Matt Muller, who is the President of the PASEA in Davis, sent me, personally, to the Vanguard email address, a strongly-worded criticism of my views and writing as it relates to the city budget issue. PASEA represents the Program, Administrative and Support Employees Association in Davis.
While it is likely true that Mr. Muller is speaking for himself here and is not authorized to speak on behalf of his employees’ association, his statement sent to a media entity certainly reflects on both the entire membership of PASEA and the City of Davis.
First, I would like to preface this with the fact that I am in no way speaking on behalf of any of the city employees, nor PASEA. I am speaking strictly on my own behalf.
I’m afraid the time has finally come for me to call you out on a few things. I read your article today and not only have some of your past statements been erroneous or at best questionable, but in one statement within this article you actually lie to your readers. I understand that yours is not a “news” blog, no more so than The Weekly World News, The Sun, or the National Inquirer can be considered legitimate news media. It is a opinion/commentary often driven primarily towards “stirring up the hive”. But to lie to your readers does them a great disservice. You stated that I specifically named the Vanguard which in fact is a bald faced lie. The truth is I used the term “a local blog” and nothing more. The word “Vanguard” never once came from my mouth. I purposely refrained from using it because I refuse to give you or your blog any more publicity than it already gets or to fuel your ego any more than it already is.
I find your research methods sorely lacking. Myself a college graduate with some background in research, experimentation and data gathering,compilation, and interpretation – I know the first and foremost rule is to never begin your research with already established conclusion, a hypothesis yes, but the conclusion is supposed to come at the end (hence the word conclusion). I find your research flawed as it is glaringly apparent that from the start you already have a preconception as to what the truth is and that it is the one and only correct one. Then, when you conduct your research you only look as far as is necessary to find whatever facts support your position and you go no further. And if you should happen to come across evidence contrary to your position in the process you deliberately ignore it and omit it. Were you involved in any sort of scientific research you would have been completely discredited a long time ago. I have found you guilty on repeated occasions of “judging a book by its cover” making no effort to go any deeper than the surface appearance. You also take every opportunity you can to skew facts and deliberately take things out of context in order to support your position and feed the frenzy of your followers. I believe that if one’s position/cause is truly just and righteous it is not necessary to resort to such tactics as truth and honesty will suffice. As such, I lump you in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, and Bill O’Reilly. You are no more a legitimate purveyor of the truth than is Geraldo Rivera. Much of your writing is nothing more than a reflection of your own personal bias, often directly influenced by incidents experienced by yourself and your family. Your posts are straying further and further from an honest representation and drifting closer and closer towards sensationalism.
You repeatedly claim that you do not direct any negativity towards the rank and file employees knowing full well that a great many of your follows make no such differentiation. Much of your negative verbal regurgitations serve only to strengthen the negative opinions some of your readership towards city employees. For your information I am a rank and file employee.
With regards to your “Sunday Commentary” I’ll note that you deliberately omitted such facts as that it was 90+ degrees in chambers and extremely humid (although you mentioned the heat in your article covering the council meeting). Nor did you bring up the fact that between chambers and the outside, the foyer was the coolest place available so many where congregating there in order to take a break and cool off but were still watching the proceedings from the monitor. Yes, the conversation did get noisy from time to time but when asked everyone quited down. You also deliberately omit the fact that this is not an uncommon occurrence by any means and so is not an instance limited solely to the presence of city employees. You blasted us for not sitting though other items on the agenda which prompts me to ask you if you noted how many of the people who appeared for earlier items remained for the budget item – of course you didn’t David, because that doesn’t ruffle the feathers of your readership does it? The fact is many of those I just mentioned did leave and being a frequent flyer with regards attending council meetings you know perfectly well that many people often only appear for their item. In my own defense I will say that I frequently had to leave the chambers because I could not handle the heat and humidity. To compound that, I was extremely nervous about speaking as was struggling with dry mouth and so I was constantly needing a drink of water. I could not remain in my seat because I can become claustrophobic at times and so with so many people sitting around me it was amplifying the anxiety I was feeling already about speaking in public. So I chose to stand in the back but being diabetic I cannot stand in one place for lengthy periods of time. I’m sure many others had legitimate reasons for the behavior that was perceived on your part but you didn’t not bother to inquire on them because the truth is you have absolutely no interest in them and no intention of including them because they may detract from the fervor you wish to manufacture and the flames you wish to fan. To be honest, I personally couldn’t care less what opinion you have of me and do not take any offense to it. I merely am trying to improve its accuracy. My family, my friends and my coworkers all know me to be a good and honest person so what you perceive me to be matters little. I considered posting my comment to your blog but refuse to add myself to the number of your registrants. And for the record, during the council meeting on 6/28 when I was standing in the foyer just outside the council doors I looked behind me to see Celia holding your daughter with your you son in tow and I opened the door for them.
Some friendly advise – take an occasion to stop and reflect on what you are saying. Consider the impact and repercussions it will have on some people, good people, people who have done you no wrong. Then ask your self if it’s something that really needs to be said or at very least does it need to be said in the manner in which you are saying it? Words can have significant influence on the masses – sometimes with terrible consequences. To that effect just a few examples would be: Adolph Hitler, Senator Joe McCarthy, and Samuel Parris.
Let’s be honest here David, you really need to step outside your little bubble and take a look at the big picture, because in the grand scheme of things you really are nothing more that a small fish (medium at best) in a small pond. You’re an armchair quarterback. They say that those who can’t play, coach, and those who can’t coach sit 20 rows back, shirtless, body-painted, and shouting obscenities – you’re becoming that guy.
F.Y.I. I have BCC’d several different parties in case you should attempt to take any of my comments out of context or misrepresent them in any way in your blog. No offense, but with your track record I think you’ll understand my taking the precaution.
Thank you for your time, you and I may be seeing/hearing more of each other in the future,
Matt Muller
P.S. For your information it was a BlackBerry not an iPhone. A trivial factual error yes, but yet another illustration of yet another factual oversight on your part. And you seemed to be taking such an interest in me with your camera that I felt it only polite to return the favor. Maybe I’ll have a little fun with Photoshop tonight – donkey ears might actually be a good look for you.
Response
I also think the over-the-top rhetoric comparing me with Hitler, McCarthy and Samuel Parris, who was the minister involved in the Salem Witch Trials, reflects a level of discourse that is unprofessional.
Despite his representations, every utterance he makes, in fact, represents his bargaining unit, and here he does so with a complete and utter lack of grace and professionalism. If he represented me, I would be appalled.
As I read this over and over again, I kept expecting some factual corrections to my writings that would match his rhetoric. What he called a bald-faced lie, the representation of his specific reference to the Vanguard, is in fact a truth that he acknowledges. I, in fact, quoted the statement verbatim in yesterday’s column.
“The word ‘Vanguard’ never once came from my mouth,” he writes, but I never once quote him as saying the word Vanguard. It was perfectly clear to everyone listening whom he was referring to.
He argues that my research methods are lacking, without citing a single example to bolster his point or demonstrate that, in fact, they are lacking.
In the end, this is extremely poor judgment by him. His anger is clear and even understandable. However, his approach was wholly misguided. He should have drafted this letter and then hit delete.
He put himself on my radar as he snapped away picture after picture on his phone. I stand corrected that it was a Blackberry rather than an IPhone. I apologize for failing to identify the correct phone from fifty feet away. I only saw the flash.
At the end of the day, I believe my Sunday column was accurate. I had referred to the heat many times, but heat is no excuse for poor conduct. The city employees on this Tuesday night conducted themselves, Mr. Muller’s conduct notwithstanding, with the utmost respect and professionalism. That is what I have come to expect from city staff and why I was disappointed with their conduct – really the conduct of a handful of individuals as I reiterated in the column many times – two weeks ago.
I continue to believe that we can achieve the $2.5 million in cuts with as little disruption to the rank and file employees as possible. I continue to urge the leadership in the city to come forward with concessions and ways to save money.
I will not hold the misguidance of Mr. Muller against the membership of PASEA, many of whom I interact with regularly. I have the utmost respect for the work that they and many others in this city perform.
Unfortunately, there were bad decisions made in the past. The irony is that many of the bargaining groups seem to be taking the lead from Bobby Weist and the firefighters, and those are the policies that got us in this mess to begin with.
By 2015, we will have something along the lines of $7 million in additional expenses going to both pensions and retiree health, and that money will have to come from somewhere. This contract, painful as it will be, moves us in the correct direction.
It is now incumbent upon all of us to minimize the impact on the rank and file workers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am just cracking up over this!
We may be in for a long hot summer! I agree that this rhetoric is not helpful in what is going to be a long and protracted period of negotiations between the City and its various unions.
Let’s break this down a bit:
[quote]I find your research flawed as it is glaringly apparent that from the start you already have a preconception as to what the truth is and that it is the one and only correct one. Then, when you conduct your research you only look as far as is necessary to find whatever facts support your position and you go no further. And if you should happen to come across evidence contrary to your position in the process you deliberately ignore it and omit it. [/quote]
DG I hate to say it, but there is some truth here, but in your defense:
a) anyone you has read THomas Kuhn or many others on the nature of scientific investigation recognizes there is always a human bias in any investigation.
b) the Vanguard is a blog and you are paid essentially nothing to do this (far less than the tree trimmers discussed yesterday);
c) so what, my only complaint has been when you had tw standards for bloggers–one for those on your side, another for those against you.
[quote]I also think the over-the-top rhetoric comparing me with Hitler, McCarthy and Samuel Parris, who is the minister involved in the Salem Witch Trials, reflects of level of discourse that is unprofessional.
[/quote]
[quote]I lump you in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, and Bill O’Reilly. You are no more a legitimate purveyor of the truth than is Geraldo Rivera. [/quote]
Hey Chris Mathews isn’t bad though he likes to hear himself talk. Hitler? and even worse Geraldo!
This guy has lost it and the folks at PASEA need to find a new leader.
What concerns me most os that some our local union leaders are lost in their own rhetoric. If DG loses it we just ignore him but union leaders can cause real damage. There will be wage/benefit reductions and we are already facing layoffs. What we don’t need are union leaders so out of touch that they send inappropriate emails that of course will get posted on this blog.
Dr. Wu,
I agree with most of what you say. I would suggest that to extent your complaint is accurate is a reason I have mainly delegated that task to Don Shor (though time constraints have a large part in that too).
The Vanguard is really a government watchdog site, we scrutinize government and report on it. There are time when it is what you would call a blog, other times we do original reporting. People like to dismiss things as being just a blog, that’s fine. But to me you can’t say we are inaccurate without citing them. I’d like to know where we got this wrong and then see if we can correct it. Unfortunately that is not the way things will work.
Excuse me but likening what the Vanguard says to Hitler is completely in poor taste…. if only to point out one thing.
Also I had to laugh at him pointing out one last inaccurate thing towards the end, the ability to misjudge a type of phone from another (at a distance I might add) when quite frankly they are all tiny, black and fairly indecipherable from one another from behind?? Great way to ‘prove something David says as inaccurate’.
David your quote —“He should have drafted this letter and then hit delete”— great. Thanks for posting this!
I consider the Vanguard a blog and there is nothing wrong with that. There are good blogs and bad blogs (and good union leaders and ones who are not…)
Then David you said I was wearing a blue shirt. Wait, never mind.
Dr. Wu, well said. I also consider the Vanguard a blog and nothing more. It to me is certainly not a legitimate media source. Entertaining, laughable, yes! Ego driven ranting! Yes!
Old Skool
Please do not put words in my mouth. One should always be skeptical of any information even from a “legitimate media source” (e.g., Judy Miller’s articles in NYT many years back) but that does not mean that a blog does not have value.
Matt Muller ,
A man who believes in what he stands for , now that is a great man !
David, I suggest you stay away from this tit for tat kind of dialogue. All it says to me is that tensions are rising and I expect people will be more sensitive. Please stay away from comments about personal behavior or appearance during these negotiations and discussions. Personally, I sympathize with Matt and the employees he represents and your posting his letter to you feels wrong to me.
[quote]After careful consideration, I have chosen to publish his email to me in full and without any edits. I will then briefly respond.[/quote]
[quote]In the end, this is extremely poor judgment by him. His anger is clear and even understandable. However, his approach was wholly misguided. He should have drafted this letter and then hit delete.[/quote]
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I’m at a loss as to why you chose to publish this letter. If your opinion is that it was done in a fit of pique, and should never have been published, then why turn around and compound the problem? All this is going to do is ratchet up ill feelings, and make it almost impossible to gain a collaborative atmosphere. How is publishing this letter going to help gain a more fiscally responsible budget, which seems to be your laudable goal? And as Dr. Wu said, there are some kernels of truth in what Muller says despite the over the top rhetoric (such rhetoric is usually the result of extreme anger)…
I would much prefer to tone down the insults/discourse, and start fostering a much more constructive dialogue on the issues. City staff is going through a rough time, and many are deathly afraid they will lose their jobs. I think citizens need to be sensitive to that fact, and forgive a little.
Nevertheless, city staff has to understand it cannot be business as usual; they are going to have to decide if they want to be part of the budget solution or part of the budget problem. The budget ball is now in the court of city staff. The City Council has let city staff know what is expected in terms of budget numbers. How we get there is now up to staff – to what extent they are willing to be cooperative, get creative, make workable/reasonable suggestions.
ERM
My first reaction was similar to yours–why publish the letter.
But I thought about it.
The Vanguard is a blog and hence does trade in gossip, innuendo, personalities, and hopefully some occasional facts thrown in. As such I don’t think its out of bounds to publish this though it will inflame things in the short run.
I hold a union leader to a higher standard (and yes I am a union member). Sending out this type of email, especially to a blogger, shows an immense lack of judgement. Those of you who castigate DG (and I’ve been there), why did someone in a leadership position send such an inflammatory email?
The first rule of all emails is–never put anything in an email you don’t want to see published. That goes double if you send it to your local blogger.
Over the top, no doubt . When people think you’re going after their livelihood, don’t be surprised at the scale of their reaction ! Despite your claims to the contrary, you frequently fail to discriminate between “rank and file” and “management” in your budget related editorials ! While, of late, you have made a clearer distinction, too often you leave readers with the impression that Jill the equipment operator has a 3%@50 retirement and that is the root of all your budget woes. The council and manager will do what is always done: Lay off the last hired rank and file, contract out services to relatives or friends and when the cost of overseeing and mediating the contractors work(or lack thereof)becomes greater than the cost of the employees, HR will be busy testing and hiring replacements and 4 or 5 years will be wasted, and taxpaying, house buying, productive neighbors will have their lives devastated . Perhaps some might find a little forgiveness in their hearts if those whose jobs and lives are on the line over-react with a little noise .
biddlin: While I think I have kept it clear, it is important for me to keep in mind that it may not come across that way to readers. So thank you for that point.
I believe the council is serious about avoiding impacts on rank and file, but we’ll see if it comes down to that.
I recognize that people whose jobs and lives are on the line will be upset by this, they have every right to, however, a president for a bargaining unit needs to show better judgment. If this is the way he reacts to me, how is he going to react in the bargaining room? I wonder.
Sorry but this email to my mind gives us rare insight into what we are dealing with. As such it is quite valuable.
Childish and churlish David, and of no value. I imagine it felt just as good to hit ‘post’ as it did for Muller to hit ‘send’, but neither one of you had the good sense to think first.
[quote]a president for a bargaining unit needs to show better judgment. If this is the way he reacts to me, how is he going to react in the bargaining room?[/quote]
It feels odd to come to David’s defense here, but I think he is right.
The next round of labor negotiations is critical and do you feel better about that future having read the letter above? If you don’t like the Vanguard, ignore it, but the City has to deal with PASEA and other unions.
I am afraid that the biggest threat to our “rank and file” are their union leaders.
Make no mistake about it. The budget will have to come down; labor is by far the largest part of the budget; therefore labor costs will have to be trimmed. The logic is inescapable.
I don’t care what Matt Muller thinks of David Greenwald, but I do care that he clearly seems to be acting inappropriately here. When the Vanguard acts inappropriately they should also be called out (and NOT censored.)
I don’t want this to turn into a circus but I am concerned it will. Labor needs a reality check.
[i]”As such, I lump you in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, and Bill O’Reilly.”[/i]
Ouch… David, that had to hurt.
However, I see this conflict as a good sign. When a lefty hurls Fox News insults at another lefty, we know real progress is being made! =)
However, I am still not sure what the real conflict is. It appears that Matt Muller’s rant is about his standards for research and opinion journalism. Apparently we need his education and work experience before we are qualified to write articles and post opinions. Maybe he can recommend some qualified unionized resources I can outsource my writing to, since, based on his standards I too am unqualified.
[quote]As such I don’t think its out of bounds to publish this though it will inflame things in the short run. [/quote]
So how is it going to help to inflame things?
[quote]I don’t want this to turn into a circus but I am concerned it will.[/quote]
Well it most certainly will now…
[quote]Labor needs a reality check.[/quote]
They got one. Now it is incumbent on all of us to allow the anger at fiscal reality to ramp down, so that positive talks can ensue… Many city staffers had good ideas, and voiced them Tuesday night. But any steps toward a positive result are going to get drowned in negative personalities and mudslinging if this little tiff between kids in a sandbox throwing sand at each other doesn’t stop. I would like to see the Vanguard take the high road here, and be part of the solution, NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM. FANNING FLAMES IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE IMHO…
Just as an aside, if the idea of union leaders is to whip up resentment, why play into union leaders’ hands? If citizens/the Vanguard want a positive outcome, that is not the way to go about things… just my opinion 🙂
[quote]Sorry but this email to my mind gives us rare insight into what we are dealing with. As such it is quite valuable.[/quote]
Enlighten me, bc I would really like to understand your thinking here…
[quote]The next round of labor negotiations is critical and do you feel better about that future having read the letter above? If you don’t like the Vanguard, ignore it, but the City has to deal with PASEA and other unions. [/quote]
With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, how does having disseminated this letter HELP the city in its labor negotiations?
I find it a bit tacky to publish correspondence that was clearly meant to be private. If Muller had meant to publish a public statement, he would have posted it on the blog.
DG: [i]”He should have drafted this letter and then hit delete”[/i]
Exactly the response I get every time I send someone an email.
HPierce: [i]”I have BCC’d several different parties in case you should attempt to take any of my comments out of context or misrepresent them in any way in your blog.”[/i]
I think it was clear before Matt Muller hit ‘sent’ that he expected his words to appear on the Vanguard. Given that, I think the fairest thing David Greenwald could do was to publish the entire letter and to not cherrypick parts of it.
ERM: [i]”With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I’m at a loss as to why you chose to publish this letter. If your opinion is that it was done in a fit of pique, and should never have been published, then why turn around and compound the problem?”[/i]
You seem to be presuming that Mr. Muller did not want his views known. The fact that he sent copies to many other people suggests he stands by his opinions and that he never expected Mr. Greenwald to suppress them.
BIDDLIN: [i]”When people think you’re going after their livelihood, don’t be surprised at the scale of their reaction!”[/i]
This comment exposes an interesting dichotomy with regard to the City’s budget for labor costs: on the one hand we have the workers and their reps, who are also workers who have their entire livelihood on the line; on the other hand we have concerned citizens and a few reporters for whom this sort of discussion is of great interest, but far from the most important question in their own personal lives.
So, as Biddlin says, from the former group you are apt to get some raw emotion and some heated rhetoric and very hurt feelings; on the other end you get people who are trying to solve a problem rationally but are getting attacked with a lot of personal attacks from people they never meant to offend.
BIDDLIN: [/i]”Despite your claims to the contrary, you frequently fail to discriminate between ‘rank and file’ and ‘management’ in your budget related editorials!”[/i]
Speaking for myself, I don’t think there is any good evidence that our troubles with overly generous total compensation packages is limited to those who fall under the management title. Our cost problem goes from the bottom to the top, when you consider how much we are paying in medical costs, cafeteria cashouts, other cashouts, employer pension costs, early retirement costs, retireee medical costs, excessive vacation and holiday costs, union bank hours costs, overstaffing costs, management leave costs, the costs of other benefits (from Long-Term Disability to life insurance) and ever rising salaries, which today inflated by 3% for most low-end city workers.
I have never met Matt Muller and I’m not defending everything he wrote, but I think you owe him an apology for publishing his private e-mail to you. In this e-mail, he shared things with you that I’m sure he didn’t want the world to read, like his extreme anxiety of public speaking and his health issues which made it difficult for him to stay seated.
If I decide to phone you today to express displeasure about how you are covering a story, do I have to worry about you taping the phone conversation and posting the audio on the Vanguard too? Is there no such thing as private correspondence? Is there nothing that is “off the record”?
If Matt Muller wants something posted on the Vanguard, then he can post it there himself. Instead, you hit the “add comment” button for him.
“F.Y.I. I have BCC’d several different parties in case you should attempt to take any of my comments out of context or misrepresent them in any way in your blog. No offense, but with your track record I think you’ll understand my taking the precaution.”
It appears he challenging David to publish his letter. Publishing the entire letter was the right thing to do. There are no out of context or misrepresented comments this way.
Here’s full video of Muller’s speech at the meeting: http://patch.com/A-jPYD
Musser
I have been in this man’s shoes. it is tempting at times to fire off fire-breathing emails to some of my political opponents. I agree with elaine this guy wrote the email in the heat of the moment, and when it is the heat of the moment that is the worst time to mail – lol!
anywho, we are obviously dealing with tough times, everyone nervous about paycuts and pink slips, so tensions are high.
I will say, that publishing this letter was probably not constructive, as it was clearly intended to stay private, and serves little purpose other than to provoke an ongoing fistfight between the vanguard and Mr. Muller.
at the end of the day, the overriding issue is still the same, the budget. I’m glad rich rifkin’s first column on the employee salaries came out awhile ago, and brought attention to this issue. I agree with the vanguard, that the city needs to hold fast, and deal with the problem, because if they don’t do it themselves, it will be done for them at a later time.
When Don Saylor demanded civility you pounded him. Now when you do the same you get pounded and rightfully so I might add. I think this guy is right people hang out outside the door and talk or leave after their item or get rowdy. If you agreed with them you wouldn’t complain, Democracy is messy and we should accept that even when its in opposition to our views. You are supporting the city putting their hand into the pockets of these workers you are lucky they behave as well as they do.
I really don’t have any emotional investment in any of this, so indulge my attempt at summary comments.
Everybody reading this exchange has an ego. That’s not a bad thing, and certainly not worthy of an accusation;
The climatic conditions in the Council Chambers was adequately described in the original post and subsequent responses by readers. Besides, the vast majority of the exulted “rank and file” are fully accustomed to working in adverse climatic conditions. Is seems reasonable to assume they could endure lesser conditions in the Council Chambers;
Naughty behavior by any parties to this dispute ultimately has no bearing on the merits of either side’s position;
In any contentious dispute nothing said or written is privileged if the other side knows of it and exposing it works to their perceived advantage;
Finally, in any controversial dispute with economic consequences never pass the opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
Dear Mr. Greenwald-
Your article was insensitive to morbidly obese Americans who have an inability to control their thoughts and actions. When will the persecution stop?
FABWPU
Fatasses Against Bloggers Who Persecute Us
[i]”You seem to be presuming that Mr. Muller did not want his views known. The fact that he sent copies to many other people suggests he stands by his opinions and that he never expected Mr. Greenwald to suppress them.”[/i]
I am guessing that on day one he wanted the world to read his fine work. Day two was the beginning of buyers remorse.
However, that is just a guess.
Hi Matt,
The best way to correct what you perceive as factual errors or faulty analysis is to simply register on this site and post about it. Personally I prefer that people use their own names, but you can use a pseudonym if you prefer. Your comments about the temperature in the foyer, for example, give a good perspective to David’s original reporting. There are lots of regular participants here all across the political spectrum. Many of us disagree with David on some topics; some of the regulars are at polar opposites from his generally liberal views.
I have learned a lot from the other blog participants here, and conversations here have caused me to do my own research and find out more about topics. It is a moderated forum: we attempt to keep it civil and as on-topic as possible.
In short: I urge you to participate. Your voice will be very important as the city goes forward on the budget process.
[quote]I have never met Matt Muller and I’m not defending everything he wrote, but I think you owe him an apology for publishing his private e-mail to you. In this e-mail, he shared things with you that I’m sure he didn’t want the world to read, like his extreme anxiety of public speaking and his health issues which made it difficult for him to stay seated. [/quote]
Matt says this at the end of his email: [quote]F.Y.I. I have BCC’d several different parties in case you should attempt to take any of my comments out of context or misrepresent them in any way in your blog. No offense, but with your track record I think you’ll understand my taking the precaution.[/quote]
Definition of BCC: BCC refers to the practice of sending a message to multiple recipients in such a way that conceals the fact that there may be additional addressees from the complete list of recipients
This email was in no way private. Matt could have(probably did) sent this email to other blogs or media outlets.
In my opinion, by BCCing this email to undisclosed persons-the email became fair game.
For those who believe this is a private email, I will point you towards one critical indicator, he prefaces the email with: “First, I would like to preface this with the fact that I am in no way speaking on behalf of any of the city employees, nor PASEA. I am speaking strictly on my own behalf.”
What doesn’t he do there or anywhere else? He never says this is off the record. That makes it fair game as far as I am concerned. If you call me up, as one individual asked, and you have a conversation with me is that on or off the record? Generally I ask a person if it is on or off the record, but most reporters consider everything on the record unless otherwise specified and granted.
I have been quoted by reporters for comments “off the record.” is that fair–no.
Is it fair to publish a “private” email. My attorneys tell me there is no “expectation of privacy” there. Legally, its fair game. Ethically, people can disagree, but anyone with any political instincts (as a union leader should have) knows it could appear in public.
My common sense tells me that anyone who sends that type of email to a blogger and expects it to be private should not be negotiating on behalf of city workers
“While it is likely true that Mr. Muller is speaking for himself here and is not authorized to speak on behalf of his employees’ association, his statement sent to a media entity certainly reflects on both the entire membership of PASEA and the City of Davis.”
Why not take him at his word that this is one person’s opinion as he states in the letter? Why does it reflect on the membership or the City when it includes a disclaimer?
Because Mr. Toad, when you act foolishly and you are in a position of authority, it reflects poorly on those you represent, whether you are acting officially on their behalf or not.
I agree that publishing the e-mail is legally “fair game.” To me, it’s not a question of whether it can be published, but whether it should have been published. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and I think that’s a lesson for both Matt Muller and David Greenwald in this instance.
[b]”Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour …”[/b]
This is the better part of velour:
[img]http://www.blujay.com/1/126/1867992_s1_i1.jpg[/img]
This, on the other hand, is a waste of velour:
[img]http://www.dukeandfritz.com/images/pet_clothes_velour_jogging_suit_sm.JPG[/img]
It is heartening to see mostly thoughtful comments . These are terrible times for many employees, public and private, who see their labor devalued and their jobs more at risk every day !
“He never says this is off the record. That makes it fair game as far as I am concerned. If you call me up, as one individual asked, and you have a conversation with me is that on or off the record?”
that is not the issue, nor is the Vanguard’s and Mr. Muller’s tit for tat. the issue is the budget and how to deal with it.
I agree with the vanguard that Muller did not handle this well. but if you put yourself in his shoes, he is looking at his own job on the line or salary, and I can understand that in a desperate situation like this, I think he can be somewhat forgiven.
ultimately he is the one the city needs to come to the table and make concessions. it doesn’t help to keep up a fight with him, if the city wants him to be agreeable. the city needs to focus on the budget, and get as many cooperative people together to reach a compromise without bloodletting.
David…. I believe that it was not a good decision to print this letter in the Vanguard What we have here appears to be a personal letter by someone who is very angry and frustrated. How he comports himself publicly in his role as leader of the union should be the measure of whether it is “newsworthy”. I hope that he, when next considering sending such an email,will put it in the “draft” file overnight and re-reads it in the morning; hopefully by then, his blood has cooled.
To Rifkin (from a previous topic): [quote]Rifkin
06/30/11 – 11:57 AM
…
HPierce: are you Matt Muller? [/quote]
No.
You’ve got to be kidding. David, I’m glad you printed the letter so that PASEA membership can see and read what they have in “leadership” from Matt Muller. Now……you make the call.
I have to say I really do see this as low brow tit for tat. Mr. Muller may have gotten sucked into the “personal” side of things, but the reality of being an elected union leader is that you find yourself there by virtue of your willingness to do the job. I doubt Mr. Muller got a degree in “union leader”. Mr. Muller was elected by his peers. His peers know him by his day to day reputation in the workplace. He is under an incredible amount of pressure to deliver for his members under very adverse circumstances and it is just possible that he is not handling the insensitive sniping very well. Hmmm…guess none is perfect. His peers will decide if they trust him in the next election. City workers are just like anyone else, so the fact is, nobody on this blog has any right to judge him unless they know him personally or work with him.
I would only suggest he not post here under any circumstances because it is a no win situation. He needs to (1) spend his time staying in touch with his members, (2) understanding the city’s position so that he can reach a deal that is fair and reasonable and (3) work on growing a thicker skin.
[quote]I agree that publishing the e-mail is legally “fair game.” To me, it’s not a question of whether it can be published, but whether it should have been published. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and I think that’s a lesson for both Matt Muller and David Greenwald in this instance.[/quote]
Nicely said!
[quote]ultimately he is the one the city needs to come to the table and make concessions. it doesn’t help to keep up a fight with him, if the city wants him to be agreeable. the city needs to focus on the budget, and get as many cooperative people together to reach a compromise without bloodletting. [/quote]
Excellent point, and the heart of the issue…
David, in my opinion you were right in releasing the email from Mr. Muller. He expected you to do so anyway either in part or in full as he stated that he had copied others on the letter should you publish it.
By revealing the letter this really works to the community’s benefit as we can now read for ourselves the true sediments of Mr. Muller who in spite of his disclaimer (that he was only speaking for himself) is a union president. In his email he spoke about the very subjects that he is representing his members on: the city budget, their work as employees, their labor contracts and their conduct at city council meetings. Mr. Muller does not factually dispute your claims or writings with any evidence. Instead he attacks you personally and insults you with out of control language and ridiculous comparisons which reflect very poorly on him and his members.
The public exposure of his rant may give Mr. Muller needed pause and in the future cause him to be more reasonable when he speaks to the media, in public settings such as city council meetings and in his labor negotiations with the City.
I say this because in large part due to the Vanguard’s reporting on the city council meeting of June 22 concerning the Davis City budget and city employee conduct that night the employees and union leaders changed their behavior at the next meeting. On June 22 much of their conduct was disruptive, hostile and rude resulting in their behavior being criticized heavily on the Vanguard blog and in the community as a whole. I believe this caused them at the next city council meeting to act like grown ups. At the June 28 city council meeting city employees and their union leaders conducted themselves with proper decorum and respect. The tenor of union member’s rhetoric and behavior greatly improved at that meeting. Gone were the signs and speeches stating “Welcome to Wisconsin” which was an absurd comparison. Gone was the obnoxious, loud and rude behavior shown by many union members and some of their leaders the week before. Gone was the hostile rhetoric. Instead the employees and their representatives offered to work constructively and in cooperation with the city council and management to truly balance future budgets, live within our means and save city jobs and pensions.
So keep up the good work by working hard by keeping the community informed. Our city government is better because of the work of the Davis Vanguard.
[i]Rifkin: “I think it was clear before Matt Muller hit ‘sent’ that he expected his words to appear on the Vanguard. Given that, I think the fairest thing David Greenwald could do was to publish the entire letter and to not cherrypick parts of it.”
ERM: “With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I’m at a loss as to why you chose to publish this letter. If your opinion is that it was done in a fit of pique, and should never have been published, then why turn around and compound the problem?”
Rifkin: “You seem to be presuming that Mr. Muller did not want his views known. The fact that he sent copies to many other people suggests he stands by his opinions and that he never expected Mr. Greenwald to suppress them.”[/i]
Elaine, I agree with Rich. When I read the e-mail it is close to 100% clear to me that Mr. Muller wanted the e-mail published. In fact, he did his own mini publishing job through the bcc: route. In effect he dared David to publish it, and David obliged him.
H. Seldon: [i]”I agree that publishing the e-mail is legally “fair game.” To me, it’s not a question of whether it can be published, but whether it should have been published. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, and I think that’s a lesson for both Matt Muller and David Greenwald in this instance.”[/i]
Your comment confuses me. I understand the lesson for Matt Muller. What exactly is the lesson for David Greenwald?
Jeff Boone: [i]”I am guessing that on day one he wanted the world to read his fine work. Day two was the beginning of buyers remorse.
However, that is just a guess. “[/i]
Well said Jeff. Not only that, but he opted out of any warranty protection.
[quote]Your comment confuses me. I understand the lesson for Matt Muller. What exactly is the lesson for David Greenwald?[/quote]
Not to stoop to the level of someone who acts rashly and without forethought out of anger. It is as if rubbing ones nose in their own pooh, to put it bluntly. To what purpose? I don’t think I received any more information than I already knew, through the publication of Muller’s letter…
And to add one point – publishing the letter may have poisoned the “bargaining” well…
[quote]Elaine Roberts Musser: Not to stoop to the level of someone who acts rashly and without forethought out of anger. It is as if rubbing ones nose in their own pooh, to put it bluntly. To what purpose? I don’t think I received any more information than I already knew, through the publication of Muller’s letter…
And to add one point – publishing the letter may have poisoned the “bargaining” well… [/quote]
Elaine, you are off base – the only poisoning of the bargaining well was being done by Matt Muller and other labor leaders which the Vanguard has revealed. Now exposed they may think better of continuing down that path in the future. You ask “to what purpose?” The answer is simple: to hold Mr. Muller accountable for his words and deeds. Mr. Muller’s email needed to be exposed to reveal to the general public what labor leaders such as Mr. Muller are thinking and how they are conducting themselves towards those who disagree with them. By revealing the content of the email pressure will mount on Mr. Muller and other labor leaders to refrain from ad hominem attacks and conduct themselves professionally. Failure to change their behavior will only weaken their negotiating position, not strengthen it.
Exposing this labor leader’s extremist rhetoric, personal attacks and tactics of intimidation will put him, other labor leaders and city employees on notice that they risk losing the good will of the general voting community. Hopefully this exposure will cause city employees and their leaders to rethink any strategy of demonizing council members and members of the public who are working hard to balance the budget, fully fund pensions, deliver city services, if possible save city jobs and repair the damage done by prior city councils who have “kicked the can [fiscal responsibility] down the road” year after year.
The Vanguard and David specifically are to be commended for educating the public on the budget process and the history of how we got into the mess we are in.
[quote]Elaine, you are off base – the only poisoning of the bargaining well was being done by Matt Muller and other labor leaders which the Vanguard has revealed. Now exposed they may think better of continuing down that path in the future.[/quote]
I suspect it is more likely to harden their position. Think about it. If you get angry and fly of the handle, and someone rubs your nose in it – are you less likely or more likely to become cooperative? I would argue it only makes you more intransigent – you feel “disrespected”.
[quote]By revealing the content of the email pressure will mount on Mr. Muller and other labor leaders to refrain from ad hominem attacks and conduct themselves professionally. [/quote]
Or it just hardens their position away from the glare of the lights…
[quote]Hopefully this exposure will cause city employees and their leaders to rethink any strategy of demonizing council members and members of the public who are working hard to balance the budget, fully fund pensions, deliver city services, if possible save city jobs and repair the damage done by prior city councils who have “kicked the can [fiscal responsibility] down the road” year after year. [/quote]
That will only happen if you give city staff time to digest the fiscal reality; allow them to calm down and face the situation squarely; and develop a collaborative relationship with the CC to work this out. How can it be worked out if the Vanguard continues to villify union leaders who represent city employees, who will argue they and city employees are being “disrespected”?
[quote]The Vanguard and David specifically are to be commended for educating the public on the budget process and the history of how we got into the mess we are in. [/quote]
The Vanguard can do that w/o stooping to personal attacks itself… there is more than one way to achieve what you want… what is the goal here, sensationalism or to facilitate a balanced budget?
[quote][i]CC: Elaine, you are off base – the only poisoning of the bargaining well was being done by Matt Muller and other labor leaders which the Vanguard has revealed. Now exposed they may think better of continuing down that path in the future.[/i]
Elaine Roberts Mussser: I suspect it is more likely to harden their position. Think about it. If you get angry and fly of the handle, and someone rubs your nose in it – are you less likely or more likely to become cooperative? I would argue it only makes you more intransigent – you feel “disrespected”. [/quote]
Or you learn from your mistake and you in turn become more reasonable. Elaine there seems to be a disconnect to your logic as the only person who showed disrespect in this email exchange was Matt Muller. In your view holding a person or persons accountable for their own public words and deeds is “disrespecting” them, which is bizarre to say the least. I believe the public airing of his email will cause Mr. Muller and his colleagues to pause and rethink their tactics which clearly backfired. Should Mr. Muller become “intransigent” as you suggest, this too would backfire. Notwithstanding Mr. Muller’s outburst, I think he and his union colleagues are much too smart to go that route and I have faith they can correct their behaviors.
[quote][i]CC: By revealing the content of the email pressure will mount on Mr. Muller and other labor leaders to refrain from ad hominem attacks and conduct themselves professionally.[/i]
Elaine Roberts Mussser: Or it just hardens their position away from the glare of the lights… [/quote]
Whether in public or private Mr. Muller and the employees he represents must be seen as reasonable to have a positive affect on their negotiations with the City. The stakes are too high and the consequences for being “intransigent” or stuck in a “hardening [of] their position” will only lessen their chances for a fair and successful outcome. To do otherwise would be foolish and I don’t think Mr. Muller and his membership are foolish.
[quote][i]CC: Hopefully this exposure will cause city employees and their leaders to rethink any strategy of demonizing council members and members of the public who are working hard to balance the budget, fully fund pensions, deliver city services, if possible save city jobs and repair the damage done by prior city councils who have “kicked the can [fiscal responsibility] down the road” year after year.[/i]
Elaine Roberts Mussser: That will only happen if you give city staff time to digest the fiscal reality; allow them to calm down and face the situation squarely; and develop a collaborative relationship with the CC to work this out. How can it be worked out if the Vanguard continues to villify union leaders who represent city employees, who will argue they and city employees are being “disrespected”?[/quote]
The Vanguard is not “vilifying” union leaders as you suggest. Please give the readers any examples of “vilifying” union leaders by the Vanguard. To criticize is not the same as to vilify. In fact the Vanguard has been pro-union/pro-worker with the exception of rightfully criticizing one union (the firefighters) as well as city management and previous city councils whose actions for the past 8 years have engineered the current fiscal mess which is causing hardship on the other rank and file workers.
Again the charge you make that the Vanguard is vilifying union leaders and disrespecting union leaders or city employees is a false one.
[quote][i]CC: The Vanguard and David specifically are to be commended for educating the public on the budget process and the history of how we got into the mess we are in.[/i]
Elaine Roberts Mussser: The Vanguard can do that w/o stooping to personal attacks itself… there is more than one way to achieve what you want… what is the goal here, sensationalism or to facilitate a balanced budget?[/quote]
Please give the readers any examples where the Vanguard or David Greenwald have made “personal attacks” on unions, their leaders or city employees in general.