The Council pulled an item submitted on Tuesday by Mayor Don Saylor that would have established a volunteer position of Sister City Ambassador and appoint outgoing Mayor Ruth Asmundson to this position for the period 2010-12.
According to Mayor Saylor’s report, “The purpose of this position is to provide support and coordination for the several sister city programs and committees that have emerged over the years to link our community with people around the world. These programs enrich our community and build bridges in untold ways.”
Finally, “I am proposing that we establish a designated volunteer ambassador to assist the individual committees, coordinate visits from other countries, enhance awareness of our sister efforts throughout the community, and assist in the coordination and protocols for delegations from Davis to other countries.”
To me this is a way that Don Saylor is attempting to pay homage to his friend and ally Ruth Asmundson, which is fine, but having an official city position for her to serve in does not strike me as the best expenditure of city time and even Ruth Asmundson’s efforts.
I think it was the right decision by council to send this back to staff for more guidance. But I think we need a full discussion overall of the Sister City Program. I am concerned that this is simply a way that Ruth Asmundson can fly around the world, granted on her own dine, with a specific and privileged group of city residents, and attend junkets and get honored. I do not see that as appropriate in an egalitarian city and society such as our own.
We now have seven sister cities. I think it is time to re-evaluate the program. We need to ask what the benefit is of these relationships. Whether we should really have seven. I think that very diplomatically and politely we need to reduce that number way down to at most two or three. At most.
There has always been a claim that there is no staff or limited staff time, but as I have been told, staff members do make some of the arrangements. Regardless, I think we need to set a clear policy guideline that will establish when and under what conditions we can take in a sister city. It seems to me the process is already watered down.
I have heard complaints that this has simply been used by a few select individuals to travel abroad and be wined and dined. As such, I think we need a very serious look at who has benefited from these sister cities. Is it really the whole community as Don Saylor argues? Have these programs really enriched our community? How so? I have not noticed a single thing that this program contributes to our community.
Furthermore, there were times when council schedules were re-arranged in the last two years so that Mayor Asmundson could travel abroad to sister city events and bring her friends. Again on her own dime, but again, she seems to be enriching herself off the city, even if that comes merely from her position and association rather than city resources. I think this is completely inappropriate.
Now we want to extend this privilege to Ruth Asmundson after her retirement? Why? Why should she continue these benefits that are clearly not available to the rest of the community. If the community is enriched, why is it that only a handful of privileged people have attended these functions in other countries?
The bottom line for me is that this position is completely inappropriate. We need to re-examine the entire sister city program. We have never at least not in the five years that I have been observing the council had a substantive discussion on any of these matters. Last Tuesday was inappropriate given that there was a delegation here. We need to have this discussion when no delegations are present.
I am not suggesting that we get rid of all of the sister cities. I do think that seven is too many. I think we need set criteria. I think we need set protocols for people attending functions in other countries. There should reciprocal treatment in both sister cities and we should not get treated better in other countries than we are treating our own delegations. And if we are to continue, we need to make the process more equitable and fair to all involved.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I think that very diplomatically and politely we need to reduce that number way down to at most two or three. At most.”
How about “none”?
Because if you look, some of these relationships go back twenty years and groups in town spent a lot of time and energy establishing then.
Seven sisters is a very large family and not consistent with zero population growth which is necessary to reduce global warming.
And why do we have no brother cities?
What is the purpose of the program? I can see a couple:
1. If we can learn from other (European?) cities about urban planning (densification, traffic, etc.)
2. If we can help other cities in poorer countries by extending some expertise of money.
From what little I know the program is largely ceremonial, which is not bad, but why not turn this program into something useful? Do we have criteria for our sister cities? University town (that is a key characteristic of Davis in my opinion) Medium sized city?
Good thoughts there Dr. Wu.
“If we can help other cities in poorer countries by extending some expertise of money.”
That’s laughable since our City, State and Country manage money so well.
I fully support that the City Council develop guidelines for the Sister City Ambassador – or coordinator -whatever the title, but that there also be a call for formal applications and vetting of applicants before final appointment.
Furthermore, let’s get beyond ceremony. There are so many issues our sister/brother cities face that are similar to ones in Davis, CA and the U.S.: climate change and need to for transition to real “green” renewable energy, food and water security, impact of globalization and free trade agreements and job loss, privatization of public services, growing inequality, immigration, access to good public education, need for vibrant cultural life, religious and political freedom and realization of human rights, and the list could go on…wouldn’t it be instructive and important for Davis residents to know what our “relatives” elsewhere are facing and what creative solutions they propose. Why not have a much more intentional, focused and public exchange of information/solutions. Strong guidelines and call for applications could go a long way toward developing a sister/brother city program that truly links the local to the global community.
How about a sister city in Haiti. We have lots of expertise in the city and at the university that could be of help, and there is much we could learn re coping with disaster, resilience, etc.
I don’t quite understand the purpose of having sister cities. Let’s start with trying to create a mission statement (if there isn’t one) to determine if this is even a worthwhile exercise. From where I sit, it looks more like a political perk/pork…
As long as it does not eat up any staff time and it does not cost taxpayers any money, I don’t see what the problem here is. I would prefer this sort of thing be done as a private club, with whoever is the mayor at the time acting as the club president. But as it now exists, I see no reason to worry about the whole sister city thing or about how many sister cities we have.
David’s comment that “we need to reduce that number way down to at most two or three” was not explained. Why is it okay to have 3 sister cities but not okay to have 7?
And insofar as giving Ruth an ex-officio role with the sister cities program, I cannot understand what the objection is. Ruth loves that stuff. She pays her own money to travel and so on. Who could be harmed by her giving her time on behalf of this program.
I should add that I don’t believe the sister city program does any real good for Davis as a city. But it doesn’t harm us in any way, either; and the people who take part in it like it. So let them have their fun. No harm; no foul.
I would much rather see the masses stand up against all the things the city is doing and has been doing which harm the taxpayers. Sister cities is just not one of them.
I dislike judgments made without facts. Most/all of those who have commented so far admit that they know nothing about the sister city programs. their conclusions seem driven by dislike of Don and Ruth. I do not believe anyone consider Dick Holdstock an elitist yet he sponsored me to be on one of the earlier delegations headed by Maynard Skinner to Uman,USSR. Mike Corbett was mayor at that time. A fundraiser was held for my travel expenses and many members of the community donated including former mayor Ann Evans. Since then another delegation included DHS students, traveled to Uman. For me it one of the great experiences of my life and I am greatful.At any rate, It is a valid point that the community needs to be informed again about the Sister Cities program as it has been years since the Davis Enterprise or any other entity has done so.
In my two decades in Davis, I have only heard of community activities connected to Uman, Rutilio Grande, and Inuyama. And through exchange activities that have happened with those three sister cities, I’m convinced that there are positive relationships being established, at least one-on-one.
If there are other activities connected with the other sister cities, then there may not be much publicity going on.
It seems odd to have two sister cities from the Philippines.
The sign at the top of this article is actually incorrect. Wuxi China was added around 2003. It was suggested by Ruth Asmundson’s friend Sharon Shoemaker, who had some connections there.
I believe that Ruth Asmundson proposed the adding of four of our seven sister cities. These include Wuxi China, the two cities in the Phillipines, and Sangiu Korea. While these cities host us elaborately when we go, we cannot reciprocate because we don’t have an entertainment budget. This has always bothered me.
It has been my observation that staff does indeed spend time on the sister cities.
Inuyama, Japan was added when Ken Wagstaff was mayor. That addition was based on a longstanding citizen-driven relationship between citizens in both cities with an interest in running. It was made a sister-city long after the citizens’ groups in both countries had done the groundwork and established a deep relationship. Davis visitors, including the elected representatives, stay in the homes of Japanese citizen volunteers when we go, and are hosted by the families. It is a fairly reciprocal relationship.
Sangiu Korea made some sense because Sangiu is the bicycle city of Korea, and is home to Korea’s bicycle museum, although we cannot really fully reciprocate in terms of hospitality, which is of concern.
Rutilio Grande, El Salvadore was a citizen-driven organization that was very active once upon a time. It was established to actually help the citizens of this poor rural community. Rutilio Grande, like Davis, did not have a large entertainment budget. The sister city activist councilmembers have not expressed an interest in it since I have been on the council.
I successfully argued against Ruth Asmundson’s proposal to add a city in Tahiti, where she had made connections with a government official. I have been against adding more sister cities in general, since we can’t even handle the ones that we have.
At this point in time, I think the only thing that could budge me would be a city in Haiti, if a huge citizen group took the initiative to organize and fund some real projects to help.
[i]”While these cities host us elaborately when we go, we cannot reciprocate because we don’t have an entertainment budget. This has always bothered me.”[/i]
This gets to my notion that it would work better if we had a quasi-private club running the program, where the acting-mayor would perform the ceremonial role of club president. Anyone in Davis who wanted to help out the club could join; and pay whatever dues on their own dime.
One of the main tasks of the private club should be to raise money–both for entertaining visitors and helping Davis people travel to the sister cities. That would solve the problem Sue has raised.
If no one wants to be a part of this club or they cannot raise any money, that suggests the people of Davis don’t care about having sister cities one way or another. (That is my own view.) However, I think there are a number of people in Davis who really do like this program, perhaps no one more than Ruth.
Based on the input from the private club, the city council could decide if there are some sister city relationships which should expire; or new ones which should be agreed upon.
[i]”It has been my observation that staff does indeed spend time on the sister cities.”[/i]
Other than the silly ceremonies at the start of council meetings — which for whatever cause should not be held on the night of a regular council meeting — I cannot imagine this program eats up much staff time at all.
It seems to me that International House Davis might be a natural non-profit to coordinate sister city activities.
[url]http://www.internationalhousedavis.org/[/url]
Rich,
We could never raise the kind of money it would take to put visiting up delegates in quality hotels, take them out to the best restaurants three times a day, etc. Even if we could raise that kind of money, it could probably be better spent on more important things.
I am conformable with a relationship like the one in Inayama, where we have Japanese visitors staying in our homes, and they have us in their homes.
But when it comes to most of the other countries, they don’t have citizen volunteers, so the government pays for our hotels and restaurants, and they pay for their own hotels when they come here.
Interesting discussion on sister cities. Thanks Sue Greenwald and Tansey Thomas for giving us some context. As busy as city staff is, none of their time should be spent on sister city issues whatsoever. I like the idea of visitors from a sister city staying in volunteer homes and vice versa, which makes some sense. But to stay in a sister city and be wined and dined by their gov’t, yet not reciprocate, seems like bad form and a lack of decorum. And this city cannot afford to reciprocate. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t International House already connected with the sister cities program?
City staff shouldn’t spend one minute on this program. If current and former council members want to travel and entertain let them do it only with their own time and funds. Also when we’re talking about cutting short council member’s discussion time sister cities shouldn’t even be a topic at the meetings.
Elaine has an important point to consider: How tacky would it be for Davis representatives to accept exceptional hospitality during sister city visits then not reciprocate when their folks show up here? I just can’t imagine that those who have led our program would be so crass and boorish. So, I’m not ready to believe this suggestion until we get testimony from those who represented Davis on such trips.
A few years ago, I headed a government exchange team to a former Soviet country. Upon arrival, our “keepers” surprised me an envelope of US dollars (several thousand) “to cover your expenses” for the week. “No thanks, although I appreciate the offer,” I replied without giving myself time to mull it over.
Sister Cities International (“A Global Citizen Diplomacy Network”), various student programs and other exchanges certainly are worthy of our support. The cumulative impact of Davis and other cities participating is worth the minimal costs at a city level. We’re spending, what, $20-billion each month helping out Afghanistan and Iraq. Just in Davis, we recently decided to spend $200,000 to see if we should build sports fields on a toxic dump or some other site. Oh, my goodness, where will we ever scrape up the $500 a month for Sister City Intl. membership dues?!
Granted, a program like this could take a week or two of staff time each year for coordination. I was about to suggest the Planning Department, but guess they’re too busy with all the building going on here.
This concept was designed for [u]city governments[/u]. But it sounds like a perfect program for the city to partner with the chamber of commerce, downtown merchants, International House, existing non-profits or one designed specifically to help manage the initiative (and to raise funds to properly host delegations).
I think it is fine to appoint Ruth to a term as a volunteer coordinator for our already existing sister cities. She has done a lot of work. But I think it is important to lay out rules and protocols for the position first, and to have a clear policy about adding new sister cities (my preference would be to have a policy not to add new sister cities unless our fiscal situation improves dramatically.) As I said, the sister cities do take staff time.
Perhaps one rule could be that it be a citizens’ initiative, after demonstrating a certain number of exchanges and perhaps a non-profit organization is in place to further the partnership. That seems to account for Rutilio Grande, Uman, and Inuyama, as best I can figure.
I doubt you could find 100 people in all of Davis who give a hoot about sister cities. Dump the program.
Based on my conversations yesterday, I think I could probably easily find 100 people.
Based on my conversations yesterday, I think I could probably easily find 100 people.
I most definitely agree. I think Elizabeth Sherwin at the International House is connected with one or two groups who support sister city activities. She could probably fill you in on who’s involved.
And to clarify again, I’m not saying end it, I just want to see clear policy guidelines on it and consider reducing the number which would also increase the importance of the ones we do have.