I have seen a lot of things in the last four years, probably more than most in this community. I have seen the best in people and at times the worst in people. However, I am not sure I have ever seen a worse side of people than I did on Tuesday night. The worst of it came after the cameras were off.
I delayed writing about this for a day. I wanted to gain some reflection. I wanted to see how things played out. I spoke to other reporters about the propriety of reporting such a personal encounter and asked what they would do. But mostly I watched the response of the community and whether Councilmember Sue Greenwald would step up and take responsibility for her actions on Tuesday.
Sadly in my view she has not. She told the Enterprise:
“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.”
That seems an extremely insensitive remark.
“I like Ruth and I certainly hope that she feels better today. I felt very shaken after the meeting as well. That aside, it is particularly important not to misrepresent the motions of fellow councilmembers during closed sessions.”
And therein lies the problem, she repeatedly brought the issue back to the dispute on the floor rather than own up to her own personal conflict. Her sympathy rings hollow in light of her conduct that suggests the very opposite.
And after much soul searching, I feel the community needs to know what happened. At the onset here, to me this is not about the issues. I agree with Sue Greenwald on this issue. I think she has been a strong advocate for the citizens of Davis on this issue, far more than the council majority. But I also think too many people have allowed the fact that they agree with her on the issue and the fact that she fights for their issues, color their views and temper their criticisms of the downside of Sue Greenwald, her personal conduct and singular lack of empathy for others.
People wanted to know why I did not write this yesterday, I did not want to have to do it. I do not like to have to do it. Despite all of this, I think Sue Greenwald is a good councilmember who stands up and fights for a lot of issues I strongly support. Unfortunately she would be much more effective if she had a modicum of respect for her colleagues and the process.
The story begins as Councilmember Lamar Heystek was beginning his comments on a critical issue facing Davis, that we have discussed time and again regarding the MOU process. But quickly he realized that something was wrong in the vestibule. An off-duty firefighter was administering medical attention to Mayor Ruth Asmundson outside. Realizing the potential severity of the situation, Councilmember Heystek paused his comments and Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor called a recess.
I gathered up my seven week old foster daughter and was about to head out to see how the Mayor was doing and if I could lend assistance. Councilmember Greenwald bolted straight for me, and I told her I didn’t want to hear it. She wanted to carry on about the discussion and I was not interested in doing so. She attempted to appeal to me, but I told her that her conduct up there was appalling, she was hurting our cause, and when she persisted, I told her she looked like an idiot up there. She turned to a stranger to appeal to him and I made my way outside.
Outside of the council chambers while a firefighter was administering assistance to the Mayor, Councilmember Greenwald continued to try to argue the issues that had been argued at the dais. People told her this was not the time to carry on this discussion.
At one point she attempted to continue a discussion with the Mayor while the Mayor was receiving medical attention.
She earlier made a comment suggesting that the Mayor was feigning illness. I directly heard her say mockingly that she felt like fainting, someone better call the fire department.
She said: “Perhaps I should pretend to faint and I will get just as much attention”
The low point of the evening came as they made the decision to move the Mayor into the side conference room. Councilmember Greenwald continued to try to appeal to City Manager Emlen. The City Manager told her this was not the appropriate time to have this discussion, but the Councilmember could not take the hint. She then made a final comment ending it with a very derisive “boy.” The last comment incensed Bill Emlen and he angrily lunged out of the conference room and straight towards Sue Greenwald, getting up into her face.
Not knowing what was about to ensue, I stepped into the middle of it and physically separated the two with one hand as I held the sleeping baby in the other hand.
The Councilmember spun away and went towards Mayor Pro Tem Saylor and began to instigate conflict there, after heated words, I attempted to pull her away from the Mayor Pro Tem.
To me the most appalling aspect of all of it was the apparent lack of concern by Councilmember Sue Greenwald for the health and well-being of the Mayor. There is a time to argue the issues and a time to let them go. Surely this was a time to let them go.
She continued to attempt to appeal her case to me and eventually I told her that I found it remarkable that it was everyone’s fault–the Mayor, Emlen, Saylor, even Lamar Heystek for not coming to her defense stronger, but her own.
I have to tell the public here how shaken this incident left me. As I left the building, after Mayor Pro Tem Saylor adjourned the meeting I met my wife Cecilia in the parking lot. She had come to pick up the baby on the way home from work. I had to stand outside for a half-hour to calm down.
The public was clearly appalled by what they saw on the YouTube video, but unfortunately that paled in comparison with what happened outside. I really wish I did not have to write this piece, but I feel I have a responsibility to the public to tell them what happened on Tuesday night at the Davis City Council meeting and we shall let the chips fall where they may.
I am most angry because I find myself writing about this rather than admonishing the Council Majority for again spinning the numbers on another bargaining contract. That’s what we should be talking about. I have another article on the substance today, but guess which article will be read more?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sue , it’s time to step down , that would be the right thing to do , I remember you saying that you didn’t even want to run for city council again , and it shows by your hurtful and demeaning actions .
Regardless of the issue, Councilperson Greenwald behaved badly. Period.
While her passionate pleas show her “fighting for what she believes in,” the method of her madness is totally inappropriate as a representative of the people.
As a person who has been previously harangued by her (more than 5 years ago) over an insignificant issue with many phone calls, I had to resort to calling the city manager’s office to ask that she stop calling or I would file harassment charges. The phone calls stopped, but she continued her diatribe in public when she saw me. We have since made peace on the issue.
I feel badly for the mayor, because I know what it is like to be in her position.
Seems to me that Sue’s behavior that night towards Ruth was simply the culmination of having had to put up with years of Ruth’s critical, demeaning, dismissive and humiliating behavior towards her. That doesn’t mean that Sue shouldn’t have been a “bigger” person that night, but if any of us had been subjected to Ruth’s behaviors for so long, it’s easy to see why Sue finally reached the end of her rope.
Sue is the only one on the council who has our backs, and what does she get for it? Constant criticism about her “manners”. She’s on a council with people who treat her disdainfully while trying to ruin Davis to serve their own political or financial ends, and she takes shotgun blasts to the chest at nearly every meeting. For us! Don’t forget it.
She gets nothing for her service. The pay is pitiful, the hours and stress are unimaginable, and for what? Fame? Glory? Right. She does it because it’s the right thing to do and because she doesn’t want Davis turning into another West Sac, Woodland or Elk Grove.
Ruth is a liar. She utters things that are so far off from reality that it’s sometimes hard to keep a straight face. She doesn’t have a clue. When Sue called her a liar, it was simply the truth. The emperor is naked, and only Sue (and reluctantly Lamar from time to time) has the guts to say so. I’d rather someone speak the simple, unadorned truth. That’s Sue.
I’ve watched many council meetings and have been appalled at the treatment of Sue by some of the other members. It could’ve just as easily been Sue who had the anxiety attack and what would we be talking about today? Would we be feeling sorry for Sue like we’re supposed to feel sorry for Ruth?
I’ve seen a number of City Council’s operate throughout the State and Davis does not stack up well in terms of politeness, decorem or even discussion of important issues.
I was not there so I cannot comment on what happened outside of the video. The clip that David showed yesterday showed a heated discussion but nothing like what he desribed today.
With Lamar stepping down our City Council is moving in the wrong direction. I disagreed with Lamar on P but he clearly has integrity. Sue has been consistentky right on the issues and knows more about these issues than anyone.
I hope we can get beyond this impasse and get a City Council we can be proud of and a process we can respect. We need to make changes–who wants to run for a CC with low pay, big campaign contributions from special interests, expensive campaigns, a Council with contempt for its citizens, and key decisions being made behind closed doors where people do not even know who voted for what–is this what we have come to?
As someone who generally holds the views of Sue concerning many issues, her repeated failure to comport herself within societal norms is an embarrassment. She has become ineffective because of her behavior, and alienates many citizens who would side with her on particular issues. While posters may defend her here, the fact is she instigates much of the “apalling” behavior toward her. Her disdain for, treatment of, and visible contempt for, citizens who present positions different thsn hers is what is truly appalling. She clearly has issues that go far beyond “speaking the truth” that make her unfit for further service representing us.
In the words of Cromwell and Amery: “You have sat here too long for any good you are doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
I often believe Sue is right on the issues. But I avoid her on the street and frequently don’t take her phone calls. As I said last night, I’m a former mental health professional and I am over thinking she has a personality disorder. This behavior was sociopathic. She is not fit to lead. She reminds me of dozens of violent offenders I’ve interviewed who blamed their victims for their imprisonment…as in…”That guy owes me an apology. I wouldn’t be here today if he wouldda delivered the pizza on time. But he was 15 ***** minutes late and then I get in trouble because I hit him with a brick. It’s so unfair.” Meanwhile the pizza delivery kid is on life support. Recall her.
Sue is exactly what Davis needs, someone who will hold fellow council members to their word and not let them off the hook when they try and pull their shenanigans. All I saw in that video was Sue discussing her views and making her point, hardly yelling and screaming as some of you would like to portray her. If Ruth didn’t have her anxiety attack we wouldn’t even be discussing this. So because Ruth came down ill we’re supposed to recall Sue? I think not.
Ruth should resign. She isn’t cut out for this.
She can’t conspire and lie, then get called on it and ignore the person she lied about. Watching the video was ridiculous, she tried to force the vote through in spite of lying and ignoring the council minority.
If Sue and Lamar were black, and the majority were white, there would be no question of the tactics used to make sure that their voices were heard.
Rusty:
“If Ruth didn’t have her anxiety attack we wouldn’t even be discussing this. “
No. We’ve seen council disputes before, what made this one news is that the Mayor fell ill and the meeting was canceled. Everything that I describe transpired because the Mayor fell ill.
That said, it’s a poor justification. If you look at issues such as negligence and even criminality, the consequences become more severe for the same conduct when the result worsens. If I carelessly swing a bat and miss people that is quite different than if I swing a bat and injure someone badly.
The things that “Downtown” and “oldandexperienced” are saying are nonsense. “Downtown” says that due to Sue’s “failure to comport herself within societal norms” she has become ineffective. Look at Lamar! He’s one of the nicest, most patient and polite city council members we’ve ever had. Would you call him effective? What major actions has he initiated that have passed? Sue IS effective because she is relentless in telling it like it is, and digging into matters until their truths have been exposed. There’s only so much you can do against the council majority, but time after time they have come around and voted with her on key issues because of her unceasing efforts.
As for the characterizations of Sue by “oldandexperienced” as “sociopathic”, this person needs to stop throwing around psychiatric terms that, despite being a “former mental health professional”, they clearly do not understand. Saying, they are “..over thinking she has a personality disorder. This behavior was sociopathic” clearly shows that “oldandexperienced” doesn’t know that sociopathy IS a personality disorder (currently referred to as “antisocial personality disorder”.) Thank goodness this person either changed careers or retired, and good thing you can’t be sued for slander while blogging…
I want to applaud David for setting aside partisanship and writing a difficult story with a strong sense of fairness. A common contention with his stories is whether he is fair, and maybe some of the rebuttals could be taken more seriously. However, it isn’t easy to be fair, and this time I think that he’s doing a good job.
So as a consequence, I have more faith in what he has to say about policy issues such as the PASEA contract.
I’m sad. I agree completely with Downtown. I think Sue has the best grasp on city finances, growth issues, etc of any of the council members. But I can’t vote for her again. Her behavior at the council, the finance meeting, etc is too much. Calling a colleague a “liar” in public session based on what happened in closed session? Closed session is closed because it is supposed to be private. The results of the closed session must be reported, but what is said during the session is not. I’m sorry Sue. It really is time to step down.
I assume we’ve all read the same two articles. The issue is not about a heated and most embarrassing disagreement resulting in Ruth’s hospitalization. The issue is Sue’s fitness to represent this City. To effectively lead and to effectively represent a just cause fundamentally requires social intelligence, decency, composer, and empathy, of which Sue has miserably fallen short. Sue’s demands for an apology from Ruth are asinine and show no understanding for the fundamentals of representation and leadership. Irreparable harm has been done to the just causes Sue aligns herself. She has vacated all trust and has made no attempts to regain it. Where the issues this City faces with regard to growth, finances, and the rest can stand by themselves, Sue’s continued tenure on the Council will serve little effective purpose other than to amplify the dysfunction that already currently exists. We need new leadership in Sue’s spot. Short of Sue showing impossible humility, she needs to step down and be replaced.
What’s your point David? Swinging a bat carelessly is way different then council members having a discussion, that’s what they’re supposed to do. It wasn’t like Sue was purposely trying to hurt Ruth. So if I have an unpleasant discussion with someone else and they fall ill then I’m at fault? You always crack me up with your little scenarios and diversions to try and back your points.
If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Ruth didn’t have an anxiety attack because Sue called her a liar. She had an anxiety attack because she has an underlying disorder that predisposes her to such a response. People can have anxiety attacks in supermarkets, while driving along a country road, or in the bathroom. Is it the supermarket’s fault? The bathroom’s?
Sue called Ruth a liar because she was lying. If she’d used the words prevaricator, dissembler, or dissimulator, would that have made her more acceptable? Is an “effective” politician a person who can call you a child molester and make you think it was a compliment?
Rusty: Bat, no bat, hospitals and no hospitals….at this point who cares? Is this how you want to be represented? You can’t think of a better way?
Crilly: Heat and kitchens? Child molesters? Is this how you want to be represented? You can’t think of a better way either?
This is absurd conversation.
Moderator’s note: please avoid personal characterizations.
I’m very sad to see how two people I really respect are embroiled in such a messy discussion. In defense of Sue Greenwald, she works for the same core issues of keeping Davis a small-town community, environmentally sound practices. Maybe she fights for issues that others (like her fellow council members) don’t see as significant because she comes from the big city and has seen how these factors have negatively impacted other places (I’ve seen these effects myself and agree with Sue on pretty much all her observations). There is a culture clash in Davis—those who want to keep it a small, cozy town and others who want to advance it into suburbia with all the bells and whistles.
Sue has stuck by her vison for years despite being trashed and treated with disdain by others at meetings. I certainly wouldn’t want to trade places with her facing such negativity week after week.
Yes, she acted inappropriately. I think she must have snapped. I’m sorry that more people haven’t supported her in her efforts and that it came to this. I’m sorry that Ruth had a medical emergency. I know that she thinks she is doing good things for Davis, but I think she doesn’t know the outside world and the insidious things that are happening to the town. I wish she could be nicer to Sue and learn from her. Sue knows what she is talking about.
At least someone finally put his name behind the telling of the story of what happened outside the doors, beyond the camera… (I don’t trust anonymous sources.) However, David Greenwald, I don’t think this story is very interesting. I’ve been around Davis long enough and actively enough to have witnessed my share of emotional outbursts and heated exchanges between activists and political leaders. More than once I’ve stepped in to separate adults in tense moments. This stuff happens in Davis politics, partly for the reasons described by Crilly and partly because the people involved tend to be passionate and care deeply for their community.
The exchange in the video was rather mild for Davis politics, with voices no more than raised and the only nasty word was “lie” (said by Sue) and “liar” (said by Ruth). So then your outrage boils down to what happened off-camera. When I read your account, however, I found myself concerned about Bill Emlem rushing up to Sue and getting into her face. It can be pretty intimidating to anybody, including a woman, when a man rushes up to her face in a confrontational manner. I don’t think a City Manager should behave like that.
I can tell stories like the one you told, about people in Davis, including people you know and like. I’ve noticed, however, that these heat-of-the-moment events don’t define people. These stories aren’t very interesting. What’s interesting to me are policy issues and whether Council members, City staff or others attempt to manipulate the process. What’s interesting to me in this particular story is how several City Council members set this situation up, because I’ve seen them do this repeatedly.
Shawn Smallwood
In my personal experience, most people that have been involved in Davis progressive politics for any length of time have one or more “Sue Greenwald” stories. Many of these stories are not pretty. Trying to deconstruct the events of Tuesday night in the broader context of the long term dynamic between Sue and the rest of the council members is, in my opinion, a fool’s errand that will only serve to further divide the progressive community.
Here’s my 2 cents with respect to moving forward.
I would strongly encourage Ruth to relinquish her position as mayor so that she can protect her health and serve out the remainder of her term in relative dignity from the back bench. Don should take over as mayor, and Lamar should take over as pro tem (with Steve’s full support and endorsement). Lamar is a lame duck, and a “power sharing” gesture would be in order here given how badly the situation has devolved.
Sue is more problematic. Now that her “fitness to serve” has become an open debate within the progressive community, I don’t see her ever getting elected to public office again. On the other hand, I also don’t see her resigning or being successfully recalled (who’s going to collect the signatures while under constant 24/7 assault by Sue and her surrogates?).
While we try to figure out how to solve this problem, the progressive movement will continue to erode in Davis. Having to deal with Sue is a serious disincentive for many people that would otherwise be more active.
Sue did nothing wrong and I feel alot of the uproar can be attributed to to Sue’s enemies trying to make hay out of this to try and hurt Sue. Sue just keep doing what you’re doing, I love it that we have a council member who’s not a Stepford wife and is willing to get in someone’s face and tell it like it is.
You go girl!
“Sue’s enemies trying to make hay out of this to try and hurt Sue.”
Sue’s doing a great job of hurting herself. She doesn’t need any help.
Condoning this behavior demeans the progressive movement. Julie Partansky and Ken Wagstaff were quite effective on the dias and didn’t behave in this manner.
Good news (according to today’s Enterprise is that Ruth is okay, and had nothing more than an “anxiety attack”)….
Bad news: the current City Council will have to go on in its current composition until June! The City faces major financial problems (as does Yolo County and CA), so let’s hope for some real cost-cutting and fiscally sensible moves by this Mayor and CC, and not just pandering to local special interests and campaign contributors in an election year!
Sue is NOT up for re-election until 2012, so whether or not her behaviors were inappropriate or unprofessional and whether she should be removed from the Council is NOT this City’s most pressing issue or applicable issue right now…rather, what is most important now is some type of consensus agreement on how to stabilize the City’s financial future, and if such heated discussions lead to “anxiety attacks”, then perhaps the Mayor is not fit to be re-elected
This sounds like Korean politics.
I worked for a large commercial member bank several years ago. The members were association banks with their own Boards and executives. The combined meetings were sometimes very contentious. I remember one meeting were we were discussing an investment in a new expensive loan accounting software system, and one of the CEOs of the smaller association banks was opining for some custom features, and one of the CEOs for a larger association banks threw a legal pad at him as said “this is the only efing software you need for your business”. The comment was normal for the group, but the flying pad of paper was not… as it struck another executive in the head and nearly took out her eye.
After confirming no serious injury, the room erupted in laughter over the incident and business was eventually concluded. You had to have thick skin to be part of that executive team.
This is was in the mid 1980s.
One difference today is our social hyper-sensitivity to anything and everything that may offend someone. We take too many things personal when we should recognize there is passion for the ideas of business, and conflict is a beneficial and necessary part of the decision process. What screws up our public decision process is the lack of finality for the debate. In the corporate setting, there is a time to debate before the decisions are made. Once they are made, you either get onboard, or your stock as a leader declines until you are no longer. Of course there is a line of civility that we cannot cross; however it seems that line is drawn today so the meek and passive-aggressive will inherit the earth.
I don’t get to watch much TV these days, but my wife and I record and watch Mad Men on TiVo. This show is set in the 50s-60s and exaggerates the male-dominated executive suite of an advertising company; however, it also portrays the type of edgy executive and Board room antics that were prevalent at that time and through the 1908s. Today it offends our modern and progressive sensibilities (what the show’s producers are after).
We have many complex and serious problems in government today. We need a new model for decision making. It should be the propose-debate-decide-next decision model. We also need training in creative conflict… learn to throw a few legal pads without involving the political correctness police. Lastly, we need to learn how to separate business from personal… to identify the line of civility that we should not cross and to recognize when passion for an idea is not a personal attack.
Re: “Condoning this behavior demeans the progressive movement. Julie Partansky and Ken Wagstaff were quite effective on the dias and didn’t behave in this manner.”
It is easy being nicey, nicey when you are part of the majority as were Partansky and Wagstaff. I otherwise think the Vanguard has put way too much emphasis on this story when Rome is burning. It makes for delicious reading but really only amounts to a whole lot of coverage of bad manners on many people’s part.
What went on the other night was nothing different that what goes on at city meetings across the nation every day and night…someone is offended by someone else, tempers flare, and words are spoken. In fact, in a lot of other cities these types of incidents can lead to two big bulls physically going after each other. Or in many other countries it leads to entire delegations hooting and catcalling at each other across an aisle. So I look at this little brouhaha as nothing more than a temper flare-up between one Councilmember who has long had the upper hand and one who has long been held back who then responded with a blistering verbal attack which the only weapons she is allowed to use.
So what is the big deal here? I think the only thing Sue can really be fairly accused of is insensitivity in continuing to push the issue after Ruth fell ill. But Sue did not commit any crime. She did not physically assault anyone or attempt to physically intimidate anyone. In fact, if anyone could be accused of that it would be our city manager who apparently charged within inches of Sue’s face with what seemed to be very little justification.
Sue has pissed me off as much as anyone in the past but she represents a substantial portion of the community and takes her representation very, very seriously. I think her behavior in the face of systematic long-term denial of her legitimate claims and attempts to bring issues up for open discussion probably reached a breaking point and she lashed out verbally. But, again, so what?…By rarified Davis standards she is being charged with being out-of-control but by current tea-bagger standards she was a model of restraint.
According to today’s Sac Bee, Ruth has left for the Philippines today on an early “health vacation”; let’s hope she gets plenty of R&R and returns with the decision not to run for re-election…
Let’s step back a minute and look at the genesis of this issue. In closed session, Sue made a motion to reject a particular agreement with the bargaining unit that she felt would jeopardize the long-term fiscal health of the city. The fact that Sue made this motion was verified by Lamar. Ruth stated on several occasions that Sue had never made such a motion at all. Ruth was essentially saying, “If you believed so and so, why didn’t you act on it by making a motion?” which called into question Sue’s integrity and commitment.
There are two reasons that Sue had to contest Ruth’s lie (or, more kindly, lack of recollection of what had just happened). The first was to set the record straight about her stand on the MOU so that the people of Davis would be clear on both her position and her willingness to take a stand in support of it. The second was because there is no video or written record made of what transpires in closed sessions that can be used to prove what did or did not happen. So Ruth’s misrepresentation had to be set right so that the permanent record, being created during the open council meeting, would reflect the truth.
If our current city council had a history of harmonious and respectful disagreements on issues, then Sue’s behavior would be an outrage. But as I and several others have mentioned previously, Sue is continuously the brunt of dismissive, disrespectful and even demeaning behavior on the part of the mayor and others on the council majority. So to me, the tone and force of her arguments was perfectly understandable, even appropriate. Still, if you look back on the entire video excerpt, other than using the words “lie” and “lying”, Sue was clearly fighting only for her position to be characterized accurately and fairly, not to abuse or insult anyone. How that can be characterized as “sociopathic”, or even “appalling” is hard for me to understand.
To me an important issue is finding candidates to run for CC. So far only two have come forward and they seem to follow the Saylor Souza Ruth team.
Are there others put there who might run and get us back on track. If Sue is the only lone progressive voice nothing will change.
I implore Lemar to tap someone to run in his stead. He distills the issues and politely articulates his questions and comments in a way that is proactive and effective. Sue voices many of my concerns but not as articulately or politely. Even before this I wished she could be coached in her delivery.
I wonder if this would have escalated to this point if John Meyer was CM.
Please!
What’s funny is it was Ruth who interupted Sue while she was speaking and said that Sue had lied when Sue hadn’t lied as was backed up by Lamar Heystek. So in essence from what I saw Ruth started the whole thing and Sue gave it back to her. In my opinion if Ruth knew she had anxiety problems then she should refrain from starting a ruckus.
Crilly: If you want to take a step back, take a step further back, this was a side issue about a comment that Asmundson had made about being concerned about a particular benefit. Greenwald then during her comments suggested that Asmundson had not supported the motion when she made it in closed session. From there it devolved, but my point is that really in the scheme of this debate it wasn’t that important. Certainly was not worth cancelling the rest of the discussion over. There needs to be some common sense.
On this issue, we can blame everyone. I’m not convinced Asmundson’s memory is that good at this point, but certainly Don or Stephen could have come forward and said it came up. But again, it was a peripheral issue at best to the discussion which was focused on whether or not to pass this MOU and the secondary issue being the impact of the MOU on short and long term fiscal issues.
Exactly, David–it was a peripheral issue. That’s why I think you’ve blown this thing WAY out of proportion. As someone above said, and you agreed, if Ruth hadn’t had an anxiety attack, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Sue didn’t do or say anything that egregious, and the whole thing was a tempest in a teapot characterized as a genuine tempest primarily because of you. This is the second time in recent weeks that you’ve responded somewhat hysterically to a total non-story. I think you need to stay focused and on target and leave the “sky is falling” rhetoric to the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
With all due respect Crilly, you were not in the vestibule.
I agree Crilly, this smacks of that story about Dunning and the college girl Measure P canvassers and how that whole non-situation was blown out of porportion.
I watched the Video on your site and also on the TV this morning. I know nothing about Davis politics. My comments are on Sue. I thought she was fabulous. She wanted an answer and by golly she was going to get one. If the mayor is so delicate she can’t take a heated discussion she should not be in that position. Go, Sue!
The sort of behavior exhibited by all but Lamar is an example of why good candidates are unwilling to run for City Council.
Counicilperson Greenwald lost her temper. Upon reflection, I hope that she publicly acknowledges this. I have often wondered how she was able to muster the self-control necessary to keep working to defend the interests of the Davis voters in the face of PERSISTENT UNENDING efforts by this Council majority to either silence her or attempt to deliberately provoke her into losing her self-control. This situation has been long standing as everyone recognizes but has been especially egregious under Ruth Asmundson’s gavel as our current mayor’s style is openly autocratic ,patronizing and distainful . So… as Greg Kuperberg said, in another context, it appears that this was the “brick(actually it’s straw) that broke the camel’s back”. Those of us who have known Sue Greenwald for some time are fully aware that she can lose her temper when her frustration level is finally breached and from what I can gather, that was what occurred and that IS the story. David’s first inclination to refrain from rehashing in detail Sue Greenwald’s state at the time when she had lost her temper was the correct one. I find David’s detailed description of what he heard contributing NOTHING further to an understanding of this incident and unnecessarily raises the question of how much the well-recognized tension and potential fracturing of the Davis progressive voting community(Sue Greenwald vs Bill Ritter ET AL) had to do with this piece.
What is to be done?
Now that we are all hot and bothered what is to be done?
There seems to be a consensus here that our Mayor is a failure and she probably won’t run, but may find a surrogate.
Maybe we should get a group of people, draw straws–whoever loses has to run but everyone else has to support that person. The problem is that no one wants the job, Sue has been willing to do it and on policy issues she has no peer in this town.
Ruth needs to resign, the council process has been undermined if everytime someone has a problem that needs to brought up to our mayor and you have to worry that you won’t upset her to the point that she needs to be hospitalised and you in turn will be castigated.
[i]as Greg Kuperberg said, in another context, it appears that this was the “brick(actually it’s straw) that broke the camel’s back”[/i]
Hi davisite2. Thanks for quoting me! But actually, I change the figure of speech on purpose. I was responding to the argument that it wouldn’t have looked all that different from other incidents if Ruth hadn’t gotten sick. Sometimes it takes a big, ugly incident to change people’s minds, not one last small thing. So you could call it the BRICK that broke the camel’s back. 🙂
The sort of behavior exhibited by all but Lamar is an example of why good candidates are unwilling to run for City Council.
Maybe the Yolo County judges can assign City Council duty as punishment for certain crimes committed. Maybe we would get a better quality public servant and serve as an effective deterrent to crimes? 😉
[i]There seems to be a consensus here that our Mayor is a failure and she probably won’t run, but may find a surrogate.[/i]
No, Phil, there isn’t a consensus that Mayor Ruth Asmundson is a failure. I wish there was a consensus that what Sue did is utterly unacceptable and that she has to be prevented from ever doing it again. Unfortunately, there isn’t that consensus either. What I can say, regardless of what Ruth chooses to do, is that anyone who supports what Sue did on Tuesday deserves ZERO representation on the city council.
Greg–What Sue did on Tuesday was to call a lie a lie. To me, that is not “utterly unacceptable”. It was simply the truth. End of story.
“It is easy being nicey, nicey when you are part of the majority as were Partansky and Wagstaff.”
Julie started off in the minority, and was instrumental in both building a majority and passing the venerated Measure J. It definitely wasn’t easy, but in my experience she was always “nicey, nicey.”
Lamar is also a class act; proving that you don’t have to be inflammatory and excessively confrontational in 2010 to be an effective public servant.
[quote]What I can say, regardless of what Ruth chooses to do, is that anyone who supports what Sue did on Tuesday deserves ZERO representation on the city council. [/quote]
I would add, that after Tuesday nights performance, ZERO representation on the city council is what we all received. Of course some disagree, and from my point of view do so because they aren’t looking beyond the immediate incident itself.
A brick is an apt analogy.
First, let’s keep in mind that EVERY City Council members health should be first and foremost. I, for one, am thankful that Ruth was able to receive the necessary medical treatment and seems to be recovering.
Second, the ability for our City Council to interact with decorum and respect is tantamount to successful city leadership. I would like to see the council members invite professional guidance/training to improve interaction.
My thoughts/prayers are for all council members, that healing and respectful interaction may soon come.
Actually a brick might be to soft an illustration. Maybe one of those giant anvils falling on coyote’s head is better.
“…raises the question of how much the well-recognized tension and potential fracturing of the Davis progressive voting community(Sue Greenwald vs Bill Ritter ET AL) had to do with this piece. “
I have to agree with you davisite2…what is David’s Greenwald’s end objective of publishing this piece?
Sue to resign (won’t happen)
Sue to be re-called (wont happen)
Sue to aplogize to Ruth (also won’t happen)
Sue to be not re-elected (have to wait two more years to see what happens there)…OR….
Cecilia to run again and billed as the “true progressive” choice, with Bill Ritter behind the scene???? (let’s wait and see on that one)
I’ll vote for option #5
Greg Sokolov: I pretty much laid out my motivation for writing this in the piece. I did it upon great reflection and with great reluctance. I did it because I was a witness to something that in my mind was horrible and needed to be told. I don’t expect that Sue will resign. I don’t ask her to. I think she has been a good councilmember for the most part, but I think she could be better if she had a better sense of propriety.
As for your conspiracy theory, obviously you didn’t read very careful, there is a little ten pounder that precludes that possibility in the near future.
Greg K:
1. (Replying to your comment yesterday) Economists do not study labor negotiations–perhaps you should look at the curriculum of a graduate program. WE do study information flows and information assymetries. When citizens do not know which City Council voted which way in closed session we have a big problem. That is a key issue here that has been lost. I was merely asking for information and you assumed somehow I was an expert on labor negotiations. I am not. I recognize some need for closed sessions but not when it serves to hide what is going on from the public.
2. I have read a great deal of sympathy for our Mayor but virtually no support for her performance either Tuesday night or overall. Irrespective of what you think of Sue, Asmundson is up for reelection soon and Sue is not.
I am disturbed at the number of people who do not see Sue’s behavior as beyond the pale. I have certainly been outrageous in political discussions in my time, but I have stopped short of mocking people as they receive emergency medical treatment. Once again, I think Sue’s right on some issues, and I do not think Ruth is the most skillful gavel-wielder ever, but an intelligent person is able to reflect on her personal efficacy and amend her approach to better serve her aims. Sue, over many years in public life, has failed miserably to craft a new strategy for advancing her goals or representing her constituents. At best, she has proven to be useless. Right, sometimes, but useless. At worst she is a cringe-inducing, combative failure. How many signatures would it take to get a recall on the ballot? Gee, if every Davisite who has ever ducked around a corner or into an alley to avoid having to talk to Sue would sign a recall petition, we’d have a ballot item in no time. Admit it y’all…remember all those times when you’ve been innocently seated in a public place and realized you were about to be trapped ans you have a tiny feeling of Sue-induced dread? You know you do.
[i]Economists do not study labor negotiations[/i]
Fortunately a claim like that can be checked with a Google search. I am looking right now at The choice of the agenda in labor negotiations: efficiency and behaviorial considerations ([url]http://ideas.repec.org/p/gat/wpaper/0508.html[/url]), by Professor of Economics Marie-Claire Villeval and Professor of Economics Manfred Konigstein.
[i]perhaps you should look at the curriculum of a graduate program.[/i]
You’re right! For example, I am looking at graduate economics courses at George Mason University ([url]http://www.gmu.edu/academics/catalog/9798/econ.html[/url]). Here is their description of Econ 321, Economics of Labor: Factors that determine levels of wages and employment and economic consequences. Attention is directed to recent developments in unionism, collective bargaining, and industrial technology.
[i]I was merely asking for information and you assumed somehow I was an expert on labor negotiations.[/i]
No, I assumed that you had the basic common sense of an economist on the topic of labor negotiations. I was just making the basic point, which you agree with, that closed session exists for a good reason, and isn’t just a “coverup”.
The quote in the Enterprise from Sue today: “It’s already been too much talk about it. It’s a non-issue. I was upset that Ruth was untruthful about the motions, and Ruth was upset that I said she was untruthful about the motions. What else is there to say?”
It seems to me that many more people than Ruth are upset, and that there is a lot more to say than just that Ruth lied and Sue called her on it.
I think Dunning summed up the political ramifications of this whole “Anxious Mayor, Angry Sue-Gate” the best in his piece today (which gets far more readers than this blog):
“…Where this will lead is anyone’s guess. Saylor and Councilman Lamar Heystek will both be gone in a matter of months, while Asmundson has yet to decide about running for re-election in June.
Far be it for me to be passing out advice to our esteemed leaders, but there’s an expression about heat and kitchens that might be appropriate for the mayor to consider here as she ponders both her health and her political future.
Especially since Greenwald, not up for re-election, seems certain to be a thorn in her side for a long, long time to come.”
Very good article, David, and it needed to be told.
I have worked on all of Sue’s campaigns and have always supported her and her candidacy. She and Lamar are our only voices on the current council, and I strongly support them both. I greatly admire Sue for her tenacity in getting to the core of the issues and for fighting for her community and for what she believes in. However, I cannot condone Sue’s behavior on Tuesday night.
This is not the first time Sue has “lost it”. I have been at many other meetings where Sue has lost her temper and lashed out at others. I have been on the receiving end of her temper and inability to rationally discuss an issue if you do not agree with her. On Tuesday night, Sue demonstrated a lack of self-control and a complete lack of any sort of empathy toward another person who was suffering that I quite frankly find appalling. I do not believe it serves us well to condone that sort of behavior.
This sort of behavior may happen all the time, as some have pointed out, and may be nothing to get upset over. That does not make it right. Sue owes Ruth an apology. I doubt that that will ever happen, however. So, we have to move on.
I wish this blog devoted half the attention to Saylor or Souza that it devotes to Sue.
What can we conclude from this very energetic discussion:
1. Our City Council will continue to be fiscally irresponsible while folks debate whether they like Sue or not.
2. We need new leadership but no one seems to be stepping forward. Perhaps I am mistaken and someone will.
With so much energy and brainpower can’t Davis do better than this?
Like many I agree with Sue on some issues but I find her conduct in last week’s meeting appalling. I also feel that her request for an apology is upsetting. Sue’s behavior is inappropriate, especially for an elected official. Who does this? Davis prides itself on its uniqueness, I didn’t know how unique we could get.
Thanks Dave for reporting this story. I feel the community should know. Or since there seems to be a lot who already know, I think the community should talk about this.
[quote]We need new leadership but no one seems to be stepping forward. Perhaps I am mistaken and someone will. [/quote]
Great point Phil. You’ll probably disagree when I say this, but I’d start with new leadership amongst our own affiliate. To bring up Saylor and Souza is to ignore our own bad apples.
[quote]Phil said . . .
What can we conclude from this very energetic discussion:
2. We need new leadership but no one seems to be stepping forward. Perhaps I am mistaken and someone will.
With so much energy and brainpower can’t Davis do better than this? [/quote]
Phil, you and Greg Sokolov have both said variations of your comment above. What prevents you from being the leader who steps forward? You have already garnered Rich Rifkin’s endorsement at the end of the Measure P process. You seem like a very logical choice. What prevents you from translating words into actions?
Greg, much the same question to you. You demonstrated balanced, but tenacious leadership in the No On P campaign. You know how to frame challenging questions. You do your homework. You care about the core issues that Davis citizens care about. What prevents you from translating words into actions?
I look forward to your individual and collective responses.
[quote name=”Phil”]I wish this blog devoted half the attention to Saylor or Souza that it devotes to Sue. [/quote]
Phil: Do you mean this particularly article or overall?
[quote]Phil wrote:
When citizens do not know which City Council voted which way in closed session we have a big problem. [/quote]
The Council’s formal approval action (in this case approving the PASEA agreement) must be taken in open session. We should be able to reasonably deduce the closed session vote by observing the open session vote.
One of the interesting things I saw elsewhere is that there are websites that listed the stages of the proposals from each side.
So it had management proposal
Counterproposal from labor.
That would have been a relatively easy way to do that.
I was very disappointed, the Finance and Budget commission asked for a one month sunshine period. Rich Rifkin and myself asked for transparency and we never got it.
Since I’m not really going to post a new story on this incident again, I wanted to post a couple of thoughts from the Enterprise.
This is from the main editorial which I mainly agree with:
[quote]
THE CITY’S PROPOSED contract with one of its employee groups was the controversial issue Tuesday. Councilwoman Sue Greenwald spoke for several minutes, explaining why she believes the contract doesn’t save enough money to stabilize the city’s finances. When Mayor Ruth Asmundson interjected and said Greenwald never made a motion in closed session for a better contract, Greenwald called the mayor a liar.
While other council members attempted to defuse the situation, it continued to escalate, ending with the mayor being rushed to Sutter Davis Hospital emergency room for treatment of chest pains and high blood pressure. Greenwald remains adamant that the city is headed for a ‘fiscal train wreck’ and that it must do more to rein in the costs of employee benefits.
Her point is valid; it’s one we agree with. But her message was completely lost in the embarrassing and ineffective exchange Tuesday evening on the council dais. Our elected officials must learn how to discuss, disagree and make policy without attacking each other to the point of ill health. Our collective community health depends on it.[/quote]
I’ve watched and read. i’ve reconciled what I’ve read and seen with my own personal experiences with Sue. What’s the bottom-line? Sue’s does her homework. Her positions on the issues are more often than not ones I can and do support. Therefore in the abstract, I’m glad Sue is on the Council.
Unfortunately, like a Paul Harvey newscast, there is this “And now here’s the rest of the story . . .” part that reared its ugly head Tuesday night. I really don’t have any problem with the fact that Sue wanted the official Council record to reflect what actually happened in the Closed Session. She accomplished that within the first minute or so of the interchange with the help of Lamar. Unfortunately, much like many other Sue events, a recitation of the events wasn’t enough. Sue made Ruth’s apology the issue. What “public good” would an apology have served? None that I can see. However, Sue became Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Ruth was never going to apologize. Why couldn’t Sue recognize that? The answer to that is pretty simple, it isn’t her nature, and like the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog we really are true to our natures.
I really can’t, and really don’t, expect Sue to change. She is part Gladiator, part Martyr. Moment’s like last night’s are going to come again. Maybe the way to avoid a repeat of the moment in the vestibule (which conjurs up the classic image of Cassius Clay standing over a prostrate Sonny Liston with his gloved fist cocked) iis to establish preset non-negotiable, non-violatable time limits for each council member to speak. If those were established, then Ruth couldn’t intrude on Sue’s time and Sue would have to organize her many thoughts so that they fit into the time allotment. That way instead of tilting at windmills, Sue could concentrate on tilting at time limits.
I also wanted to quote from Dunning, I think the body of his work is very good on this and fair.
I do want to pull out this quote:
[quote]
The real problem with what happened during Tuesday night’s raucous, rowdy, rambunctious and downright ridiculous Davis City Council meeting is that the whole thing went viral on YouTube and now everyone in Chapel Hill is having a good, old-fashioned Carolina guffaw at our expense.
Put simply, Chapter 922 of the continuing catfight between Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilwoman Sue Greenwald was not our finest hour. [/quote]
I think people needed to see this and should see it for themselves rather than rely on my description. Those of us who watch the council on a regular basis have seen what happened Tuesday sans Ruth’s health problem on a regular basis, but posting the video on YouTube focused attention by the general public, it even got picked up by News 10 in Sacramento. I think that could lead to changes, at least I hope. So yes, it was not our finest moment, but sometimes we have to bear our laundry in order to fix things. At least that’s my view.
An opportunity must exist for these two people to solve their differences. They need to see/talk to each other more often, focusing on the rules of engaegement they want each other to follow. I bet they never talk to each other outside of meetings and just allow differences to fester in between meetings. I agree with Matt Williams, a few more rules need to be established to reduce the behavior that triggers unproductive tension. Tommorrow is another day!
David:
I met I hope you will look at Souza and Saylor in the future with as much energy as you have looked at Sue. I admit it may not be as juicy a story (apparently not only are we on you tube–the local NPR station also carried the story–so we are indeed being discuused but not in a good way).
Matt:
I appreciate the complement (about me running). I have a 4 year old and am quite busy otherwsie. But you do make a good point–I don’t want to run for many of the same reasones that others do not. I am thinking we should place an ad in Craig’s list.
I certainly believe that I have over the course of time been far more critical towards Souza and Saylor and generally been supportive of Sue’s policies. Certainly the math column was pretty pointed toward Souza as a recent example.
Matt: I welcome your comments here. Good to have you back as your insights has been missed on the Vanguard threads. As for Greg Kuperberg’s comment about anyone who approved of Sue’s actions… etc., I have seen NO ONE who applauded Sue’s actions. Sue lost her temper, period. When sufficiently provoked( and there is a clear history of this Council majority deliberately attempting to trip such a response from Sue), she may very well “lose it” again. It was unfortunate but as Matt Williams noted, it is in her nature just as it is in Ruth’s nature to be inflexible, autocratic and patronizing. As for Ruth Asmundson now deciding to not run for reelection, I doubt it. If anything, this may strengthen the sympathetic- old-friend-don’t hurt her feelings by rejecting her- voting block that is at the core of her electoral success. These same caring friends should certainly now counsel her that it is time to leave Council politics.
Our city is wallowing in red ink that gets worse daily, and yet our city managers continue to agree to sweetheart labor contracts and try to justify it with Enron-style accounting.
Our city is soon to give us a 18%/year x 5year rate increase for water use, and I suspect a waste water treatment plant upgrade increase is just around the corner.
Our local school district is in serious financial trouble and soon will ask us to vote for a 25%+ increase in the special assessment to help fund the schools, the district teachers feel offended that they should have to consider wage concessions, and I would not be surprised to see a infrastructure bond measure in the pipeline
Our city is asking us to renew the city sales tax, is cutting services, and the fire dept is pushing for funding for another fire station.
And yet the only thing anybody in Davis is apparently concerned about is that we have council members who may never win the miss congeniality award?? Only in the Peoples Republic of Davis could this happen!
It’s difficult to deal gracefully with an opponent who lies about material issues under any circumstance. Sue’s frustration and her belief that she was being lied to is apparent. Can’t say that I think her confrontation was productive since it backfired on her so completely, to the point that the real issue (Was Ruth lying about the closed session proceedings?) got lost. Too bad. The answer to that question could be enough to burn Ruth out of her seat. No wonder Ruth got sick. Her image was in jeopardy. That’s about all I can say about it. I do think Greenwald should apologize about her demeanor and admit losing control. If for no other reason than to put the incident behind her and us. But, I also believe that Ruth should answer the question put to her that everybody (except Sue I’m wagering) seems to have forgotten about. Namely, whether Ruth was misrepresenting the closed session proceedings.
Davis Enophile said:
“Actually a brick might be to soft an illustration. Maybe one of those giant anvils falling on coyote’s head is better”
Wow, in some cultures, that would be construed as a direct threat. In this state, threatening to harm someone is a criminal misdemeanor.
I can’t wait till Ruth leaves and Sue steps back in to protect the citizens of this city.
Ruth is either one of two things.
A liar
or Forgetfull.
Either way, both are grounds to be removed from office.
Thanks Sue for calling her out on her brazen LIES!!!!~
Matt W. [i]”Phil, you and Greg Sokolov have both said variations of your comment above. What prevents you from being the leader who steps forward? You have already garnered Rich Rifkin’s endorsement at the end of the Measure P process.”[/i]
Just to be clear: I said that “Phil Wyels” (not “Phil King”) was an excellent spokesman for WENA. (I never expressed an opinion on Phil King or any of the other members of that association.) Also, I did not endorse Mr. Wyels. I did say, though, that he struck me as someone who was bright and had the right temperament to serve effectively on the city council.
And speaking of the right or wrong temperament on the city council … I was not at the meeting on Tuesday and have not yet seen any of the video. (It’s been an unusually busy work week for me.) I will take David’s word for just what happened in the vestibule. It sounds like Sue used very poor judgment at that time.
However, I think Sue’s bad behavior, as David described it, is the culmination of a lot of malicious interactions between her and the other members of the council, most notably with Ruth since Ruth has been the mayor. As such, that should serve, not as justification, but as context.
I should say that I like Sue very much. I have never personally had any trouble speaking with her, discussing issues. We have talked for hours, many times. I’m not always the easiest person in the world to get along with, not much of a diplomat, so I can perhaps sympathize with Sue’s trouble at getting along with her colleagues on the council more than most.
But make no mistake: it is Sue’s personality at issue, not the issues. Sue is a natural fighter for what she believes in. But in fighting for what she believes in, she upsets some people. And in response, the other members of the council (save Lamar) have treated Sue very badly. They have been petty with her to get back at her for what they perceive as her misdeeds. They threw Sue off of various committee assignments, not really because they even disagreed with her or thought she was not up for those spots, but because they really dislike her personally.
As long as Sue is going to serve on the city council (or in any collaborative venture), she needs to be more introspective and figure out how to fight the good fight without making anyone mad at her. Because she has been so ill-treated by the others, she now thinks (I am guessing) that it is all their fault. And for all they have done to her, that is their fault. But the fact is, she only has control over what she does. And she could do her job much more effectively if she tried much harder to get along with her colleagues. To repeat, I give this advice as someone who shoots his mouth off way more often than he should, someone who likewise needs to be more introspective.
Let me begin by giving an “Amen” to Rich Rifkin’s comments above. I believe his characterization is absolutely true . . . And has PREVENTED me from being willing to cast my vote for Sue Greenwald – past, present, and future. As much as I agree with her position on many of the issues, I simply cannot agree with her behavior or the means she chooses to use in delivering her message. As Rich suggests, her behavior renders her completely ineffectual as a leader who ends up not fighting the opposition, but herself (as we have seen, yet again, in this case).
For as much as I would like to believe that her heart is in the right place, Sue is downright ineffective – if not counterproductive – as a representative for the issues she crusades on behalf of.
[quote]And she could do her job much more effectively if she tried much harder to get along with her colleagues.[/quote]
Unfortunately, I believe this ship has sailed.
Hi Matt and Rich:
Glad to see you both blogging on the topic.
Thanks Matt for your supportive words, but I, like Phil, am quite swamped in my everyday life with a young son and full time career. The Measure P election pushed me to my max limits with my family, work, and that was only for three months; can’t imagine what four years would do!
That said, I will continue to put my limited time, energy into helping a campaign for a truly indepedent candidate for City Council (ie. one who is not willing to accept campaign contributions from developers, local employee unions (firefighters), and one who has NO ties, either financial or out of past political alliances, to Bill Ritter!)
Despite her questionable behavior in this “incident”, I am tired of the relentless attacks on Sue (remember Bill Ritter castigating her at the CC meeting during Measure P, and then David Greenwald blogging about her “unprofessional” conduct at the Finance Commission meeting, and people blogging that he get the “tapes” of that meeting; Sue is Sue; we know what we get with her; she is not your conventional, out to appease and please all (a la Don Saylor); she stands up to developers, special interests, and I’ll take her “rough and tough side” any day over other CC members; Ruth was clearly pandering to developers in the Measure P election (remember her comments to John Talman: “What (election) date do you want John?”)Ruth has now publicly disclosed she has “anxiety attacks”; politics (on every level) is a tough business, if you are going to excaberate a pre-disposing condition when you have disagreements with other CC members, then this not the right business for you, as Dunning wrote today…”if you can’t stand the heat, it’s time to get out of the kitchen!”
Whether you like her personality or not, she stands up for what is right and good for the people of Davis. She’s the only one to have enough courage (besides Lamar of course) and take on the greedy public unions, whou bought city officials and their subsequent votes for sweet salary deals.
This is the kind of government that we have. The new supreme court ruling now makes it even easier, for unions and corporations to act as individuals and buy lucrative legislation in their favor.
Sue’s behavior was right on point. I’m glad she stood up for our rights, and she will definitely win my vote. Souza and Asmundson, Saylor too are ll guilty for voting against the general public and voting in favor of unions payrolls and corporations.
Rock on Sue.
Thanks for your courage.
[i]She’s the only one to have enough courage (besides Lamar of course) and take on the greedy public unions, whou bought city officials and their subsequent votes for sweet salary deals. [/i]
Not that the other unions and employee associations have not also received some “sweet salary deals,” but it should be pointed out that none but the firefighters ever “bought city (elected) officials.” That is, there never has been an effort by city employees outside of Local 3494 to elect anyone to the Davis City Council and finance the campaigns of members of the council. The DPOA raises a lot of money from its membership, but it has always stayed out of council elections.
Several of Sue’s castigators on this blog have gone on and on about how ineffective she is as a city council member because of what they see as her inappropriate and disrespectful behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I have to wonder whether the people who say these things really know anything at all about the overall workings of our city council.
Sue is probably the most effective member of the council overall. Her thorough research and detailed understanding of issues makes her a formidable presence on the council, and even when her position is not one that pleases the council majority, they are often persuaded to vote her way simply by the cogency of her arguments. Yes, she is often on the losing side of 3-2 council votes, but so is Lamar, one of the nicest and most respectful guys you’ll ever meet. So her losing votes clearly have nothing to do with her personality at all, since Lamar is usually voting right there with her.
As I said before, this is a tempest in a teapot. Though it’s a free country, and you can say whatever you want on a blog, I have a lot of trouble with people who spout off time after time when they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s easy for someone to say that Sue is ineffective, but they have absolutely NOTHING to back up such a ridiculous contention.
[quote]Yes, she is often on the losing side of 3-2 council votes…[/quote]
and
[quote]It’s easy for someone to say that Sue is ineffective, but they have absolutely NOTHING to back up such a ridiculous contention.[/quote]
You just backed up the “ridiculous contention.”
I’m sorry to see how some people are not backing up Sue. I agree that she is not very likable, but we need to see beyond cute, fuzzy and well spoken, and admire her conviction on issues that affect our city.
Regarding the city contracts, (other than the fire department), most city employees work their tails off, and the pay is only average, their cafeteria is for many, the only reason they stay, or it would not be worth it.
The city, however, can look into management and supervisory positions, the ones that really make good money, and weed out those who are just milking the city, and have the guts to let them go, REGARDLESS of how long they have been there!! Sue needs to understand that, and focus her goals on the fire department and overpaid management, and of course, continue her battle agains the ever increasing push to make Davis a Roseville, or worse; something the other city council members, are so inclined to do.
[quote]I’m sorry to see how some people are not backing up Sue. I agree that she is not very likable, but we need to see beyond cute, fuzzy and well spoken, and admire her conviction on issues that affect our city.[/quote]
There is a difference between conviction for your city and just flat our immature behavior. What Councilmember Greenwald showed on Tuesday night was nothing short of childish. You can disagree with someone without acting the way she did.
Councilmember Greenwald also mentioned that there are some people who are [quote]just not fit for politics.[/quote] Maybe she should look in the mirror because nobody worth their weight in salt would come onto a blog like this and continue her attacks against a colleague. Time to grow up Councilmember Greenwald.
“Sue is Sue; we know what we get with her; she is not your conventional, out to appease and please all (a la Don Saylor); she stands up to developers, special interests, and I’ll take her “rough and tough side” any day over other CC members…”
Greg… you’ve said it all here. When you vote for Sue, you get it with the bark on and you know where she stands and what she will fight for. Some are praising Don Saylor for his style on the dais; the problem is that it’s all a controlled obtuse and deceptive facade. I have always thought that Sue’s electoral success in Davis was a reflection of the INSIGHTFUL WISDOM of the Davis electorate who vote for her in spite of her obvious political(generic definition) weaknesses because they KNOW that she will “go to the mat” for them.
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.
[i]They threw Sue off of various committee assignments, not really because they even disagreed with her or thought she was not up for those spots, but because they really dislike her personally.[/i]
Can you really blame them?
I see how Sue can be a congenial person around town, a lot of fun to debate or talk to about politics, a good public speaker, a great advocate for certain causes, etc. Despite all that has happened, the most that anyone is saying is that she has a bad side, not that she is a bad person. And hey, we all have a bad side. Certainly I can see that she has a good side, even though I don’t agree with her on all of the issues.
But committee work — including serving on the city council — isn’t just about Fighting the Good Fight. To do a good job on a committee or the city council, you have to cooperate, not just fight or debate. Given the way that Sue treated a number of people on Tuesday, not just the city council but also Bill Emlen and Harriet Steiner, I don’t think it works as an explanation that everyone treated her badly in the past. I don’t see that two such people could work well together on a committee unless they agreed all of the time.
It’s a basic question, whether someone could get along with an identical twin. One case to consider is Dear Abby and Ann Landers. Even though they were identical twins, and ironically both advice columnists, relations broke down and they didn’t speak to each other for seven years.
[quote]
Greg Sokolov said . . .
Despite her questionable behavior in this “incident”, I am tired of the relentless attacks on Sue (remember Bill Ritter castigating her at the CC meeting during Measure P, and [u]then David Greenwald blogging about her “unprofessional” conduct at the Finance Commission meeting[/u], and people blogging that he get the “tapes” of that meeting.[/quote]
Greg, I have no desire to belabor this particular item, but you need some added input.
As you said, Sue is Sue. However, I was at the entire Finance and Budget Commission meeting you refer to. You probably should scratch that particular event from your list. Sue’s conduct was totally and completely out of bounds . . . beyond out of bounds . . . out of this universe. Bottom-line, there are more than enough examples to support your point without even thinking about that evening. I would strike it from your list.
Now, on to warmer, fuzzier things . . . how can you hide behind “a young son and full time career”? Those kind of things don’t matter! Heed your calling! The pay is humongous and the hours are great. How can you turn down an opportunity like that? We need you in the kitchen.
[i]You probably should scratch that particular event from your list. Sue’s conduct was totally and completely out of bounds . . . beyond out of bounds . . . out of this universe.[/i]
It seems suddenly relevant to discuss what happened, if it was that bad.
Another point: I was thinking about Bob Dunning’s argument that Ruth is also much to blame. I sort-of see it: it was certainly inappropriate for her to blame Sue for her health problems. But the thing is that Sue has had blowups with a lot of people on committees, and I don’t know that Ruth has had any serious trouble with anyone else. It may be that if you can’t stand the heat, you should get out of the kitchen. But maybe, if you can’t stand the heat, it’s actually because the kitchen is on fire.
Even if people are so inclined to forgive or write off the situation that occured between Ruth and Sue as the result of many years of intensive mutual dislike, the more disturbing moment to many there was when Sue tried to stop the city manager from helping the off duty firefighter assist the Mayor out of the lobby (ie the 3rd ring of the circus) and into a private room because she wanted to know why he didnt stop Ruth and correct the situation, set the record straight etc etc. When he told her “now is not the time to continue this Sue, I need you to back down and stop, I need to see to the Mayor and you are only making this worse right now”. Sue then said, “well, I can see who’s side you are on in this BOY”……
It is amazing to me that this is not appalling to every person here. I just cannot see how such an inflaming remark can be construed as anything but a racial slur? To me, much can be forgiven and moved beyond from that awful and embarrassing night, but that? I dare say if anyone else had said that same thing (in any situation), everyone would be calling for their heads. I can never again feel comfortable having her represent me as a resident (or our city) at any event without worrying if she will snap and utter another “boy” comment. I agree with almost all of her politics and have voted for and contributed to her campaigns in the past, but she lost me at “boy”. That was simply uncalled for and indefensible in any way.
People can disagree without being disagreeable-Julie Partansky being a perfect example. Please give us another Julie and no more Sue Greenwalds.
Shawn Smallwoody said:
“I can tell stories like the one you told, about people in Davis, including people you know and like. I’ve noticed, however, that these heat-of-the-moment events don’t define people.”
Hey that is great man. Why don’t you start a blog like the one you are criticizing then? Please enlighten us with your stories that trump the one you deem unimportant.
Southender:
“well, I can see who’s side you are on in this BOY”……
Bill Emlem is white, how’s that a racial slur? Am I missing something here? You talk about trying to make something out of nothing.
I’ll take Sue Greenwald over Ruth any day.
Keep on fighting the good fight Sue, but I do think you need to brush up your communication skills, write stuff down so that when they interrupt you, they can’t derail you.
I know this is definitely a ploy that Ruth, Steven and sometimes Don use to try and derail her so she can’t get to the point. The constant interruptions from these three make it impossible to make a point, which is why I’m sure Sue got so frustrated. Did any body stop to think that her behavior was a consequence of stress and perhaps she too was having a panic attack????
“Not that the other unions and employee associations have not also received some “sweet salary deals,” but it should be pointed out that none but the firefighters ever “bought city (elected) officials.” That is, there never has been an effort by city employees outside of Local 3494 to elect anyone to the Davis City Council and finance the campaigns of members of the council. The DPOA raises a lot of money from its membership, but it has always stayed out of council elections.”
David, can you clarify Rich’s charge that the firefighters union never bribed city officcials for their vote? Oh I’m sorry, I mean made campaign contributions instead of bribery.
Well let’s call it like it is. In Davis politics where the campaign costs are relatively small, would a ten thousand dollar “contribution” to a candidate be a large one? Why would they “contribute” to Souza or Saylor or Ruth????
They “contributed” because they have a financial incentive to do so. It’s not a contribution, it’s a bribe. Let’s call it for what it is and stop using euphemisms.
He said “[u]none[/u] but the firefighters ever “bought city (elected) officials.”
[i]Bill Emlem is white, how’s that a racial slur?[/i]
It shouldn’t be taken as a racial slur. However, it is an outrageous insult, all the more so when the man had his hands full helping the mayor get to a doctor.
For the so-called “progressive” agenda in Davis this insult is damaging in another respect. People, including David himself as well as Sue, have questioned Emlen’s loyalty in labor negotiations. They have tried to put a good face on it by saying that they want to spare Emlen the AGONY of working with people whose salary he negotiates. Any intelligent adult can see through that patronizing talk. At the same time they have said, “Gosh, we’re not against the employees, we deeply respect them.” So if Sue loses it and treats Emlen and Harriet Steiner with open contempt, and accuses Emlen of being on the wrong side, it rather lets the cat out of the bag.
Tonie said:
“Regarding the city contracts, (other than the fire department), most city employees work their tails off, and the pay is only average, their cafeteria is for many, the only reason they stay, or it would not be worth it.”
Well Tonie, if they don’t like it they can sure go somewhere else and find another job elsewhere if they pay is so low. There are plenty of out of work people right now that would jump at the chance at having a decent salary. So public unions in Davis, California and America…stop being so greedy at the expense of the tax payers and take your pay cut now. It’s only what’s right.
If we don’t have the money to pay for your pay raise, we don’t have the money..
there ought to be a mechanism that goes on in times of recession that immediately stops the COLA’s for all public unions and public employees. The ones that should continue to get raises are the lower end earners.
Greg K: I think Emlen would say that while he and I have had policy differences, we’ve always been civil on a personal level. In fact, I doubt anyone can tell of an incident where they personally got into it with me. There was a day when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could go toe-to-toe and then have a beer together. I think that is what we have lost.
Rusty,
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying for clarity. Are you saying that uttering a racial slur outside of the presence of the minority group that slur has been historically used to insult thus renders said slur harmless? If that is what you are indicating, I disagree. Sue was clearly inferring that the city manager was Ruth’s “boy” in a way intended to insult him with all the negative and racial inferences associated with calling someone “boy”. Again, ask David. It was after this point he had to get in between the two.
And, if Sue called you “boy” in the same manner, you would not take it as an insult no matter what color you are? Just asking……
“There was a day when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could go toe-to-toe and then have a beer together. I think that is what we have lost”.
I agree completely. Again, I hold up Julie P as a terrific example of how to disagree without being disagreeable. Lamar also. We need more Lamar and Julie style of discourse, way less of the Sue style. It overshadows many good points being made.
[i]I think Emlen would say that while he and I have had policy differences, we’ve always been civil on a personal level.[/i]
That’s fine as far it goes. But you still question his loyalty. It speaks to his professionalism more than to yours if he doesn’t seem to mind.
Does DJUSD use a professional negotiator? I’ve never seen you worry about Hammond suffering the agony of working with teachers and negotiating their contract.
[i]There was a day when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could go toe-to-toe and then have a beer together.[/i]
In light of their actual policies, frankly that’s a cloying pretense that doesn’t do much for me. Bush and Putin knew how to pal around too, but so what. Beer doesn’t wash away a stab in the back.
I’m not really prepared to go much further on “boy” other than to say it was an inappropriate comment at a very inappropriate time. Emlen personally apologized to me for putting me in a position where I felt I needed to step in.
Some have suggested that the loss of temper is an excuse. I think one does lose one’s temper on occasion. But that does not justify the behavior that ensues from that loss of temper.
And more to the point, I get that Sue was angry and to some extent justifiably so, although she certainly contributed to the problem. However, you have to check yourself when you see someone in the need of medical attention. That was not the place to continue to press the argument from inside. And to that extent her behavior was absolutely appalling. To this point she has never seemed to acknowledge the severity of the breach there.
Greg:
“I’ve never seen you worry about Hammond suffering the agony of working with teachers and negotiating their contract. “
The structure is very different in a school setting. Most teachers do not have direct contact with the Superintendent or upper administration. It would be like asking a Principal to negotiate contracts and then work with teachers on a daily basis, well they don’t do it.
We have not had an actual contract situation while you have been reading this board, I would suggest you read some of my early articles on the subject before you weigh in much further.
[quote]Rich Rifkin said . . .
[em]Matt W. “Phil, you and Greg Sokolov have both said variations of your comment above. What prevents you from being the leader who steps forward? You have already garnered Rich Rifkin’s endorsement at the end of the Measure P process.”[/em]
Just to be clear: I said that “Phil Wyels” (not “Phil King”) was an excellent spokesman for WENA. (I never expressed an opinion on Phil King or any of the other members of that association.) Also, I did not endorse Mr. Wyels. I did say, though, that he struck me as someone who was bright and had the right temperament to serve effectively on the city council. [/quote]
Rich, sorry if I misrepresented you. I clearly need to fill up my Phil-knowledge bucket.
With that said, Phil Wyels, if you are out there listening, can you provide us with leadership on the Council? You clearly have impressed Rich . . . and I am sure a whole lot of other Davisites.
“I just cannot see how such an inflaming remark can be construed as anything but a racial slur?”
Greg Kuperberg…. the term “boy” is an expletive denoting a strong feeling or opinion,i.e., BOY, that was SOME jumpshot! or THAT was some jumpshot, BOY! It is commonly used especially to denote a strong feeling of exasperation and frustration. IMO, the dissection of every nuance of Sue Greenwald’s gesture and utterance when it is obvious to all that at that moment she had lost her temper is more immature and infantile than Sue’s behavior since this thread can be assumed(probably incorrectly) to be written by people who are NOT in an uncontolled emotional state.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
It seems suddenly relevant to discuss what happened, if it was that bad. [/quote]
Greg, IMHO it was that bad, but the Council has dealt with it. It was very different than what has been reported to have happened Tuesday night (I wasn’t there so I will refer to the events as “reported to” in the interests of not over representing my knowledge). I made my comment to Greg S. only to help him avoid creating an avoidable disconnect between his words and the realities underlying those words.
As I said above, the Council has dealt with it, and IMHO dealt with it appropriately.
David, did any of the council members accept contributions for their campaigns from any public unions????
I think we need to distinguish between accepting money from public unions and accepting money from groups that bargain with the city for contracts. I don’t know the answer to your question, I know that people like Lamar Heystek and Cecilia have accepted money from public unions who are not representing bargaining units in the city. The problem is not unions, the problem is the inherent conflict of accepting money on one hand and negotiating on behalf of the city on the other.
[quote]…the term “boy” is an expletive denoting a strong feeling or opinion,i.e., BOY, that was SOME jumpshot! or THAT was some jumpshot, BOY! It is commonly used especially to denote a strong feeling of exasperation and frustration.[/quote]
According to Marriam-Webster, that is, in fact, the least likely understanding of the term “boy”:
Main Entry: boy
Pronunciation: ˈbȯi
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 13th century
1 often offensive : a male servant
2 a : a male child from birth to adulthood b : son c : an immature male d : sweetheart, beau
3 a : one native to a given place b : fellow, person c —used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling
Considering the context, it appears that “boy” in this case took on the first meaning defined above: “often offensive : a male servant”
[quote]Melanie said . . .
David, did any of the council members accept contributions for their campaigns from any public unions???? [/quote]
Melanie, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisiopn about Campaign Financing, what relevance does your question have? Are you saying that the Firefighters don’t have the right to make campaign contributions?
Never mind, i missed your clarification. So basically it’s ONLY the firefighters that made bribes -ooops sorry- i mean campaign contributions????
Matt, we are talking about “contributions” made in the past. Even before the “Supreme” court’s decision. So actually, with regards to bribes made in the past, yes it’s very relevant.
Ps. i don’t care about the supreme court’s decision. it’s unconstitutional. it’s wrong and unethical and i find it interesting that the conservatives voted for this decision.
my hope is that it will be repealed and declared unconstitutional once again by the legislature. i’m sure the republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it alive, cause we all know who’s floating their campaigns. big corporations for sure. i can imagine that the corporations were tired of going to the congressmen’s houses and delivering big envelopes of cash every friday.
it can be pretty inconvenient..so what do they do? they go ahead and bribe the supreme court for the right to bribe the politicians legally without any reprisal….
so typical of the repubs.
also i’m sure the repubs were tired of having to try to find ways to launder their weekly deliveries of cash. it really can be inconvenient you know.
Southender:
“Sue was clearly inferring that the city manager was Ruth’s “boy” in a way intended to insult him with all the negative and racial inferences associated with calling someone “boy”.”
So you know how she meant it, are you in her head? I could just as easily say that she meant it like, “Well, I can see who’s side you’re on
in this (man, or by golly, or boy o’ boy)”. I use boy all the time, like “boy that was a long movie”. So before you start saying someone was racist you’d better be pretty sure because that is a heavy accusation that shouldn’t be thrown around lightly.
I find it incredible how people rationalize this overstepping of civil behaviour. Having a heated argument may be perfectly normal between healthy people. Continuing to shout and argue when a medical problem has intervened is beyond the pale. I don’t care how much hypothetical Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan fought when in office, do you really imagine if Ronald were having some sort of attack that Tip would have been so lacking in decency as to kick them while they were down? Sue Greenwald seems to represent a certain ugly side of Davis, the bat-poop crazy side that says any end justifies the means and anything you do in the service of her cause can be excused.
davisite2: [i]Greg Kuperberg…. the term “boy” is an expletive denoting a strong feeling or opinion[/i]
I wasn’t the one arguing a racial interpretation.
Matt: [i]As I said above, the Council has dealt with it, and IMHO dealt with it appropriately.[/i]
It’s not a question of whether the Council dealt with that particular incident appropriately, it’s a question of how to take Sue’s claim that she won’t do it again.
David: [i]It would be like asking a Principal to negotiate contracts and then work with teachers on a daily basis, well they don’t do it.[/i]
I don’t buy it. There are plenty of people who have to work together despite negotiating compensation. I work with faculty members who vote on my promotions. And nobody waited for Bill Emlen himself to agree that it’s a problem. Right now you can’t ask him, because Sue defines the interpretation and not you. Sue ran roughshod over the whole issue and turned it into a message that city staff can’t be trusted.
“They “contributed” because they have a financial incentive to do so. It’s not a contribution, it’s a bribe. Let’s call it for what it is and stop using euphemisms.”
Bribery is a specific illegal activity. The firefighters have done nothing illegal.
Oh, Rusty49! I get where you’re going with this, but one must consider the linguistic likelihood of your interpretation based on the context. She did not say, “Boy o’ boy” or “By golly” as you suggest might have been a more eloquent choice. She said “Boy” and, whether or not we like it, that expression carries with it a great deal of weight and history. If Marriam-Webster can recognize it, why can’t we at least acknowledge this as a possibility?
One does not need to be “in the head” of the speaker – one simply applies the generally accepted understanding of the English language and we find ourselves in the current conundrum, dealing with the person who is viewed as the progressive standard-bearer and, yet, is very demeaning and insulting to the exact people she should be working with – for our purposes, not just “hers.”
Does DJUSD use a professional negotiator? I’ve never seen you worry about Hammond suffering the agony of working with teachers and negotiating their contract.
I don’t think DJUSD uses a professional negotiator these days, though they have in the past.
I think it’s mainly Kevin French and Bruce Colby who sit in contract negotiations, along w/ at least a couple of school board members.
I think a big difference when looking at city vs. a public school district in contract negotations is that the public schools are more highly regulated. They are required to be fiscally balanced in more specific ways than are city governments. If a district violates those regulations, then the state takes over, and the original district administration and school board lose their power.
“….why can’t we at least acknowledge this as a possibility?”
…quite an AMAZING response, Julie,since you continue to argue forcefully that there can be no other meaning other than the one that you give to this.
Julie, you stated:
“why can’t we at least acknowledge this as a possibility?”
Thanks for making my point, yes it is a possibility, but it’s also a possibility that she meant it like I stated. Like I said, without being in her head nobody has the right to say it was a racial slur. Of what I know of Sue I would think it highly unlikely that Sue said it as a racial slur. Some of you need to go bark up another tree because any sensible person without an axe to grind can’t say beyond a doubt that she said it in a racial context.
I think there are many who see this as a chance to take Sue down because of some of her stances in this town. Sue has many enemies, whether they be developers, city employees, real estate agents or political opponents it’s really turning into a witch hunt with many trying to make half-baked accusations. Get real people, it was nothing more than council bickering which happens all the time in Davis and we wouldn’t even be talking about this if Ruth hadn’t had an anxiety attack.
Rusty and Julie, I think you both kind of splitting hairs here. I don’t know what Sue intended it to be, but it was inappropriate and her tone as much as anything was insulting and that’s how Emlen took it.
“I think there are many who see this as a chance to take Sue down because of some of her stances in this town.”
I think the only think I have disagreed with Sue as a matter of public policy before the city was Measure P. I have no desire to take Sue down, but I do think that you have to draw a distinction between advocacy and behavior. I like that Sue advocates strongly for her positions, I think you can still do that within the bounds of basic decency.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
It’s not a question of whether the Council dealt with that particular incident appropriately, it’s a question of how to take Sue’s claim that she won’t do it again. [/quote]
Fair enough. Here’s my personal take, FWIW. Sue will (does) have IMHO every uintention of not doing it again. However, my personal experience with her tells me that in the heat of a battle her intentions may well give way to her nature, and as a result something similar will happen.
Now, in the interests of both fairness (and full disclosure) I need to rewind my personal video tape to a two week period in October at the Farmers Market. The first Saturday I was walking back from the produce stalls to my car up by Hattie Webber. As I approached the No On P booth one of the folks there reached out to me verbally and physically to share the No On P message. I explained to him that I was very familiar with the issues, and briefly explained my “independent fiscal analysis” label. We were having a great conversation and Sue cam running up and said to him”You aren’t allowed to talk to him. he’s a Measure P proponent despite his priotestations of neutrality.” I briefly stated to her that I hadn’t sought out the conversation, he had. Not wanting to further Sue’s confrontation, I bid the young man farewell. Thanked him for the interesting conversation and headed to my car.
Fast forward one week and again I was parked up near Hattie Webber, and after shopping was headed back to my car. Again the same No On P’er reached out to me, wondring if I had thought further about what we had talked about. Before we could engage in conversation, Sue agin came running up, yelling, “You can’t talk to him!”
I stepped toward her onrushing form and in a nose to nose posture said in a rather loud agitated voice, “You are a f’ing, controlling Bitch.” The young man was startled. Asked me if that was really necessary. I didn’t respond to him, but rather chose to not prolong the confrontation.
The reason I repeat tis is that in the heat of events it is easy to lose contact with your intentions. I didn’t intend to confront Sue. i don’t believe my words were judicious, but they were what they were because of the situation. Situations will do that to the best of intentions.
The fact that I believe it is likely that Sue will repeat similar behavior doesn’t make her a bad person. Sue is Sue. She puts herself out on the firing line . . . sometimes as a Gladiator, sometimes as a Martyr, sometimes as a bit of both.
Matt: Interesting that I heard the punchline of your story without the context.
To me a dividing would be this, I cannot imagine you having continued the matter had Sue suddenly passed out from the shock of your words, so that you continued the confrontation and then when the fire department arrived from down the street, proceeded to explain to them and argue your case. And then when the police chief arrived, called him a boy and forced me to separate you two.
I’m being a bit facetious, but I think it’s important not to explain away this portion of what happened.
Day 2: Now Sue is a racist. Boy if that isn’t a surprise.
So many stories of Sue just being Sue, so why carry on with them? What has had me concerned since hearing what happened off the camera is a second or greater blow to the legitimacy of our elected representative. Sue’s not only was (justly) removed from important committees, she’s now further undermined her authority as a spokesperson for the progressive cause. She’s made it easier for those that could actually be influenced by her to simply just dismiss her. That is not effective leadership. That is failed leadership. I could accept the impossible reality of her apologizing, but she’s made no step in that direction. Therefore, she’s a continued embarrassment to the cause and should be removed. Sue’s absence on the council is better than her continued presence.
Bystander:
I can’t wait to hear what they’ll come up with on Day 3
[quote]Melanie, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisiopn about Campaign Financing, what relevance does your question have? Are you saying that the Firefighters don’t have the right to make campaign contributions? [/quote] The SCOTUS decision will have no effect on Davis elections. We have never outlawed corporate or union giving or restricted them from making independent expenditures.
It’s worth noting that in Davis “the firefighters’ union, Local 3494, has not (AFAIK) contributed funds [i]directly[/i] to any council candidates. (Nor has any other bargaining group.) Instead, the members of Local 3494 have [i]independently[/i] given maximum contributions ($100 each) to the union’s favored candidates and the candidates have spent the money as they wished.
There is nothing in our ordinance which prevents a union from contributing money directly to candidates. However, I think the union itself can only give $100 directly. That may be the reason why Local 3494 has its 46 members give the money ($100 each) instead of it coming from the union.
Also, any group (including a union) can form an indepedent committee in support of a candidate or opposed to a candidate in a Davis City Council election. If the independent committee spends $250 or more, it has to report that to the clerk:
[i]”Any committee that makes independent expenditures of two hundred fifty dollars or more in support or in opposition to any candidate shall notify the city clerk and all candidates running for the same seat within twenty-four hours by facsimile transmission, overnight delivery, or personal delivery each time this two hundred fifty dollar threshold is met.”[/i]
Also, the money the indepedent committee collects is limited to contributions of $100 per individual:
[i]”(a) No person shall make, and no person or committee shall solicit, contributions in excess of one hundred dollars ($100) from any person in any single candidacy period for or to a committee which makes independent expenditures of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in support of or in opposition to any candidate.”[/i]
[quote]David M. Greenwald said . . .
Matt: Interesting that I heard the punchline of your story without the context.
To me a dividing would be this, I cannot imagine you having continued the matter had Sue suddenly passed out from the shock of your words, so that you continued the confrontation and then when the fire department arrived from down the street, proceeded to explain to them and argue your case. And then when the police chief arrived, called him a boy and forced me to separate you two.
I’m being a bit facetious, but I think it’s important not to explain away this portion of what happened. [/quote]
All true David, but it doesn’t change the underlying reality that we all “lose it” every now and then. My answer was really directed at Greg’s question about whether Sue will be able to make good on her claim that she won’t do it again.
Kudos to David Greenwald for having the courage to speak up on this issue. I suspect he is now firmly ensconced on Sue’s enemies list.
In my opinion, the irrational polarization displayed on this thread by Sue’s allies illustrates one of the major weaknesses of the progressive movement in Davis. Sue’s conduct is not excusable because she is Ruth’s nemesis and/or the “bad guys” made her do it. Both Sue and Ruth are absolute train wrecks, and they both need to go. The sooner the better.
All this baloney about how Sue is a tireless fighter who always does her homework and unfailing supports the cause is breathtakingly naïve. If Sue is not leading the parade, she is more than likely working to undermine it. Look no further than the Measure J sunset debacle.
And since when did progressives become so cynical that people are willing to embrace an end-justifies-the-means mentality and look the other way with platitudes like “Sue is just being Sue” and “you have to take the good with the bad?”
To those that are still basking in the glow of the Measure P defeat, I would simply say that Measure P lost in spite of Sue’s involvement – not because of it. Davis voters are overwhelmingly no-growth, and I would council against both excessive hubris and rallying around a false leader.
Vicenti nailed it with this gem…[quote]Sue Greenwald seems to represent a certain ugly side of Davis, the bat-poop crazy side that says any end justifies the means and anything you do in the service of her cause can be excused.[/quote]
Matt, what does this Measure P story have to do with the Finance and Budget Commission? You said that there was some incident on that commission, and that was what I meant to ask about.
Greg, they are separate and distinct. This tory addressses the question you posed, “It’s not a question of whether the Council dealt with that particular incident appropriately, it’s a question of how to take Sue’s claim that she won’t do it again.”
The F&B Commission incident has been well covered in the past. Here’s a LINK to one of the stories and its 124 comments [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3017:councilmember-greenwald-forced-from-liaison-position-on-budget-and-finance&catid=57:city-council&Itemid=80[/url]
An earlier story on the meeting is available at this LINk [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2997:finance-and-budget-commission-hears-wildhorse-ranch-fiscal-analysis-and-then-unloads-on-city-staff&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
“… whether Sue will be able to make good on her claim that she won’t do it again.”
Matt: Here are just a few video recorded quotes from Sue during the televised argument over whether Ruth is a liar —
“I never start a personal attack.”
“I am always polite.”
“I always follow the rules.”
In order for one to make a credible claim that they will change their behavior, there must be some meaningful self-awareness.
D R, perhaps you may want to submit those clips to ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” for inclusion in the Sunday Funnies segment.
All kidding aside, there are plenty of dirty fingerprints from plenty of various sources in this situation. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
FWIW, this story is the lead headline on publicceo.com.
I didn’t know Davis had so many psychiatrists and all willing to give free advice. I’m so lucky to live in a town full of experts with such benevolence. Sue you are one lucky lady where you have a site at your fingertips where you can get free tips on everything from how you should act to what you actually mean when you speak.
rusty, that is what representative democracy is all about. The voters get to voice their sentiments about how their elected officials represent them. Doesn’t make any of us right . . . just voters.
Just to set the record straight concerning Councilperson Greenwald’s alleged “ineffectiveness”:
While there were personal issues involving the No on Measure X steering committee, there can be no doubt that her LONE voice on the dais(4-1) insisting, demanding that facts/issues that would otherwise have been “buried” by the Council majority were aired during Council sessions.
Again, she was the LONE voice(4-1) on the dais that exposed the flaws in the WHR proposal and the staff/Council Majority’s derelictions. Her position was overwhelmingly ratified by the voters 75% to 25%) in rejecting Measure P.
Finally, we would all now be watching a massive housing development being built out on Davis’ periphery if Councilperson Greenwald(again, the LONE Council voice) had not led the charge for a Yamada and Thomsen recall initiative if they persisted in their plan for the County to ignore the pass through agreement that gave Davis control over its peripheral development.
All
It seems that this tempest in a teapot has run its course, but let me merely make one comment on the infamous encounter followed by two more important observations.
First, while I do not endorse Sue’s “blowing a fuse” in a public meeting, I can point out that she is not the first person to be driven to insane actions (or to leave council meetings or cease to participate) on account of Ruth’s long-time autocratic and disingenuous wielding of the gavel. As a mayor she often has had outright distain for public opinion and dissent to her perceived universe of Davis. In a strange way the two of them deserve each other.
Second, Sue, although I disagree with her now and again, represents most progressive positions better than anyone now serving, since Lamar is stepping down and also drank the cool aid on Measure P. So, unless the “so-called progressives” in Davis find a viable alternative or alternatives to her, I would rather have Sue on the council than have it turn completely away from any progressive sensibility whatsoever. In the last seven years, the Davis progressives have only found one viable successful candidate except for Sue and that was Lamar.
Third, all of this goes in my opinion to the root of the bigger problem in Davis as well as in the country—the amount of developer and special interest money influencing elections. In spite of our lame Supreme Court, we in Davis could begin to limit this by a simple change—institute district elections in Davis. Create a council of seven consisting of six council members representing six drawn districts of ca. 11-12 thousand citizens each, and one mayor, who would run and be elected citywide. This would dilute somewhat the influence of developer and special interest money, by making it more affordable to run for election, both in terms of the amount of money needed to run and the time and effort of campaigning. Perhaps then, the progressives might be able to field more viable candidates.
Odilo… I heartily second your comments and also support a citizen initiative to put District elections on the ballot.
Last night on the channel 3 news , Don Saylor was talking about a hostile work enviroment , and the fact that city council members are employees . Sounds like Sue could be in major trouble .
Saylor is wrong. Sorry but it’s politics and elective office, I don’t see anyone ruling that this is a hostile work environment, any more than a bunch of angry citizens coming out is.
Dunning had the appropriate response:
[quote]A LAWSUIT IN THE OFFING? – I’m not sure where he was going with his startling claim, but I was shocked to see Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor telling Channel 3’s Tom Duhain Thursday night that not only is the mayor a city of Davis employee, but that she may ‘have been subjected to a hostile work environment.’ – Don should look up something called a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ – I mean, if you’re going to serve on the Davis City Council, you’re going to be subjected to a hostile work environment by definition – if the hostility doesn’t come from your council colleagues, you can certainly count on our highly active citizenry to provide it – [/quote]
That’s going nowhere and for good reason.
From Wikopedia :”The anti-discrimination statutes governing hostile work environment are not a general civility code. Thus, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or ISOLATED INCIDENTS THAT ARE NOT EXTREMELY SERIOUS(my caps).”
It’s hard to imagine that an “anxiety attack” in an elected official would rise to the level of an action/incident that was extremely serious.
[quote]davisite2 said . . .
Just to set the record straight concerning Councilperson Greenwald’s alleged “ineffectiveness”:
While there were personal issues involving the No on Measure X steering committee, there can be no doubt that her LONE voice on the dais(4-1) insisting, demanding that facts/issues that would otherwise have been “buried” by the Council majority were aired during Council sessions.
Again, she was the LONE voice(4-1) on the dais that exposed the flaws in the WHR proposal and the staff/Council Majority’s derelictions. Her position was overwhelmingly ratified by the voters 75% to 25%) in rejecting Measure P.
Finally, we would all now be watching a massive housing development being built out on Davis’ periphery if Councilperson Greenwald( again, the LONE Council voice) had not led the charge for a Yamada and Thomsen recall initiative if they persisted in their plan for the County to ignore the pass through agreement that gave Davis control over its peripheral development.[/quote]
Gene, your being correct on two of your three points is good batting in MLB.
As one of the people Sue “took to task” during the Measure P process, I can testify from experience that she was very effective as a key player in the team that produced the Measure P result at the polls. If there were behind the scenes personal issues in the No On P team, you certainly couldn’t see it if you didn’t know it was there. Further, what high intensity campaign isn’t with its personal issues?
However, I call BS on your last point. Not just BS but a big pile of BS. There was absolutely ZERO chance that a massive housing development would have been built on the AKT land. Yamada and Thompson would have been derelict of their fiduciary duties as Supervisors if they had not gone to the informational meeting they were invited to. There was NO plan for the County to ignore the pass through agreement. Was there some strategic use of leverage to try and get the City and the County to work cooperatively on coming up with a coherent consensus about how to look at the County land around Davis? Absolutely! Pardon me while I torture a metaphor.
There are lots of Davisites who believe talking about sex is the same thing as having sex. It isn’t. The efforts by the County to get the City to talk about Family Planning and Sex Education would have been good for all parties. Instead the preferred Davis method of Birth Control is absinence. As a result we have an environment where we are constantly worrying about Unprotected Sex.
As I said, sorry for torturing the metaphor. Under the circumstances the Supervisors did exactly what they should have done. The citizens of Davis and the County areas around Davis did exactly what they should have done. The fact that the City and the County aren’t talking about a Long Range Plan for the area covered by the pass-Through Agreement is ridiculous.
JMHO
Holy Cow – 145 Comments over this little spat between council members!?
I guess I just made it 146.
davisite2: Interfering with medical attention is indeed an extremely serious incident, isolated though it may have been. I don’t know if a hostile work environment lawsuit would have merit, but when the conduct is bad enough and the instigator won’t even begin to make amends, then people deserve legal recourse of some kind. People have also reported a pattern of verbal abuse. Bob Dunning has it wrong. Even if they are elected, people who serve on the city council shouldn’t have to be afraid of their colleagues.
If a public citizen at the meeting had done what Sue did in David’s account, I would have expected him to get arrested. Going by what witnesses say, a criminal disorderly conduct charge could well make sense. And in the future, they could post a police officer at city council meetings to reassure people. What David did while holding a baby in his arm is really a police officer’s job.
Matt: As to my point 3, It was clear that our Council majority of Saylor, Souza(being the most outspoken) and Asmundson in concert with our two Supervisor reps, Thomsen and Yamada, were all in agreement in advocating large residential development on Davis’ periphery. We are all well aware of how momentum takes control of these situations and it was imperative that the immediate goal be to stop any further movement. While I agree that the situation had not progressed to the level where a development on our periphery was in the offing, IMO, the recall threat did stop that momentum hopefully until a time when Davis can send reps to the table that stand up for Davis voter interests rather than developer interests.
Gene, it hadn’t progressed at all. AKT invited Mariko and Helen for an initial informational meeting. What is it about “We have a Stem Cell Research Facility idea that we would like to let you know about,” that is so frightening that it shouldn’t even be listened to. What would you have done in their shoes? Said “No.” If so, “Why?”
Matt: The exact chronology is dim now. My personal take on it was that the recall threat was to be a warning “shot across the bow”,not necessarily to prevent them from attending an informational meeting. As I remember it, it apparently was successful as there was no FURTHER movement in developing a County plan.
davisite2: As you already know, the final WHR vote was 3-2 with Greenwald and Souza dissenting. You can try and rationalize away Steve’s vote with some bizarre logic … but the “lone champion” argument is, by Sue’s standards, a “lie.”
Davis resident: Actually, as you can see, I was referring to a “Lone voice” on the dais, not the actual vote. Souza was on both sides of Measure P, first for it, then equivocating, and then, as I remember it, never taking a strong public position. With Souza’s waffling , I really did not remember how he finally voted and I will accept your clarification as fact.
Matt: I think that your focus on the AKT property is too narrow. NW Davis and the Whitcombe CV property were being promoted by Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada was promoting the AKT property. It was quite a complicated political patron special interest situation (Yolo developer patron vs. Sacramento developer patron). My recollection was that the Davis voter focus was on the peripheral NW Davis and CV properties . When the rising voter pressure(recall threat) made this enterprise a politically risky one,the AKT property was put aside as well(temporary truce between Helen and Mariko being over?)
Davis Resident wrote “To those that are still basking in the glow of the Measure P defeat, I would simply say that Measure P lost in spite of Sue’s involvement – not because of it.”
I couldn’t respectfully disagree with you more on that claim!
Since Measure P history revisted seems to be a hot topic again on the blogs, let me add my personal insight (as the co-camapaign manager for No on P):
We (Phil King and I) sought Sue’s help immediately in July after the measure went to an Nov election based on a 3-2 vote (Sue and Souza were the NO votes; Lamar joining the Ruth-Saylor cabal on this one).
Sue was an incredible asset to us political novices in helping us write the initial ballot statement and subsequent rebuttal statement; she was amazing in helping us gather support from progressive folks all over town, despite Bill Ritter’s efforts to corral all these voters. Her strong and well argued arguments at the Birch Lane School debate and in her Davis Enterprise Sunday Op-Ed piece right before the campaign were instrumental in helping us sway undecided voters, especially in the Slide Hill/East Davis neighborhoods. Unlike the other CC members, she had the courage to publicly challenge Masud Monfared at the CC meeting about his true desire and intent to actually go forward with building affordable housing without the City later having to pick up those costs!
Finally, I can say Sue was always polite and professional in her interactions with our campaign volunteers and local citizens. She attended public meetings, and helped volunteered her time in stuffing envelopes with flyers. She interacted well and polite with those who came to our booth at Farmer’s Market booth, including with some hecklers (one notably being Planning Commission Chair Mark Braly, who came to our booth with his “bunch of NIMBY’s agenda”, right after talking with Masud Monfared for some length).
It makes one wonder if this latest round of attacks and “breaking news” about Sue is some attempt by David Greenwald, Bill Ritter, et al to get some “payback” for the huge loss they took in Measure P election???
Greg,
I respect your point of view, but disagree. This was not a 45%/55% proposition where a single individual in a leadership position could have been decisive. Moreover, for all you know, the vote might have been 15%/85% as a pure grass roots effort without Council involvement. This is in no way meant to disrespect your efforts. You folks did a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances. I’m simply suggesting that you should carefully consider some of the other points of view from people that have been around Davis politics for many years and/or decades. Also, there was other independent opposition that made significant contributions to the defeat (not the least of which was Dunning).
Regarding Greenwald, Ritter, and payback; the thought did cross my mind when I read the off-camera article. However, as I posted up thread, this was not out of character (as many, many veterans can attest) and I think it is resonating not because of David Greenwald but because many individuals have been laboring with this particular thorn-in-the-side for years.
[quote]
Greg Sokolov said . . .
It makes one wonder if this latest round of attacks and “breaking news” about Sue is some attempt by David Greenwald, Bill Ritter, et al to get some “payback” for the huge loss they took in Measure P election??? [/quote]
Come on Greg, you are smarter than that. The “breaking news” was good enough for Channel 3, Channel 10 and Channel 13 to send reporters and camera trucks across the Causeway. It has warranted PublicCEO to write an article in its “It Could Be Worse” series. As I said, you are too smart to make such a thin comment.
Unless I am wrong the age old saying is “to the winner(s) go the spoils” You make it sound like the saying is “to the winner go the grudge(s)”
No Matt, what I am saying is that should we question what other motives David Greenwald may have had to write this second story (following his first piece, complete with the You Tube clip, which hit all the local media airwaves)? Sue was a tremendous asset to our campaign, and I am not defending what she may have said or done in the “vestibule”; rather, I am trying to counter some of the bloggers who say that she is a detriment to local city politics and needs to go….
“Come on Greg, you are smarter than that.”
Matt: Davis local politics is often PERSONAL and EGO-DRIVEN. What exactly do you think has prompted 156 comments(not all outright attacks, to be sure) about an incident that could have been dismissed as “Sue blows a fuse”( so what’s news about that!). It is not unreasonable to speculate that this excess is hoped to damage her political strength in Davis as she was the only one of the competing self-proclaimed leaders of the Davis progressive voting community that has emerged from the Measure P campaign undamaged and politically stronger.
[i]an incident that could have been dismissed as “Sue blows a fuse”( so what’s news about that!).[/i]
I think that we’ve been over this point before. Maybe it isn’t so much of a surprise. On the other hand, it really can’t be dismissed. It’s illegal to interfere with medical assistance to another person. It could be the brick that broke the camel’s back.
All of this is only partisan to the extent that Sue and her supporters make it partisan. If she had said, “I am deeply sorry for going completely overboard and treating Ruth and other people so badly, no matter what Ruth may have done wrong,” then I think it could be water under the bridge soon enough. Instead one argument is: Look at how bad Ruth is; if anyone needs to apologize or resign, it’s her. Another argument is: Ruth lied and Sue called her on it, now let’s call it even (but not really). These arguments are great ways to taint your whole cause with very bad behavior.
It seems pretty cut and dried at this point. People have implied that Ruth Asmundson and Bill Emlen deserve to be bullied for the sake of The Cause. If it were up to me, I’d consider having a police officer at future city council meetings to reassure them and help keep order.
[i]an incident that could have been dismissed as “Sue blows a fuse”( so what’s news about that!).[/i]
I think that we’ve been over this point before. Maybe it isn’t so much of a surprise. On the other hand, it really can’t be dismissed. It’s illegal to interfere with medical assistance to another person. It could be the brick that broke the camel’s back.
All of this is only partisan to the extent that Sue and her supporters make it partisan. If she had said, “I am deeply sorry for going completely overboard and treating Ruth and other people so badly, no matter what Ruth may have done wrong,” then I think it could be water under the bridge soon enough. Instead one argument is: Look at how bad Ruth is; if anyone needs to apologize or resign, it’s her. Another argument is: Ruth lied and Sue called her on it, now let’s call it even (but not really). These arguments are great ways to taint your whole cause with very bad behavior.
It seems pretty cut and dried at this point. People have implied that Ruth Asmundson and Bill Emlen deserve to be bullied for the sake of The Cause. If it were up to me, I’d consider having a police officer at future city council meetings to reassure them and help keep order.
[quote]Greg Sokolov said . . .
No Matt, rather, I am trying to counter some of the bloggers who say that she is a detriment to local city politics and needs to go…. [/quote]
Greg, no amount of counter argument is going to change how people feel about Sue. She isn’t a middle-of-the-road taste. Are there really any people left who aren’t firmly in her supporters camp or her detractors camp? I don’t think so. I’ve called her an f’ing Bitch to her face, and I really don’t believe the ends justify the means, but at the end of the day her positives outweigh her negatives. I think David feels the same way, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to simply roll over and not call her to task when she strays beyond the pale like she did Tuesday night. Why can’t we spur her on to be just as end result effective with a few less over the top moments?
BTW, she is more than capable of (and has a fertile track record of) defending herself.
Just as the picture of Cassius Clay standing over the prostrate Sonny Liston was both a powerful image and a compelling news story, the image of Sue standing over the prostrate Ruth Asmundsen was both as well. David is in the news business. This week was a fertile news week in Davis.
[quote]I’d consider having a police officer at future city council meetings to reassure them and help keep order. [/quote] I could be wrong, but I think there [i]always[/i] is a police officer at every meeting. (I concede that I have not always seen a cop, there. I presume, though, that one is in the proximity of the meeting, ready to restore order if necessary.) This leads me to an anecdote about cops at the DCC meetings. ….
Once in the Fall of 2008, I was sitting in the antechamber, waiting for the discuussion to start on a matter I had come for. Sitting next to me was a Davis police officer. We were chit-chatting about downtown Davis, where the trouble spots are and so on, and I mentioned to him that a friend of mine from Sacramento told me “it looks like there are a bunch of whorehouses in Davis.” He based that judgment on the large number of ads in the Sacramento N&R for “Asian massage parlors” in Davis. The cop didn’t have any reaction to my information. I think he said something like, “That’s interesting,” but nothing more.
I didn’t think of that conversation a second time until some months later the Davis PD announced it had busted a ring of Asian massage parlors downtown, which were fronts for whorehouses. According to the stories written following the arrests of the madame, the DPD investigation (which was supplemented by investigations of other agencies) had been ongoing for a long time [i]before[/i] I spoke with that cop in the antechamber. So my revelation to him had nothing to do with that particular case. But it was a pretty funny coincidence in my opinion.
[quote]
davisite2 said . . .
Matt: Davis local politics is often PERSONAL and EGO-DRIVEN. What exactly do you think has prompted 156 comments(not all outright attacks, to be sure) about an incident that could have been dismissed as “Sue blows a fuse”( so what’s news about that!). It is not unreasonable to speculate that this excess is hoped to damage her political strength in Davis as she was the only one of the competing self-proclaimed leaders of the Davis progressive voting community that has emerged from the Measure P campaign undamaged and politically stronger. [/quote]
d2, people are posting in this thread because A) they like to admire their own words in print, B) they enjoy a lively party, C) they enjoy a good fight, D) they have nothing better to do with themselves, E) they are aspiring politicians themselves, or F) they know there isn’t a better news outlet to be had in Davis. It isn’t “excess.” It’s the local version of a variety show with a very good Neilsen Rating.
“It’s illegal to interfere with medical assistance to another person…”
Greg Kuperberg… perhaps you can describe exactly what you saw on U Tube as I do not indulge. From the description I have read, a firefighter with emergency medical training was administering to Ruth Asmundson while Sue and Bill Emlen were having an animated “discussion”. How exactly did she “interfere with medical assistance”?
On the other hand, what goes on in Council Chambers on Tuesday nights is meant to be representative government at work. There was plenty of blame to go around. If we are going to talk about excesses, I sincerely hope you aren’t trying to say that Sue’s excesses should be ignored while the excesses of the other Council members are called to task.
[i]The cop didn’t have any reaction to my information. I think he said something like, “That’s interesting,” but nothing more.[/i]
It’s very possible that he knew that there was a sting operation underway and that he really, really didn’t want to tell you anything about it.
“Sue’s excesses should be ignored while the excesses of the other Council members are called to task.”
Not in the slightest. Sue lost her temper/self-control and I sincerely hope that she acknowledges this and apologizes to everyone involved. As to being “called to task”, I tend to differentiate between actions on the dais that are carefully and deliberately calculated(I’ll let you fill in the name)and outbursts when tempers flare. I doubt that calling you “to task” for calling Sue a f===ing b==ch in some past encounter would have any serious effect on your not using the same expletive when you momentarily “lost it” again.
Sue and Ruth have both given extraordinary public service to Davis. I have enormous respect for each of them. Each represents a particular constituency effectively, and I’m sure they are both quite chagrined about what happened and about the attention this has received. Panic attacks are no fun. Losing your temper in public is embarrassing. This is not the end of anybody’s career. I hope that any further comment or apology by either Ruth or Sue is done privately between them, and I really think it is time to move on.
[i]”It’s very possible that he knew that there was a sting operation underway and that he really, really didn’t want to tell you anything about it.”[/i]
You’re right. Obviously if he knew what was going on he wouldn’t have let on to me in any way. However, my sense is the cops who get assigned as the hall monitor for CC meetings are the lowest ones on the totem poll, and, as such, the least likely to know about an undercover sting operation, which was how they ended up busting the prostitution ring. … Or, on second thought, maybe they used the guy who was lowest on the totem poll to get a “massage.” … By the way, who names her “massage parlor” Happy Endings! anyhow?
[i]Sue and Ruth have both given extraordinary public service to Davis. I have enormous respect for each of them. Each represents a particular constituency effectively, and I’m sure they are both quite chagrined about what happened and about the attention this has received.[/i]
So far, this is fair enough.
[i]Panic attacks are no fun.[/i]
If you can call stress-induced high blood pressure and something like hyperventilation or angina a “panic attack”, then sure, I agree.
[i]Losing your temper in public is embarrassing. This is not the end of anybody’s career. I hope that any further comment or apology by either Ruth or Sue is done privately between them, and I really think it is time to move on.[/i]
This is a noble attempt to help restore decorum, but I’m not sure that your argument works. I have met a number of professional colleagues with a bad temper. In some cases, you’re exactly right that they feel embarrassed and that they are willing to patch things up in one way or another.
But in some cases, they’re not all that embarrassed for losing their temper, they only hate to be criticized for it. Typically these people have a slightly crazy professional agenda. Eventually, they pursue it with so much zeal that they cross the line to workplace bullying. They will sort-of “win” in the short term. But in the long term, they usually chip away at their reputation until no one cares what they have to say. Unfortunately, it lasts a lot longer if they have a cheering section, because then there is both a cost and a reward for the same behavior.
I agree with you that they ought to try to patch things up and move on. Whether they will really be able to do that is less clear.
[i]Or, on second thought, maybe they used the guy who was lowest on the totem poll to get a “massage.”[/i]
You know, Rich, some of these sting operations take LOTS and LOTS of investigation. 🙂
I agree and disagree with much of the above. I most of the time agree with Sue’s positions and she is the best council member at analyzing the issues before them. Also, the majority on the council is usually disingenuous to Sue. However, Sue mostly brings that on herself by her seemingly insensitive behavior. Due to the behaviors of both over the past couple of years, the matters between them have only gotten worse. All are to blame. The mayor, as the leader of the council bears much of that responsibility.
They all need to learn to show respect toward each other. The one council member who shows the most respect and restraint is Lamar and they should all try to emulate his behavior.
” To me a dividing would be this, I cannot imagine you having continued the matter had Sue suddenly passed out from the shock of your words”
David besides bringing news of a loved one’s death, I can’t imagine anyone passing out “from the shock of..anyone’s..words”
Let’s be real David. If she has that weak of a constitution then perhaps Sue is not fit to stand in office.
Melanie: It was a hypothetical example to illustrate the inappropriateness of the behavior and not meant for you to take literally.
[i]I can’t imagine anyone passing out “from the shock of..anyone’s..words”[/i]
It makes sense that you can’t imagine it, because it’s also not what happened. Ruth didn’t pass out because Sue accused her of lying. She passed out because of a pattern of verbal abuse that has developed over years. Even on Tuesday, things only fell apart after yet another rant that had already lasted a good half hour. In a circumstance like that, passing out from high blood pressure, and another symptom such as hyperventilation or angina, is just not all that surprising in anybody aged 65. I once passed out from hyperventilation (caused by stomach flu) when I was in my 20s.
It wasn’t just that Sue was ranting. She was bullying Ruth to control the gavel. It was Ruth’s job to keep the meeting moving, but Sue wouldn’t let her do it. From the beginning, Sue’s objective was to broadcast that Ruth had been disloyal to the taxpayers in closed session. She threatened to keep going until Ruth admitted it, at once riding roughshod over both rules of order and confidentiality rules.
The people who say that Lamar was the only class act in the room are missing something. Lamar had it easy, because Sue took him to be on her side. If anything, he was enabling her. Look at the way that she treated Harriet Steiner. With flawless manners, Steiner very reasonably advised the council not to disclose motions in closed session. In response, Sue rudely told her that her advice was inconsistent, and proceeded to violate both versions of what Steiner had supposedly said.
” Sue’s objective was to broadcast that Ruth had been disloyal to the taxpayers in closed session>
Somehow I think this is a good thing. If Sue is the only one standing up for us I think we should cut her some slack here.
What annoys me are “progressives” who are more concerned with infighting than getting anuthing done.
David Greenwald has done an excellent job reporting on the firefighters pay issue and other important fiscal issues, but I really don’t see how going after Sue helps. Are Saylor, Souza and Asmundson (who has come in for some criticism here) perfact? I see almost nothing about them even though they have sold out Davis citzen’s interests in this case.
When other “progressive” (or how about honest) people are willing to run for City Council and have the influence Sue has had then maybe they can start criticizing. Until then lets have some perspective
Let me also second Greg’s comments about Sue’s help on our No on P campaign. many armchair politicos have said that our 75% win was inevitable. I did not hear people saying that before and the folks out the Davis Enterprise told us (Sue and myself on the No side, and Bill Ritter, Masud, his son and John Tolman on the yes side) that it would be a close vote. Bill Ritter told me after a City Council meeting that the No side would lose.
Sue was instrumental in the campaign and, as Greg said, had the courage to stand up and be counted. Meanwhile Asmundson told my neighbors (many of whom do not know Davis politics) that it was a done deal and Saylor said as much to Greg and I.
On the City Council only Sue stood up with 75% of the people and said no.
Lamar is leaving and Sue could well be the only CC person not bought and paid for.
Thank about it…
PS I should have mentioned that Souza also voted no, though he has strongly supported Covell Village.
[i]Somehow I think this is a good thing.[/i]
First of all, it’s one thing to claim that the mayor is disloyal. It’s quite another to seize the gavel in a city council meeting in order to “prove” it.
At another level, you have half of a point. When politics reduces to sheer loyalties, then it does indeed undermine civility. Bush may have thought that it was important to be pals with Putin. But this was a big mistake, because Putin is the type of person who can disrupt the natural gas supply to Europe to get his way. However…
[i]What annoys me are “progressives” who are more concerned with infighting than getting anuthing done.[/i]
I’m certainly not the type of “progressive” who reduces everything to loyalties. If that is how I need to see it to be on your side, then you and your cause can take a hike as far as I’m concerned. It may be true that Sue is “standing up” for you on your terms. Whether that will actually do you any good is a different matter.
Notice that the description of Sue’s achievements rests almost entirely on stopping growth. That is a special case in which a zealous campaign based on sheer loyalty makes sense. As a matter of simple loyalty to those who already own houses in Davis, there might be no reason for Davis ever to build any new houses.
But labor negotiations are a different case. UC Davis students employees who are forced to drive to Davis can’t do anything about the shutout. By contrast, city employees have collective bargaining rights, which ironically they gained from a century of effort by progressives of a different stripe. I think that Davis voters know that it’s different, and I hope for the city’s sake that they know it.
Because, for example, Vallejo’s problems did not start when city employees snuck benefits through in negotiations. They started when Vallejo was crippled by public safety strikes. And Vallejo’s trouble has always had two sides. The city government was pressed between unions that weren’t going to crumble, and voters who wanted lower taxes. It was never that Vallejo’s residents didn’t have the money; the whole thing was a loyalty contest and they just didn’t want to pay.
[quote]davisite2 . . .
I doubt that calling you “to task” for calling Sue a f===ing b==ch in some past encounter would have any serious effect on your not using the same expletive when you momentarily “lost it” again. [/quote]
I would be very worried about my objectiveness (even my sanity) if calling me to task didn’t produce any serious effect. In fact after the confrontation happened I did a self-assessment to try and determine why the described out of character behavior happened. The key is not to put oneself into the position where I am likely to “lose it.”
Sue got what she had said into the public record. She even got calling Ruth a liar into the public record. At the time both those events took place she was far from “losing it,” but she consciously chose to ask Ruth for an apology. It was the apology trajectory that led to the individual and collective “losses.” Ruth had similar opportunities to avoid an escalation. She too chose not to back off and repeated a pattern of unfortunate behavior that she has exhibited many times before.
Don Shor is right, both Sue and Ruth have given extraordinary service to Davis over the years, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can’t seem to deal with one another in a sane, productive way. They both clearly need better defined parameters of behavior to avoid what now appear to be an inevitable repetition of Tuesday nights conflagration.
Lamar, Don and Steve, in concert with Bill and Harriet have an obligation to put into place a set of speaking time limits so that Ruth will be out of order if she cuts Sue off and Sue will have to self regulate in order to fit her points into the established time limit.
[quote]jomitch said . . .
I most of the time agree with Sue’s positions and she is the best council member at analyzing the issues before them. Also, the majority on the council is usually disingenuous to Sue. However, Sue mostly brings that on herself by her seemingly insensitive behavior. Due to the behaviors of both over the past couple of years, the matters between them have only gotten worse. All are to blame. The mayor, as the leader of the council bears much of that responsibility.
They all need to learn to show respect toward each other. The one council member who shows the most respect and restraint is Lamar and they should all try to emulate his behavior. [/quote]
Reduce a few days worth of conversation on this subject down in a pan and this is the syrupy concentrated goodness that is left over.
[quote]Phil said . . .
David Greenwald has done an excellent job reporting on the firefighters pay issue and other important fiscal issues, but I really don’t see how going after Sue helps.
When other “progressive” (or how about honest) people are willing to run for City Council and have the influence Sue has had then maybe they can start criticizing. Until then lets have some perspective. [/quote]
Come on Phil. David hasn’t “gone after Sue” by publishing this story. He simultaneously posted a story about the issue itself. Look at the comments counts . . . 20 comments for the story about the issue, 184 comments about the human actions. We, the commenters, are the ones who are transforming this from a quiet 20 to a raucous 184.
Think back to the classic “Cola Wars” advertising campaigns. Pepsi technically won the blind tasting, but Coke certainly didn’t lose anything in the marketplace. In fact, both companies won big-time because the total market for colas expanded significantly. Bottom-line, it doesn’t matter whether your taste is Sue, or your taste is Ruth, the market share of their individual and collective character flaws is expanding the more we talk about it.
[quote] Greg Kuperberg said . . .
I’m certainly not the type of “progressive” who reduces everything to loyalties. If that is how I need to see it to be on your side, then you and your cause can take a hike as far as I’m concerned. [/quote]
Beautifully said Greg. I can’t imagine how my own individual sentiments could be expressed any better.
Day 3: Sue is accused of interfering with medical assistance. Day 4 could mean the DA becomes involved and Sue gets accused of inflecting emotional abuse on the elderly. This had better end soon. Boy what a mess.
are you serious? this is really happening? ridiculous
interfering with medical assistance, inflicint emotional abuse on the elderly. Sue is “elderly” herself. if ruth is pressing charges, then i think we can all see it’s politically motivated attempt to try and get rid of Sue.
it’s time for us to stand up against Ruth .
she has got to go
Two points and then I’m done with this inanity. Matt says: “THE KEY(my caps) is not to put oneself into the position where I am likely to “lose it.” Matt: that’s not really an option when you are sitting on the dais as an elected Councilperson who is “abused” by the Council majority.
A final thought …. The Council meeting had been adjourned and everything that transpired in the “vestibule” was a PRIVATE MATTER and not “official business”. I question the journalistic propriety(and motivation) of David whipping out his video recorder to capture these private exchanges and then release them on U tube.
davisite, can you provide a link? The only YouTube video I saw was an excerpt from the official Council proccedings video from the City of Davis website. Have I missed a second video?
BTW, davisite, of course it is an option.
“I question the journalistic propriety (and motivation) of David whipping out his video recorder to capture these private exchanges and then release them on U tube.”
DG. As a first time parent someone obviously needs to explain to you that it is unsafe to hold a young bady AND operate a video recorder in the midst of gathering fast breaking news.
davisite2: As your absolutely final, final contribution to this inanity, could you please post the link to this video.
There is no second video.
But that said, breaking up a potential skirmish while holding a baby isn’t the best thing either.
that’s it, i think the da should press charges against you for endangering a child.
just kidding. we’re blowint this whole thing out of proportion. if ruth is pressing charges, thats the most ridiculous thing.
you did a good thing David for breaking up the skirmish
David…. I guess that I took too literally Matt’s very visual reference to the “picture” of Clay standing over Liston. I avoid U tube videos, much like the “screaming” one that was hyped to bring down Dean’s primary challenge and on the other side, the “macacca” one that brought down Allen.
They are ALWAYS justified by claiming that they are released for laudable reasons, but, ,IMO, are almost always related to an “agenda’ and have a prurient voyeur quality that is distasteful(especially when they are intruding on, and potentially visually editing, a PRIVATE situation).
“Steiner very reasonably advised the council not to disclose motions in closed session. In response, Sue rudely told her that her advice was inconsistent, and proceeded to violate both versions of what Steiner had supposedly said.”
Greg Kuperberg…here’s another “analysis”. Harriet Steiner stated that discussions about policy were OK but not motions about what transpired in Closed Session. From the clip that David offered, it appeared that RUTH was the first to raise the motion issue by interrupting Sue’s discussion by publicly stating that Sue had not made a motion that supported the policy position Sue was addressing. With this out there as a statement of fact from the mayor(Harriet Steiner did not at that moment, interject, to say that Ruth’s statement was not permissible), Sue was demanding that the mayor’s statement, which was now on the public record of the Council session, be inserted in the Council Session public record(remember, Sue asked Lamar to not just nod his head in agreement but verbally(so that it would be part of the public record)indicate that the mayor’s description of what transpired with regard to motions, was false.
davisite2: I have been in a position where I have to keep secrets. There is no principle that you are allowed to correct the record in public just because someone else let the cat out of the bag.
Harriet Steiner is not supposed to interrupt anyone at City Council meetings. She is supposed to wait for her turn to speak. And there is no getting around that Sue was rude to her. Sue engaged Steiner with questions and then flung her answer back into her face. On top of all that, before Ruth had anything to say about closed session, Sue was already skating on thin ice when she said things like, “I raised the point over and over again in closed session…”
“Blair has shown himself to be more a fool than a liar” by Patrick Cockburn of the British daily, The Independent(www.independent.co.uk)). This article is worth reading for its own take on the Chilcot investigation of how Blair led Britain into invading Iraq. There is a message here that resonates with our discussion, namely that the most important issue is one of COMPETENCE and not whether the individual involved is or is not a LIAR.
davisite2: I don’t know, but I think you may be like many liberals ensconced in their empyrean of pure ideas where their family of well-intentioned ideologues can never be wrong.
The left has defined truthfulness, and now competence, as not having made any mistakes. Based on that definition, Obama, in his sort period of rule, should be recognized as the most INCOMPETENT and biggest LIAR in our history of US Presidents.
What is the bigger indication of incompetence sans political demagoguery: Blair’s decision to consider Saddam Hussein a security threat, or Obama’s decision to consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a reasonable man he can control with conversation?
David: Since my posts are now being deleted off of today’s thread, I will post on this thread even though it is stagnant.
Your censorship suggests to me that perhaps Sue and her minions have successfully intimidated you into submission. Or perhaps her accusation that you are trying to take her down to set the table for your wife to run in 2012 is hitting a little too close to home, necessitating the need to squelch any further dialog ASAP.
If you are instituting a policy of on-topic posts only, then expect some major blowback from individuals like myself that don’t appreciate censorship in any form.
Davis Resident,
I deleted your posts and explained why. Again, if you want to discuss it with me, email me at donshor at gmail.com
Don,
As I posted on the thread that’s being actively censored … each time you hit the delete button, the relevance of the Vanguard is diminished. I don’t care who is posting or what side of an issue they are on.
Many many years ago, my current boss, Jerry Brown, was blasted in the newspapers. Why? Because he banged his fist on a table during a discussion. Many many years ago, Harvey Milk was faulted for being too abrasive. Passionate politicians will always be critisized. They get up in the morning, put on their tough skin, and spend another day doing what they believe in. Thank God they do.