Meeting Adjourned Prior to Action Taken
Meeting Adjourned Prior to Action TakenThe second time the Mayor retreated into the vestibule where she began getting medical attention from an off-duty firefighter. She would later be taken to the hospital. The Vanguard understands that her blood pressure rose greatly but has no further details on her condition at this time.
Councilmember Greenwald appealed to Councilmember Lamar Heystek to confirm her version of events, which he did. She then proceeded to repeatedly call the Mayor a liar on the dais. At one point making the comment, “This would go a lot quicker if you would stop lying.”
At this point, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor began presiding over the meeting. Councilmember Stephen Souza made a point of order, requesting that Councilmember Greenwald be ruled out of order. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor ruled her out of order, Councilmember Greenwald appealed but her appeal failed by a 2-2 vote with Mayor Asmundson sitting at this point in the audience.
Councilmember Greenwald then resumed her comments. Mayor Asmundson would then re-assume her place on the dais and take back over the meeting, but that would be short-lived. When she attempted to end debate, Councilmember Greenwald vociferously objected, berating the Mayor once again.
At this point, the Mayor mentioned her anxiety attack and that she had been to the emergency room several times in the last few years due to these type of conflicts. They attempted to close debate but that vote required a 4-1 vote and failed 3-2.
Mayor Asmundson once again stepped aside. Councilmember Greenwald made the comment that some point are not cut out for public office.
Councilmember Heystek began his remarks but by this point the Mayor was receiving medical attention in the vestibule. Mayor Pro Tem Saylor recessed the meeting.
Tensions increased during the recess.
After lengthy consultation with the City Manager, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor reconvened the meeting, withdrew his motion and adjourned the meeting.
In the interest of the public, I have attached to this article about a ten minute YouTube clip, it begins at the start of the confrontation and ends with the Mayor Pro Tem requesting a recess.
I have decided not to provide commentary, although I have very strong views on what happened and at several points during the recess had to actually intervene in order to maintain peace.
The public can watch this clip and determine who is to blame on their own.
I suggest that the City Council view this clip, in it, it shows a number of mistakes that were made along the way that perhaps could have avoided the incident altogether.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For some reason this screen is grey and hard to read.
Thanks for providing this video.
I agree with Sue 100%. I am sorry that our Mayor has head health issue (I also suffer from high blood pressure) but we, the citizens of Davis, deserve an honest accounting of our finances. How can debate on this crucial issue be restrained, while our City Council can spend hours on much less crucial issues ?
We are ginf to asked to accept lower City services and continued higher taxes while a few get sweetheart deals–how is this not an issue for discussion.
I hope our Mayor will tend to her health and not run again for City Council.
You’re the second person complaining about a gray screen and I don’t see it, anyone else having problems.?
Its seem OK now.
Since I’m back let me say it again:
Right on Sue!
I think that the votes ratifying the contracts are not valid because the Mayor was ill during the votes and prior discussion.
If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen (or something like that)… Ruth is trying to act like a thug but doesn’t have the constitution for it. She needs to either quit lying or go home.
Don and Saylor are corrupt and content with it. Clearly Ruth has issues with her corruption- perhaps guilt? She should go home and leave the Boss Hog stuff to the people who enjoy it.
I realize that underlying issues and the interpersonal dysfunction among councilmembers are serious concerns…but I have to say that Gunrock’s Boss Hog reference is priceless! The Mayor’s running of Council meetings has always puzzled me.
“I think that the votes ratifying the contracts are not valid because the Mayor was ill during the votes and prior discussion”
There were no votes taken on the ratification.
How were the labor contracts endorsed by the City Council then?
Why aren’t the City jobs benefitting the City residents instead of the city workers? San Francisco and other cities require tax dollars to be spent benefitting city residents:
Share
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Joshua Arce, Brightline 415-860-2150
MANDATORY LOCAL HIRING ON ITS WAY TO SAN FRANCISCO
Supervisor John Avalos Proposes Legislation To Guarantee San Franciscans Go To Work On City-Funded Projects
January 27, 2010, San Francisco, CA—Other cities do it, why don’t we? Oakland, Richmond, and Los Angeles are just three examples of California cities that have harnessed the economic development and job creation potential of so-called “mandatory local hiring,” or requiring that a certain percentage of construction and non-construction jobs created by city dollars stay local, putting residents to work and boosting the local economy.
San Francisco is about to join the club, thanks to legislation proposed yesterday by Supervisor John Avalos that will require local hiring on all San Francisco-funded projects. Jobs are currently at the center of policy-making discussions between Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors, and community advocates have long held that mandatory local hiring, as opposed to “good faith” local hiring, is critical to any effort to reduce unemployment in San Francisco, particularly in pockets of the city where joblessness has lingered in double-digit territory since well before the economic downturn.
In issuing his request to update San Francisco’s “good faith” hiring statutues to mandates, Supervisor Avalos identified policy goals of “creating jobs for San Francisco residents,” “combating systemic poverty and supporting community development,” and “harnessing environmental benefits” by “reducing greenhouse gas emissions asociated with commuting.” Both the Mayor and Supervisors have highlighted the importance of putting San Franciscans to work, and the Avalos legislation supercharges the path of workforce development reforms initiated by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Eric Mar, David Campos, and David Chiu, as well as by Mayor Newsom.
“As my friend [long-time Bayview-Hunters Point activist] Espanola Jackson always says, ‘we’ve been hearing about good faith since the 60’s: it didn’t work then and it definitely doesn’t work now,'” said Brightline Executive Director Joshua Arce. “This legislation kicks off a discussion between all city stakeholders while signalling the end of the ‘good faith’ era of local hiring.” The proposal has already earned the support of the Southeast Jobs Coalition, who said it will put “hundreds, if not thousands of San Franciscans to work,” and the measure is expected to attract widespread community interest in the coming weeks.
[edit] Moreover these folks have nothing but contempt for a rational political dialogue. Sometimes tempers will flare and people will get upset…who cares?..what we need is an open honest discussion. It is clear that Saylor, Souza and our mayor do not want that on this issue.
I think this exchange gives us a clear picture of the kind of dialogue that goes on in closed session. This would be considered a hostile work environment in any business.
Sue is out of line when she yells and attacks her fellow members. It is difficult to not walk away from her and to continue to listen to her.
When she is calm, her comments specifically made regarding the agenda item seems appropriate, but there is a reference that she has already talked for some time. And then she drifts and appears that she will never wrap it up. The matter has already been decided in closed session and Sue seems to believe that it is important “for her honor” to describe at length her side of the closed session discussion and beyond. Getting her “voting record” into the minutes is her sole purpose, it seems.
I don’t believe that Ruth should run for office again. And I don’t believe that Sue should either. I think we can do better with a significant change in representation.
I was interested in hearing what Sue had to say, I think she had some valid points. I disagree with her when she says her comments would be shorter if they would let her finish uninterrupted because she would talk all night if you let her. Ruth was out of order with the things she said about Sue, even though I agree with what she said. When Sue put Lamar on the hot seat by forcing him to verbalize whether he heard Sue make a motion in closed session was a new low for Sue. Lamar looked like a whipped dog.
Ruth’s airing of dirty laundry the way she did was something I wish she had not done. I have seen many of these child-like exhibitions from this council but this may be one of the worst.
I disagree with Ryan that Sue yelled at anybody. She performed remarkably well, given the circumstances. I’m relieved that she’s a Council member.
It’s too bad that certain other Council members resort to being so disruptive. I’d appreciate it if they’d refrain from trying to prevent us hearing what Sue has to say.
Oh, come on, Shawn. Sue yelled at Ruth. It’s there for all to see.
I realize that this thread is about personalities and behavior. But please avoid personal attacks.
Ryan: Thank you.
I just suffered for 11 minutes watching a most embarrassing and fruitless council debate. What point is there in picking sides? It all was just a total and absolute failure.
David: You don’t hold back very often. Is there more to this story than just this? Save us now from debating who was morally justified in throwing the bigger tantrum. Please steer this discussion to something other than another blathering list of comments about who supports who.
The reason I did, is that I think everyone takes something different out of it and brings in their own perspective. I have mine, but I’m not sure it’s any better than anyone else’s. I will say as bad as it may look on video, it was worse at the time.
I’ll also say that what happened outside was far worse than what happened in front of the cameras. I have not decided what is appropriate to be shared at this point, but a few of you have likely seen my facebook entry which gives a little glimpse.
Thank you to that off duty firefighter who gave medical help to Ruth . These heros are a true blessing to the City of Davis .
Again thank you for your services in time of need , the outcome could of been a lot different without you .
After seeing the video(thanks David), it is clear that Sue “lost it” when Ruth continued to insist that what Sue was describing as happening in closed session was UNTRUE;-)escribing it as “untruthful” or “grossly inaccurate” would probably have been preferable. Lamar confirmed Sue’s description and all Ruth had to do was acknowledge that her recollection was not accurate and the issue would have been closed. Her refusal implicitly publicly suggested that Lamar also was now complicit in denying that her recollection was accurate. It is up to the Davis voters to decide whether Ruth Asmundson was DELIBERATE in her false statement or just COULD NOT REMEMBEER the facts. Either way,as if we needed more evidence, it is abundantly clear that it is past time for Ruth Asmundson to retire from elected office and,if she chooses, continue generously to serve her community in some volunteer capacity.
It wasn’t just the eleven minutes that were on the clip. Sue was getting wound up long before that because of the answers she was getting from Paul Navazio. Their behavior is the subject of the discussion. If one doesn’t want to hear it……
I’m not sure why a politician who doesn’t have the votes will continue to waste so much time at this level of politics.
I also think people use the “gravity” of the matter at hand to excuse bad (read: absolutely horrible grade-school level) behavior. Unfortunately, “just this one time” only leads to more bad behavior later.
I can’t see how anybody can defend their “honor” while sacrificing their dignity.
If Ruth retires (which she should: she disagrees with another CC member and has “anxiety attacks”, give me a break Ruth, that’s politics!)watch out voters for her handpicked successor Sidney Vergis, we need balance (and new ideas) on our City Council; if we elect Vergis, she will just continue the pro-developer, pro-special interest agenda of Asmundson-Saylor….will truly independent candidates for CC please step up, there are many of us in town who are eagerly willing and able to help work on your campaigns, in a non-developer, non-special interests funded, truly “grass roots” campaign (just like we proved was able to be done in the Measure P election)!
This discussion seems to be moving away from the substance. Being a City Council member is a thankless job with almost no pay and requires one to spend a ridiculous amount of money, more than many people make in a year, to be competitive in an election.
I too would prefer civil discourse, but I think we should demand honesty, integrity and competence from our City Council members.
Using that standard its clear our Mayor is not up to the job, nor is Saylor (unfortunately he may be representing us at the County soon).
“I’m not sure why a politician who doesn’t have the votes will continue to waste so much time at this level of politics.”
Councilperson Greenwald’s use of the Council “bully pulpit” while in the minority vote has been critical in bringing issues to the public’s attention that would otherwise NEVER have been publicly explored by the Council majority. Her effectiveness was made abundantly clear in the Measure X(Covell Village) and Measure P(Wildhorse Ranch) campaigns. Her style may not be the most politic but she is unbending in publicly defending her positions. The Davis voters have offered their judgement at the polls of her record and performance.
I second Greg’s post.
Greg and I were able to get 75% of the (No on P)vote only spending a few thousand dollars. Yes, we had help in the form of a dreadful Yes on P campaign and yes the housing market was dreadful and yes electing City Council people is not the same, but we also don’t need 75% of the vote.
We need people who care about Davis to run. WE both have small children and busy jobs but someone needs to step up.
I wanted to throw a few quotes that Crystal got from Sue and Ruth out here.
[u]From Ruth:[/u]
Asmundson was taken by ambulance to Sutter Davis Hospital, then transferred to Woodland Memorial Hospital where she was admitted and spent the night. She was undergoing heart stress tests today.
‘I’m feeling better,’ she said this morning. ‘But this chest pain is kind of lingering.’
‘I was shaking and had chest pains,’ the mayor said today. ‘I could feel my blood pressure.’
When she arrived at Sutter Davis, her blood pressure reading was high, Asmundson said, and the doctor recommended that she undergo further tests. She hoped to be released from Woodland Memorial today.
[u]From Sue:[/u]
While Asmundson waited, Greenwald entered the hallway and approached City Manager Bill Emlen. He could have prevented the situation from developing, Greenwald told him, had he backed her up during the meeting.
Greenwald also made a comment suggesting Asmundson might be feigning illness.
‘I definitely sympathize if she has constitutional problems that make it difficult for her to deal with policy conflicts, but I think she owes me an apology,’ Greenwald said in a phone interview later Tuesday night.
Greenwald said she was frustrated because Asmundson interrupted and attacked her reputation during the meeting.
‘There’s a certain point, you’re a human being and if a person lies and you expect people to tell the truth, it is very upsetting,’ Greenwald said. ‘I am polite up there (on the dais). I am not used to this type of lying about what I have done in closed session when it can’t be verified on tape.
‘That’s particularly egregious and upsetting because they could say I did anything in closed session.’
I don’t agree with David’s take on the conflict, and I think he should have spent a lot more time discussing the substantive points that were made during the agenda item. I should also point out that Don Saylor had to end the meeting because when Ruth walked out (twice) because he was afraid that he didn’t have three votes left to pass the PASEA MOU.
Ruth, (who had already interrupted me on a few occasions while I was trying to give my presentation and had tried to call a vote without discussion of the motion) said she had agreed with me and had supported me on the issue of the cafeteria cash-out. I pointed out that she was claiming to agree with me on the issue, but is in fact the swing vote against my position.
So she simply responded to my comment by saying that I had made no motions to lower the cafeteria cash-out by 75% during closed session, which was not the case.
Again, Ruth Asmundson was being straight-out untruthful about my motions in closed session. When I pointed this out, she repeated her untruthful assertion.
Closed session is a problematic institution, because the public has no way to assess the actions of their elected leaders during these closed sessions. I don’t like closed session; I believe that all council meeting should be conducted in open session.
But because we do conduct much of our most important business in closed session with no minutes or video record, it is critically incumbent upon councilmembers to refrain from misrepresenting what their colleagues say during these sessions. I am not a political animal who calculates every utterance to maximize my political advantage, and if someone repeatedly lies about my motions in closed session, I feel moral outrage.
Again, currently the city of Davis allows non-public safety employees who have a spouse who has health insurance to take home up to $17,800 cash in addition to their salary. This benefit, which is not even calculated in our total compensation figures, costs the city a whopping $4 million a year.`By lowering this “cashout” by 75%, we could probably maximize our savings at around $3 milllion a year. This savings could go into a fund to pay the unfunded retiree health liability, thereby protecting both the city and the retirees.
During closed session, I took all possible actions to lower the cafeteria cash-out to 25% of the value of the insurance. This probably would have maximized city savings from this expensive and highly unusual benefit. Instead, the council majority voted to “cap” it at almost $18,000, and called this a “major structural reform”. By refusing to make the needed reform of this extraordinary, very expensive and highly unusual benefit — a benefit which isn’t even fair among employees since only those with spouses with health insurance receive it — the council majority has put the city on a course toward a fiscal train wreck. The city will have to start paying the retiree health unfunded liability in only about 8 years.
There were many other important points concerning the MOU that were discussed before Ruth left the meeting which David neglected to include in his report.
I will have a full report on the substance of what was discussed tomorrow, unfortunately what happened last night detracted from that.
David: I don’t have a facebook account. Why so dramatic?
Skip: You say this article and the following discussion are about behavior. If it has to be so, then maybe Sue Greenwald who is now leaving comments can address your concerns about behavior, starting with herself.
So Sue, this is about behavior, not the specifics of the MOU. Would you care to comment on behavior?
Frankly what happened last night was pretty dramatic and I have to consider very carefully what I put out on this.
David: Looking forward to your report on the substance, now that I’ve been corrected that today we’ll be discussing behavior.
Enophile: Understand it’s a tough call on what to report and when. My rationale was that this was obviously going to be the topic of discussion and the content and substance would be lost and there are key points that Lamar and Sue raised that need to really be discussed. Today doesn’t seem conducive to that discussion at least to me, does it to you?
As of 2010, Apple Computer dropped the option to cash out unused medical benefit dollars. Shouldn’t cash-strapped public entities do the same?
Sue , health insurance and cafeteria cash out are a set cost times the number of employees . If all employees used health insurance the cost would still be the same . Your argument would be moot .
To Sue: The point I was trying to make to you last night is that you are correct on the substance of what you were saying, but the conduct does not help OUR cause. It’s not just your cause. It’s not just my cause. It is a collective cause. Today, the topic of conversation on this board and elsewhere is not our cause, it’s your conduct and to a lesser extent Ruth’s. You are right about the issue, and have a point on the process, but in the end all of that is forgotten because you were wrong on your own personal conduct and have failed to take any measure of responsibility for it.
Well, we all could have ignored the conniption fit of last night and just focused on the substance, but I will admit that impossibility. I was clearly dreaming with my first comment.
Open question: If Sue’s conniption is justifiable minority politics, does that make Ruth’s “Boss Hog” behavior from the position of the political majority bad politics?
After seeing this and other council meetings, I have seen Ruth be extremely rude and out of order to deny people’s right to speak freely. Thank you council woman Greenwald for taking to heart the fiscal matters of the city and it’s citizens. I will no longer be voting for the mayor. I’m tired of Asmundson and Souza…Thank you Saylor for being fair and refusing to allow these special interest council members from shutting Sue up.
Sue I didn’t agree with your stance on measure P but most other issues I agree with you. So you have my vote next time around. I don’t care if the Mayor has high blood pressure or is of minority status. She seems to be using these issues as a means to justify her corrupt motions and votes.
Enophile: I certainly don’t think the Mayor comported herself as she should have either.
Davis Enophile: Ruth lied about my motions in closed session. When I tried to correct the record, Ruth kept reasserting the lie, and she tried to keep me from defending myself from these lies.
Then she started accusing me of sending her to the emergency room, presumably because she gets ill when I disagree with her.
That said, I hope she feels better today. I like Ruth, and I wish she she could handle disagreement without resorting lying about my motions or cutting me off. It saddens me when people are ill. I know how it feels; I am often pretty shaken after these council meetings.
Sue , after watching the video I don’t believe that your parents would be proud of your behavior . Ruth is owed a public apology by you at the next council meeting on the camera . Lets say a prayer for Ruth .
[i]I definitely sympathize if she has constitutional problems that make it difficult for her to deal with policy conflicts, but I think she owes me an apology[/i]
This statement could be the last straw. Even if you are right, I can’t think of a worse time to demand an apology than after you yell at someone and call her a liar, and watch her go to the hospital with chest pains. The video and its context are a disgrace.
I don’t know anything about the cafeteria cash-out question. Maybe it’s very important, but not today. If I were on the same side as Sue on this issue, I would be deeply embarrassed and frustrated with her right now.
The only remotely rational defense of this episode, never mind correct or honorable, is that the city council is doing something so bad that it needs to be filibustered by a revolutionary minority. I don’t believe that Davis needs that kind of politics.
Greg , totally agree with you !
I’ve got a lot of strong thoughts on this, but I think I’d also like to dwell on it a bit before putting it to paper… regardless, the meeting last night was rather stunning. But a few thoughts are clear:
As for the MOU, I understand that Sue thought her comments were misrepresented and wanted to clarify them. If she had simply said, “My comments were misrepresented, this was the intent and nature of my comments and why I believe this is the correct course of action…” things would have been fine. Sue might have even had a good point; I don’t really know, it lost its meaning in her personal attacks.
Sue switched from discussing what matters for the City and her job to insulting the Mayor and bickering. She was given a dozen opportunities to drop it and refocus on the issues at hand, but seemed far more concerned with her self-image and getting her jabs in than anything else. This is the kind of video I’d typically see online and have a laugh about; to see it in the Davis City Council is a sad day for us all, and I’m outright embarrassed to see one of our elected officials behaving like this.
Further, my knowledge of closed session activities is limited, but her constant reference to closed action details was far out of line from anything I’ve witnessed in a public meeting, I’m uncertain of its legality and its benefit to Davis. Don was correct in his point of order to ask counsel regarding closed session.
The worst part is that Sue may have had a valid point for how to better negotiate a contract in the City’s interest, but it was completely lost through her ill-behavior.
Sorry clarification, I should have worded that “simply said, “My comments were misrepresented, [insert correct explanation] was the intent and nature of my comments and why I believe this is the correct course of action…” things would”
Greg Kuperberg:
I think Ruth owes me an apology because she lied repeatedly about my motions in closed session. This is an incredibly serious offense, because there is no public record (although there were about 7 witnesses, a few of them highly paid professional managers who should have spoken out and could have done so in a politic and conciliatory manner which could have set the record straight while allowing face-saving all the way around).
Perhaps Greg would prefer that we descend into a Kafkaesque world were the council majority can carry on business behind closed doors, and then mischaracterize the actions ands motions of their political opponents and fabricate the proceedings to their political advantage.
To the best of my memory, this is the first year that we have had regular agendized items on the results of labor negotiations. I would hardly call 30 minutes or so (not counting the interruptions by the mayor) of describing my perspective on what has essentially been 10 years labor negotiations to be “filibustering”. And I would hardly call an attempt to bring city employee benefits in line with those of other public agencies such as the state and the university in order to avoid bankruptcy to be “revolutionary”.
[i]Then she started accusing me of sending her to the emergency room, presumably because she gets ill when I disagree with her.[/i]
As I said, it could be the last straw. I never imagined that the mayor could go to the hospital and another city councilmember would accuse her of faking it.
Sue, since you want the city to save money, maybe the best way to aid that goal would be to resign. It could clear the air and make negotiations easier.
I think that if Ruth didn’t lie about her vote, then she forgot. If she forgot, then she should recuse herself from office, because you can’t be forgetting about such pivotal votes. I believe that Ruth was lying about her vote. I believe she voted for something against her constituent’s well being in closed session and didn’t want the public to know about it…
she can sit there and blamer her illness on Sue, but Sue could probably find a few justifications for her behavior. It must be awfully frustrating to be shot down and witness corruption and her behavior was only a reflection on her frustration at Ruth and Souza’s corrupt votes and inclinations.
I think that no matter how she says it, they will ignore her and put her votes down. She felt it necessary to just bring things out in the open and let everyone know what’s really going on behind closed doors.
Ruth might be sick, but if she’s that sick, she should step down. I heard that she misrepresented facts in a speech, and was corrected. Even after she was corrected, she went ahead and made the same misrepresentation of facts in the same speech the next day..
Now if the mayor can’t even get the facts straight, or even take the time to fix the problem, then don’t you think she shouldn’t be there?????
“Sue , after watching the video I don’t believe that your parents would be proud of your behavior . Ruth is owed a public apology by you at the next council meeting on the camera . Lets say a prayer for Ruth . “
Avatar, that’s a blatant outright personal attack. Certainly worse than calling someone a liar, when you catch them in the act…
Ps.
I do think Sue could tone it down a bit so we can focus, but I’m glad she’s bringing attention to some really chore problems that won’t go away, no matter how polite we are….
No excuse for Greenwald or Asmundson to engage in what amounted to personal attacks in the middle of a Council meeting. None. They should both be censured, and barred from speaking should they choose to attend future meetings. Hand the gavel to Saylor – won’t change the voting much – and keep moving.
Well, either that, or have a City employee stand behind each of them with a water bucket.
Just an observation.
Yesterday, there was a discussion about high school fighting and too much bullying. Specifically one issue covered the merits of charging a kid with 10 felonies for a fist fight. Some people suggested the kid should be punished serverely – something about nipping that anti social behavior in the bud. Nobody went to the hospital – just hurt feelings and a bunch of criminal charges.
Today, the discussion is about five Davis leaders who do not have the ability to discuss issues in a mature manner. The atmosphere was so antagonistic that at least one person needed medical assistance and had to go to the hospital. Perhaps the Davis Police should step in and charge all five with disorderly conduct (misdemeanors) and even nail a few of them with conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor (that is a felony). I am sure the Davis Police can think of a few more charges to stack on.
My point is this display of bad behavior does not set a reasonable role model.
[i]No excuse for Greenwald or Asmundson to engage in what amounted to personal attacks in the middle of a Council meeting.[/i]
Sort of, but I don’t see any real case for moral equivalence.
[quote]Sue, since you want the city to save money, maybe the best way to aid that goal would be to resign. It could clear the air and make negotiations easier. [/quote]
Have you seen how much council members get for their service? She’d have to be replaced anyway. Easy doesn’t necessarily mean fair.
As a longtime resident of Davis and someone who is more often than not proud of our lively local politics, it’s a disgrace that the city of Davis and its residents be represented in such an immature and undignified manner.
However, I have to disagree with Alphonso’s characterization observation:
[quote]Today, the discussion is about five Davis leaders who do not have the ability to discuss issues in a mature manner.[/quote]
It certainly did not appear from the video of last night’s events that *five* city council members lacked the ability to discuss issues in a “mature manner.” Rather, it seems quite clear that Don Saylor remained cool, collected, and professional despite the fray and that council members Heystek and Souza equally managed to maintain their maturity. Shame on those who failed to muster the same.
While I may disagree at times with their stand on issues, I never find myself embarrassed by the dignified representation provided by Saylor, Heystek, and Souza. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of our entire city counsel. Were it not for the lack of self-control demonstrated by certain council members, this discussion today might instead be dedicated to more fruitful, less disgraceful matters.
[i]Have you seen how much council members get for their service? She’d have to be replaced anyway. Easy doesn’t necessarily mean fair.[/i]
I understand that they hardly get paid anything. I think that it would be ideal, if not necessarily feasible, for the city to try to fix that.
My point is not about the salary of the city council itself. The point is that labor negotiations, like all negotiations, require mutual trust. Each side has to trust itself as well as the other side. Scenes like the one is this video weaken trust and undermine negotiations.
In fact, it works against anything that the city council might try to accomplish.
Sue,
“”Asmundson was taken by ambulance to Sutter Davis Hospital, then transferred to Woodland Memorial Hospital where she was admitted and spent the night. She was undergoing heart stress tests today. “”
This is not a illness as you put it , this as you can read was deemed by doctors to require an overnight stay , this was a serious acute medical problem .
Thank God for that off duty Firefighter ! Our prayers are with you Ruth .
Maybe we can try and get this discussion more focused on the issues. First let me say that I wish the Mayor good health but hope she does not run again.
What is the precise legal reason for closed session? It seems to me the public would be far better served if City Council motions directly pertaining to our fragile budget situation were part of the public record. If we cannot verify who voted for what, as concerns our City budget, then we have no transparency at all. How do we have a functioning democracy? In my mind that should trump any other issues.
In watching the video excerpt, I saw mutual antagonism. Asmundson looked too zealous at cutting off S. Greenwald when there were potentially valid points to make. When Greenwald had the floor, she wasted too much time talking about how much she was interupted and maligned.
I was very interested in S. Greenwald’s line of question, but embarrassed by the lack of articulation when given the chance.
I appreciated Saylor’s presiding. Maybe Asmundson deserves to be Mayor by the rules, but City Council discussion and procedure would function better if she stepped aside and let Saylor preside.
Phil, I might not be 100% correct on this, but I believe contract negotiations are all held in closed sessions. This is standard for all cities, and is exempted from the Brown Act which normally would require the subjects to be heard publicly. I believe the justification is that if groups and entities were allowed to see how the city negotiates and what deals they cut, they could use that information to gouge the city or to demand better deals by using other negotiations as precedent.
“Oh, come on, Shawn. Sue yelled at Ruth. It’s there for all to see.”
I watched the video again and what I observed was Sue firmly holding her ground against Council members attempting to cut her short. I didn’t see or hear any yelling, just strong voicing. How would any of you feel if your comments were repeatedly cut off? It doesn’t matter to me how calmly somebody cuts off another — its still a form of manipulation and in this case it was not in the public’s interests. I can’t blame Sue for getting frustrated, nor can I blame her for struggling to get her point across, because they wouldn’t let her.
I hope Ruth is feeling better and not in any danger. That said, I don’t think it is appropriate for anybody to be trying to make Sue feel guilty for what happened. Sue brings a lot of passion and tenacity to City politics, which are qualities I’d like to see in more City Council members. What I saw in the video didn’t appear all that difficult, perhaps because I don’t believe our Council members should happily go along with being manipulated.
Justin
THanks for the info–the irony here appears to be that closed session just helps everyone cover up what is going on.
What is being left out by the writer of this blog for reasons only known to him (and is key) is what happened off camera in the entryway. Not only did council member Greewald continue to scream inappropriate comments at the Mayor (as a fire staff person was attempting to get a pulse/blood pressure reading), she also called the city manager “boy” in the most demeaning fashion imagineable. If Emlem was a man of color, there would be a hue and cry for her to step down that would be deafening. As it was, the writer of this blog had to step in between them and physically keep them a part before things got out of hand. Finally, the lowest moment of all was when Greenwald turned around to the group of people standing in the entry (and the Mayor/fire staff) and said, “perhaps I should pretend to faint and I will get just as much attention”. That and the “boy” comment was when it moved beyond the pale for most of us there, even David (I would guess due to his comments and actions afterwards). I would also guess that is why he is being somewhat quiet on all that-she went too far even for him.
I say this as someone who was there last night, someone who witnessed everything and (also it should be noted) I say it as someone who voted for Sue/Lamar (who Sue humilated and treated like a 10 year old boy during the meeting) in the past and agrees with some of her views….I will never cast another vote for her again. It was one of the most embarrassing, unprofessional bits of behavior I have ever witnessed in my life……
Phil, I’m afraid I don’t really agree. Yes, closed session is not something ideal, which is why it is not available for a public entity to use whenever it wants. It has its benefits as well as its problems in regards to city residents.
However, it is erroneous to simply be “afraid” of the unknown and make conjecture about it, such as suggesting there’s a “cover up”. Sue had an opportunity to describe her concerns with the council’s decision, but instead decided to spend that time insulting other members of the council, simultaneously lowering the discourse and disintegrating the credibility of her issue.
Southender: Wow! And I thought the video bit was bad enough.
“Not only did council member Greewald continue to scream inappropriate comments at the Mayor”
Southender, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what happened in the entryway, but I questioned your credibility as a reliable witness when you wrote that Sue continued to “scream.” Your statement implies that she was screaming earlier. I didn’t hear any screaming on the video. Screaming?
I didn’t see Sue yelling or screaming. What I saw was that she was constantly and consistently interrupted by Souza and Asmundson. They use this as a ploy because they know she can be easily distracted. I think what they did and how they treated her is and has always been calculated. They work to shut her up in every which way because she exposes the lies, deceipt and corruption on the part of the council members.
She was bringing to light the TRUTH and when someone LIES they get to be called a LIAR. The mayor needs to stop covering up her lies and she needs to stop using all these ploys to divert away from the real truth of the matter..
It’s Souza and Asmundson that has to GO!!!!
Sue good for you for exposing the lies and corruption. You got my vote, but from now on, don’t give them the excuse that they are desperately looking for to derail you. Try to be a little more diplomatic and to all the council members…STOP CONSTANTLY INTERRUPTING SUE. Let her finish…Sue try to get to the point a little faster and stay on point.
“As of 2010, Apple Computer dropped the option to cash out unused medical benefit dollars. Shouldn’t cash-strapped public entities do the same?”
Barbara, you are absolutely right, but right now the public unions of this state (Fire, cops, prison, sherriffs, teachers, public works) are all demanding their continued cost of living increases. They are refusing to take the necessary concession to bring this state back to good health.
They would rather the leglislature raid other programs like housing, mental health, social services in order to continue getting their very lucrative structures.
It’s time the people to stop this insanity. If the state has no money, then the unions MUST make sacrifices.
If all these unions agreed to take a 5% pay cut, this state would finally become liquid…but the these workers treat the state like it’s their personal cash machine.
It’s ridiculous, and they would rather people starve, go homeless, lose medical benefits etc for their own personal gain. It goes against the very philosophy of a Union. A union is there for the greater good. Now they are just sacrificing junior members and sacrificing city services.
It’s time for the public raiding to end and SUE is one of the few officials that are willing to stand up against these bullies.
[i]Finally, the lowest moment of all was when Greenwald turned around to the group of people standing in the entry (and the Mayor/fire staff) and said, “perhaps I should pretend to faint and I will get just as much attention”.[/i]
Wow, that is even worse.
I’m of the school that we’re all human and anyone can have one really terrible day. Even if someone completely lost his temper and smashed the windshield of my car with a baseball bat, there would still be ways to make amends and be friends again. (Okay, maybe not with me in the car; then it would be hard. 🙂 ) Even with all of this garbage that southender just described, I’d be willing to leave the door open to good diplomacy the next day.
But come the next day, Sue still defends her own behavior and even demands an apology from Ruth. In my opinion that, combined with southender’s account if it is true, closes the door. She’s really saying that it’s not that she just lost her head, it’s that that’s the way that Ruth deserves to be treated. I don’t see how the next city council meeting can function with Sue in it. It’s their place to decide this and not mine, but I don’t see it. She needs a major attitude adjustment, and who knows how long it would take to restore trust.
Ask David…Was Sue screaming in the entryway? Of course screaming or not, it is interesting there is no comment regarding her calling another person “boy” in what could not be construed as anything but an attempt to add gas to the fire (again-ask David G., he had to step between Sue and the city manager) or making inappropriate comments about faking illness. I couldnt help but wonder how Sue would feel today if the Mayor had become seriously ill or died last night? I’m sorry, in my book it is never ok to EVER say anything like those comments-no exceptions, no excuses. They totally divert from any constructive message-and that is what happened.
As I said, I voted for Sue in the past. I dont disagree with most of her positions. I can just never respect or trust her as a public official again after her behavior last night…it was cringe inducing, even to her most ardent supporters.
[i]Thanks for the info–the irony here appears to be that closed session just helps everyone cover up what is going on.[/i]
This is the kind of revolutionary zeal that I referred to above. My point being that people might try to use such an ideology to defend the indefensible.
Closed session exists for a reason. Yes, it can be overused, yes it is a dangerous instrument, but it still serves a purpose. “Negotiations” in open session aren’t really negotiations at all. In open session, anything that one side offers is very hard to change. It is then very hard to have give-and-take or develop mutual trust. This is one reason that businesses have so many closed-door negotiations with each other. I would think that an economics professor (if Phil is Phil King) already knows these things.
If closed-door sessions are just a coverup, then it means that the city government can’t trust itself enough to negotiate anything. Yes, it could come to that in principle, but it’s not called for in Davis. It’s fine to advocate X, Y, or Z, or campaign for it, and a certain amount of theatrics is okay too. It’s not reasonable to stop our city council’s business by throwing a wrench into closed-door sessions.
David (9:59 am)[quote]I’ll also say that what happened outside was far worse than what happened in front of the cameras. I have not decided what is appropriate to be shared at this point, but a few of you have likely seen my facebook entry which gives a little glimpse. [/quote]
Indeed, what happened outside appears to be the real story here. What southender describes, and there is no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the story absent someone else telling the story differently, goes way beyond the tantrums of Sue’s I’ve seen in the past. Those were embarrassing, but could possibly be excused as political maneuvering or just awkward social behavior. What moral ambiguity has kept you from telling this part of the story?
Sue was standing up for what’s right. The mayor used this whole debaucle to deter away from the real issue. She’s voting against the public interest and for bloated public payrolls, that the city clearly can’t afford.
If she lied or forgot about what she voted for, either way, Ruth needs to step down. Thank you Sue for standing up for the public interest.
The public unions need to stop buying votes from council members.,
I find it interesting that there just happened to be an off duty firefighter, ,making sure the paid council members did their job.
A major point has been missed. Saylor sat by and failed to speak up on Sue’s behalf to clarify that Sue was correct, she did make a motion in closed session, contrary to Ruth’s claim.
Saylor failed to act as a gentleman because he’d rather watch two people argue; he then looks superior to the others. Does Ruth realize he makes her look foolish?
Sue can’t back down while Ruth misrepresents Sue’s position and Sue’s actions in closed session. Ruth can’t back down because she appears to hate Sue’s honesty and true interest in what’s good for Davis. And Ruth’s blood pressure shoots up and prevents her from thinking reasonably, e.g., she blames someone ELSE for HER health problems.
Meanwhile Saylor plays the part of the smooth politician.
As someone noted, Saylor allowed the vote to go forward against Sue, BUT
he then shut down the labor contract vote that wouldn’t go the way he wanted with Ruth unavailable to vote. Saylor needs that vote to go his way so the endorsements and money come his way for his campaign, not for the good of Davis residents.
Does Ruth have a clue how badly she’s being used for someone else’s gain?
If mayor Asmundson had not had a possible medical incident while this exchange was going on, it would have been described as another perhaps unusually strong exchange between Councilperson Greenwald and our mayor whose autocratic proclivities coupled with her power of the gavel often results in attempts to silence Councilperson Greenwald’s strong minority “voice” on the dais. We all are concerned with Ruth’s health and the possibility that she experienced some kind of medical incident during this exchange but this should not somehow magnify what have been strong exchanges between these two numerous times in the past. Strong disagreements can be part of political “debate”; we probably do not want the medical fragility of a Councilperson to be a controlling issue .
Fact is Sue had plenty of opportunity to make her point. She didn’t get her way in the closed session (majority vote… democracy, right?), so she sat around prioritizing personal attacks on the Mayor over making a legitimate point.
There are definitely a lot of concerns for the council right now, but sitting around making accusations and insulting folks instead of having civil discourse has no place in our chambers. Democracy is about making your points, having them heard, accepting the majority decision, and moving on – whether that be acceptance or later attempts at refining it. It’s not about breaking the rules and insulting people until you get your way.
[i]We all are concerned with Ruth’s health and the possibility that she experienced some kind of medical incident during this exchange but this should not somehow magnify what have been strong exchanges between these two numerous times in the past.[/i]
Maybe it was the brick that broke the camel’s back. Maybe Sue started to confuse activism with meshugas a long time ago, and it took a dramatic incident for people to finally lose patience.
Justin Kudo,
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you on the “personal attack” charge. I believe Sue has been attacked consistently and quite frankly, I would be too, if the mayor kept on interrupting me. Ruth has consistently been disrespectul and extremely rude towards Sue.
Sue was standing up for herself and taking a stand against corruption. Sue called it like it was…she called the mayor on her lies. Calling her a liar over and over again was not the best way to go about it, but no matter which way you slice it, the mayor lied and Sue brought it to the public’s attention. If she didn’t lie then she forgot….and how on earth can you possibly forget such an important vote?????
Two points:
There was an off duty firefighter..why was he there? making sure the vote goes his way????
Also, you’re right Saylor did really manipulate the situation to his benefit. If he votes against the public interest by voting to continue these unsustainable salaries, then he’s got to go.
What’s it gonna be Saylor? Public interest, or special interest.
You have a duty to make sure that we are fiscally sound, and throwing money at the unions that support your campaign is proof that democracy is dead.
money rules..people slave away…
The very worst thing about this whole debacle is Lamar Heystek–that he is leaving the Council, I mean. During this 10-minute clip, the world sees bullying and insults, lack of respect, loss of self-control, lack of knowledge about basic CC procedures, lying (who?), personal attacks, charges that one member is responsible for another’s six years of emergency medical care, and on and on.
Of our five leaders, only Lamar survived this horrendous meeting with his reputation intact. Of course, this has pretty much become predictable as we watch four of our Council embarrass themselves and our city at nearly each and every prolonged, wearisome meeting. Lamar’s election (and subsequent performance) gave rise to hopes that he represented what our Council’s future could be. It’s just a shame that he’s not sticking around to help assure the changes that our Davis leadership needs.
Do Davis citizens deserve better? Or have we simply gotten what we deserve by our votes?
Read David’s report. Watched the video. Read Sue’s comments reported in tonight’s Enterprise. Have defended Sue in the past (“She’s smart but clueless, yadda, yadda.”) Now I re-evaluate. I worked in the mental health field for years. I’m over thinking Sue has Asperger’s (what an insult to the many people we all know and love who experience life with Asperger’s!). Also over thinking she has borderline personality disorder (what an insult — and I never thought I’d say this — to borderlines everywhere!) I’m not sayin’ she’s a sociopath, but… She talks like dozens of guys I met in jail psych wards who (for instance) blamed grandma for making them beat her because the old lady wouldn’t hand over the remote. Time for a recall. She isn’t fit to serve. C’mon! We all avoid her on the street, why do we let her insult the dignity of the city by acting out like Idi Amin on the dais?
Read David’s report, watched the video. Sue was set up. She’s constantly being interrupted and I’m sick of the city council and their refusal to do the right thing for Davis. Sue and Lamar are the only ones in favor of the citizens. The rest represent their rich constituents.
Sue is being targeted because she’s going after corruption. Good for her. If anyone should go it should be the Mayor. She can’t blame her health issues on Sue. Ruth has been so rude and domineering towards Sue. I’ve seen it so many times and really, it’s got to stop.
Good for you Sue you’ve got my vote.
You go Sue, keep giving it to them. I often feel that Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek, even though his backing of WHR was ill advised, are the only ones on our council that are truly looking out for the citizens of Davis on every issue. If Ruth can’t handle the discourse then I think it’s time for her to step down. Please Sue don’t back off, don’t let this cause you to back down because someone might have an anxiety attack. Our city needs you.
Why did Ruth never respond Sue’s accusation? If Ruth hadn’t lied, she should have defended herself. If she could not recall the events, she should have stated so. The fact that Ruth instead diverted the attention of her audience to “panic attacks” is an admission of guilt, isn’t it? Had she been innocent of the charge Sue leveled at her, she would not have needed to distract the conversation away from the accusation. I feel that through her actions Ruth demonstrated that she in fact a liar. Thus, why is it so unbelievable that Ruth might have exaggerated or even faked her need to go to the hospital? Given her behavior directly prior to her trip to the hospital, such dishonesty in fact seems probable!
I don’t pretend to know anything about this issue or the people involved, but I believe that when people get caught misrepresenting the truth that they should do the right thing and admit they were wrong. Ruth didn’t do that.
Sue’s supporters are missing the point, in terms of those calling her “ineffective.” She has alienated a good portion of our progressive community. Whether she “stands up” for the citizenry is completely irrelevant, if she is unable to garner support from either other city council members. Even more damaging, many Davisites steer clear of politics, expecially of the progressive variety, because they have no desire to be associated, or represented, by a person who acts as she does. She is ineffective because she positioned herself to be the progressive standard-bearer, but her behavior, for better or worse, is symbolic of her supporters. She may do her homework, but her positions are expressed in 30 minutes diatribes, with the organization of a train wreck.
Her personality has created the current situation, where she is marginalized, by necessity, by the rest of the council. The video makes it abundantly clear that she treats her only ally as a lap-dog. Unless the progressive community distances itself from her behavior, and finds new representatives, we cannot obtain support from the vast “middle” in Davis. And we can win support from the middle (see the Measure P vote). But not with Sue on the Council.