My earlier hope that somehow cooler heads might prevail is probably out the window. In the last day or so, the rhetoric out of both campaigns is already amping up. The message coming from the elected officials in Davis – and probably this county as we start expanding outward – is that they do not want to get in the middle of this.
To a person, the three members of the Davis City Council not running for Assembly all expressed concerns about the impact on the council’s ability to do the work that they are needing to. These are not good times yet. The city of Davis is not yet over the hump.
In the next month, the council is going to have to make some more very tough decisions. They have to figure out how to balance this budget. They have to make the determination how and when to impose impasse on two bargaining units. Long term, they have to figure out the roads issue and how to fund the $5 to $8 million annually for that. They have to figure out how to close what is projected to be a $6 million deficit by 2018.
These are tough decisions under the best of circumstances, but now you inject Sacramento Capital politics, outside trade unions and a boatload of money, and this is a huge compromise to the system.
The thing is that Dan Wolk and Joe Krovoza have made some critical changes already. They have passed two budgets that begin to cut into the city’s structural deficit. They got five bargaining units to accept concessions on things like pensions, retiree health and cafeteria cash outs.
They took the mess of a water project from September 2011 and, with community input and staff hard work, made it possible for the voters to pass it – narrowly. Say what you want about whether or not you supported the project, the fact that they did what they did is worthy of consideration.
They brought in a new city manager, Steve Pinkerton, who has the vision and dogged determination to fix some of the stubborn problems in city hall.
That is not to say there weren’t missteps, questionable decisions, and outright errors along the way, but I do not think a reasonable person can say that we are worse off today than we were in 2010, when Joe Krovoza was elected along with Rochelle Swanson.
To the extent that we express concern is the idea that this could be undermined and undone by the petty politics and posturing needed to gain election at the next level. We posed the question before – is Dan Wolk counting on firefighters to walk his precincts and, if so, will that make it difficult to cast the tough vote needed to impose impasse?
But there is more; dating back to 1996, Davis has had three Assemblymembers in Sacramento – Helen Thomson, Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada – all Davis residents.
This is not the old Assembly District that was compact and contained most of Yolo and eastern Solano County. This is a sprawling six-county district including Lake, Napa, Solano, Colusa and Sonoma Counties.
While it is a Democratic plurality district, it is not a Democratic majority district, with Democratic voters falling just under 50 percent. Republicans make up about 27% and undeclared make up another nearly 21% of voters.
In addition, California voters have instituted a blanket primary system that no longer has separate Democrat and Republican primaries. While it would be difficult for a Republican to win outright, with a four to five Democratic candidate field, it is not inconceivable that a Republican could place in the top two – if it’s a legitimate candidate.
While I am certainly not one of those who believe we have to be represented by someone in Davis, and the case can be made that Davis has dominated this Assembly Seat for 18 years as of the end of Mariko Yamada’s term, still it seems self-defeating for two candidates to cancel each other out.
Now, I have heard some mixed thoughts about the district outside of Yolo County. One thought is that Lois Wolk is not as well known in areas outside of Davis. This might be true, though she does currently represent some of Napa County as well. And that makes for an interesting show down between Dan Wolk and Matt Pope, who is backed by Senator Noreen Evans, whom he has worked for as a staffer.
Reading endorsements is kind of like reading the tea leaves – right now it seems like the elected officials closest to the two candidates are playing it cautious. As we reported yesterday, we were able to, in our first round of inquiries, identify only three officials picking a side. And, while all of them are for Dan Wolk, only Sheila Allen is from outside of the family.
One by one, the biggest names in Yolo County, not named Wolk, seem to be sitting this one out. There is no doubt that large numbers of past elected officials and stakeholders will line both men’s endorsement lists, but this looks like a relatively even match in Davis.
As we noted yesterday, each of the councilmembers have made the determination to remain above the fray – at least for right now. They all expressed serious concerns about the impact that the political battle may have on the council’s ability to do business.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson was elected with Joe Krovoza, but has often collaborated with Dan Wolk on critical issues such as water. She told the Vanguard that she is staying neutral.
She believes that the council needs to focus on the community first and keep state races out of the community’s chamber.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs added in a text, “I respect and have admiration for both of my Council colleagues. I’m likely to remain neutral (in the AD 4 race), primarily due to my concern for the continued well-being of intra-council relations.”
Brett Lee, however, did not rule out endorsing one of the two closer to the election, but he said in a text, “While they are both my council colleagues, I do not believe I will endorse one over the other right now.”
Some will suggest public endorsements do not matter – and they may not. Look no further than 2008 when Christopher Cabaldon had all of the critical endorsements in the Assembly race and yet when it came down to the people voting, it was not even that close and Mariko Yamada won.
But what the lack of endorsements, at least so far, tells me is that people are cautious on this one. This has the potential to become something really tough and bitter. That’s too bad, because these are both good and caring men.
The worst possibility here is that, by going head-to-head, these two men make it impossible for either to win, while throwing a monkey wrench into the important but fragile dynamics on the council. It is not too late, but the recent signs do not seem to support a pull out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, like I posted yesterday, I just don’t see the problem. Joe and Dan love this town, understand that the CC is an institution that deserves and has received their respect and attention to good process. Neither one of them are going to screw up their home court.
If there are any CC issues and votes that put them in conflict with whatever they are doing for the Assembly race, the candidate can recuse himself from the CC vote. No one will blame them, and they will get a lot of respect, including mine, if they handle it properly.
I don’t think that Craig Reynolds or Will Arnold are going to let their guys screw up their tenure on the CC.
David, if your predicted problems show up, then we Davis voters can always VFTOG, or Vote for the Other Guy, the One Not from Davis.
What train wreck? Both these guys want votes they will do what they think will get them the most votes. Isn’t that how its supposed to work? The only danger here is that soo many Dems slit the vote that the top two vote getters are Reps. Unlikely.
Your boots on the ground symbolism, while part of the equation, is only one variable. There are other variables, who can raise the most money, who is the better campaigner, what they offer their constituents in vision and opportunity to name a few. Who can raise the most money will be a big one. Dan was able to raise lots of money in his council run and he is proven campaigner.
Joe is a savvy campaigner too and as we saw with Cabaldon raising the most money isn’t always the most important thing. How you spend that money is also a big deal. Think Meg Whitman.
Still I think Wolk name recognition gives Dan a huge advantage going in. Handicapping the race 13 months out I would say advantage Dan.
The worst sentence I ever wrote should read: The only danger here is that so many Dems will split the vote that the top two vote getters are Republicans.
Ironically, the “campaign” is indeed ratcheting up… a family member got an [b]unsolicited[/b] e-mail from Manny Carbahal, involved in Mr Krovoza’s campaign, looking for financial support for they campaign. Our only guess so far, is that Mr K is using the e-mail of anyone who wrote to him on any council item to generate a fundraising list. Somewhat slimy, if true.
he probably just purchased an email list – they are cheap and easy to get.
Maybe… but my family member gets unsolicited e-mails VERY rarely.
I don’t know anyone who is happy about this situation.
Many of us who live in Senate District 3 would be happy to support Dan Wolk for that seat when Lois’es term expires in 2016. Then he would be running on a solid record from his full first term on the council, including two years as mayor. It would be better for the city council, and for the city as a whole, if Dan were to remove himself from the Assembly race and run for higher office later.
you’re essentially accusing krovoza of breaking the law, so i think you need to have more proof than your family member rarely gets unsolicited emails.
However, DP you make a good point… I’ll suggest that the FM ask Mr Carbahal to identify the source.
that would be reasonable
FM wrote to Krovoza in April, re: a CC item. No other unsolicited e-mails other than this one, since that. Not proof, but reasonable suspicion. We’ll see how Mr C responds when FM asks for source.
Hortense, I have no axe to grind in this situation. I like and support both. I would prefer that Davis not lose two Council members.
With that as background, why do you find it a problem that someone that your family member has e-mailed personally in the past would send an unrelated follow-up e-mail at a later date? Did your family member specifically prohibit future correspondence? I’m not seeing the issue here.
Bothers the FM… makes it an issue to me. Do [u][b]you[/b][/u] like “robo-calls”? When FM asked for source, and asked to be removed from list, generated another solicitation:
FYI
On Fri, May 17, 2013 [redacted] wrote:
How did you get this e-mail address? I request you 1) disclose the source of my e-mail address, AND 2) delete my e-mail address from your “notification” system. If BOTH of these demands are not met, I may need to file complaints with the State FPPC. Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
From: Manny Carbahal [mailto:mannycarbahal.jk4assembly2014@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:10 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: My news re Joe Krovoza’s Assembly candidacy
Share this:
Dear Friends,
I wanted to make sure you heard the exciting news that our esteemed mayor and friend, Joe Krovoza, has decided to run for the 4th Assembly District. …
[i]I have no idea who I will support, but first reaction is that it won’t be someone who uses unsolicited e-mails or robo-calls[/i]
hpierce wrote:
> a family member got an unsolicited e-mail from
> Manny Carbahal, involved in Mr Krovoza’s campaign,
> looking for financial support for the campaign.
Then Davis Progressive wrote:
> he probably just purchased an email list –
> they are cheap and easy to get.
This is another reason to try and stay anonymous on line, if you have ever signed a petition supporting anything from gay marriage to protecting baby squirrels you are sure to get e-mails (often from everyone running for office) telling you that they also support gay marriage and protecting baby squirrels. The “on line/social media strategy” of most campaigns is getting a lot more sophisticated where young (internet savvy) staffers are searching sites lite the Vanguard and sending targeted e-mails to people on issues they have posted are important to them (It took me just two seconds to find Michael Harrington and Davis Greenwald’s e-mails using Google). I’m sure we are going to see more and more campaigns doing targeted e-mails where people that care about buses and bikes will see Joe riding a bus and/or riding a bike and people that care about parks and kids sports will see Dan in a park (maybe not wearing dress shoes like in the last campaign photos) playing soccer with his kids…
Have heard that FM got sincere apology from Mr K. Matter resolved.
Don… feel free to remove intermediate posts.
I just don’t understand David’s angst. This is a fabulous situation, two highly qualified local candidates forcing us to make a difficult choice. That is exactly what we should hope for in every election.
I like and respect both Dan and Joe, even more so now that I know that they are both willing to enter into this contest without some sleazy backroom deal or waiting politely for their proper ‘turn.’ I am looking forward to an excellent campaign, and in the end, a difficult choice.
[quote]”Bothers the FM… makes it an issue to me. Do you like “robo-calls”? When FM asked for source, and asked to be removed from list, generated another solicitation: “[/quote]Your FM needs to catch up on the laws re. unsolicited emails and phone calls and on the new technology. The level of public offensiveness generated by this email suggest somebody is supporting a different candidate.
I agree with Don Shor’s evaluation. I’d likely vote for Dan Wolk for state senate. I hope he’ll withdraw from the assembly race to spend more time with his family (and his broader family that elected him to get experience as our mayor).
“I just don’t understand David’s angst. “
you don’t? have you talked to some of the other councilmembers? city staff? it’s pretty clear that david’s talking to similar people i have recently and is articulating their concerns.
it also might be helpful to view things from david’s perspective. he spent a long time working on issues like the budget and fire reform and the like and now sees all of that being threatened.
DP: What have these two men done to suggest that they won’t continue to work diligently, collaboratively and respectfully with their colleagues to make the difficult decisions that need to be made? Why would you expect their basic characters to change just because they are running for another office? I think the people wringing their hands over this situation are demonstrating a deep lack of respect for both Dan and Joe.
your comment was that you didn’t understand david’s angst, now your comment seems to suggest that you don’t agree with it. my opinion is that while i like both men, they’ve both made their share of mistakes and some of those have been quite costly. throw in another variable and i think the concern is quite reasonable.
my view is that the two will split the Davis vote and neither will win…..Joe will not be on CC which to me is a huge loss.
hpierce
[quote]I hope Dan remains on the council, and I will probably vote for ‘anyone except’ Joe.[/quote] from previous thread
[quote]I have no idea who I will support, but first reaction is that it won’t be someone who uses unsolicited e-mails or robo-calls
[/quote]
The sincerity of these two comments in view of the unsubstantiated accusations of this morning would seem to me be an example of what I consider a bigger risk than that either of the two CC members will act in a dishonorable manner. This is likely untrue for either of them based on past performance. Both have made difficult choices on controversial issues in line with what they perceive as the best interest of the community.
I think the bigger concerns is that partisans of one or the other, or those who simply don’t like one or the other, will start the “mud slinging” as in “slimey if true” without any evidence.
And the permission to withdraw such a statement, while better than not making it, is too late. Your words were their clear intent to disparage were already spoken.
“I don’t know anyone who is happy about this situation.
Many of us who live in Senate District 3 would be happy to support Dan Wolk for that seat when Lois’es term expires in 2016. “
Might as well be angry at the sun for shining Don. In 16 there will be strong competition for that senate seat as well. The new term limits law that allows for 12 years instead of six means that there will be fewer open seats so people are less inclined to pass on an opportunity to run for an open seat. I think both these guys figure this is their best shot and they are going to go for it.
Excellent points, medwoman, and excellent memory/research. The initial, breathless charge of sliminess for stealing official email address files–with its “the only guess so far” proof level–and the running progress did seem odd and excessive.
The postings did confirm one of hpierce’s contentions, that “the ‘campaign’ is indeed ratcheting up.” The first unsubstantiated smear of the season has been launched.
JS Nice comment @ 10:49… dismissive and a more than a bit patronizing. Particularly as it was posted after I said the issue was favorably resolved. I wrote: [quote]Have heard that FM got sincere apology from Mr K. Matter resolved. [/quote]. I wrote: [quote]I have no idea who I will support, but first reaction is that it won’t be someone who uses unsolicited e-mails or robo-calls[/quote]
You wrote: [quote]Your FM needs to catch up on the laws re. unsolicited emails and phone calls and on the new technology. The level of public offensiveness generated by this email [b]suggest somebody is supporting a different candidate[/b]. [/quote]
Back at you for the bolded quote. If Joe is ‘your boy’, fine, but don’t pre-suppose that I or my FM reacted to the e-mails based on a political preference. We don’t have any at this point. Had Dan Wolk or any of the other candidates done the same, same reaction. Look up the word “pomposity”.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”I just don’t understand David’s angst. This is a fabulous situation, two highly qualified local candidates forcing us to make a difficult choice. That is exactly what we should hope for in every election.
I like and respect both Dan and Joe, even more so now that I know that they are both willing to enter into this contest without some sleazy backroom deal or waiting politely for their proper ‘turn.’ I am looking forward to an excellent campaign, and in the end, a difficult choice.”[/i]
Mark, whether one likes and respects Dan and Joe does not change one very basic mathematical fact that has been pointed out to me by quite a few [u]strong[/u] Dan supporters. Specifically, if Dan wins then Davis loses two Council members, and if Joe wins Davis only loses one Council member. Each of the Dan supporters then told me that that math makes their vote easy . . . they will vote for Joe and not Dan.
Looking beyond the simple mathematical logic of their argument, how does the June 2014 Council election currently look like it will play out? So far there are only three likely candidates for the two seats, Rochelle Swanson, Sue Greenwald and Alan Fernandes. In looking at how the Council would fill Dan’s empty seat, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Council in the coming months formally and officially decides/announces that the third place candidate in the June 2014 Council election will be appointed to fill Dan’s seat if he wins the Assembly election. If that is the scenario that plays out, how does a Council comprised of Swanson, Frerichs, Lee, Gereenwald, Fernandes resonate?
Mark West said . . .
[i]”DP: What have these two men done to suggest that they won’t continue to work diligently, collaboratively and respectfully with their colleagues to make the difficult decisions that need to be made? Why would you expect their basic characters to change just because they are running for another office? I think the people wringing their hands over this situation are demonstrating a deep lack of respect for both Dan and Joe.” [/i]
Mark, of course they both will continue to work diligently, collaboratively and respectfully from now until June 2014. That isn’t for me the problem. The problem comes after they no longer are in a position to continue to do so.
Matt, if that’s not your preferred future Council make-up, perhaps you should lobby the current Council members to refrain from automatically making the 3rd place candidate the Wolk replacement.
-Michael Bisch
Following your mathematical logic, Matt, Dan’s supporters go back to supporting Dan if Dan announces he is resigning his Council seat regardless of the Assembly election outcome and we will have 2 vacant Council seats no matter what. I don’t see how any of this convoluted strategizing is helpful. What’s done is done. Rightly or wrongly, they’ve each announced. Let them get on with it.
-Michael Bisch
They can get on with it, but since i care more about the council than the assembly, my calculus will be based more on that.
some will say how is the council possibly more important. well, the seat will likely be democratic no matter what. assembly is one of eighty. so who is on the assembly from our district is not nearly as important to my life in the community where each person on the council is 1 of 5 and make critical decisions on roads, budget, parks, business, land use that effect me everyday.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, if that’s not your preferred future Council make-up, perhaps you should lobby the current Council members to refrain from automatically making the 3rd place candidate the Wolk replacement.
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
Actually Michael, if I were to lobby the current Council members about a preferred method for selecting the person to fill Dan’s seat, it would definitely be for the third place vote getter in the June election. That way the people would have a direct voice in the selection and the incremental financial cost of having that direct voice would be zero. Win-Win-Win
All we need are candidates.
Matt, deciding to appoint the third place winner in advance is absurd. Why would the council tie its hands in such a manner and give up its discretion? Why would they appoint a candidate rejected by the voters? It makes no sense.
The big worry in a Dan and Joe race in a crowded field is if they split dilute the vote causing both to lose. In my mind that would be the worst potentially real outcome.
[i]The big worry in a Dan and Joe race in a crowded field is if they split dilute the vote causing both to lose. In my mind that would be the worst potentially real outcome.[/i]
Why? Is there something egregiously wrong with the other declared candidates?
DT Businessman said . . .
“Following your mathematical logic, Matt, Dan’s supporters go back to supporting Dan if Dan announces he is resigning his Council seat regardless of the Assembly election outcome and we will have 2 vacant Council seats no matter what. I don’t see how any of this convoluted strategizing is helpful. What’s done is done. Rightly or wrongly, they’ve each announced. Let them get on with it.
-Michael Bisch”
Michael, the Dan supporters who raised the “double down” argument (much to my surprise) were very clear that their non-vote for Dan would carry through until the day after Dan’s Assembly fate was decided. Said another way, if the informal discussion of Dan’s candidacy never becomes a formal candidacy, then those Dan supporters would be happy that the “double down” scenario had terminated . . . and return to their strong support of Dan position in his Wolk for Senate campaign in 2016.
[i]…their non-vote for Dan would carry through until the day after Dan’s Assembly fate was decided.[/i]
The impact on the city council would be a major factor in my vote in the assembly race. This is a rare case where I actually get to vote on something we’re discussing here, since I reside in the assembly district (and the senate district). If it comes down to a choice between, say, Dan Wolk and Anthony Farrington, I’d weigh the impact of Dan’s victory on the makeup of the Davis city council as I decide between them. And I’d likely as not vote for the other guy. And then I would happily [i]return to … strong support of Dan position in his Wolk for Senate campaign in 2016.[/i]
Don, the scenario you describe is one that the people I have spoken to would call their “worst nightmare” because 1) Dan ends up with an election loss on his resume, 2) the Assembly seat is not represented by a Davisite and 3) Joe’s seat has been replaced on the Council by either Sue Greenwald or Alan Fernandes.
[i]2) the Assembly seat is not represented by a Davisite [/i]
That wouldn’t be a “nightmare.” I don’t think you’re going to find huge policy differences between the current four declared candidates. Their assembly voting records would probably be very similar. In fact, I think Joe and Dan will find it difficult to differentiate themselves to the voters as to issues. So locally the election will boil down to experience. Farrington is a proven vote-getter in his area. I don’t know much about the other guy.
Don, based on the comments from those I have talked to, one of the most important issues that will be addressed in the 2014-2016 period is the future of the Delta and especially the Yolo Bypass. It is very reasonable to say that a resident of Lake County will have significantly less awareness of Yolo Bypass issues as they relate to the BDCP and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). A resident of Napa County may be considerably aware of Delta issues, especially as they affect the Bay complex, but Yolo Bypass issues are likely to be of less immediacy than they would be for a Davis resident.
Farrington “managed the state water rights program for the Regional Council of Rural Counties.” Although I think Joe Krovoza would be the strongest voice on water issues, I see little reason to believe Farrington would be any better or worse than Dan Wolk on Delta issues.
[url]http://napavalley.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/farrington-announces-bid-for-4th-district-state-assembly-seat[/url]
my sense is that farrington is far more conservative than either dan or joe. he’s said to be in bed with the developers, he supports prop 13, etc.
i get the sense Mr. toad is pro-dan, doesn’t care what happens to council.
Said by whom? I’m not trying to promote Anthony Farrington, but a little substantiation seems in order. Do you have anything on record that supports those comments?
The idea that leaving the council early is a big deal is just silly and yes I will vote for Dan. Of course you could also be mad at Joe for not running for re-election. The great thing about voting is that each of us gets to decide what is important in making our decision. In my mind running the 7th largest economy in the world is more important than the fate of a bunch of coyotes, whether we should preserve a rotted out water tower or the location of a storage shed.
“I support Prop 13 and I support when it comes to raising taxes, the two-thirds threshold,” Anthony Farrington stated. “I’m also supportive of passing a budget with a majority but when it comes to raising taxes, keeping the two-thirds threshold in place to protect the taxpayers.”
https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6226:farrington-first-to-announce-candidacy-for-4th-assembly-district
I apologize, hpierce, if I offended you by being dismissive about your suggestions that: “Mr K is using the e-mail of anyone who wrote to him on any council item to generate a fundraising list.:
“Somewhat slimy, if true,” you propose. And, I might not have disagreed (and certainly wouldn’t have been dismissive) if you’ d provided the slightest reason to suggest anything to support your charge. What was your basis for your “only guess so far”? (My only guess about why
I was pleased that you got a “sincere apology” and felt the matter “resolved.” But, you didn’t resolve the main issue in my mind: Did you conclude whether Krovoza deserved being labeled a slimy campaigner who gave official correspondence email addresses for Carbahal’s support message?
After a half-dozen messages regarding your FM’s concerns about this and other unsolicited communications, it just got to me that you decided to leave the smear out there. My only guess after all the commotion was that you might have just gotten caught up with a potential “issue” that might give one of the candidates a black eye, one who just happened to be an opponent.
When medwoman made her observations and noted that you’d described yourself awhile back as “anyone except Joe,” I figured my suspicion was confirmed. Your “back at you” is warranted since I’d noted that I think the timing is better for Joe than Dan.
Did your FM get any response from Joe about whether he really was taking his constituent email addresses from council business to “generate a fundraising list”?
Thanks, Will. So now all we need to know is what Joe Krovoza and Dan Wolk answer when asked if they support reducing the 2/3 vote requirement for raising taxes. Then we would know if Anthony Farrington is more conservative than the other two.
Just Saying: You wrote:
[quote] Did you conclude whether Krovoza deserved being labeled a [b]slimy [/b]campaigner who gave official correspondence email addresses for Carbahal’s support message? [/quote]
I wrote”… if true…”. FM & I have concluded it was [u][b]not[/b][/u] true, based on what we believe to be a sincere apology
I wrote: [quote]Don… feel free to remove intermediate posts. [/quote], once I realized this was NOT a “slimy” action.
You wrote:
[quote] it just got to me that [b]you decided to leave the smear out there[/b]. My only guess after all the commotion was that [b]you might have just gotten caught up with a potential “issue” that might give one of the candidates a black eye, one who just happened to be an opponent. [/b][/quote]
I have previously said that, at this point I (and my FM) have ‘no dog in this fight’. You seem to reject this. Your choice.
I was not looking to give anyone a “black eye”, I was deploring the robo-email that my FM received as indicative of what the main point of David’s article was. Potential train wreck.
I’m done with this issue, but not sure you are, and (unlike you) will not presuppose your motivation(s).
“In my mind running the 7th largest economy in the world is more important than the fate of a bunch of coyotes, whether we should preserve a rotted out water tower or the location of a storage shed. “
Do you really think being one of 80 in the Assembly is going to play a huge role in running the 7th largest economy in the world? After all as Don pointed out, their Assembly voting records are likely to be fairly similar. And even if Farrington does support Prop 13, I don’t see the outcomes likely to change all that much.
I also take exception to you picking two relatively abstract council issues rather than the core issues of budget as illustrative. To me that suggests you are intentionally dismissing the important tasks ahead for the council and mocking its importance.
Well cousin Andy, shucks. i mean i know Mayberry is the center of the universe and all with its budget in the millions and those thousands we raised to shoot off the fireworks and we gotta make sure people pick up their dog poop. (Can I put the bullet in cousin Andy?) And the roads needing some gravel and all but the big lights of Raleigh are just a callin me with all that water headed south dryin up the best fishin holes and that $50 billion we get to spend on schoolin youngins and those giant wildfire calls with thousands of them nasty firefighters spendin money like it grows on trees and all and them worker bees dyin on the job before them amonds can get pollinated so that the money grows on trees and Otis bein transfered to the jail in Mount Pilot from Folsom for havin a little too much moonshine in him. Maybe I’m bein silly thinkin that a Davis high grad could make a difference maybe i been seein too many movies down at the Bijou where a single person actually makes a difference and maybe I just a dang fool leavin all this ribbon cuttin behind and ridin in that old double decker bus on the fourth of July but the bright lights of the capitol are a callin out to me.