By David Greenwald
In the course of business before the Davis City Council, the selection of commissioners is generally arduous, but relatively non-controversial as these things go. But that changed on Tuesday, as several long-time commissioners were not recommended for reappointment, leading to charges and machinations.
One of the three at issue, Alan Pryor, who had served on the Natural Resources Commission, accused the council in a guest commentary in the Vanguard on Tuesday of “biased behavior,” arguing that he, Matt Williams and Todd Edelman “were active opponents of the recently-defeated Measure B on the November ballot in Davis” and accused the council subcommittee of “bias and retribution that has never before been seen in the Commission-appointment process in Davis.
“This behavior smacks of both retaliation and favoritism and is akin to Trump’s and Mitch McConnell’s dishonest efforts to stack the courts. It is certainly not becoming of the leadership of the host City of a major, world-class university,” Pryor wrote, perhaps implicitly underscoring an unspoken reason why the council may have looked elsewhere.
The council would largely support the subcommittee recommendations of Dan Carson and Gloria Partida, their first go-round after Lucas Frerichs and outgoing councilmember Brett Lee served for a number of years in that capacity.
Dan Carson explained their thinking in the selections.
“When we were assigned this duty last month, we both (he and Gloria Partida) talked about the fact that we wanted to make a very serious effort at outreach,” he said. “We wanted to make our city government more inclusive. We wanted more people of color, more women, other underrepresented groups, people with different points of view who haven’t had a presence on commissions.”
He said, “We took that seriously.”
In fact, several of the council members noted that the pool of applicants was by far the most diverse they have had and the ones selected will bring far more diversity to the commissions.
“We were successful in that,” Carson said. “By my count… I count 60 applicants in all seeking positions.” He added, “I think we took a good step forward towards the goals we set for ourselves.”
Carson said of the 23 new commissioners being recommended are six people of color, 11 women, and five students, as well as “very many people who brought new talents and perspectives to our set of commissions if you approve these selections.”
He pushed back against criticism: “There were no political agendas. We were very careful in our interviews to focus on what people were hoping to accomplish in commission life.”
“I knew when I took on this subcommittee, that there would be tough choices that we would have to make,” Mayor Gloria Partida, who also served on the subcommittee, said. “The city has a treasure trove of qualified people to serve on commission—and it’s always difficult to choose from this qualified group of people.”
She reiterated Councilmember Carson’s point, “This year we made a concerted effort to cast a very wide net in recruitment of commissioners. We were successful in recruiting a very large and diverse group of applicants.
“I think that it’s important to open the door to people who are underrepresented,” she said. “People at the margins of our community have a hard time seeing themselves reflected in even the most mundane city activities.”
But with these choices came exclusions—in some cases of long-time, prominent and even controversial citizens.
In addition to the commentary by Alan Pryor, there were a number of citizens complaining about the selection process—and particularly the omission of Pryor, Williams and Edelman.
Todd Edelman found himself the subject of controversy earlier this year when three commissioners resigned from the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission (BTSSC) for what they cited as his conduct during the meetings. They demanded his removal from the commission at that time.
The council ultimately opted for a middle ground approach, suspending Edelman for February and March which, along with the resignations, left the commission without a quorum.
Despite this history, in a statement Edelman focused on opposition to Measure B—the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Center.
“All three of us were critical of the DISC project and supported No on B,” said Edelman. “Commission Pryor—as a citizen—led the No on B campaign, Commissioner Williams was critical of the financial benefits and also traffic impacts, and I was on the BTSSC’s sub-committee on DISC, which found significant, negative or non-mitigated transportation aspects of the project, and I personally spoke against it repeatedly in my own comments to the EIR and in the local media.
“From what I saw of the communications campaign, Partida and Carson were two of the most strident supporters of DISC in the community,” said Edelman. Partida and Carson—as the council’s sub-committee on DISC—also refused to meet with the BTSSC’s sub-committee on DISC.
“My initial reaction to my extraordinary dismissal was extreme curiosity,” said Edelman, “But I quickly concluded that it would be naive to think that there was only a coincidental rejection of the Commissioners who had the same position on DISC.”
Heather Caswell, the owner of The Wardrobe, also submitted a comment to the Vanguard on Tuesday, critical of the move.
An opponent of Measure B herself, she wrote, “I was alarmed to discover that today’s recommendations for advisory committees systematically deny reappointment to Alan Pryor, Matt Williams and Todd Edelman, highly qualified commissioners who, like a clear majority of voters, actively opposed Measure B.
“I regard this as an unethical retaliation by Council members against commissioners who disagreed with their support of DISC.”
Matt Williams, for his part, attempted a different tactic. Acknowledging the stated need for more diversity, he withdrew his application for the Utility Rate Commission and endorsed the candidacy of former council candidate Kelsey Fortune.
She was not selected, however, but will get a second chance perhaps as soon as January, as another spot vacated on November 18 was mistakenly omitted by council.
Brett Lee, who previously served on the subcommittee, defended his colleagues’ selections.
He said, “We heard some public comment around this notion that there was some sort of litmus test in support of or in opposition to a recent city measure; as I look at the recommendations that the subcommittee has made, I think a closer examination shows that it does not appear to have been predicated on some sort of litmus test.”
He added, “I don’t think any of those comments had direct merit in terms of what you were hoping to achieve with your recommendations.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Just curious, how many commission members were turned away by the council this time around? Just these three? Were there others who had timed out brought back?
Politicians accused of playing politics. Stop the presses!
Ron G’s statement has a certain resonance to it.
With that said, there is an element of common courtesy that adds smoke to the room metaphorically, if not fire. Did the subcommittee bother to interview any of the three? In making their decision about the three did the subcommittee “focus on what people were hoping to accomplish in commission life”? After they had decided to exclude the three (and for that matter former Planning Commission Chair Rob Hofmann, whom they also excluded from reappointment to the Planning Commission) did they contact any of the three to let them know why they wanted them to ride off into the sunset … or thank them for their service?
The bolded part is most important… particularly the last “or…”
But then again, I know of folk who served the City for 30+ years, and although they voluntarily retired, they never were thanked for their service by the CC… c’est la vie, c’est verite… c’est dommage…
The fact that the CC never thanked them (commissioners who reapplied, but were ‘passed over’), for their service is a serious, egregious, lack of class… they could have at least ‘flipped them the bird’… at least that would have been a form of recognition!
Perhaps the fact they were white males figured in more than stands on Measure B?
I agree Matt. There appears to be an element of beginners ham handedness to the CC. I’m not sure they needed to interview you, Edelman or Pryor. You are all known to them. Still they could have offered a thank you for your service remark to soften the blow. Even when insincere ,such a remark goes a long way to smoothing over disappointments by those termed out and their supporters.
The failure to express even the smallest condolences, to those whose terms have ended, implies a malevolence that is easily inferred as a purge.
Coupled with denials that this is a political process makes them look petty. Of course those condemning them for exercising their prerogatives look petty as well.
By bailing out on the high road Matt, you showed a maturity that exceeded the CC’s.
I think its great they appointed Michelle Byers to the Natural Resources Commission. I’ve known her for over a decade and always found her to be thoughtful and reasonable.
I agree wholeheartedly Ron. Everything I saw of Michelle on the Downtown Plan Advisory Commission was both thoughtful and reasonable.
From conversations I have had with her one important additional aspect of Byers being made a commissioner is that she understands the struggles of young families trying to make it in Davis where housing is so expensive. We need to hear more from members of the community like her, and so again, I am glad she was appointed.
To my ears, that sounds like someone who is willing to “sacrifice” the goals of the Natural Resource Commission.
What’s the deal with trying to accommodate more young families, anyway? Other than to support an oversized school district? What about them (in particular) is so “desirable” (compared to others), in the first place?
Davis has a TON of existing housing, suitable (and designed-for) families.
Has no one been paying attention to (overall) demographics (e.g., beyond Davis)? And, lack of population growth throughout the state?
“What’s the deal with trying to accommodate more young families, anyway?”
You need to ask?
“To my ears, that sounds like someone who is willing to “sacrifice” the goals of the Natural Resource Commission.”
Must be a lot of wax in there. Perhaps you should wait until someone does something you don’t like before you go off impugning their integrity without any basis besides a third parties acquaintance.
I do. I wouldn’t have asked it, otherwise.
The concern I have is regarding your conclusion, as well as the general concerns raised regarding the recommendations. If true, then yeah – I’m concerned regarding what that means (in regard to the scope of duties).
Perhaps it means nothing (other than general empathy for others), but my question to you still applies.
This whole “controversy” is based on speculation and reflects an arrogance on the part of those individuals not selected and the conspiracy theorists who spoke in support of them. It is also insulting to the newly selected individuals for those positions, implying that the skills, expertise, and perspectives they bring are somehow less worthy than that of those they will replace.
Commission appointments are a privilege, not an entitlement. There is no basis for questioning the subcommittee’s assertion of the criteria they applied (and I respect Matt Williams for withdrawing in support of those stated goals).
So you have a conspiracy theory that conspiracy theorists conspired 😐
I neither said nor implied any such thing.
Nor did I.
Eric, politics is full of arrogance and speculation and hyperbole and spin. There really is no surprise there. Regarding insults to the newly selected individuals and any implication regarding their skills, expertise, and perspectives … that is a speculative conclusion on your part.
I personally was much more bothered by the subcommittee’s exclusion of Connor Gorman and Kelsey Fortune and Morgan Poindexter than I was bothered by the exclusion of Pryor, Edelman and Williams.
What was even more perplexing than the selections was the tenacious refusal to fill the two additional appointments that were discussed last night … to the Police Advisory Commission and the Utilities Commission. Mike Webb fell on his sword and admitted that staff had dropped the ball in communicating the September resignation of Olof Bystrom from the Utilities Commission and multiple Council members were clear that they knew about the change to the Police Accountability Commission charter, which opened up an additional spot on the PAC.
Both of those spots could have been easily filled last night. There were a wealth of good PAC candidates to choose from, and even after my withdrawal of my candidacy they still had two good candidates left in the Utilities Commission pool … Margaret Slattery and Kelsey Fortune. But for some unknown reason it was more important to push those two appointments off into 2021 in the opinion of the subcommittee and the whole Council. Time will tell whether that particular wisp of smoke dissipates or becomes more intense.
Serving on a commission is indeed a privilege, and I have had the privilege of serving on six different commissions form the City, and I thank all the different City Council members for that personal opportunity to serve.
Says Williams! Ha!
Yeah, I much agree. Especially as two of them (at least) are potential political ‘rivals’ (i.e. candidates for council) and serving on a commission is a great way to get involved, learn the ropes of city government, and brush up your resume for office. They are all passionate, knowledgeable, highly-intelligent people who participate in the process.
Read again the repeated criteria, Eric… both in the report that went to CC, and the article posted… “skills and expertise” were not mentioned, and “perspectives” are at best, implied… based on gender, age, ‘orientation’, race, student status…
The appointees may well be skilled, have expertise… but not evident from the narratives to date…
Matt – I’m not speculating. I’m stating an opinion.
Bill – Seriously? Skills and experience as criteria are a given. Baseline features, if you will. The subcommittee emphasized that it also strived to increase the diversity of the commissions: “more people of color, more women, other underrepresented groups, people with different points of view who haven’t had a presence on commissions.” Perspectives—i.e., people with different points of view—are specifically mentioned.
Without any basis that I’ve seen.
Do “different points of view” necessarily depend upon skin color, age group or gender? Seems to me that Dan Carson, for example, shares some of the same attributes as those he disagrees with.
Most of my political disagreements (and most of the commenters on here) seem to share a single color (I assume), and (for the most part) gender and age range.
Of course not. Hence the inclusion of “other underrepresented groups.” That might include, for example, the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, etc. You can demonstrate your lack of understanding of, or disagreement with, diversity goals—e.g., by pointing out that Norwegians and vegans are also underrepresented—if you chose.
Now that you mention it, are Norwegians “different” than say white people from France or Italy?
Or, are they all the same, once they supposedly assimilate into “white America”?
Aren’t there differences between different Asian, African, and Hispanic heritages? (I do not know how the word “Latinx” suddenly/apparently came into being, nor do I understand what that means. Someday, maybe I’ll look that up.)
Are there also differences between those raised in different countries – regardless of their skin color?
“Veganism” is a choice. (Though some apparently still believe that regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, as well).
Why do you believe we shouldn’t seek to include populations that have traditionally been excluded or underrepresented?
And taking it a little further, aren’t there differences within the “LGBTQ” community, and the “disability” community?
From what I recall, there was (at one time) some tension between different genders of the former.
And, wouldn’t you say that male gay people have likely been persecuted throughout history more than female gay people? And transgender – perhaps most of all?
Please show me where I said that. Though I do acknowledge that I don’t think it should be in any way a “qualifying factor”. Nor do I agree that it necessarily leads to diversity of opinion, as already noted.
But since Eric brought it up, it seems to me that some who support “diversity” purposefully simplify the issue, in a manner which doesn’t totally reflect reality. (For example, the “people of color” category.)
Apparently, the people of California largely agree with me:
‘They lost partly because of that ad’: How No on Prop. 16 organizers knew the measure would fail (sfgate.com)
(That’s a pretty despicable ad that they’re referring to, by the way. There’s a video link to it in the article.)
Last week. That’s when I stopped beating my wife. Thanks for asking.
How long before the “R” word gets used?
Alan, Eric didn’t ask you “When …” but rather asked you “Why …”
Eric -Seriously? Where in the narratives, to date, support, “Skills and experience as criteria are a given.” Must have missed that memo. I truly hope you are correct…
The recent communications emphasize that diversity is a priority, not the sole criterion. Also, the commission application form asks:
“What would you bring by way of experience to a board or commission? Relevant Information could include governmental and civic experience, special training, education or job experience.”
True, question was asked… will answers be shared, as they were in the DJUSD appointment process? Transparancy? Technically, the responses are ‘public records’… I’d not hold my breath tho’… might fly in the face of the ‘narrative’ you put forth…
That means that “diversity” (however that’s defined) is a high-priority qualifying factor. Essentially resulting in an undefined quota.
That could also provide a convenient excuse to block those opposed to proposals like DISC (just sayin’). Whether intentional or not.
I wonder where the concern was regarding WDAAC and its Davis buyer’s program? (Of which your views were consistent, at least.) In that case, “barriers” to diversity would be the result of the program.
For the umpteenth time, diversity goals are not quotas. Goals, unlike quotas, are flexible. WDAAC set a hard cap (a quota) of no more than 10% of buyers without Davis connections, and a hard cap of no more than 20% (i.e., a quota) of buyers under age 55.
“Diversity goals” ultimately have an implied numeric component. In other words, it had better-not be “zero”, even if that means that better-qualified “white” people are bypassed. I’d call that a quota.
It’s o.k. if the quota for white people is “zero”, though. Especially if they’re male. 😉
Left out of this equation are Asian people, along with the various categories of Asians. Usually, at least.
Or, you can do the “Willie Brown quota”, and demand that Kamala Harris be replaced by a black person, for example. (Even though one of Ms. Harris’ parents is of Indian descent, I understand.)
“even if that means that better-qualified “white” people are bypassed”
You’re worried that more qualified whites will be bypassed when the history of this country has shown the opposite to be true.
Came across this quote from Stephen Jay Gould the other day, “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
The first half relates to classical racism, the second half, I think applies well to our discussion here as it illustrates structural racism and is why I scoff at the notion that somehow qualified whites are going to have problems in this world if we take diversity seriously.
. . . and a partridge in a pear tree.
By the way, do any of these categories “overlap”? And if so, is that “good”, or “bad”?
Sorry – I just end up finding this amusing. 😉
Hey – here’s an idea: What are their views, regarding their various roles? What would they like to see “different”, if anything? (Besides the outcome of DISC, I *might* presume?) 😉
I’m actually not worried at all. Not one bit.
I’m more concerned about views/goals of individuals, and the possible reasons that the subcommittee (apparently) didn’t even interview some of the incumbents.
You have an example of someone on this very blog who claims that this happened to him (years ago). I don’t doubt that. There’s a reason that the affirmative action proposition lost, and it’s not just due to concerns from “white” people. (Read the article that I posted a link to, if you doubt that.)
But in this case (and perhaps in general), I’m more concerned that “diversity” can be used as a cover to ignore actual positions of individuals (e.g., regarding development proposals), and to bypass those whose positions and concerns aren’t “in favor”.
I’m sure that you can envision some of the nefarious ways this can theoretically be used.
That might be an issue for a blog to explore.
Ignore
There’s the real problem everything in your worldview is about development and finding ways to kill it. Somethings aren’t about development.
Not everything, but such decisions are a major (and overwhelming) part of a city’s duties, rife with disputes. Especially when you have a council that unanimously supports a given proposal (and development in general), which is not necessarily supported by residents. This indicates a council that is out of touch (particularly the members of the subcommittee who are making these recommendations). That’s why there’s a concern.
Can you discuss the degree of involvement of Dan Carson and Gloria Partida regarding the promotion of DISC, for example?
True. For example, didn’t you have some kind of diversity award ceremony for those who created the Davis buyer’s program? 😉 (Something like that.)
“ True. For example, didn’t you have some kind of diversity award ceremony for those who created the Davis buyer’s program?
(Something like that.)”
LOL. OMG. Good example of why people ought not comment about things they clearly have no understanding of.
Something like that? Try, nothing like that. Or even resembling that.
It’s like reading a game of telephone.
I’ll leave it up to you, regarding whether or not you want to refresh our memory regarding whatever that was. Something, I recall.
I’d rather just allow you to flail around.
I can look it up, as another commenter is the one who brought it up. You and I subsequently discussed it on here, as well.
But, I’m probably too unmotivated to look for it. 😉
The other commenter had it wrong too. But you’re right you could look it up but since you don’t care enough, why should I?
Three Commissioners threatened the mentioned departure in an October 2019 letter to the Council. Following an initial discussion at the November 2019 BTSSC meeting I promised to change my behavior, and by many accounts I did so positively over the next couple of meetings. Before the January 2020 BTSSC meeting two of the three Commissioners (Andrews, Gudz) who signed the October letter communicated that they were planning to leave in January, and they did not mention me as a reason for this. At the January meeting the Commission recommended 4-2-1 (Yes/No/Abstain) to remove me.
At their meeting in late January the Council didn’t agree with the Commission recommendation. By then I had already proposed to participate in a mediation of some sort. Council proposed similar and over the next months we had a “facilitated discussion” managed by Yolo Conflict Resolution Center. YCRC was excellent, and we created a list of recommendations on Commission process. Per the June 2020 long range calendar, the BTSSC had planned to take action on this at a meeting in July 2020. The item didn’t appear in our July packet; I was told that there was insufficient time for Staff to review it before the July meeting. Finally in September 2020 the item appeared again only in an information item as part of our Consent Calendar.
Staff wrote: “As the group approached formalizing specific procedures, staff learned in internal discussions that limitations exist for commissions and, ultimately, City Council, to change meeting management procedures for a commission independent of all commissions.”
I had it pulled for discussion; my comments indicated that I didn’t consider it a “success”, but to be clear – and as I have recently stated – I appreciate that we had created better rapport between myself and the Chair, other Commissioners and Staff Liaison. The critical side of my take can be summarized as that following such an important process, this was more of a vague “whimper” than a positive “bang”, with no further discussion in Council for the public to see. The story was reported – or self-reported – earlier in this year in all local media, but subsequent mention both here – as I am now addressing – and in the Enterprise omitted significant details.
As the conclusions from the Staff perspective appeared only in a Consent item, I am not even sure what Council as a whole learned about the meetings as they simply do not read all the minutes from many Commission meetings. They did not. as a body, acknowledge the improvements. At Tuesday’s meeting there was no mention of me or a clear reference to this process. The Council sub-committee produces recommendations that we can see, but a Staff member also takes minutes. Are these minutes available, so that we can see they why’s and why nots in the appointment and re-appointment process? All we have are general explanations at a meeting regarding important things like diversity of all sorts. Council didn’t interview me or otherwise express any concerns in private correspondence.
About Measure B, Partida and Carson as the DISC sub-committee refused to meet with the BTSSC sub-committee on DISC, voted to put DISC on the ballot, strongly supported it in public, would have clearly noticed my criticism of the project outside of the BTSSC discussions and then voted not to re-appoint after I served only three years of a very typical eight years a Commissioner is allowed to serve. There’s no smoking gun, but a pistol was fired. This is why in my comments on Tuesday I referred to this as “political and professional violence”.
I view the commissions/commissioner roles to be:
Recommend to City Council policies that their skills, expertise, and perspectives incline them to support.
Approach proposals that come before them, in light of ordinances, and policies previously adopted by the CC/public, and judge accordingly.
What has been happening, all too often over the last 15-20 years, is commissioners judging projects, specific implementation proposals based on what commissioners “believe the ordinances and/or policies SHOULD BE“. That is beyond their “pay grade”, is inappropriate, and should be sanctioned.
One of the criticisms of SCOTUS is when they ‘legislate from the bench’… beyond their constitutional “pay grade”. Interpreting the law/policies is one thing… presuming to create law (or policies) is quite another… and dangerous…
I respect fully commissioners advocating to the CC/public what policies should be… but until they are adopted, they should be constrained by the ‘rules in place’ when weighing in (voting) on specific matters before them. There are, to be sure, places for ‘judgement calls’ during considerations… and everyone should be free to opine what they’re ‘like to see’… but, “thus far, but no farther”…
Another ‘little’ thing… not waiting a week or two to let the newest CC member to weigh in… that was also not particularly ‘cool’…
Agreed, Bill.
Defintion of implicit bias: the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.
Thus, since some on these pages have accused others of implicit bias regarding race, it should be fare game to accuse the City Council of implicit bias regarding their choice of candidates in regards to their stance on Measure B. Why not?
The bias that I am seeing here is against having new voices on the commissions, and folks from a fairly insular group who tend to oppose development wanting their friends there instead.
I am amazed how many people applied for the commissions. I think the appointees are outstanding. This whole thread is just bizarre, frankly. I get that some people are disappointed, but the rest is off the wall.
You side won 😐
My “side”?
Tone set by the title, and this embedded in the article…
I agree, it is bizarre… must be “ratings week”… getting as many ‘views’ and posts, as possible… helps sell ad space…
But the article’s narrative focuses on ‘diversity’, for its own sake… like that is priority # 1, and “skill, expererience, perspectives” are “secondary” (maybe even “tertiary”)…
My fervent hope is that the appointees will discharge their duties well (which should be #1 priority)… have no reason, yet, to doubt that will be the case… but the narratives as to selection process, do not affirm what I believe should be priority #1… if we can do both, building good commissions, acting within their charges, AND having a lot of ‘diversity’, fan-damn-tastic!
I wish all the appointees well, and will watch how they discharge their duties…
I hope the appointees follow their knowledge, experience, input from others, and ‘gut’… not personal ‘feelings’ or pressure from others who have ‘agendas’… that’s how I approached my civil service career… but I might just be weird…
.
Don, you clearly haven’t understood what has been said. My withdrawing my application for the Utilities Commission, and supporting the appointment of Kelsey Fortune was very clearly in SUPPORT of having a new voice on the commissions. My support of Morgan Poindexter’s and/or Lupita Torres’ addition to the Police Advisory Commission was very clearly in SUPPORT of having new voices on the commissions. My observation that the Council subcommittee had not bothered to label two of the Utilities Commissioners as “termed out” was in support of the principle of new voices on the commissions.
Further, the comments by Alan Pryor have not in any way focused on whether or not his was/is the “right voice” but rather on the clear faults and biases in the process. There were lies told in the information provided to the public last night. Why those lies were told is currently a mystery, but a proper and official process has begun to get to the bottom of how and why those lies were told. Stay tuned, it should be interesting.
Yes I have.
You must be kidding me. Let it go, Matt.
So six + 11 + five = 22/23 assuming no “dualy or triply disadvantaged” were included, assuming the three listed categories mean disadvantaged or . . . something. So who was the one white guy?
And very important to the analysis . . . of the total number of applicants, how many were women, people of color, students and white males? We know how many of each were recommend. Of these, how many of each category were placed on commissions? What was the percentage of each at each of the three stages? Are white males allowed to judge and announce publicly who is a woman, who is a student and who is a person-of-color? Were any people assumed to fall in one category (by whomever judges these things) incorrectly identified? And . . . most importantly . . . how many Jews applied, how many were recommended, and how many were seated?
Why do you do this, Alan? Point was made that the commissioners appointed increased the diversity of the commissions. That’s it. The relentless disparaging of the goal of diversity by commenters on the Vanguard is not just annoying at this point. It’s actually pretty offensive to some people, and I wonder if you understand that.