Jon Li, Former Candidate and Longtime Activist in Davis, Appears to Have “Fingerprints” on May 8 Attack Mailer –
The Vanguard has learned of the probable involvement of Jon Li, at least in the planning of the Independent Expenditure campaign funded by three Sacramento-based unions, and consulted by James Burchill.
Full details remain sketchy, as Jon Li did not respond to multiple attempts to reach him by phone on Monday. Moreover, neither James Burchill nor the unions have returned calls from the Vanguard or other local reporters.
However, the Vanguard has acquired three emails, over the course of the week leading up to the final mailer, to indicate that Jon Li at the very least knew about the mailer, leading to suspecting his probable involvement.
The first two emails were vague references in advance to what Mr. Li referred to as “the Mother’s Day IE.”
It is an email, just before the mailer hit on May 8 early in the morning, where Mr. Li appears to spill his involvement.
He writes: “The Mother’s Day IE is going to be so much fun that I am going to probably go to council to see just how much Sue likes Stephen.”
He cannot help but add, “And my fingerprints are ALL OVER IT.”
What is largely unknown at this point, because he has not spoken with the Vanguard, is exactly what his role was in developing the mailer. However, to be clear, the three emails sent out were PRIOR to the mailer hitting Davis mailboxes, showing that he clearly had prior knowledge of the mailer.
One source has informed the Vanguard of his present work with James Burchill. Another indicated that he has, in fact, a rather lengthy history of working with Mr. Burchill.
As we reported earlier this week, whoever the consultant is on the mailer received over $6000 for the work.
The involvement of Jon Li raises far more questions than answers, including a question as to why Mr. Burchill would entrust such a delicate operation to an individual as volatile as Jon Li.
However, one answer it may provide is why Stephen Souza may be as much the target of the hit piece as Sue Greenwald.
In the piece that ultimately proved too hot for the Vanguard to keep on its site, Jon Li went after both incumbents.
He wrote, regarding Stephen Souza, that he “gained city infamy when he begged and pleaded to be named Mayor Pro Tem, in honor of the 23 years of what he calls service.”
Mr. Li goes on to say, “Stephen’s version of finance and budget is a complete joke. Lord only knows how many scams he has going. What about the water plan? He fought as hard as he could to prevent any citizen oversight: hey, he is the elected city council member: Stephen is the citizen oversight.”
At the same time, he has never had any love lost for Councilmember Sue Greenwald.
Indeed, we might see in his diatribe from April 26, the nucleus of the attack piece.
He writes, “Sue Greenwald is notorious for demanding she be paid more attention to. Much more should be made of Sue’s January 2010 council meeting tantrum when she called Mayor Ruth Asmundson a ‘liar’ as Ruth sat speechless while Sue was demanding that Ruth confirm what Sue had claimed Sue said in council ‘closed session.’ “
He adds, “Ruth was in such a state of shock by what Sue was saying that when Ruth finally said something, it was to beg Sue to calm down because it was upsetting Ruth’s heart.”
“But Sue continued to berate Ruth for refusing to confirm Sue’s claims, until Ruth collapsed and had to be rushed to the hospital. Afterwards, Sue demanded an apology from Ruth; Sue could not have cared less about Ruth.”
He quotes former City Manager Bill Emlen as saying, “One of Sue’s problems is that she fails to include herself when she is analyzing a problem, so she never looks at it the same as everybody else does; everybody else considers Sue to be the biggest part of the problem.”
Initially, Sue Greenwald believed that both she and Stephen Souza were victims in the attack mailer. Indeed, she felt that the attack was so blatant that Mr. Souza was likely a target.
She later backed off that claim, posting late in the evening last Tuesday, “I am no longer going to argue that there was more than one victim in today’s mailing. I will no longer be defending the other party.”
However, she was never willing to substantiate that claim on the record.
With the information of the likely involvement of Jon Li, it probably leads us back to Ms. Greenwald’s initial belief that the mailer was intended to harm both Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza.
It was odd that the mailer would expressly attack Sue Greenwald, while invoking the name of Stephen Souza.
The Vanguard will continue to attempt to talk to Jon Li to complete this picture, but right now we are confident in saying that Jon Li, based on three email messages prior to the public knowledge of the mailer, at least knew about the mailer and contends involvement.
Moreover, the nature of the attack in the mailer is consistent with his April 26 email blast.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, What happens when Burchill or his accountants are fined? If in fact they are ever fined. Will they be required to disclose who the “consultant” is? What is Harriet Steiner doing to enforce rules on the books regarding camapign finance and IEs?
David you have argued that the pipe fitters attack on Sue was disingenuous because they didn’t care about her behavior only her vote. Apparently Jon Li did care about her behavior if what you have written is true. Its a sad day when politics become so didactic that you need to wonder what is the motivation behind all these players. When have to wonder if the praise of Steve in the mailer was some sort of double agent sabotage it calls into question what the motivation of the authors was altogether. Why would the plumbers throw Steve under the bus? Maybe the mailer was not about policy at all? Maybe it wasn’t about behavior. Maybe it was about settling old scores of one disturbed old would be policy wonk. Who knows, and, who knows why someone would fund something like this.
Sadly, the policy and behavior issues are real and worthy of debate. Sadly those issues have been subsumed by the mysterious intrigue of this double hit piece.
Toad: the involvement of Jon Li here complicates any calculation as to why. Unless the principals are willing to speak, we may never know.
Good questions Anne, I just don’t know.
Fined for what?
The pond may be small, but that doesn’t stop the big fish from muddying the water . Oh sorry, probably shouldn’t make a water analogy .
In light of these revelations are you and Brett going to leave up the link to Brett’s interview by Jon Li on your page ?
[i]. . . based on three email messages prior to the public knowledge of the mailer at least [b]knew about the mail[/b] and contends involvement[/i]
That has to be one of the funniest non-statement statements I’ve read in days. “He might have done it, or he *might have* known about it, and if he didn’t he probably wrote about it in an e-mail, but for sure was *probably* thinking about doing it, and is therefore guilty as hell.”
Brilliant.
“In light of these revelations are you and Brett going to leave up the link to Brett’s interview by Jon Li on your page ? “
If the question is addressed to me, I have no say.
Neutral: Huh
My long-time mantra has been, “Never underestimate the possibility of stupidity.” But this sordid affair seems so easy to decipher, almost too easy. To have the listed unions tip their play in advance by extorting Sue and would obviously give Sue advanced warning should some attack follow.
Then there is the mailer itself, poorly designed, tawdry, almost laughable, that makes instant martyrs of the two people named and attacked. If that flyer cost $6,000, a lot of us may change into this more lucrative profession.
Finally, we have nobody willing to answer their phones. If Jon Li hides, this will be an historical first. I would imagine every Davis plumber and pipe-fitter must be wearing masks in public these days.
The intended beneficiary of the attack piece was Brett Lee.
[quote]Why would the plumbers throw Steve under the bus?[/quote]Toad: Although I’m certain Brett will deny it, maybe he and/or his handlers reached some understanding with the water unions.
Burchill went to Sue to try and cut a deal. Why would he not go to the Brett Lee campaign?
This news angers me so much that I am going to bullet vote for Stephen Souza out of sympathy.
2012. The year of the bullet voters.
Those who live by the bullet…
“Burchill went to Sue to try and cut a deal. Why would he not go to the Brett Lee campaign? “
Because Brett is not on the council?
“2012. The year of the bullet voters. “
That’s not my read on the council race.
Perhaps a better title for this article would be “New Player Emerges on Greenwald/Souza Attack Mailer.”
[quote]This news angers me so much that I am going to bullet vote for Stephen Souza out of sympathy.[/quote]David: I was being sardonic.
I suspect Davis Enophile was making a cryptic reference to Sue’s exploitation of the sympathy factor to gin up bullet votes for herself.
fair enough
[quote]Because Brett is not on the council? And probably won’t be. David Greenwald[/quote]That’s not what Jon Li thinks. He’s doing his best to help unseat both long-term incumbents. And talking to candidates about their stance on major issues is SOP.
People are so upset that someone is trying to influence how they vote in the election, and then state something like, “I wasn’t going to vote for (enter candidate name), but now that I’ve read this horrible mailer, I’m going to vote for (enter same candidate name).” If they truly didn’t want negative campaigning to change their vote, then they would just throw it away and carry on. When I hear or read statements like this from people, I respect them less. Sue’s response to the attack (veiled attack of Steve) makes me respect her less. Steve Souza’s response makes me respect him more. Brett Lee and Lucas Frereich’s responses make me respect them more.
Jon Li’s involvement wouldn’t surprise me. He’s a weird duck and I don’t understand his political influence here in Davis.
Oh, and Dan Wolk. His campaign “mailer” was a cute music video with kids, dancing, Madrigal singers, community members. Tons of respect from me.
I had nothing to do with this mailer and I had absolutely no foreknowledge of it. Feel free to quote me.
Mr Toad/ PSDavis: Let me get this straight- I was the only candidate that worked on the water rate referendum to halt the water rate increases and thus stop the City’s proposed water project from moving forward last Fall. Yet you believe the pipefitters union is somehow supporting me? Did I miss something here?
Handlers? I make the decisions for my campaign.
Link to the video? Yes, I have a link to the Jon Li interview video. It stays up for now*.
Jon interviewed each of us- me, Dan, and Lucas. He interviewed us each for an hour at Davis Media Access. Unlike many of the sound bite based forums or articles we have had (e.g. please answer how you would address the budget issue in 2 minutes or 200 words) these interviews allowed us each to explain fully our thoughts on issues. I spent something like 15 minutes talking about the water project all on its own. So I do think those videos are an important way for people to see what I think on the big issues facing our town. The soundbite format allows people to get away with the “all things to all people” type of answers. 6 minutes on a single topic allows for some real substance.
*If Jon is shown to have direct involvement with this incident, I will pull the link because I do not approve of anyone who was involved with that mailer. The mailer showed poor judgment and it takes our community elections in a direction I do not think is good for any of us.
Thank you, Brett.
Brett: Setting aside the plausible deniability issue, have you, Bill Ritter, or anyone else associated with your campaign talked to Jim Burchill, any of his associates, or water union clients?
To everyone: Only the elections office and I know who the circulators were for the water referendum. You would be very surprised if you guys knew the diverse group that came forward in response to the Davis Enterprise endorsement of the right to vote, and made it happen. Brett just self-disclosed above that he collected signatures, so now I feel that I can talk about his contribution.
He was the ONLY candiate, or even Council Member, who contacted me, asked for the blank petitions, and went out there and collected signatures. He walked some precincts for us, AND he tabled at super markets. No one knew at that time the outcome, so Brett did not do it for political benefit. He was working two jobs, and has a wonderful little boy at home to keep him busy. Getting those signatures for the Water Referendum was crucial; as you remember, we only squeaked by with about 132 extras. Brett was also responsible for recruiting other circulators (wish I could disclose, but I cannot), and if you take his petitions plus those completed by his friends, they probably put us over the top.
Oh, and not to forget another important contributor, Steve Souza. He did not collect signatures for us, but his Souza Blockers (another brilliant idea of the unions and Burchill and Kemble Pope) definitely pissed off a lot of nice Davis voters, and once it went public what The Blocking Gang was doing, we had people literally throwing themselves at our petitions to sign, and taking some to get their friends to sign. THank you, Steve, Jim, and Kemble, for helping us slow down the water project and protect the rights of Davis voters to vote on these big ticket public works projects.
PSDavis: Knock it off.
Hi Psdavis,
I don’t think I have ever even met Jim Burchill, and I certainly have not met or been in discussion with any of the people you mention. I am not aware of anyone on my campaign team talking to the people you mention either, but it is a fair question and I will email my campaign team and ask them if they have. I can tell you that I absolutely would not approve of any involvement in something like this.
Please understand this, this mailer is was not good for any of the campaigns, mine included. I am just as interested as anyone else, perhaps even more interested in finding out the full story behind it. This speculation and innuendo directed at various times to the various campaigns is not fair. We have tried to have a clean, positive campaign where we do not make disparaging comments about any of the other candidates.
Before making unsubstantiated accusations, I would hope that people would wait for more facts to surface.
“I suspect Davis Enophile was making a cryptic reference to Sue’s exploitation of the sympathy factor to gin up bullet votes for herself.”
Yes, that is correct.
But I do appreciate David sharing this new news.
Thanks for the input Brett.
About speaking with Burchill: I tried several times, and emailed him, during the water referendum. He had come by one of our tables, then minutes later some beefy guys showed up and blocked the table. Finally he called, and just said that he did not want to talk with me. I had wanted to tell him that our water referendum leadership were not anti-union and we were not adverse to union personnel building public facilities for Davis or any other jurisdiction. What we wanted was the right to vote on the project, and given Jim Burchill’s long history of supporting unions and being an established member of the Davis professional community, I thought he would be interested to hear from us. Unfortunately, he was not interested, and the rest is history.
BTW, in litigation, I always call the other attorney, and try to be pleasant and work things out. Here, the other side did not want to talk.
The union hit piece mailer: Souza is by far their most reliable voter (with Mayor Joe immediately behind), so I do believe that the mailer was meant to help him. Maybe Jon Li had a better crystal ball than Burchill, and knew about the mailer and its likely outcome, but I can see Li gleefully helping, while Burchill took charge with the idea that he was helping Souza. In other words, two were on the committee to get the mailer out, but only Li had the idea that it would kill Souza’s candidacy. But this is all speculation, right?
I don’t have time to read this, but I can make one comment on the theme in the headline: The slick operatives behind this mailer would not have delegated a tactical decision like this to Jon Li.
Of course they will point to a fall guy.
IMHO, whoever decided to hurt both myself and drag in Stephen Souza was most likely supporting one of the other candidates (without their knowledge, I will assume) and had something to offer the consultant that the consultant really wanted.
There is no other explanation for dragging in the most ardent supporter of the consultant’s client.
IMHO, someone is trying to cover their tracks by pointing the finger at Jon Li.
MH: Your speculation that Jon Li played Jim Burchill is isn’t very plausible.
Come on, Jon, tell us the real story. We know you want to!
Speaking of accuracy, transparency, and accountability – how did David Greenwald get his hands on three of Jon Li’s emails?
Just curious.
In other words, if Jon Li knew about the plans or if he worked for the consultant or whatever is irrelevant; it is ridiculous to assume that he was responsible for this decision of this monumental magnitude.
“Speaking of accuracy, transparency, and accountability – how did David Greenwald get his hands on three of Jon Li’s emails?”
Sometimes you have to protect your sources. I will tell you this – it was from no one either mentioned or posting in this thread.
[quote]Please understand this, this mailer is was not good for any of the campaigns, mine included. I am just as interested as anyone else, perhaps even more interested in finding out the full story behind it. This speculation and innuendo directed at various times to the various campaigns is not fair. We have tried to have a clean, positive campaign where we do not make disparaging comments about any of the other candidates.
Before making unsubstantiated accusations, I would hope that people would wait for more facts to surface. [/quote]
Well said! This has been a very clean/excellent campaign by the candidates themselves…
Mike Harrington is guilty of negative campaigning. His references to “Souza Blockers” and “The Blocking Gang” are lies, which have been disproved on earlier this blog, yet he continues to spread these lies. This is just one example of the mud that he slings and I have little respect for him. I doubt seriously that he ever “tries to be pleasant and work things out” before he engages in spreading his lies.
The best thing that could happen is for this all to be dismissed as utter garbage and be allowed to DIE and have the perpetrators get no further attention and realize (or not, who cares about them?) that they wasted their money. I guess there is just so much curiosity keeping it alive.
I spoke to Jon Li finally. He told me his involvement in this was limited to a few phone calls and some suggestions. He was very adamant that this was about Sue Greenwald not him and that he viewed the behavior of Sue Greenwald on that night in question as being her normal behavior rather than something out of character.
He confirmed that James Burchill was involved.
He was sanguine as to whether the intent was actually to take out Stephen Souza, though he clearly wants that to be the case and acknowledged that that was the effect regardless of the intent.
He would not tell me if there were plans for another, though he did say that I could figure out that they had not spent all of their money.
As for those who refer to Sue playing the “victim card”, that is not what I see. Sue has analyzed this, analysis is what Sue does best. The hit thing had no proper place in this process.
Fair enough Brett but what do you say now? I wonder David, did Jon Li say that he tried to dissuade the people responsible in any way?
Issues:
Do you support or oppose the downtown parking/retail structure?
Do you feel Nishi should be developed?
Do you think ConAgra should be rezoned for residential?
If ConAgra is rezoned, should a portion of it stay as business zoning?
In principle, would you support or oppose annexing peripheral property for a business/tech park?
By what proportions should the city reduce costs by changing its employee contracts, layoffs, or cutting services?
Do you support restrictions or a ban on use of wood-burning stoves?
Do you support the single-use bag proposal as approved by the NRC?
Do you favor continuing the current affordable housing policies?
How and where do you suggest more housing be built, and what type?
Do you think more bike parking is needed downtown?
Do you support developing a source of surface water soon, in the near future, or more than five to ten years from now?
Do you support the joint powers governance structure for developing a surface water supply?
Do you support greater density and taller buildings in the downtown?
Distractions: hit pieces mailed by people with no direct connection to any campaign.
Toad: Li was very proud of the piece and completely in support of it.
Ryan: you were one of the most vocal supporters of the obviously fraudulent water rate increases, which makes you a big supporter of Souza, the Chair of the JPA.
Don: Agree with your take on the issues
[quote]Ryan: you were one of the most vocal supporters of the obviously fraudulent water rate increases, which makes you a big supporter of Souza, the Chair of the JPA.[/quote]
Actually, this is untrue. I never supported the rate increase. I have been supportive in planning for the future when we will need to have an alternative source for our water. I have always agreeable to a slight raise in rates to build reserves over time to be used for upgrades and expansion when needed, something Mike Harrington blocked when he was on the City Council and continues to oppose. I am not a supporter or non-supporter of the JPA or Steve Souza, as Chair. I don’t think that the JPA is an elective body. I am interested in what the WAC comes up with. What I do not support is the practice of spreading lies about the project and the people connected in any way to it.
Again, Mike Harrington can’t or won’t defend the lies he spreads, so can only turn to attack the person who points out the lie.
another ISSUE: DACHA and NP
Right on Don Shor, the issues are what we should focus on! You certainly hit most of them, thanks!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Ryan: you were one of the most vocal supporters of the obviously fraudulent water rate increases, which makes you a big supporter of Souza, the Chair of the JPA.”[/i]
Michael, you have just provided us with a perfect example of a logical fallacy . . . specifically, [i][b]Affirming the consequent
[/b][/i] Well done.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Ryan: you were one of the most vocal supporters of [b]the obviously fraudulent water rate increases[/b], which makes you a big supporter of Souza, the Chair of the JPA.”[/i]
Michael, as you know fraud requires intent. Just whose intent is central to your accusation of fraud?
Pick your names wisely. You wouldn’t want to expose yourself to a charge of slander.