Council last night did not pull the consent agenda item on the contract for Best, Best, and Krieger for the city attorney services. It’s clear that the council supports the counsel they get from primarily Harriet Steiner; the question is really why that is the case.
Unfortunately, not only did they not question their decision by failing to pull it from the consent agenda, but they failed to explain to the public why it is that they have confidence in the city attorney.
Some time ago, sometime between the time that the pepper-spray incident occurred on November 18, now nearly six months ago, and the time that the Kroll/Reynoso reports cited “administrative failures,” someone warned me this is going to be a sleight-of-hand trick, and if you watch the cards, you’ll miss what they are doing.
So when the Bee reports this morning that Chancellor Linda Katehi lists her mistakes in the pepper-spray incident, they miss the card trick when they write, “Though she took ‘full responsibility’ months ago, UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi detailed for lawmakers Tuesday specific mistakes she made in a campus pepper-spraying incident that sparked national headlines and outrage.”
One does not expect to see personal, let alone partisan, attacks in a race for judge. And yet that is precisely what has happened in Yolo County. The chances of Clinton Parish defeating an incumbent with strong support from his own bench and much of the Yolo County Bar were slim to start, but his effort to inject energy and controversy into the race may be backfiring on him.
The first fallout happened on Tuesday morning, when Sheriff Ed Prieto, touted on the flyer as a key support of Clinton Parish, pulled his endorsement.
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.
A situation that was already volatile may be push to the brink by surprisingly bad news in the May revise that was issued on Monday. Even before that news, the school district was facing a three million dollar deficit and facing more cutbacks.
Last week, the situation turned tense as the district was planning a 5.5 percent cut.
It is an attack that some are calling more appropriate for a District Attorney race than a judicial race.
One attack piece, targeted for voters in Davis, attacked Judge Maguire on a number of issues such as the deal to commute the sentence of the son of former Speaker Fabian Nunez, despite the fact that Dan Maguire was already a judge in Yolo County by the time that occurred.
For the second time in less than a week, mailboxes in Davis and probably the rest of Yolo County received an attack mail piece. This time it was the race for Yolo County Superior Court Judge and Judge Dan Maguire, the incumbent was on the short end of it.
In addition to touting the Deputy DA’s record and endorsements from Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto, and the West Sacramento, Woodland and Winters Police Officers Association, the mailer attacks Dan Maguire as “Arnold’s Bagman,” referring to former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Editor’s Note: The following is the Davis Vanguard‘s first written document embodying our principles and values that guide our work in the Davis Community. Feedback is encouraged, as we will be updating these principles on a periodic basis.
This week sees the council facing a consent item on the city’s contract with Best, Best and Krieger for the city attorney services provided for the most part over the last 26 years by Harriet Steiner.
According to the staff report, the city attorney costs are billed through a contract with a law firm through time and materials basis. There is a great amount of variability on costs year to year.
In an item put on the consent agenda, the city is asking for council to allocated an additional 75,000 to the contract for the professional negotiator who is negotiating the new MOUs with the bargaining units.
The staff report downplays this move not only by placing it as a consent item, but noting that the “funds are already in the budget and no additional funding is requested from other sources. The funds are being moved from one self-insurance account to a professional services self-insurance account.”
The Vanguard was founded six years ago for two purposes: first to report on stories that no one else was reporting. And second, to provide the rest of the story. Over the years, the Vanguard has evolved to a site that we believe is a watchdog site, that has hard-hitting reporting that, at times, has to criticize public officials for their conduct.
While the Vanguard reports with an edge, we recognize that the world is not black and white. Not everyone agrees with us. And even those who agree with us on somethings, disagree on others.
Last week, the Vanguard was concerned with the fact that West Yost Associates, a local business with multimillion dollar contracts with the city, contributed 1000 dollars to the Chamber PAC’s efforts. That led us to ask the city whether a committee that received contributions in excess of 100 dollars could support or oppose city council campaigns.
The Vanguard asked the city attorney and city clerk how Davis Code section 12.01.035, which imposes a contribution limitation on persons who make contributions to independent committees that support or oppose candidates, is applied to committees that may support or oppose more than one candidate and also support or oppose ballot measures.
Representatives for the defense in the misdemeanor case against bank blockers on Thursday indicated that they were not inclined to take any plea offer in this case, as that would be tantamount to acceptance of the criminalization of dissent.
Tim Kreiner, a media spokesperson for the defendants told the media Thursday morning, “It was rejected in part on the grounds that any continuance of prosecution is a wrongful attempt to prosecute political speech on campus.”
Most of the left considered the election of an African-American president to be an historic moment back in 2008. Since that time, most probably have felt various senses of frustration and disappointment in the lackluster and largely cautious and centrist presidency of Barack Obama.
However, this week President Obama undoubtedly reminded many on the left of the still unfulfilled promise of his presidency, which is why many will undoubtedly hold their nose, given no other real choice, and vote to reelect the man.
Every Friday between now and the election, the candidates for Davis City Council will be asked to respond to one hard-hitting Vanguard question on the issues that matter to Davis, or at least to the Vanguard.
Last week the council candidates were given a question on Monday and asked to respond by midnight this morning. For next week, they were given the question this morning, by request of one of the candidates who preferred to have the weekend to work on the answer.
The high point of last night’s Water Advisory Committee meeting was the vote on the following motion, originally crafted by Mark Siegler, Bill Kopper and Frank Loge, and after discussion motioned by Alf Brandt and seconded by Michael Bartolic and Steve Boschken (don’t ask me to explain why there were two seconds).
The Water Advisory Committee (WAC) supports a project that involves conjunctive use under the provision that the WAC still needs to address the issues of 1) when the project should be implemented [e.g. immediately, in 5 to 10 years, in 20 to 30 years, etc.], 2) the size, cost and financing of the project, and 3] the source of treated surface water [e.g. Woodland/Davis JPA, West Sacramento, or other source]. In addition, in further deliberation, the WAC may identify other issues.
When the Kroll Report and the Reynoso Task Force Report came out back in April, the reports placed the primary responsibility for the decision to deploy the police at 3 pm rather than during the night or the early morning on Chancellor Katehi.
However, the report also criticized the chancellor, along with Vice Chancellor John Meyer and Vice Chancellor Fred Wood, as sharing responsibility for the decision to remove the tents, which as a result triggered the police action against the protesters.
Five attorneys will represent the 12 defendants facing 20 counts of blocking the US Bank Building in UC Davis’ memorial union from January 13 until the bank closed its down on February 28.
Public defender Ron Johnson, Dan Siegel, Stewart Katz, Alexis Briggs, and Tony Serra will represent the defendants. They collectively entered a not guilty plea and will have their next hearing in Department 6 at 1:30 with Judge David Reed presiding over what could be a long-cause preliminary hearing if all the stars line up between now and them.
Someone yesterday reposted my account of what was, in my words, a most serious breach on January 26, 2010. What happened on the dais was an ugly display by two individuals. What happened outside the council chambers was an ugly display by one individual.
The flyer doesn’t really capture the most important moments of what happened that evening. I am not going to recount it other than I think that was a moment that will be with me for the rest of my life.