Late on Sunday, John Munn, a former member of the Davis School Board and candidate for State Assembly, informed the Vanguard that he is running for the Davis City Council.
He told the Vanguard that he would have a more formal announcement later this week, however he wishes his candidacy to speak to ratepayer and taxpayer concerns in Davis. He emphasized that his candidacy is not just about water, but rather a more general concern that the city is on a path to becoming unaffordable to middle class families, while at the same time lacking maintenance of basic infrastructure.
John Munn is listed as a plaintiff on the lawsuit against the city water rates, in which Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services and Mr. Munn contested the constitutionality of the water rates.
Among other things, the plaintiffs argue that the Bartle Wells rates are fatally flawed because they charge different single family residence customers different fixed rates based on the size of the water meter, which they argue is a random assignment based on meter size and not based on usage.
As they argued in their brief, “It would appear that the size of the water meter installed on the single family residence properties was based on some random selection during initial water meter installation and not on a deliberate choice by the City or the rate payer based on the load intended to be placed on the system.”
In a tentative ruling in late January, Judge Dan Maguire ruled, “The water and sewer rates adopted by the City of Davis meet the proportionality standards of the California Constitution, and therefore plaintiffs’ claims are denied.”
However, following a response by the plaintiffs, Judge Maguire has ordered the city’s attorney to respond.
John Munn, who heads up the Yolo Taxpayers Association, in an article that appeared in the Vanguard, argued, “We have one, last chance to decide whether the Davis community can afford such a major increase in water rates (that would eventually take close to 40 million dollars per year out of our economy). Petitions to qualify an initiative overturning the new water rates are now being circulated for signatures by registered voters in Davis.”
The ballot initiative has since qualified and been placed on the ballot.
Mr. Munn argued, “The true cost of this increase has been obscured in two ways. First, the Council changed the City services billing cycle from every-other month to once a month. While doubling postage and other administrative costs, this cut by half the number that rate-payers see as the apparent cost of water and other City services. Second, the Council staged the new rates to increase over time, with the current water cost being similar to or, in some cases, less than the previous rates. This will be followed by annual rate increases for five years until city water costs nearly three times more than it does now.”
In 2012, John Munn ran for State Assembly as a Republican challenging incumbent Democrat Mariko Yamada. He would receive 37.5% of the vote. This was his fourth run for the Assembly, having previously been a candidate in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
In 1997 he was elected to the Davis School Board where he served one term until 2000.
He is 65 years old, receiving his degrees in Soil and Water Science and Engineering from UC Davis, with a masters in Soil Science in 1974.
Mr. Munn is retired from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in Sacramento, where he worked as a Soil and Watershed Scientist for 25 years.
John Munn is now the fifth known candidate for the Davis City Council. Mayor Joe Krovoza has forgone reelection and seeks office as a State Assemblymember. Rochelle Swanson, who was first elected in 2010, is running for reelection.
There are three other challengers: School Board Member Sheila Allen, Robb Davis, and Daniel Parrella.
Click here to see a video of John Munn for when he ran for the State Assembly in 2012, courtesy of Davis Media Access:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Allright, a candidate we know is fiscally responsible. Exactly what this town needs.
Matt, proving once again to be a man of few words.
fiscally responsible? how is putting roadblocks to the water project that is going forward no matter what being fiscally responsible? i have heard estimates that the actions of john munn and michael harrington could cost the city $70 million in financing fees. harrington likes to brag that he saved the city $100 million, but he has almost given it all back.
Do the math, they’ve saved the city money.
yes impressive. man goes into a casino with 100 dollars, wins 1000 on his first hand. sticks 130 dollars into his pocket and proceeds to lose the rest. comes home to his wife, hey i won 30 dollars.
If we had stayed with the status quo we’d be be out another $30 million using your figures. Not chump change by any means.
yeah but if harrington had just known when to quit, we’d be up $100 mil… that’s my point.
The theatrical production isn’t over yet dp. Let’s see how it all has played out when the curtain finally comes down.
Actually, I would be interested in what happenwed on “his watch” on the school board, rather than how he has tried to ‘present’ himself. Cn’t remember.
I’ll bet he didn’t have any volleyball disasters.
When he was on the school board there was a great deal of labor strife. I think the contract went to impasse if I remember correctly. The teachers ended up “working to contract” and picketing before a settlement was reached. Working to contract is when the teachers stop putting in extra time for things like being available after school for play rehearsal, grading papers, tutoring or meeting with parents. Its a really terrible think to have happen because teachers put in a lot of extra time that nobody ever notices until they stop. Teacher morale was awful in Davis when he was in charge.
Then there was his history at Cal Department of Forestry where he signed off on the over logging of the redwoods by Pacific Lumber under Charles Hurwitz. Hurwitz cut 200 years of growth in 20 years and Munn did his job to facilitate the over logging and predictable resultant sedimentation and destruction of salmon spawning gravels in places like Freshwater, Elk River, Bear Creek, Van Duzen and the Eel River.
So it sounds like Mr. Munn is the tough type of negotiator we need to deal with our public labor unions. Sounds like a huge positive to me.
You realize G.I. that none of the Council members actually participate in the negotiations.
Yes Matt, but they lead the way and set the tone.
Or, more accurately, they give direction to negotiating staff, and ‘at the end of the day’ decide whether the said staff achieved the CC goals/direction.
It is preferable to adhere to budget reality without taking antagonistic positions as the current council has done. Putting Munn on there is asking for labor strife.
You can’t have it both ways Toad. However, I very much want to understand his position on economic development. You should too.
Try not to be so partisan will you?
I’m not being partisan. In fact I haven’t said a word about who I support for CC. So let me say that I think Munn would be the worst choice and that any of the other candidates would be better. I’m not publicly for anyone but I am against Munn for city council.
your reasons for opposing him are partisan…
i want to be clear i’m not necessarily against him, i’m against him being in the race.
Actually you can. Both Brett and Rochelle voted for cuts or contract imposition without insulting the employees while expressing regret about needing to make those cuts. As Growth Issue points out the members of the council set the tone. If you want the tone to be one of conflict vote for Munn. If you want it to be one of “sorry but these are our fiscal realities” there are other candidates from which to choose.
munn is about the last guy in the world that is insulting to people. he’s very soft spoken.
When he was on the school board there was labor strife. His anti tax positions against the water project have caused strife in the community. His support of Jose Granda created difficulty for funding the schools. His support for the petition against the water rates more grief and another costly vote on water. If you want to put a guy like that on the CC you can expect more acrimony.
Seriously. Mr. Toad is creating a caricature. John is perfectly nice, and was just one vote on the school board during that difficult period. I disagree with him on most issues, and am supporting other candidates, but don’t see him as a divisive or abrasive person at all.
John Munn is used to running against great electoral odds. I think he often sees campaigns as a way to get his message out.
Mr. Toad: His support of Jose Granda created difficulty for funding the schools.
Can you clarify what you’re talking about?
As president of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association, John Munn supported Measure W in 2008. If you can find it, refer to “Taxpayers Association gives nod to Measure W parcel tax” of the September 22, 2008 edition of the Davis Enterprise.
He and YCTA were publicly neutral on Measure A, the first school parcel tax in which Granda was openly involved. As far as I know, Munn was publicly silent on Measures C and E. As late as 2012, Munn was a member of the DJUSD School Parcel Tax Oversight Committee. I don’t know of any evidence that he supported Granda’s opposition to the school parcel taxes, or his candidacy for school board last time around.
Like most of us, I think he operates somewhere in between caricatures of the political extremes, though likely a wee bit closer to a fiscally conservative side. But if in doubt, the best thing to do is to ask him. His candidacy suggests that he will be open to addressing any such questions.
Perhaps I am wrong and my memory is failing me but I thought the taxpayers association supported Granda’s lawsuit. if that is incorrect I apologize.
I don’t believe the Yolo County one did.
See below: link
I wonder if Bill Dodd is going to endorse him again this time?
He probably will if John Munn follows his lead and becomes a “Democrat”…
I’m not a political consultant, but If I had any advice for Munn it would be to follow Dodd’s lead and change parties.
In 2012 he had rural ranchers, El Macero and Willowbank Republicans to get “all the way” up to 37%. Running in the “city” of Davis he will only get voted from Growth Issue, Frankly and the handful of other Republicans…
Matt, are you a closet El Macero Republican?
In a non-partisan election like the one for Davis City Council, I’m not sure that party affiliation makes much difference.
But to answer your question, since I first campaigned for JFK in 8th Grade in 1960 (110 students in my 8th grade class 107 Republicans and three of us Democrats) until 1984 my voting record was 100% Democrat. Reagan earned my one Republican departure. 100% Democrat or Independent since.
With that said, my closet is all about fiscal stability and sustainability, rebuilding trust, and increasing collaboration.
Matt wrote:
> In a non-partisan election like the one for Davis
> City Council, I’m not sure that party affiliation
> makes much difference.
I’m betting that it will be a long day walking around Davis trying to find someone who answers “YES” to the question “Do you want a Republican on the Davis City Council”…
With that said, my closet is all about fiscal stability and sustainability, rebuilding trust, and increasing collaboration.
Mine too.
I’m betting that it will be a long day walking around Davis trying to find someone who answers “YES” to the question “Do you want a Republican on the Davis City Council”…
I agree.
And then those same voters cannot understand how their city is heading toward insolvency.
I was just thinking… I don’t think I would every hire a CPA that is a registered Democrat… unless they could prove to me that there are a old-style Democrat and not one of these newfangled spend, spend, spend, and tax, tax, tax types.
As a ‘moderate’, who initially was a Democrat (didn’t believe in ‘youth-in-asia’.. not a place I wanted to visit, particularly with the weapon thing going on), but became non-partisan/decline to state, I agree with Matt’s last paragraph.
hpierce wrote:
> but became non-partisan/decline to state,
> I agree with Matt’s last paragraph.
If we keep this going we can change the current mess we are in where the “red team” and “blue team” are both working to raise taxes so they have more money to give back to the people that support them…
I applaud him for continuing to run and think his entry adds some interest to the race.
i think the sound i heard last night must have been sheila allen’s campaign popping the champagne
Please explain. How will his candicacy help Sheila Allen? It’s not like their was another go to Democrat candidate that will now lose votes that conservatives were going to vote for anyway.
there are now three candidates who support the hard line budget reforms: munn, swanson, and davis. there is only one candidate who will get backing by the firefighters and the pro-fire demos. the three candidates will then split the fiscal sustainable vote, watering down their strength. sheila has no one splitting her core constituency votes. she has the best name advantage of the challengers. she wins. game over. the pro fire people only needed one more candidate.
meant one more councilmember in addition to lucas and dan.
Unfortunately you make a good point. Hopefully enough tax and spend liberals in this town will come to their senses and not vote for her.
Although it was before my time, it is my understanding that in the March 2000 election, Susie Boyd ended up as Mayor of Davis (with 9,015 votes) because she was the only candidate with “No on Measure J” as part of her platform. The other seven candidates split up the “Yes on Measure J” vote. They collectively had far more voters than Susie Boyd did (36,000 vs. 9,000), but six of the seven were stuck on 6,000 votes each (the last candidate only had 2,000).
It is telling that there is only one candidate with the public employee union payola connection. Seems that they are either dying off or crawling back to their cave. I will pop a cork to that.
they only needed one. the pro-sustainability group had to keep both seats to stay in the majority.
Davis Progressive: there is only one candidate who will get backing by the firefighters and the pro-fire demos. the three candidates will then split the fiscal sustainable vote, watering down their strength. sheila has no one splitting her core constituency votes. she has the best name advantage of the challengers. she wins. game over. the pro fire people only needed one more candidate.
I don’t see where Allen is necessarily a favorite candidate of the firefighters. Although once I did see her shake hands with Don Saylor in public; does that count?
And I think there are plenty of other issues and dimensions that are important to Davis voters.
Here is why Sheila Allen is probably the current candidate most favorable to the firefighters union. From the Vanguard interview when she announced:
I understand that she had no problem with the last best offer imposed on the firefighters.