Davis: A Community with Informed, Proactive Citizenry

city-hallBy Brett Lee and Rochelle Swanson

Walt Whitman said of the United States, “Here is not merely a nation, but a teeming nation of nations.” We say Davis is not merely a community, but a teeming community of diverse and engaged communities.

As the Measure I election comes to a close, we would like to take a moment to say thank you to the citizens of Davis for becoming so engaged in this election process.  Whether Measure I passes or fails, this election has once again reaffirmed the fact that the citizens of Davis care deeply about civic matters. We believe we all want the same thing — continue to foster the wonderful quality of life here.

In many communities, the general population is not engaged in local municipal issues.  They do not know the names of their representatives or the current and upcoming issues.

Some may argue disengagement is a benefit; elected officials are pretty much left on their own to do what they think is best. The officials do not have to answer pointed questions while at the supermarket, explain an upcoming item while cheering in the stands for their child’s latest game or respond to dozens of emails in the “off hours” from concerned citizens who are advocating for a certain approach to an issue. However, we believe an engaged electorate is an advantage to the overall well being of the community.

An informed, proactive citizenry helps us to better understand the many views and interests of different segments within our community.  None of us represents just one segment. While we may take a position after well thought out deliberation, these positions can be shaped, honed and sometimes even discarded as they go through the process of public scrutiny and evaluation.  This ability to be moved by public input isn’t a weakness, it’s a strength. The ideas and approaches that survive this process are typically stronger and more robust than they would have been otherwise.

As members of a teeming community of communities, we are asked to sacrifice a small portion of self-interest in exchange for the common good of our fellow community members.  Examples of this are many, but here are a few: residents without school age children are asked to support the schools; the young are asked to support programs that assist the seniors, the able bodied are asked to make accommodations for the disabled.

We face several substantial challenges over the next few months.  We must find a way to have a sustainable budget while addressing very large unmet infrastructure costs, such as outstanding road and bike path repairs.  Our City staffing costs have been rising due to unfunded pension liabilities and increasing retiree health care costs. Our parks and recreation budget is not meeting the high expectations of the community.

We will meet these challenges.  The city council working together with the involved populace will be able to craft solutions to these issues.  We will not be able to please each individual on every item as we move forward, but we hope that each individual will recognize what we are trying to do is not for the benefit of a favored few, but for the community as a whole.  As such, open and honest community dialog is essential if we hope to develop and implement policies that are for the greater good.

It is not easy for an individuals to be asked to join in helping an alternative approach become successful when their idea doesn’t win the day.  That is what we will be asking of ourselves and of our fellow residents.  Please make no mistake — the challenges we face are real and substantial. Only by working together as a community can we hope to meet these challenges and to keep Davis the type of place we love and cherish.

Brett Lee and Rochelle Swanson are members of the Davis City Council.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

City Council

54 comments

  1. I would like to join Matt in thanking you two for a well written piece. More importantly, I would like to thank all of our current Council members for creating a more open, respectful and collaborative Council than I have seen in my time in Davis.

  2. Very well written. Brett, I’m glad to have spent a small amount of time working on your campaign. Wish I could have contributed more. You are an asset to Davis and the community is lucky to have your service. Thank you.

  3. Nicely said! However, why did the CC strip the water rate increases from the ballot vote on Measure I? Be sure to send in your rate hike protest to the City Clerk!

    We all like a friendly CC, but I prefer one that gets the public policy votes right.

  4. If “yes” wins the day, it’s because citizens respect our current city council’s judgment and motivations –as well as trust those who have been working on this issue for years. If Measure I passes, there’s still a big public information job ahead explaining the complexities of the project and rates and continuing to refine the rate structure as needed.

  5. JustSaying: I respect the CC’s work and decisions, but not all the time. Like on the staff/consultant led attempts to use our money to pursue regionalization of waste water treatment: Lucas and Rochelle voted heck no the other night, and Brett Lee saved the day for Joe and Dan, and kept the regionalization nightmare alive for another meeting.

    Or, the fire fighter staff reduction meeting tonight: the CC members who really truly want a career in Democratic politics will vote with the FF union; the other CC members will cut the positions. Watch.

  6. Ryan: stop what? This piece would have us believe that it’s always peace and love and honey and roses that lead to good city policy. I disagree. My immediate comment above was to illustrate with two recent CC votes that I could pull out of the top of the wood pile. Sorry to be a voice of dissent; I just really hate the idea of the CC singing of loving harmony while they take us over the fiscal Niagra Falls if Measure I passes.

    If any reader who has not yet voted is still uncertain, vote NO, get your ballot down to the Main Libary or the VMC before 8 pm, and make the City come back with a better deal.

  7. [i]”…and make the City come back with a better deal.”
    [/i]
    Who in the city? The council? Staff? What better deal? What exactly do you mean by this?

  8. Clearly the price tag is the problem, that and that it’s only 2000 ft. from the wastewater plant. I just keep wondering what is feasible. There was a post a while ago talking about using ground water from farther away and piping it here, can’t remember exactly where. But even NO agrees we need conjunctive use so I still think a no vote is a vote to go back and talk to West Sac as far as anything visible to me. But a regional 3 way project has still been talked about too even though West Sac does not have enough capacity for Woodland and Davis without (un)real(istic) conservation. So that one baffles me.
    We’ll know in a few hours, but I thought of this the other night: Dan Wolk came in first in every precinct in the city in the CC election, that tells me a lot about prevailing thoughts. But sit tight, 6 hours and we’ll know a lot.

  9. the price tag is a problem, but how do you reduce the costs? matt williams noted that reducing the size further would only make a minimal dent on the project costs.

  10. What would reduce the cost is the same size plant serving more people/cities because they each need less water because they conserve. I doubt any of these cities however are full of people who are willing to really conserve to save on the cost. If they were, the West Sac plant could probably supply all 3 cities, especially if we all stopped watering our yards and flushing our toilets with drinking quality water. That would require a lot of replumbing but just good conservation could go a long way.

  11. Thank you Brett and Rochelle. In the current water election there are many on both sides who want the best for Davis and its quality of life. Whatever the outcome, we should all accept the results and work together with open minds to seek the next steps. If the YES side wins, it should accept continuing scrutiny of the project, its contract, and the rate schedule; if the NO side wins, it should not assume we can walk away from the City’s long-term water problem.
    Ken Wagstaff

  12. Donna: the data show that we need little surface water, and we dont need any for some time. No one is talking about reducing the plant size with Woodland; no one is talking about remaining in the JPA, or politically and legally hanging out with the Woodland CC.

    The first solution to water issues is stop this plant.

  13. And what I think I hear next is team up with West Sac if they are actually interested and make something (I don’t know what) a regional facility.

  14. But I think that is with today’s votes at the library and the Vet’s yet to be tallied. They will probably be added later this evening in another couple of hours or so.

  15. [i]It is not easy for an individuals to be asked to join in helping an alternative approach become successful when their idea doesn’t win the day. That is what we will be asking of ourselves and of our fellow residents.[/i]

    Losing in politics sucks. It causes a sting of rejection that can build to a mountain of cooperation-destroying resentment. It really does take a hero’s effort to move beyond those feelings and join the winners in forging ahead.

    But it is the behavior of the winners that counts the most here. There is a saying “WE fought, I won, and now WE have to get it done.” Will the winners be gracious and respectful? Will they reach out a hand to the losers asking for help in the next phase? Or will they establish a “winner takes all” approach, marginalize the opposition and constantly rub their noses in their loss?

    Bad blood has developed over the tactics used in this election. I hope we can put it behind us quickly and move on productively.

    The good news for Davis is that the bad feelings are usually just temporary… because there is always another new local public policy debate right around the corner.

  16. I think this piece was generally well written but contains a toxic concept, which I explain below.

    When two parties have a conflict over a policy, in general, the reason is not preferential difference, but the existence of stakeholders that are being harmed by the policy. The intention of the people (and the city), should always be to acknowledge the damages and to find ways to address the concerns. This is done regardless whether voting had taken place.

    [quote]We will not be able to please each individual on every item as we move forward, but we hope that each individual will recognize what we are trying to do is not for the benefit of a favored few, but for the community as a whole.[/quote]
    The problematic word above is the word “please”. When a decision causes harm to a victim, it is inappropriate to say that the decision maker “has failed to please them.” The word “please” implies that opposition is acting out of preference. It neglects the existence of the underlying concern and the commitment to resolve them.

    This type of expression is more associated with the win-lose mindset instead of the cooperative mindset. In a cooperative mindset, the express would be this:

    “We understand that this decision does not resolve all concerns and might potentially cause additional harm to some members. We have [b]documented[/b] all standing concerns and we invite the community to continue to explore alternatives that will address all concerns as we move forward with the current decision that causes the least harm as far as we know.”

    [quote]It is not easy for an individuals to be asked to join in helping an alternative approach become successful when their idea doesn’t win the day.[/quote]
    This statement suffers the same association with the win-lose mindset. It suggests that the opposition offered their idea in order to win something. It has the same problem that does not recognize that the motivation behind the ideas are not preferential. A victim who makes a suggestion does not do so to “win”, but to mitigate the damage that they have received or will received due to the decision. It is inappropriate to frame the context as if it was a competitive game.

    In a cooperative mindset, the statement would be expressed in similar way as the example above, so I don’t repeat.

    I am explaining this because I think people’s speech are habitual. I am not accusing the council members of seeing the situation as a political game or ignoring the concerns that are no addressed. I am doing this to explain the dynamics of a dispute and why it is often “not easy for an individuals to be asked to join in helping an alternative approach become successful when their idea doesn’t win the day.”

    The reason is that when they speaker expresses the situation like that, the motivations are distorted and the concerns are ignored. The solution to that is to abolish expresses like that and act on the outstanding concerns.

    The actions that can be done with the outstanding concerns include:

    1) Acknowledge the concerns
    2) Size up the concerns, document the concerns
    3) Delegate people to investigate/resolve the concerns
    4) Update the decision/plan when changes can be made to address those concerns.

    In general, do not aim for “greater good”. Aim for “mutual good” where all concerns are resolved. When a community aims for mutual good, the community gets the greater good along the way.

  17. Edgar – I appreciate this perspective, and agree with much of it. However, in the process of decision facilitation there are always going to be some with a “do-nothing” agenda, and many times there is really nothing to be gained by trying to engage them and incorporate their interests.

    In most cases where the goal is significant change, getting something done will result in a percentage of stakeholders unhappy with the results. The saying “no good deed goes unpunished” covers this very aspect of stakeholder behavior. In most cases, doing the right thing will create unhappy people and enemies. There is just no way around it. Those that shrink from this are not doing the job of leadership.

    There is another saying “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. This pays homage to the concept of collaboration as a value-add. But in the disciplines of project management, fostering cooperation is on the expense side of the effort calculation. The challenge is to first understand the real goals (the problems and/or opportunities to be resolved) and then to establish and manage participative optimization required to achieve those goals. And, participative optimization is facilitated by best-practices within the framework process of project management for a given subject area.

    In this case the subject area was to select a new municipal public works system: more specifically to propose a solution to solve Davis’s long-term need for water. The process included plenty of discovery and public participation. Stakeholders could attend every WAC meeting and could have their ideas and concerns heard. City Council members have been accessible. City staff has been accessible. The city allowed plenty of time and put copious effort into the discovery and analysis phases. The process fostered cooperation and collaboration. The effort was also expensive in terms of effort.

    Then we reached a point in the process where decisions had to be made. Then we had to vote. At that point, there were no ROI for continued reaching out to try and win greater stakeholder support. It would be a wasted effort.

    Now we have a solution. Some people feel like winners, and some feel like losers. Hopefully, the winners conduct themselves with humility and grace, and the losers lick their wounds and move on to the next debate.

  18. Re: Frankly

    Please note that I was not contesting the need to make decisions. I was talking about the continual intention to address concerns and the incorrect ideology of posing the situation in a win-lose perspective.

    Your concern is the lack of progress.
    Your concern is the cost of finding alternatives that achieves mutual good.

    By these you agree that when such an alternative is presented, all stakeholders would welcome it with eagerness and ready to make the changes.

    In a cooperative mindset, there is no such thing as a “debate”, there are no “sides”. There are only a list of issues to be resolved, people working on the solutions, and a running list of best known solutions. Because of the existence of the running list of solutions, progress is always kept.

  19. On the concern of “wasted effort.”

    In a cooperative mindset, when the city does not have the resource to address the remaining concerns, the city [b]delegates[/b] that to the people who have those concerns. The city does not need to do it itself.

    This is the same as asking the victims to find a solution to stop them from being hurt. Ethically this is the responsibility of the decision makers who caused on damage, but if the decision maker has no resource to deal with it, then some of the alternatives are:

    1) Delegate the task to them so that the victim can fix the issue
    2) Delegate other tasks to them to free the decision maker to fix the issue

  20. Edgar, I understand your points, but I don’t think human nature naturally supports cooperation in and of itself. Cooperation is only a means to an end for people getting what they want. In some cases that want is simply affiliation… to be included in the participation. In other cases, people just want their ideas to be heard. Lastly, some just want their ideas to prevail, and when they are provided a venue of cooperation as a method for them to try to win, they will use it to try to win.

    This goal of cooperation is noble and accurate, but it is problematic because of the natural human tendency to pursue self-interest over all other interests. To be successful fulfilling every stakeholder’s self-interest – assuming it is possible (and I think it is generally not) – the project would bog down from the herculean effort required.

    The key for successful project stakeholder management is to gather enough support. And yes, cooperative processes are facilitative for this end. The key for cooperation is establishing shared goals. If you have them, cooperation flows naturally. If you don’t, cooperation is near impossible. That is why we have mediation and arbitration processes.

    There are some people in this town that would never share enough goals to cooperate. They don’t want the town to change. And they are so risk-averse about this, that they will block anything and everything that even provides the slightest indication that it would cause change. We have to include them to some degree and we should – because there are enough of them, and many of their concerns are real and valuable. But, in the end, if the need is change and they cannot and will not support any change, then then there is little to be gained by continued attempts for cooperation.

  21. Edgar, you appear to assume that a cooperative mindset is the norm. How do you deal with the citizens who fall outside that norm?

    A real life example would be Enron.

  22. Re: Matt

    I do not have an assumption that a cooperative mindset is the norm. I am speaking about cooperative mindset as a standard of ethical behavior. I am explaining ethics.

    Ethics is not “trust”. A cooperative mindset does not mean “entrusting people”.

    * * *

    Re: Frankly

    There are too many to comment due to difference in paradigm. We could go through them one by one, but in order not to waste anyone’s time, I think we must confirm the intention of the discussion.

    My Intention:

    I am explaining the dynamics of cooperation and the methods of doing it because when people do not understand the dynamics, they get into wasteful conflicts. The motivation to cooperate is not something that needs to be trained, because people naturally do not reject a plan where their needs are satisfied. However, many people think of cooperation as a type of “sacrifice for the greater good”. That is the toxic concept that I mentioned earlier that prevents true cooperation. That paradigm is an obstacle to understanding cooperation.

    My intention is to educate anyone who has the intention to cooperate to correct their paradigm so that they build a more cooperative community (the goal they wanted).

    Frankly’s intention:
    (Please declare your intention. What do you want to get from this discussion? If you can clearly state it, perhaps I would just accept, and we will both realize that we don’t need to discuss further.)

  23. Edgar, I’m not sure how to respond to your question about my intention. I am a realist and I like to accomplish things. I have been a certified project management professional, and was the executive in charge of the corporate project office at a large healthcare company. I am also a past certified mediator.

    During my career I have lost and won. I have succeeded and I have failed. And know that nothing meaningful gets done without cooperation these days. Cooperation isn’t a choice, it is a necessity.

    But in my final analysis for how I succeeded or failed, it always came down to the behavior of individual people… and my failure to anticipate, negotiate, mediate, or facilitate individual personalities all pursuing their own self-interest.

    What I think I know is that pursuit of self-interest is always the primary driver, and cooperation is a means to that end. I guess that my intention is to make that point… that we should not view cooperation as being in competition with other mindsets or norms. It is a method and a process, not a fundemental human impulse.

    Here is the test. Would you be motivated to cooperate with someone you knew was diametrically opposed to your interests? Say for example, you wanted to build on piece of land that you owned, and the other person made it clear his position was to prevent that from happening. Or your ex-wife makes is clear she wants the house, 80% of your assets and discretionary income and full custody of the kids. Would you still want to work to foster cooperation with these parties?

  24. [quote]What I think I know is that pursuit of self-interest is always the primary driver, and cooperation is a means to that end. I guess that my intention is to make that point.[/quote]
    Your point is taken. I don’t think there is a contradiction to my view of cooperation. Cooperation does not imply selfless sacrifice or altruism. Altruism is a motivation of cooperation, but other motivations of cooperation are still within the philosophical framework of cooperative mindset.

    [quote]Here is the test. Would you be motivated to cooperate with someone you knew was diametrically opposed to your interests? Say for example, you wanted to build on piece of land that you owned, and the other person made it clear his position was to prevent that from happening. Or your ex-wife makes is clear she wants the house, 80% of your assets and discretionary income and full custody of the kids. Would you still want to work to foster cooperation with these parties? [/quote]
    In my case I am motivated to cooperate because your context gives me leeway to imagine the details about the scenarios where a mutually good outcome could still exist, regardless the intention of the opposition.

    I think that lateral/creative thinking is one of the required skills to work with a cooperative mindset. The reason I can still cooperate, is that when I look at the scenario you describe, I do not classify the situation as a conflict outright. I see the situation and I see the possibilities that it could end up good.

    Having a cooperative mindset does not imply that a person would never do anything that hurts others. The difference is that when they do so, they do so because they have exhausted the alternatives. That means neither they nor their potential victim know how to resolve the conflict. Because of this mindset, when a person with a cooperative mindset hurts another person, it must be the case where the other person had also agreed to be hurt, or is ready to cause harm in return.

    Therefore, a more fitting test for your question regarding situations that might break cooperative mindset are “shoot/no-shoot” situations as in the police force. There are definitely situations where cooperation is broken, but it is not broken because of preference, but necessity. A person with a cooperative mindset has an intention to relax those necessities to expand the range of situations where cooperation may apply.

    A person who does not have cooperative mindset might use rules to determine when cooperation may stop, and when force/coercion can be used, but does not have an intention to expand the range of cooperation.

  25. Edgar, you describe cooperation largely in one to one terms. In those focused terms I pretty much agree with the argument you make. However, when the situation becomes more like a Tower of Babel with multiple different personal motivations and goals . . . what specific steps do you propose that will establish a common currency of cooperation?

  26. To expand on my question, you need go no further than the No On I team. Michael’s motivation and criteria were (are) different from Nancy’s, and davisite2’s were different yet again, as were Walt’s, as were Bill’s, as were Sue’s. What they all [u]could[/u] agree on was “No”. Getting the to agree on terms of cooperation toward a “Yes” decision is going to be a daunting task.

    Who do you see as the person or persons who would take on the task of getting the “No” contingent to embrace “Yes”?

  27. I would go a bit further than Matt and say that the effort to foster cooperation with some of the NOI people would have been a wasted effort. People can agree to disagree. Accepting differences of opinion, ideas, agendas, worldviews, etc… I see as being the correct thing to do. There are just not enough hours in the day or year to foster cooperation with some people for some issues. Also, the more people you invite to the project, the complicated it becomes to facilitate decisions. Rarely is there a perfect solution. More rarely will everyone agree when the scope of change is significant. There needs to be a vision and leadership. Then there needs to be a stakeholder analysis identifying those key people that absolutely need to participate.

    Edgar, you seem to be a very rational and objective person. You explain your ideas for a cooperative mindset in a way that leads me to believe that you discount emotions as a driver. I see emotions as being a primary driver for a lot of people. By their very nature, emotions are irrational and have a tendency to distort objectivity.

    Attempting to forge cooperation with irrational people is often an exercise in futility. If you discover that one or more of the key stakeholders is irrational, then you must at least consider attempting to foster cooperation. However, another strategy is to try and isolate these people to mitigate the risk they will undermine the project. Lastly, there is always that option to kill the project since the likelihood of success disappears with a few irrational key stakeholders.

    Cooperation for cooperation’s sake doesn’t resonate with me as being useful or valuable.

    Let me give you a real example. I work in an industry of about 300 peer organizations throughout the nation. Seven years ago we all had designated territories. The industry was very collegiate and cooperative. Now we compete against each other in the states we do business in. The industry is less collegiate and cooperative, but the service levels have gone way up. Our trade association moved as slow as molasses before. Now everyone is demanding action. Things are getting done much faster even though we often have a percentage of our membership unhappy with certain decisions. There is cooperation, but generally only with those that can get something done. That works for me.

  28. [b]Tool of Cooperative Decision Making[/b]

    Any entity has not just one but a list of concerns. This applies to a single individual or to a group, or to a collection of multiple individuals or multiple groups. By induction and recursion, if you know how to cooperate on a one-on-one basis, you know how to cooperate with any number of people.

    In the week following the Sandy Hook incident, we discussed proposals regarding gun control. We arrived at many proposal that no one objected. [List of Proposals] ([url]http://skylet.net/docs/2012-12-18-Re_Sandy_Hook.htm[/url])

    Nationally, the decision process is still going on, and the congress is only trailing the conclusion we got within one week. Therefore, scalability and efficiency are not issues. It is a decision method better than the existing method.

    The tool that was used, was a table that documented the stakeholder acceptance and objections. Irrationality was not an issue because to object a proposal, the stakeholder who makes the objection must state the reason of the objection. Anyone who would like to be irrational will be accountable for their actions. This immediate feedback suppresses irrational objections.

    When the goal is clear, ideas will immerge to implement them. In this implementation, it is efficient, scalable, and rational.

    The acceptance table is part of the framework of constructive discussion. A constructive discussion is an activity aimed at finding shared vision and actionable goals.

    * * *

    To use the acceptance table, it is necessarily to express messages in terms of proposals, reasons and concerns.

    I did not follow all the arguments of No on I. Here are just some of them from my memory, which may not be accurate from the perspective of the actual stakeholder. If anyone wants to correct me, please do. There is no reason why the discussion can’t accurately document the reality.

    Proposal: Measure I Surface Water Project
    o Accept: Joe Krovoza
    o Object: Sue Greenwald (Reason: There hasn’t been a serious negotiation with West Sac)
    o Object: Mike Harrington (Reason: The cost and rates are not included in the proposal, which is like writing a blank check)

    Proposal: Let the Surface Water Project be re-proposed after the cost and rates are included in the ballot.
    o Accept: Mike Harrington,
    o Object: ????

    Proposal: Let Sue Greenwald propose a timeframe of negotiation with West Sac, delegate her to negotiate with West Sac, and let the people decide whether the deal is acceptable.
    o Accept: Edgar Wai
    o Object: ????

    If anyone is serious in wanting to see whether the tool can be used to reach unanimous actionable items, let’s continue and see how far it can go. We could we re-hash this with the actual stakeholders who would join the discussion.

  29. Edgar – you are leaving out the existance of hidden agendas and making assumptions that you absolutely can know the definitive reason why certain stakeholders support or reject the project.

    Even if you ask them and they tell you, you might not be accurate in trusting this information.

    Let’s use a hypothetical. You dated someone and rejeted her. Now you are working on a cooperative effort to reach a decision. Unknown to you a friend of the girl you rejected is a participant. Her hidden agenda is to try and embarass you and make you fail so she can be a hero to her friend that was hurt by you.

    Another person in the room is resentful that you had been recently promoted. He just wants to understand what it is you want to do, and then oppose you at every opportunity.

    A third person in the room is resentful that her idea was not incuded for consideration. Her hidden agenda is to find as many problems with any solution presented to provide her idea another opportunity.

    The forth person is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is unhappy that you are taller than him. He is unhappy that his department gets no global notariety, while yours is constantly trumpted as the biggest, the richest and the best. Not only does he not support your effort, but he wants you dead and your department to be destroyed. However, he smiles and acts like a cooperative and friendly dude.

    The fifth person is Kim Jong-un. His department is broke and unsuccessful, but his office and salary is large and lavish. To his people he has consistently blamed you for their pains. He has treatened you before. His department spends more time working on ways to cause malice for you to get attention, rather than accept responsibility for his failed ideas and learn how to change in a positive way. He does not care which solution is selected as long as it fails and you fail with it.

    The sixth person is near retirement. He just doesn’t want anything to change until he retires. He is tired and lacks motivation to learn anyting new. His main interest is to block any change. He is completely risk averse about change and has been diagnosed with OCD.

    Do you still want to cooperate with all of these people?

    If your answer is yes, do you agree that if success could be achieved without their cooperation, it might be a more efficient approach to exclude them?

  30. Edgar,

    Frankly has expressed the challenge beautifully. I look forward to your response .

    To relate Frankly’s scenario back to the water reality at hand here in Davis, Michael H arrington’s only goal is to prevent developers from building any additional houses in Davis. Cost is a weapon for him, not a goal. Sue Greenwald’s primary goal is to get respected to office, and the West Sac discussion is only a way for her to wage a rare election campaign.

  31. Edgar,

    Frankly has expressed the challenge beautifully. I look forward to your response .

    To relate Frankly’s scenario back to the water reality at hand here in Davis, Michael H arrington’s only goal is to prevent developers from building any additional houses in Davis. Cost is a weapon for him, not a goal. Sue Greenwald’s primary goal is to get respected to office, and the West Sac discussion is only a way for her to wage a rare election campaign.

  32. Re: Matt and Frankly

    The solution is simple because the situation you posed is of no threat to the cooperation.

    When a person has a hidden agenda, by definition they are [b]unable[/b] to cite the reason of objection to the list of proposal. Then, the proposal is unobjected and implemented.

    If Mike has a hidden agenda to prevent developers from building any additional houses but don’t explicitly state that reason, when all of the other concerns are addressed, he has no power in stopping anyone on carrying out the proposal.

    Same for Sue.

  33. Edgar, in a representative democracy like Davis, where each person gets to vote in private and does not have to publicly reveal their vote, how can you assert the point you make? Each individual voter is indeed a threat to the cooperation you seek.