The conventional wisdom around Davis has been speculation about the three sitting councilmembers up for election in 2020, that Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs will run for re-election while Will Arnold will not.
Given his young children, the fact that his family’s business, Mother and Baby Source, went out of business and other factors, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Will Arnold would not seek a second term.
In fact, Colin Walsh during public comment pointed out that Councilmember Arnold had closed his campaign account. But, as Mr. Arnold pointed out in his comments, he had zero balance and it takes a quick filing of paper work to open a new one.
The game changer was the move for district elections – not only will the electoral district be considerably smaller than a citywide election, but Matt Rexroad basically forced the city to move the elections back to November. That has allowed Will Arnold additional time to think about whether or not he wants to seek re-election.
Making things a bit more interesting are the dynamics that ended up playing out on Tuesday. Gloria Partida two weeks ago was leaning toward supporting seven districts, but she suddenly flipped to five.
All of a sudden with Dan Carson and Will Arnold that meant there were now three votes for five districts.
One way to look at the voting on the districts – two of the incumbents, Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs, who could have been pushed into conflicted districts, supported seven districts. But not 
Will Arnold – he believed that the city did not need to go to seven and that a leap to seven was not in its best interest.
But that did not seem that strange at the time – given that most people assumed Will Arnold would not be running to for re-election.
Dan Carson was adamant that he wanted the 5-4 map. That map would put Will Arnold in the same district with sitting Mayor Brett Lee. Will Arnold did make a brief push for 5-3, arguing that 5-4 did some strange things in the northern part by splitting up some neighborhoods. But his pushback was fleeting and almost halfhearted.
It quickly became clear that if the council was going to five – and no one budged, even when Mayor Lee pushed a little harder for seven at the end – they were going to the 5-4 alignment.
Of course none of this matters that much if Will Arnold is not going to run. But, based on several conversations and exchanges this week, that can no longer be assumed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any potential challengers and incumbents should act as though Will Arnold will seek re-election.
Indeed, he seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and sounds like a man gearing up for a fight.
On the record, he was only willing to say: “I am actively exploring my options for 2020 and beyond. Should I run for re-election to the City Council, I’m certain it will be a spirited campaign. I’m ready for that.”
In the last ten years, we have seen a marked change, at least on the dais among councilmembers in terms of how they conduct themselves. From 2006 to 2010, when the Vanguard first started, we saw regular feuds and hot exchanges – the most notable was Sue Greenwald and Ruth Asmundson going at it, but we also had some monologues by Don Saylor on civility and Stephen Souza had some notable exchanges as well.
During that period, a frequent contested vote was a 3-2 vote with Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza forming a unusually impenetrable 3-2 voting block.
That has changed – even the 3-2 split on the 5 versus 7 turned into a 5-0 vote for the 5-4 map, even as there were clear differences in terms of which district configuration was the preference.
It is not that the heat has run out of Davis politics, but it is rather that the last several councils have preferred the consensus model of governance, where they look toward compromise and finding paths forward, rather than to conflict and confrontation.
The 2016 campaign featured two incumbents, with Will Arnold jumping in basically to replace Dan Wolk and Matt Williams serving more as a challenger. But that proved to be a relatively tame campaign – all four candidates supported Nishi in 2016 and the council incumbents ran on consensus and achievement grounds.
What we have not seen, perhaps since 2008, is a campaign where sitting councilmembers squared off against each other. In that campaign, Don Saylor and Stephen Souza argued that we had a balanced budget with a 15 percent reserve, while Sue Greenwald argued that this was an illusion (a few months later Sue Greenwald was proven correct) – and at times they had some heated exchanges.
But Davis has not seen that kind of campaign in a long time – where ideas are not simply promoted and accomplishments touted, but actual differences come out and there are debates and disagreements over policy proposals and voting record.
That could happen here.
A Will Arnold/Brett Lee campaign could see two people who often vote on the same side of major issues be forced into a survival test, which could throw recent conventions of Davis politics out the window.
This might be the only time we ever see such a race now that district elections will insulate incumbents from competing against each other. There are only two scenarios in the future that this could happen with incumbents – redistricting or someone moves. The chance of it occurring is fairly remote.
Adding more potential intrigue to a Will Arnold/Brett Lee showdown is the possibility that Colin Walsh, who apparently also lives in the district, could get involved.
The signal here is clear. On the record, Will Arnold allowed for a “spirited campaign,” while off-the-record he is a bit hot under the collar and seems to feel disrespected by the presumptuousness of his colleagues.
That could all make for a rather intriguing 2020 after all.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Run Will run!
IMHO Will has been the best member of the current CC when it comes to taking common sense positions on contentious issues. Will was the only member of the CC to vote against claw free summers, a policy that if not changed is going to have the community, and his district in particular, up in arms right before the next election. He also pushed the staff for a 21st century Cannabis policy.
Will, when you reopen the account call me, I want to be your first donor.
To South Davis . . .
But not on Mace, at peak hour! In a ‘forest’ of traffic… it’s late, and might be getting gumpy…
Maybe Will and his family could move to South Davis for a few months? Just through about November 2020? That would be a great act of public service.
Actually, depending on the wording of the ordinance, likely have to live there throughout his term, or resign his seat…
Will Arnold did not want to pay a $50 filing fee to keep his committee open, but he closed the opportunity to have his committee pay himself back for more than $20k in outstanding loans? That doesn’t seem to add up.
And no mention of former Vanguard Board Member Dillon Horton’s Council campaign that now has to run in Lee’s (and Arnold’s?) district?
Je d’accord, completement…
Matt: one thing that doesn’t add up is the Vanguard’s statement that “Arnold had closed his campaign account. But, as Mr. Arnold pointed out in his comments, he had zero balance…” vs. Arnold erasing his $20k+ campaign debt. Seeks like some important information was completely omitted.
Rik, I recently closed my 2016 committee with a similar level of outstanding loans. Did that not seem to add up? 2016 is well into the rear view mirror. If either I or Will or anyone else started in 2019-2020 soliciting donations for a 2016 campaign committee, there would certainly be the appearance of impropriety … i.e. the appearance that the candidate was/is trying to get around the $150 per person contribution limit.
What you suspiciously/cynically view as a negative step on Will’s part, I view as a transparent positive step by him. Will’s handling this recent committee closing the way he has, has raised my esteem for him … and that esteem was already at a very high level, even though he and I frequently disagree on issues.
Matt: the Vanguard’s account of this doesn’t hold up. Why is it reporting that “Arnold … had zero balance and it takes a quick filing of paper work to open a new one.” This is omitting any mention of the $20k+ debt that closing the committee—purportedly to save $50–precludes all possibility of recovering.
Hang on. The Vanguard “account” was what was stated in the public record. Colin said he closed his campaign committee. Will said that was because it was zero balanced and not indicative of anything.
Matt: when you closed your committee with “a similar level of outstanding loans,” what was the existing balance used to offset the loans? Are we really talking about the same thing? And would you have closed the committee if you had any thought of running again this round?
It is all in the public record Rik. When I closed my account the balance in my campaign checking account at First Northern Bank was a bit more than $17,000 and my personal loans to my campaign were a bit less than $24,000. I reduced my bank balance to $0 by writing a check to the loan guarantor for the full amount of the bank account balance, and then the loan guarantor forgave the remaining balance of the loan, bringing the campaign committee balance to $0 … no assets and no liabilities.
Yes, I absolutely would have closed the committee if I had thought about running in either 2018 or 2020. The reason is simple. The committee name, thanks to the guidance of the California FPPC at the time that I opened the committee, was “Matt Williams for Davis City Council 2016” Their reason when they gave that advice was to avoid co-mingling funds from different election cycles. Thus I would have opened a “Matt Williams for Davis City Council 2018” committee if I had run in 2018, or a
“Matt Williams for Davis City Council 2020” committee if I were planning to run in 2020.
What makes it especially difficult in Davis to retire a debt is that you had the $100 limit, now $150, which means you can’t have a fundraiser with core supporters, you would have to find people who have never contributed to your campaign willing to contribute now.
I have read with amusement my decision being characterized as a “flip” several times. It was even more amusing to hear I had said I was voting for seven as late as last weekend. I will sum this up to people hearing what they want to hear. I am very careful when undecided or even decided to give my decision before the council meeting. I said I was leaning towards seven but wanted to see a redraw of the five district map. I wanted to see the districts a little more mixed than they were. In any event I believe I would have had to be decided in one direction in order to flip.
Thank you for this… nice to hear things in “the first person”…
I often cringe when a council-person posts in the Vanguard. Like: “No, resist the temptation!”
This, however, was short, to the point, and needed to be said to clarify the councilperson’s truth. . . . and was a delicious subtle swipe at the Vanguard.
That is hilarious. But in this case (e.g., a clarification of a position that was inaccurately reported upon), it seemed downright necessary.
So, to summarize:
• a bit of a chip on his shoulder
• a man gearing up for a fight
• a bit hot under the collar
• seems to feel disrespected by the presumptuousness of his colleagues
Sounds like four great traits for a city councilperson 😐
I’d love to have the Vanguard-speak meaning/implication of that last bullet point unraveled 😐
So much for the concept of “off-the-record”… at least for VG… seems ‘off-the record’ = ‘for the record, and promulgated’… whatever…
I’ll remember that lesson… and equation… on the record…
From Cambridge Dictionary, on the phrase “Off the Record”:
‘If someone says something off the record, they do not want it to be publicly reported’
This is so ironic and rolling-on-the-floor hilarious. The Vanguard reports on something “off the record” by publicly reporting it.
Hey, city council-member, a bit of advice: when you see the Vanguard coming, run!
I wonder if Will Arnold might (also) weigh in, on this interpretation?
He ‘should’, but . . .
. . . a bit rougher a lift than Gloria’s response, which was a clarification.
This has a bit more a ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ feel to it.
Getting rid of gender-specific nouns/pronouns/adjectives… can quickly think of five CC members that had (or have) 3 or more of those traits… am sure long-term residents can duplicate that, or more…
“Will Arnold did not want to pay a $50 filing fee to keep his committee open, but he closed the opportunity to have his committee pay himself back for more than $20k in outstanding loans? That doesn’t seem to add up.”
Perhaps he gave up on the idea of recovering the money.
Pretty rare for people to raise campaign money after the fact- let alone three yrs later
Yeah, it’s so “rare” that there are specific rules for the process:
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/handling-loans-debts-and-advances/retiring-debts-candidate/
And it’s so “rare” that this is an issue: https://readsludge.com/2019/03/07/this-campaign-finance-loophole-gives-rich-politicians-a-big-fundraising-advantage/
Question for the Vanguard: why didn’t you look into when exactly Arnold closed his committee and what sort of remaining debt there was? If someone can afford to write off $20k+ in campaign debt, one would think that a $50 filing fee isn’t the determining factor here.
It’s rare.
Surprised that anyone would pay $20K (personally/out-of-pocket?) for the chance to become a city council member. (Especially in Davis, where the scope of their decisions regarding development are more limited.)
In the era of perpetual campaigns, its not “rare” at all. It’s a commonplace practice and is–as one of the links I provided states–a huge loophole that a lot of people have commented on and are proposing measures to close up.
Here are more:
“No matter that Election Day 2014 isn’t even two weeks past and Election Day 2016 is 721 days away: Lawmakers (and soon-to-be lawmakers) are using Congress’ lame duck session to generate cash wherever they can get it.
Some are bent on retiring debt incurred a historically expensive midterm campaign…
…For a minimum contribution of $500, on Thursday you may attend a “debt retirement reception“ with Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas…
…For a minimum contribution of $500, on Thursday you may attend a “debt retirement reception“ with Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas…
…Rep.-elect Bob Dold, R-Ill., this month won back a seat in Congress he lost in 2013. On Wednesday evening, he will host a reception at the City Tap House in D.C. to “celebrate his election and retire his debt…”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congressional-fundraising_n_6173446