.
The search for campaign money should not become an end in itself.
I will make use of the money we have in the campaign treasury wisely and hopefully effectively and efficiently. If elected, I plan to approach city spending in the same manner.
In a somewhat ironic twist of timing, we have just announced our main campaign fundraising event for Friday April 27th at 6pm at the Stonegate Country Club. I welcome all to attend.
I don’t vote on a candidate based on how much money they have raised or who endorses them. I vote on a candidate based on their positions/proposed solutions in regard to the local problems/issues of the day. To insinuate that who raises the most money is somehow an indicator of who is going to win is wrongheaded IMO – give voters more credit than that…
Off the top of my head the primary local issues of concern for me are:
1) The city budget
2) The water/sewer project
3) Economic development
4) Gov’t process
5) Housing/General Plan
6) Transportation
To Elaine’s list I would add:
Public Health and Safety ( naturally I suppose)
Environmental concerns
I concur that I would not vote for a candidate based on how much money he or she has raised. It is an indicator, however, of how much support they (generally) enjoy, and who (specifically) is supporting them.
With regard to Lucas in particular, I am very concerned with what I see as an incredibly close relationship between Lucas and Don Saylor. According to his filing, Saylor was his very first campaign contributor (even before Lucas had announced his candidacy). I know the two worked closely campaigning for Covell Village and it appears their relationship has only grown since then.
Don Saylor always seems to have *his* candidate in these elections. Last time it was Sydney Vergis. This time it appears to be Lucas. Both have great resumes and a lot of support in the development community. Only time will tell if Lucas will be more successful than Sydney.
Fundraising ability does often say something about a candidate’s political viability, but in the case of Davis politics, there is always the notable example of Julie Partansky who produced very strong voter support (and was mayor), in spite of having very minimal fundraising.
Hi Caroline-
I’m sorry, but your assertion that Don Saylor was both my first contribution, or that we worked together during the Covell Village campaign is patently untrue.
My first contribution was from my grandparents in upstate New York On Jan 31, 2012.
My second was from Delaine Eastin, former California Superintendent of Public Instruction on 2/3/2012.
Don Saylor did contribute, just as nearly 150 other well respected members of this community have done.
Lastly, Don Saylor and I did not know each other during the Covell Village time frame back in 2005….so again, I’m sorry, but your “facts” arent true.
Should you, or anyone else, like to discuss further, please give me a call….530-219-6270.
Best-
Lucas
Also, David…i’d love if you’d actually post my campaign report, so readers of the Vanguard have the opportunity to see just where my broad base of support is coming from.
Best- Lucas
To Lucas Frerichs,
Did you support Measure X (Covell Village)?
To medwoman: Thanks for the additions to my list. Anyone care to add any?
I will be posting Lucas’ full list shortly, the format precluded it’s earlier posting.
Folks, I should add, I think we cover the issues as well if not better than anyone around. This happens to be a story about money, it’s part of the transparency we are attempting to bring to the campaign. I don’t think anyone makes their decision of who to vote on how much money someone raises. By the same token, to pretend money does not matter is naive. BTW, last election Joe Krovoza only raised about $26,000, so the notion that it takes $40,000 to $50,000 is not accurate.
I am always bothered about a candidate loaning money to his/her own campaign. That means that after the election there will be fund raisers to repay the money. If the person is elected people who need “favors” from the public agency will donate money–which will buy influence while the person not elected will probably have to write off the debt. It seems to me that if one wants to use his/her own money to finance the campaign, it should be a contribution to the campaign. I am bothered about fund raising activities by an elected official–especially when it is for the official’s own personal use. Am I missing something?
Normr
I may be misinterpreting your concer. I fail to see why people “who need favors” would be any more likely to donate to the person after the election than they would prior to the election. Am I missing something here ?
[quote]”Folks, I should add, I think we cover the issues as well if not better than anyone around. This happens to be a story about money, it’s part of the transparency we are attempting to bring to the campaign.”[/quote]This is a very accurate evaluation of the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s coverage of all recent, local elections. Second place is a tie between the Woodland [i]Democrat[/i] and the Davis [i]Enterprise[/i]. Every other outlet comes in far lower.
What David has reported here and in at least one earlier story about the money involved in the race is very important, in my opinion. This doesn’t mean that the other things listed here are any less important than you’re suggesting, just that the [i]Vanguard[/i] covers more aspects of local elections than anyone else even tries to.
[quote]”I may be misinterpreting your concern. I fail to see why people “who need favors” would be any more likely to donate to the person after the election than they would prior to the election. Am I missing something here ?”[/quote]The simple answer is that my money had more chance to buy something from someone who has run and won than an investment in someone who might lose.
It is an interesting question, however. David, have people loaned their campaigns before in the city council races? If so, what happens afterwards? What reporting rules apply for those who don’t solicit donations to repay themselves? Do the same rules apply for those who win as to those who lose?
JustSaying
“The simple answer is that my money had more chance to buy something from someone who has run and won than an investment in someone who might lose.”
Good point. Sometimes I have a tendency to let my naïveté run away with me. Thanks for being willing to point out the obvious.
JustSaying:
Most candidates loan themselves some money. For example Stephen Souza had in the past loaned himself about $4500 and he told me this week that he has forgiven that loan meaning he won’t attempt to raise money to cover it.
The same rules apply for paying back the loan. Money is limited to $100 increments and a person can’t have given in that campaign cycle.
If you win, sometimes you can have a retire the debt fundraiser and new people can contribute. Lamar heystek tried that, but hardly dented his loan.
When my wife ran four years ago, we took out a loan and just ate it.
Same rules for those who win and those who lose.
After Bob Dunning posted his odds on the race, I told him this is how I think it will end up:
1. Dan Wolk
2. Lucas Frerichs
3. Sue Greenwald
4. Stephen Souza
5. Brett Lee
Brett and Lucas obviously have the big hurdle of non-incumbents: they are less well known, especially by the people who don’t pay a lot of attention to Davis politics.
That is where money comes in: I assumed all along that Lucas would be a strong fundraiser*. I think having a lot of money will help him get his name out there over and over with mailers and maybe some cable TV ads. (Julie Partansky was the first candidate I can recall who bought cable ads.) I think it will be tough for Brett in large part because he probably will not have the money to buy name recognition. I think Brett Lee in 2012 is in a similar position that Lamar Heystek was in the first time Lamar ran. They have a lot of the same supporters and advisers. In fact, Lamar is working to elect Brett, this year. … If Brett does finish in the money, I think it will happen because something unexpected takes place from here to June: maybe someone else stumbles or quits or maybe an issue like the Cannery housing project becomes the focus of this race and voters turn to someone they see as having independence from the developers.
The easiest call for me is to expect Dan Wolk to finish in first place. Dan has a lot of allies, no enemies and a long, long list of supporters from all segments of Davis. He inherited goodwill from his beloved mother, and Dan has done nothing to squander that.
As to second to fifth place, I could see any order for that. I am pretty confident that Sue will be reelected, and I think she will take second or third. Sue has her own large base of support, including those who agree with her on limiting peripheral growth and a somewhat different set of voters who admire Sue’s tenacity on budget issues over a very long period of time. Many people in Davis have told me they think the Council needs a Sue Greenwald: someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom and shake up what they call “the establishment.”
If Lucas’s campaign stumbles or does not take off, I could see Stephen winning one of the 3 seats. I think Stephen has a strong base of his own, which includes a lot of the business folks who support Lucas. However, Stephen carries baggage that Lucas does not. He is viewed by many as overly in favor of new housing developments, which turned unpopular about a decade ago in Davis. He also has been a strong advocate for the water project, and that does not look so popular. And Stephen in the past tied his wagon to the firefighters, and that hurts any argument he has for fiscal responsibility, given the contracts past councils he was on gave the firefighters.
*I attended his kickoff event, largely to meet Lucas in person and to see the crowd he attracted. I won’t endorse any candidates in this race or give anyone my funds.** That’s not to say I have no preferences. I just think it is easier for me to write freely if I have not hitched myself to a candidate that way.
**I once gave $35 to Stephen Souza, largely because I like Stephen personally. However, after I did that, I regretted it, not because my affection for Stephen changed, but because I thought it looked bad for me to “endorse” someone and then later try to impartially analyze their activities. I would imagine David Greenwald, who writes far more on this stuff than I do, feels the same. (However, when a member of his family runs for office, his contributing to that kind of a campaign seems understandable and okay.)
Rich: Good post and you raise a lot of the same points I considered in handicapping the race.
I have discovered since 2008, that it is easier to write about the council raise when you have no personal stake. Writing about the race in 2008 was a nightmare because I could never escape the obvious and understandable bias. I have not decided who I will vote for this time. And I’m not really focused on it at the moment. My job right now is to do what we have always done – lay out issues and push candidates on what they would do if elected or reelected.
David, the links to Lucas’ return do not work from page 3 on.
Are you a good candidate because you can raise money or can you raise money because you are a good candidate? In Lucas’ case it should be obvious that he is able to raise money because he is a good candidate. With a $100 dollar cap on donations it is difficult to be beholden to any particular single interest group and raise enough money. Your assertion that we should worry because he is taking money from developer interests can be easily dismissed by even a cursory examination of the diversity of his donors.
As for raising any person’s position on Covell Village, as one commenter did, that election was seven years ago. If you would bother to listen to Lucas’ vision for the future of Davis and his new ideas about in-fill you would understand how far in the past was the measure X debate. If people want to re-litigate old political battles as some sort of litmus test of ideology Davis will stagnate forever. I can see Sue Greenwald and the same old people working on Brett’s campaign wanting to dwell on these issues of yesteryear. Of course this is why we need a council that wants to address the needs of the community going forward. I know I have been admonished for bringing up age and that is fair enough, but , when you have these old people talking about the politics of the past as if they were relevant to the political realities of today it seems to this observer that it is time to move the community forward with a new generation of leaders that have a fresh perspective of the world in which they live.
[quote]Many people in Davis have told me they think the Council needs a Sue Greenwald: someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom and shake up what they call “the establishment.” [/quote]
Count me in as one of those people.
Sue was concerned about our fiscal issues long before it became trendy. She has been consistent on the issue of smart growth (develop property we have closer to the downtown first) and fiscally responsible growth (it should pay for itself). She also pointed out fiscal problems with our water.
We need Sue on our City Council.
Okay I think I fixed them.
Toad: I think that’s an argument of convenience. You know that Frerichs was a strong supporter of CV, we know you have never seen a project you don’t like, therefore you’re telling someone who disagreed with Frerichs on a major issue to ignore that fact when voting.
“You know that Frerichs was a strong supporter of CV,”
Actually I don’t know that but even so that was seven years ago. Instead of dwelling on the past as a litmus test while David intimates some nefarious cabal behind Lucas’ ability to garner financial support why don’t you address the issues facing Davis today. With no politically viable current path forward for Covell Village its relevance to this campaign is of no importance to anyone trying to address the issues of today.
Instead of trying to throw mud at Lucas about something almost a decade old why don’t you ask him about his vision for Davis today and the future. Why dwell on just one thing? Why not look at all his service such as being President of the Co-Op board or working for some of the most environmentally sensitive and progressive members of the legislature like Wesley Chesbro.
Yes, your argument with my positions should not color your judgement of Lucas. After all, I would prefer peripheral growth to in-fill, a position that, I believe, Lucas does not agree with. But don’t believe me go ask him yourself instead of listening to the same tired old arguments from the same tired old people.
Mr. Toad, what someone promoted in the past will tell you a lot of how they will likely vote in the future. I know this because I am old as you always like to throw out there. I respond to one’s actions, not what one might promise. Some will say anything to get elected just to fall back to their true intentions. I’m not voting for anyone who has been for peripheral growth, and according to the last election most Davisites agree with me. How else are we to vet new candidates if not by their actions in the past? Also I don’t think I’mgoing to vote for any candidate that receives donations from Saylor.
David said “Lucas Frerichs shows great strength, emerging with over $11,000 his first two months into the election. We are concerned with his ties to the more development-friendly elements in this community, as well as to those who have some ties to some of the fiscal problems. We hope he can gain a broader base, if he indeed beats one of the incumbents.”
Down and dirty so early David. If you look at Lucas’ donors there are few developers listed among a great many donations. So how is it you came to the above stated conclusion when the facts suggest that he would not be beholden to those interests? You wouldn’t by any chance be letting your biases out?
Please let us judge the candidates on their positions on the issues and stop trying to play these old guilt by association games. It is so petty.
rusty49: [i]Mr. Toad, what someone promoted in the past will tell you a lot of how they will likely vote in the future.[/i]
Could we judge you that way?
Wdf1
Yes you could, just as I could judge you the same way.
[i]”With a $100 dollar cap on donations it is difficult to be beholden to any particular single interest group and raise enough money.”[/i]
You, sir, have never met Local 3494 and their $4,500 in direct contributions plus their 1,000s of dollars of mailers sent on behalf of those they are funding plus their hundreds of hours of walking door-to-door, all in the hopes of influencing their next contract.
[img]http://davisenterprise.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/SeussW.jpg[/img]
Folks who spend their spare time reading to kids in our classrooms after 50 hours on the job should get to do whatever they want to do. And we should give them a pay increase. And send out four hands on each truck. And three trucks for each aid call.
“You, sir, have never met Local 3494 and their $4,500 in direct contributions plus their 1,000s of dollars of mailers sent on behalf of those they are funding plus their hundreds of hours of walking door-to-door, all in the hopes of influencing their next contract. “
So even if you are right is that what you see happening with the donors reported above? i don’t see it when I look at Lucas’ donor list. Do you?
So Toad,
Are you planning on voting for Frerichs and if so what are your reasons for backing him?
I’ll be voting in the booth.
“Down and dirty so early David.”
Not at all. I’ve always been critical of candidates taking money from people who have business before the city. I think it corrupts the process. That holds whether it is 3494 or whether it is a developer. I like Lucas, but I’d like to see him broaden his base of support.
“…hundreds of hours of walking door-to-door….”
Is this type of donation reportable? Have the current candidates sworn off accepting help from unions that get pay increases from successful council candidates (like last time around)?
” I like Lucas, but I’d like to see him broaden his base of support.”
Clearly, you have no idea where his base of support is centered because based on his donation list you are missing the mark. It is not union based nor developer based.
You’re picking the wrong fight here Toad.
Just some of the occupations or employers of Lucas’ donors:
Former State Superintendent of School
School Board Member
Legislator
Teacher
Retired
Nurse
Environmental planner
Grad Student
Attorney
Engineer
Minister
Professor
Environmental consultant
Executive Director Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center
Consultant Nature Conservancy
Veterinarian
CEO of Solar Energy firm
CPA
Transportation planner
Physician
Piano Teacher
Massage Therapist
Psychologist
I could go on. Did you even bother to look at the list? I thought you were into examining the evidence. Well the evidence completely contradicts your position.
After looking at the filings it appears the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Dan will be the next mayor of Davis. Lucas will come in second. Brett or Steve will be third. Sue peaked two elections ago. Last time she barely held on to third. After her behavior in public attacking Ruth all of Ruth’s supporters are going to vote Sue out. I have no idea how many second or third votes from Ruth’s supporters Sue got four years ago but you can bet they will not be going to her this time. I think there is going to be a huge anybody but Sue vote this time around and the usual smart prognosticators don’t see it coming but I think I do.
I don’t decide who I am going to vote for until I have heard what they have to say. I never predict who will win, bc no one knows, and it takes away from the idea that individuals vote for those they think will do the best job.
[i]”I’ve always been critical of candidates taking money from people who have business before the city. I think it corrupts the process. That holds whether it is 3494 or whether it is a developer.”[/i]
That is my view, too. Of course, corrupting campaign donations are a much worse problem the higher one goes up the electoral chain. Almost all the money candidates raise at the state and federal levels comes from someone (or some organized interest) looking for a handout or a pay raise or a sweet contract or a land deal or to regulate away their competition or to get a tax break or to stop a reform which threatens their business … etc, etc.
[img]http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/10/07/news/photos_stories/charles_rangel–300×300.jpg[/img]
That is why I favor publicly financed campaigns, though I know that will never happen. The irony is that privately financing campaigns almost always leads to more wasteful and expensive government which most conservatives decry. It’s why, for example, half of the hardware ordered for the military services is not requested by the military services. What is purchased is always what members of the armed forces committees, who take millions of dollars in donations from military contractors in their districts, need to bring home the bacon to their districts. Yet it is conservative ideologues who always fight to stop efforts to publicly finance campaigns.
The difference between a campaign contribution to a campaign for campaign expenses and a contribution to allow the campaign to pay a debt to the candidate–is that in the latter case the contribution goes into the elected afficial’s bank account. Isn’t there a greater temtation to seek that contribution to oneself, even indirectly, than one for campaign expenses? Or amI just too cynical about human nature?
The most common occupation listed for all candidates seems to be retired.
[quote]Yet it is conservative ideologues who always fight to stop efforts to publicly finance campaigns. [/quote]
Wasn’t it both a conservative (McCain) and liberal (Feingold) who fought for campaign finance reform? Conservative ideologues my foot – both sides of the aisle are guilty of not wanting campaign finance reform…
ERM: [i]Wasn’t it both a conservative (McCain) and liberal (Feingold) who fought for campaign finance reform?[/i]
When McCain supported this, he was in his more “maverick” phase. When he ran for re-election in the Senate in 2010, he shifted to a more conservative position in response to Tea Party threat.
“She has been consistent on the issue of smart growth (develop property we have closer to the downtown first…”
Huh? Dr. Wu, if only your statement were true.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
It is unrealistic to expect that I or any given voter will agree with all positions of any given candidate. And given the multitude of challenges that this community is confronted with, I and many other voters are not going to cast our ballots on a single issue. I, and I suspect many others, are going to vote based on character and other personal qualities that one can only hope will come to bear as these candidates serve the community on the council. So here’s my criteria:
1) First and foremost, ability to lead
2) ability to listen
3) ability to enunciate a vision
4) ability to make a compelling argument
5) ability to prioritize and then focus on the priorities
6) ability to discern effective from faulty strategies
7) ability to hold staff accountable for executing strategies
8) ability to make decisions with conviction
9) capacity for critical thinking
10) incapacity for rambling monologues and grandstanding
11) a gut level aversion to flip flopping
12) ability to effectively manage time
I could probably think of additional criteria given more time, but I’m sure you all get the gist.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I have another observation which all too often I finding missing from public debates. Public policy is all about judgement, the capacity to accurately anticipate the result of any given decision or course of action. For the most part, when any given vote is made by a councilmember the final outcome of that vote is likely not known until years in the future. For example, I’m fairly certain that when votes in favor of DACHA were cast years back, those voting “yes” did not realize that they were voting in favor of a number of lawsuits against the city costing the community hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. The same is true of land use decisions, water, economic development, etc. Decisions are all based on predictions of the future. It’s not clear to me why it is so, but some individuals are simply better at it, than others.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
In spite of his protestations, it is pretty well known, by those who follow Davis local politics, that Lucas Frerichs’ candidacy is being strongly supported by the local Don Salyor “political machine”.
DT
I truly appreciate your posts and your description of how you will go about making your choices. I am also amazed at how different our selection criteria are. While I do not necessarily disagree with the desirability of any trait that you have listed, you have omitted from your list what I consider to be most important. Philosophic compatibility. I have in mind an overall vision for what I consider the most favorable future for Davis, the city and the University as I have ties to both. First and foremost on my list of characteristics will be how closely a candidate’s vision aligns with my own. Again, this is overall vision, as I completely agree that there will not be complete agreement on all issues.
In judging candidates who have never held office before, I do not see how judgement, as you have chosen to describe, it could possibly be assessed. No one has a crystal ball, and no one can foresee unintended consequences of our present actions. Can you describe how you see this criteria playing out in the current field of candidates ?
[b]District Elections[/b]
It is high time candidates were elected from districts. It leads to more accountability… You know who your council member is when you need advocacy on an issue or problem…. Council members know who they need to answer to.
It would lower the cost of campaigns AND reduce the likelihood of political opportunists and council members disconnected from large swaths of the community. Campaign “contributions” buy the ear of candidates. Those who get listened to in the at large election system are disproportionately the ones with the money. That would be lessened under district elections.
[b]Caroline:[/b]
[quote]Don Saylor always seems to have *his* candidate in these elections. Last time it was Sydney Vergis. This time it appears to be Lucas. Both have great resumes and a lot of support in the development community. Only time will tell if Lucas will be more successful than Sydney. [/quote]
I could not agree more with every point Caroline made in her comment. I viewed Vergis as an opportunist and crony of both Admundson and Saylor, two council members I have never supported. I have a particular distaste for Saylor’s politics and resignation manoeuvring that allowed his seat to be appointed by the council rather than voted on by the citizens. Who gets appointed? Lois Wolk’s son… We have enough of this sort of thing at the state and Congressional level….
[b]BTW:[/b] Saylor was not elected to the Board of Supervisors with 100% of the votes. I wrote in a name against him…
“It’s not clear to me why it is so, but some individuals are simply better at it, than others.”
DT Businessman… decisions which are highly influenced by personal benefit and political ambitions rather than objective critical analysis, even if couched in self-deluding rationalizations,are OBVIOUSLY the major factors in differentiating those who appear to be less able to predict the future outcome of their decisions.
“Wasn’t it both a conservative (McCain) and liberal (Feingold) who fought for campaign finance reform? Conservative ideologues my foot – both sides of the aisle are guilty of not wanting campaign finance reform…”
And wasn’t McCain among the only conservative votes for it?
I think campaign finance laws are unmitigated disasters for the most part.
[b]Lucas Frerichs responding to Caroline:[/b]
[quote]I’m sorry, but your “facts” arent true.
Lucas Frerichs
03/23/12 – 10:20 AM[/quote]
[quote]To Lucas Frerichs,
Did you support Measure X (Covell Village)?
rusty49
03/23/12 – 10:38 AM[/quote]
Lucas Frerichs: No response as of 03/24/12 11:05AM
[b]Silence is Deafening[/b]
That is an excellent question rusty49. Cutting through the assertions of Mr. Frerichs and getting to the point.
Medwoman, I agree with your point about a vision. But to compare visions, my item #3 has to be the first step. You cannot compare your vision to that of a councilmember unless they’re capable of enunciating a vision. There’s a logical sequence there, which then continues through setting objectives to move toward the vision, devising and executing strategies to achieve the objectives, monitoring progress, adjusting objectives and strategies as circumstances change, etc. In my view, most, perhaps not all, of this has been missing from our community leadership, which is why there is such an aimless quality to our public policies and project decisionmaking.
davisite2, your statement is not OBVIOUS to me at all, quite the contrary. My 27 years in business have taught me that the capacity for objective critical analysis is a relatively scarce commodity. All too often decisionmaking is clouded by cognitive dissonance, emotion, too narrow a focus / inability to see the bigger picture, short term vs. long term focus, lack of experience and knowledge, muddled thinking; there are numerous factors which outweigh the personal benefit / political ambitions factor you cite.
It is relatively easy to ascertain which factors underly a particular council vote simply by asking the underlying reasoning for the vote. If the response is 2+2=5, and/or the response is filled with contradictions, you know you have a problem.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Rich: [i]”… it is [b]conservative ideologues[/b] who always fight to stop efforts to publicly finance campaigns.”[/i]
Elaine: [i]”Wasn’t it both a conservative (McCain) and liberal (Feingold) who fought for campaign finance reform?”[/i]
John McCain is not now nor never has been a conservative “ideologue” or what the Rush Limbaugh crowd would call “a movement conservative.” Perhaps no single issue demonstrated that better than when McCain argued against and then voted against the GW Bush tax cuts. McCain has long said he is “a Teddy Roosevelt conservative.” TR as president is best remembered in history for three things:
1. His aggressive foreign policy, which included a huge build-up of our navy;
2. Conservation of our natural resources; and
3. Regulation of industry, particularly the coal industry and food and pharmaceuticals.
In short, if you look at TR’s record, which McCain so admires, it does not fit with the notion of a conservative ideology along the lines of a Rush Limbaugh or his clones in today’s Republican Party. Anyone who would say McCain is that sort of an ideologue is just not paying attention.
At this point I don’t think I will be voting for either Souza or Greenwald. Both were a party to this city’s woes. I am tired of the “I told you so” comments. You may be the most right person in the room, but unless you can convince others that you are right, you are a ineffectual leader. It is time to see if others can lead better than than them.
“….that Lucas Frerichs’ candidacy is being strongly supported by the local Don Salyor “political machine”.”
What political machine? Don ran unopposed for Supervisor. Can you please describe what you mean by his political machine? Did he vote the dead?
Don has built a base of support through years of public service and reaching out to people something all good politicians do.
The suggestion by these repeated accusations that Lucas is some sort of puppet of Don’s is both ridiculous and insulting. If you think that you ought to at least talk to Lucas before commenting because obviously you don’t know him.
MEDS: [i]”First and foremost on my list of characteristics will be how closely a candidate’s vision aligns with my own.”[/i]
I think there are three principal types of voters in Davis, though surely some voters fit into more than one Category at different times:
[b]1. Narrow voters with a narrow self interest.[/b] An example of this sort of voter would be someone who owns a piece of property and wants to develop it in a manner contrary to the zoning code. She happens to be personal friends with someone who is a candidate for City Council, and she wants that person elected to help her get her project approved. Another example might be the opposite type of person: a guy owns a Buddhist bookstore in Davis next to an undeveloped lot where the owner of that lot wants to build a brothel; the guy with the bookstore fears the whorehouse will hurt his business; and the bookstore guy knows a candidate for City Council whom he trusts will help prevent the house of prostitution from getting licensed by the City. So the bookstore guy becomes a strong supporter of that candidate he knows and trusts.
[b]2. Narrow voters without a particular self interest; [/b] There are a lot of people like this in Davis. They vote for someone because they know the candidate and like him. I have friends who have always supported Don Saylor, because they got to know him back before Don was on the School Board and Don worked hard to improve the schools. Their ties to the candidates are personal friendships or professional acquaintances or neighbors, etc. These voters may or may not follow Davis politics closely. But they vote based on a relationship they have with a candidate (or perhaps more than one candidate). Some UC Davis students who vote in Davis fit in this category when they vote for the student candidate, but leave their other two choices blank. The voters may not have any particular interest, but they want “a student voice” on the Council to represent them. If there are student voters whose motivation to vote for one particular candidate because the voters want “Target to be built” or they want “more apartment complexes built,” those students fall into Category 1.
[b]3. Broad voters with or without a self interest. [/b]
Medwoman likely fits into this category. These voters are looking for someone (or multiple candidates) whose ideas are like their own. If the voter’s biggest issue is stopping perhipheral growth (for whatever reason), she will vote for a no-growth candidate or a slate of no-growthers. If the voter will only vote for someone who is a fiscal conservative, that voter fits this category.
I think the people who regularly* post to blogs like this are overwhelmingly from Category 3. We have a general interest in Davis. We have ideas and opinions about a number of topics and look to support people whose ideas and interests and values are like our own. However, I think a large percentage (half?) of Davis voters fit into Category 2. They simply know Lucas or they know Brett or they know Stephen or they know Sue or they know Dan and they will support the person they know for no other reason. That is a big reason why it helps to have a lot of personal ties to a lot of people in Davis.
*Notice that when a narrow development issue is on the table–take Wildhorse Ranch, for example–a number of people will post their thoughts on that topic who then never come back to express themselves on other, unrelated issues, such as the City’s labor contracts or DACHA or fire staffing. Those posters are Category 1 voters.
I should add that within a Council race, someone might be a multiple Category voter: he supports Sue because he trusts she will fight to stop the construction of a porcine slaughterhouse next door to his halal delicatessen (Cat 1); he supports Lucas because they are friends back from their days bootlegging moonshine in Kentucky (Cat 2); and he supports Brett because he thinks Brett will generally vote on all issues in a manner he would were he on the Council (Cat 3). That said, I don’t think most voters are like this. Most don’t even drink moonshine.
Rich – I believe that there is also a Category 4 Voter. Those who are fed up with the status quo.
Problem is:
No, the “silence isn’t deafening”…its that I’ve been at work (yesterday) and talking with voters at the Davis Farmers Market all morning (today).
Yes, I supported Covell Village- now approaching 10 years ago.
In 2005, my wife and I were a young couple who, after living here as renters for nearly 10 years, were interested in owning a home in the town we so dearly love.
How different is that from the vast majority of folks who have come here, and decided they wanted to buy a home and make their lives here? It isn’t.
Its pretty simple…the electorate didn’t agree that the project was the right fit for Davis. The project failed.
Does that make me “evil developer-friendly/pro-growth/sprawl-inducing devil incarnate”?
No. It doesn’t.
Why? Because thankfully, the world isn’t as black and white as you’d like to make it.
Again, I’d be happy to talk to you or anyone else about my views regarding Davis and the possibilities for the future…give me a call, 530-219-6270.
All the best- Lucas
Lucas Frerichs responding to Caroline:
I’m sorry, but your “facts” arent true.
Lucas Frerichs
03/23/12 – 10:20 AM
To Lucas Frerichs,
Did you support Measure X (Covell Village)?
rusty49
03/23/12 – 10:38 AM
Lucas Frerichs: No response as of 03/24/12 11:05AM
Silence is Deafening
That is an excellent question rusty49. Cutting through the assertions of Mr. Frerichs and getting to the point.
[quote]In spite of his protestations, it is pretty well known, by those who follow Davis local politics, that Lucas Frerichs’ candidacy is being strongly supported by the local Don Salyor “political machine”.[/quote]
This is certainly the word on the street. Since Saylor is a former mayor it is a bit odd that Frerichs is running away from his association with him, though he is not popular on this blog (myself included)
Dr. Wu,
“This is certainly the word on the street. Since Saylor is a former mayor it is a bit odd that Frerichs is running away from his association with him, though he is not popular on this blog (myself included)”
We may be traveling on different streets but I certainly have not gotten that word. And your evidence that Lucas is “running away” from any particular association would be ?
Rifs,
“Medwoman likely fits into this category. These voters are looking for someone (or multiple candidates) whose ideas are like their own.”
I think your characterization is fairly accuradw both of me, and the breakdown of voter types. And while I don’t drink moonshine, I have been known to down a Mayor Joe’s Sidecar at Our House. Does that count ?
Problem Is said . . .
[i]”[…]I have a particular distaste for Saylor’s […] resignation manoeuvring that allowed his seat to be appointed by the council rather than voted on by the citizens. Who gets appointed? Lois Wolk’s son… We have enough of this sort of thing at the state and Congressional level…”[/i]
PI, the point you are making was important enough to me to make a public comment during the appointment selection process Council meeting where I said to Council (with Dan standing there able to clearly hear what I said) that “one of the candidates for the appointment was different from the others, in that he had every appearance of a professional politician on the verge of taking office for the first time . . . and that I felt that [u]ideally[/u] it would be more appropriate if the first office that person filled was after being elected by the voters, rather than being appointed.”
As we all know, it didn’t work out that way. I don’t regret making the comment, but in fairness to Dan, he has done an absolutely superb job of coming up to speed quickly and filling his role on the Council admirably. If Don Saylor was indeed maneuvering prior to stepping down, I think it was maneuvering to no particular avail.
I find it very unlikely that Don Saylor had even a smidgen of impact on whether or not Dan decided to take his first step into public office. Dan Wolk has proven to me, and to a whole lot of Davis voters, that his time has come, and I for one am glad he is on the Council. I don’t always agree with him, but he has earned my respect.
“Since Saylor is a former mayor it is a bit odd that Frerichs is running away from his association with him…”
Dr. Wu, you seem a bit off your game today. First, you made an odd comment about Greenwald supporting smart growth including infill development, and then you say Frerichs is running away from a Saylor association. Please cite the Frerichs comment on this blog where he disavows a Saylor association. Just the opposite he states that Saylor is one of his campaign contributors, although he didn’t know Saylor in 2005.
And he’s apparently not running away from his former support of Covell Village as some have claimed; rather, he’s being direct an honest. Despite his forthrightness, you bash him incorrectly for running away from his record. Strange.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Dr.Wu said “This is certainly the word on the street. Since Saylor is a former mayor it is a bit odd that Frerichs is running away from his association with him, though he is not popular on this blog (myself included)”
Lucas is not running away from Don Saylor and maybe you should talk to the candidate yourself instead of believing what shills for other candidates are saying on the street. The problem is the insulting notion that Lucas is not his own person and that he will become Don’s puppet as if Lucas can’t figure things out for himself.
Lucas is no more Don’s puppet than Dan is Lois Wolk’s, Brett is Dick Livingston’s, Steve is Jerry Adler’s or Sue is Paul Ehrlich’s. It is time for a generational change of leadership in Davis and just as we don’t blame children for the sins of their fathers we should not assume that young leaders are controlled by those that came before them. It is insulting and demeaning to assume that what you are hearing on the street is correct.
[quote]I think campaign finance laws are unmitigated disasters for the most part.[/quote]
Agreed!
[quote]Lucas is no more Don’s puppet than Dan is Lois Wolk’s, Brett is Dick Livingston’s, Steve is Jerry Adler’s or Sue is Paul Ehrlich’s. It is time for a generational change of leadership in Davis and just as we don’t blame children for the sins of their fathers we should not assume that young leaders are controlled by those that came before them. It is insulting and demeaning to assume that what you are hearing on the street is correct.[/quote]
I don’t vote based on rumor “on the street”, innuendo, or the like. I base my vote on how the candidate has performed in office/how s/he says they will perform in office/how the candidate presents themselves. Unfortunately I have not always made the right pick – and when I have made a mistake bc the candidate I chose did not perform well in office, or is no longer performing well, then I vote for a fresh face that I think will perform better. I try to keep an open mind, listen to what the candidates say, take into account what they have done in the past, and judge accordingly to the best of my ability. I do feel strongly that the current City Council is considerably better than the last one…
Not to put too fine a point on it, the last City Council was an embarrassment…
[i]”Rich – I believe that there is also a Category 4 Voter. Those who are fed up with the status quo.”[/i]
It depends why the voter is “fed up with the status quo” for me to Categorize him. But, assuming he is not simply mad at the incumbents because they denied a project that would have benefitted him or passed some policy which cost him money or something else he personally values, the chances are that the “no status quo” voter fits into Category 3.
That Cat 3 voter is someone who has opinions on a broad range of topics in Davis and thinks the incumbents collectively do not share his views or they are not capable of implementing policies which the voter likes. So he is voting for challengers in order to improve the chances that the new people will generally make things better or pass policies this voter approves of. I suspect there are not all that many people in most Davis elections who are “no status quo” voters.
If there ever was a year that phenomenon should have expressed itself, it was 2006. In 2005, Ruth Asmundson strongly supported Measure X (Covell Village). It was then turned down by the voters 60% to 40%. It seemed like the Council majority was very pro-growth while the public felt the opposite. Yet a few months later in 2006, Ruth was reelected and she finished in first place. I am sure she got the votes of some folks (Cat 2 voters) who voted No on X, though probably not people for whom fighting sprawl is their [i]raison d’être[/i]. … Likewise, in 2008, Measure X proponents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza were reelected, finishing first and second, ahead of anti-X incumbent Sue Greenwald, who also was reelected.
Its a lot easier for a candidate to say all the right things than to do the right thing in office. Mr. Frerichs is intelligent and has said a lot of the right things but I’m sorry, his association with Saylor is an issue for me. Face it, once you get in office there are enormous pressures in favor of more development, whether it makes sense for the City of Davis or not.
As far as I can tell, Saylor never met a development project he didn’t like. Maybe Frerichs is more thoughtful; maybe he has political ambitions and will cave. I do not find the fact that he has raised a lot of money as a young, brand new candidate assuring at all.
On the issue of “we need new blood” consider that Joe and Rochelle are still in their first term, Dan Wolk was only recently appointed and the odds makers on this blog and in the Enterprise think that Frerichs will likely get a slot. That would mean four first term City Council people. If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.
Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a second here, Dr. Wu, Frerich’s association with Saylor is a bit of an issue for me. On the other hand, Frerich’s is his own person. Also I wonder how much Saylor cares about city issues at this point, I can’t remember a time when he’s been to a council meeting since he left.
The other question is: are you planning on voting for Sue and Souza but not Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee in order to avoid four or five first term council members? Just curious.
[quote]If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.[/quote]
And that would be worse than the last City Council we had full of incumbents with the infamous Gang of Three?
[quote]The other question is: are you planning on voting for Sue and Souza but not Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee in order to avoid four or five first term council members? Just curious.[/quote]
Good question…
Everyone is certainly entitled to vote however they want, based on whatever criteria they want. For me, how long someone has been in office is of far less significance than how they have actually done in office. If the candidate has not performed well, I would much rather take the chance on a fresh face that could be better, then vote in again someone who I know will not perform particularly well based on past experience… JMO
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Let me play Devil’s Advocate for a second here, Dr. Wu, Frerich’s association with Saylor is a bit of an issue for me. On the other hand, Frerich’s is his own person. [b]Also I wonder how much Saylor cares about city issues at this point,[/b] I can’t remember a time when he’s been to a council meeting since he left.
The other question is: are you planning on voting for Sue and Souza but not Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee in order to avoid four or five first term council members? Just curious.”[/i]
Regarding your bolded words David, I concur 100%. At this point in time I believe Don’s focus is completely on the Assembly election four years from now when Mariko “terms out.” To the extent that Davis residents are part of the Assembly District voting populace, Don cares a lot, but probably only in the larger context of the whole District.
[i]”Also I wonder how much Saylor cares about city issues at this point, I can’t remember a time when he’s been to a council meeting since he left.”[/i]
I have seen Don at Davis events lately which suggest he is. One not too surprising place we ran into each other was at Lucas Frerichs’s “kick-off” event a few weeks ago at the Blue Oak Energy (solar power) company in S. Davis. At that affair I also ran into a person who is a regular poster to this blog, though I will leave it up to him to decide if he wants to say he was there. That event had a fairly wide range of people, including some who (from my perspective) are quite far to the left, and it had many of the “establishment” folks, including elected officials and business owners. I did not see anyone from the Streng/Whitcombe group. … Another event I ran into Don at was the Jim Becket retirement party at the Hattie Weber Museum about a month ago. Lois Wolk and other elected officials were there, also.
If you get out of the house even a little bit and go to civic events, it’s hard not to run into Don. There are probably fewer degrees of separation between Don and Davis residents than with any other politician/civic leader.
Rifkin’s account of being at an event with Don would allow for wild speculators to make up a story about Rifkin and Don being associated with each other by being at the same event.
Dr. Wu said . . .
[i]”On the issue of “we need new blood” consider that Joe and Rochelle are still in their first term, Dan Wolk was only recently appointed and the odds makers on this blog and in the Enterprise think that Frerichs will likely get a slot. That would mean four first term City Council people. If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, I actively supported both Sue Greenwald and Steve Souza in the 2008 election, as well as Cecilia Ecamilla-Greenwald. I took a lot of flak here in the Vanguard advocating that voters not give a “throw away vote” to Rob Roy but rather vote for Steve because he had (after lots of arm turning) [u]publicly[/u] come out with a platform position of the renewal of Measure J “as is.” Supporting Sue was easy. I agree with most of her positions . . . not all, but most. I also felt at that time (times of economic prosperity) that Sue propagated her message in a forceful, but respectful way.
A lot has changed since then. The economic times are no longer prosperous. The City’s budgetary woes are significant. This is a time when the Sue who propagated messages in a forceful manner needs to be even more respectful. We need our Council members to be ambassadors for the City. We need our Council members to be good “accountants” who understand that the City’s bottom-line is a blend of Expenses and Revenues, and that simply hammering on cost reductions isn’t the whole story. We need our Council members to be effective ambassadors to the people and companies that will bring new and expanded revenue opportunities to Davis. We need our Council members to be team players, seeking collaboration and building consensus.
In the 2008 election I would have argued that Sue could indeed be the kind of ambassador I’ve described above. Without belaboring the incidents of the past four years, lets say that even the most charitable assessment of Sue’s actions would question whether she can be an effective ambassador today.
I’ve held out hope that Sue would see the benefit to the citizens of Davis of beefing up her collaboration and consensus-building efforts. She certainly has been challenged frequently on that issue here in the Vanguard, and frequently she has come in and posted either 1) responses to the challenges, and/or 2) pleas for moving off what she sees as “personal attacks.” Yesterday at the Farmers Market as I approached Sue’s tent, she had an opportunity to demonstrate any commitment to collaboration and consensus that she may currently have. She could have reached out and engaged me and attempted to address the points where she and I have differed lately. Her commitment to collaboration and commitment was to wrinkle her nose as if a rancid smell had just hit her nostrils and make it clear that I was now firmly on her wastewater solids list.
So in this city of toads I’ve come to the decision that it would be foolish to try and ferry Sue across the river. She is out of step with the economic times we, as a city, are trying to deal with. I’m very sorry I feel that way about Sue, but a lot has happened between the last election and yesterday.
I don’t feel that way about any of the other four candidates. They all have their warts, but a commitment to collaboration and consensus-building is not one of their individual or collective warts. They are all good candidates for today and tomorrow.
It must be some other Toad that Matt has kissed because although he has become one with us, and, even though he is clearly late to the party, he certainly must have kissed a Rana of one sort of another to have the clarity of mind he espoused above.
The last four years have crystallized that Sue’s time has passed and although I have been a vociferous critic of Sue in regards to specific areas of policy I also recognize that there are areas where we often agree. While in her last election my political calculus shifted enough to support others her behavior since then, most exemplified by her sad smack down with Ruth, has convinced me that she is not fit to serve. Our leaders need to carry themselves with civility and be able to find the consensus to move the community forward by listening to, and working with others. Sadly, Sue lacks not only these qualities but also a vision of the future that comports with the needs of the community. Her time has passed.
Welcome aboard Matt.
Wu said “On the issue of “we need new blood” consider that Joe and Rochelle are still in their first term, Dan Wolk was only recently appointed and the odds makers on this blog and in the Enterprise think that Frerichs will likely get a slot. That would mean four first term City Council people. If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.”
I’m fine with a vote for Souza that would still reduce the average age of the council by over six years.