While it is hard to know exactly how meaningful this sort of trend is, in the last week we have seen three major endorsements go the way of Rochelle Swanson and Robb Davis from three very different entities: the Sierra Club, the Davis Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee, and, on Sunday, the Davis Enterprise. For good measure the Chamber PAC threw in Daniel Parrella.
The Enterprise writes, “A strong field of candidates for the Davis City Council gives voters an opportunity to return a hard-working veteran to the dais and welcome a political newcomer who has been called a “gifted thinker.” We are pleased to recommend that you give Rochelle Swanson and Robb Davis your votes.”
On Rochelle Swanson, the Enterprise writes that her motto is “Finding Common Ground,” and “we believe she’s put that philosophy into practice during her four years on the council. She is smart and analytical and has been a calm, steady voice of reason as the city has maneuvered through the choppy waters of budget cuts, shared fire services, a new housing development and a regional surface water project.”
The Enterprise continues, “She has been a tireless advocate for economic development, almost single-handedly yanking our community into the regional conversation when it comes to attracting job-creating new businesses. Where Roseville once could pitch itself as ‘the home of UC Davis,’ now Davis is rightfully linking itself to the fabulous knowledge that comes out of the world-class university in our own back yard.”
“Swanson knows our spiraling retiree pension and health care benefits could one day bankrupt our city if a strong council doesn’t rein them in,” the Enterprise notes. “She’s been respectful of our hard-working city employees while making it clear that shared sacrifice is the only path to fiscal sustainability. And she was resolute in voting to impose terms on two recalcitrant employee groups.”
They add, “She’s realistic, too, knowing the revenue stream that will flow from a well-planned innovation park is just what Davis needs to help balance its budget. We want to give her the opportunity to build on the groundwork she’s laid over the past four years.”
“Swanson prides herself on doing what’s best for Davis. Voters should give her four more years to finish the job,” they conclude.
For Robb Davis, they note that anyone who spends any time with him comes “away impressed with his open-mindedness, intellect, thoughtfulness and understanding of the complex issues facing our city. We can think of no other first-time candidate who has been this fully prepared to serve.”
“While Davis may be best known for his volunteer efforts with Davis Bicycles! and the fledgling Neighborhood Court program — which seeks to apply restorative justice for first-time offenders — he has an impressive command of the fiscal challenges facing our city,” they write, noting, “He’s frustrated that, while the seriousness of the budget deficit was known as long ago as last summer, there’s been no real community conversation about solutions.”
They continue, “He’s ready to dive in to that conversation, however, saying City Hall needs a thorough staffing analysis and an up-to-date accounting of not only the necessary road repairs but the entire maintenance backlog for city facilities (fire stations, swimming pools, public buildings). Davis also knows the next council must continue on the path blazed by this council in holding firm on employee costs, proposing that conversations with employee groups start well before their contracts come due.”
“His community-building expertise, honed through years of work with maternal and children’s health programs around the world, would be a welcome addition to our council. And his abilities to listen carefully, ask pointed questions, assimilate mountains of information and help folks reach consensus are just what an effective council member needs,” they conclude. “Cast your vote for Robb Davis. You won’t regret it.”
Vanguard Analysis: How Meaningful is the Davis Enterprise Endorsement?
To answer this question, we look back at the council races since 2006 and see how the Enterprise endorsements fit into the environment at the time.
2006: Enterprise endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy. The conventional wisdom that year was that the incumbent Ruth Asmundson and veteran Stan Forbes were the front runners. However, Lamar Heystek, in probably the most contentious race we have seen in the last decade, surged surprisingly into second – a close second where he narrowly missed finishing first. Mike Levy had a strong third place showing, and Stan Forbes a disappointing fourth. The Enterprise endorsed the more development-friendly candidates, but the voters were split.
2008: Enterprise endorsed Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and Sydney Vergis. This was the last time that the Enterprise strictly endorsed on development. Three incumbents ran for reelection and the three incumbents won, with Sue Greenwald finishing third and Sydney Vergis a surprisingly close fourth.
2010: Enterprise endorsed Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson. The Enterprise endorsed the two eventual winners over Sydney Vergis who, on the heels of her near miss in 2008, seemed like a frontrunner for an open 2010 seat, but ran a very lackluster campaign. The Enterprise had endorsed Ms. Vergis in 2008, but not in 2010, in a decision symptomatic of not only the challenger’s problems but the changing tide in Davis politics.
2012: Enterprise endorsed Dan Wolk, Sue Greenwald, and Brett Lee. This seemed like an odd choice at the time. The Enterprise had not endorsed Sue Greenwald in her two previous races, but suddenly did so this time. They endorsed her at a point when she seemed at her most vulnerable. The Bee had endorsed Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee. The Chamber had endorsed Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs and Stephen Souza. On election day, the first two picks seemed a foregone conclusion; the surprise was that Brett Lee edged out both incumbents.
In a way, 2014 feels a lot like 2010. Last weekend, both Bob Dunning and the Vanguard seemed to feel like Rochelle Swanson and Robb Davis were the two frontrunners. However, John Munn has name recognition and will get a lot of Republican votes. Sheila Allen is a two-time school board member who is the only endorsed candidate of the Democratic Party.
In the end, any of those four could win, but it feels like a trend is forming.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I stopped reading the Enterprise when I discovered the Vanguard. When someone is arrested, the Enterprise prints the police dept’s press release. If the person is found innocent, no coverage at all, or very minimal. Not guilty = not newsworthy. They do not mind destroying a person’s reputation. They seem to derive a sick pleasure from that. I don’t recall any kind of meaningful follow up story when the incident at the train station resulted in an innocent verdict. Lauren Keene is a joke. I have many other examples of innocent people being arrested and later found innocent. They don’t care. I will never read the Enterprise again. For me, their endorsement of a candidate means nothing.
Nada.
“exoneration” (PROVED to be ‘not guilty’), and “found INNOCENT”, are very different animals than a failure to prove guilt, of if “proven” guilty, being released based on procedural/technical grounds. Neither true exoneration, nor being found innocent, are common outcomes even when a jury/judge determine that someone is ‘not guilty’. Unless a jury votes 100% to find someone “not guilty”, I can see no reason (rational, that is) to opine that someone was ‘exonerated’ or ‘innocent’. And even then…
Example: Person A is charged with a crime, and person B is shown ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’, to be the actual perpetrator (with no reasonable evidence that person A was involved), then, and only then, can someone claim that person A was exonerated or found innocent.
When Mr. Sonne was found innocent by a jury of his peers, the Enterprise should have given him more coverage. Maybe devote an article to the expense and heartache that caused his family. Just saying, that would have been the decent thing to do.
Was that “innocent” vote 12-0?
Darrell: “When someone is arrested, the Enterprise prints the police dept’s press release. If the person is found innocent, no coverage at all, or very minimal. Not guilty = not newsworthy.”
The fact of the matter is that when Thaddeus Jay Sonne was found not guilty, Lauren Keene wrote an article explaining the verdict and quoting each side in the lawsuit. It was published by The Enterprise Sunday, February 3, 2013. Leading up to the verdict there were many articles explaining the facts.
One week after the not-guilty verdict was announced, an Enterprise columnist, Debra DeAngelo wrote a follow-up column expressing her outrage at the verdict. Ms. DeAngelo, like the DA, clearly thought Mr. Stone should have been found guilty of rape.
My own take is, that while Mr. Sonne was innocent of the charges brought against him, this was not in any sense a cut and dried case. Apparently, the charges were not proven. But that does not mean that Mr. Sonne’s behavior was faultless. It just seems to me that you had some sort of extreme bias–is Sonne a friend of yours–and anyone whose views were not the same as your was someone you disliked.
“the DA, clearly thought Mr. Stone should have been found guilty of rape.”
Sorry, auto-correct got me. Make that Sonne, not Stone.
Wow, maybe you work for the D.A. Even when the jury finds someone innocent, you still question it? And, of course, if someone pleads no contest, you surely will not believe the person may be innocent and just ran out of money to defend themselves.
Wow.
They don’t find them “innocent”… they find him “not guilty,as charged”. I have no involvement in law enforcement, nor the judicial system. Some people like to twist words written/spoken by others. Others feel an obligation to state facts. I leave to others to determine which ‘camp’ I belong in.
I never said that I believe a “nolo contendre” is evidence of guilt. I never said that an 11-12 verdict (“not guilty”) with the 11 voting to convict, was a demonstration of guilt. I ONLY said that someone who is convicted of a crime, tried, and missing a conviction by one or two votes, can claim “innocence” nor “exoneration”. They can rightfully claim that they were judged “not guilty”. Read my words.
The “maybe you work for the DA” comment was not only blatantly false, but it was gratuitous, and now, perhaps making your point, you should clarify, or apologize for any effect you have done to my credibility, as you expect the Emptyprize to do. After all you accused me of things I didn’t do, and/or motivations that you attributed to me. Suggest you check you hypocrite meter.
I will not hold my breath, as I am convinced you would never apologize nor . But I can see where you would claim “innocense”, as I am not in a position to convict you for anything.
Pax
“can”, second paragraph, third sentence was intended as “cannot”. Perhaps I was, in the moment, channeling D.D.
I apologize for wrongly associating you with the D.A. I’m sorry I wrote that. I feel bad that you want to distinguish someone from being “not guilty” vs. “innocent”. This is why wrongful accusations are so painful. Even when someone is found “not guilty”, many citizens still do not want to believe the falsely accused is 100 % innocent.
“They don’t find them “innocent”… they find him “not guilty,as charged”.”
there is a such thing as a finding of factual innocence, it would be a judge not a jury that makes the declaration and as you can imagine, it is comparatively rare.
That’s what I said… not often is factual innocence determined.
you seem to be missing the point of this article. first of all, lauren keene is not on the enterprise editorial board, so the point you make there is irrelevant. second, it’s not that you should care who the enterprise endorses, it’s what does that endorsement tell us about the state of the city council election.
Not irrelevant at all. My point was, I do not like the Enterprise & I do not care who its editor endorses or does not endorse.
yes, you made that point abundantly clear. but the purpose of the article is to assess what meaning the endorsement has for who will win the race, not whether anyone cares who gets endorsed.
I wish every person who reads the Vanguard would give this website what they can afford. If you stopped reading the Enterprise when you discovered the Vanguard, please consider donating a similar amount, of money, like a newspaper subscription.
Thank you.
The Enterprise should do stories about what happens when a newspaper prints only half a story. What happens to family members and friends of people who are arrested and later found innocent? How do they handle the questions from the public when the Enterprise prints only half of the informtion surrounding their loved one? How do they move on, once the person is exonerated? The negative press is out there forever. That bell can never be unrung. The Enterprise does not care. They got their story, that’s all that matters.
D.P. My point was I do not like the Davis Enterprise and I don’t care who it endorses.
D.D.
“I don’t care who it endorses”
As far as my personal vote, I am in complete agreement with you. However, I am also aware that there are voters who may use such an endorsement as part ( or all ) of their decision making process when it comes time to vote.
This is enough reason in and of itself for me to appreciate the endorsement for Robb Davis. If it pulls in even one undecided voter, I am appreciative.
I can’t ever recall using endorsements, except to validate where I was already intending to go, except if I see a preponderance of the endorsements going against my inclinations, I have paused to re-evaluate. Can’t recall such re-evaluation changing my vote.
Tia, I see your point.
I actually dislike the Enterprise so much that the editor in chief’s endorsement might give me pause, I may not want to support someone she supports. I tried to speak with her on the phone once. I told her I didn’t think she was doing her job properly, and then she actually hung up on me. So, I would have to wonder about any candidate she supports.
So glad I can keep up on the news in Davis by reading the Vanguard. It is much more thorough, and accurate.
>I told her I didn’t think she was doing her job properly, and then she actually hung up on me.
Gee, can’t image why . . .
D.D.
Your comment made me smile. My political perspective is quite far removed from that of the editor of the Enterprise, and yet we both stand together in support of Robb Davis for city council. From my point of view, it must say something positive about a candidate if people of very different persuasions agree that this individual is one of the best candidates.
I like Robb Davis, too.
Newspapers should be reporting the news, not endorsing candidates. When they endorse people, how can we know they will report accurately on stories regarding the same candidate.
That’s why you have a separation between an editorial board which opines and the news reporters that make the news.