Vanguard Commentary: Yesterday’s midday column definitely generated a lot of discussion. I will not revisit the core issues from that column, other than to suggest that I stand behind what I said yesterday and believe it needed to be stated.
However, the issue of access is a critical one, both to the mission of the Vanguard as well as for the proper functioning of the city. And the question arose yesterday, both on the Vanguard and in personal discussions, as to whether the Chamber of Commerce is the appropriate venue for a State of the City Address.
The idea that a broad-based community speech should be done at a paying venue that restricts access not only to the general public but to the media is something that the city of Davis needs to discuss.
While we can certainly argue that this year’s speech will have political ramifications, with Mayor Joe Krovoza delivering the key speech tomorrow and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk running against him for Assembly, at the same time the issues facing the city are dire and immediate.
This is not the first time the issue was raised. Two weeks ago, Bob Dunning noted that tickets are “on sale at 30 bucks a pop for non-Chamber of Commerce members who would like to hear Mayor Joe Krovoza’s ‘State of the City’ address on Jan. 7.”
Mr. Dunning continues, “This caused my friend John to wonder out loud why the ordinary folks in town should part with that much cash just for the honor of hearing the mayor deliver a message that potentially affects all of us … I assured John that this very newspaper will cover the mayor’s speech in detail and he won’t need a ticket to read it … as I understand it, the country’s major networks were offered the chance to show the mayor on live television, but there were no takers …”
While Mr. Dunning avoids diving headfirst into the problem, he certainly illustrates it well.
Not only would the public have to pay, but so too do the media. Perhaps, as some of the Vanguard readers suggested, this is better as an event put on by the city in the COMMUNITY chambers. After all, the President of the United States does not go to a private interest group’s luncheon to deliver the State of the Union Address.
He goes to the people’s chambers, the House of Representatives, and delivers his remarks, backed by his administration, to a joint session of Congress.
The governor of the State of California will not be headed for the Sacramento Metro Chamber to deliver his State of the State Address, but will rather speak on the floor of the state legislature before a joint session.
Of course the mayor’s address is not a formal address and, in past years, City Managers Bill Emlen and Steve Pinkerton have delivered the goods. But many other cities have turned it into something more formal and have made sure that the speech is open to the general public.
This is a crucial point for the city. The city of Davis, after years of cuts, austerity measures, and imposition of contracts on employee groups, is facing a new $5 million deficit – which for the city is a huge amount of money. We are talking about 15 to 20 percent of what is left of the general fund.
The city in the next two weeks has to make a decision as to which revenue measure it will put on the ballot. The Vanguard covered the issue yesterday, as well, and it was clear that there was no consensus on going forward with a tax increase.
We have very limited time for a discussion on this, given the timelines for putting measures on June’s ballot. This will clearly be a critical issue that the mayor will have to address.
He will also have to lay out to the Chamber and eventually the public what the city has done in the past few years to get its fiscal house in order. He has to make the case to the people of Davis that the council has been responsible enough to warrant the public trust.
Finally, there is no doubt that the mayor will have to address the issue of economic development. Interestingly, the mayor was somewhat at odds with the position of major business and tech leaders as to Mace 391 and he is going to have to lay the groundwork for the Innovation Park Task Force recommendations that may go on the ballot as soon as November.
There is no doubt that the business community needs to hear these messages, but so too does the public.
Despite the miscommunications, the Vanguard will cover this event and will provide video, news coverage and commentary.
However, moving forward, we believe that this is a speech that needs to be given to the people of Davis, broadcast to every home, and open free to the public.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Depending on how many city council members attend, wouldn’t this fall under an open meeting law requiring admission to non paying (and non eating) citizens?
The Brown Act exempts attendance at “conferences and other gatherings” as long as the members don’t discuss specific business before the city among themselves.
No, a private group meeting is not appropriate for this city status report.
Televise live from Community Chambers and have the Chamber caterer just head their van over there and donate the food?
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Or change the name of the event to something more appropriate for the Chamber venue so it doesn’t sound like this is soooo important that you get all worked up about it. I mean come on, a speech by the Mayor of Davis, oh my! Will the Band be there playing Hail to the Chief? Get Kemble on the phone STAT. Don’t worry he must be available its 0724 hours.
So the first question we might want to address is what is the purpose of a “State of the City” because from last night’s comments and Dunning’s, the title is generating some confusion.
We’re not going to deal with yesterday’s “core issues” and questions, and we’re ADDING a bunch more. I didn’t realize until reading yesterday’s write-up that the fact that the Chamber holds a luncheon featuring the Mayor troubled you so much.
Of course, the Mayor has something to say–just because he’s the Mayor and, now, because he’s a candidate for another office. I’m sure he’d be glad to sit down with The Vanguard, provide a copy of his talk and answer questions.
What is the history of this event? If it’s been concocted by the Chamber as a interesting program for its membership, where’s the harm? It’s not as though a mayor isn’t pleased to talk anywhere anytime to anyone.
What happened last year and the year before, etc.? The way this year’s event is playing out, it gives the appearance that The Vanguard wanted to pick a fight with the chamber, the director and/or the mayor.
This has gone a long way from a vague request for free admission for a monthly luncheon to demands that a traditional event be discontinued–without attempting to resolve today what might have been a simple misunderstanding between two alpha-males.
“We’re not going to deal with yesterday’s ‘core issues’ and questions, and we’re ADDING a bunch more….” Sorry.
Seems like a legitimate policy question to raise. Yesterday’s post brought forward issues that many have had with the individual, this one seems to deal with policy.
I’d better go back and reread both columns. The only thing I saw were one-sided reports of a weekend pissin’ contest between two guys with anger management issues.
What is the policy matter you see offered up to Vanguard readers?
I don’t see anger management issues by David.
What I see here:
* Should the state of the city event be held by a private interest group behind a paywall or for free at a city venue
* Should media have to be charged to cover events
* Critical city budget issues that have to be addressed very quickly
You must have missed yesterday’s rant where David went all “appalled” and crazy about Kemble Pope needing to find another job and the chamber needing to get rid of its manager because of their email exchange—which could have been a simple misunderstanding started by David’s request for “free of charge” attendance.
I suspect that David might feel cooler a day later about his reaction to the perceived disrespect since he “will not revisit the core issues from that column” (even though he did not respond to questions about the history of the Vanguard’s “state of the city” coverage).
I agree that policy issues can be considered here, not that this is a productive way to generate them.
I would hope that this testy incident would not lead to the city refusing to participate in the traditional chamber annual luncheon event. My guess is that “state of the city” is a chamber initiative rather than an official one. I see that many chambers have identically named events, some (like Houston’s) as major fundraisers and all likely celebrating positive working relationships between the business community and city government.
Whether the chamber wants charge media for a luncheon is that organization’s policy issue, not really much of a public governance issue. In spite of David’s impassioned appeals yesterday about the need for The Vanguard to get a free pass for such an inexpensive event, I don’t view that as a significant “core issue.”
There also is a policy issue for The Vanguard to consider: Does it benefit The Vanguard to immediately and publicly ridicule a community leader and call for him to be fired for a private email exchange that very well could have been a simple misunderstanding that might have been resolved this morning with a phone call or a personal visit?
What is gained by turning the Vanguard-Chamber relationship into an adversarial situation instead of moving immediately to conflict resolution? Calling Dr. Tia!
I appreciate your call for my non adversarial approach, but think that you might actually be better off with the conflict resolution skills of Robb Davis !
I personally don’t have a problem that the speech is given at this paid luncheon. Just that video be provided of it. Why? Because it’s an executive summary of an annual report of the city to the citizenry and an outline of an agenda for things to tackle in the near future from the person who has a key role in setting the agenda for meetings.
If one wanted to argue this venue is inappropriate, then you’d have to suggest a better alternative. All I come up with is making the speech part of an agenda item at a city council meeting. But then that invites the other four council members to add their bit and probably ends up occupying a whole meeting. I suppose that could be okay. But the added value of having it at this particular venue is that it provides a kind of outreach to citizens who may not follow CC meetings otherwise.
As Don Shor mentioned yesterday, saying Kemble’s current stance was “penny-wise and pound foolish,” this would be a great bit of PR for the CoC to publicize the event through the media. Why wouldn’t they want to go out of their way to invite media to cover it? Maybe even the Sac Bee would find a reason to put a shorter story on it in their regional section. It all helps make the Davis CoC look like good stewards of the public interest to publicize that connection, that the speech was given at their luncheon.
Probably should have written it as
“Because it’s *like* an executive summary of an annual report of the city…”
I agree wdf1. This is a public service opportunity for the Chamber. I thank them a great deal for doing it.
Doing it in a way that maximizes the value of the public service makes an immense amount of sense. That amounts to good PR for, and by, a PR organization.
Although the C of C could very well act as “stewards of public interest”, that is not, and arguably should not, be their core mission.
Why not?
I understand that being “stewards of public interest” also means to them that this comes about from the angle of a vibrant business community.
Well, one example might be opposing city ‘write off’ of impact fees for new business. That might well be a public interest, but may not bode well for the new business who may well become a member of the Chamber.
He’s an invited speaker at a private event. No problem here. At all.
I don’t believe the City Charter has a requirement that the Mayor (or designee) give an annual “State of the City” speech. It seems to me that he could do this at one of the City Council meetings, if we wanted this as a requirement. However, I suspect that each of the City Council members would want equal time to expound. I wonder if anyone would be inclined to sit through such a meeting.
If you want to go to hear the speaker at a private event, then pay the $30 and go.
Or you can ask the Mayor to give you a copy of the speech he will give. He might be willing to provide that to you.
Apparently, there is some history here:
“Yesterday by virtue of the fact that the Vanguard is a member of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, we received an invitation to the January 5, 2010 speech by Bill Emlen highlighting the state of the city. Sounds like a neat idea for the Chamber, but unfortunately, they have asked an individual to give a speech who is in absolute denial about the condition of the city that he oversees.” December 2009.
“City Manager Bill Emlen delivered Davis’ State of the City Address to the Davis Chamber of Commerce Tuesday afternoon. Apparently it was the first such speech in a few years. It was only about a 25 minute speech overall, and for that reason he was not able to get into detail on some of the issues that he might have otherwise preferred.” January 2010
“Tuesday, Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton will deliver his first state of the city address to the Davis Chamber of Commerce. The Vanguard spoke with the city manager about his thoughts so far and for the upcoming year. It has been a fast start for the former city manager from Manteca.” January 2012
Apparently, the chamber’s “state of the city” program has been around for awhile. Apparently, the Vanguard has been invited before (like all chamber members). Apparently, the Vanguard has attended past events, gotten advance copies of the talks and interviewed speakers ahead of the event.
How has this concept gone from a “neat idea” in 2009 to an assault on our municipal democracy in 2014?
Maybe David can let is know if “free ticket” = “neat idea” and “making him (or Don) pay” = “assault on our municipal democracy”…
LOL Ipad Guy, great research, just the facts Jack.
Is it possible that the mayor sees this as an opportunity to portray a cordial relationship between government and the local business community? I realise all factions in Davis can find untoward implications in such a relationship, but in many similarly situated communities, it has been found most advantageous.
Biddlin ;>)/
One thing is for sure, there are as many ways to deliver a city’s “state of” address as there are cities. Last year (2013), the City of Sacramento departed with its historical approach of delivering the message through the Sacramento Metro Chamber and produced the event and made it completely free. In promoting the event, the Sacramento Downtown Partnership noted “for the first time the State of the City will be open for free to the general public with the knowledge that this is a community wide event for a city that works for everyone.” http://downtownsac.org/events/state-of-the-city-2013/
And Sacramento is doing it again this year: http://sacsotc.com/
Our neighbors to the east, West Sacramento, co-hosted their address in association with the West Sacramento Chamber and held it at the City Hall Galleria (an incredible public venue). It is an evening affair and costs double what our Davis event costs: http://www.westsacramentochamber.com/wcevents/eventdetail.aspx?eventid=1174
And though Davis has made the state of the city address an annual event, hosted and produced by the Davis Chamber, the speech has varied between the mayor and city manager for the last few years.
What is important in each of these examples is that this should be a celebration of the last year of success and a visioning (at least from a select individual’s perspective) of how the future might look for a city. We should want the media (local and regional) to be involved and to tell our story. Davis has some milestones it needs to be very proud and vocal about from 2013. It also has some issues that need to be addressed and opportunities that need to be discussed for the coming years.
We should celebrate that we have a business community that wants to be engaged and host the public policy discussions and hear a view from one of our community leaders (mayor or city manager). And we should be delighted that we have a local media that wants to be involved and tell our story.
With an average of over 30,000 daily page loads, the Vanguard can hardly be seen as just an ‘online blog’. It has become a rich source of information that is different than the other media opportunities. And I hope many of us are helping the publisher and editorial board with comments and suggestions to make the website overhaul a technological success and the content more engaging and valuable than ever before.
As a public servant, and an emerging Davis community leader (at least that is what I am told), I think we all need to have boundaries that help separate our personal life from our work life. But as many of you know, my cell phone is mostly on 24/7 and my email box is certainly always open. I chose to take this role and the responsibility that comes with it and I do not get an option to define hours of service to our community. When you get to a certain level as a community leader, your life is no longer as separated as one might like.
It is the world we live in with media constantly on and the need to communicate instantly about a variety of things. And this point is compounded if you have chosen to be a primary spokesperson for an organization. Public relations is a full-time, full-contact activity that requires constant decorum and meeting unrealistic demands by the public and the media. But if you chose to live that life, you have to embrace that part of the spectrum. Though maybe not as elegant as he had wished it to be, I think that is the point that David was trying to make.
I get calls from bloggers, online media, newspapers, and TV at all hours and all days of the week. And I am often up until midnight or later each Wednesday night finishing a weekly article for the Vanguard to publish the next morning. These are the deadlines I agreed to when I signed up to be a PR person for the City of Davis.
Bottom line, if I want to get the good news story of Davis out there, I have to be prepared to meet the media on their ground and at their whim. David is not unusual in his requests, after hours or otherwise. And we might also be best served if we took a play out of Mayor Kevin Johnson’s book and think deeply about how to make this event free and with a broader community access, since we in Davis have clearly stated our desire for transparency and community engagement.
“Public relations is a full-time, full-contact activity that requires constant decorum and meeting unrealistic demands by the public and the media. But if you chose to live that life, you have to embrace that part of the spectrum. Though maybe not as elegant as he had wished it to be, I think that is the point that David was trying to make.”
You’ve pretty well covered all the associated issues here, Rob, but there is more to David’s intention than a philosophic discussion about the nature of effective public relations. His obvious purpose is apparent in his public call to fire the chamber director, supposedly based on two short emails.
Maybe you overlooked this, but when folks noted the overkill aspects of this and wondered whether David might have contributed to a misunderstanding or mutual agitation, he responded:
“Let me just say there is a LOT more going on here than has been posted so far….What we have here is a pattern of behavior by a person in a position of import, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. He has been treating people in an abusive fashion for some time. He has bullied people who are not in a position to respond and this was the final straw. More may well come out here, I made the decision that I was in a position where I could speak out and others are in a much more vulnerable position for a variety of reasons and decided that they couldn’t.”
So, it’s not a question of whether David just missed the mark by “not being as elegant as he had wished to be.” The allegations go far beyond whether Kemble Pope is engaged in effective public relations and embraces “unrealistic demands,” whether the “state of the city” should be a city government event or a chamber function or a free or paid one, etc.
It’s a little difficult to spend time evaluating the non-Pope issues now that we realize the real reason they’ve come up.
The idea of the city taking on the “state of the city” as a public event is fine even though it’s more work for our employees and impacts our facilities. I also like the historic, cooperation concept of a city leader talking with business leaders at a chamber event; it’s a common option around the country. It’s not transparency and community engagement somehow are hampered by a 20-minute luncheon talk.
With respect to the free-lunch-for-media issue, my first reaction was to wonder why the chamber has such a policy. Most every organization with which I’ve had meeting/conference duties is glad to draw reporters with comp registration and even food. A small price to pay. But, is Pope’s role here any more than the enforcer of something decided before he arrived? My next thought was why wouldn’t The Vanguard be a member–one that could influence policy from the inside instead of sniping from afar?
Finally, I’m pleased you see how you view your public servant 24-7 role. I know nothing of Pope’s philosophy on his non-government job except from David’s private email quote. And, I’m willing to cut him some slack because he and David apparently have personal issues they haven’t yet dealt with. Don’t you hope they got together today and worked things out?
Add my name to the list of those who have read the commentary above and still see no problem with our Mayor speaking to the Chamber regarding the State of the City. They invited him to do it last year and he did. They asked him again and he accepted the invitation. As a non-member, I have attended several Chamber luncheons. They are held monthly with presentations on a variety of issues of interest to Chamber members. There is always a fee for the luncheon, nominally higher for non-members. It is my understanding that this is simply one of those monthly luncheon meetings. The State of the City, a strictly Davis-related presentation, seems of obvious interest to the Chamber membership. My experience of Joe is that he is extremely transparent. I see no funny business here at all.
I don’t think anyone is accusing Krovoza of funny business. But I do think a speech regarding the “state of the city” should be open to the public. This does not preclude the chamber of commerce from inviting the mayor to speak on something else, and charging for it.
Okay, change the title? “The Mayor: Bringing the Davis Business Community Up-to-Date on the State of the City, Our Recent Accomplishments and Our Challenges and Our Hopes for the Future”
I’d like to know how much local Chambers of Commerce have to agree with and support national and international Chambers of Commerce policies? In particular, the national and international Chambers’ extreme support for “free” trade agreements and now for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that will prevent Buy Local and Buy American policies among many others aspects of the TPP that will impact our local economy and environment, to say nothing of local sovereignty because of investor rights enshrined over community rights and human rigths.
Until our local Chamber and its officers come out against Fast Track and the TPP, I can not accept that they are truly, “stewards of public interest.”
Nancy, here is a good overview of the relationship between local and national chambers: http://www.acce.org/whatisachamber/ See especially the part “Policy Independence and Cooperation.”
Thank you, Don