The ChamberPAC might be proud to learn that other than the results themselves, there was no hotter topic of conversation than the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce’s Political Action Committee. However, unfortunately, it was largely in a negative sense.
If you recall, the involvement of the Chamber of Commerce and its PAC were actually applauded by the Vanguard at the beginning of the campaign. However, while we support the involvement of the PAC, its actual participation left a lot to be desired.
We will go down the list shortly, but in general, the consensus of the people that the Vanguard spoke to on election night is that the Chamber of Commerce and its PAC are not a mere interest group and should not be acting like a partisan PAC supporting a narrow interest. To the extent that they did this, it was to their detriment.
In short, they did not live up to the lofty expectations of a broad community-based organization, and instead appeared to be the workings of a small group of individuals representing an extremely narrow subsection of the Davis Business Community. To us that is most unfortunate.
On one issue, that of campaign finance, the Vanguard sat down with the Chamber’s Executive Director Kemble Pope, and came away relatively assured that the spirit of the law was being adhered to in terms of contributions. If an individual gave $1000, $100 would be assigned for purposes of candidate support while the remainder was assigned for more general purposes.
We agree that there is no provision in the ordinance that specifically proscribes co-mingling of funding, though 12.01.035 suggests that might be necessary, “No committee which makes independent expenditures of two hundred fifty dollars or more in support of or in opposition to any candidate shall accept any contribution in excess of one hundred dollars from any person in any single candidacy period.”
We think that the procedure that they followed, while somewhat messy, is probably good enough for their purposes and our larger questions involve whether the city’s municipal code is actually enforceable under current state and federal law. That will be a question for another day.
That issue put to rest largely at this point, we raise five additional issues.
The first complaint was the Davis Chamber’s candidate’s forum. The chief complaint that arose was that, rather than simply asking questions, the moderator, Kemble Pope would often give speeches. While we appreciated some of the questions and the efforts to pin down answers, we felt that those were actually done rather inconsistently where candidates who agreed with the Chamber and were eventually supported by the chamber, were not pressed nearly as hard as those who were not.
Moreover, the question to Sue Greenwald regarding whether or not profit was a four letter word, was completely inappropriate and cynical.
Second, we spent a lot of time debating the endorsements themselves – in particular, one endorsement. Our view was that an organization that was looking to promote fiscal sustainability ought not to have endorsed the one candidate with a bad track record there.
And let’s be honest, Stephen Souza should be commended for his years of service to the community, but his voting record placed him on the wrong side of almost every vote on fiscal matters from his support for expanded salaries and benefits, his support by and for the firefighters even in the face of allegations and questionable practices, his support for the 2009 budget that failed to address key fiscal issues, his support for the 2009 and 2010 MOUs, and his opposition to the 2011 budget.
It is our understanding that one of the reasons that ChamberPAC did not support Brett Lee was his opposition to the parking garage, something Dan Wolk ironically also ended up opposing in the current form. For that, the ChamberPAC placed itself on the wrong side of history, supporting the status quo over the opportunity for change that the voters ultimately provided.
Moreover, Kemble Pope placed himself into an awkward position, stating publicly that he was in the “anybody but Sue” camp and then posting on his facebook a very inappropriate depiction from the Wizard of Oz of the wicked witch under Dorothy’s house, implying highly inappropriately that Sue Greenwald was the wicked witch and that she was now dead.
If Mr. Pope were a mere citizen that would be crass humor; as Chamber Executive Director that is highly inappropriate.
Third, the ads themselves were of questionable value and deceptive.
Everyone was in favor of the parks tax – all five councilmembers and nearly 85% of the voting portion of the community. However, no one was going to vote for council candidates because of their support for the parks tax.
The implication of the Chamber ad was that three candidates supported the parks tax and the other two did not. That was misleading and frankly of very questionable value.
The election day door hangers were far worse. First of all, they were a complete waste of money and time. There was no voter registration effort for student renters in apartment complexes, so almost all of those registrations were for past years. We figure maybe ten percent actually had people who were registered to vote, of those perhaps ten percent voted, and of those maybe forty percent voted the way they wanted. Do the math and that is 4 votes out of 4000 door hangers.
But of course that is not the worst part. The worst part is the cynical manipulation of the voters. As we said on election day, we fully believe that Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs could be very good on the council for students and renters – both are young, both are recent renters, and they have expressed concern for that demographic.
The real problem is not the candidates, but the message of “Protect Students’ and Renters’ Rights” and the implication that those candidates were pro-student and pro-renter. The issue was barely raised during the campaign.
Worse yet, the group of the Chamber PAC is a bunch of business interests who are either aligned with property managers or developers, both in occupation and ideology.
Michael Bisch ran into me yesterday afternoon and wanted me to clarify that he is not an apartment property manager, owner, peripheral developer or agent of any of them.
Fair enough. But he is also not a student in this community. To my knowledge the group did not sit down with students or ASUCD to talk about their concerns.
One of the member of the PAC Board is Tom Cross, a good person in general, whom I disagree with on some issues. For instance in 2008, he came down to council to oppose students having the right to put political signs in their apartments.
What Mr. Bisch does not understand – at least based on previous comments – is why the door hanger was cynical and manipulative and misleading. The fact that the operation was poorly executed should not exonerate their ploy.
The door hanger made it seem like it was being proffered by a group supporting students’ and renters’ rights and only if you scroll to the bottom do you see in small print that its actually supported by the Davis ChamberPAC.
There is a lot of anger in the community over the Davis ChamberPAC and the DDBA, of whom Michael Bisch is a very vocal and visible co-president.
The downtown folks I think made a huge mistake, in retrospect, by endorsing political candidates and in the extent of their participation in political campaigns. They have the choice and right to do so, but that fact alone does not mean they ought to.
We urge calmer voices in the downtown to re-think involvement and if they do involve themselves in the future – they need a more diverse board of the PAC representing a much broader subsection of the city’s business community, they need to remember that while the ChamberPAC is separate from the Chamber, that they both represent and reflect the Chamber of Commerce.
As such, cheap political ploys like the ad and door hanger may work if you are a private interest in this community, but they do not work when you represent the Chamber of Commerce.
There is now new blood that has been elected to the Davis City Council, but the Chamber’s role in that was minimal. Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs were going to win regardless of the Chamber’s efforts, and Brett Lee won despite the fact that the Chamber picked the wrong person and split whatever anti-Sue Greenwald vote there was.
And, in fact, I would argue that from the Chamber’s perspective, it was only the hard work of others that prevented their involvement in this race to have completely backfired and produced a disastrous result.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
in the parish/Clinton race, calling the voters who voted for parish stupid strikes of being a bad winner. In this case, biting back at the chamber because sue didn’t win strikes of being a sore loser.
Oh, and nice self rationalization of Lucas was “going to win anyway.”
I think this kind of negative crap is what turns voters off from the media.
“In this case, biting back at the chamber because sue didn’t win strikes of being a sore loser. “
What makes you think he’s upset that Sue did not win?
Phineas T. Barnum coined the phrase . . .
David, why you persist in misleading your readers escaped me entirely. To what end? The election is over. Time does not permit a line-by-line debunking, I’ll settle for 2 comments for the time being:
“What Mr. Bisch does not understand – at least based on our discussion – is why the door hanger was cynical and manipulative and misleading.” -David Greenwald, TV Weatherman
This statement is a fabrication. At no time did I discuss door hangers with David yesterday.
“It is our understanding that one of the reasons that ChamberPAC did not support Brett Lee was his opposition to the parking garage, something Dan Wolk ironically also ended up opposing in the current form.” -David Greenwald, TV Weatherman
David’s understanding is incorrect; hence, his argument has no merit.
-Michael Bisch,
“The election is over.”
Yes this is called a post-mortem.
To what end? I am concerned with the decisions that the ChamberPAC made under the direction of yourself and others. That is definitely a relevant discussion and this is the appropriate time to have it.
“This statement is a fabrication. At no time did I discuss door hangers with David yesterday.”
We did not directly talk about the door hangers, but given the previous discussion from Tuesday, that was the pretext of our discussion. Moreover, we have your comments on the matter as well.
“David’s understanding is incorrect; hence, his argument has no merit. “
That’s not what Brett Lee was told directly therefore it does have merit.
[quote]”We think that the procedure that they followed, while somewhat messy, is probably good enough for their purposes and our larger questions involve whether the city’s municipal code is actually enforceable under current state and federal law. That will be a question for another day.”[/quote]This comment, although toned down from your earlier claims that the chamber PAC was operating illegally, still suggests it broke the law. Your claimed authority was the ciy attorney, as was the chamber’s. Did you ever compare notes with Kemble and Michael?[quote]”The real problem is not the candidates, but the message of “Protect Students’ and Renters’ Rights” and the implication that those candidates were pro-student and pro-renter. The issue was barely raised during the campaign. Worse yet, the group of the Chamber PAC are a bunch of business interests who are either aligned with property managers or developers both in occupation and ideology.”[/quote]An issue “barely raised” shouldn’t be raised? The chamber should go to war with students because some of their members are “aligned with property managers or developers both in occupation and ideology”? [quote]”There is a lot of anger in the community over the Davis ChamberPAC and the DDBA….”[/quote]While the chamber may have made a misstep or two this first time around, this constant haranguing has been way overboard. Your unrelenting criticism of every comment and tactic hardly suggests you can fairly look back “in retrospect.”
This “community anger” has come from a couple Vanguard regulars with a long history of hate for the chamber or from those who did not support one of the chamber’s endorsed candidates (Stephen Souza). When you do your surveys, you need to consider the source.[quote]”There is now new blood that has been elected to the Davis City Council, but the Chamber’s role in that was minimal. Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs were going to win regardless of the Chamber’s efforts and Brett Lee won despite the fact that the Chamber picked the wrong person and split whatever anti-Sue Greenwald vote there was.”[/quote]You’ve turned the “every vote counts” concept into the “certain campaigning has minimal effect” rule while, at the same time claiming your (previously under-reported) prediction ability of the Frerichs performance and providing a suggestion of how the chamber’s efforts, in fact, were effective (by splitting the ABS vote).
What’s your basis for claiming “minimal effect” of the chamber campaigning?
The campaign is over. You protested way too much while it was underway; this summary/reminder makes that clear.
We also should put away the “they just don’t get it” and “what they don’t understand” language to describe people we haven’t yet convinced of our superior viewpoints.
P.S.: Nice work on the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of the election this year!
“The election is over.”
Yes this is called a post-mortem.
To what end? I am concerned with the decisions that the ChamberPAC made under the direction of yourself and others. That is definitely a relevant discussion and this is the appropriate time to have it.
“This statement is a fabrication. At no time did I discuss door hangers with David yesterday.”
We did not directly talk about the door hangers, but given the previous discussion from Tuesday, that was the pretext of our discussion. Moreover, we have your comments on the matter as well.
“David’s understanding is incorrect; hence, his argument has no merit. “
That’s not what Brett Lee was told directly therefore it does have merit.
“That’s not what Brett Lee was told directly therefore it does have merit.” -David Greenwald, TV Weatherman
Just as your door hanger comment is false, so is this one. Who told Brett Lee this? Certainly no one from the Chamber PAC. You or your source is making this crap up. It’s amazing how you gloss over your false statements when corrected and then persist in your original argument. At what point do you acknowledge that you got your facts all wrong and retract the argument? Apparently, never.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
Both pieces of campaign ” literature” by the PAC were misleading/deceptive depending on your view and probable liking of candidates. Who was the consultant who designed them??
It is no secret that Kemble Pope is very close to Steve Souza. That was also very obvious in the debate and beyond.
I am glad the Chamber is becoming more active and hope they can put their ideas to work to achieve results they ‘promised’ in the campaign. We certainly need all the help we can get as a city.
“his comment, although toned down from your earlier claims that the chamber PAC was operating illegally, still suggests it broke the law.”
Let me be more clear: I don’t think they could have broken the law given (A) we don’t know what the law is and (B) the law may be null and void.
DT: Why don’t you ask Lee yourself, I think you guys need to meet and talk anyway.
David, you have a long history of taking facts and then slightly distorting them to build misleading arguments. You did it in your characterization of our brief chat yesterday and your doing it with this Brett Lee / parking structure thing. There were 3 people in the room to discuss why Brett did not receive the Chamber PAC’s endorsement this go around: Brett, Kemble, and myself. Let’s do this, the 3 participants, you, and a neutral observer meet and rehash the original discussion. You can then report out. The neutral observer is required because your reporting on Chamber PAC issues has become so slanted that it’s no longer reliable.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
Amazing: the resemblance of Kemble Pope in the photo above
to former Texas Governor Rick Perry is practically the spitting
image!
David G: “[i]We figure maybe ten percent actually had people who were registered to vote, of those perhaps ten percent voted, and of those maybe forty percent voted the way they wanted. Do the math and that is 4 votes out of 4000 door hangers.[/i]”
‘The math’ is only as valid as the numbers used to find the answer. As you have made up all the numbers, your analysis is equally worthless.
You really need to drop this nonsense of attacking the Chamber for your made up reasons. Try using facts, they might actually give you some credibility when included with your commentary.
[quote]There is a lot of anger in the community over the Davis ChamberPAC and the DDBA of whom Michael Bisch is a very vocal and visible co-president.[/quote]
Sez who? “…a lot of anger…” How many is “a lot” and “who” specifically? I don’t have the time today/nor want to even bother going point by point, explaining how strongly I disagree with this entire unwarranted tirade against the Chamber of Commerce PAC’s involvement in the recent election campaign. The claims of illegality inre “co-mingling” of funds by the Chamber of Commerce PAC was the most egregious Vanguard claim, w a final, albeit reluctant and half-baked concession the charge of “co-mingling” was without foundation. This has not been one of the Vanguard’s finer moments, in generally what has been excellent campaign coverage. ‘Nuff said, let’s move on…
[quote][u]David’s analysis[/u]: “Michael Bisch ran into me yesterday afternoon and wanted me to clarify that he is not an apartment property manager, owner, peripheral developer or agent of any of them….What Mr. Bisch does not understand – at least based on our discussion – is why the door hanger was cynical and manipulative and misleading. The fact that the operation was poorly executed should not exonerate their ploy.”
[u]DT Businessman’s comment[/u]: “This statement is a fabrication. At no time did I discuss door hangers with David yesterday.”
[u]David’s response[/u]: “We did not directly talk about the door hangers, but given the previous discussion from Tuesday, that was the pretext of our discussion….” [/quote]David, how can you make your point by claiming someone said something he didn’t, then excuse the fabrication by informing him and us that you considered something unsaid was the “pretext of our discussion.” What does that even attempt to mean, anyway?
You reported that you talked with David about the door hangers. You drew very critical conclusions from the discussion about how he doesn’t understand how bad they were even if “the operation was poorly executed.”
Your entire critique about the door hanger scheme was “based on our discussion”–one that you never had (or, at least, occurred only in your own head, as “pretext”}.[quote][u]David’s analysis[/u]:”It is our understanding that one of the reasons that ChamberPAC did not support Brett Lee was his opposition to the parking garage, something Dan Wolk ironically also ended up opposing in the current form.”
[u]DT Businessman’s comment[/u]: “David’s understanding is incorrect; hence, his argument has no merit. ”
[u]David’s response[/u]: “That’s not what Brett Lee was told directly therefore it does have merit.”[/quote]When you say, “it is our understanding that…” something is a fact, you’re testifying to the accuracy of your contention. Readers should know that “Brett Lee told me that…,” if that’s true, as part of the story and not just hinted at in a later comment.
Of course, we still don’t know whether Brett told [u]you[/u] that he “was told directly” that the chamber “did not support (him because of) his opposition to the parking garage”–or whether you got it eighth-hand somehow.
Might you have misunderstood, whoever you got this tidbit from? The suggestion that the chamber made its decision based on solely this one issue just doesn’t ring true, in my opinion.
These two examples are just two of many in this piece that reflect serious failings in reporting. They’re obviously intentional, designed to support your “analysis” that “the downtown folks…made a huge mistake in retrospect endorsing political candidates.”
Your followup “explanations” of how you’ve misrepresented these two reports are totally inadequate. They suggest you’re fine with casual treatment of the truth, even when you know what it is.
Once the chamber endorsed Souza, fine that you disagreed with the choice. But, that shouldn’t have unleashed such an outpouring of nitpicking and misrepresentation about everything that happened subsequently.
Half the reporting could not have survived a phone call to the principles, and, therefore, resulted bickering in the comments about basic facts.
This analysis just prolongs the same failures of adequate reporting, and undermines the otherwise excellent efforts this campaign season.
P.S.–Nice work on the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of the election this year!
You are correct I should have been more clear in that sentence, that I was not referring merely to our discussion, but also other points of information. I will rectify that.
[quote][u]JS[/u]: “This comment, although toned down from your earlier claims that the chamber PAC was operating illegally, still suggests it broke the law.”
[u]DG[/u]: “Let me be more clear: I don’t think they could have broken the law given (A) we don’t know what the law is and (B) the law may be null and void.”[/quote]This hardly makes your previous contentions of illegality “more clear” or even understandable. But, it does redirect the conversation to some legitimate matters.
P.S.–Nice work on the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of the election this year!
“…something Dan Wolk ironically also ended up opposing in the current form.” -David Greenwald, TV Weatherman
This statement is false. It distorts Dan’s position on downtown parking generally, and the failed retail/parking project specifically. Indeed it is an outrageous distortion to support a bs argument. Dan specifically stated that he “didn’t want the project taken from the table.” He had concerns with the project, had not made up his mind whether to support the project for lack of sufficient information, but did not want to kill the project that evening. Review the video. In a later Enterprise op ed piece he stated that the downtown parking challenge must be addressed.
By the way, Brett Lee has also publicly stated that downtown parking is a challenge, must be addressed, favors development of another parking structure, but not sure of the appropriate location.
The TV Weatherman’s portrayal of Brett’s and Dan’s positions on downtown parking projects is assbackwards. TV Weatherman, not only are you on the wrong side of history, you’re on the wrong side of the present.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
[quote]”You are correct ….”[/quote]Thank you.
And, did I mention: “Nice work on the Vanguard coverage of the election this year!”
Michael: You are conflating two issues in your post. One is the specific issue of the downtown parking – everyone I think agrees that needs to be address. The second is the issue of that location for the parking, which I think a lot of people have questions about at this time.
“Worse yet, the group of the Chamber PAC are a bunch of business interests who are either aligned with property managers or developers both in occupation and ideology.” -David Greenwald
I have to give you this, TV Weatherman, you are relentless in your distortions. For weeks, you insisted that the Chamber PAC was dominated by developers despite your own reporting of the identities of the 5 Chamber PAC members. Now that you finally acknowledge that the PAC is not dominated by developers, you adjust the attack to developers and property managers. But you only started using the negative property manager label as a slur in the very last days of the campaign and it was in regard to residential property management. I pointed out to you yesterday that your slurs are incorrect. You can accurately apply the slur to only 2 of the 5 PAC members. So today, you adjust the slur again to include all property managers, both residential and commercial. Third time is the charm. Your slur is finally accurate. The PAC has 1 developer, 1 residential property manager, and 1 full-service commercial real estate firm (including commercial property managment). But your argument is still bogus. What the heck does commercial property management have to do residential tenant rights, which was the thrust of your original attack a few days back?
-Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties (What part of “Commercial” is not clear?)
On a much more positive note, the Open Door Art Studios are holding their 3rd open house tomorrow, Friday, from 5pm-8pm. Come join the party! Whoop! Whoop!
-Michael Bisch, Downtown Busybody
Mr. Bisch: did you guys meet with students, ASUCD? Do you have a list of reforms you are advocating for? Did students agree with those reforms?
“Michael: You are conflating two issues in your post. ” -David Greenwald, TV Weatherman
David you have flagrantly misrepresented one of the issues in my post and numerous issues in your article.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
From Wikipedia:
“Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.[1] By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.[2]”
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
[quote]”Mr. Bisch: did you guys meet with students, ASUCD? Do you have a list of reforms you are advocating for? Did students agree with those reforms?”[/quote]Who cares? Why ask?
No answer makes a difference. This is just an attempt to misdirect the conversation from your inaccurate and inadequate reporting. Time to give it up!
P.S.–Nice work on the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of the election this year!
B. Kenyon: [i]”Amazing: the resemblance of Kemble Pope in the photo above to former Texas Governor Rick Perry is practically the spitting image!”[/i]
I’m not quite seeing that. The similarity doesn’t make me want to expectorate, though both Kemble and Rick have the manner and good looks to be TV news anchors. I have been told I have the good looks to be a radio reporter and the manner to be a ([s][i]deleted comment, not fit for a family publication[/i][/s]).
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mLeaJhW_pHM/T9DY9IMmJjI/AAAAAAAAAmM/GkLtmH2ZqHU/s1600/kembleperry.jpg[/img]
This is just a lot of bluster about nothing, David. You can’t expect campaign material to be “fair” to all candidates. It seems that you are saying that if a PAC or candidate says something on their campaign materials, they would need to include all other candidates who also have a similar stance. “Dan, Lucas and Steve love vanilla ice cream! Vote for Dan, Lucas and Steve!” Oh, no! Sue and Brett also like vanilla ice cream and they were left out!
The anger directed at the PAC is a real turn off for people who might like to be more involved in local politics. The PAC forum was no more biased than other forums. (Remember the Equality forum where candidates were limited to a one word answer (Yes or No) to the question, “Do you support the Boy Scout Christmas tree boycott?” and when the candidates attempted to explain their answer, the moderator told them that she would not vote for them if they tried to give more than a Yes or No? Only after members of the audience objected loudly were the candidates allowed to explain their answer.) The campaign materials produced by the PAC were designed to lead people to voting for their favored candidates.
David, you need to respect the intelligence of the Davis voters, including the Davis students. We understand that the content of campaign materials is skewed toward the favored candidate. It is helpful to see where the money is coming from and clarification from candidates on where they stand on issues to aid in evaluating what we hear and read. This is where you come in.
If candidates like vanilla ice cream and want the voters to know this, then they should talk about it in their own responses during forums, in the letters of support to papers that they organize, in their own campaign materials and not expect to be included in the messages sent out by others.
[quote]You can’t expect campaign material to be “fair” to all candidates.[/quote]
Good point. But then again you are conceding that the Chamber is simply another political organization attempting to frame their material to the advantage of their candidate. When that happens, the Chamber no long has the authority of a community-based organization but rather becomes just like all over political action committees. This is the campaign that put the Davis Chamber to the level of the national organization. You may attempt to minimize this point but I think it’s very sad.
I’ll just paste in my reply to Mark West from another thread.
—–
What the board of the Chamber of Commerce, the ChamberPAC, the executive director, and to a large extent the co-president of the DDBA have done is to change the brand of “Chamber of Commerce” in Davis.
Jim Frame has it exactly right. [i]Chamber of Commerce[/i] generally has been an image of your local business owner, mostly thought of as your local merchant. What the state and national Chambers of Commerce have done is strongly associate their brands with a particular wing of the political spectrum. Until recently, not so the Davis Chamber.
Believe it or not, on several occasions over the years people have asked me if I thought they should join the Davis Chamber. Even during and after the Second Street Crossing debacle, I would usually say that it could be of benefit to them. For networking, for getting active in the programs the Chamber sets up and the meetings they sponsor. Now, unfortunately, they also have to consider whether they want to be associated with the brand as it is being identified and marketed by the new leadership. I believe and have stated vigorously that brand is not in the interests of Davis business, especially retail, in many ways.
I believe the Chamber has narrowed its image as a specific interest group. Its actions and advocacies must be weighed for the business types that predominate, as David Greenwald alludes in his comments here. And I would urge any current retail members and any prospective business members to consider whether that association is likely to help or hurt them in a town with core liberal instincts.
—–
I think it is summed up by a comment one of my customers made on Monday (unsolicited — I don’t usually discuss politics at the store), thanking me for my comments on the blog:
“I’m not really happy about what Davis businesses are doing lately.”
I used to look at the Davis Chamber of Commerce like the Rotary or Odd Fellows: a good local organization that handles business and goals fairly with civility and grace.
Now, with Kemble and Michael B running the Chamber and its PAC, and the attempts to hoodwink local voters (the Chamber PAC being pro-local students please …); the misleading Measure D campaign; and the prominent endorsement of Steve Souza as being proactive on balancing the city budget when in fact his is a major reason why we are in the current crisis, I dont see the Davis Chamber the same way. It has a negative, slightly sinister sheen …. I dont think I am alone.
Of course, the Chamber supported Covell Village. I did not. That was a fair fight, and people’s cards were on the table for the voters.
Not so with the Chamber PAC and its deceptive campaign.
When I get time, I will look into its funding structure.
David G: I know you research things, and it seems like you have given them a slight pass on their contributions and city elections law, but my sense is something is not correct with what they did.
Thanks for the laugh, Michael . You remind me ever so of Conan Doyle’s “Mr. Frankland .”
[quote]”I’m not really happy about what Davis businesses are doing lately.”[/quote]Thanks for reposting the reminder that you never have, don’t and never will support the Chamber except in a backhanded way.
In spite of your thoughtful explanation awhile back, I find it odd that the [i]Vanguard[/i] and [i]DavisWiki[/i] both generate in two months such vitriol about an outfit most of us barely hear about.
Because a handful of folks somehow are overly offended by the chamber and/or its endorsement and/or its advertising, this change in chamber activity has taken on an outrageously unwarranted place in the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage of this campaign.
David can’t stand it even though he claims it mattered not, another hard case to make.
Was the chamber strategy as offensive as Sue’s tactic of tearing out others’ signs and blocking them? Better or worse than the union’s mailer or Parish’s flier? Dan Wolk’s use of carefully edited photos to encourage people to vote for him ’cause he’s a nice family man? Please!
JustSaying: [i]”Thanks for reposting the reminder that you never have, don’t and never will support the Chamber except in a backhanded way.”[/i]
If the Davis Chamber and the DDBA are adversely affecting the image of businesses in Davis, that affects my livelihood. You don’t say who you are, so I don’t know if their actions affect you in any way. I deal with the fallout from what they’re doing, as do other retailers.
The first problem with the door hangers was that there was no real relationship between the message and the candidates listed, it was pure politics, which is legal. The second thing wrong with them was that they were a complete waste of paper (speculation, I know, but really). I am a fanatic about not wasting things, so if someone cares to comment, I’m ready to be slammed.
I don’t always agree with the political stances the Chamber and the DDBA take, but to view all businesses through the narrow lens of a City Council election is just wrong. I disagree with certain member vehement opposition to the 5th Street project and feel that they are putting their own interests (actually, unfounded fear) ahead of public safety. Does this keep me from shopping in their stores? But, for years the Chamber has politely stood by while other organized groups not only participated, but greatly influenced the outcome of the local elections – people who do not even live in town. I welcome the Chamber’s participation. So, it’s a bit clunky. They’ll get better at it with time. To attempt to drive them into polite non-participation is just wrong.
RK: “So, it’s a bit clunky. They’ll get better at it with time. To attempt to drive them into polite non-participation is just wrong.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It really would be great if they did it constructively addressing real issues associated with real concerns for their membership. Businesses serve people if they deserve to be patronized and so it’s that basis upon which they should best reach out to the voters and candidates who they support for the right reasons, those being benefitting the community as a whole as well as the business community.
Don Shor – When did you decide to end your Chamber membership? Was it when Kemble became Executive Director?
[i]If the Davis Chamber and the DDBA are adversely affecting the image of businesses in Davis, that affects my livelihood. [/i]
With the evidence we have, retail sales are embarrassingly low (and part of the city’s financial hardship) for Davis businesses. I don’t know any business owner (other than Don) that is concerned that their business is going to be adversely impacted by the political actions of the Chamber PAC or the DDBA. If they are concerned, they’ll put new leadership in place. A better read on this is that the Chamber and the DDBA put leadership in place to change the status quo. You guys may not like it (as is your right), but to insinuate that there is significant anger and backlash coming – I just don’t see it. My take is that the vast majority of the downtown business folks I know are quite happpy with what has transpired. And of course, Don, if what the Chamber and DDBA are doing has a positive impact on business, you’ll be sure to refuse it, right?
I ended my membership in 2006.
[i]My take is that the vast majority of the downtown business folks I know are quite happpy with what has transpired.[/i]
What do you base that on? Are you a member of the Chamber or the DDBA?
[i]And of course, Don, if what the Chamber and DDBA are doing has a positive impact on business, you’ll be sure to refuse it, right?[/i]
Let’s see: they got my dues for 25 years, I think it was about $200 a year. And they got many hours of my time in the first two years of the Expo. What’s your contribution been?
My comment about adverse impact was based on specific feedback I got from my customers. More than once I had to explain the difference between the DDBA and the Davis Chamber, explain that we are not a downtown business by definition, and describe the lack of retail representation in the Davis Chamber.
Ask five people on the street what the Chamber of Commerce is and what types of businesses they think make up the Davis Chamber of Commerce.
[quote]an outfit most of us barely hear about.[/quote]
Did it occur to you that maybe the really problem’s that you don’t hear about them more?
[i]”What’s your contribution been?”[/i]
He wrote a book on the merits of free trade 236 years ago. Since then, nothing much.
[img]http://www.thwink.org/sustain/deadlock/E2_WealthOfNations.jpg[/img]
[quote]”Did it occur to you that maybe the really problem’s that you don’t hear about them more?”[/quote]Could be. I’ve read a lot about them lately, thanks to the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s campaign. As I’ve suggested, I find it difficult to accept a lot of the subjective criticism since there’s little effort to back it up with anything more than obviously preconceived notions.
I’m not a member, never have been and likely never will be. So, I have no history with them. How could these bad people kept themselves in the shadows for so long. I’m surprised to see the antagonism that oozed up so quickly once they endorsed Stephen Souza.
It’s not difficult to conclude, like David does, that the decision to support Measure D and Stephen was one more endorsement than they should have undertaken.
I meant to suggest I’m starting to agree with David that deciding to endorse candidates was a mistake in judgement. I say this assuming the chamber didn’t realize there was this reservoir of antagonism out there.
“I say this assuming the chamber didn’t realize there was this reservoir of antagonism out there.”
What reservoir? Harrington and Greenwald? Not exactly a tsunami.
Don Shor: “What’s your contribution been?”
Rifkin: [i]He wrote a book on the merits of free trade 236 years ago. Since then, nothing much.[/i]
In 1997 he got rid of the wig and was elected a member of U.S. Congress as a Democrat from Tacoma, Washington ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_(politician)[/url]).
Here he is with Obama:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Smith_and_obama_key_arena_2008.jpg/800px-Smith_and_obama_key_arena_2008.jpg[/img]
He voted for the Obama healthcare plan.
[i]My take is that the vast majority of the downtown business folks I know are quite happpy with what has transpired.
What do you base that on? Are you a member of the Chamber or the DDBA? [/i]
I am not a member of either, nor am I downtown business owner. I base my comment on a the comments and emails that I have received from friends that are downtown business owners or operators.
[i]Let’s see: they got my dues for 25 years, I think it was about $200 a year. And they got many hours of my time in the first two years of the Expo. What’s your contribution been?[/i]
You raised the issue of the negative impact of the Chamber’s current political activities. That has nothing to do with your or my past contributions. Given that you quit the Chamber 6 years ago, I assume you were dissatisfied with the results of their labor. I wouldn’t blame you for being dissatisfied, given the per capita sales figures in Davis. I’m sure other business owners got fed up too. Some decided to stay in the Chamber and hire new leadership. Based on the feedback I have, they are quite happy with the new direction.
No, Adam Smith, I was dissatisfied with their taking a political position on Second Street Crossing (which they then ineptly reversed without notice to anyone). I don’t hold the Chamber responsible for the “per capita sales figures” since the Chamber barely represents retailers anyway.
Based on the feedback I have, the public is not happy with the new direction. You know who I am. Tell you what. Forward me three emails from your “friends that are downtown business owners or operators.”
donshor@gmail.com
“David, you have a long history of taking facts and then slightly distorting them to build misleading arguments. You did it in your characterization of our brief chat yesterday and your doing it with this Brett Lee / parking structure thing. There were 3 people in the room to discuss why Brett did not receive the Chamber PAC’s endorsement this go around: Brett, Kemble, and myself. Let’s do this, the 3 participants, you, and a neutral observer meet and rehash the original discussion. You can then report out. The neutral observer is required because your reporting on Chamber PAC issues has become so slanted that it’s no longer reliable.” -Michael Bisch
Earth to TV Weatherman, the offer is still open. Me, you, Kemble, Brett, and a neutral observer. Whadda you say? I really want to see your comment retracted. I want to see the fabricated door hanger conversation retracted. The Davis Commercial Properties is a developer accusation retracted. The Davis Commercial Properties is a residential property manager accusation retracted. The Chamber PAC is dominated by developers accusation retracted. The Chamber PAC is dominated by developers and property managers accusation retracted. The business community is in revolt against the Chamber accusation retracted. The campaign violations accusation retracted. The dubious ads accusation retracted. I want to see the whole distorted/fabricated article retracted. What a mess.
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC
Michael Bisch: you are losing some real credibility here, and by association, so is the Chamber PAC.
The question still remains unanswered:
What was the ‘Protect Students’ Rights” door hanger all about? What rights were you referring to?
The best you can come up with is:
“Yes, I encourage students to vote”
But there has been no response about the second line of the door hanger.
Again, what rights were you referring to that needed to be protected in this election?
[i]Based on the feedback I have, the public is not happy with the new direction. You know who I am. Tell you what. Forward me three emails from your “friends that are downtown business owners or operators.” ‘> donshor@gmail.com[/i]
Of course, I wouldn’t send along the emails without the permission of the author. I will talk with them, and see if they care to correspond with you directly. Perhaps you can check with your customers, and see if they are willing to talk to me about the ChamberPAC.
The emails are private, but I will check
Sorry about the extraneous line at the bottom – I forgot to delete it.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”David, you have a long history of taking facts and then slightly distorting them to build misleading arguments. You did it in your characterization of our brief chat yesterday and your doing it with this Brett Lee / parking structure thing. There were 3 people in the room to discuss why Brett did not receive the Chamber PAC’s endorsement this go around: Brett, Kemble, and myself. Let’s do this, the 3 participants, you, and a neutral observer meet and rehash the original discussion. You can then report out. The neutral observer is required because your reporting on Chamber PAC issues has become so slanted that it’s no longer reliable.” -Michael Bisch
Earth to TV Weatherman, the offer is still open. Me, you, Kemble, Brett, and a neutral observer. Whadda you say? I really want to see your comment retracted. I want to see the fabricated door hanger conversation retracted. The Davis Commercial Properties is a developer accusation retracted. The Davis Commercial Properties is a residential property manager accusation retracted. The Chamber PAC is dominated by developers accusation retracted. The Chamber PAC is dominated by developers and property managers accusation retracted. The business community is in revolt against the Chamber accusation retracted. The campaign violations accusation retracted. The dubious ads accusation retracted. I want to see the whole distorted/fabricated article retracted. What a mess.
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC”
I think that is a good idea Michael, and I will volunteer to be the neutral observer.
“What was the ‘Protect Students’ Rights” door hanger all about? What rights were you referring to? “
I also am very curious about this mailer. I have three questions about this.
1) Like “civil discourse” I don’t know what rights are being referenced.
2) Was any outreach done to students to see what kinds of issues were of importance to them? This certainly may have occurred, but it was not well covered by the local media. Youth issues did not seem to make the grade as an issue worth discussing at all this election cycle. The Davis Diamonds issue was the only topic even remotely related to youth considered despite the fact that I had posted some example questions to be asked of the candidates.
3) If student issues were worth being brought forth, then why not introduce them earlier in the campaign so that they could be considered and debated like any other important issue. I have made my feelings about the ChamberPacs ads previously known so I’ll just summarize by saying that I found them, at best, questionable. This hanger, to me, whether effective or not, seems to be a cynical ploy to get a few more votes without any consideration of any substantive issue.
I could be wrong. I would invite anyone from the PAC or anyone from the Chamber or anyone who had anything to do with the hanger in any way to address my questions. If there was a substantive student issue here that I missed and was likely to be effectively addressed by the PACs favored candidates, I will fully acknowledge the error of my opinion that this was a cheap bit of political cynicism done only because the PAC had enough money to do it.
Mick Jagger once belted out the line, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you just might find you get what you need.” That line applies to politics in general, and to this election in specific.
The door hanger doesn’t rise to the level of “ideal politics” but neither does it fall to the level of “sleazy politics” or illegal politics. I tend to accept it for what it was . . . a well executed tactical action.
I had pointed out to one of the candidates during the late-middle of the campaign that all five candidates were ignoring the students, and that if that continued, there was a great opportunity to be the only actor on that stage. My observation did not take root as a result of that conversation, but it is clear to me that in a totally independent thought process, the Chamber PAC saw the same situation that I did.
Putting myself in their shoes, I would have been asking 1) what student issues needed to be engaged? and 2) how do you engage them on an election day door hanger?
How would your answer have been different from theirs?
You can find Kemble Pope’s rationale for the door hanger here: [url]http://daviswiki.org/Davis_ChamberPAC[/url]
This Enterprise article and the postings following the article speak for themselves.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/council-welcomes-two-new-candidates-old-candidates-wonder-where-it-went-wrong/[/url]
-Michael Bisch