In light of the fallout that occurred at the end of January during a Davis City Council Meeting that has attracted a lot of attention, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza have submitted an item that would add language to “Council Meeting Ground Rules” and the “Procedures Manual for Council Members” to address circumstances when Ground Rules and Procedures are not adhered to and the range of possible sanctions that may be applied in the event of violation.
The Council will consider this item on Tuesday night.
“In recent weeks, it has become apparent that the existing Ground Rules and Procedures do not include specific provisions related to enforcement or consequences for violation or failure to participate fully within the agreed upon procedures.”
They have looked at procedures of a variety of other cities to find what they call “very consistent language regarding the conduct of council meetings, enforcement of meeting procedures, and consequences for non-compliance with the ground rules.”
According to their report and findings, some of the cities have enforcement provisions for non-observation of the Rules of Order and Procedures by either the public or Councilmembers.
There are two revisions to the language of the “Council Meeting Ground Rules.”
First for item 8:
“While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum. A member shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking. A member shall not refuse to obey the orders of the Council, or the presiding officer.”
Second for item 9:
“Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer and shall confine questions or comments to the matter under debate, avoiding personal attacks and indecorous language. A member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call a member to order. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, that member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, the member shall be permitted to proceed.”
The item also includes a section for “Enforcement of Council Meeting Ground Rules and Procedures Governing Council Member Action.”
The language reads:
It is expected that Council members will conduct themselves professionally and consistently within the ground rules and procedures governing council member behaviors. In the event that behaviors of a member of the Council are judged by a majority vote of the Council to be persistently or egregiously in violation of the ground rules or procedures, the Council may vote to apply sanctions. Sanctions may include but are not limited to:
- Removal of liaison and committee assignments that are granted at the discretion of the Council.
- Resolution of public censure citing causes for repeated or extreme disruptive and indecorous behaviors.
- Removal from Council Chambers by Chief of Police or designee upon order by the Presiding Officer or a majority vote of the Council.
- Criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/or other members of the Council.
The staff agenda item also links to the policies of other cities. One of interest is the City of Mission Viejo that contains policies for violation of rules of decorum that include within it, increasing sanctions for rules violation.
The first is simply a warning, “The Mayor shall first request that a person who is violating the rules cease such conduct. If, after receiving a request from the Mayor, the person persists in violating the rules, the Mayor shall order a recess.”
There is also a provision for a motion to enforce,
“If the Mayor fails to enforce the rules of decorum set forth herein, any Council Member may move to require the Mayor to do so, and an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council shall require the Mayor to do so. If the Mayor fails to carry out the will of the majority of the Council in this matter, the majority may designate another Council Member to act as Mayor for the limited purpose of enforcing the rules of decorum established herein.”
Third is clearing the room and they refer to Government Code Section 54957.9,
“in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a person or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of the individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, by a majority vote of the City Council, the meeting room may be ordered cleared and the meeting shall continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9.”
Fourth is violation of the California Penal Code 403.
“A person or persons who substantially impair(s) the conduct of a City Council meeting by knowingly and intentionally violating these rules of decorum may be prosecuted under Penal Code Section 403 for disturbing a public meeting. Every person who violates Penal Code Section 403 is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
While some of this appears more aimed at members of the public, the idea of a continuum may have some merit.
The Vanguard believes however, that much was learned from the problems that occurred and hopes that none of this will be necessary. The public’s business is vital and it is vital that all interests are fairly represented.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]The public’s business is vital and it is vital that all interests are fairly represented.[/i]
There is a real conundrum here. If a faction of the voters believe that the city council is “bought and paid for”, then they might want someone to destroy the city council in order to save it. That might well be the representation that they’re after.
I agree with Matt Williams assessment that a reasonable time limit should be invoked for each City Council member to speak on an issue. If it is a particularly weighty issue, multiple rounds can be called for. That way when a City Council member speaks, there will be no reason to interrupt him/her, it cuts down on politicing from the dais, it forces City Council members to come prepared, and should limit divisiveness. Members of the public are given very strict time limits when speaking on an issue. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
A member shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking…. Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer. Sanctions may include but are not limited to:
•Removal of liaison and committee assignments that are granted at the discretion of the Council.
•Resolution of public censure citing causes for repeated or extreme disruptive and indecorous behaviors.
•Removal from Council Chambers by Chief of Police or designee upon order by the Presiding Officer or a majority vote of the Council.
•Criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/or other members of the Council.
So according to this if a council member “disturbs the peace of the council” they can be removed? This looks like a very thinly veiled attempt at muzzling anyone who doesn’t parrot what the mayor or other council members want them to.
This plan gives the majority the power to “muzzle” minority voices on the Council dais. Without ample balancing protections for minority voices to have the ability to publicly and fully offer alternative viewpoints from the dais, this plan must be rejected by the Davis voters.
What changes would you recommend, davisite2?
Open and transparent populist democracy is an inefficient and messy business. I’ll take it over the more efficient models such as Mussolini’s Italian fascism that was touted for making the trains run on time.
So you believe everything is fine the way things are?
“If, after receiving a request from the Mayor, the person persists in violating the rules, the Mayor shall order a recess.”
It seems to me that some of the more extreme measures go beyond anything that would be necessary. Having the police eject a sitting council member would be pretty outrageous. While I understand the need for decorum, it is worth pointing out that the public elected each council member, presumably aware of the individual’s character and style.
If there’s a problem, call a recess. If you have to call, say, 3 recesses — adjourn the meeting. The subsequent public uproar would probably be sufficient. If it isn’t, the public has recourse, either by recall or at the next election.
These suggestions are moving perilously close to destroying democracy in Davis. You can be sure that it will always be the member expressing a minority view that is “censured”.
The following clause is really scary: [quote]Criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/or other members of the Council.[/quote]
Sounds like fascism to me.
“So you believe everything is fine the way things are?”
I fully concur with Don Shor’s comment. Local government public meetings in communities that have active, politically engaged voters,almost without exception,have occasional experiences that are similar to the recent Davis Council meeting exchange that is apparently prompting this idea.
Davisite: I understand that and agree with Don as well, but that’s not what I asked. I’d like to see suggested alternative language that could be presented on Tuesday as an alternative.
“What changes would you recommend, davisite2? “
Well, for openers, I would elect Council representatives that can be intellectually alert enough after 10 PM to allow for the lengthy public discussions from the dais that are critical if the voters are to be fully informed.
Good luck with that. The way things are now, no one is running for council that you agree with. Is that a good thing?
I like the idea of giving each council member 5 minutes to speak on a topic, then around the dias 2 minutes each, and final comments 1 minute each.
The Saylor/Souze new rules lack due process, and shut down minority input.
It’s really the duty of the mayor to see that members are ALLOWED to speak, not to constantly interrupt and intimidate council members.
There ought to be a rule that council members disclose personal ties, contributions, and conflicts before they speak and/or vote on a topic. Souza, for example, told me that he votes for his friends’ projects without any regard to staff recommendations and without even reviewing these projects merits: “If my friend’s name is on it, I vote for it.”
(official records of meetings shows this is only too true)
I should add that I am disturbed, but not surprised, to see that David Greenwald, who holds himself up as a champion of democracy and minority views, has not come out swinging against these blatantly anti-democratic proposals, the likes of which we have never seen in Davis.
David: in answer to your question, I believe that Don Shor(with whom I agree) is advocating that there be no essential change in the rules. Those who follow our Council meetings with any regularity can easily cite numerous examples of our current Mayor attempting to cut off Councilperson Greenwald’s “discussion”,with Sue demanding to be heard and continuing, which resulted in publicly exposing facts that the voters would most likely never have learned.
Sue: I may yet. So, which of these proposals do you see as blatantly undemocratic? What is your alternative proposal?
David,
We have a representative form of government, with five council members who are democratically elected. They are answerable to the public. The public can vote refuse to reelect them or to recall them. “Sanctions” should be under the purview of the voters.
These proposed changes have been crafted with the goal of suppressing democracy. They are not needed, and they are dangerous.
As has been pointed out, the mayor can always call a recess or end a meeting if the mayor chooses. The council majority has always had the right to remove a councilmember from a council appointed position. These actions need no change or amendment.
This council majority has consistently applied the rules in a biased fashion. Time is has been limited, or a specific council member cut off (guess who), only when they are strongly advocating for a minority view on an important issue. Members of the council majority have been allowed ramble on and on uninterrupted.
When timed, Don Saylor and Steve Souza have historically talked the longest (although Steve has gotten better in this regard during the last year). I have years of recordings to prove this.
In terms of potential council majority abuses, let’s just take the last meeting for example. Don Saylor was chairing the meeting, and he attempted to limit time and to rigidly structure the questioning protocol during the budget discussion so that it was difficult to follow up on staff questions that were incompletely or not clearly answered. Yet when it came to uncontroversial items where we were all in agreement, such as converting our streetlights to LED’s or hearing about the success of our new teen programming, Don Saylor let council members ramble on and on. The pattern is being set: Limit time on important issues when a fully-expressed minority view might result in public pressure for a different outcome.
As to “treatment of staff”: Staff reports are sometimes biased in favor of the council majority desires. This is understandable, and I do not hold this against staff; the council majority is their boss. But the minority has one right, and that right is to ask hard and pointed questions, and to insist on follow-up. Not only is the council majority trying to remove this right, but they are threatening civil and criminal action if this right is pursued in a manner not to their personal liking.
I am disappointed that you have asked me to spell these things out; I would think that all these things would be obvious to you, David.
Sue:
You raise some good concerns here.
But let’s break this down a bit more.
Do you have objections to this one:
“While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum. A member shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking. A member shall not refuse to obey the orders of the Council, or the presiding officer.”
Or this one:
“Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer and shall confine questions or comments to the matter under debate, avoiding personal attacks and indecorous language. A member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call a member to order. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, that member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, the member shall be permitted to proceed.”
It is interesting to note on the latter, that one of my complaints is actually the fact that you are routinely interrupted while you attempt to speak. This would seem to address that complaint.
I do have concerns about the sanctioning, but would like to see you or someone else propose alternative language there that can at least be discussed and debated.
I also think it might be helpful to lay out your complaints about the way Don Saylor ran the meeting in a manner in which it could be discussed and debated on Tuesday.
A point of note here on the notion of democracy and limitations on debate. The house limits debate fairly strictly, while the Senate allows for unlimited debate, and yet which of the bodies would most construe as most “democratic” (small-d)?
First for item 8:
[i]”While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum. A member shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking. A member shall not refuse to obey the orders of the Council, or the presiding officer.”[/i]
Fine.
Second for item 9:
[i]”Members of the Council desiring to speak must first be recognized by the presiding officer and shall confine questions or comments to the matter under debate, avoiding personal attacks and indecorous language. A member, once recognized by the presiding officer, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call a member to order. If a member, while speaking, is called to order, that member shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, the member shall be permitted to proceed.”[/i]
Fine.
[i]In the event that behaviors of a member of the Council are judged by a majority vote of the Council to be persistently or egregiously in violation of the ground rules or procedures, the Council may vote to apply sanctions. Sanctions may include but are not limited to:
Removal of liaison and committee assignments that are granted at the discretion of the Council.[/i]
As the council majority has demonstrated, it has the discretion to do this already for any reason the majority so chooses.
[i]Resolution of public censure citing causes for repeated or extreme disruptive and indecorous behaviors.[/i]
The council majority can already pass a resolution of public censure any time, for any reason.
Thus it is unnecessary to list these first two sanctions as they are already available, for any purpose, simply by majority vote.
[i]Removal from Council Chambers by Chief of Police or designee upon order by the Presiding Officer or a majority vote of the Council.
Criminal and/or civil law remedies related to treatment of staff, the public and/or other members of the Council.[/i]
I cannot imagine a circumstance where a council majority would have the police remove an elected official, nor any reasonable cause for criminal or civil action. Thus I have to ask what the purpose is in including this language in the proposal.
I urge that all the specific sanctions above be stricken from the proposal.
[i]…. policies for violation of rules of decorum that include within it, increasing sanctions for rules violation.
The first is simply a warning, “The Mayor shall first request that a person who is violating the rules cease such conduct. If, after receiving a request from the Mayor, the person persists in violating the rules, the Mayor shall order a recess.” [/i]
Recess and adjournment are appropriate remedies for a serious conflict between elected councilmembers. These would be the only policies that I would urge be included.
[i]If the Mayor fails to carry out the will of the majority of the Council in this matter, the majority may designate another Council Member to act as Mayor for the limited purpose of enforcing the rules of decorum established herein.”[/i]
Since the mayor is chosen by the council via an established practice (top vote-getter), they have the discretion to do this already. There is no statutory reason they can’t. There is also no reason to include it in this proposal, as they already have the power.
I believe the mayor should be directly elected by the public, along with district elections. In that event, this would a totally inappropriate contravention of the voters’ wishes.
[i]Third is clearing the room and they refer to Government Code Section 54957.9,
“in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a person or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of the individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, by a majority vote of the City Council, the meeting room may be ordered cleared and the meeting shall continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9.”[/i]
A meeting that is so thoroughly disrupted that even law-abiding citizens are to be removed should simply be adjourned. The council should not conduct business out of public view, except as presently allowed by law.
[i]Fourth is violation of the California Penal Code 403.
“A person or persons who substantially impair(s) the conduct of a City Council meeting by knowingly and intentionally violating these rules of decorum may be prosecuted under Penal Code Section 403 for disturbing a public meeting. Every person who violates Penal Code Section 403 is guilty of a misdemeanor.”[/i]
This should be stricken from the proposal. It is way to broad and subject to abuse.
Don:
It should be noted that the last few are existing policies on the books at Mission Viejo, not the policies that Souza and Saylor are proposing. I was simply trying to demonstrate there might be a desire instead of simply listing possible penalties, but rather to create a continuum. However, I tend to agree with you overall, the need to list punishments is unnecessary since they already have the power and therefore overbearing and prone to incite what I think they hope to avoid. I don’t think they can threaten their way to tranquility here.
David,
All of these points are already adequately covered in the existing rules. By emphasizing subjective items things as “personal attacks and indecorous language”, the council majority is underscoring the point that they have the power to define when a comment is a “personal attack” or “indecorous language”. I have been very frequently accused of “personal attacks” or “indecorous language” when I have been merely advocating for a minority position.
Again, the existing rules specify courtesy and decorum. When a councilmember occasionally really violates these principles, said councilmember takes a big public opinion hit (especially if a blogger picks up on it), and that is adequate deterrence.
Lapses on the part of all councilmembers occur occasionally. To merely restate the principle that we must avoid “personal attacks and indecorous language” is unnecessary. The only truly effective way to improve council relationships is to actually start to treat each other better, at a very deep level, and to accept disagreement and vigorous advocacy as an intrinsic part of the process rather than to offer threatening and even fascist (i.e., civil and criminal remedies) amendments to the council procedures.
Because you wouldn’t have taken the hit had just the enterprise reported on it? I hadn’t even heard of this site back then and I only read about it in the Enterprise.
[i]It seems to me that some of the more extreme measures go beyond anything that would be necessary. Having the police eject a sitting council member would be pretty outrageous. While I understand the need for decorum, it is worth pointing out that the public elected each council member, presumably aware of the individual’s character and style.[/i]
Don, in saying this, you’re missing how many times the line has been crossed in the past, and how. In theory, Robertson’s rules of order should be perfectly adequate, and the mayor should have authority to enforce those rules. In practice, Sue Greenwald has repeatedly ignored and undermined the mayor’s authority, and overthrown the rules while at the same time citing them.
Look again at this video ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZhrSWlxAYg[/url]), which David posted ironically to attack Mayor Asmundson and implicitly defend Sue Greenwald. In this incident last year, Sue wasn’t even pursuing any core issue such as water or compensation. Instead, she jumped in just to embarrass the mayor. Look at where she says, “I’m teaching you how to be mayor.” This was a point-blank denial of the mayor’s authority to run the meeting.
Once it gets to that point, it really isn’t any more outrageous to have the police available as backup. Yes, every councilmember has the right to air whatever position. No councilmember has the right to prevent a majority of the council from conducting the council’s business. It may unfortunately be necessary for the police to help enforce that limit.
This episode was an important symptom of the disease. Neither David Greenwald nor anyone else on this side of the politics spoke for decorum. Instead of making any distinction between substance and style, David then took Sue to be Fighting for The Cause.
And look at everything that Sue has been saying in this thread. Instead of apologizing for unacceptable conduct such as “I’m teaching you how to be mayor”, she’s still in the trenches. In her view, she is still (a) a righteous crusader, and (b) the real victim. Moreover, if David has now found pause, other people are still egging her on.
To be fair, blogs and blog comments are a raucous type of forum, and probably Sue will be more reasonable at the next city council meeting. But I can tell that some members of the city council are pretty fed up, and I can’t say that I blame them. They’ve been subjected to too much angry radicalism, which has been bad for the city as well as unfair to them, and they’re trying to do something about it.
Don, in saying this, you’re missing how many times the line has been crossed in the past, and how.
If the mayor feels that her authority is undermined, and that the meeting cannot continue, she has the authority to call a recess. If it persists, the council majority can adjourn. The community blowback would probably be substantial. If the mayor’s supporters are outraged by the situation, they can initiate a recall.
it really isn’t any more outrageous to have the police available as backup.
IMO it is much more outrageous to even consider any of this at the level of requiring police action. This is not the first council that has had these conflicts.
i think it is fine for a mayor to rule someone out of order, to call a council vote on that, and if it persists to call a recess. If the ground rules are agreed in advance as to who speaks in what order and for how long, then there won’t be abuse of discretion by the mayor and it will be obvious if there is a violation of procedure. It is alleged that there has been abuse of discretion by mayors at various times over the years, and I think agreed-upon time limits could solve some of these problems. Sniping between individuals is hard to stop, but it doesn’t have to disrupt the proceedings.
A simple time limit on questioning while going around and around until all questions have been exhausted would fix it. It would also give Sue some time to consolidate her thoughts instead of flailing on and on.
[i]If the mayor feels that her authority is undermined, and that the meeting cannot continue, she has the authority to call a recess. If it persists, the council majority can adjourn. The community blowback would probably be substantial.[/i]
Been there, done that, but there wasn’t any blowback. Look at this video ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbWEbQTIKQ[/url]), which proceeded exactly as you said. Sue Greenwald denied Mayor Asmundson’s authority to control the meeting. After Sue basically seized the gavel, the mayor did the only thing that she could do, just as you said. She ended the meeting, and left a polite, valuable witness stranded.
But again, no blowback. One problem is that the city council has too much incentive to play to the camera. Whether polite or rude, everyone on the city council has been playing to the camera too much. And as I’ve been saying, until the big one hit, Sue Greenwald had a cheering section.
[i]If the mayor’s supporters are outraged by the situation, they can initiate a recall.[/i]
I admit it, if there were a recall I might well vote for it. But it would be really divisive and I’m not sure it would work. You can’t just blithely expect the public to step in and calm down elected officials. If it’s as simple as one politician losing his or her cool for no reason, then sure, there can be censure or a recall. But when bad behavior [b]has a political driving force[/b], then a recall vote can expand the conflict to the entire electorate.
For instance there was the time that Preston Brooks caned and nearly killed Charles Sumner on the US Senate floor in the 19th century. There was no censure and it wasn’t just one guy losing his head. No, the issues had gone to such an extreme that decorum could no longer be defended.
In our case, the issues aren’t as extreme as slavery and secession, but they have been heated up by Berkeley radicalism. Look at how David puts it in the other post today. City hall [b]is for sale[/b]. The city is headed for [b]financial catastrophe[/b]. If I truly thought that disloyal council members were creating a financial catastrophe, I wouldn’t care much about Rosenberg’s Rules of Order either.
There has, in fact, been an ongoing problem with the current mayor not obeying the rules. First, the mayor is supposed to apply any rules in an even-handed fashion. The feedback that I have gotten from many, many citizens who have watched the meetings or attended them is that the mayor has not been applying the rules in an even-handed fashion. The feedback that I get is that the mayor interrupts me when she doesn’t like what I am saying, but does not interrupt other council members who have talked as long or longer. The mayor also routinely refuses to stop the proceedings when I make a point of order. This has been involved in some of the out of context clips that you are referring to.
I know that I worked really hard when I was mayor to improve the way I conducted the meetings, and I took a lot of advice from a lot of people, and ultimately got feedback that I had rapidly improved after the first couple of months and began conducting good and a fair meetings, obeying the meeting rules. I believe the current mayor also can improve, as I did.
Again, I think that the only way to improve council relationships is to be genuinely nice to each other, and that includes, but is not limited to, truly accepting vigorous advocacy of minority views and completely even-handed application of any reasonable rules that allow full discussion of important issues.
The more I think about it, I really don’t think this council should make any policy recommendation about council procedures and behavior. That would best be made by each council at the start of their two-year cycle. I’m not sure who will be mayor after the next election, nor do we know what the composition of the council will be. I’d urge the current council to thank the subcommittee for their hard work, then table their recommendations to next year.
I think we should focus a little on the obligations, as well as the rights, of the mayor. Fairness is one of the main obligations of the mayor.
When I was mayor, I focused most of my energy on being fair, following the rules, i.e., stopping if their was a point of order, etc. and recognizing people in the order that they asked to be recognized. I constantly looked around the dais, taking note of who asked to speak first, and indicated to the members with slight gestures or eye contact that I noted the order in which they had asked to speak. I rarely knowingly interrupted anyone, even if I felt they were going on too long, which was often the case. Nevertheless, the meetings did not last longer than they currently do.
In all honesty, however, I was never tested as a MAJORITY mayor. I had no choice but to be fair because I was a minority mayor, and would have been voted out in a nanosecond if I had not been scrupulously fair. I would like to think that I would not have abused my power had I been a majority mayor, but I have not been tested. I think the real test of a good mayor is whether he or she can be scrupulously fair when he or she doesn’t have to be.
By the way, Tuesday night’s agenda is absurdly long. Included is a controversial new housing subdivision, the wastewater treatment plant charrette, a public hearing to adopt the Updated Housing element, a recommendation for water/sewer rate increasess that includes the controversial recommendation to continue with the current flat rate structure, the controversial sanctions for councilmembers deemed by the council majority to be guilty of lack of “decorum” or “disobeying the presiding officer”, including “criminal and/or civil legal remedies”, and a number of lesser items.
There is no way these monumental items can be fully discussed in one council meeting. There cannot be democracy if insufficient time is allowed for major decisions.
If you can’t handle the heat….
Toad,
The point is not who can handle what. The point is that we won’t be allowed enough time to discuss these important issues.
Sue is correct Toad, there is way too much on the agenda, and much of complicated and lengthy. It is irresponsible to put that much on the agenda. Sue, I recommend you make a motion at the beginning of the meeting to delay a couple of the items, particularly Willowbank which could use more time to get agreement between the neighbors and the developers.
Brian said: “A point of note here on the notion of democracy and limitations on debate…..”
Brian’s comparison between our local government and the government process in D.C. raises an unintended point. Active, politically engaged voters, a history of voter-initiatives that overrule Council majority decisions and a vigorous town-hall atmosphere at our public Council sessions are what distinguish Davis local politics from Washington D.C. These strongly populist qualities of our local political culture are what has kept Davis from developing as a copy of Natomas or Elk Grove.
There is a lot of merit to the suggestions of Don Shor’s last posting, which at least are positive and constructive. The Council majority is not fooling anyone with this ”political theater” which is not thin veiled at all. The suggested “revisions” to the current Council ground rules reek of subjectivity and targeting. These “revisions” also are obviously nothing more then a blatant attempt for this, or any Council majority, to shut down one or two other Council members if the majority doesn’t like the way the discussion is going on an issue.
If this Council majority thinks that the public is not seeing through all of this, then they are just kidding themselves. The public sees that this is just a political stunt to stifle minority opinions. This is really bad form by the Council majority to even try this. These suggested “revisions” are not democratic, they are not in the spirit of Davis, and they definitely should not be adopted as new policies. The language so over reaches that the real agenda is exposed. These revisions are just the Council majority trying to dominate the outcome of the Council decisions.
There ought to be language inserted in this bill to limit the ability of the presiding officer or Mayor to interrupt members too. I watched the viral video several times and because of the Mayor’s accent could not understand why she needed to interrupt Sue. Other than s’e wanted to.
I’m just saying, there’s no two-way street in this rather draconian, ham-handed attempt to make debate “efficient.” It’s all down on Sue.
Brian,
Thank you. The mayor constantly interrupts me when I have the floor, and this has been an ongoing and enormous problem.
As a rule, the mayor is not supposed to interrupt a council member who has the floor. In the exceptional case where the mayor feels that a rule has been broken, the mayor is supposed to make a point of order, proceed through the proper process. A point of order can be appealed, and if the motion to appeal is seconded, it is debatable.
I hope this serious problem will be remedied.
[i]I watched the viral video several times and because of the Mayor’s accent could not understand why she needed to interrupt Sue.[/i]
The reason was that Sue was using open session time not to come to any kind of agreement, but to publicly accuse the mayor of disloyalty. Yes, it wasn’t ideal for Ruth Asmundson to interrupt and start to debate Sue. But it’s only human to get flustered and interrupt in that situation. The fact is that Sue was being way too accusatory for any productive purpose.
[i]I’m just saying, there’s no two-way street in this rather draconian, ham-handed attempt to make debate “efficient”.[/i]
There are two kinds of debate. There is the kind where people truly haven’t considered all sides and might actually change their minds. Then there is the kind where people aren’t even close to changing their minds about anything, and are just performing for some audience. What I have seen in many of these videos is 100% the second kind of debate. And the truth is that it’s a waste of time. It isn’t real transparency, it’s grandstanding. It’s also meting out punishment to a majority for daring to disagree with a minority.
If I were on the city council, I might very well be fed up with these games. People on the city council aren’t there for marathon jujitsu week after week. They have real work to do. Decisions over growth are a misleading case because, if you just don’t want any growth, you can feel victorious by grinding business to a halt. But for anything else, endless “debate” really can cost the city a lot of money.
Sanctions, police removal, public censure–what’s with our Council anyway? The only Councilman who consistently exhibits decent manners and decorum is leaving soon. I used to figure the lack of respect our Council members showed for each other resulted from the outrageously lengthy meetings; tired and testy these folks been for years. We don’t need to expand the next agenda and waste time on these proposals. Souza and Saylor must have known that proposing this idea at this time would result in a zesty meeting this coming Tuesday. Let things cool off, and take care of the public’s important business instead. Leave it to the next Council to make changes in the code of behavior.
Greg,
I completely agree with you that during the specific interchange that you are referring to, I started the problem by being unnecessarily accusatory. If I hadn’t started it, the mayor would not have misrepresented my actions, and the problem would not have occurred. I have acknowledged that.
I’ve been serving for ten years, usually as a minority on the council but often representing majority public opinion. This is a fundamentally frustrating situation. It is easier when I am in the minority but feel that I am representing a minority opinion, which is true when it comes to some issues, but was not what I felt to be the case during the discussion of the employee health cash-out. I felt that I had been representing majority opinion, behind closed doors, year after year, without any public discussion, and a lot of pent-up frustration came out. I feel that I usually handle the frustration pretty well, but I made a mistake during this interchange.
But I am not talking about that one interchange. I am talking about all the other interchanges during the 6 or 7 hour meetings almost every week. The mayor has continually interrupted me when I have legitimately had the floor. This is a real problem.
[i]I am talking about all the other interchanges during the 6 or 7 hour meetings almost every week.[/i]
So am I. I have watched several of these exchanges on video, and I also read two transcripts from when you were mayor, and I can see the way that it develops. You get wrapped up in the issue at hand and you want to keep going. You consider it intolerable to “interrupted” at a point when I’m starting to cringe and everyone in the room other than you and Lamar is starting to cringe.
[i]I’ve been serving for ten years, usually as a minority on the council but often representing majority public opinion.[/i]
I’m reminded of one of my favorite phrases that I learned from our mutual friend, Paul Chernoff. Namely, that you can be right, but not as right as you think you are.
Yes, voters would like to pay staff less rather than more. Yes, they would like to pay less for water rather than more. Yes, most voters probably would consider it nice to annex West Village. [b]However[/b], most voters in Davis do not want a city council member who can’t take no for an answer.
That truly is the way that it comes across. One clear example of that is the last meeting, where Ruth Asmundson couldn’t have interrupted you because she wasn’t even in town. The staff made their view clear that proposals to annex West Village aren’t realistic. They weren’t saying that to appease Don Saylor, they were saying it because they really think so. Even if they were wrong, you can’t drag the staff through a huge project that they don’t trust at all. Instead of listening to the staff, you blamed Don for blocking annexation. The line “all it takes is three votes” was obnoxious. It was also obnoxious and inane to tell Don that he’s going to block annexation when (hypothetically) he’s on the board of supervisors. This is exactly the sort of stale debate that has wasted way too much council meeting time.
1) Many people in town simply don’t see it the way you do, Greg. I am talking about apolitical people that I don’t know who come up to me on the sidewalk or in the store and say things like: “I watch the council meetings on television, and I can’t believe how badly you are treated and how well you keep your composure under the circumstances”.
I am sure that people who don’t agree with me, or who are friends with the other council members, see it the way you do, but it is not the feedback that I get from apolitical strangers.
2)You REALLY don’t understand the numbers or the politics behind the West Village annexation, and you are, as usual merely using argument from authority.
[i]Many people in town simply don’t see it the way you do, Greg.[/i]
You’re clearly right about that. There is indeed a faction of the voters who think that the council is divided into sellouts and fighters. I see them posting here, although most of them only post anonymously. But they aren’t the majority.
The one issue where a popular majority really does want the city council to fight to the end is growth. This is a misleading case, because unlike other opposing interests, developers are willing to move on and do business where they are wanted. (For instance, in West Sacramento.) On every other hard issue, the city has a lot to lose with a combative approach.
[i]You REALLY don’t understand the numbers or the politics behind the West Village annexation, and you are, as usual merely using argument from authority.[/i]
You’re right, I certainly am arguing from authority, because it fits the question. You would need authority to annex West Village, not just numbers or even political support. It sounds like there is virtually no authority available for a favorable annexation.
What happened to Half Moon Bay should show you just how dangerous it can be to blast forward with popular support, but without proper authority.
Authority has a lot to do with why Don and Stephen are concerned about the city council’s rules and procedures. It’s fair to say that the long quarrels have damaged the city council’s authority. (Which in the end weakens the city’s democracy and leaves hard decisions in the hands of city staff.)