When I started the Vanguard in the summer of 2006, it was a personal low point in my life. What my wife and I had gone through for the previous six months changed my life permanently. It was at that low point that the Vanguard was born.
While there were specific public policy reasons behind the creation of the Vanguard, there were also two very basic goals. First was the belief that the community needed a news source that would not simply stop at the press release – two sources for the story and one opposing viewpoint to balance it out.
The second was the need to have a public space where people – unencumbered by fear – could post their viewpoints. The resultant debate, in my view, was hampered because people were afraid to come forward out of fear of criticism or ostracism or perhaps worse. And so, anonymity was a critical defining feature of the early Vanguard.
I learned a lot of things – particularly since I had journalistic training. The early Vanguard was a no-holds-barred effort that readily mixed opinion with news into a hybrid. Everyone was fair game and we took no prisoners.
What I learned was that people are not persuaded, usually, by opinion. Opinion is important as it adds context and can state things that a straight news story cannot. But, at the same time, most people like to get the facts and draw their own conclusions. For the last several years, that is where we have been moving.
Over the years, the Vanguard has grown in both importance and in audience size. It has become a place where the leaders of the community get their news and information, and also a place where they learn about where the public stands on a given issue.
But there is another lesson that I learned about this. If you post on a sports forum, it is unlikely the person you criticize – a player or a coach – is going to read your comment. And even if they do, the impact is probably minimal.
Davis is different. Davis is a small community still. The people that get criticized here will read your comment and, if they do not do so directly, someone who knows them will forward the comments.
Public officials need to be scrutinized – there can be no doubt. But I think the line has to be drawn more clearly between legitimate criticism based on evidence and facts, speculative criticism based on some evidence and a lot guesswork, and plain old conspiracy theories.
In an open society, true conspiracy is difficult to come by. There are too many points of information and too many cooks in the kitchen to truly withhold information.
As we examine the current situation, it is easy to see mistakes. There is little doubt that the optics of the $2 million deal, who was involved, and the fact that it never made it to the public realm make the situation ripe for speculation, criticism, and perhaps for some conspiracy theory.
But, as I laid out on Thursday, there is little evidence of conspiracy. I spent six weeks working on this piece. For most of the first five weeks, I attempted to get those involved to go on the record or release a statement.
Part of the reason those involved were not likely to come forward, I think, had to do with the uncertainty as to how the public would respond and, in particular, the segment of the public who post on the Vanguard.
There have been a few comments that were over-the-top. I would argue that most comments were responsible and within the bounds of decency.
I have a few thoughts on culpability here that I want to share.
First, David Morris has taken a lot of heat here. But, as someone pointed out here, we need to step back and understand that David Morris was at most times a man out of his element here. This is a professor and a researcher. He is not a developer, a PR guy, or a politician.
He has two things going for him. He has a passion for the need in Davis to have a space where local startups can get venture capital funding, and he developed an innovative approach to solving that problem.
If I were to criticize it would be that he needed to bring people on board with him sooner, who had the expertise and experience to help him to implement his ideas. But do we really want to discourage him or people like him from coming forward? We need new ideas and approaches, even if in the end we decide against him.
Second, I am much more critical of George Phillips’ role in this. Unlike David Morris, he should know better. He is, in effect, a PR guy. He should have realized that the optics of this would be off if this came out and people wanted to know exactly why they gave $2 million to David Morris and what exactly was in it for ConAgra.
At the end of the day, we have their explanation and we have guesswork.
That said, I think, in the defense of Mr. Phillips, Davis is a challenging environment for an outsider. Even people as skilled as Rob White and Steve Pinkerton have had moments of challenge. What works in other environments can backfire here.
Third, another group I at least have to question are all of the people that Mr. Morris has told about his idea and ostensibly the $2 million and have said nothing. I understand the counterpoint from many in terms of trying to figure out when and what the duty of public officials is to divulge critical information.
I don’t actually have a great answer. The problem, I think, comes back to Robb Davis’ article about information asymmetries. For strategic information, not all stakeholders were given access to the information and so not even the public officials were necessarily all on the same page.
I am shocked really that, in this community, this information could be withheld for so long.
That leads me to my fourth point here. Why is this information coming out now? Several people asked me why it was important to know where the information comes from. I actually believe it is a critical question.
First, I invite everyone who hasn’t to read the Davis Enterprise‘s article on this matter that came out on Wednesday. There are really three sources for that story: David Morris and George Phillips, with Mayor Joe Krovoza as the contrary view.
If you read it carefully you notice that there is something missing from that piece and this is not meant as a criticism to the author, but rather an illustration here – there is no protagonist. You have two people who are responding to what one can only assume is some sort of unidentified source of information, but what we have is essentially their getting to justify their actions without an accusation that their actions were somehow wrong.
That does not make for a compelling news story and it also does not give the reader an understanding as to why this information is important right now.
In this society we have taken pains to protect whistleblowers from the consequences of whistleblowing. Unfortunately, our safeguards are often insufficient and, in the workplace, the whistleblower suffers from retaliation.
At the same time, a perfectly functioning whistleblower protection system might insulate people from scrutiny whose motivations may not have been nearly as pure as they claim.
I think it is a perfectly legitimate question to attempt to understand the motivations for why this issue was brought to light now, when the whistleblower knew about it for perhaps two years.
In addition to those four critical actors are a number of people who really were not involved. Sadly, some have been dragged into this issue and, on a few occasions in the last few days, there has been some rather pointed criticism.
I think inquiry, questions and speculation have their place, but if we are to cast stones, it needs to be based on firm evidence, not hunches and guesswork. Let us hold our fire until we have the facts, and then we can rightly point the finger.
We are not there yet and everyone needs to take a collective deep breath and see what else comes out.
In short, we still have a lot of questions about what went down. There was a time when I believed that this might bring down the Cannery Project itself. Right now, there are three members of council who have yet to support this project as currently proposed.
However, the biggest outcome of this is probably a reason why ConAgra kept this in the dark – they now will have no choice but to come forth with the second grade-separated crossing and more.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
[quote]However, the biggest outcome of this is probably a reason why ConAgra kept this in the dark – they now will have no choice but to come forth with the second grade separated crossing and more.[/quote]
And this, in my opinion is a real shame. Not because I don’t think the second grade separated crossing is an essential element of the project. I agree with the previous poster who stated the opinion that the project should succeed or fail based on its merits, not on the strategy used to move it forward. The problem I see here is that the merits or lack thereof of the project itself may be lost in the discussion of the strategy used by its promoters.
For any project, the sequence of consideration I would prefer would be:
1) Is it needed by the community ?
2) Are there other alternatives that would be better for the community ?
3) Do it’s features maximize the good for the community while meeting the economic needs of the developers?
4) Do it’s features meet the previously established community goals for health, safety, connectivity, environmental preservation….?
5) Where problems are identified, are they adequately mitigated ?
6) Are there other amenities that would make the project more attractive / innovative or a better fit for the community and region that would still allow for a reasonable profit for the developer ?
Most, although not all, of these factors have been well vetted ( if not agreed upon ) in a number of community forums. This I applaud. What I find a shame is that it appears that what should have been decided upon as an essential, namely provision of adequate alternative means of transportation to automobiles, was relegated to so low a priority and became such a point for dissension, that it seems that an unrelated interaction may serve as the catalyst. Could this not have been prevented by appropriate prioritization of needs and goals from the beginning ?
“If you read it carefully you notice that there is something missing from that piece and this is not meant as a criticism to the author, but rather an illustration here – there is no protagonist. You have two people who are responding to what one can only assume is some sort of unidentified source of information, but what we have is essentially them getting to justify their actions without an accusation that their actions were somehow wrong.”
It reads as a feel good story. Not until you get to Korvoza’s response at the end does it hint at fact that something might be amiss.
[quote]It reads as a feel good story. Not until you get to Korvoza’s response at the end does it hint at fact that something might be amiss. [/quote]
Yes, I felt the Enterprise article was more of making the “donation” a good thing than really looking at it from a skeptical viewpoint.
David, I thought you had an exclusive, I was wondering how the Enterprise came out with the same news on Wednesday too?
I am not sure they need to foot the entire bill for the second crossing but in my opinion they should make a sizable contribution to it.
Fortune Cookie: “you will soon find seed money from Mr. Toad tunnel fund LLC”
GI… guess I’ve got my own sources too. 😉
Tom Sakash
[quote]GI… guess I’ve got my own sources too. 😉 [/quote]
LOL, I guess so Tom. I read David’s column first thing in the morning where he cited an anonymous tip and I was thinking what a scoop. But then I was like what the heck after I read your article in the Enterprise shortly after that. Tom, now that I’ve got your ear, I felt your article was more of a praise for ConAgra and CCV then it was skeptical of a donation that would only get paid if the Cannery project went through. I just felt that maybe you hadn’t had time to research everything out yet. Are you going to do a follow up article addressing some of the concerns that are being voiced?
Perhaps the Enterprise was just reporting the facts rather than engaging in speculation and innuendo.
Speaking of facts: Is Mayor Krovoza saying he just heard about this? Or was he one of the individuals who was shown the original presentation?
“Perhaps the Enterprise was just reporting the facts rather than engaging in speculation and innuendo.”
no you missed the point entirely. the vanguard wasn’t criticizing the enterprise, it was criticizing the accuser for failing to come forward.
My response was to the comment by GI that the Enterprise article should have been more “skeptical”, and that the reporter hadn’t “researched everything out yet”. Aside from being very condescending to Mr. Sakash, I felt the comment was off-base. Mr. Sakash reports the facts. Skepticism and expressions thereof are the realm of columnists (and bloggers)
And I guess no one has an answer to my question about what the mayor knew and when he knew it. I believe it is relevant given his criticism of the contribution and it’s potential impact on the Cannery. If he knew before the story broke, he is at least partly responsible for the lack of transparency many have decried, and one would have to wonder about the genuineness of his shock and dismay.
The $2M donation to CCV by a large, publicly traded corporation like ConAgra only makes sense if we understand their larger business plan and the role that Davis plays in it. ConAgra is in the business of maximizing profits. Their stockholders want to see maximum return. There is nothing nefarious in their actions other than what ConAgra is as a corporation.
From a public policy perspective, I don’t think corporations like ConAgra or Monsanto have had a good impact on our social, economic or physical well-being. I would just as soon see them make their return on investment for the Cannery and go away. If they have $2M to “invest” in Davis’ technology future, (I assume their investment is in technology that they can leverage for their corporate objectives) I would like to see it paid up front on infrastructure (at the Cannery) and then go away. I would, of course, welcome them with open arms if they were to renounce most of what they have been doing over the last 30 years and want to join the human community and find profitable solutions that don’t ravage the environment.
Good Government: Maybe you should email him and ask him yourself. mayor@cityofdavis.org
I dont always agree with the Mayor but he is a kind and honest fellow. Im sure ConAgra worked with stealth and cunning to keep.this $2.0 million deal away from him.
Moving from the specific to the overlay of this article. many kudos for the brave acknowledgement of how Vanguard has deliberately evolved from muckraker to a more balanced and documented approach to viewing public issues.
Opinions are largely ineffective simply because most of us already have our own, thank you. Yet many folks on this message board are compulsively required to make them, repetitively, with support found from only the like-minded. Opinions almost never change others’ opinions in the absence of facts and it’s very gratifying that the Vanguard evolved to this position. They have become far more effective in shaping public opinion as a result.
The fear factor in expressing opinions is over-emphasized and usually cited as an lame excuse to remain anonymous. The real fear is, when a real person expresses an opinion, that person’s credibility and accountability is fixed and given a real identity. I’m certain that the more vitriolic posters only spit venom in such quantities because they can remain hidden under a pseudonym and never held personally accountable for the comments.
Identified persons, such as the three shown above, as well as Mr. Greenwald are willing to attach their names and reputations to their comments. We form and substantiate opinions of them as a result. The rest are far more cowardly than fearful. I’d say coward to you face-to-face, if you had one.
“The rest are far more cowardly than fearful. I’d say coward to you face-to-face, if you had one.”
You don’t know me, or my character.
You don’t know the threats I have received, and I don’t really care if you think I’m a coward, because I know I’m not. And my children, husband, and friends know I’m not. You don’t matter to me, and you can’t goad me into indentifying myself. Nice try, verbal bully.
Phil Coleman
[quote]Opinions are largely ineffective simply because most of us already have our own, thank you. [/quote]
This makes the assumption that the goal of the comment is to [u]change[/u] someone’s mind. An opinion can be very helpful in presenting an idea that may not have been considered by someone who has not yet made up their mind on an issue. Often when I post, I am not addressing the person whose quote I am responding to,but rather those who are still weighing the pros and cons.
[quote]The rest are far more cowardly than fearful. I’d say coward to you face-to-face, if you had one.[/quote]
Until fairly recently when I saw the point of adding my name to my posts, I was posting anonymously, not because I was personally fearful, nor because I wanted to attack others anonymously, but because I wanted the freedom to discuss very personal and controversial issues without any chance that my opinions would reflect
negatively on my colleagues or my children. My daughter has since given me her permission to use her situation as an example when I have a specific point to make about health care. This has been quite liberating.
I have come to use the phrase ” speaking as a private citizen” freely to attempt to dissociate my opinions from those of the medical group in which I have my practice.
I am only saying this so that you will know that not everyone who is posting anonymously is doing so because they are cowards. There may be any number of other reasons of which we are not aware.
Tia Will
aka medwoman
[quote]”The rest are far more cowardly than fearful. I’d say coward to you face-to-face, if you had one.” [/quote]
Aggressive and hostile attitudes, and not be confronted by the people who possess them, are why people choose to stay anonymous.
-Michelle Millet
aka B.Nice
there is a value to anonymity too. i couldn’t post given my profession. more other we saw people like erm, rich rifkin, and the former frankly, who were just as vicious under the color of their own name as anyone on this site – named or anonymous.