The Davis Chamber PACs decision to get involved in the political process and their admirable level of transparency provides an entity like the Vanguard with the opportunity to scrutinize their books. One thing that we would like to avoid is the appearance that they are being punished for doing the right thing in terms of transparency.
On the other hand, as we noted just last week, the influence of development interests are certainly a matter that should be noted and scrutinized.
Just as big a concern however, is the influence of West Yost Associates. This is a group that just landed another multimillion contract to handle the wastewater project for the City of Davis.
Every time we make this point, someone comes on here to defend that company as a good company, good at what they do, perhaps the best company for the job.
That is not the point. The point is that you have a company with a huge interest in the composition of the council and of influencing the composition of the council, an interest in influencing the opinions of those on the council by dumping $1000 into the Chamber PAC.
There is a reason why the City of Davis has $100 limits. It is to limit the amount of influence any one entity has on the council race.
One of the reasons that we have so scrutinized the actions of the Firefighters Local 3499 is that, by having their membership each contribute $100 and deliver it in a lump sum, they have exerted disproportionate influence on the process.
One thing we did not fully anticipate when we were initially favorable to the Chamber PAC involvement was that this would be a way to begin to skirt the $100 contribution limitation.
We were also somewhat assured that this would not become a big money effort, and were encouraged by the promise of transparency.
However, the writing is becoming more clear on the wall now. We see the overrepresentation by various bodies of commercial and land development interests. Defenders of the PAC can rightly point toward the city’s general plan and Measures J and R as counterbalancing.
To some extent this is true. However, those who waged campaigns against developments in previous years will likely tell you that even with Measure R protections, the prospects for fighting repeated campaigns against large peripheral sprawl developments are not as easy as a snap of the fingers. They are time-consuming and they sap a great deal of energy that could perhaps be better spent elsewhere.
However, at least in the case of peripheral development, we have some protections. We have fewer protections against infill development, development like ConAgra, against remaking the downtown, against changing the zoning codes, etc.
We have even less protection against a company that is set to make millions on the water project, that has been one of the critical advisers on that water project, that has proposed and backed hugely and overly expensive projects.
It is bad enough to have photos showing the heads of that company at the campaign parties of past council candidates in years past, because at least that candidate could credibly claim that they would not be bought for a $100.
Now we have a way to circumvent that. We start with $1000 contributions, but this is really just getting the chair warm. The Chamber is just testing their engines in this election.
Just wait until the housing market actually has rebounded. Just wait until we have competing Measure R projects involving peripheral subdivisions and business parks.
Yes, we have Measure R, but we cannot fight a battle every few months against landed monied interests and expect to beat them back each time.
I am not a big backer of campaign finance limits. I do not believe they work particularly well. I think a much better idea is to have the kind of instant reporting that we see here and the public scrutiny and public pressure might be enough to ensure that those with money do the right thing.
But I cannot say I am not concerned about $1000 contributions in local races – hard money or soft money, the potential for undue influence is just too great. And it is not because West Yost is a bad company and do not do good work.
It is the principle and the appearance of influence peddling that concerns us. West Yost just got a multimillion dollar contract with the city, they are the face of the water project, and they need to be smarter than to have the appearance of influence peddling.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]However, the writing is becoming more clear on the wall now. We see the overrepresentation on various bodies of commercial and land development interests. [/quote]
I agree 100%.
No doubt I will be lambasted by some regular bloggers who are affiliated with these interests but that doesn’t change the facts. I have seen developers take over other towns. I don’t want that in Davis.
Does that mean that everyone in the Chamber of DDBA is interested in supports unwise peripheral housing projects? Of course not. But money in politics is influence–just ask the firefighters.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
But they just got the big contract so do they need to donate to get it done? One thing you should consider is the need to raise the $100 limit, how long has it been in effect? Has Karl Rove come to town? It was only a matter of time before Citizens United came to town. i raised it once before and Mike Harrington was like bing,bing,bing. is it much different than 10 individuals and their spouses at these firms giving $100 each for the company to cut one check. We are talking about $1000 an amount you even admit is small potatoes; less than Harrington spent on signature gatherers. Its the precedent you claim. No the precedent was Citizen’s United. This is just the fall out and get out your Geiger Counter because more is on the way. Time to protect the precious bodily fluids of the body politic i agree but Kennedy writing for the majority including Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito have taken us in a different direction where money is speech even if it doesn’t talk it swears.
Someone needs to study the money flow over the past ten years from West Yost to our local candidates
Let’s be very clear that the Davis ChamberPAC’s ability to raise and spend money in this manner has absolutely nothing to do with the Citizens United ruling. I won’t purport to know the the history of Political Action Committees in California elections, but I do know that the Davis ChamberPAC has had it’s current ability to raise and spend money on ballot measures and candidates since 1997. Also, CA state requirements do not limit how much PACs can accept from donors. However, the Davis Chamber PAC has always self-limited the amount that donors can contribute.
Regarding the “influence of development concerns” or companies with local government contracts, a closer analysis of the current (and future) donations will reveal a very diverse and evenly distributed set of individuals and small, medium and large businesses that represent retailers, service providers and professionals of all types. The dollar amounts donated are more suggestive, to me, of the number of full-time equivalent jobs at each of the companies, NOT their influence on the Davis ChamberPAC’s work.
As mentioned, the proof will be in the pudding. We look forward to sharing our first set of real expenditures and maybe some campaign pieces this Friday.
I’m not sure what the Vanguard is saying here:
[quote]One thing that we would like to avoid is the appearance that they are being punished for doing the right thing in terms of transparency.[/quote]
[quote]On the other hand, as we noted just last week, the influence of development interests are certainly a matter that should be noted and scrutinized.[/quote]
[quote]We see the overrepresentation by various bodies of commercial and land development interests. [/quote]
[quote]I am not a big backer of campaign finance limits. I do not believe they work particularly well. [/quote]
What is it that the Vanguard believes should not have been done/was illegal/was improper?
What is the Vanguard advocating for in the way of campaign finance reform, if anything?
“What is it that the Vanguard believes should not have been done/was illegal/was improper?”
There is nothing illegal about anything reported here nor was there a claim to be anything illegal about anything that was reported here.
“What is the Vanguard advocating for in the way of campaign finance reform, if anything?”
The Vanguard believes in full transparency and open government to allow the donations to be scrutinized. That is what we have. We are satisfied with the current arrangement.
However with that comes scrutiny and that’s what we provide. There will be people who are troubled by this. There are people who will not be troubled by this. That’s what makes democracy great.
[quote]Someone needs to study the money flow over the past ten years from West Yost to our local candidates [/quote]No need… by innuendo, you have painted West Yost as “lobbyists”… only someone who wanted to be an ‘apologist’ for West Yost would spend the time/effort to ‘study the money flow’. And, I’m sure that even if they did, you would question it. Well done. Just throw some fecal matter out there to see if it sticks. No effort on your part.
David’s piece this morning instantly brought up a mental replay of Dr. Evil sitting at a conference table with a number of international villians, holding up his pinky and saying, “I will hold the world ransom for…ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mwohahaha!” Classic!
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)
When David Greenwald was shilling for Parlin Deveelopment’s Wildhorse Ranch project there were numerous calls for him to open up his books. He refused, although I don’t recall on what pretense.
In my opinion, the DCOC PAC has set the bar, and now the Vanguard needs to meet this standard.
Transparency in regard to the Chamber PAC is a good step. We can all see who is giving what amounts, connect the dots, and draw our own conclusions.
The contribution to the PAC by West Yost is one thing.
The more important question to ask about West Yost Associates is whether the various contracts they have obtained in connection with the Water project over the past years, maybe decade or more, were obtained through an open, transparent, and competitive bidding process or not? And If not, why?
[quote]were obtained through an open, transparent, and competitive bidding process or not? And If not, why? [/quote]
“But they just got the big contract so do they need to donate to get it done?”
Donations are not only to buy a particular prospective vote which is often too obvious a political bribe Donations are also a “promise” by the special interest that financial support will be there for future campaigns as the Council member moves on to climb the political ladder to Supervisor, Assembly and Senate. This “after the fact” financial support is essential to the “understanding” between the special interest and politically ambitious Council member.
[quote]were obtained through an open, transparent, and [b]competitive bidding process[/b] or not? And If not, why? [/quote]Because that would be illegal. Consultants generally must be chosen by a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Each firm presents their understanding of the consultant services sought, presents their qualifications, and are ranked by the ‘owner’… once the top firm is identified, the owner sits down and negotiates the fee. If they cannot come to terms, the owner sits down with the second ranked, firm, and so on. You do not want to choose “low bidder” in search of professional services.
Despite what I suspect Ms Price would like to see, we should not choose consultants in an auction held in a fully packed CC meeting.
David: You post a listing of donors that includes two $1000 donations, and three of $500 or more, yet you declare that it is the West Yost monies that cause you concern. Why is their donation a cause for ‘undue influence’ and the others are not? It appears to me, and anyone who takes the time to actually look at the list honestly, that the Chamber Pac is supported by a wide variety of interests, both from companies and individuals, so your concern that ‘development interests’ somehow have undue influence is, at this time, unfounded. Fear mongering is dishonest.
“Donations are not only to buy a particular prospective vote which is often too obvious a political bribe Donations are also a “promise” by the special interest that financial support will be there for future campaigns as the Council member moves on to climb the political ladder to Supervisor, Assembly and Senate. This “after the fact” financial support is essential to the “understanding” between the special interest and politically ambitious Council member.”
davisite2, really? All donations are current and future vote buys? It sounds like you are projecting.
Psychological projection: A psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)
Mark: Really? You don’t think the company with the multimillion dollar water project who sits at the staff table isn’t going to draw a red flag?
Oh, come on. No one criticizes when Mike Harrington donates thousands to campaigns and then keeps it secret. I’d say that the system is working here. West Yost never tried to hide their donation to the Chamber of Commerce, unlike Mike Harrington’s donations to his referendum. Mike not only wouldn’t tell anyone about his donations despite repeated requests to disclose, but also tried to convince us that the campaign was funded by many people making small donations. I don’t see anything wrong with the Chamber of Commerce appealing to its members for donations to fund their activities. I also received an appeal and I’m not even a member of the Chamber. If some businesses are in a position to donate more than others, well, have them send it on in. Remember, the PAC is representing business people here in Davis. These are Davis people, unlike the majority of fire fighters who are from out of town, but sought to influence the local elections in their personal favor. You may not see a difference, but I do.
“No one criticizes when Mike Harrington donates thousands to campaigns and then keeps it secret.”
No one? I’ll bet I can find at least half a dozen people who criticized?
“I’d say that the system is working here. “
Who said it wasn’t?
“It appears to me, and anyone who takes the time to actually look at the list honestly, that the Chamber Pac is supported by a wide variety of interests, both from companies and individuals, so your concern that ‘development interests’ somehow have undue influence is, at this time, unfounded. Fear mongering is dishonest.”
Mark, as I mentioned on a related thread yesterday, David and those repeating the “development interests” mantra doesn’t make it so. There is no magic number of repetitions that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east that will make it so. The donor list is there for all to see. That’s the whole point of the weekly disclosure.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)
Michael: Just so that we are on the same page here. I completely support the full transparency. It is the way to go. However, the point of full transparency is not to inoculate one from the donors but rather the ability to scrutinize them. People can make their own decision as to whether it matters to them if West Yost, a company doing millions in business with the city, should be plopping money down and how much money is enough to draw their concerns. My job was to raise the issue. What people do with that issue is up to them.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)-“…really? All donations are current and future vote buys?” This is consonant with David’s view of Davis politics . Not only are all votes for sale, they’re a bargain . BTW, I guess the way this would have to work is that an endorsed candidate who wins gives everyone on the list “access”, and if a non-endorsed candidate wins, contributors can plead “We had no influence on the endorsements .” Doesn’t sound like much leverage, to me .
Whatever happened to just reporting the facts and let the comments and speculation follow?
The Vanguard needs to return to this format in this contentious election year.
I applaud the reporting on the PAC, who contributes, how this is different than regular donations, how it compares to other elections, etc.
But the commentary should be left to the comments, or else the conversation instantly turns defensive. The dialogue is much more productive and interesting if more questions are raised by the article than answers.
I wouldn’t count success by the number of people who now have to defend themselves against allegation.
I bet the Chamber of Commerce PAC are pleased that they are being considered to have influence over local political activities. The Chamber is such a diverse group that they have struggled to have a clear stance on much of anything.
David, your reporting on the Chamber PAC effort has been laudable for the most part. Where I’m taking real issue are comments like:
“However, the writing is becoming more clear on the wall now. We see the overrepresentation by various bodies of commercial and land development interests.”
This statement is at odds with the facts as I have repeatedly pointed out. As Mark correctly points out, there is broad-based business support for the Chamber PAC effort. Understandably! Go ahead, scrutinize the list, scrutinize the PAC objectives, scrutinzie the endorsement process, but refrain from repeating false assertions.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)
The group of individuals and business that contributed money to the Davis Chamber PAC is diverse and their interests and opinions are diverse and will always be diverse. In this, the Davis Chamber leaders will have to work hard to extract the optimum middle ground on all the PAC advocates for. This is real modern democracy at work folks.
All PACs and other entities working to influence politics should be scrutinized, but the amount of money involved with the Davis Chamber PAC is not worthy of the typical manufactured outrage the Vanguard is fond of. Unlike the firefighters union’s hundreds of thousands, the Davis Chamber PAC dollars are a pittance. Also note that the union is one entity extracting dues and free labor (something that is not counted, and should be counted) from a population of individuals all with one interest and goal… to gain more pay and benefits. In this they have done a marvelous job, have they not? They have done so at the expense of many other services and programs our city should provide. The Davis Chamber PAC will certainly focus on economic development, but that is a very broad category.
I also take exception, and frankly and getting real tired of, the continued old liberal canard of big bad business seeking profit with some type of scorched earth intention. Geeze, you would think West Yost is the Death Star and run by Voldemort. Note that I’m not sure I have ever heard of a business that Mike Harrington likes except his own business. I get the same vibe from others in this town. Maybe Mike should lead this group to come up with a list of attributes and behaviors required for a business to be recognized as a good corporate citizen.
I just read that Wells Fargo set a record donating money and employee hours to Yolo County. Add this to all the jobs and banking services that Wells Fargo provides the community. But, apparently that consideration, and the consideration of value provided by real estate developers, can only be accessed non-function part of the brain of the average Davis NIMBY-protectionist-statist.
[quote]David M. Greenwald
05/07/12 – 09:01 AM
…
“What is it that the Vanguard believes should not have been done/was illegal/was improper?”
There is nothing illegal about anything reported here nor was there a claim to be anything illegal about anything that was reported here.
“What is the Vanguard advocating for in the way of campaign finance reform, if anything?”
The Vanguard believes in full transparency and open government to allow the donations to be scrutinized. That is what we have. We are satisfied with the current arrangement.
However with that comes scrutiny and that’s what we provide. There will be people who are troubled by this. There are people who will not be troubled by this. That’s what makes democracy great.[/quote]
You concede there was nothing illegal, yet you seem to have a problem with the business community supporting candidates they believe will serve their best interests?
But remember ERM, David doesn’t have a dog in this fight, he’s just suspicious of anyone who does .
“You concede there was nothing illegal, yet you seem to have a problem with the business community supporting candidates they believe will serve their best interests?”
Why does something have to be illegal in order to be objectionable?
I’m going to take another crack at elevating the debate out of the morass of demonization, innuendo, and ascribing false motives. My first attempt utilizing humor failed, now I’ll go back to substance.
The Chamber PAC is entirely unapologetic in our effort to further the Chamber mission which is:
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization whose mission is to promote, support, and advocate the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community.”
We will use all legal and ethical means to achieve the objectives detailed in our March 29, 2012 press release, which are as follows:
1. Crafting and executing electoral strategies that result in improvement of our members economic vitality and the quality of life for the entire community.
2. Interviewing all council candidates in a debate conducive to property assessing their grasp of economic matter and the critical role a robust local economy has in fostering a sustainable community.
3. Considering recommendation and possible support of a council candidate or slate of candidates that support the mission of the Chamber.
4. Raising funds to support PAC activities.
5. Forming a broad-based, business community coalition to support these efforts.
These efforts are not intended to start and end with the June election. Rather, these efforts shall be ongoing to ensure we do not lose sight of the critical importance a robust, local economy has in sustaining the wellbeing of the community.
We have stated repeatedly that this effort enjoys broad-based business support across all sectors, from retailers to realtors. We will gladly accept donations from anyone who supports our mission. We accept donations from entrepreneurs with no business before the city, from entrepreneurs with business before the city, from entrepreneurs who have had past business before the city, from anyone who believes that a robust local economy is critical to the wellbeing of our community.
We are pleased that the Vanguard continues to provide PR for our laudable effort. We are well on our way to achieving our objectives and furthering our stated mission. We will not be cowed, we will not stand down, we will not desist. Period.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
David: “Mark: Really? You don’t think the company with the multimillion dollar water project who sits at the staff table isn’t going to draw a red flag?”
Why should it? Their donation will be less than 10% of the total monies that the PAC brings in. Why should that be a red flag? They are a successful company that has been in Davis a long time and that alone will give them influence. Why do you feel the need to presume some nefarious plot?
Until you have evidence that they are gaining undo influence over the process your false accusations only damage your own credibility. If in your reporting you find something amiss, then by all means report it. Until then though I think that the Chamber has been remarkably transparent in this process and you should be praising them for their actions, not questioning their (or their donors) integrity.
[quote]”It is bad enough to have photos showing the heads of that company at the campaign parties of past council candidates in years past, because at least that candidate could credibly claim that they would not be bought for a $100 (campaign donation)….”[/quote]I’m not sure that business heads should be prohibited from attending campaign events, any more than Sierra Club officers or teachers or school board officers or youth sports leaders or ministers or city historical commission members or media owners.
If it’s bad to have photos, stop stealing them from the [i]Enterprise[/i] and running them for years in the [i]Vanguard[/i].
Get engaged in the political process. Support your candidate(s). No, don’t. (Especially if your selections aren’t the same as mine!)
The city limit on donations to candidates is not changed by a more active Chamber, correct? A candidate does not receive more than a $100 donation from an individual or a business or a PAC, correct?
I can see how this undertaking will encourage candidates to show up at Chamber-sponsored debates. But, how does “…dumping $1000 into the Chamber PAC…” allow an individual or business to buy influence with any given council member?
How will successful candidates keep track of who to pay off with city contracts when dozens of individuals and businesses are on the donor list? Will a $1,000 donor get a bigger contract from Mayor Dan Wolk than a $500 donor? Will Mayor Sue Greenwald make sure that no Chamber donor gets a city contract? This is not a corruption issue.
This is somewhat different from the the firefighter problem. That one got solved by the public reacting to the decisions the council was making about the fire department, and the candidates responded by refusing to take their contributions.
The same thing will happen if the public thinks that the council is making bad decisions about business and economic matters. The alleged problem here is of a self-correcting kind.
People who want to get inappropriate, favorable treatment from the city will find more effective routes. Council members who want to use their offices for financial gain will find more lucrative avenues. It’ll all go on behind closed door or at church or somewhere else where we won’t observe it, and it won’t be photographed with Don Saylor.
Maybe the increased visibility of our local politicking will “the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community”–and we’re all for that, right?
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Mark: Really? You don’t think the company with the multimillion dollar water project who sits at the staff table isn’t going to draw a red flag?”[/i]
Mark West responded . . .
[i]”Why should it? Their donation will be less than 10% of the total monies that the PAC brings in. Why should that be a red flag? They are a successful company that has been in Davis a long time and that alone will give them influence. Why do you feel the need to presume some nefarious plot?
Until you have evidence that they are gaining undo influence over the process your false accusations only damage your own credibility. If in your reporting you find something amiss, then by all means report it. Until then though I think that the Chamber has been remarkably transparent in this process and you should be praising them for their actions, not questioning their (or their donors) integrity.”[/i]
One point I would add to Mark’s response above is that there is a further layer of insulation that applies in this situation. To the best of my knowledge, a small selected group of the Chamber PAC members made the decision about the endorsements, and no one from WestYost was part of that small selected group. Said another way, WestYost simply purchased $1,000 of Lottery tickets without any clear sense of what the “winning number” was going to be. It appears that it was a process they we contributing to, not an outcome.
@ David Greenwald: “I completely support the full transparency. It is the way to go.”
So when is the Vanguard going to start making financial disclosures?
Or is disclosure good for the PAC but bad for the Vanguard?
Matt: Steve Souza is partially, but significantly, responsible for West Yost gaining millions and millions of dollars in city contracts over the past 8 years. Souza is the Chair of the Woodland-Davis JPA. Don’t be so naive to believe that West Yost just bought a simple lottery ticket with no knowledge of the likely outcome? Of course their boy Souza was endorsed.
I really would like to see a detailed study of the West Yost and friends and employees contributions over the past ten years to our local electeds. THis would include some local analysis of who the “retireds” used to work for, spouses with different last names from employees and subcontractors of West Yost, adult children of those employees and subcontractors, etc.
David G: can you get one of your interns on this project?
Of course, the current CC voted 4/1 (Sue dissenting) to award West Yost a $4 million contract to work on the sewer plant upgrades, after they screwed up the original design and Sue pointed it out, saving the City about $100 million, she says.
Dan Wolk: if you really want to help things, stop giving our money away to reward bad behavior from vendors. I know the long time relationships with West Yost, but you need to go your own way.
BTW, I and many others believe the current sewer rates are unconstitutional in that they violate the proportionality doctrine. These are rates that West Yost had a hand in creating, accoring to my understanding. When I get time, I will submit a demand to the city to re-do those rates or face a court challenge.
” To the best of my knowledge, a small selected group of the Chamber PAC members made the decision about the endorsements, and no one from WestYost was part of that small selected group. Said another way, WestYost simply purchased $1,000 of Lottery tickets without any clear sense of what the “winning number” was going to be. It appears that it was a process they we contributing to, not an outcome.”
The problem with that theory is that while we do not have dates for the contributions, we know that West Yost was not on the first list but on the second which means they only contributed after the endorsement was announced.
David G: brilliant analysis of the timing.
Mark: “If in your reporting you find something amiss, then by all means report it. Until then though I think that the Chamber has been remarkably transparent in this process and you should be praising them for their actions, not questioning their (or their donors) integrity.”
That ignores an entire body of work focused on this very issue: the influence of money in electoral process. It is unseemly for a company to put money into a process that they profit from. I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety of such actions.
“So when is the Vanguard going to start making financial disclosures? Or is disclosure good for the PAC but bad for the Vanguard?”
Disclosure is legally required by a PAC but not by the Vanguard. Should it’s not clear what your point is?
Brilliant! That’s almost as funny as the Guiness commercials. Mike, get a grip. If the Chamber PAC were concerned about the public figuring out the timing of individual contributions, they wouldn’t be publishing weekly, now would they? No, they’d be following your water referendum playbook. “I will hold the world ransom for…ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS! Mwohahaha!”
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member, Mwohahaha!)
Michael Bisch: As a member of the DDBA for many years, I resent your use of the DDBA Co-Prez title on your political emails. I think the Board has to vote on the release of political positions and stands, and to my knowledge they are not authorizing your commenting on this Blog.
I am a captive Member of the DDBA, and the least you can do is leave off your office title when you blog and write communications to the public, unless a particular statement is authorized by the DDBA Board.
I personally think your rants are counter productive, and so do many other business people I know. If you must write what you do, do it on your own time and not using my DDBA to lend authority to your strange comments.
What to do? Sue complains when I post without stating my various organizational titles and you complain when I do. I have a counter proposal. I propose we debate the merits of the Chamber PAC’s objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the individual candidates, whether a robust local economy increases the wellbeing of the community, and refrain from the hypocrisy, demonization, innuendo, conspiracy theories, and other silly stuff. Yes, no, maybe?
DT Businessman (aka All Around Good Guy)
David: [i]”It is unseemly for a company to put money into a process that they profit from.”[/i]
I love this point coming from a political science major (read: degree to pursue a professional career in politics) since it makes victims out of the politicians who peddle influence, and places complete responsibility on the businesses pursuing self-interest. OF COURSE a business might put money into a process that they think they might profit from. I hope you don’t think they would put money into a process that would cost them profit. However, they might also put money in something they believe in too as long as it would not harm the company.
Since when did politicians become a protected victim-group class? If every politician had a moral compass and did the right things despite the interests of their campaign benefactors, we would not be concerned, right?
We can always impeach and incarcerate those politicians found guilty of criminal influence peddling. At the very least, they cannot be re-elected. Of bigger concern to me is populist influence. More specifically: money buying air time to influence voters toward a political agenda. Like the thing like Mike Harrington did setting up tables in front of local grocery stores to embellish facts and scare voters into voting against the surface water project. It is also the thing the public employee unions have done so well convincing voters that all teachers, police and firefighters are victim-heroes that deserved all their pay and benefit increases and job security. Last I checked we cannot impeach, incarcerate or un-elect an uninformed or brainwashed voter.
“That ignores an entire body of work focused on this very issue: the influence of money in electoral process. It is unseemly for a company to put money into a process that they profit from. I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety of such actions.”
What does the “entire body of work” on money buting our policians have to do with the Chamber and it’s new PAC? There’s an entire body of work about terrorist bombers also, but that doesn’t justify someone questioning the propriety of Michael Harrington’s threatening comments. What process are you talking about? We all profit from our election process. Since when have you felt that companies putting money into our election process is somehow “unseemly”?
To suggest wrongdoing without evidence might not be illegal, but we’re certainly correct to question the propriety of such actions when you specifically point your finger at specific people who are in the photograph with Troublesome Saylor–and it’s just plain unseemly to imply wrongdoing.
“To suggest wrongdoing “
I specifically said there was nothing illegal about it.
“I love this point coming from a political science major (read: degree to pursue a professional career in politics)”
Actually my degree was a graduate degree which was designed to train us to do research not for the pursuit of a professional career in politics. The field of political science is not designed at least in UC schools to pursue a professional career in politics.
“Disclosure is legally required by a PAC but not by the Vanguard.”
Brian: That’s not the point. The PAC is voluntarily disclosing their contributors weekly (as opposed to waiting weeks until some filing deadline), and has been very transparent about their goals and processes. In response to this openness, DG has singled out a successful local business and tried to smear it with innuendos of influence peddling.
In contrast, the Vanguard has never disclosed its contributors. David could voluntarily decide to do this but he hasn’t. Why not? If it’s an issue that some of his donors want or expect to remain hidden, then he could release a redacted list. In addition, he could voluntarily decide that records of all future donations will be publicly released so that all future donors understand that there is no expectation of secrecy.
If the Vanguard is going to raise allegations of influence peddling, then it is fair to ask who might be donating to the Vanguard with an expectation of favorable treatment on the blog.
psdavis: No that is precisely the point, a PAC is required by law to disclose contributors, whether they do it on a weekly basis or not, that does not give them a free ride.
I’m glad that they have been transparent, but they have taken a lot of money from a successful business that directly works with the city and has multimillion dollar contracts. That seems to be something that ought to be reported.
I don’t speak for David, but given that he’s not required by any law to disclose his donors, I don’t see the need for him to do so as some sort of retribution because you apparently have no concerns about money in politics.
Brian: Who said anything about retribution. It’s about a double standard. David tends to have a problem in this regard on any number of issues.
It’s not a double standard, it’s a different standard as defined by the laws.
Didn’t say you said illegal, just that you’re hinting that something’s wrong is being done here (or “unseemly,” as some might call it).
But, more important, when did it become “unseemly” for companies to donate to political campaigns and PACs? And, how does your concern about the broad issues connect with the Davis Chamber’s PAC and/or West Yost’s contribution and/or any candidates? How much money will a given candidate get from the $1,000? The unseemliness of it all is a little vague and difficult to pin down.
The billions legally going into committees and PACs to overwhelm major campaigns with negativity, misinformation and fear is an outrage. Until we find that $100 or $200 legally going into Stephen’s or Sue’s campaigns makes them susceptible to fraud and corruption, we probably don’t need to panic.
[i]”Actually my degree was a graduate degree which was designed to train us to do research not for the pursuit of a professional career in politics.”[/i]
Fair enough. However, I am still mystified as to why you and others focus blame on companies for attempting to influence policy, and not on the politicians that peddle their influence. Business is supposed to pursue profit so this is a natural and desired activity. However, politicians are supposed to represent all constituents and remain objective in policy-making. Although Gov’ Brown is doing far from enough to fix the state budget problems, I do applaud his attempts to go against his party and his primary union benefactors. I think he is emboldened because the alternative would be disastrous for both groups. However, it is a little refreshing to see a politician attempt to do at least some of the right things going against his money conduit.
Just as the PAC elected to disclose above and beyond their legal disclosure requirements, the Vanguard could also elect to disclose above and beyond their legal disclosure requirements.
David thinks weekly disclosure by the PAC is a good thing.
David has never disclosed his financial backers.
Simple enough for you?
The problem with any significant endorsement or contribution is not only its present value, but also that it has future ramifications.
If, for example, Lucas gets a good endorsement/contribution, he’s likely to be influenced when working in the legislature to help the donor or the donor’s friends one way or another, or to persuade an associate to help the donor. Before long, the effect of contributions and endorsements is virtually impossible to trace. Transparency is soon lost.
[i]The problem with any significant endorsement or contribution is not only its present value, but also that it has future ramifications.
If, for example, Lucas gets a good endorsement/contribution, he’s likely to be influenced when working in the legislature to help the donor or the donor’s friends one way or another, or to persuade an associate to help the donor. Before long, the effect of contributions and endorsements is virtually impossible to trace. Transparency is soon lost. [/i]
These issues hold true with individual contributions/endorsements as well. Some in the group of posters appear to suggest that transparency is best served if there are no contributions and no endorsements, period.
Whether it’s individual or thru a PAC, contributions and PAC endorsements create liabilities. Just look at Congress. Public financing would be a
solution.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: Steve Souza is partially, but significantly, responsible for West Yost gaining millions and millions of dollars in city contracts over the past 8 years. Souza is the Chair of the Woodland-Davis JPA. Don’t be so naive to believe that West Yost just bought a simple lot.”[/i]
Mike, your logic falls down in a number of key ways. First, Staff brings a recommendation to Council for ratification. Your point would be more valid if Council did the selection as well as the ratification. Second, has it occured to you that perhaps WestYost is the world’s best at what they do, so selecting them over the alternatives firms is rather easy. Third, if the outcome is preordained, what possible incentive does an individual participant have to participate?
I look forward to your response.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”BTW, I and many others believe the current sewer rates are unconstitutional in that they violate the proportionality doctrine. These are rates that West Yost had a hand in creating, accoring to my understanding. When I get time, I will submit a demand to the city to re-do those rates or face a court challenge.”[/i]
Mike, sewer is much more complex than water. For the most part each gallon of water is identical in chemical composition to every other gallon of water. On the other hand there is considerable variation between the chemical composition and constituents in a gallon of sewage depending on what the source of the sewage is.
How are you factoring chemical and constituent differences into your calculations of proportionality for sewer?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The problem with that theory is that while we do not have dates for the contributions, we know that West Yost was not on the first list but on the second which means they only contributed after the endorsement was announced.”[/i]
David, following your logic to the next step, since the endorsement outcome was already determined, what possible venal incentive would WestYost have had to make a contribution? Further, since the contribution very transparently was not going to an individual candidate, how does either the candidate or the contributor benefit from the contribution?
David M. Greenwald
[i]”That ignores an entire body of work focused on this very issue: the influence of money in electoral process. It is unseemly for a company to put money into a process that they profit from. I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety of such actions.”[/i]
David, if the money were going toward the remuneration of Staff, who as I pointed out above are the people actually making the selections and recommendations, then I would be on board with your argument, but the realities of the Davis system are that Council more often than not only ratifies the decisions Staff has made.
David: “[i]I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety of such actions.[/i]”
Then you have no credibility.
Matt: staff dont vote. Souza did, over and over, to enrich those supporting him. The water lawyers and consultants are just one instance. Look at the firefighter contributions collected in a bag and delivered to the union’s favorite candidates: Souza, Saylor, Sydney, the list goes on and on. He and Saylor were responsible for milking millions and millions from city taxpayers to assist the candidates elections.
Oh, and dont forget the sprawl developers and their contributions, dozens and dozens.
No, Souza did this himself. And the voters are going to toss him this time for it.
Mark West: Oh yes, David Greenwald has huge credibility around Yolo County.
My friends and I are going to force a full independent audit of the public money spent on the surface water project for at least 12 years.
We will see who has the public’s trust.
Optimist that I am, maybe someday we’ll get back to talking about economic development, which policies and projects we should be pursuing, and which candidates are likely to actively pursue said policies and projects over the next 4 years. In case anyone is actually paying attention, here’s a definition of economic development (from Wikipedia):
“Economic development generally refers to the sustained, concerted actions of policymakers and communities that promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area.”
So, which candidates understand this relatively simple concept, are capable of acting upon the understanding, and are willing to allocate community resources toward it?
Michael Bisch – Ranter In Chief
Michael Harrington said . . .
“BTW, I and many others believe the current sewer rates are unconstitutional in that they violate the proportionality doctrine. These are rates that West Yost had a hand in creating, accoring to my understanding. When I get time, I will submit a demand to the city to re-do those rates or face a court challenge.”
Wow Mike, this is the second time in a few days you have threatened legal action. The other day it was to circulate a referendum on the Cannery should a proposal be approved. I think this whole petition thing has gone to your head something i understand after the response on your water petition. But don’t you think its better to be quiet and send a demand letter before filing suit than to run around with a I’m going to file suit as soon as I get around to it and trying to bully people for commenting that disagree with you about their titles. I’m not a lawyer but I do wonder if the bar has rules about threatening to sue like a bully instead of going through the traditional process.
[i]”Economic development generally refers to the sustained, concerted actions of policymakers and communities that promote the standard of living and economic health of a specific area.”
So, which candidates understand this relatively simple concept, are capable of acting upon the understanding, and are willing to allocate community resources toward it? [/i]
I’ve given you my answer. Maybe you can explain yours.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: staff don’t vote.”[/i]
Absolutely true Mike . . . and for the most part Council members don’t decide. Any good “closer” knows that if they are going to influence a process, they should focus on the deciders much, much more than the voters. That is a lesson from Sales School 101.
[i]”Souza did, over and over, to enrich those supporting him. The water lawyers and consultants are just one instance. Look at the firefighter contributions collected in a bag and delivered to the union’s favorite candidates: Souza, Saylor, Sydney, the list goes on and on. He and Saylor were responsible for milking millions and millions from city taxpayers to assist the candidates elections.
Oh, and dont forget the sprawl developers and their contributions, dozens and dozens.
No, Souza did this himself. And the voters are going to toss him this time for it.”[/i]
You are changing the subject Mike, the subject of today’s discussion is The Chamber and its process and its contributors, not any individual candidate.
Mr.Toad said . . .
“Wow Mike, this is the second time in a few days you have threatened legal action. The other day it was to circulate a referendum on the Cannery should a proposal be approved. I think this whole petition thing has gone to your head something i understand after the response on your water petition. [b]But don’t you think its better to be quiet and send a demand letter before filing suit than to run around with a I’m going to file suit as soon as I get around to it[/b] and trying to bully people for commenting that disagree with you about their titles. I’m not a lawyer but I do wonder if the bar has rules about threatening to sue like a bully instead of going through the traditional process.”
Toad, it is clear that Mike aced all his courses in Law School that covered the legalities and intricacies of automotive hit and run. The strange thing is that after that rousing automotive success, Mike went into aviation law. Encountering a hit and run case in aviation is rare. Now the closest that Mike comes to hit and run is landings that are touch and go.
I don’t threaten legal action unless i intend to do it
I usuallly tell the other side what I am going to do
Now staff and west Yost knows we are going to force an audit The mechanism will be an initiative maybe they will be more careful with the $4 million the CC majority just threw at West Yost for screwing up the sewer plant design
Ironically it was unions that created PACs as way around parts of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which prohibit labor unions from influencing elections and contributing to campaigns.
My big problem with outside spending on politics, especially at the state and federal level, is the obscene amount of money required to play the media circus game. Even a Dudley-Do-Right candidate is going to need lots of money to run a reasonable campaign. Then two year later he has to start it all over again to win re-election. He is going to have to make lots of friends with wealthy folk to have a chance.
Because of this change toward expensive media-drive campaigns, I think our founding fathers would have had second thoughts about multiple terms given the impact of re-election campaign needs. I think I would support a constitutional amendment to limit many federal and state politicians to one term. Make it a longer term and strengthen impeachment options. US democracy called for government by the people and for the people. Politics today is too reliant on and too attracted to large piles of cash. It attracts the wrong types of candidates, and shuts out many talented people who lack personal resources.
However, this Davis Chamber PAC money is too small and provided by too diverse a list of contributors to warrant this level of scrutiny.
Mike Harrington, didn’t you spend $9000 to force the expensive water project referendum vote? That is nine-times more than West Yost spent contributing to the Davis Chamber PAC, and almost the entire PAC budget.
This thread is about special interest influence on the Davis City Council race. So let’s acknowledge the elephants in the room:
(1) The idea that any of these city council candidates can be “bought” for a $1,000 donation to the DCOC PAC is stupid. That’s right, stupid.
(2) The idea that a company like West Yost would seek to buy influence with the new council by publicly donating to the DCOC PAC is even more stupid. Like, off-the-charts stupid.
Harrington seems to think otherwise – so perhaps he could be bought for $1,000 – but that’s a different issue.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Now staff and West Yost knows we are going to force an audit. The mechanism will be an initiative maybe they will be more careful with the $4 million the CC majority just threw at West Yost for screwing up the sewer plant design.”[/i]
Mike, once again you are straying far, far away from the facts. Carollo Engineers was the contractor on the engagement that produced the March 2008 sewer plant design. West Yost was one of four subcontractors identified by Carollo in their contract with the City. The others were EDAW, Fugro West, and Burks Toma Architects. In Staff’s presentation to Council the proportion of the Carollo engagement performed by West Yost was estimated to have been 17% of the engagement.
Further, Carollo’s engagement, as designed by the City under direction from City Council was for a “total solution,” which should contain a robust water reuse capability (estimated at $51-91 million by itself), onsite solar power generation (estimated at $3 million), wetlands improvements (estimated at $5 million) and new Administration/Lab/Operations buildings (estimated at $10 million). Once Carollo’s $207-250 million estimate cam in for such a “total solution” the $69-109 million for all those bells and whistles requested by Council were removed. Carollo produced exactly what they were asked to produce, and Council, very correctly, choked on the price tag.
“The idea that any of these city council candidates can be “bought” for a $1,000 donation to the DCOC PAC is stupid. That’s right, stupid. “
You’re right, the idea that any city council candidate can be “bought” for a donation is implausible.
The question is about influence.
“The point is that you have a company with a huge interest in the composition of the council and of influencing the composition of the council, [b]an interest in [i]influencing[/i] the opinions[/b] of those on the council by dumping $1000 into the Chamber PAC.
There is a reason why the City of Davis has $100 limits. [b]It is to limit the amount of [i]influence[/i][/b] any one entity has on the council race.”
I think West Yost and really the city has a bigger problem than this on water and it is that they used the same consulting company that advised them on the project to build the project. That builds in an inherent bias.
It’s just like using Harriet Steiner both to advise the council on how to proceed and then using her to litigate produces the inherent conflict that when she makes a mistake and gets sued, she actually profits from it personally.
Just because those conflicts exist doesn’t mean that West Yost or Harriet Steiner have done anything that is not above the board, but it does create the potential for a conflict and as public agencies, it would be better to keep a clear line of demarcation.
This problem is precisely why people like Joe Krovoza steered completely clear of taking donations from anyone who does city business whether it be city employee groups or developers. I think that’s the policy we wish to promote and why we criticize West Yost pumping in $1000 into this process.
“I’ve given you my answer. Maybe you can explain yours.”
I’m sorry, Don, I checked out, and now I don’t recall your response. Please repeat it and I will respond.
Michael Bisch
What an intellectually lazy argument. You concede that these candidates can’t be “bought” for a $1,000 public donation to the PAC but are now arguing that they can be “influenced.”
Let me rephrase my position.
(1) The idea that any of these city council candidates can be “bought” or “influenced” for a $1,000 donation to the DCOC PAC is stupid. That’s right, stupid.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The question is about influence.
“The point is that you have a company with a huge interest in the composition of the council and of influencing the composition of the council, an interest in influencing the opinions of those on the council by dumping $1000 into the Chamber PAC.
There is a reason why the City of Davis has $100 limits. It is to limit the amount of influence any one entity has on the council race.”
I think West Yost and really the city has a bigger problem than this on water and it is that they used the same consulting company that advised them on the project to build the project. That builds in an inherent bias.
Just because those conflicts exist doesn’t mean that West Yost or Harriet Steiner have done anything that is not above the board, but it does create the potential for a conflict and as public agencies, it would be better to keep a clear line of demarcation.
This problem is precisely why people like Joe Krovoza steered completely clear of taking donations from anyone who does city business whether it be city employee groups or developers. I think that’s the policy we wish to promote and why we criticize West Yost pumping in $1000 into this process.”[/i]
David, in principle I agree with your point above, but with the caveat that “too much of a good thing is too much.” Lets tease out this West Yost situation just a bit.
First, by giving their contribution to the Chamber’s PAC fully transparent process, West Yost was abiding by the Krovoza Doctrine 100%. It would be interesting to see if either Bruce West or Jim Yost or West Yost as a company has contributed to any of the five individual candidates in this election. I suspect they haven’t. If that is the case, then the Krovoza Doctrine has indeed been served.
Second, the City did not select West Yost for the 2008 WWTP Upgrade design project, they selected Carollo Engineers. Carollo Engineers selected West Yost to be a subcontractor for specific tasks in the engagement. The July 22, 2008 Staff Report (available in the packet materials link on the City website) from Bob Weir and Kevin Smith to Council contains a copy of the Consultant Agreement. Here are a few selected excerpts from that Agreement.
Page 6 of the pdf file:
[i]Consultant Agreement
Carollo Engineers
Secondary Process Replacement Project CIP No. 8119
This Agreement, made and entered into on this twenty second day of July, 2008, by and between the City of Davis, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “City,” and Carollo Engineers, located at 2700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300, Walnut Creek, California, 94598, hereinafter referred to as “Consultant.”
Witnesseth: Whereas, City desires to retain certain professional design services for Secondary Process Replacement Project, CIP No. 8119; and
Whereas, City desires to engage Consultant to provide these services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services, and Consultant has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.[/i]
Page 13 of the pdf file:
[i]13.Assignment; Subconsultants; Employees
b.Subconsultants; Employees. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of Consultant hereunder. No subconsultant of Consultant will be recognized by City as such; rather, all subconsultants are deemed to be employees of Consultant, and it agrees to be responsible for their performance. Consultant shall give its personal attention to the fulfillment of the provisions of this Agreement by all of its employees and subconsultants, if any, and shall keep the work under its control. If any employee or subconsultant of Consultant fails or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Agreement or appears to be incompetent or to act in a disorderly or improper manner, Consultant shall be discharged immediately from the work under this Agreement on demand of the Project Manager.[/i]
Page 37 of the pdf file:
[i]Task 8.5 Management of Subconsultants
This is an on-going activity that shall be performed throughout the project. Activities shall include the following: provide information on project issues; review/approve work product; integrate work product with the Consultant’s work effort; mitigate design issues that arise between Subconsultant/Consultant/City; control subconsultant budgets and schedules, keep City staff informed of the subconsultant work progress, establish meeting as necessary with subconsultants, coordinate review of deliverables.[/i]
Page 48 of the pdf file:
[i]Lead West Yost Staff
Bruce West Dave Anderson Lindsay Sadler Dave Ewing Scott Heald Gary Rice Mary Young[/i]
Here too it would be interesting to know more . . . specifically did the City actually pay West Yost directly for the work performed by the listed West Yost employees, or did they pay Carollo?
Matt, thanks for the background. How did we get on this nasty attack on West Yost with their history of contracting relationships and the arm’s length, transparent nature of the Chamber scheme?
[quote]Further, Carollo’s engagement, as designed by the City under direction from City Council was for a “total solution,” which should contain a robust water reuse capability (estimated at $51-91 million by itself), onsite solar power generation (estimated at $3 million), wetlands improvements (estimated at $5 million) and new Administration/Lab/Operations buildings (estimated at $10 million). Once Carollo’s $207-250 million estimate cam in for such a “total solution” the $69-109 million for all those bells and whistles requested by Council were removed. Carollo produced exactly what they were asked to produce, and Council, very correctly, choked on the price tag.[/quote]
Matt: This is just brilliant. Thanks for actually doing this work and debunking all the conspiracy BS about West Yost.
JustSaying: I recall it was the two Greenwald’s that most recently spun this West Yost yarn.
“How did we get on this nasty attack on West Yost …”
JS: It started in the title of the article – “West Yost Donation to PAC Signals the Rise of Special Interest Influence in Davis City Council Race” – and went downhill from there.
psdavis: With respect to your previous request for Vanguard donor information, the Vanguard is developing its “Guiding Principles” which will include language regarding the Vanguard’s policies for disclosure of donors.
Be advised that it is our policy that the only people who have the right to make such a request are those who post under their actual names.
The procedure will be forthcoming.
Why does Mike Harrington hate West Yost, a local Davis company, so much? Which company could be “independent” enough to satisfy Mike Harrington? Why is Mike Harrington trying to silence Michael Bisch, or demand that he hide hide his title when he posts? Why is Mike Harrington no longer a Chamber member and no states publically that his is an unwilling member of the DDBA? How does a discussion on the activities of the Chamber PAC turn into an opportunity to attack Steve Souza and prompt Mike Harrington to threaten a lawsuit against us (the City)?
Davis Enophile said . . .
[i]”Matt: This is just brilliant. Thanks for actually doing this work and debunking all the conspiracy BS about West Yost.”[/i]
One of the ironic aspects of the “total solution” components is that Brett Lee and I were asked to give a water presentation at the United Methodist Church on Sunday, and one of the questions we got from the audience was, “What is the City doing to implement the kinds of aggressive water reuse programs that other cities around California and Arizona have already implemented?” Our answer would be very different if the WWTO Upgrade still had water reuse in it.
“Be advised that it is our policy that the only people who have the right to make such a request are those who post under their actual names.”
What?! Does that mean you’ll no longer accept contributions from those of us who post using pseudonyms?
[quote]dmg: Why does something have to be illegal in order to be objectionable?[/quote]
In other words it is okay to throw mud (engage in drive by sniping) and see if/hope something sticks/sticks in the minds of voters even if unfounded?
[quote]dmg: That ignores an entire body of work focused on this very issue: the influence of money in electoral process. It is unseemly for a company to put money into a process that they profit from. I don’t need evidence of wrongdoing to question the propriety of such actions.[/quote]
So what are you suggesting here? That any company doing business w the city is not permitted to donate to any candidate/PAC or give any donations that even remotely would effect local politics within the jurisdiction they are doing business? (I don’t think such an idea would even be constitutional.) Then should we ban all political contributions given by nonprofits who “influence” peddle for their own self interest in getting CDBG funding?
Then, there’s those damn Davis Diamonds. Wonder if any of those owners, employees or parents donated to PACs or campaigns, hoping or some favorable decisions? Follow the money.
Matt
Ironic indeed. So are you saying that part ($51-90 million) of the $100 million that Sue claims she helped save the City came from elimination of the water reuse and recycling component of the old (albeit expensive) WWTP upgrade? Now that is ironic when considering Sue’s statements about how we’ve exceeded our carrying capacity.
David: Should I be suspicious of companies that choose to advertise on the Vanguard? Are they buying influence from the Vanguard? There’s been many articles in support of the anemic [former] IGA market in west Davis, and they were consistent advertisers on the Vanguard. Wasn’t it their attempt to buy influence on your blog that got the firefighters all worked up?
When Westlake Market opened up, they ran a six month ad with us. We then ceased running their ad for a time due to financial constraints. For I think the last year or so, we have donated ad space to them along with Davis Media Access.
“So what are you suggesting here? That any company doing business w the city is not permitted to donate to any candidate/PAC or give any donations that even remotely would effect local politics within the jurisdiction they are doing business? “
Never once did I use the word permitted.
[quote]psdavis: With respect to your previous request for Vanguard donor information, the Vanguard is developing its “Guiding Principles” which will include language regarding the Vanguard’s policies for disclosure of donors.
Be advised that it is our policy that the only people who have the right to make such a request are those who post under their actual names.
The procedure will be forthcoming.
[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]While this nuance may be hard for some to grasp, I did not anonymously ask you for the names of your donors. I suggested that the Vanguard should meet the same standard now set by the PAC, particularly if you are going to insinuate that donors are trying to corrupt the political process.
Nobody needed to request the names of the donors to the PAC – Kemble Pope just voluntarily posted them (and will continue to release them weekly).
Does your statement mean that the Vanguard won’t be posting donors online like the DCOC PAC? Unless you voluntarily disclose publicly, the Vanguard does not meet the benchmark of transparency set by the Chamber of Commerce.
Is your policy going to be in place before the election?
psdavis, here’s my thoughts on this subject FWIW. David is in a bit different situation than the Chamber PAC in that the focus of what he does is extremely diverse, while the PAC is very tightly focused on this election. I’ve donated to the Vanguard in the past and will do so again in the future. Some of those past donations were at Vanguard “events” where the donation was in cash and no receipt was asked for or provided. I simply threw some cash into a collective till. Other donations of mine were in the form of checks. Again, no receipt asked for and none provided. So if David is going to rise to the same level of transparency as the Chamber PAC, he is going to have to modify his donations collection practices and accounting to reflect transactions at a “line item” level.
Secondly, the Vanguard has two different “voices.” This one and the one that used to be called Judicial Watch. The serve very different purposes and I can easily see a Judicial Watch donor having some reservations about reprisals. As a result there is a question that I’d like to solicit your input on, specifically, do you care if the Judicial Watch donations are included or not and secondly, if included can they be simply be included as a sub-category total on David’s list?
[quote]erm: “So what are you suggesting here? That any company doing business w the city is not permitted to donate to any candidate/PAC or give any donations that even remotely would effect local politics within the jurisdiction they are doing business? ”
dmg: Never once did I use the word permitted.[/quote]
So what are you suggesting? It’s a simple question…
[quote]In other words it is okay to throw mud (engage in drive by sniping) and see if/hope something sticks/sticks in the minds of voters even if unfounded? [/quote]
And your answer is?
My answer is what I did. I reported on it, now people can decide for themselves. I’ve said this several times already.
“…while the PAC is very tightly focused on this election.” Matt, this statement of yours is not accurate. The PAC has stated repeatedly that the primary focus of its effort is community sustainability, particularly the imbalance created by insufficient focus on economic sustainability. Political advocacy is only one component of this effort and the political advocacy does not begin and end with this election. Indeed, I posted the objectives that were assigned the PAC by the Chamber board earlier in this thread I do believe.
-DT Businessman (anonymous if M. Harrington is reading this and Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, and Chamber PAC member if S. Greenwald is reading this)
1)”West Yost Donation to PAC Signals the Rise of Special Interest Influence in Davis City Council Race.”
2)”…an interest in influencing the opinions of those on the council by dumping $1000 into the Chamber PAC.”
3)”However, the writing is becoming more clear on the wall now. We see the overrepresentation by various bodies of commercial and land development interests.”
4)”It is the principle and the appearance of influence peddling that concerns us.”
5)”My answer is what I did. I reported on it, now people can decide for themselves. I’ve said this several times already.”
David, how do you square your statement #5 with statements #1-4? Statements #1-4 are not reporting; they’re innuendo.
Innuendo: an indirect or subtle reference, especially one made maliciously or indicating criticism or disapproval; insinuation.
By the way, G.W. Bush used a very similar technique in his speeches leading up to the 2nd Gulf War (or whatever they call it now). He never explicitely said that Sadam Hussein was supporting al Quaeda. What he did do is make a statement about al Quaeda, followed by one about Hussein, followed by one about weapons of mass destruction. By the end of the speech, the listener was convinced they were all one and the same.
-Michael Bisch (truth in journalism gadfly)
“However, at least in the case of peripheral development, we have some protections. We have fewer protections against infill development, development like ConAgra, against remaking the downtown, against changing the zoning codes, etc.”
David, this is a very odd turn of phrase. You merge a policy contrary to the General Plan, with 2 policies encouraged by the General Plan. Why would the community require protections against infill development and redeveloping the downtown when that is exactly what the General Plan and the Core Area Specific Plan encourage? Are you insinuating that the community requires protection from its own Plan? Fortunately, 4 of the 5 city council candidates don’t share this view.
-Michael Bisch
“community sustainability”. Those fighting economic development need to step up and explain their solutions for our city’s dismal fiscal situation and future. Otherwise you lack credibility for having a dog in this fight… IMO.
[quote]My answer is what I did. I reported on it, now people can decide for themselves. I’ve said this several times already.[/quote]
In other words drive by sniping is okay? Hmmmmmm….
[quote]David, how do you square your statement #5 with statements #1-4? Statements #1-4 are not reporting; they’re innuendo.
Innuendo: an indirect or subtle reference, especially one made maliciously or indicating criticism or disapproval; insinuation. [/quote]
Spot on!
[i]Those fighting economic development need to step up and explain their solutions[/i]
Who is “fighting economic development”? Which “economic development” proposals are you referring to?