Normally we would have run an interview from Sydney Vergis, but that apparently will not happen. It is unfortunate that our thousands of weekly readers will not be able to see our interview with one of the major candidates in this race. We offered the invitation along with our invitations for the other four candidates.
Her response was disconcerting to say the least.
“The employees of Sutter County are stretched just as thin as our own City employees. My activities there, including job title and staff reports, would be easily searchable online. I have no respect for creating governmental waste for no reasonable purpose,” she wrote.
She continued, “Your actions cause me to question your ability to provide an unbiased report of my candidacy.”
Of course she never bothered to check to see if I had done this or similar things for other candidates. Moreover, I hardly have to defend myself from asking for documents that are available to any member of the public who asks for them. Open government is one of the most important goals in any democracy and it should be encouraged, not criticized.
This is actually a string of concerning events about Sydney Vergis’ campaign. The problem is that she is a 28 year old graduate student running on her record of professional expertise that would appear at least on the surface to be somewhat broad but shallow. She worked for Sutter County for no more than two years, and yet she attempted to cast herself as a land use expert.
In that regards, her opponents, both Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza have similar experience, Joe Krovoza with his work on Putah Creek and work for the university at the Institute of Transportation of Studies. He has worked at the same department as Ms. Vergis is a student. Meanwhile, Ms. Swanson has at least a decade of similar experience to Ms. Vergis.
Jon Li may not have that kind of work experience, but he has been involved in our community for over 30 years. And while Daniel Watts may be a somewhat inexperienced law student, at least he does not attempt to be anything more than that. Ironically, Daniel Watts has probably to this point has as much impact over city policy as a candidate, as anyone. His pointing out two unconstitutional laws in the City Municipal code led to quick changes, but also caution us that we might want to more thoroughly review the document.
A Look at Each of the Candidates
Joe Krovoza set a tone early in this campaign by refusing to take money from city employees, developers, and the more nebulous those who do business before the council. In fact, he has even returned two $100 contributions from two people that fall into the latter category. While we criticized him early for playing it a little safe in the first debate, he has continued to develop as a candidate and what most would consider the likely Mayor Pro Tem.
He talks about his independence and his bringing various groups together, but his strength may be his ability to do this while at the same time promoting an agenda of reform, bringing fiscal stability to the city and the council, and looking at new approaches to solve old problems. One of the problems with the current council is that four of the five members have served continuously since 2004. We are in need of new ideas and approaches.
While Mr. Krovoza is unabashed about his support for Covell Village in 2005, he also recognizes its shortcomings and the change in the climate of the city. His focus has been on densification and infill in terms of development. It seems unlikely that he would continue to push the kinds of developments that the council majority has pushed since 2004.
From his statement to the Vanguard and his answers at the CHA forum, it appears he is unlikely to support the new Covell Village 800-unit senior housing project. He told the Vanguard, “I think that it’s not clear to me that Davis seniors or even the families of Davis seniors, or Davis families that may have a senior or an elder that they wish to care for, really could command the demand of an 800 unit place. If we think about work-live, work-retirement kind of balance, I think it’s hard to imagine a sole senior community really being the next step for Davis housing.”
His focus on transportation is not mere lip service either. He is looking for land use policies that will encourage biking and other forms of transportation and his commitment to these policies will likely put Davis on firmer ground with infrastructure such as road repair that has been an afterthought in the last four to six years.
By far the most important issue facing Davis is the budget, he told the Vanguard that he sees himself as an agent of change that will err on the side of more conservative budget and revenue estimates, bring in an independent third party to help guide us, and taking a long look at how to fix future pension costs and unfunded retiree health liabilities.
Rochelle Swanson
Rochelle Swanson is someone I knew from her work at the Blue and White Foundation. I met with her early on in this process, as I did with Joe Krovoza. One thing I can tell people is that both of these people have come a long way in terms of their 
knowledge base. But Rochelle Swanson is impressive. She has been to all of the council meetings since she announced. She has met with all of the department heads. She even met with Tchobanoglous and Schroeder to learn more about the water policies.
She appears to be a moderate on land use issues. She opposed Measure X although did not publicize it in 2005. She is also looking towards infill and away from additional peripheral development at this time. She told the Vanguard, “I don’t think we’re going to be in a place anytime soon to start looking at peripheral growth. We do have a couple hundred houses for sale on the market. We have entitled land throughout the city.”
Her strengths are in her business background and she will probably be strongest advocate of the current candidates for fiscal discipline.
She believes that we need to be looking at flat-line budget assumptions rather than overly rosy revenue projections. She told the Vanguard, “I think moving forward we have to go to a flat-line budget assumption. Most economists agree that best case scenario, we have a flat budget. I think we need to pull out any percentage increases that we show both in property revenue and sales tax revenue. I think that by having as you say, a rosy outcome, it also leads us to make expenditures currently in the future based upon those.”
As she explained in early May, she will not be taking money from city employees, “I have great respect for city employees who provide services for us. I will not be accepting endorsements or bundling of donations any employee groups.”
She went on to explain why, “There’s a couple of reasons why. I think one is the perception. While I don’t think that any particular candidate is for sale, or has the anticipation that they’re going to be influenced, perception matters. I think it is important that that perception be one of trust for the candidates that are up there negotiating contracts. On the other is the potential, the potential for the entities to expect to have special considerations down the road.”
Ms. Swanson continued, “I think that it’s important because we make tough decisions up there that people know that it’s based on what’s fair and what’s best for the city of Davis. Not whether or not someone had contributions. It’s tough, it’s expensive to have a campaign. I’ve actually had to turn down money from a bargaining unit, they completely respected and understood why because they wanted to know that when I was making decisions for them, should I be elected, it would be what’s fair.”
There have been concerns about the fact that she has been a Republican. In fact, she is rather moderate in her views. From a local standpoint, she supports the use of government to promote community needs on the other hand, while not antagonistic toward city employees, she understands the most important issue facing Davis is the budget and holding down the costs of compensation to make our system sustainable.
Sydney Vergis
We never got a chance to press Sydney Vergis to see what she really believes. She has carefully crafted answers in the candidate’s forums. In fact at least three of the other candidates have told me that she has an entire answer book that she either reads off of or has memorized. During the forums she speaks in general terms, using technical language to evoke a sophistication. She espouses a deep experience with planning and other matters that belies her age.
It is difficult to tell what she actually believes. In 2008, she spoke about the need for a range of housing options for people her age and appears to have supported Covell Village and to support additional development. At the same time, she also recognizes that growth now is not the winning issue it was in 2008, and she has toned down her rhetoric, talking about the need to take a deep breath.
Her solution to many problems seems to come down to boiler plate solutions that involve discussion. For example, with regards to the budget she talks about a multiday budget process like the county has as the council goes through the budget department by department. However, she offers little in the way of specific proposals.
Her record is somewhat tarnished by the fact that she had accepted $4000 in firefighter money in 2008 in addition to the $8000 in the independent expenditure campaign. When asked the question at the candidates forum, she seemed to not understand the implications or dangers of bundling. Her answer was ambiguous and forced us to ask a tough follow up question where she confirmed she would not receive firefighter money.
“Well I currently have the endorsement of the Sacramento Central Labor Council and I have received $100 from them and $100 from a local Operating Engineers group. No bundled contributions. It’s my understanding that the city limits one person or one business can only give $100. And certainly that anyone who might be for sale for $100 should not run for office. I think that in the coming years, we’re going need really good and trusting working relationships with our unions as we’re looking to negotiate employee contracts that fit the current economic climate. I believe that any kind of negotiations should be done for not only what’s fair for the employee but what is sustainable for the city of Davis.”
That answer seemed to indicate that she would be open to seeking the endorsement.
However, the Vanguard sent her an email on Saturday asking her to make a more declarative statement and to her credit, she did just that. She told the Vanguard late Saturday, “I have not solicited or received endorsement or contributions from any city employee group, including the firefighters, nor do I plan to.”
To this point that has held, although we do not believe this was a choice that she made herself. With none of the other candidates accepting firefighter money, it seems likely the firefighters themselves decided not to endorse just one candidate and expose them to a possible lightning rod of criticism.
Speaking of independent expenditures, while we cannot reasonably hold Marty West’s efforts against Ms. Vergis, we are troubled by her statement of explanation and by the fact that she has not been more forceful in stopping the whisper campaign against her fellow candidate.
In short we have a lot of questions about where Ms. Vergis comes from philosophically and where she would actually be on land use issues and fiscal matters. It is worth noting that while both Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson have donations from a wide range of individuals representing a broad swath of the community, Ms. Vergis has a very similar donor base to the one she had two years ago. Most of the money coming from the old establishment and developer interests that have essentially run the council since 2002.
Jon Li
We really did not know what to expect from Jon Li. We were surprised to find him a harsh critic of the city on fiscal matters but also the current council’s allegiance to John Whitcombe and the Covell Village developers.
When CHA attempted to create an entire candidate’s forum around a senior housing project, Jon Li fought back, “The problem I have with the series of questions which I think is apparent to all of you is you started with an answer and then you ask us a bunch of questions where the answer that you want to hear is given.”
He then laid out the naked truth about this evening and Davis politics for everyone to see as a stunned audience and panel watched on. “Tonight is about building political pressure to force the next Davis City Council to waste another few years and a Measure J vote on Covell Village. Covell Village is SPONSORING this event.”
He continued, “No matter what, any proposal in our lifetimes will be rejected by the Davis voters, 40-60, because of John Whitcombe. Since 2003, Whitcombe has owned a majority of the Davis City Council, and they have done his beck and call at the expense of the rest of the citizens of Davis. Whitcombe decides something, the council majority announces it, and the city staff suffers whiplash. For seven years, the Davis City Council has only done what Whitcombe wants. So the council has accomplished nothing.”
At the same time, his volatility hurt him. He engaged in vitriolic and unnecessary attacks on Sue Greenwald. “Only one person has benefited in the past seven years, and that is the crazy woman on the council. Every time Whitcombe forces a council decision, she rants about it and is half right. The crazy woman should be recalled.”
At another forum he would call for her recall and suggest that Lucas Frerichs and Dan Wolk run against her.
On the fiscal issues though he was on the attack against current council policy. “I think we need to renegotiate our contracts,” he said. “We have a whole new reality that the city council politically has not acknowledged.”
He continued telling the Vanguard, “We can’t live with the obligations that we have. We’re going to have to cut back and I think we’re better off cutting back a little with each individual rather than hacking away wholesale. I don’t believe in 10 percent across-the-board cuts, but I do think we need to go back and do a zero-based budget.”
Daniel Watts
Daniel Watts emerged on the scene one day and lectured council that the city’s municipal code has section that were unconstitutional. He was right and the city had to change it. He has been a strong supporter of student’s rights, calling on the city not only to annex West Village, but to enfranchise all of the students who live on campus. He reasons that with 37,000 registered voters and 20,000 students, students could have a huge say.
His harshest criticism has come against the firefighters and the police for very different reasons.
He admonished one of his fellow candidates and the council majority on the problem of bundled money from firefighters. He told the audience at the League of Women’s Voters Forum, “There might be a $100 limit on the amount that every individual can contribute but when you have 45 firefighters that each donates $100 on the exact same day to the exact same candidate, that’s $4500 suddenly. Then when the firefighters union spends an additional $5000 in independent expenditures, that now adds up to $9500. So suddenly $100 from one individual has become $9500 and that is a significant amount of money in a city this size. That’s enough to pay for fliers and then if the firefighters go out and they knock door to door, how much is that worth to a candidate who’s running for city council? Public employees unions, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem because it reduces the amount of trust that you the Davis citizen have in your city government. I’m not accepting any money from firefighters; most of whom don’t even live in Davis. And when they buy and pay for 3 out of the 5 members of the Davis City Council, and they’re not even Davis residents themselves that’s a big problem.”
On the other hand, he has called the police in Davis, abusive. “The police here are ridiculously abusive they racially profile, they pull you over for no reason, they stop you, they search your car for no reason, on Halloween they stalk you, they pull you over, they search your body, it’s horrible.” He continued, “I strongly believe and so do other people that they do racially profile based on gender and whether you’re a student, or you’re a young minority person from another town, they profile you.” He said, “I would direct the Davis Police Department to release the aggregate data on the race, gender, and age of the people that they stop and detain so that we can see whether they really are racially profiling or not.” He also suggested the need to establish clear guidelines for when the police can use physical violence including clubs and tasers to enforce the law. He wants these guidelines made public. “I would also establish a city bill of rights, establishing affirmative rights for everyone in the city expressing in clear language that residents have a right not to be interrogated unless they are doing something wrong, they have a right to courteous interactions with the police. The police,” he said, “violation the constitution because they don’t think it’s going to be enforced, but they won’t violate the city law because they’ll know that they’ll get themselves fired.”
While Mr. Watts certainly does not mince his words, in a lot of ways he’s been the conscience of the group, saying what the other candidates either could not or would not say.
A Look at the Council Race
So coming in to this year’s race, the prevailing wisdom was Joe Krovoza would finish a strong first, Sydney Vergis had a narrow edge for second over Rochelle Swanson, Jon Li would finish fourth and Daniel Watts fifth.
The only change has come with Rochelle Swanson and Sydney Vergis. I believe right now Swanson is in second and Vergis third, but it’s hard to predict.
Here’s my rationale. First, we have the clean sweep of endorsements for Krovoza and Swanson in the Sac Bee, Enterprise, and Aggie. That may not mean a whole lot, but it is worth noting that in 2008, the Enterprise endorsed Sydney Vergis. In fact, Ms. Vergis ran an add in the Enterprise on Sunday quoting from the Enterprise 2008 endorsement that suggested Vergis was worth taking a chance on.
It was an interesting choice of quotes because, the Enterprise obviously does not feel the same way now, it begs the question as to why and it also begs the question as to why Ms. Vergis could not find a quote this year from one of the many highly recognizable Davis residents who are indeed supporting her this time.
That leads us to the second point which if you look at the money race it is instructive for two reasons. First, Ms. Vergis is third, but also she has only raised $5000 since the beginning of the year. She is the only candidate of the three receiving money to receive less money since January 1 than she did before. In three months, Swanson has passed her raising $14,000 in the last period compared to $4000 for Vergis. Moreover, as we mentioned she has the least breadth of contributions, most of them coming from the old establishment in Davis whereas Joe Krovoza has a wide variety of contributions including many from people who do not normally participate in Davis politics. Rochelle Swanson has contributions on the same page for John Whitcombe and Eileen Samitz. How often has anyone been able to say that in Davis?
Third, the Independent Expenditure campaign probably did not help her and may have hurt her. Some of the people who received letters seemed a bit odd, as they were people unlikely to have ever voted for Ruth Asmundson to begin with. Moreover the controversy short-circuited whatever positive impact the letter might have had.
As I said, it is dangerous to extrapolate, but the signs suggest that Ms. Vergis is headed for third. But the danger in making any prediction is that there are a large number of people who pay little attention, they do not read the papers, they do not follow this site, they are unaware of the controversies, but they may remember Ms. Vergis’ name from 2008 and that is still her best edge. We shall see. Right now we have Krovoza by a large margin over Swanson and Swanson by a healthy margin over Vergis, with Jon Li and Daniel Watts pulling up the rear.
Less than a week to go. We will be there if anything else breaks.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]As those who follow the Vanguard on a regular basis know, the Vanguard makes frequent use of public documents and records request as a way to monitor our local government.[/i]
This rampage of disclosure requests does seem amazingly hypocritical, given how little has been disclosed about the Vanguard itself.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges there, Greg. The Vanguard is not a government body governed by the public records act. They have listed their non-profit board previously, what more would you like to know?
David,
Just to show that I really do have great respect for the Vanguard and the work it does (however much we may disagree on district elections), and that, as I stated in my first message to this blog, I agree with the Vanguard on 95% of issue: This is an excellent overview article on the candidates and the election!
I appreciate the note, especially since most people only like to post when they disagree with me. As I like to say, even my wife and I disagree 5% of the time (to be charitable).
Brian, first, if the Vanguard is not a “government body governed by the public records act”, then certainly neither is a candidate for city council who hasn’t yet been elected. Neither is an independent committee in support of a city council candidate. Now, such parties are subject to certain types of disclosure, and that’s fine, but…
Second, the Davis Vanguard has blatantly functioned as another independent committee in support or opposition to city council candidates. As well as city measures such as Measure P. But, unlike Marty West and Ruth Asmundson, the Davis Vanguard has not disclosed anything about its MONEY. Not its “non-profit board”, the actual money and who it comes from.
Again, I am not a lawyer and I don’t know what loophole for this can be argued in court. But at the level of material facts, the contrast is incredible. The candidates’ campaigns and even independent committees have to disclose a lot of information, but anyone can give “The Davis Vanguard” any amount of money with no disclosure at all. A construction company could make a $10,000 donation to persuade the Davis Vanguard to support the 5th Street Corridor of the football field, or you name it. A union or a city council candidate could make donations to try to steer the narrative. These are not meant as accusations — they are entirely hypothetical examples — but without some disclosure, the door is open to that kind of influence.
“Brian, first, if the Vanguard is not a “government body governed by the public records act”, then certainly neither is a candidate for city council who hasn’t yet been elected. Neither is an independent committee in support of a city council candidate. Now, such parties are subject to certain types of disclosure, and that’s fine, but…”
This is really your argument? A candidate council who worked for a public entity does have certain records governed by the public records act. An independent expenditure committee is governed by the city and the FPPC.
“Second, the Davis Vanguard has blatantly functioned as another independent committee in support or opposition to city council candidates.”
I don’t see evidence of that. The Vanguard has provided information and commentary. Other individuals posting have offered counterviews, including yourself. Within reason it seems you have been able to post here without fear of being censored. How is the Vanguard different from a newspaper with an editorial board that endorses while at the same time the views of that editorial board bleed onto the news pages? I fail to see much difference, and if it is, only because the Vanguard is a bit more overt about where they are coming from.
“A construction company could make a $10,000 donation to persuade the Davis Vanguard to support the 5th Street Corridor of the football field, or you name it.”
I think David would argue that his ability to have an influence has to be based on the particulars of the news. During Measure P it seemed that no matter what he wrote, there were ten people on here countering it. In the end, they may have even won out. The Vergis independent story was influential because he was right and a lot of people agreed, not because someone was able to convince him to print it.
[i]I think David would argue that his ability to have an influence has to be based on the particulars of the news.[/i]
I’m sure that he could argue that, but it would be BS. Because, how is it that a mailer from Marty West and Ruth Asmundson could be such a sensitive matter, and yet everything that the Vanguard has said is purely academic? Maybe legalistically it makes sense, who knows, but at the level of what has actually been said, it’s just not a consistent standard.
And sure, let’s take Measure P as an example. The developer who was behind Measure P may have understood that it was a long shot, but he spent money on the campaign for a reason. PG&E may or may not think that Proposition 16 is a long shot, but again, they’re spending money on it for a reason. Of course they haven’t approached the Davis Vanguard, and they are limited by the fact that they are a publicly traded company. If they were privately held, they could easily make “donations” to the Woodland Vanguard or the Roseville Vanguard or the Bakersfield Vanguard. Anonymous donations and partisan advocacy just don’t mix. You would think that progressives in Davis can understand this point, after what happened with WHOA.
Brian: “I think David would argue that his ability to have an influence has to be based on the particulars of the news. During Measure P it seemed that no matter what he wrote, there were ten people on here countering it. In the end, they may have even won out. The Vergis independent story was influential because he was right and a lot of people agreed, not because someone was able to convince him to print it.”
This is an excellent point. This blog has allowed people to freely express whatever views they may have, and brought a lot of light to what is going on in city politics/process. In the end, I believe the Davis Vanguard has made some real inroads for positive change in this town. I don’t always agree with DPD on specific issues, but I believe the effort of creating this blog has been highly effective.
At one time, I believe the Davis Enterprise Letters to the Editor section served the same purpose. Unfortunately some objectivity was lost, by the timing and placement of certain op-ed letters and news articles. Nevertheless, the Davis Enterprise Letters to the Editor section is also a useful tool to get opinions out there to effect change.
Never underestimate the average citizen – the more engaged citizens are in the political process, the better off we all are…
In my opinion the fire fighter mailer was an excellent case in point to what Greg Kuperberg is speaking of. Private anonymous donations paid for that glossy flier. It’s timing, whether planned or not, nailed one prospective council candidate to the wall. And this was not subject to the meager disclosure requirements of an independent expenditure committee.
[b]DG:[/b] [i]”It seems that Ms. Vergis took exception to our public records request seeking a number of documents that are available to the public from Sutter County.”[/i]
[b]GK:[/b] [i]”This rampage of disclosure requests …”[/i]
Greg, how many disclosure requests make for a “rampage”? 50? 100?
I don’t know how many PRRs David filed, but I suspect your “rampage” characterization is hyperbolic.
Rich, Davis himself said “frequent use”, and that was what I quoted when I said “rampage”. I wasn’t just referring to his campaign against Sydney Vergis. The real issue is what it means when someone demands a lot of disclosure from a lot of people, and yet provides almost none.
DPD says; “…..while we cannot REASONABLY(my caps) hold Marty West’s efforts against Ms. Vergis,”
With Ruth Asmundson’s daughter being Ms. Vergis’ camapaign treasurer, Marty West and Jan Bridge described as being quite active in Ms. Vergis’ formal campaign and the described close friendship connection between Ruth Asmundson and Jan Bridge, I would suggest quite the opposite, that it IS emminently REASONABLE to assume that Ms. Vergis was aware and sanctioned Mary West’s activities. It IS unreasonable to believe that Marty West, Ruth Asmundson and Jan Bridge would act if Ms. Vergis objected.
[i]”The real issue is what it means when [s]someone[/s] [b]a private party[/b] demands a lot of disclosure from [s]a lot of people[/s] [b]the government[/b], and yet provides almost none.” [/i]
What disclosures are you desirous of having from the Vanguard, a private business?
“She continued, “Your actions cause me to question your ability to provide an unbiased report of my candidacy.””
This is an odd response. When you’re running for public office, it seems you would want the benefit of an interview, even if you think the editor or reporter might have a bias. Refusing an interview is worse publicity than submitting to one. Well-worded responses help, even if you don’t like the questions.
I hope Sydney will reconsider. If she doesn’t want David, maybe somebody else could do the interview.
The Asmundson-West IE controversy does raise some very interesting questions, none of which I have ever given much thought to. Why is it, for example, that The Davis Enterprise, which explicitly endorsed Krovoza and Swanson, does not have to observe the strictures of the Davis Municipal Election Code ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/detail.cfm?p=12&q=430[/url]), while the mayor and Prof. West are required to? If the Vanguard endorsed (or explicitly repudiated) a candidate for city council, would the Vanguard be required to follow the Chapter 12.01.01 guidelines?
If the answer is that a newspaper’s or a website’s purpose is far broader than just an endorsement and therefore its expenditures above $250 cannot be considered as costs directed for or against a candidate, then might that not open the door to a junk-mail company including in its magazine a flier calling for the election or calling against the election of a particular candidate?
While I personally don’t like any private money in campaigns, in a world of free speech and websites and the like, it seems awfully tough to lawfully and fairly limit some expenditures and entirely ignore others.
Rich: I believe this actually came up when Don Saylor filed an FPPC against the Flatlander alleging that they were actually doing an independent expenditure in opposing his campaign or supporting his opponents. Now the rule apparently is that if you are a regular publication, like the Enterprise one is exempt. That’s how the law differentiates a newspaper from an independent expenditure. Now the Flatlander as a quarterly fell into a gray area and I’m not positive what was already resolved there.
[i]This is an odd response. When you’re running for public office, it seems you would want the benefit of an interview, even if you think the editor or reporter might have a bias.[/i]
At this point it’s a tough call, not only for Sydney Vergis but in general. The Davis Vanguard is basically the Fox News of Davis. And it’s a tough call for Democrats to decide when respond to Fox News. If they respond to Fox News, then they’re screwed because they legitimize it. If they don’t respond to Fox News, then they’re also screwed because they’re fighting the media. Fox News is well aware of the bind that they create for Democrats, and they shift back and forth for maximum effect.
[i]I hope Sydney will reconsider. If she doesn’t want David, maybe somebody else could do the interview.[/i]
Now THAT is a good idea. That someone else could be Kemble Pope, for example.
[i]If the Vanguard endorsed (or explicitly repudiated) a candidate for city council, would the Vanguard be required to follow the Chapter 12.01.01 guidelines?[/i]
But again, given the example of Fox News, explicit endorsement is a discredited standard. Obama is incompetent, Obama is a liar, Obama is a radical, Obama could be a Muslim, Obama could have been born in Kenya. Palin is the salt of the earth, Palin is loyal, Palin make sense, Palin has charm. But hey, we’re not endorsing anyone, it’s all just keeping citizens informed.
Funny, I always thought of the Enterprise as Fox, Dunning as O’Reilly, and the Vanguard as a combination of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
I’m sure Pope can do the interview on his own site, with his five readers. I jest Kemble, I jest.
[i]”When you’re running for public office, it seems you would want the benefit of an interview, even if you think the editor or reporter might have a bias. Refusing an interview is worse publicity than submitting to one.”[/i]
I’m not walking in her mocassins, so I’m hesitant to tell her she is necessarily wrong in making this choice. However, her refusal does seem to suggest that she might not be ready for the firestorm of politics, that she might not have thick enough skin to engage in political battles. As Harry Truman famously said: “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kichen.” Or as George W. Bush said: “I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office.”
“I’m not walking in her mocassins …” or in her [b]moccasins.[/b] My bad.
Seems to me Greg, you’ve gotten more and more bitter on here. You can’t argue the points, you refuse to do any real research of your own, and have resorted to taking potshots and cast aspirsions.
[i]However, her refusal does seem to suggest that she might not be ready for the firestorm of politics, that she might not have thick enough skin to engage in political battles.[/i]
That too is part of the theme of Fox News (and Rush Limbaugh). They’ll lay it on thick with a target such as Gary Condit or John Kerry or whoever. And when said target gets fed up, they fall back to, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. That’s always valid advice, of course, but sometimes it’s because someone set fire to the kitchen.
It was the same principle with the confrontation a few months ago between Sue Greenwald and Ruth Asmundson. Then too, it was said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. And Ruth Asmundson followed that advice. But people who live elsewhere in the Sacramento area noticed that our kitchens seem to be on fire more often than theirs.
Things get hot at council meetings in other cities…..
[url]http://www.thereporter.com/ci_15172167[/url]
I see almost no similarities between the Vanguard and Fox News, Greg, in spite of your comparisons here.
Ha, Don, your example with Michael Ceremello is great. So I’ll concede that point: It also sucks to be on the Dixon city council.
If you were Vergis would you talk to David or the Vanguard? David has filed a FPPC complaint against people who supported her campaign and then wants to interview her. Is he going to read her her rights? Is he going to go to the FPPC with her answers? David acts as both an advocate and a reporter but its hard to know which hat he is wearing at any moment in time. I don’t blame her for not wanting to talk to someone who called the cops demanding the letter of the law instead of being satisfied when the people out of compliance made the adjustments to come into compliance with the spirit of the law.
Well, she denied the request before IE-gate.
Shows good judgement in anticipation of your actions.
Good work David. I appreciate the attention you’ve given the council election.
“Well, she denied the request before IE-gate.”
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Toad
“Shows good judgement in anticipation of your actions.”
Very weak.
Except for Vergis all of the other candidates did very thorough interviews with David where he hit on most of the key issues in Davis. For Vergis to deny doing an interview is very revealing of how she might conduct herself as a council member. Will she run and hide from tough issues and questions? Will she duck situations that aren’t totally in her comfort zone? Being a council member takes someone with a backbone that’s able to stand up to dissenters and still vote their conscious.
[b]GREG K:[/b] [i] “The Davis Vanguard is basically the MSNBC of Davis. And it’s a tough call for Republicans to decide when respond to MSNBC. If they respond to MSNBC, then they’re screwed because they legitimize it. If they don’t respond to MSNBC, then they’re also screwed because they’re fighting the media. MSNBC is well aware of the bind that they create for Republicans, and they shift back and forth for maximum effect.”[/i]
Greg, I know that you hate unions, as you have said you are “anti-union.” However, I did not know that you hated biased journalism, so much.
[b]GREG K:[/b] [i] “But again, given the example of MSNBC, explicit endorsement is a discredited standard. Bush is incompetent, Bush is a liar, Bush is a radical, Bush could be a drunk, Bush could have beaten his wife in Kenya. Obama is the salt of the earth, Obama is loyal, Obama make sense, Obama has charm. But hey, we’re not endorsing anyone, it’s all just keeping citizens informed.”[/i]
It perplexes me why, if you hate MSNBC that much, and you equate it with the Vanguard, you bother watching that channel or reading this website.
[b]RICH:[/b] [i]However, her refusal does seem to suggest that she might not be ready for the firestorm of politics, that she might not have thick enough skin to engage in political battles.”[/i]
[b]GREG K:[/b] [i]”That too is part of the theme of MSNBC (and Keith Olbermann). They’ll lay it on thick with a target such as Newt Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani or whoever. And when said target gets fed up, they fall back to, ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.’ That’s always valid advice, of course, but sometimes it’s because someone set fire to the kitchen.
It was the same principle with the confrontation a few days ago between Michael Ceremello and Jack Batchelor. Then too, it was said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. And Michael Ceremello followed that advice. But people who live elsewhere in the Solano County area noticed that Dixon’s kitchen seems to be on fire more often than ours.”[/i]
Greg, if you hate Dixon that much, don’t go there.
Not really all that weak. If you know someone is going to be against you why do the interview? It is not hard to understand that David wears two hats and confuses them all the time. Sometimes a reporter, sometimes an advocate. I can easily see her not wanting to do the interview. There are many other venues to get her opinion and decide how to vote. Even if she turned David down before his FPPC complaint it does indicate she saw the writing on the wall at some point about how she would be treated on this blog.
Rich, first of all, I certainly don’t watch Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann is a stale and unwanted liberal or pseudo-liberal imitation of Fox News.
I have watched a few clips of Rachel Maddow on the Internet. (I have never had a cable subscription and probably never will.) I like Rachel Maddow. But it is true that she has no real respect for certain Republicans, even though she is a decent, intelligent, and relatively fair person. If I were one of those Republicans, say if I were Rand Paul, it would seem a little crazy to go on her show. If Sarah Palin wanted to be on Rachel Maddow’s show, gee, Palin might as well challenge Judit Polgar to a game of chess. (And let Polgar play white.) So I certainly wouldn’t call them cowards for not being on Rachel Maddow’s show. That doesn’t mean that I hate Rachel Maddow.
As for Dixon, I don’t hate Dixon at all, I just wouldn’t want to do business with its city council on a Michael Ceremello day. It would undoubtedly be nice if he did get out of that kitchen, but it doesn’t look like he has.
As for the Davis Vanguard, I’ll admit to two things. One is that I enjoy arguing about politics more than I should enjoy it. And the other is that I am in fact getting mixed feelings about the Davis Vanguard. It is praiseworthy in some respects — it does fill a certain political vacuum in Davis — but there are also drawbacks.
This is a question for Toad, or really Sydney Vergis, I think the Vanguard has covered 8 or 9 candidates forums, did he represent what Vergis said accurately? If he did, I see no reason to believe that he would be unfair in a question situation. I note that he interviewed Pimentel, who is not much older than Vergis, on the Gutierrez shooting, he asked Pimentel tough questions ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2803:toughest-ten-pressing-art-pimentel-on-the-shooting-of-a-farm-worker-in-woodland&catid=81:civil-rights&Itemid=105[/url]) on a subject where he knew that Greenwald was the exact opposite, and yet he stood in there and didn’t duck the interview. Now who would you rather have, Pimentel who was unafraid of what he had to know was a tough interview or Vergis who ducks it?
[i]”I have watched a few clips of Rachel Maddow on the Internet. … she is a decent, intelligent, and relatively fair person.”[/i]
That’s a mighty strong conclusion if your knowledge of her is from “a few clips on the Internet.”
Like you, I don’t watch opinionated TV news. I have cable TV, but I have no patience for those shows. But if I have the TV on when people like O’Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, etc.* are on, I will stop for a few minutes, hear their spiels and quickly change the channel.
Your equating the Vanguard with those programs, I think, fails because A) David is not that unfair to anyone, even if he writes from a biased perspective; and B) much of the time the readers and comments on the threads which follow are opposed to David’s views. As such, insofar as their are divergent opinions, they get all the time and space they need. That is not true with agenda-driven TV/radio commentary programs, like Maddow or Bill Moyers or Rush Limbaugh.
*I once saw about 3-4 minutes of Glen Beck’s show on Fox. He was busy maniacally writing on a chalk board most of the time, turning occassionally to face the camera to smile with smooth irony. I have no idea what he was drawing up. It reminded me of an old-time preacher named Dr. Gene Scott, who used to have a TV show in which he constantly was writing on a chalk board and then pausing for long periods for dramatic effect. Both of them appear to be nuts.
“… insofar as [b]there[/b] are divergent opinions …”
[i]That’s a mighty strong conclusion if your knowledge of her is from “a few clips on the Internet.”[/i]
I have more information on hand about Rachel Maddow than just watching some of her show.
[i]A) David is not that unfair to anyone[/i]
That is the key question, and there are certainly a number of people in Davis who see it differently.
So let’s push that last point Greg, in what way has David been unfair to Vergis?
Brian, when that glossy brochure insinuated that several members of the city council are “bought and paid for”, and Vergis as well, it crossed a line. But the thing is, you’re clearly keyed up to be suspicious of Sidney Vergis right now, while I’m making a more general point about fairness with regard to a number of people.
So consider what was said here about Linda Katehi. Before she even started as chancellor at UC Davis, she was “stained with the blood of students”, and she had made Nixon’s mistakes, according to the Davis Vanguard. These stances were so over the top that they didn’t even have enough credibility to be all that unfair.
I see. So let’s break this down. We are talking about Vergis here, so I will stick to that point. I didn’t read the Katehi stuff, so I don’t have an opinion. So the brochure claimed that several members of council are bought and paid for – that’s unfair? He presented evidence to bolster his claim. Was his evidence inaccurate? Or are you simply disagreeing with his opinion that the evidence amounted to them being bought and paid for? See to me, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. I know that’s a cliche, but it’s true. If he were inventing facts, then I would agree, it’s unfair. If it’s just his opinion you disagree with, I think you’re case falls considerably.
[i]”So consider what was said here about Linda Katehi.”[/i]
But MOST of what stood out about Katehi (prior to her arrival) was, to my mind, [url=https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2855:documents-cast-doubt-on-chancellor-katehis-denial-in-illinois-scandal&Itemid=118]the responses from Sue Greenwald and others[url], saying David’s take was wrong and that she deserves to start fresh and we hoped she would succeed.
come on, david, you’ve been openly hostile to vergis for well over two years now, when she beat cecilia for fourth place in the city council race (ironically enough, they were the two candidates i endorsed last time around). your recaps of the forums have consistently presented vergis in a poor light, and many of the things that you denounce her for you’re willing to overlook in other candidates (taking money from developers, being young). no wonder she wasn’t willing to give you a platform to pick her apart and denounce her, with a hundred commenters doing the same downthread. it’s clear from your requests you were looking for something to gotcha her with.
“your recaps of the forums have consistently presented vergis in a poor light”
I generally quoted her as closely as possible to verbatim as I could.
I don’t have a problem with her being young, Lamar was young, Daniel is young. I do however think you can’t be young and try to run on your experience which is fairly limited particularly compared to her two chief opponents.
I was far more concerned with firefighter money than developer money this time around. I think development is by and large off the table.
“it’s clear from your requests you were looking for something to gotcha her with.”
I did the same with other candidates as well. I think we deserve the right to know.
I think Brian is right, Art Pimentel certainly knew what he was getting himself into and still hung in there, as has Matt Rexroad and a few others. I respect people willing to take on what might be a tough interview. Davis is not a town for the faint hearted, you get onto the council and you had better be prepared to stand in a room full of people that are going to yell at you, insinuate, and call you names. You have to look them in the eye and still vote the right way, even if that means you go against them. So it is what it is. Some of you are understanding, other less so.
All, from a long ago and far away thread
[quote]To David Greenwald from Matt Williams
(1) What exactly is “The Vanguard” anyway?
(2) Is the Vanguard organized as a not-for profit or a for-profit enterprise?
(3) Does the Vanguard have a Board?
(4) If it does, could you please disclose the names of the individuals on the Board?
(5) What is the purpose of the Board?
(6) Does the Board meet to discuss issues and/or positions?
(7) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Parlin Development (including Parlin Wildhorse)?
(8) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Talbott Solar?
(9) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from Radiant Homes?
(10) Has the Vanguard ever received any donations and/or advertising revenue from individuals or organizations acting on behalf of the parties in questions (7), (8) and (9)?
(11) Could you please disclose if Bill Ritter or Mike Harrington have ever been affiliated with the Vanguard?
(12) To the best of your knowledge is any debate being “manufactured” by the same poster posting under different pseudonyms?
(13) If so, is the intent of this activity to manipulate the debate?
(14) Is there anyone affiliated with the Vanguard that is “manufacturing” debate?
(15) Is the core of the debate just a manufactured (and therefore misleading) dialog between a small group of people (including your Board member(s))?
(16) Beyond the Board question above, who is involved in the Vanguard? And why?
(17) Does the Vanguard have a political agenda? If so, what is it?
(18) Does the Vanuguard have any conflicts-of-interest with respect to any topics it covers? [/quote]
. . . and as Paul Harvey would say, “and here’s the rest of the story!”
[quote]Annie, here are the responses David posted.
David M. Greenwald
07/09/09 – 05:44 AM
…
1. The Vanguard is an independent news source in Davis that I founded in 2006.
2. The Vanguard has filed for non-profit status. I will also note that to this date, all proceeds from the Vanguard have gone back to the Vanguard. I have not derived a single cent of profit from the Vanguard to date.
3. The Vanguard has a board of directors. They are not involved at all in terms of the day-to-day operations of this site, they have no control whatsoever over content. The views expressed by the Vanguard are those expressed by the author of the given piece and do not necessarily reflect those of The People’s Vanguard of Davis, inc or its board of directors.
4. The board currently consists of Don Shor, Pat Lenzi, Pam Nieberg, Bob Schelen, Ram Sah, Don Gibson, and Ayla Kapahi who is our treasurer.
5. The basic purpose of the board is to provide for the legal requirements as a not for profit organization. I should point out that until the paperwork is approved, the board is unofficial.
6. The board does not discuss issues or positions.
7. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 who purchased an ad for Senses Magazine.
8. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Talbott Solar.
9. The Vanguard has not received donations or advertising from Radiant Homes.
10. The Vanguard received money from the wife of Masud Monfared who owns Parlin Development in 2007 who purchased an ad for Senses Magazine.
I would add there is nothing that precludes the Vanguard from accepting advertising money from any entity that wishes to purchase an ad now or in the future.
11. Bill Ritter is not officially affiliated with the Vanguard but does provide me with occasional advise as do a number of other people who are not affiliated with the Vanguard, yourself included. The same goes with Mike Harrington.
12. I don’t know what it means to manufacture debate. There are people on both sides of the issue posting anonymously. Given the number of people who turned out for the meeting last night, I would guess that it is a fairly small number on both sides.
13. I don’t know what it means to manipulate the debate. My only real concern is that people stick to the issues and do not bring in other private citizens or make potentially libelous attacks that could present the Vanguard with liability.
14. Not to my knowledge and certainly not at the behest of the Vanguard.
15. I think as I said above, the debate is between a small number of people. I don’t know the identities of most of them. I also try to respect the privacy of those who choose to post anonymously. It has always been my intent to provide this as a place for people to come and debate without fear of outside retribution. That is why I have guarded steadfastly in the face of criticism the right for people to post anonymously. There are times when people abuse this right.
16. 90 to 95 percent of the work done by the Vanguard is done by myself. However, recently we have recruited some interns that will be introduced to the public at some point at the appropriate time. Most of the rest of the involvement is done unofficially through either guest submissions or comments on the Vanguard.
17. The Vanguard’s political agenda is to promote public discourse, be an information source, and to represent the “progressive” views of Davis as well as serve as a political forum.
18. Not to my knowledge. [/quote]
[quote]Greg said . . .
I hope Sydney will reconsider. If she doesn’t want David, maybe somebody else could do the interview.
Now THAT is a good idea. That someone else could be Kemble Pope, for example. [/quote]
Would Kemble agree to write an article for the Vanguard? I agree it is a superb idea, but just as Don Saylor has cited the practical realities that prevent him from stepping down and being immediately reappointed Mayor by the four remaining Council members, I think Kemble will demur for practical reasons.
[quote]David M. Greenwald
07/09/09 – 05:44 AM
2. The Vanguard has filed for non-profit status.[/quote]DG: What is the status of this filing? It’s been almost a year since this response was posted.
Sure wish we could stick to current issues instead of rehashing ancient grievances every time we disagree with something David has posted. Let’s try to focus a little more on the matters at hand.
Greg Kuperberg:
You know The Vanguard is not a government body. It is not an independent committee nor does it function like one. It has not accepted $10,000 to support 5th Street or “you name it” or anything. (I’m sure you don’t mean to completely discredit David with these kinds of “what if” shots, so why set up your arguments with them instead of facts.)
The Vanguard is not the “Fox News of Davis.” Sydney Vergis is not Linda Katehi or any of the national Democrats who agonize over Fox News. So, why equate our local blog and local election with such national nonsense.
For Ms. Vergis to refuse an interview that all other candidates have accepted because of a public records request, to my mind, is seriously misguided. If it’s her decision, I hope she changes her mind. If she’s taking someone else’s advice, I hopes she gets better advisors. But, time is running out.
Note for the site monitor: as is far too often the case, this discussion went sideways with irrelevant questions concerning the Vanguard itself. Serving no purpose whatsoever, adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, those types of distractions may be better dealt with in a designated area (community blogs?).
That’s a good point Neutral. One of the things that we had talked about was creating a message board system where we could bump these side discussions onto a message board. We may revisit that.
I do want to address Wu Wing’s point a bit more. One of the problems with trying to cover and accurately report Sydney Vergis’ responses in forums, was that she often did not directly answer the question.
Now Dunning makes this comment today with regards to a question about wood burning:
“Glen’s question was simple: ‘If elected to the City Council would you favor or not favor banning Davisites like me from burning wood in our fireplaces and stoves?’ – Sydney Vergis failed to answer the question directly, quickly veering off into gas-powered leaf blowers and a program to exchange gas-powered lawn mowers for ones with cords, apparently not realizing Glen was talking about burning wood in his fireplace, not his lawnmower -“
The problem during the forums seemed to be that she had written out all sorts of responses to questions but sometimes they were not the exact question and she still gave a set answer which meandered quickly off topic. With a response of this kind, you would think she could have taken the time to directly address the question rather than talk about lawnmowers, but that’s how she answered a lot of questions at candidate’s forums to the point where people in the audience often looked at each other and shook their heads, even some of her supporters did that.
[c][img]http://staycspits.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/250px-tracy_flick.jpg[/img][/c] [quote]The problem during the forums seemed to be that she had written out all sorts of responses to questions but sometimes they were not the exact question and she still gave a set answer which meandered quickly off topic.[/quote]
You know what? Is Davis better off with the Vanguard? Yes. Could a stronger editorial board strengthen the objectivity and journalistic standards? Yes.
But ask yourself: do you know more now than you did before?
Yes I think the Vanguard’s portrayal of Vergis may be biased due to Cecilia’s run, but I don’t think it is that far off. Vergis has emphasized her experience but it does ring hollow when pitted against those that let their experience speak for itself. Pretty simple concept, really, and one the Enterprise (for comparison) didn’t highlight, at least out of the editorial boardroom.
I should also have added: things on this blog don’t always go in favor of the accused bias.
The whole “Palin on my facebook” or whatever incident was fleshed out on this blog, and was later used against a candidate this blog is accused of supporting.
And, the whole Independent Expenditure committee thing was rectified (West sending email) so quickly (within 3 days) because of this blog. If it had gone on longer, it would have been a bigger controversy. IF this blog really was Fox News, it wouldn’t have acted in such a proactive manner to LESSEN the controversy, which it did.
Lastly, Sue Greenwald hates this blog. Sydney Vergis hates this blog. So something balanced must be happening, unless Sue and Sydney are secretly in cahoots. Which I doubt.
“Yes I think the Vanguard’s portrayal of Vergis may be biased due to Cecilia’s run”
Really? I think it probably has more to do with the fact that Vergis is opposed ideologically or at least perceived that way, to what the Vanguard (Greenwald) believes. You really think David would be going after Vergis if he agreed with her on the issues?