Two weeks ago, the Davis College Democrats hosted a candidates’ forum for the Democratic candidates for City Council. For the most part, this forum was a success. Candidates explained their positions on a variety of important topics and provided our members and guests with a better idea of who they might support. Yet, these forums are only useful if the candidates themselves are honest in their responses.
When we asked the candidates to explain their stances on Measure R, Linda Deos’ position was crystal clear: “Measure R…has created a town of haves and have-nots”, Linda said, adding that while it would be difficult to take a vote away from people, “I am definitely for repealing.”
Just the next week, Linda Deos published an article on Davisite expressing her stance on Measure R. Here, too, Linda Deos’ position was crystal clear: “Let me begin by stating in as clear as [sic] terms as possible that I support Measure R.”
This article, frankly, was a shock. With only a week’s difference, Linda Deos has publicly expressed precisely opposite positions on one of the most salient issues in this community.
Regardless of your position on Measure R, the dishonesty displayed here should worry and offend you. In a political world torn by fake news, alternative facts, and straight-up lies, it is essential that we hold those who would represent us to the highest levels of accountability. In the very least, we should expect them to tell us the truth.
Democratically yours,
Perrin Swanlund
President of the Davis College Democrats
Perrin Swanlund accuses Ms. Deos of lying. A lie, according to Wikipedia, is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception.
It’s odd that Ms. Deos expressed two opposite opinions about an issue (Measure J/R) that is very important in the Davis political mix. Her piece in the Davisite didn’t really give any clue to why she was writing about her position at this point in time, but as many (and I) noted it was only a few days after she expressed the opinion that Measure J/R should be repealed. I really don’t know what she believes, but I’m not sure she lied. To be frank, I haven’t asked her, and that’s one way to get more information about her intentions – rather than simply accusing her of lying.
The other day I took a Vanguard commenter to task for assuming they knew what another commenters underlying intentions were without inquiring about them.
In this strange and weird time of Trump, it is easy to accuse others of lying. In the “good old days” of politics, candidates and office-holders were simply accused of “waffling” when they seemed too quick to express one opinion on an issue to one audience and then a seemingly opposite opinion to another audience. More recently politicians have been said to have “evolved” on issues.
Maybe Mr. Swanlund should ask Ms. Deos directly what she believes.
And maybe the Vanguard administrator should write an article about the two positions she has taken, the reaction by the College Dems president on one hand and the commenters on the Davisite on the other, rather than simply dropping an accusation of lying without comment. Maybe he should ask her to comment on the two opinions she has expressed. (I know, I know – your questions to the candidates are coming soon.)
The substance of a politician’s words and actions, in my view, are far more important than their inner-dialogue. In this case, regardless of her intent, she made a dishonest declaration about a critical political issue in the community she wishes to represent. This is what I am criticizing, and I stand by it fully. Linda has followed up on this issue with me, and it does not change my opinion in the slightest (forgive me, I’m a bit too sensitive to privacy issues to share that communication publicly).
You present a technical argument against the use of the word “lying”, which I do not accuse Linda of in this letter, unless you accept a definition of lying different from the one you presented. I did accuse Linda of lying on my personal Facebook profile immediately after reading the article in which she expressly reverses the position she claimed when speaking to my club, and if the definition you provided is the end-all-be-all of the word, I would agree that I should not have accused her of it, as it’s impossible for me to know what’s going on in her head. As it stands, the narrowness of the word “lie” is debated in the world of semantics, and Wikipedia is not the arbiter of that discussion.
I’m sorry, the WHAT?!???
Shooooo, that word is not allowed on here.
DCD did ask her what she believes. Perrin Swanlund asked her whether she whether she would repeal or amend Measure R in 2020 and she said “I would definitely support repealing…”. Then a few days later she takes the exact opposite stance…. This what someone getting caught lying looks like. Had Linda prefaced her change in opinion through the Davisite saying how she had deliberated further and found her original opinion to be wrong then there would be no problem. It would be disappointing but understandable. Instead she said one thing to one set of potential voters then the exact opposite to another group with the intention of gaining support from both.
Let me clarify – has Mr. Swanlund asked her to explain her change of position between the College Dems forum and the Davisite piece?
Maybe then you and he might have a better idea about why she would make two apparently opposite statements.
Calling someone a liar is a pretty strong accusation. Why would you assume she has attempted to deceive the public? Rather than make a charged accusation, talk to the candidate.
We did at our forum. Take a look:
DCD Forum – Go to 0:29:00
https://www.facebook.com/daviscollegedemocrats/videos/10156285540558395/
“This measure R thing, I call it J/R, has created a town of haves and have-nots. It also puts the power outside of us [residents] and into the hands of developers who say, “We know whats best for you, what the development will look like and you can vote it up or down.” I don’t like that. But its going to be very heard to take that vote away from people, we will need to re-educate the voters. I am definitely for repealing” -Linda Deos
Linda Deos on Measure R –
“Let me begin by stating in as clear as terms as possible that I support Measure R. I unequivocally support direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting City policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs. I voted to renew Measure R in 2010.” -Linda Deos
I think that the accusation of lying is very strong, and from my own conversation with Linda Deos, a misrepresentation of what actually occurred. I would recommend that before any candidate or surrogate accuses another of lying, they might want to address what happened with the candidate themselves. They might come away with an entirely different impression.
I know very well how strong the term lying is. Had she mentioned that she had changed her opinion or explained how her original opinion from our forum was misunderstood, then I would not be accusing her of lying. How can anyone say Linda’s statements on Measure R aren’t suspect? Below I have two links. First the video of her response to our question and the second of her article in the Davisite.
DCD Forum – Go to 0:29:00
https://www.facebook.com/daviscollegedemocrats/videos/10156285540558395/
“This measure R thing, I call it J/R, has created a town of haves and have-nots. It also puts the power outside of us [residents] and into the hands of developers who say, “We know whats best for you, what the development will look like and you can vote it up or down.” I don’t like that. But its going to be very heard to take that vote away from people, we will need to re-educate the voters. I am definitely for repealing” -Linda Deos
Linda Deos on Measure R –
“Let me begin by stating in as clear as terms as possible that I support Measure R. I unequivocally support direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting City policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs. I voted to renew Measure R in 2010.” -Linda Deos
For some reason, my response to Robert seems to have been eaten by the system.
The substance of a politician’s words and actions, in my view, is far more important than their inner-dialogue. Regardless of her intent, Linda Deos misrepresented her position on an issue of substantial importance to the community she wishes to represent. This is what I point out and criticize in the letter, not whether she was being intentionally nefarious or not. Linda has reached out regarding her contradictory statements (out of respect for privacy, I will not share her emails to me), and I stand by the contents of this letter fully.
There is an argument over whether or not “lying” is an acceptable term in this situation. I did not accuse Linda of lying in this letter, unless one accepts a definition of lying different from the one Robert has suggested. I did accuse Linda of lying on my personal Facebook profile immediately after discovering that she had misrepresented her position. If Wikipedia’s definition of “lie” is accepted as gospel, than my personal statement might have been imprudent, as I cannot possibly know the intentions of Linda beyond what she has said. That said, there is substantial debate over the narrowness of the definition of the word “lie” in the world of semantics, and Wikipedia can hardly be considered the arbiter of that question. Given the nature of politics, I lean towards the practical impact of statements.
I appreciate your comments.
You stated: “the dishonesty displayed here should worry and offend you” which suggests to me that at the very least you believe she was being disingenuous.
Linda made two opposing statements within a week of the forum. I have asked her directly and she denies that she was lying and reports that she misspoke, was not well enough informed, and should have done better. I appreciate what I perceive as her honesty and will continue to evaluate her statements about the city issues very carefully.
Generally I don’t decide who to vote for for council based on one or even two position statements. Recently we have had more and more candidates who are new to the process and have had to learn on the job, which can lead to unfortunate situations like this one. I think it would be helpful in the current situation for Linda to clarify her two statements publicly – and I’ve told her that.
You stated: “The substance of a politician’s words and actions, in my view, is far more important than their inner-dialogue.”
Being a psychologist I guess I’m biased in wanting to know what the motivations are for people’s words and actions – including politicians. And maybe I’m mistaken but someone’s implicit biases (which I am equating with their “inner dialogue”) can and often does lead to statements and actions. In the current situation you seem to have made some judgments about Linda’s motivations and “inner dialogue” in that you suggest she is being dishonest and maybe shouldn’t be trusted. That seems like a hypothesis that should be investigated, rather than made into an accusation about someone’s character (i.e. dishonest and untruthful). We have the luck here in Davis of being able to confront our candidates on a weekly basis to ferret out what they believe and then to make our own judgments about their ability to govern, and serve the city.
Did she say exactly how she was misinformed? What statement was a mistake? Why has it taken her so long to address this issue? Hopefully this can be addressed at the forum this weekend.
Your position is perfectly fair. I don’t expect this letter will ruin Linda’s campaign, nor do I believe that a singular policy position taken away from a holistic view of a candidate should make or break a candidate. I do believe that candidates should be held accountable for their actions. I hope that this letter will encourage members of this community to think critically about the topic, whether they come down on it with my view or another, and that this occurrence will deter the candidates in general from misrepresenting their views, whether through malice or incompetence.
Tia, I spoke with her too. She really did say she voted against measure R, and supported its repeal. It’s available online. The College Dems were there. She said it to them. Then she said the exact opposite thing to a group of folks with the exact opposite opinion in written form, without acknowledging her previous statement. What conclusions would you draw?
Without talking to the candidate – something we value in our city – I haven’t made up my mind. Maybe you should go to her table and ask her for yourself and then make up your mind.
Students literally had the candidate infront of them and asked her point blank her opinion on the subject. This isnt new. It didnt happen today. The Davisite article came out a week ago. We raised our concerns immediately after and still have not heard any clarification. It honestly looks like there was an expectation DCD folks dont pay attention to even the smallest of platforms for Davis discussions. We did pay attention and we believe that this information needs to be made public. Give the benefit of the doubt if you will, but dont do it blindly. Read what she said.
I watched the forum in real time, have re-watched it via the video and have read her Davisite article at least once. It was puzzling enough to me that she said one thing one day and something opposite another day that I have actually spoken to her about it.
Have you spoken to her about these two opinions? Are you curious to know why she might have given two opposite opinions in such a short span of time?
Im concerned that she gave two contradictory statements in such a short time frame. There has been plenty of time for a correction or an explanation and she seems more interested in ignoring this issue. I desire a city council that gives clear messages to the voters. The mere fact that she did this means I feel she cannot be trusted with a city council seat. I know I am not alone on this one. Luckily we have 8 others to choose from.
Shaun
“What conclusions would you draw?”
When faced with uncertainty regarding conflicting statements, I did what I always do with regard to local races. I asked her directly in a face to face and subsequent telephone conversation about what happened. She answered and those answers have provided the conclusion that I have drawn. I do not believe that she deliberately lied but handled a situation sub optimally on the basis of an erroneous understanding of Measure J/R combined with a lack of experience campaigning. What I object to is the use of the word “lying” without having personally addressed the issue with the candidate directly ( not by emails or posts which invariably lack the direct component of a one on one conversation).
No candidate still running for office is likely to admit to lying. She understood full well what measure R is and made that clear in both statements. What was different between both statements was the audience. In front of DCD she had a crowd that was far less supportive of Measure R and on the Davisite the opposite. I don’t know about you but I definitely don’t need any further conversation to know that a candidate who says whatever the people in front of them want to hear even if it goes against their ideals is dishonest.
At least she knew who she was speaking to. I would be a lot more troubled by this if she had told each group what they didn’t want to hear.
For the sake of the argument lets entertain the thought that Linda Deos was misinformed about Measure R. To start off Measure R is one of the most important policy issues in Davis. As a first year transfer student I have not been in Davis very long, yet within weeks I was introduced to Measure R. Its impossible to escape a conversation on Measure R in this town. Ron will tell you how an overwhelming majority of articles on this site circle the subject via the housing crisis. A candidate for office should be able to articulate a succinct opinion on the most important issues in the electorate they are running in. But there is a chance that at every single housing related city council meeting since trackside she stepped out of the room when measure R inevitably was mentioned. Either she lied to one of two groups of voters, or Linda has failed to inform herself on the prevailing issues. The second only begs to ask how many other pertinent issues is Linda uninformed on? Police oversight? infrastructure? transportation? economic development? There is far to much at stake for us to elect someone who cant be bothered to create a concrete opinion on the most important issues facing Davis voters.
Aaron
Again, I disagree. I believe her point of confusion surrounded a technicality that a candidate might well not understand. As I said before, I think that the most appropriate course is to have a direct conversation rather than making assumptions and leaping to conclusions. But of course, it is everyone’s right to handle these situations in anyway they see fit.
Tia: All candidates eligible for participation in the forum were sent a questionnaire (question next below) with a similar question on Measure R on February 9th. With nearly 20 days to come up with a response before the forum (2/28) Linda had plenty of time to adequately educate herself on the issue of Measure R. Additionally both her measure R answers go in depth on the crux of the policy itself and show a very good understanding of Measure R. I am not making assumptions at all merely following what her statements show. I do not think it possible she was mistaken about anything other that who how much members of the community would hold her responsible for her own words.
“Our city is running out of room to accommodate future growth, with a severe housing and financial crisis. Measure R has placed a stranglehold on any annexation efforts to deal with this problem by requiring a ballot measure for any significant development. In 2020 Measure R will go on the ballot for reauthorization. If elected how will you augment Measure R to stave off another city housing or financial crisis?” DCD Candidate Questionnaire
Sorry, I mixed up Mary Jo Bryan’s comment with Linda’s with regard to voting specifically. Sorry about that! Linda didn’t say which way she voted at the DCD forum.
Here are the exact quotes from Linda Deos on Measure R. I know what they look like to me. Make what you will of them:
DCD Forum – Go to 0:29:00
https://www.facebook.com/daviscollegedemocrats/videos/10156285540558395/
“This measure R thing, I call it J/R, has created a town of haves and have-nots. It also puts the power outside of us [residents] and into the hands of developers who say, “We know whats best for you, what the development will look like and you can vote it up or down.” I don’t like that. But its going to be very heard to take that vote away from people, we will need to re-educate the voters. I am definitely for repealing” -Linda Deos
Linda Deos on Measure R –
“Let me begin by stating in as clear as terms as possible that I support Measure R. I unequivocally support direct citizen participation in land use decisions affecting City policies for compact urban form, agricultural land preservation and adequate housing supply to meet internal City needs. I voted to renew Measure R in 2010.” -Linda Deos
Aaron
What Linda said is not in question. Why she made the contradictory statements is another matter entirely. An accusation of lying implies that one has inside information on the motive. I suggest that that may not be the case.
She is a candidate for public office attempting to find votes to win an election. Thats all the motive thats needed. I used to be one of the most vocal supporters of Linda in DCD, she was the first city council candidate I met this year. From comparing the differences in the statements and the audience they were made to, in combination with the fact that Linda is a candidate for public office seeking votes, shows that this is not a simple mistake. This shows her to be a candidate that will say anything to anyone to get elected, rather than finding like minded individuals who share her vision of the future.
FYI: There appears to be additional clarification:
Not sure of the viability of that idea (specifically regarding Measure R renewal), but perhaps helps to clarify her position.
What happened to the link to Davisite.org, where the above reference can be located?
References are allowed on the Vanguard, if there’s an appropriate text reference included. Commenters do this on a routine basis.
Please put the link back. It reflects poorly on the Vanguard, to delete it.
Yes – thank you. It appears the clarification was submitted on March 9th.
Maybe the problem is that’s the competition? LOL
Well, that’s what I was thinking. No other links with text have been deleted, in my experience. But, at least my comment noting the deletion is apparently being allowed to remain.
Seems like there might be room for more than one politically-oriented publication.
There’s room for more than one soft drink company, but I’m not expecting links to the Pepsi site to remain on a Coca Cola site.
People can change their minds about issues. I think we should allow this. The standard should be higher for candidates when they say opposing things on different days. She should be given an opportunity to explain her change of heart, which might be more interesting than merely it being discovered that she is saying different things to different audiences on different days.
I hope she gets that chance on Sunday at the Civenergy Forum. If a small statement in the davisite or another statement was released explaining how she went from a clear repeal to supporting measure R this wouldnt be an issue. I would be disappointed that a candidate made a retraction of a statement they made to us but nothing more. This looks far to suspect to let it slide or allow blind benefit of the doubt.
Hi, Aaron! Could you please repeat that comment a fourth time? I didn’t understand it. Sadly
is now etched in my memory.
Thanks!
Deos’ contradictory statements are quite troubling for anyone who’s paying attention. As Tia noted, there’s no ambiguity about what she said; to paraphrase the anti-Clinton meme, “she was against Measure R before she was for it.” At the risk of repeating what others have said, the thoughts floating around in my mind are:
1. Did she not actually understand what Measure R is? That level of ignorance — and the Trumpian willingness to act like you know what you’re talking about when you haven’t a clue — in a council candidate on a subject of such importance comes pretty close to disqualify the candidate for me.
2. Was her flip-flop the result of political coaching, i.e. an advisor saying “You can’t be against Measure R and expect to win”? That doesn’t speak well of a candidate’s personal integrity and trustworthiness.
I’ll be watching to see how she handles this going forward. Assuming that her most recently stated position is genuine, my advice would be for her to take every opportunity to say publicly what she told Tia: “I messed up, I misunderstood the way Measure R works and, under pressure to deliver a definitive statement at the DCD forum, I made a statement that is contrary to my views on growth control.” If she says this loud enough and often enough she *may* be able to regain the trust of those who now view her with a very skeptical eye.
I don’t think a majority of voters will ever be aware of her misstep, unless someone makes a point of conducting a negative campaign targeting her. But it may matter when it comes to endorsements and fundraising.
One possibility that should at least be considered is that Linda Deos is not an experienced politician. She may have misspoken. She may have been confused about the implications of her comment.
Spoiler alert, but we start our weekly questions on Monday and this is the first question. So she’ll hae the opportunity to hopefully shed some light on it.
Some candidates are ambivalent about issues. Maybe one day they feel one way, and a few hours later they feel another way. Or perhaps they had a conversation with someone and are often swayed by the last person they talked to. Is that a lie? It does mean that if she wins, it’ll be a good idea to position yourself as that critical last person in line for public comments.
Some (several dozen ‘frequent flyers’ at least) would say that a CC member, no matter their stated values, convictions, will simply count noses on any given Tuesday night, and represent “the will of the people” present, is the PERFECT CC member!
Unless the “other side” get more people to the meeting than they do, hat is… then it would be a ‘travesty’.
A rather obvious observation, but why doesn’t Linda address the issue on the Vanguard, either in comments or a submitted piece ?
At the very least, she and the rest of the candidates will address this issue on Monday
I see the College Dems endorse: Gloria Partida and Eric Gudz
Keith: I wasn’t totally sure of the facts regarding it, so it really was a question, and something that I thought should be disclosed in regard to candidate articles. Time to let it go, regardless. As always, thanks for the support.
Boy, poof, that was quick.
Ron, just ignore John, you’ll be much better off that way. I saw the comments and you were dead on with what you responded. He’s really not worth your time. Reminds me of another commenter on here.
Thank you.
I don’t know – John seems to be on a rather different level. Fortunately, he doesn’t seem to comment that often.
Just wish that these things were “nipped in the bud”, so to speak. (That’s one reason that some seem to be gravitating toward the other blog, where comments are more tightly controlled.) However, I’m not sure that the other format will work, for those looking for “entertainment” via online fighting.
Spirited debate is one thing (and can be quite interesting), but some seem to push it farther than that.
Tightly controlled??? By WHO???!!! Sounds worse than the Vanguard.
No Honestly, never heard of it. Took a look, doubt I’ll be back.