It is a simple letter sent to seniors. It reads, “Many of you, our Davis seniors, have approached Citizens for Clean, Reliable, Affordable Water concerned about Measure I’s huge rate increases and its financial impacts on the community, especially on those with fixed incomes.”
This is a core question of the No on Measure I campaign that is being driven home to Davis residents concerned about the costs of the project, who may feel that the answers they are getting are not adequate.
“These concerns are valid,” they write. “If Measure I passes, single-family water bills will more than triple, giving Davis among the most expensive water statewide.”
“Total costs for this project including debt service, necessary upgrades to our existing system, and cost to purchase water rights could result in an annual cost of $40 million! Including the waste-water treatment plant upgrades, our utility bills could cost home owners over $3000 per year,” the message continues.
The core message: “This project is not necessary. No emergency exists, either for additional water or for regulatory reasons. River water is not needed to meet our regulatory requirements, nor will it significantly lower the costs of waste water treatment. With the addition of deep aquifer wells to our system in recent years, our water quality in terms of hardness has improved significantly. We meet all current and projected water quality standards.”
“Measure I is a blank check,” they argue. It contains no project details, ultimate costs or rates.
“Measure I amounts to giving the City a virtual blank check with no way to hold the City accountable,” the message continues.
It is a message hammered home in a recent letter to the editor from Walt Sadler, the alternate on the WAC who served as an expert at the Vanguard‘s Measure I Forum.
In his letter he cites the January 23 letter from CDM and Smith that announced they would withdraw from the bidding on the project.
He quotes the letter, “RFP requirements may drive the project cost to exceed (the agency’s) budget. Examining the details of the benchmark project in documents released on Dec. 21 … raises a question as to public acceptability of RFP compliant proposed prices.”
“What does this mean?” Walt Sadler asks. “The letter in its entirety could be construed to mean a variety of things about the qualifications or motivations of whoever developed the benchmark treatment system.”
He continues, “What is apparent are higher project costs and higher future rates. Did the City Council know about this when it developed the language for Measure I? Notice that the language in Measure I is vague on project specifics and costs.”
In fact, the ratepayers are only approving rate hikes out to 2018. A glance at the city’s revenue projections shows that the revenues increase from about $20 million a year (itself a doubling of the current $10 million) out to about $42.5 million by 2032. We have no idea what happens to the rates after that. Prop 218 and the council and city are not required to go beyond five years in the Prop 218 notice.
In another piece, the opposition notes, “According to the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of the project, Davis’ share of the cost would be roughly $120 million and with debt service cost could reach ~$350 million.”
Writes Walt Sadler, “Granted, CDM/Smith has agreed to continue interest in the project; the operative statement in its Jan. 29 letter is “… (the agency) is considering changes to the procurement process.” There is the open door for higher costs.”
He continues, “Has the water agency told CDM/Smith that the cost issue will disappear after the vote on Measure I? Perhaps this is the reason the agency is down to two bidders and the fourth refused to participate!”
“So after spending more than $7 million on the description of a benchmark project, it is possible that no one will bid on it. Changing the agency’s project budget is the only way to keep interest in submitting a bid,” he argues.
“CDM/Smith states, ‘Since starting to track this important project in 2009, we have provided extensive input as to the method of procurement…’ Mr. Sadler continues, “and then references the Stockton delta water supply project as an example of a successful project, accepted by the public. The owner’s representative must have had another objective in mind, as he specifically excluded aspects of the Stockton project that could save money, and included elements that increased costs.”
The opposition also hammers the process for the lack of project specifics.
In one piece they write, “In the fall of 2011, concerned citizens challenged the City Council rates proposed in September 2011 with a successful referendum , and we demanded that ratepayers be able to vote on any proposed water rate increases.”
The Prop 218 process will obviously bind the city in the first five years. However, after five years, we can see from charts provided by the city that revenue needs will continue to increase over the next 30 years. Once the voters approve the project, they will only have the Prop 218 process to protect them from future rate increases.
We have noted the problems with the Prop 218 process in the past. The whole reason that we had a referendum to begin with is that the Prop 218 process is patently unfair. It allows for people to protest the rate vote through an affirmative step that is far more rigorous than ordinary voting requirements.
It counts all non-responses as a vote in favor of the rate hike. It precludes entire classes of people who will be just as impacted as property owners from participation.
So, realistically, unless the city offers forth an utterly absurd rate hike, they will probably be able to push any rate hike through the Prop 218 process without incurring a majority protest.
Argue the No on I campaign, “Measure I includes no rates. The Prop 218 process to protest rate increases will take place after we vote on the project, and it excludes renters.”
“Why should we vote on a project when no details, costs or rates are specified in the ballot measure?” they ask. “This amounts to a virtual blank check with no way to hold the City accountable.”
The No on Measure I side argues that there was insufficient time to explore real project alternatives.
“With the rush to get this project on the ballot at a special election in March, viable alternatives were given little consideration,” they argue. “We have time to implement a more efficient and affordable approach.”
In another piece, they argue, “For example, Davis was first involved in a joint surface water project to include Davis, UC Davis and West Sacramento. Around 2002, those negotiations were terminated, and the Woodland Davis project moved forward. However, West Sacramento is willing to resume negotiations with Davis for a project that would offer a substantial savings over the Woodland-Davis project.”
The No on Measure I side disagrees with the experts on at least the short-term sustainability of the deep aquifer. They argue that. while they do not believe they can rely only on the deep aquifer forever, they believe that we can rely on it until we can come forward with a more viable and affordable longer-term solution.
The bottom line is that the opposition believes the public should vote no on this huge, unnecessary project and give the Davis community the time that it needs to develop a better plan that we can afford.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We have been arguing this since September 2011, among oher issues.
Davis deserves better. ..than this expensive project
This is the 501 (3c) version of an endorsement.
I wonder who signed this mailer? Harrington, Greenwald, Price, Munn, Granda, Brady? Not one lives in poverty.
Am I looking forward to a piece that unquestioningly restates all the yes on I arguments.
Toad: this article only takes bits from a number of No on I pieces. The DV does not argue our side.
Tomorrow will tell
No, Will. The DV has benn doing it nonstop for months.
“This is the 501 (3c) version of an endorsement. “
No it isn’t. Tomorrow there will be a similar piece covering the Yes side’s arguments.
There is nothing that the No on I folks can say. Mike Harrington has effectively drown out any logical explanation to oppose the project.
Hope to win. My regret is I can only work on this very parttime, due to press of business in the office.
The Public Utility Project Initiative will be filed very soon, and we expect it to qualify easily. The choice we will have is put it on the Fall 2013 ballot, or wait and put it on the June 2014 ballot, with the CC election? Any comments on which date would work the best? Joe and Rochelle?
My default is put it on the June 2014 ballot, and make the candidates take a position on it. I cannot even imagine a CC candidate not endorsing a “Measure J/R” for larger public utility projects?
Ryan: just look at our red signs:
Not Affordable
Not Necessary
Not Fair
You guys have all tried since September 2011 to make this into a witch hunt to “get Mike,” but the fact is the project is a bad one. The lawn signs lay it out. In over 600 yards of voting households.
While all of you were spending hours blogging on the personal smear attacks on me, which the DV ignored, and even encouraged with its own articles (ie, yesterday), we were out getting votes. Good, fine: kept your aim on the wrong target.
Also, what you JPA’rs have completely missed is that Sue may have lost her re-election, but everyone knows she has spent hundreds of hours on this water project issue for over 10 years, and she knows her water supply issues. So … who is the average voter going to trust? The Chamber of Commerce with its blow the borders at all costs mentality, as exemplified by the likes of Kemble “Souza Blocker” Pope, or Saylor, or DT Businessman?
Or Sue, a volunteer, who sat up there for years while these people and their friends mounted horrible attacks on her?
Sue is Sue, but what you see, you get. She is transparent, and reliable.
So go ahead, get votes for us by writing personal attacks on Sue and me, and asking the public whom to trust … they know.
Honestly, I have felt all along that I am not only working for the residents, but also the owners of many Davis businesses that would be screwed by this project if it goes in as now described. These owners would see their businesses killed from retaliation if they publically fought back against the Chamber insiders who are running this thing.
I talk to many business people, and let me assure you JPA supporters: there are a heck of a lot of quiet NO votes out there.
This project is terrible for Davis business.
[i]These owners would see their businesses killed from retaliation if they publically fought back against the Chamber insiders who are running this thing. [/i]
Right. Because we all know that disagreeing with the Chamber leads to retaliation.
[i]You guys have all tried since September 2011 to make this into a witch hunt to “get Mike,” … While all of you were spending hours blogging on the personal smear attacks…[/i]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks[/url]
Grieves me to say this, in regard to Measure I, but I have to agree with Mr H on one aspect of Measure I:
[quote]Tomorrow will tell [/quote]I was taught that ‘even a stopped clock is right twice a day’. This is probably an example.
I’m thinking that as of 1:30 pm today, 95% of those who will vote have done so. David’s ‘promise’ to run one more account, tomorrow, on Yes on I arguments is hollow, if not cynical, if he is looking for “balance” to inform potential voters.
Whatever. We’ll see where we are when the votes are counted tomorrow evening.
I don’t think that’s a fair indictment HPIERCE. After all if 95% have voted by tomorrow, 94% have voted by today. I’m btw, one of those who has not voted.
Harrington: I don’t think you can insinuate untoward behavior by city officials and then turn around and complain when people reciprocate.
Not affordable – Well, I didn’t find this to be true. I think that Davis residents can afford to pay more for their water.
Not necessary – This was found to be untrue. It is necessary to supplement our ground water with surface water.
Not fair – again, not exactly true. We are voting on the project, not the rates (regardless of what Mike wants it to be.) [b]Is the Woodland-Davis Water project unfair?[/b] No one has explained how the [u]project[/u] is unfair, just an argument that the rates are unfair…which is not part of what we are voting on.
I will say again that Mike Harrington has drowned out all logical, intelligent discourse about the project. Even his signs are misleading.
On the contrary, I think it’s fine to criticize public officials who are supposed to be acting for the benefit of the public.
But criticizing people who volunteer their time and money with good intentions is far less palatable.
The personal attacks against Harrington have definitely swayed my vote
toward the No on I position. If the best the Yes proponents can offer is
negativity, their position doesn’t have much substance.
David: the water staff gave us the 9/6/11 false rates and descriptions, and it’s never gotten better. There has never been an investigation, and no one has been fired for setting up the CC and our brand-new City Manager on his first day on the job.
The City Staff have been knowingly taking ratepayer money for years and illegally using it to subsidize the City’s water usage. For free. The result: no one in City government cares, and look at the years of water spewing and running all over the parks, greenbelts, and sidewalks?
These are just two of the big items that come to mind.
So go ahead, attack me. You allow those horrible articles. You guys allow all of it. You even write them. Suck up to the CC and water staff.
Change is coming.
“The lawn signs lay it out….”
Don’t they indeed. It’s just too bad that the “no” campaign has been so driven by slogans and by sowing distrust and misinformation.
I would have much preferred to spend time looking at the merits of any alternatives offered. But, I soon found myself dismayed by the tactics and vacuousness of the “no” leaders’ campaign.
Whatever legitimate options might be buried it the “no” leadership’s minds have been overwhelmed by the generalized (yer personal) attacks on our elected leaders, our neighboring communities and others who have spent months and years of honest effort to find solutions.
I’m concerned that many of my neighbors may have voted against their nature and their own interests because they bought the confusion and mistrust offered up through charges that those supporting Prop. I have been lying in so many ways for so many years . Certainly, Michael is confident that his technique of tying cans to the tail of the project has convinced a majority of voters.
I certainly think we’ll look back on this an one of our nastier campaigns. Will our children also look back to note that we turned down the Berryessa project and then the Davis–Woodland project only to find the old signs pulled out again (“not Affordable, Not Fair, Not Necessary”)?
Well, it is official–I apparently live in a parallel universe.
For people to claim that those supporting Measure I have engaged in relentless ad hominem attacks on Mr Harrington, while he has been merely pointing out the factual errors about the water project, beggars belief.
I have been very critical of Mr Harrington’s approach to this campaign but I have NEVER attacked him personally. Ever. And I defy anyone to find an example where I have. If people in this town cannot see the difference between questioning a person’s tactics and questioning a person’s motives or character then I would say we are (collectively) very intellectually stunted and emotionally juvenile.
I have read the DV daily over the past year and I can recall very few times when the proponents of “I” have engaged in personal attacks agains him (in one case I asked people to stop it). Many people have questioned his presentation of the “facts”. Many others have questioned his tactics. But the criticisms have rarely stooped to the types of innuendo, questioning of unknowable motives and thinly veiled suggestions of unethical “paydays” or dirty politics that he has accused city staff, CC and experts of.
For you to suggest, Mr Harrington, that the DV has facilitated some form of systematic attack against you is ridiculous and wholly without substance. More often than not you have used this space to further your own personal attacks and repeat, ad nauseam, statements that have been proven false. And all the while you play the martyr. This behavior is shameful for a community leader and former CC member.
The sad thing for me is that I suspect that I will need to work with you on community issues for many years ahead. We may even be allies on some issues. Given your behavior I do not relish having to do that and am even tempted to withdraw from public discussion of key issues. However, like you, I care about my town and so I will press on. Change, indeed, is needed, but I doubt it is the kind to which you refer.
[i]the water staff gave us the 9/6/11 false rates and descriptions, and it’s never gotten better.
[/i]
That is a falsehood. [b]I have repeatedly posted the exact option presented to the council by the staff.[/b] Here is what they were presented:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterratesordinancesept6.png[/url]
Yet you continue to make this false assertion.
Anybody who can read can see that there was no “false rates and descriptions.” You keep blaming staff for the council’s mistake. Why on earth would there be “an investigation”? Why would anyone be fired? We expect the council to read their packets and understand what they are voting on.
I believe that your constant vilification of staff is cowardly, reprehensible, and unworthy of the citizens of Davis.
[i] If the best the Yes proponents can offer is
negativity, their position doesn’t have much substance.[/i]
eagle eye, I have spent more than two years on this blog arguing the merits, the technical aspects, the data and the analyses of the water quality, the capacity issues, the alternatives. Others like Matt have spent hundreds of hours developing and explaining the rate proposals. We have been met at every turn by the most dishonest, repellent political campaign I have seen since I moved here in the 1970’s.
— The sheer lack of transparency,
— the willful ignorance,
— the misrepresentations and distortions and outright lies,
— the vilification of public employees, public officials, and those of our neighboring community:
… it has been non-stop.
If you even remotely think that we haven’t been discussing this issue on its merits, you either haven’t been paying attention or you were already pre-disposed to being swayed by their negative campaign. Yes, many of us have gotten very frustrated with Mike Harrington because of the nature of the campaign he has chosen to wage. On nearly every thread he gives another example of what I’m describing. Just above, he repeats a falsehood which has been disputed and disproven. Yet again, he disparages city staff.
Sorry for the rant. But it is incredibly frustrating to have you suggest that we haven’t been discussing the water issue on its merits.
Don Shor … oh, please … Have you ever read the minutes of the 9/6/11 meeting? Dan Wolk’s motion explicitly referred to a 14% increase. Staff promoted that false figure, and supported that vote, and never corrected their CC. Again, Dunning is the one who figured it out. The increase was far, far higher.
Robb Davis: you are part of the management of the DV. No wonder the haters and attackers and mud slingers feel so comfortable here. The DV’s tolerance of that conduct, and its promotion of entire articles that do it, like the recent one by Don Shor (or was it Alan Pryor) that was directed at just me, or the DV summary piece yesterday that went off against me, are what has convinced most of my political contacts around town that the DV is hardly worth reading, and certainly not worth posting on due to the visciousness of the group assembled there.
From the minutes; emphasis added.
D. Wolk moved, seconded by R. Swanson, as follows: 1. Reaffirm the city’s intention to establish a surface water supply from the Sacramento River
Reject the staff recommendations and limit the (water rate) increase to just the one year rate.
Over the next 6 months, do the following
Establish a technical advisory committee (TAC), restricting its mem- bership to one individual per councilmember. Appointees shall have strong financial knowledge and no economic conflicts. This is a committee that is intended to have the expertise to review projects, bid processes, bond terms and any other financial matter related to the construction of the water project. The City Manager and an attorney from the City Attorney’s Office with water expertise should staff the committee. The TAC will make recommendations to the Council as the water project and its financing develop over the course of the year.
Ensure any significant decision by the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) would be brought before the Council.
Seek flexibility on the timelines for the project and raising capital, in- cluding requesting the assistance of the city’s legislative delegation, with the idea of stretching out the rate schedule.
Explore a publicly-operated alternative, not private.
Seek guarantees to ensure the project will only use local and regional businesses and labor, to the maximum extent feasible.
Utilize and lobby for as much federal and state funding as possible, including state water bonds and potential Delta restoration dollars head- ed toward the Yolo Bypass and look also at utilizing other local dollars besides user fees.
Develop an aggressive water conservation program, which includes accessing state and federal funds if feasible, to offset the costs to resi- dents of implementing water conservation strategies or replacing equipment.
Provide for regular community meetings and updates.
Explore the creation of a rate-subsidy program for low-income households. the end of the 6-month period, revisit the rate issue.
R. Swanson proposed a friendly amendment to modify 3A membership: in- clude 5 representatives from user groups. Accepted by mover. Following dis- cussion, superseded by the following:
S. Greenwald proposed a friendly amendment to modify 3A membership: 10 appointees from Council, two individuals per Councilmember. Accepted by mover and second.
[b]J. Krovoza proposed a friendly amendment to establish five year water rate increases at a maximum 14% per year (based on typical residential consumption with 20% residential user class conservation over five-year period). Accepted by mover and second.[/b]
R. Swanson proposed friendly amendment to modify 3G to read: Access state and federal funds, if feasible, to offset the costs to residents of implementing water conservation strategies or replacing equipment. Accepted by mover.
H. Steiner clarified: If Council wants to move forward with setting water rates, will need to restate the motion and introduce the ordinance with rates as amended.
J. Krovoza: #4 should be removed from the motion (revisit the rate issue) be- cause the ordinance calls for consideration of rates before October 1 of every year. H. Steiner clarified: Because the ordinance is setting rates, there is an obligation for Council to discuss rates prior to October of each year to deter- mine if they want to modify.
Motion restated: D. Wolk moved, seconded by R. Swanson, as follows:
Introduce Ordinance Amending Chapter 39 of the Municipal Code Related to Water Rates and to Increase the Base Rates and Metered Rates (five year rates), at the revised recommended level below those published in the Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing.
Direct staff to: a. Establish a technical advisory committee (TAC), restricting its mem- bership to 2 individuals per council member. Appointee shall have strong financial knowledge and no economic conflicts. This is a com- mittee that is intended to have the expertise to review projects, bid pro- cesses, bonds, terms and any other items that are related to the construction and water project. The City Manager and an attorney from the City Attorney’s Office with water expertise shall staff the committee. The TAC will make recommendations to the Council as the water pro- ject and it’s financing develop over the course of the year when we come back in October.
Ensure any significant decision by the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) be brought before the Council.
Seek flexibility on the timelines for the project and raising capital, in- cluding requesting the assistance of the city’s legislative delegation, with the idea of stretching out the rate schedule.
Explore a publicly-operated alternative, not private.
Seek guarantees to ensure the project will only use local and regional businesses and labor, to the maximum extent feasible.
Utilize and lobby for as much federal and state funding as possible, in- cluding state water bonds and potential Delta restoration dollars headed toward the Yolo Bypass and look also at utilizing other local dollars besides user fees.
Access state and federal funds, if feasible, to offset the costs to resi- dents of implementing water conservation strategies or replacing equipment.
Provide for regular community meetings and updates.
Explore the creation of a rate-subsidy program for low-income house- holds.
[b]Clarification: Rates shall be for 5 years, at a maximum increase of 14% per year (based on typical residential consumption with 20% residential user class conservation over five-year period).[/b]
Motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Souza, Swanson, Wolk, Krovoza NOES: Greenwald
Sorry Mike, but as trepidatious and just plain tightfisted as some Davis voters have proven to be, you just couldn’t pull off the hornswoggle this time . I have no doubt that you’ll pursue your goal of throwing sand in the gears, delaying the project longer,playing to the fearful, weak-minded and just plain cheap, possibly costing millions more due to delays, when in the old days, a problem like you was solved with a little tar and feathers.
Michael Harrington – I will only say that I feel there is a difference between personally attacking someone–questioning their motives, calling them things like “liar” (or corrupt, or other such) or questioning their integrity AND questioning their [b]actions[/b], challenging their [b]tactics[/b], or calling them out on their [b]behavior[/b].
I have done the latter and never the former. I have publicly asked people here not to engage in the former–towards you and others.
Having said that, I am very sad if my approach to dealing with your behavior has offended people in town who no longer feel safe posting here or reading the Vanguard at all. That was not my intent. If my words have caused what you allege then I am truly sorry. My intent was to focus on behavior I found objectionable–not to question your or anyone’s integrity. The distinction is clear to me but apparently not to others–including you. I apologize for any pain I have caused.
And one more thing… If, in fact, the Vanguard has been hurt because of my words, I will gladly step away from being part of the Editorial Board. The Vanguard’s mission is far more important than my need to be right about something. I will allow David and my colleagues on the Board to make that call and will abide by their wishes.
“…its promotion of entire articles that do it, like the recent one by Don Shor (or was it Alan Pryor) that was directed at just me…”
Yes. I criticized you for the following:
[i]
“We think it’s very suspicious that city staff shut down Well 30,” said Michael Harrington, a Davis attorney and a chief opponent of Measure I. “We think they’re manipulating the water supply system,” Harrington said. “It’s a scare tactic.”
This is a serious allegation against city staff. Michael is accusing them of unprofessional behavior, of taking actions to influence a political outcome. If his accusation were true, it would likely be a dismissible offense by the city staff person or persons in question.
He gives no evidence for this charge.[/i]
You have never given evidence for that charge. You doubled down on it, but never gave any evidence. You replied on that thread 6 or 7 times. But at no time have you substantiated your assertion that city staff was intentionally manipulating the wells to try to influence the election.
Mike, I think if you left and no longer posted here, there would be no further complaints about you. A sign that that trolling is successful is that people start to yell and call the troll names. You’ve repeatedly posted that “(you) must be doing something right, if people are getting pissed. This defines you as a troll. A sign that your trolling isn’t working is that you have been identified as a troll or you identify yourself as a troll (see the previous comment about how you define your success.) Flaming, or attempting to flame, won’t work either, because you have months and months of trolling behind you and people are no longer listening to you.
Robb: call anytime to discuss. 759-8440.
Don: it was “for a maximum of 14%” Thanks for posting. That is exactly what Dan Wolk said, and that was the story line the next day in the DE.
The 20% reduction was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
How come the DV is giving water staff a free pass for knowingly taking over $1.0 million per year of ratepayer money? That pads the general fund, and allows the continued overpayment of certain city expenses.
It also promotes the water wasting and flooding by staff over many years.
Come on, David, do some stories. Don’t give the city a pass on this.
Instead, the DV hits me over and over calling that section of the Complaint meritless …. and accepting and swallowing staff’s bald faced unsupported assertions that it’s just a small accounting error/oversight.
Sorry, but the DV does all this to itself, by itself.
David, I probably disagree with you more than I agree with you on most of the articles you write but I would like to commend you for your efforts. You have taken it from both sides on this contentious issue and still have remained relatively cool throughout the whole ordeal.
One Measure I opponent has really put a deliberate burr under the saddle of a lot of commenters here and he has gotten the reaction that I think he is looking for. It just feeds the beast.
My cynicism says you should thank Bob Dunning for all the topics that you have based your articles upon. I enjoy reading both viewpoints.
Michael, your whining is hilarious. Thanks for making my day!
I for one am really looking forward to Harrington trying to make his case in court. I can’t wait for him to try pulling the shit in front of a judge that he regularly tries to pull in the public realm. One can onnly hope the judge will allow cameras in the courtroom.
-Michael Bisch
Harrington and Greenwald have apparently already acknowledged defeat on their No On Measure I campaign. They’ve now shifted resources to their Prop 218 mailer hitting mailboxes today. They’ve already spend $20k on Measure I and now they’re spending more on Prop 218? Good Lord, who are these secret donors of theirs sinking good money after bad?
-Michael Bisch
And what are the identities of the participants of the secret cabal drafting the Harrington initiative? Is it normal in a community of 65,000 residents that you have this secret cabal designing our critical infrastructure? Apart from Harrington and Greenwald, who are these people hellbent on thwarting the will of the voters?
-Michael Bisch
[b]The meaning of Ethics and Integrity and the role to promote them[/b]
[quote]I will only say that I feel there is a difference between personally attacking someone–questioning their motives, calling them things like “liar” (or corrupt, or other such) or questioning their integrity AND questioning their actions, challenging their tactics, or calling them out on their behavior.[/quote]
I understand how you feel. However, you are neglecting the fact that sometimes a person’s motive or integrity can be objectively derived by their [b]choice[/b] of actions, tactics, and behavior [b]when options are available[/b]. There is a difference between simply accusing someone to be a liar and proving that someone had lied.
Words like ethics, integrity, and honor all have appropriate meaning in classifying actions and behaviors. When someone uses those terms to classify an action, the neutral step is to communicate the rubric behind the classification. It is incorrect to assume that anyone who calls out another person’s lack of these qualities in their actions does so without justification.
In the university, words like ethics, integrity, and honors are defined. If not, there is no basis to ask the students to have “academic integrity,” or to adhere to “code of ethics in engineering.” When a person trained in this environment calls out another person’s lack of ethics or integrity, they do so based on the actions that that other person had committed.
The purpose of those calls is not to brand the judgement to the person, but to acknowledge the type of wrongdoing and facilitate change. There is no honor in graduating from university learning ethics and integrity, and to live in a world where those terms are not used. Use the words correctly and clean the world of unethical acts.
Ethics and Integrity should be two of the common words that guide a person’s actions. To pigeonhole these terms is a disservice to ethics and integrity themselves. A person who has ethics and integrity can speak them and live them. There is no need to hide. Only those who cannot live them would hope to hide them.
I am not accusing anyone of lacking ethics or integrity. I am explaining why these words do not need to be hidden and should not be hidden. Depending on your state of mind, this might be a relief to know that those terms do not need to be hidden. A person can have integrity and match that with the words they speak. Every thought and action can be aligned. There is no need to euphemize. The university trains people who can handle these words.
Skip: Yep, burrs have their places in life and campaigns.
Now, what the heck is one of them darned trolls? I read about one in a book. .. Something about lords and rings?
Mark; Thank you! Now just keep laughing while i make some more calls to put another good dozen volunteers in the field tomorrow, on top of the usual crews. Yep, just keep sitting on your blogging devices and attack me while I work for votes.
What do you call a burr and a cell phone? Answer: A desparate burr seeking votes!
See you all at the parties tomorrow night!
Mr DT: Yes, in Davis we all love secret cabals.
The Public Utilities Project Initiative is sssoooo secret. .. It only has to be signed by something over 5000 registered voters to even get on the ballot.
Tell you what, DT? Why dont you come look at a draft sometime? I’d love your input on this secret document?
As for the rates/218, I believe the CBFR rates to be well thought through if we do build this project. The interesting thing that came out for me from the Rancho Yolo crying foul is perhaps that MFR rates are still unbalanced and subsidized as compared to SFR rates. Just look at the savings incurred when comparing having that one big meter to deliver the same amount of water to 216 units as 216 single meters and the much higher cost for the same water with SFR individual meters.
Perhaps Matt can address the fairness or lack thereof of this discrepancy.
Mike, you keep saying the CC mutilated (or some such word) the CBFR rates and that is why you oppose them. Can you elaborate? I have cast my ballot on measure I but we still, have time to weigh in on the rates of course.
Mr DT: Did you like our Prop 218 card? We are going to bill Mayor Joe’s expense account because he refused to mail protest cards like he did in 2011.
We will just keep rolling out New materials to assist the voters.
BTW, be watching for some action on the lawsuit front.
Another lively day on the Vanguard.
Matt: watch out for those Florida sinkholes! Safe trip home.
DT: cameras are permitted in courts. Bring yours, but only with judicial approval
“If the rate don’t fit, you must aquit”!
“If Harrington said it, it’s likely bulls… !”