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.