The Davis Enterprise is reporting today that an individual who has asked to remain anonymous filed a complaint with the Yolo County Grand Jury to investigate the campaign mailer sent in early May, attacking Sue Greenwald for what they called “bad behavior.”
According to the Enterprise piece, “The complainant said he wants to make sure the truth about those involved is revealed.”
“I think that (Sue Greenwald) deserves to have her situation vetted officially,” he said. “And if (Stephen Souza) is clean, he also deserves to have his name cleared.
“I accept in advance that nothing may come of this but as a common citizen, this is my only resort to help bring to light what is a very unfortunate thing. If we don’t take care of this, it’s going to spread and poison our whole political process here.”
As we noted earlier this week, we probably know all we are going to know about the Independent Expenditure.
The final campaign filing by the committee revealed that James Burchill was indeed involved. There were three principal consultants that are listed. There is a $3500 payment to NEKJ Inc on Picasso Ave. We know from the PO Box return address on the mailer that this is the consulting company owned by James Burchill.
A $1500 payment for consulting to Carl Schultz, a Sacramento-based Marketing and Communications Manager, was listed along with other ones for $775, $375, and $1620.
And, amazingly enough, there is a $67.50 and also an $82.50 payment to Jon Li for consulting.
Sue Greenwald immediately focused her attention on James Burchill and later, the Vanguard learned Jon Li was involved at least in the planning of the Independent Expenditure campaign. Frankly, even after talking with Mr. Li, full details of his involvement remain sketchy.
In an email forwarded by an individual who was not involved in the IE, Mr. Li writes: “The Mother’s Day IE is going to be so much fun that I am going to probably go to council to see just how much Sue likes Stephen.”
He adds, “And my fingerprints are ALL OVER IT.”
Sue Greenwald related, “A number of months ago, Jim Burchill of James Burchill & Associates approached me and told me that he was representing a building trades union, and that they really wanted the surface water project. He told me that the union was going to spend serious PAC money in our city election, and that I could be the beneficiary if I supported the project.”
She added, “I interpreted this as a threat as well as a bribe, i.e., that if I didn’t support the project, they were going to engage in serious Karl Rove style attacks.”
“I tried to explain to Jim that my job was to represent the best interests of citizens of Davis, and that although I was extremely sympathetic to the union members’ desire for jobs, our combined wastewater, surface water project costs, water rights purchase and related new infrastructure was still around $300 million, which was very high for a city of our size, and that I felt obligated to pursue less expensive approaches,” she said.
The Vanguard was unsuccessful reaching Mr. Burchill, who appeared to duck our call and all other media inquiries.
According to the Enterprise, the complaint filed specifically asks the grand jury to investigate three specific acts:
- The alleged bribe that was made by Burchill to Greenwald and the subsequent threat of blackmail should she not acquiesce to his request;
- Whether other Woodland or Davis City Council members, candidates running for City Council, Davis Water Advisory Committee members, Davis or Woodland city staff or water agency staff received money or other forms of compensation from Burchill and/ or the groups he works for; and
- Potential criminal acts, or serious breaches of business or professional ethics, or violation of election law.
In our view this is going virtually nowhere. The only actionable portion of the complaint is the alleged bribe – but since it was a private conversation between Mr. Burchill and Ms. Greenwald – it is difficult to imagine there would be any evidence to move forward with even investigating it.
The rest of this is largely a political matter. There was nothing illegal about the ad itself. It would appear that the amount of the contributions by the three unions would violate city law, but it also appears that Citizens United largely nullifies the municipal code here, although we never got the city to go on the record on that point.
And there is no violation of election law or criminal acts here.
Last week, Michael Bartolic wrote in an Op-Ed printed on the Vanguard, “No candidate should have to endure the stress and pain I saw on Greenwald’s face. And my friend Stephen Souza deserves to be fully, officially and unambiguously cleared of any complicity in this sordid affair. These are compelling reasons not to let this matter drop.”
He added: “But above all, staying silent isn’t an option because, to quote Martin Luther King Jr., “One who condones evil is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it.””
So he said he could not stay silent, arguing, “Pretending this is a quirk, an aberration, sweeping it under the rug, dismissing it as a joke are the fatal means to ensure it won’t be an aberration, but rather, like bad money driving out good, only make such criminal behavior the norm.”
“Instead, I call – here and now – for the Yolo County Grand Jury to open a formal inquiry into the entirety of this affair, and demand that the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office prosecute each and every criminal involved in perpetrating it,” he wrote.
Did he follow up his words with action or did someone take his heed? It does not really matter.
Frankly, even if the Grand Jury were to investigate, we would not know or learn of it until June 2013 – long after the fact and long after anything could have been done about it.
To a large extent this is simply politics at its core. We are actually quite fortunate it is not worse than this here – given how contentious things can be.
One reason for that is that the voters here are not inclined believe attacks ads or award them. This election cycle has had two attack ads blow up in the face of those who launched them.
Our job as part of the independent media is to investigate to the fullest extent we can. We are satisfied that the public knows all they can about this and it is time to put this rest.
Some believe there is a mass conspiracy here. Personally, I ascribe the maxim that we ought not ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity.
In this case, that simply means that the holes and inconsistencies are probably due more to deficiencies in the planning of the mailer rather than evidence of some broader conspiracy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, I think you’ve lost sight of the context. At the heart of the matter is a $300 million project, plus or minus a few million dollars, involving 2 municipalities. If Sue Greenwald stands by her comments, this is an extremely serious matter, i.e. attempted bribery of a public official pertaining to a massive public works project. How many bribery attempts were made? How many public officials involved? Were any of the attempts successful? Why did Sue not report the attempt to the authorities or are such bribery attempts so commonplace that they’re not worth reporting? Is there a whole level of hidden public corruption in our little community that the citizens are completely unaware of?
Investigative journalist that you are, I’m exceedingly surprised that you are not eager to dig into this story.
-Michael Bisch
I spent two weeks digging this story. I’m just convinced at this point that it’s as simple as a group of people trying to take out a candidate they don’t like and who is not supporting their policies. I don’t agree with such tactics, but I don’t think there is some vast conspiracy at the end of rainbow.
I was not referring to the mailer, I was referring to the bribery attempt last fall.
-Michael Bisch
There were two people in the room. Sue has spoken. Burchill won’t return my calls.
I think it is safe to say contrary to what others have claimed, dirty politics is just as prevalent in davis as it is anywhere else.
“If Sue Greenwald stands by her comments, …”
A mighty span it would be .
“Investigative journalist that you are, I’m exceedingly surprised that you are not eager to dig into this story. “
Perhaps because he fears or even knows, what may therein lie . Apparently, though we know David has no favourites in this race, since he so often reminds us, Progressives across the board feel threatened enough to forgive Sue all sins . What if this splashed up more odoriferous encrustations on her skirt ?
biddin: IMO he’s worried about the past connections between his good friend Bill Ritter (a Brett Lee campaign advisor and self-proclaimed campaign manager until Dick Livingston muzzled him) and Jim Burchill. Sue is the last person on his mind.
PSDAVIS: Perhaps after the election we could have coffee or something.
Biddlin
“Perhaps because he fears or even knows, what may therein lie . Apparently, though we know David has no favourites in this race, since he so often reminds us, Progressives across the board feel threatened enough to forgive Sue all sins . What if this splashed up more odoriferous encrustations on her skirt ?”
I am truly impressed. In one short paragraph you have managed to disparage David, Sue, and “progressives across the board” whomever they may be, without making a single substantive statement. Would you like to elaborate enough so that those of us who apparently are not closely enough affiliated with any conspiratorial group have the vaguest idea what you are talking about ?
I am truly mystified at the phobic depth of fear of growth in Davis . Sue has been the most visible force in opposition to growth . Despite her “behavioral issues” and her public verbal exhibitions of contempt for anyone who challenges her positions, she has built a solid base of no-growth supporters and even after her most recent antics, will be reelected . I can only assume that indicates the progressives will tolerate the gridlock on water and downtown redevelopment and her seemingly incorrigible behavior at the dais in exchange for her continually evolving visions for a “Fun and Funky” downtown and her opposition to development . But hey, what do I know ? I’m voting for a mayoral candidate who can’t shoot a free throw and doesn’t wear a western outfit .
I am truly mystified at the phobic depth of fear of growth in Davis . Sue has been the most visible force in opposition to growth . Despite her “behavioral issues” and her public verbal exhibitions of contempt for anyone who challenges her positions, she has built a solid base of no-growth supporters and even after her most recent antics, will be reelected . I can only assume that indicates the progressives will tolerate the gridlock on water and downtown redevelopment and her seemingly incorrigible behavior at the dais in exchange for her continually evolving visions for a “Fun and Funky” downtown and her opposition to development . But hey, what do I know ? I’m voting for a mayoral candidate who can’t shoot a free throw and doesn’t wear a western outfit .
biddlin
Once again, I am puzzled at the characterization of the “phobic” fear of growth attributed to the progressives.
When I first arrived in Davis in 1979, the population was roughly 20,000. I believe that it is now approximately 60-65,000 give or take a few. To me, this certainly does not represent an absence of growth. During the time I have been here, the majority of housing development that I have seen has been in large and rather expensive single family homes ( car dependent bedroom communities) that to me are a throwback to a demonstrably non sustainable past in both economic and environmental terms.
What I would like to see from the “pro growthers” is the following:
1) What is the ideal population that you would like to see for the city of Davis ?
2) Why do you favor this number in terms of anticipated revenues and expenditures for the city ?
3) What would you see as the best population mix and why ?
4) How would you mitigate the environmental impacts in terms of crowding, transportation, safety….etc.
Why do I want to see this from the pro growth group and am not making the same request for information from the slow or no growthers ? Because it is the pro growth group that is making the positive assertion that we need change. I feel that the proof should rest with those who are asserting the need for change.
I will fully agree that Davis needs more affordable housing. I would like anyone to demonstrate for me how yet another relatively high priced, auto dependent community is in the best interest of the majority of the city of Davis. If more of this kind of development can be demonstrated objectively to be beneficial to the city as a whole, I would certainly reconsider. Otherwise, it appears to me to be solely a matter of personal preference
and I see no need for either side to belittle the position of those whose views are different.
biddlin
Once again, I am puzzled at the characterization of the “phobic” fear of growth attributed to the progressives.
When I first arrived in Davis in 1979, the population was roughly 20,000. I believe that it is now approximately 60-65,000 give or take a few. To me, this certainly does not represent an absence of growth. During the time I have been here, the majority of housing development that I have seen has been in large and rather expensive single family homes ( car dependent bedroom communities) that to me are a throwback to a demonstrably non sustainable past in both economic and environmental terms.
What I would like to see from the “pro growthers” is the following:
1) What is the ideal population that you would like to see for the city of Davis ?
2) Why do you favor this number in terms of anticipated revenues and expenditures for the city ?
3) What would you see as the best population mix and why ?
4) How would you mitigate the environmental impacts in terms of crowding, transportation, safety….etc.
Why do I want to see this from the pro growth group and am not making the same request for information from the slow or no growthers ? Because it is the pro growth group that is making the positive assertion that we need change. I feel that the proof should rest with those who are asserting the need for change.
I will fully agree that Davis needs more affordable housing. I would like anyone to demonstrate for me how yet another relatively high priced, auto dependent community is in the best interest of the majority of the city of Davis. If more of this kind of development can be demonstrated objectively to be beneficial to the city as a whole, I would certainly reconsider. Otherwise, it appears to me to be solely a matter of personal preference
and I see no need for either side to belittle the position of those whose views are different.
It seems to me the mailer, stupid as it was, is free speech.
I think Mike Bisch makes a good point about investigating ‘a bribery attempt.’ However, as David Greenwald correctly notes, if it was a conversation between two people, and one denies it, then it dies right there.
I should add that a current member of the Davis City Council (not Sue) told me a story about a union official who gave the now member of the Council, but then just a candidate, a loud “this is the way it is” speech, and that union official (who is a City of Davis employee) said (paraphrasing) “if you don’t go along with what we want, we will destroy you. We will spend what it takes to make you lose. So it’s your choice: stand with us, or suffer the consequences.” As the member of the Council tells the story, his or her immediate response to the union official’s harangue was (paraphrasing) “F*ck off!”
It seems to me the mailer, stupid as it was, is free speech.
I think Mike Bisch makes a good point about investigating ‘a bribery attempt.’ However, as David Greenwald correctly notes, if it was a conversation between two people, and one denies it, then it dies right there.
I should add that a current member of the Davis City Council (not Sue) told me a story about a union official who gave the now member of the Council, but then just a candidate, a loud “this is the way it is” speech, and that union official (who is a City of Davis employee) said (paraphrasing) “if you don’t go along with what we want, we will destroy you. We will spend what it takes to make you lose. So it’s your choice: stand with us, or suffer the consequences.” As the member of the Council tells the story, his or her immediate response to the union official’s harangue was (paraphrasing) “F*ck off!”
By the way–without naming names–David Greenwald can probably confirm that story from the member of the Council, as David was with us the afternoon that story was told.
By the way–without naming names–David Greenwald can probably confirm that story from the member of the Council, as David was with us the afternoon that story was told.
I can confirm that. I’ll raise the ante – that is not the only one with a similar story.
I can confirm that. I’ll raise the ante – that is not the only one with a similar story.
“When I first arrived in Davis in 1979, the population was roughly 20,000.” medwoman
1970 23,469
[b]1980 36,640[/b]
1990 47,090
2000 60,308
2010 65,622
“When I first arrived in Davis in 1979, the population was roughly 20,000.” medwoman
1970 23,469
[b]1980 36,640[/b]
1990 47,090
2000 60,308
2010 65,622
Memo to Jon Li: Your best play now is full public disclosure.
Memo to Jon Li: Your best play now is full public disclosure.
I have the 1978 estimated census number for the population of Davis: 35,900 residents.
I have the 1978 estimated census number for the population of Davis: 35,900 residents.
In case anyone cares, Davis hardly grew at all from its founding in 1868 to 1908 (when the university opened). In 1908, the estimated population figure I have is 882 residents.
I recall John Lofland once saying that the problem for growth in Davis in the late 19th Century was that a new rail line going north (roughly along the I-505 stretch from Vacaville to Winters to Dunnigan) bypassed Davis. And since most of the freight trains travelling out of the Bay Area took this route, the total traffic in Davis fell starting in the 1870s.
From 1908 to 1938, with the growth of the university, the population of Davis doubled. However, in raw numbers, that doubling did not account for much growth at all. In 1938, the town’s population was still just 1,586 people.
What really caused Davis to boom was the post-World War 2 explosion in the college student population, made possible in part by the GI Bill and much more made necessary by the growth in technology, which created new jobs where a college education was needed.
Even though 1959 is the year UC Davis became a general campus, that status change did not accelerate the growth of Davis. Our town’s population grew steadily in the years before and after that, and (despite a slow down in the 1980s) kept on growing until Measure J became operative in the early 2000s. For the last 8 or so years, we have held steady at around 65,000 people.
In case anyone cares, Davis hardly grew at all from its founding in 1868 to 1908 (when the university opened). In 1908, the estimated population figure I have is 882 residents.
I recall John Lofland once saying that the problem for growth in Davis in the late 19th Century was that a new rail line going north (roughly along the I-505 stretch from Vacaville to Winters to Dunnigan) bypassed Davis. And since most of the freight trains travelling out of the Bay Area took this route, the total traffic in Davis fell starting in the 1870s.
From 1908 to 1938, with the growth of the university, the population of Davis doubled. However, in raw numbers, that doubling did not account for much growth at all. In 1938, the town’s population was still just 1,586 people.
What really caused Davis to boom was the post-World War 2 explosion in the college student population, made possible in part by the GI Bill and much more made necessary by the growth in technology, which created new jobs where a college education was needed.
Even though 1959 is the year UC Davis became a general campus, that status change did not accelerate the growth of Davis. Our town’s population grew steadily in the years before and after that, and (despite a slow down in the 1980s) kept on growing until Measure J became operative in the early 2000s. For the last 8 or so years, we have held steady at around 65,000 people.
psdavis, thanks for the info. And that is why many people want SLOW growth, which is what Sue represents, SLOW well planned growth. How much more than about 1000 more people every year (see numbers and take a rough average) do “pro growth” people think we should have?
Ah, but this was an article about a grand jury investigation, we digress.
psdavis, thanks for the info. And that is why many people want SLOW growth, which is what Sue represents, SLOW well planned growth. How much more than about 1000 more people every year (see numbers and take a rough average) do “pro growth” people think we should have?
Ah, but this was an article about a grand jury investigation, we digress.
If you do not see the need for change, then your position is quite reasonable . I concur on the lack of “affordable housing.” I would guess many of the non-developer pro-growthers are folks who rent but can’t afford to buy where they work . Others, like my wife and I found the lack of accessibility for disabled folks and seniors made Davis undesirable . Many of my consignment sales clients in Davis are older adults, wanting to sell high end musical instruments as they prepare to downsize and in many cases move to other nearby communities that they perceive as more affordable and closer to their children, since their children can’t afford to live in Davis . I would note that, truly having no dog in this fight, I have only taken exception to Sue’s public behavior and comically disprovable architectural comparisons. I have needled David about his objectivity . I have at no time told anyone for whom or what to vote ! I do think David has given the Chamber, The ChamberPAC, DT Businessman and Kemble Pope some undeserved bad press, while giving a great deal of grace to others, including Sue . I readily admit that the internal workings of Davis politics, which I started following about five years ago, while providing me with a great deal of comic material for my literary efforts, are beyond me .
If you do not see the need for change, then your position is quite reasonable . I concur on the lack of “affordable housing.” I would guess many of the non-developer pro-growthers are folks who rent but can’t afford to buy where they work . Others, like my wife and I found the lack of accessibility for disabled folks and seniors made Davis undesirable . Many of my consignment sales clients in Davis are older adults, wanting to sell high end musical instruments as they prepare to downsize and in many cases move to other nearby communities that they perceive as more affordable and closer to their children, since their children can’t afford to live in Davis . I would note that, truly having no dog in this fight, I have only taken exception to Sue’s public behavior and comically disprovable architectural comparisons. I have needled David about his objectivity . I have at no time told anyone for whom or what to vote ! I do think David has given the Chamber, The ChamberPAC, DT Businessman and Kemble Pope some undeserved bad press, while giving a great deal of grace to others, including Sue . I readily admit that the internal workings of Davis politics, which I started following about five years ago, while providing me with a great deal of comic material for my literary efforts, are beyond me .
My thanks to all who supplied more accurate numbers and especially to Rich for his brief history of the demographics of Davis.
My thanks also to dlemongello for expressing succinctly what I have been attempting to convey regarding my preference for slow deliberate, well planned growth target on actual community needs.
My thanks to all who supplied more accurate numbers and especially to Rich for his brief history of the demographics of Davis.
My thanks also to dlemongello for expressing succinctly what I have been attempting to convey regarding my preference for slow deliberate, well planned growth target on actual community needs.
medwoman… you were also off by almost a factor of two (100%). Similar to Ms Greenwald, you seem not to be able to say you erred, or were wrong, but unlike Ms Greenwald, in my experience, you were gracious in acknowledging the correction.
I would have thought that my offering of appreciation for the correction would have been enough admission of error, but apparently not for all.
Point well taken medwoman. Your thanks has every appearance of acknowledgement of error to this reader.