By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – I have seen some recent letters lamenting dirty politics and the recent negative attacks. In the past week I have had a few people ask me what can be done. To which I can only respond: I hear you.
Unfortunately, politics is a nasty business. While American politics does not usually see physical contact like we have seen in other countries that wasn’t always the case (for instance in 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina entered the Senate Chamber and repeatedly struck abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts over the head with a cane nearly killing him). Most of our blood sport is metaphorical rather than literal.
And while I happen to believe – as I unfortunately predicted a few months ago – that district elections would make things worse, we should remember that what we are seeing in the last week is not actually that new.
In the last week, I had a conversation with a few non-involved councilmembers. Prior to district election, the set up was such that we had in effect, multimember districts (which were in fact at large). That meant instead of winner takes all, you have the 
possibility of the top 2 or even the top 3 (in alternating cycles) getting elected.
That didn’t eliminate negative attacks, but it did mean that you didn’t have to knock off the incumbent directly to win. You could simply be among the top few. Now, in order to win, you have to finish first and, if there is an incumbent, you have to knock off an incumbent.
Even in a place like Davis, as I have pointed out, it’s not that easy to defeat incumbents. In the last 20 years, only three incumbents have lost reelection.
And you could argue that they were defeated by negative campaigns.
In 2004, Michael Harrington was defeated running for reelection. And while you could list a host of factors, the direct cause was the Gidaro letter.
In 2012, Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza went down to defeat. In that case, there again were probably multiple reasons. Greenwald had been on the council three terms, Souza was running for his third term.
In 2010, Greenwald and then-Mayor Ruth Asmundson had gotten into a heated confrontation on the dais that led to Asmundson taking ill and Sue Greenwald continuing to act belligerently even afterwards. The confrontation was captured by the Vanguard on YouTube and received regional coverage.
An anonymous mailing reminded voters of the episode when Greenwald ran for reelection in 2012.
The two incidents illustrate, I think, two important points. First, politics in Davis has always been nasty and contentious. We can go back to the battle over Wildhorse and the incident of WOA. We can look at the various confrontations in the council chambers over the years. Davis certainly did not need additional help to have its politics become more combative.
But there is a second lesson—and it’s a lesson people probably don’t want to hear and certainly don’t want to learn. Negative campaigning is effective. At least it can be. The Gidaro letter, the anonymous mailer against Sue Greenwald in large part worked. Even if people were outraged. Even if there was backlash. The incumbents went down.
But we also know that negative campaigning doesn’t always work. For example, in that same 2012 election, there was another attempted hit piece.
Deputy DA Clinton Parish was challenging Judge Dan Maguire. A campaign mailer authorized by Parish’s campaign accused Maguire of being a “bagman” for Governor Schwarzenegger. The ad badly backfired, leading not only to Parish’s handy defeat but the end of his career as a Yolo County prosecutor.
Why do some ads work and some ads not? It depends on the ad. In the case of Sue Greenwald, I believe the attack worked in part because a segment of the community was already negatively inclined toward Greenwald and the ad was a reminder to many voters that they were tired of the contentious era of the Davis City Council which seemingly lasted from 2004 to 2010. The two holdovers from that time period were Greenwald and Souza, and it is probably not coincidental that the ad brought down both, even if Souza was not really a target.
Why didn’t it work against Maguire? The charges were not true, easily refuted, but also they targeted someone who wasn’t particularly vulnerable and, in campaign for judge, the behavior was just unseemly.
As I have pointed out a few times in recent years, the Measure J process has also introduced a more contentious element into Davis politics. By politicizing land use—an issue already rife with hot emotion—one exacerbates that problem.
Once again structural issues play a role. How do you defeat a land use project? You demonize it. So when DISC was on the ballot in 2020 and then 2022, it was back-to-back election cycles with a project that was defeated, which helped to boil political passions especially on the No on DISC side of the equation.
It doesn’t help matters that two of the leading proponents of the project—and thus the face of the campaign for the opposition—are on the ballot now.
So you take the always contentious Davis political landscape, you add some district elections which make for the winner take all dynamic, and you add in some land use controversies and you have a recipe for some negative campaigning.
How do we fix it? I’m not sure we can. Measure J is not going anywhere. District elections are likely not going anywhere. Politics are not going to become less contentious.
The only thing I can think of is perhaps choice voting—although, that certainly hasn’t made places like San Francisco any less fiery. Once we get past these elections, if I were on council I would look toward building some sort of vision that the community can back—but I think even that would be difficult at this time.
That leads me to conclude: politics is dirty. Deal with it. (BTW, dealing with it is not a synonym for accepting it. Just saying).
So how would you rank the sleazy attacks on Partida? I put it right at the top at number 1 in the Davis City Council hall of shame. Of course its ongoing over at the Davisite.
We are at an interesting point in the argument now. With a law professor, acting on his own and being clear that the University is not involved in any way in his posting, destroying the arguments by former No on H campaign members that Partida is ineligible to serve because of dirt they dug up from over 20 years ago.
The slimers claim has not yet been supported in writing by a single attorney although several have told them they are wrong. But they persist claiming the complaint against Partida hasn’t been adjudicated so the learned opinion of the lawyers has no more weight than the absurd reading of the law by the non-lawyers.
So I challenge them to put up or shut up. They should go to court to have the disputed claim heard by a judge. That is how disputed claims are supposed to be settled in this country instead of through character assassination by blog.
Of course I doubt they will because they aren’t really interested in getting the legal question answered what they want is to defeat Partida on Election Day “by any means necessary,” as Malcom X famously said.”
I think it’s always tricky to rank recent events historically when we don’t have the benefit of hindsight.
I love watching the dirt and mud fly. The more the merrier!
A song from “Paint your Wagon”… “Best Things in Life are Dirty”… I can relate, but not necessarily espouse… depends on circumstances… time, place, manner…
The interesting question is how are the ‘attacks’ independent, or fomented by other candidates…
David is wrong in saying,
Maybe in his ‘shift’, but has not always been so (pre-1970’s)… and David and some of the VG posters seem to like the contentious part… like Wm Randolph Hearst said, “it sells papers” (aka yellow dog journalism/’reporting’)
He is also wrong in,
It was WHOA, but before David’s time in Davis, so will cut slack there… and that was an ‘initiative’, which failed, and the facts are that’s why Measure J was proposed… flipping the ‘default’ likelihood of approval… pure ‘political science’…
He is correct in,
Yes, the true essence of political “science”… and those who purport to be “practitioners” of that “science”…
Funny (sort of),
And I seem to recall that David supported district elections to promote ‘diversity’, until the reality soured… choice voting (which requires going to ‘charter City’ status), might also result in similar “unintended consequences”…
There were legitimate reasons (starting with Yolo County Superior Court’s website) to suspect that Gloria was:
1) Not telling the truth regarding the form she was required to fill out to run for office.
2) The guilty plea to a felony disqualified her from office, regardless.
Subsequent information was provided which appears to indicate that the conviction was subsequently downgraded to a misdemeanor, which (apparently) means that #1 and #2 above would no longer apply. Had this been known in advance, I doubt that the issue would have been brought up at all.
Of course, she did fail to fully-disclose the extent of her involvement with the criminal justice system when asked at a recent forum, and seemed to somewhat misleadingly imply that it was related to traffic offenses. But that is within her right to do so. For that matter, she could have declined to respond to the question entirely.
” Had this been known in advance”
In advance of what?
In advance of bringing it up.
However, it’s not likely that a “complete” answer would have been provided, unless brought up publicly. (And according to some, there is still some gray area.) Of course, it’s been pointed out that the gray area could still lead to potential challenges.
I (personally) would not support bringing it up, based upon the (apparent) information that’s been subsequently disclosed.
Perhaps the “lesson” here is to ensure that one’s criminal record (or lack thereof) is accurately recorded and updated (if needed) on court websites. (I haven’t looked, but I understand that it’s now been changed in Gloria’s case.)
It’s statements like this and your earlier article about “How Progressive is Davis” that makes me wonder what you believe Davis’ cultural identity is and how close you believe it is to your own personal experiences and beliefs? Cloaking your question about Davis’ environmental policies in the term “Progressive” indicates thoughts and feelings of political tribalism. The article could have simply been written specifically questioning Davis’ environmental actions and policies but it wasn’t you tied it up with a political group or culture that ties a bunch of political beliefs that include (extreme?) environmental conservation. I’m not singling you (David) out over this but you’re the one writing the articles. I know many in Davis that feel the same as you and fit within your idea of Davis culture and political tribalism. But I think it may contrast more and more with the changing population in the Sac region as more and more people are moving to the area (and Davis) from the Bay Area and other places. The city of Davis has throughout it’s past been tied to UCD and in the case of culturally that generally means a more liberal or “progressive” political culture. But I think the city of Davis is becoming less and less of a pure extension of UCD’s culture and mixing more with the growing Sac region.
As for dirty politics? I think you’re right that it’s just part of the process. But as you say, dealing with it is not accepting it. I think we have to mitigate it. I think it’s up to citizens and the media (such as yourself) to shine a spotlight on dirty politics and paint those tactics (regardless of the it’s politician or group behind it) as undesirable and hope that shining a light on it will help discourage it.
Amen. Je d’accord… c’est vrai
Ron O
Most of us assume that if a government agency says that it will record an action or transaction, that it will occur. We don’t go back to check on whether the name on a deed has been changed or that our vote has been recorded. This situation was identical–Gloria had been told that her record had been changed which means that she had no disclosure obligation. A suggestion that everyone should disclose the status of their criminal record is foolish unless its that record is directly relevant.
Seems to me that this is an “assumption” that shouldn’t be made, especially for something as important as a criminal record.
It is directly relevant (and specifically asked about on a form when running for council).
I don’t know what others do, but I believe that title companies, lenders, and insurers usually require this to be correctly recorded as well.
Another way to know is whether or not you receive a property tax bill in your name.
But it seems that no one is “following up” to ensure that candidates have no disqualifying criminal record. (Again, in Gloria’s case, my opinion based upon the information subsequently provided leads me to believe that her record is not disqualifying.)
(1) Gloria would have received an order, signed by the court, stating both that her conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor and expunged and dismissed.
(2) Back in 2005, summary criminal court records were NOT accessible via the internet, Yolo County has only made this possible very recently, in many counties these are still not accessible except in person or by a mailed request. So should Gloria have not relied on that court order? The recent summary online obviously failed to include the dismissal via expungement, and these sorts of missteps have not infrequently occurred with the digitalization of paper gov’t records.
(3) Alan Pryor, whose diatribe started all this, at least in the public sphere, certainly did “know in advance” that the conviction had been reduced to a misdemeanor, as his own screenshot that he published directly indicated that was so, in the same line as the expungement that also occurred. This was how I first became aware of it. Seems he purposefully failed to note that, perhaps hoping noone would notice or that his smear would be effective as a negative campaign tool, irregardless of its false statements.
So, she answered the question on the form honestly from her perspective, if that’s the case.
In response to the question you asked, I probably would have checked to see what’s on the Superior Court website, since 2005. (That is, if I plead guilty to a felony theft of public funds, and was running for public office in which that question was specifically asked.)
You’re making assumptions, here. Alan P. did not even initiate any of this – it was posted on a NextDoor website to which you had already responded, as I recall. I don’t believe that Alan P. even “uncovered” the crime in the first place.
It’s much more likely that he overlooked the reported change to a misdemeanor, or possibly misunderstood it. (I looked at the information that’s available online recently, and it appears that “misdemeanor” is abbreviated, for example. I didn’t see the expungement, though I suppose I could go back and look at it again to see how it appears. I’ll take your word for it, for what that’s worth.)
The Enterprise article (which was heavily-slated in support of Gloria) noted that the court’s website had not been accurately updated. I don’t know if Alan P. had written his article based upon whatever the website showed at the time, but subsequently posted an “updated” screen shot showing what you claim (without noticing any change).
Again, I recall you responding to a NextDoor post before Alan P.’s article even appeared.
Look – if Gloria isn’t embarrassed by what she did (or if others don’t think it’s damaging), then it’s not even a campaign issue in the first place. Why be so repetitively defensive, if that’s the case?
It’s “out there” now, so it doesn’t make much difference at this point.
From my perspective, the crime (and the subsequent uncovering of it) would not be sufficient to make me change my support (or lack thereof). However, if she had lied on the form (and/or, the crime itself remained a felony), that’s a different matter.
Seems to me that cities should be the ones conducting “background checks” in the first place. And formally “clearing” a candidate – assuming they pass the background check.
In contrast, the system as it seems to exist “relies upon” a candidate to answer the question on their own, without any independent verification.
I think it’s a far bigger deal that Gloria is a much stronger proponent of peripheral development than her challenger is. I also believe that her supporters generally share her view regarding that, but would instead rather attack opponents who chose to “investigate” Gloria’s record.
David
Given Santa Monica’s success at fighting off districts with a similar demographic distribution, I believe that the City Council may be inclined to reverse course. This will mean overcoming overcautious advice from City legal counsel but it will be worth it and successful.
Much or most of this piece was objective, BUT then this stuff stands out. Consider that the Yes on H side had promotional material with fantasy imagery – the stand up paddle boarding – and undeniable falsehoods showing connections to South Davis that would be built and even a fake “Davis City Council” logo. Then there’s the million dollar budget and the Dan Carson Extreme Hubris thing. At least he sort of apologized, but no one on City Council disavowed any of that other stuff.
So “boil” and “demonize” allude to “Hell”? What does our local media do to make local politics more hygienic?
There’s also a ton of stuff which predates the arrival of many readers to our filthy community: hyperlinks etc would have been helpful.
Negative campaigns against incumbents that target their actions as council members is to be expected. Shady campaign donations, back room deals, improper use of privilege, causing or contributing to toxic/hostile work environment, harassment of public or city employees, or actions that are deemed not in the community’s best interest, etc. are prime targets. However, the character attack waged against Partida was unprecedented. That it continues and is defended is astonishing to me. I am disappointed that I cannot respond with a vote in this election.
“Look – if Gloria isn’t embarrassed by what she did (or if others don’t think it’s damaging), then it’s not even a campaign issue in the first place. Why be so repetitively defensive, if that’s the case?”
Because No on H people keep beating this dead horse. When they stop with the negative campaigning of character assassination against Gloria I will stop responding. There is one exception however, until Morill repudiates what his supporters are doing I will continue calling him out for his lack of character.
‘You’re making assumptions, here. Alan P. did not even initiate any of this – it was posted on a NextDoor website to which you had already responded, as I recall. I don’t believe that Alan P. even “uncovered” the crime in the first place.
It’s much more likely that he overlooked the reported change to a misdemeanor, or possibly misunderstood it. (I looked at the information that’s available online recently, and it appears that “misdemeanor” is abbreviated, for example. ”
Has Pryor apologized for his error or even acknowledged it? The last thing I saw from him was his doubling down on this sleazy attack.
Over the years I have been called out for errors in my posts. Every time I became aware of one I acknowledged it or apologized. That is what decency and maturity should expect us to do and to not continue to perpetrate falsehoods.
This issue doesn’t exactly correspond with the “No on H” people. I believe that some were uncomfortable with it, and likely opposed bringing it up – even when it was suspected that the incident disqualified Gloria from office.
There hasn’t been any. You (and some others) are the ones continuing to respond and characterizing it that way. There’s been technical discussion regarding whether or not the incident disqualified her from office. (Based upon the discovery and the information posted on the Yolo County Superior Court website, there was initially a legitimate reason to suspect that the incident disqualified her.)
He’s already made a statement (quoted in the Enterprise). As far as I can tell, he had nothing to do with any of this in the first place. But again, I’m not seeing exactly what you’re objecting to, as it’s been a technical/fact-based discussion. Again, this is a question specifically asked on the form when applying for office. I’ve already provided my own personal opinion (based upon the reported information which subsequently surfaced), which is that Gloria is safe in assuming that she responded to the form accurately.
I have not seen him “doubling down”, nor have I discussed any of this with him. Seems to me that the reported error originated on the court’s website. Interestingly-enough, the crime itself is still listed on there, which seems strange given the claim that it’s been “expunged”. (I guess that doesn’t apply to the court’s website, in regard to removing it entirely.)
So with that, I’d suggest that you and Gloria’s supporters are the ones who might consider ceasing your efforts to make this a “campaign issue”.
“He’s already made a statement (quoted in the Enterprise). As far as I can tell, he had nothing to do with any of this in the first place. But again, I’m not seeing exactly what you’re objecting to, as it’s been a technical/fact-based discussion. ”
Yep that is what really disgusted me about Morrill, allowed me to peer into his character and convinced me that he is unfit for public service. If you read his statement in last Friday’s Enterprise it is clear he didn’t repudiate the attack on Partida and tell people to knock it off. His failure to respond accordingly demonstrated that he was condoning this kind of campaigning by his supporters. Morrill could of had a Sister Souljah moment but he failed. If he is okay with that what other sleazy stuff will he be okay with?
Here’s what he said, per the Enterprise:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/allegations-against-partida-roil-district-4-race/
(The Enterprise article was heavily-slanted in favor of Gloria in the first place, and they had previously endorsed her.)
In any case, I’m not finding this response to be “disgusting”, as you put it. Nor do I know exactly when he said it (e.g., while the technicalities were still being uncovered and discussed).
When all of this arose, there were legitimate questions as to whether or not Gloria had honestly answered the question on the form, and whether or not the guilty plea to a felony disqualified her from office.
I personally believe those questions have now (likely) been satisfactorily resolved. But if you want to keep rehasing this, I’d suggest that it makes things worse for the candidate who actually committed the crime – not the other way around. That is, for anyone who wasn’t already a supporter or opponent of either candidate.
Again, I’d suggest that background checks be conducted by cities in the first place (and make determinations regarding that before a council member is even seated).
You want city officials deciding who can be on the ballot? Not a good plan.
I don’t think the “current plan” (if it consists of no guidelines regarding background checks) is working out so well. And it also encourages opponents to conduct their “own” background checks, as we’ve already seen.
Most jobs require background checks (and I assume – guidelines regarding disqualifications). Probably part of the human relations department at most organizations.
What if Charles Manson applied, when he was alive? (Well, maybe not a good example – but you get the drift.)
“So with that, I’d suggest that you and Gloria’s supporters are the ones who might consider ceasing your efforts to make this a ‘campaign issue’.”
I’d be happy to as soon as Morrill’s supporters apologize or Morrill repudiates the attack and tells his supporters to stand down. I am yet to see anyone involved in this slimy episode demonstrate any contrition so asking Gloria to tell people to stand down while giving Morill a pass isn’t going to cut it.
For the record I wrote Partida a check but am otherwise unassociated with her campaign. I have known her for over a decade since my kid and her grandkid were in school together. I was staying out of the campaign for her seat until this happened but I was so shocked and disgusted when this story broke that I have felt compelled to speak out and will continue to do so until Morril and his supporters stand down.
“I personally believe those questions have now (likely) been satisfactorily resolved. But if you want to keep rehasing this, I’d suggest that it makes things worse for the candidate who actually committed the crime – not the other way around.”
There you go again continuing the sleaze and then you ask others to stand down.
No sleaze on my end.
I doubt that Morrill even reads what’s on here.
Keep at it, I’m sure that you’re “helping” your candidate. (That is, the only candidate who actually committed a crime that we now know about.)
Maybe your candidate should “apologize” for that, before those who uncovered it start apologizing.
Did anyone “investigate” Morrill (or any other council member), so far? I suspect this will become standard operating procedure for opponents, if no other entity is conducting background checks.
Q.E.D.
Alan Pryor, Eileen Samitz, Colin Walsh, Roberta Millstein and their new acolytes who have carpet bombed Nextdoor with their agglomeration of anti-Measure H and past sealed misdemeanor convictions of a candidate who has not gone negative have provided a roadmap for all of us. Automatically vote yes on every development project because whatever they think smells like rotten fish. Categorically. That’s how I will deal with it. Their actions and positions are “immorrill”. And Morrill has long passed the time limit to say something about this sleazy support. If he were to say something at this point he would appear even more opportunistic than doubling down on taking the low road.
Have you even read Roberta’s comments, for example? Because it seems like you haven’t.
You can find some of them on the “other” blog.
Conversely, have you read some of the “articles” and comments posted by those who oppose Morrill?
Again, because it seems like you haven’t (despite at least one article which appeared on the Vanguard itself, and a different one on the Enterprise).
I’m probably closing in on 5 comments for the day.
As a side note, I recall that you already described the 100% housing proposal at the DISC site as “leapfrog” development.
But you’re probably right that all of the political noise is designed to distract from the differences in the candidates’ positions regarding peripheral development.
Hi Dave,
While there has been considerable discussion about this topic by others over at Dr. Millstein’s Davisite blog, I don’t think Colin or Dr. Millstein have participated on the NextDoor discussions. Alan Pryor, of course, posted the long article against former mayor Partida both here and at Dr. Millstein’s blog, but has had little else to say on the topic since then. Eileen has participated on NextDoor but largely about her objections to Gloria Partida’s positions on various growth issues.
I suggest we try to be accurate as to who is making the accusations and sustaining the conversations.
They most certainly have participated. I do not include them in my dirty list accidentally. They are a big part of the piling on phenomenon even as they go out of their way to seem “reasonable” because they are right there where the stink is happening. Can you tell I’m fed up? I have probably spent too much time on Nextdoor, but not nearly as much as they have.
Well, with the Measure H campaign coming so close on the council races, I feel as though a lot of conversation has been bleeding over between them. The Venn Diagram of
– opponents of Measure H
– opponents of Gloria Partida
– supporters of Adam Morrill
– and, perhaps, supporters of Kelsey Fortune.
would have considerable overlap.
The one circle around all of those circles with complete overlap is opposition to Dan Carson.
But the only one I know who would provably fit in the middle circle would be Alan Pryor inasmuch as he led the campaign against Measure H, wrote the article about Gloria, and contributed to Adam Morrill’s campaign. Not sure about his stance on Kelsey Fortune.
If the no-growth/slow-growth community had put forward a candidate who was unambiguously opposed to peripheral development and had a clear position opposed to Measure H and in support of Measure J, I think you’d be seeing robust support for that candidate from some of those folks in the various circles. Why they didn’t, I don’t know. As it is, they really don’t know Adam Morrill and have only his comments to go on — he has no track record on any commissions, or public comments on topics, or anything at all, and he’s not unambiguously progressive in the Davis sense of that term.
So they’re not endorsing him, but some of them seem perfectly happy to push forward the attacks on Gloria. It’s just a little hard to keep track of which ones.
After what we’ve seen in this cycle, I am not looking forward to the election(s) for District 3.
Politics is dirty. Why is Adam Morrill using a City of Davis address as a contact address for his campaign? His filing with Yolo Elections has 1717 5th St. for a contact address. That is the address of the Public Works Department.
https://www.yoloelections.org/candidate-services/november-8-2022-general-election/candidate-filings-november-8-2022-general-election/adam-morrill
He lives in Davis… the politics have gotten so tainted, he uses his business address to protect his family (?)…
There are some who post here, who will not even come forward with the CITY where they reside…
Many folk who are registered professionals (engineers, surveyors, attorneys, etc.), use their business address for what becomes a public record, searchable… I never did, but knowing well folk that do, particularly women and/or those who had wanted to protect themselves/family… this is a non-issue, except perhaps for protagonists, detractors, or “trolls”…
There are other public records to find out where one lives, or owns property… I’ve looked at them… have not shared them on the VG… call it a sense of ‘ethics’…
One can easily find, on public records searches, where a person lives, and for public employees, their compensation, pensions, etc. A former poster did that, and when I posited I could do likewise, got into a snit, and excoriated me on the VG and to David, directly…
Adam using his business address is a “non-issue”, except perhaps to detractors, trolls..
And, Gloria and Adam, I have disagreements with… but after good talks with both, they are both good people…
The negative campaigning (not necessarily the goal of the candidates, very possibly their ‘wannabe minions’) does not sit well with me.