Last week the Vanguard published a letter from about 40 citizens questioning the endorsement by Jeff Reisig of Jim Provenza.
The response was interesting – a lot of pushback. A lot of claims that this was a “hit” or “smear” piece. Ironically, a number of commenters seemed to blame the Vanguard even though it was a guest submission and the Enterprise published the exact same letter.
Our policy for publication has always been very open and we have published a number of pieces that are critical of Vanguard coverage and opposed to Vanguard editorial views.
One of the views expressed is that the letter backfired, and there were some who said they had decided to support Jim Provenza as the result of the letter. But from a campaign perspective, if you are a challenger facing long odds going in, getting early and free attention is a huge advantage.
One thing of interest – no one responded substantively to the claims made in the letter.
The fact that now both Jeff Reisig himself and Bob Dunning have responded in the Enterprise has amplified the impact of the letter.
Bob Dunning takes the complaints about the letter and ups the ante, calling it a “Trumpian attack co-signed by 40 authors.” Writes Mr. Dunning, “Jim Provenza is undeservedly raked over a pile of red-hot coals for one reason and one reason only: his endorsement by Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig.”
He adds, “The authors of this hit piece clearly have a problem with Reisig who, it should be noted, is not a candidate for the fourth supervisorial district seat.”
His point was that “all five issues raised concern Jeff Reisig and only Jeff Reisig. It’s as if Reisig, not Provenza, is the one running for the supervisorial seat.”
Most of this piece will focus on Jeff Reisig’s substantive response.
Mr. Reisig noted that normally this “kind of criticism comes with the job” and “ordinarily, I would ignore the gross inaccuracies that permeated their column.”
My experience suggests otherwise – that Mr. Reisig is in fact very sensitive to criticism and will often respond publicly, in addition to attempting to cut off those criticizing from future 
communications.
He pushed back: “Curiously, the authors of the letter sought to disparage Supervisor Provenza by engaging in a wholesale misrepresentation and distortion of a few high-profile cases handled by my office in the last decade and our approach to marijuana cases.”
In response to criticism on the Luis Gutierrez case, he writes: “The authors stated that several deaths related to police encounters have not been properly investigated by my office. That is simply not true.”
He responded that the 2009 police shooting involving Luis Gutierrez “was fully investigated” and the conclusion was “the shooting was lawful because the officer was in fear for his life when Gutierrez slashed at him with a knife.”
While he makes this point using the typical “in fear for his life” claim, the Vanguard and others investigated the case and cast doubt on the evidence. It is true that the decision was reviewed – but there was never an independent investigation. Instead, the other entities simply audited the report and found that the conclusion was not “an abuse of discretion.”
Mr. Reisig is correct that a federal jury acquitted the officers – the federal jury was largely comprised of rural residents from Northern California and the trial predated recent controversies on police shootings. We covered the trial and the biggest problem is that there was a lack of body-worn cameras and it came down to the police side versus that of some witnesses – most of whom never saw a knife.
A more sympathetic jury in a more skeptical era may well have viewed this different. But at most you can argue the evidence presented at trial was inconclusive rather than exculpatory.
Jeff Reisig then defends the handling of the 2017 death of Michael Barrera.
He writes that “the letter writers once more disregarded the reported facts that police officers were called to the neighborhood after 911 calls from multiple concerned citizens stated that Mr. Barrera was armed with weapons (knife, scissors and a golf club), and was walking down the street in a highly agitated state, just a few minutes from a busy playground.”
But this is again a case that the Vanguard has extensively reviewed and Mr. Reisig himself ignores the crucial evidence of negligence on the part of the police.
At one point, Mr. Barrera said he could not breathe. Officer Gray responded by stating “that Barrera was talking and he was fine. A little over a minute after Barrera said he could not breathe, the audio captured Officer Gray stating Barrera was still breathing.”
All of a sudden, “Barrera began to vomit and liquid was coming out of Barrera’s mouth. Barrera then became unresponsive as he ceased to grab onto Officer Wright’s hands. Barrera continued to cough up liquid.
“The officers immediately turned him over and summoned medical assistance. One of the officers checked but could not detect a pulse from Barrera. Officer Drobish promptly started CPR and Officer Bell assisted in the resuscitation efforts.”
This is reminiscent of the Eric Garner situation where he claimed he couldn’t breathe, the officers mocked him, and it turned out he asphyxiated. Here Mr. Barrera claimed he could not breathe and less than a minute later he went into cardiac arrest.
Jeff Reisig does not mention the Maria Grijalva matter by name, but does state, “Such violations of the law may be appropriately handled criminally or by referral to the Fair Political Practices Commission. In fact, a complaint was referred in the case cited in their letter, and that matter is still open.”
Mr. Reisig neglects to mention that he was roundly criticized for taking a prosecutorial approach in a case that (A) was questionable with regard to the law, and (B) the target was a political adversary.
He also attempts once again to claim credit for clearing over 700 local marijuana convictions. He argues that the DA’s office was “the first in California to independently utilize new software provided by a nonprofit organization” and “[c]ontrary to the fabrication, Proposition 64 did not mandate my approach or the extent of my decisions.”
The first in the state part referred to the use of technology, when, as a Vanguard article showed, his policies were in line with the rest of the state – and many other counties acted to expunge convictions far sooner.
Mr. Reisig is correct, Prop. 64 did not mandate expungement, but AB 1793 did.
Under AB 1793, sponsored by Assemblymember Rob Bonta last year and signed into law on September 30, the DOJ was required, prior to July 2019, “to review the records in the state summary criminal history information database and to identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to AUMA. The bill would require the department to notify the prosecution of all cases in their jurisdiction that are eligible for recall or dismissal of a sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation. The bill would require the prosecution to, on or before July 1, 2020, review all cases and determine whether to challenge the resentencing, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation.”
He is correct in that Prop. 64 did not mandate expungement or his approach, but he was required to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Dunning ended his column with a challenge “He is not running unopposed this time around. It will be instructive to see if his opponent will own this op-ed or strongly repudiate it.”
The he is Provenza and the opponent is Deos. So far the silence from her campaign is deafening.
In Dunning’s column he called the letter “A hit piece” and used the term “Guilt by association.”
I had combined the phrases in my comment from when the letter dropped last week. Here is the relevant portion of my comment:
“Perhaps as this campaign gets closer to Election Day we will see more about the issues and fewer guilt by association hit pieces. I’m hopeful but I’m doubtful. This is the second time David has published a piece like this. Any bets on how many more by Election Day? My guess with four months to go is at least ten.”
One down and nine to go.
Your opinion is that I should have ignored dries eggs boy didn’t attempt to rewrite history?
“dries eggs boy”..? Auto correct error?
“Dries eggs boy” is the dictionary definition of “covevfe”.
I resemble that remark.
Ron… I’d go with your guess… but you’re ‘cheating’…
… will generate at least 2-3 from the implications… one way, or the other…
BTW… there is a third announced candidate… “long-shot” to be sure… but if Provenza & Deos (or their supporters) go towards M.A.D., enough folk could get fed up with both of them… let the ‘March Madness’ begin.
In an article on Oct. 8, the Vanguard previewed and encouraged this attack on Provenza by Deos supporters. That attack went terribly, but the Vanguard is still trying to push this failed strategy to make the election a referendum on Reisig:
“Jim Provenza is hitching himself to a weaker candidate who is polarizing, and thereby giving Linda Deos the inroads she needs to try to make this race a referendum on the current district attorney. In short, he is handing her a way to get into this race that she may have lacked previously.”
Seems like the Vanguard was correct and now Reisig has opened the door. Of course no one wants to discuss the substance of the points that Reisig made here.
Similar to how progressive Democrats won us our current national leader. Nice job, extremes.
David, I wonder why you didn’t give the letter from the 40 signers the same treatment as Reisig’s letter. I still think the letter was prompted by support for Linda Deos’ campaign and a clear attempt to rally the same people who supported Johansson in the DA’s race to claim that a vote for Provenza is just like voting for Reisig. While you claim that there is more to the story than what Reisig writes, there is clearly more to the story than what the Op—Ed writers wrote. I agree with Bob Dunning that this is a low point in Davis politics and I hope that this kind of campaign strategy doesn’t continue. Ultimately, it’s up to Linda Deos as it’s her campaign.
Because the letter was factually accurate on the core issues. It is a matter of individual opinion whether it matters to the issue of Jim Provenza vs. Linda Deos. The Reisig response, in my opinion, was not accurate. I focused my response on his points rather than the Provenza v. Deos matter.
“Fully investigated” vs “independently investigated”, “acquitted by a federal court jury” vs jury composed of rural people combined with lack of or missing evidence, Prop 64 did not mandate expungement but another law, not mentioned in either letter, did, etc. Your distinctions could easily be applied to the campaign letter.
Not any of this has anything to do with Jim Provenza’s performance as our County Supervisor, which has been very good.
This piece isn’t really about Jim Provenza – it’s about Reisig’s claims which I think are largely false or misleading.
I resemble that remark.
I resemble that remark.
See: Donal Trump.
This article states “One thing of interest – no one responded substantively to the claims made in the letter.”
Not true. Plenty of people responded to the claims in the letter, the main point was which to say that we should not trust Provenza and that he doesn’t “ know or don’t care about the injustices we have witnessed in our local criminal justice system.”
Rik, basic training in writing says that the most important components of any written communication are how the piece starts and how it ends.
It began as follows … As the race for District 4 County Supervisor begins to take shape, we are surprised to see incumbent Jim Provenza advertise that he is “proud to have [Yolo DA] Jeff Reisig’s endorsement.”
And then it ended like this … Endorsements matter. They help establish networks of trust that many voters find useful in making their decisions. So when a candidate asking for our vote advertises an endorsement for or by DA Jeff Reisig, it raises concern that they don’t know or don’t care about the injustices we have witnessed in our local criminal justice system. We urge all candidates seeking to represent residents of Yolo County to be clear about where they stand.
So, I ask you, where do the authors say that Provenza should not be trusted? I think you need to own the fact that you are very creatively reading between the lines with an abundance of imagination.
Hey Matt: the last time you tried to lecture me here about a post, you said “reading is fundamental”. And then you totally misread and skipped over what I actually wrote. After I pointed that fundamental error out, you simply disappeared. This attempted lecture isn’t any better.
If you, as one of the authors of the piece, did NOT mean to imply that Provenza’s “advertisement” of Reisig’s endorsement harmed his “network of trust” he is hoping to establish among you and other voters, you did a terrible job of sequencing and wording the sentences. On the other hand, if you still trust Provenza’s knowledge and understanding of injustice in our local criminal justice system, then go ahead and say so right now. Or you could write another letter, I suppose. Maybe this one won’t backfire.
Rik, a lecture is in the eye of the beholder.
My posts to date on this subject are direct and unambiguous, and apply to all candidates equally. Those posts stand as written.
Matt: if your letter hadn’t been directly calling Provenza out by name, your characterization of its contents here would be more credible.
if you still trust Provenza’s knowledge and understanding of injustice in our local criminal justice system, then go ahead and say so right now.