We live in an age of cynicism. The cynicism stems from a number of different problems – such as a large number of public officials who have either violated the public trust or who have made promises that they were either unwilling or unable to keep.
One thing I will tell all aspiring and current public officials: the most valuable resource that you must guard, against all else, is public trust. For the purposes of this essay, public trust will be defined as the trust that the public has that the claims that public officials make are true.
At the local level, we see this very clearly in play with the water issue. What became very clear to me, in the past week, is that the disconnect between the proponents of the water project and the opponents of the water project has to do with the issue of trust.
To put it plainly, the opposition to the water project does not believe that the claims put forward by the city staff, by the council, and by the consultants are accurate.
The result is that honest errors that occur during the process of carrying out the plans get magnified and are taken as signs of duplicity and malfeasance.
Past actions by public officials misrepresenting, for example, Covell Village, have led people to conclude that city officials will tell them anything to get the project passed.
Bob Dunning – using an email communication from “K.K.” – notes the discrepancy in the original claim by the city, in claiming water rates will go up 50% if the project does not pass to the current projection of 97%, uses the city’s omission of a $37 million cost to exploit the trust factor.
Mr. Dunning quotes K.K., “Why the change in forecast from the city after such a short length of time? How did they get it so wrong in the first place?”
K.K. concludes: “I don’t know whom to believe anymore.”
Mr. Dunning adds, “… join the club, my friend …”
Mr. Dunning thus takes advantage of the city’s error to cast doubt on the entire process, playing on the distrust that was built up over the years.
As I read Mr. Dunning, I realized it wasn’t just cost driving this discussion and ultimately the disconnect, but trust. Part of the reason for the disconnect in the discussions between proponents and opponents is that at the end of the day, many on the No on I side of ledger fundamentally do not trust city governance.
They see council as tools for developers, as they were four years ago in the eyes of some. They see city staff’s stumbling around not as honest mistakes, but as signs of nefarious intent. And finally, they see the experts as subservient to the water community.
There is no trust, and where there is no trust, there can be no common ground established or common facts upon which to rely.
A proponent interjects: “If they don’t trust city officials, who do they think should run the Davis water system?”
As I suggested yesterday, they are asking the wrong question. The question they should be asking is not whom the opponents trust to run the water system, but rather the more fundamental question about to how to re-establish trust. Ultimately, finding alternatives if we are distrustful simply perpetuates the disconnect.
Michael Harrington argues that their upcoming initiative will go a long way with re-establishing trust in city government.
He writes, “It rests on the policy of President Reagan as to the Soviets on arms control: ‘Trust but verify.’ Never again will we allow what has happened with our public utilities.”
While oversight may be a means to re-establish trust, it treats the symptom rather than the cause. I would also note, at least in terms of strategic considerations, Mr. Harrington should have introduced the initiative at the beginning of the year if he is offering it as an alternative model.
We see the trust issue manifest itself, not just on the issue of water, but across our governance.
Earlier this week we noted the letter we received from Christina Parker who told us, “I feel the need to confess something, because it is weighing heavily on my conscious.“
It seems that Ms. Parker has taken her personal knowledge of the DA’s “lack of integrity and honest justice” to a systemic distrust of the current prosecutor’s office.
She writes, “The man in the accused position of this case had I been selected for jury, would have gotten a hung jury results from the jury panel. I simply would have not believed the D.A.’s office for anything, and I believe I would have voted ‘innocent’ at all cost just to spite the D.A.’s office.“
The reaction was expected but missed a fundamental point.
One response was: “Jurors should not be able to nullify laws just because ‘they’ feel they are unjust. They should just judge cases by the evidence.”
But judging cases by the evidence requires a basic level of trust that the evidence put on is all-inclusive, that the DA has not intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence, etc.
The focus was also placed on the individual, Ms. Parker.
A response noted, “Supposedly biased because of her ignorance of reality, Ms. Parker purposely would fail in her duties as a juror by, first, refusing to admit her bias during the selection process and, again, in prejudging the defendant based on her unfounded feelings.”
They add, “Any recommendations to help Ms. Parker clean up her act before she’s called again? Therapy?”
What is not asked is the more fundamental question – what the DA’s office can do to regain the trust of segments of the population.
After all, Ms. Parker is not an isolated incident.
We have former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso. Back on December 1, he said, “There are real problems in the Yolo District Attorney’s Office.”
His conclusion was based on a number of incidents that he has personally investigated.
He would elaborate on this point this week at MLK Day.
“We have serious problems of prosecutorial discretion in the country and in a place called YOLO COUNTY,” Former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso told the audience.
He would question the motivations of the DA’s office.
“I have seen so many cases where the district attorney will add enhancements to the person being prosecuted and then will drop them when the person agrees that they are gang members because then they can get out of jail,” he said.
“By having a greater number of folk identified as gang members then the DA’s office can get more money from the federal government and the state to fight gangs,” he said.
We noted in our January 13 column, “Distrusting Motivations” that Jann Murray-Garcia, distrusting the motivations of the DA’s office, declined an offer to join the DA’s new Multi-Cultural Community Council.
Dr. Murray-Garcia had several times declined the offer, and told him so publicly. She wrote, “I told Jonathan [Raven] I was not interested, because I had accompanied too many Davis folks in Yolo County Superior Court who were inappropriately charged, investigated, overcharged, gang-labeled and unnecessarily prosecuted at great taxpayers’ (yours and mine) expense, and residents’ turmoil.”
She added, “I was called out again – this time publicly – by panelist Raven, as someone he was trying to convince to join Reisig’s community council. So, I am publicly writing ‘no’ to this D.A., as I said publicly ‘no’ during the forum.”
Jann Murray-Garcia then recounted her experiences with the DA’s handling of several cases in which Bernita Toney was wrongly accused of crimes on several occasions. Ms. Toney was once acquitted in a jury trial and the other time the charges were dropped after a last-second offer to reduce 11 felonies to one misdemeanor was rejected by Ms. Toney.
The distrust that Dr. Murray-Garcia has for the DA’s office is actually a feeling embodied by many in the minority community toward the DA’s office.
The commenters on the Vanguard, many of whom could probably not relate to anything that Christina Parker, Bernita Toney, or even Jann Murray-Garcia have experienced, nevertheless were quick to draw judgment and in so doing, missed the fundamental point.
The only thing Ms. Parker is guilty of is being honest about her feelings. What has happened is that, at least for her, along with some others, the public trust in the DA’s office has eroded to the point where they cannot objectively evaluate evidence because they no longer trust that it is an honest representation of the evidence.
The solution is not to heap criticism on Ms. Parker and others; the solution is to take public steps to restore the trust.
That ends up being a tall task indeed, but one I believe that governance in the 21st century depends on. We have spent decades eroding public trust, from the Presidency down to the local dog catcher. Trust is easy to destroy and, once lost, hard to rebuild.
I close again with this point: where there is no trust, there can be established no common ground or common facts upon which to rely.
This is the crisis of democracy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If we can’t talk to each other, we won’t trust each other.
If we don’t trust each other, we can’t talk to each other.
But trust is not an action, it is an outcome. Talk is the action. Everything starts with talk.
But, the very people advocating for greater trust are also responsible for limiting talk. They limit talk by discouraging people from dialog. They discourage people from dialog with word hyper-sensitivity.
Hyper-sensitivity is analogous to a gated wall between groups. It is a mechanism of passive-aggressive hostility preventing some from having to hear words, phrases or ideas that they can label as offensive.
So, fewer of us talk to each other. And because of that we don’t improve our trust of each other.
Dealing with political correctness, and the corruption of meaning for what truly constitutes materially-damaging harassment, hate or intolerance, is our next required step toward the future of civil rights.
The thought-police are preventing progress.
[quote]Hyper-sensitivity is analogous to a gated wall between groups. It is a mechanism of passive-aggressive hostility preventing some from having to hear words, phrases or ideas that they can label as offensive.
[/quote]
I agree with this statement. However, hyper sensitivity is not the only gated wall between groups.
Deliberate choice of derogatory terms, name calling, false accusations, stereotyping all can also serve as “gated walls between groups”.
Calling me an ignorant, brainwashed, bleeding heart liberal or a gun and religion clinging ignoramus may not hurt my feelings but it also is less likely to encourage me to engage in a reasoned conversation with you than would a carefully considered response to the points actually being made.
Anyone reading this Blog is always welcome to call me on the phone (530) 759-8400 or stop by my office at 430 D St to discuss water or other civic matters, at any time. I’ve had this open invitation for over a year. Cheers, and have a wonderful Sunday.
I agree that trust is absolutely essential. I may be in a minority here, but I tend to trust the current Council. But, I think that is b/c I’ve intentionally sought out relationship w/ them. It’s difficult to judge intentions of an individual w/o making the effort to create relationship.
I think the concept of trust makes a community vulnerable to deception, because trust means believing when there is a lack of information.
A “Trustworthy” official will never ask the others to place their trust on him. What he would do instead, is to list the potential risks and take initiatives in guarding against them. This happens because a “Trustworthy” person is cautious and has great concern that he himself would make a costly mistake. He never “trusts” his own decision, he is constantly trying to find if there is a blindspot in his own decision. Therefore, a “Trustworth” person does not trust himself. As a result, a “Trustworthy” person would never ask others to “trust” their judgement.
There is no coherent justification to “re-establishing trust”. I think we should simply ignore the concept of “trust”. It is an ill-conceived concept. It itself is a mistake. We should concentrate on identifying pitfalls a of decision process, identify the missing information that leads to doubt, and improve the process by taking initiative to find those missing information.
A trustworthy person never deems himself to be trustworthy. He is only trusted by those who are less cautious in considerations. Trust creates a cascade of less and less scrutiny and a culture of group think that makes a community vulnerable to deception.
It was the belief of the founders of this nation that as governments accumulate increasing power it was inevitable that they would become corrupt and use their power for the purposes of politicians and their cronies.
This lesson has been lost by those who call for ever increasing power to be given to government. Don’t be surprised when the government power is abused.
DG “The result is that honest errors that occur during the process of carrying out the plans get magnified and are taken as signs of duplicity and malfeasance.”
What about the “less than honest” errors that occurred during the process? For example, the Davis City Council approved the Project the week before Christmas 2010 when everyone was busy, unaware, or away! Those approving the Project did not provide any explanation why the critically needed Project water right offer was available from the developer ONLY in December of 2010. Finally, December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor (the third assured vote for the Project) was available to ultimately approve the Project.
Jeff: I like your focus on talking as the beginning of creating a relationship. I am always next door to your office building, and you are always welcome to stop by to chat.
Nice to see additional posters today on this subject.
BTW, when I have an aviation or marine litigation case, I usually try to meet the other attorney, and show respect and go to their office. These trips occur all over the country. I just flew down to LAX, meet the aviation claims manager from Denver, and we had a wonderful dinner. We narrowed the issues, and now we both have a face behind the emails. I still have to file the case soon in San Diego, but the guy with the checkbook took the time to come to dinner and LAX, and all of this without a pitched battle where his hourly insurance defense attorneys run amuck in a billing frenzy.
It’s so easy to bang out nasty emails, yet they do not solve the problem: defining the issues, and looking for common ground, and for how to solve the disputes at the least cost and hassle for the clients.
I view the water issue here in the same light.
To the credit of some of our city leaders, they have invited me over to city hall for discussions, and they have often come to my office when I have invited them.
Things are coming to a head, and win or lose on March 5, both campaigns have had a good dialogue and on process matters, have treated each other with respect that Davis residents expect and reward. And the public’s awareness of all things water and rates is much higher than most California communities.
medwoman: [i]Calling me an ignorant, brainwashed, bleeding heart liberal or a gun and religion clinging ignoramus may not hurt my feelings but it also is less likely to encourage me to engage in a reasoned conversation with you than would a carefully considered response to the points actually being made.[/i]
That is a reasonable point. But I think I only called you a bleeding heart liberal, which… and please correct me if I am wrong… you have called yourself. I didn’t mean it to be derogatory. And this brings me back to my point. I don’t distrust you, and assume you are a wonderful person. Should we meet in person, I am guessing you might find me a bit more trustworthy and friendly than my blog posts cause you to characterize me by. Of course, I might be wrong on both counts.
I still remember that trip to New York where two suits were going at it while waiting to cross the street. The words “Clinton” and “Bush” were frequent in the exchange. The voices were loud and passions were high. Nobody in the crowd waiting to cross that busy intersection seemed bothered by these two guys. Of course being from out of town, my family and the family we were traveling with were notably nervous… later telling me that they were sure a fight would break out.
As the light turned green, those two not-so-gentle men abruptly changed the subject about where they would go for lunch. No harm no foul… just a lively exchange of thoughts and ideas without having to step so gently on the sensitivity egg shells.
There was an awful lot of contention in the 1787 convention of delegates that led to our Constitution and later the Bill of Rights. Look what we accomplished.
You see, I have no doubt that I personally have been called many names off the public record. I am absolutely sure that I have been characterized as ignorant, mean, selfish and uncaring. But most of the people that would say those things would never do it on the public record. I would not care what they said (since I know myself and don’t let words hurt my feelings), but I would respect them more and trust them more if they would just tell me what they thought or how they felt.
In any case, the Vanguard, and community blogging in general, is bringing back some of traditions of open dialog. It is providing people the ability to express their opinions without risking character assassination or worse. It has happened to me once and I had decided to check out and stop participating. And then I was contacted by David and others that demonstrated support and so I came back. That is what we all need… encouragement for those that have something to say, even if there might be words that cause some sting of sensitivity. Because the best way to eliminate the risk that something I might say result in someone complaining about me being insensitive, hostile, harassing, hating… is to just stop talking.
I think it is that passive-agressive dialog-blocking style that is responsible for eroding trust. Our President is a master at it.
[quote]In any case, the Vanguard, and community blogging in general, is bringing back some of traditions of open dialog. It is providing people the ability to express their opinions without risking character assassination or worse. It has happened to me once and I had decided to check out and stop participating.[/quote]
I think I got assassinated at Davis Wiki and Chronicle of Higher Education. I don’t understand what happened at Davis Wiki, but at Chronicle of Higher Education, this was the reason:
When you post something substantial and ask for a discussion without specifying that you are a teacher, the other posters would assume that you are a student looking for free tutoring to have someone evaluate your term paper. They think that you are a cheater try to plagiarizer their thoughts and submit them as your own. [Ref] ([url]http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=78549.msg1875894#msg1875894[/url])
When I went there at first I did not consider that that would be a concern. Now I know that concern, I still disagree with the manner they handle their suspicion. I think this situation is a bad side-effect of how the education system is implemented. Here you have teachers that are supposed to facilitate learning creating a barrier to exchange ideas. Instead of focusing catching cheaters and avoiding cheating, the education system should focus on the value of the content being exchanged.
“This lesson has been lost by those who call for ever increasing power to be given to government. Don’t be surprised when the government power is abused. “
I don’t know many people who want there to be more power in government. What has happened in this country is that we started as a small agrarian nation of 2.5 million and have grown into a modern industrial giant of 310 million. You can’t have the same government now as then. The key is balancing the needs of managing such a large and powerful nation with the preservation of rights and checks and monitoring of the efficacy of those governing.
[i]To put it plainly, the opposition to the water project does not believe that the claims put forward by the city staff, by the council, and by the consultants are accurate.[/i]
If the reports and studies supported their positions, they would believe them. Opponents of the surface water project have been attacking the credibility of all the engineers, consultants, analysts, and staff for years on this blog. It is just a political tactic.
Accusations of hyper-sensitivity, “political correctness,” and passive-aggressiveness are usually used by people who just want to make unsubstantiated generalizations about other groups of people, and people who want to be rude. If you can’t have a dialogue without type-casting other people, without disparaging whole sectors of the citizenry, then you probably don’t really want to have a dialogue.
David: instead of writing the article to make the No on I people look like cynical misfits, why dont you write and list all of the reasons why many are suspicious of city government, and list them out?
In the past you have written articles with balance, but the past several months it’s one after another trying to save the project, save the rates, pushing the project, staying silent on the bad things that are going on over this project and the rates. It’s your blog, it’s your ink, you can say what you want.
I’m just pointing out that many have noticed the change in the content and tone of the articles.
We know who in town butters bread, and the No on I do not have the money or political votes on the CC that the Yes does.
[quote]I’m just pointing out that many have noticed the change in the content and tone of the articles.
We know who in town butters bread, and the No on I do not have the money or political votes on the CC that the Yes does.[/quote]
I find this a very curious juxtaposition of ideas. Surely Michael you are not suggesting that the Vanguard is in anyway being financially influenced in what to write ?
I understand that the following might sound unintuitive. Please be forewarned.
I think when we decide whether to adopt a plan, it is sufficient to focus on addressing the concerns. From the concerns, it is possible to draft a plan that satisfy everyone.
Voter: “I reject this project because I suspect that the council is dishonest.”
When a voter says the above, the concern is not clear. Is the voter saying that the project is not worthwhile, or that the project is worthwhile but the council lied? Between these two reasons, only the first reason is relevant in the evaluation of the project.
Voter: “I reject this project because I think that it costs each of us too much.”
In this statement, the concern is vague. It would help if the person who has this concern discloses the acceptable cost, such as, “I would accept this project if it will cost me not more than $1000 in annual water expenses.”
At this point, we observed that the affordability of each voter for the water project is different. Some voter could afford $1000, some could afford $100. Suppose we ask each voter the question: [i]How much would you like to pay for your water rate to improved water quality to this level?[/i] We could tally the [b]demand[/i] for a water project.
The number each voter says may be different. Let’s assume that the tallied sum is $10 million a year. Then, this is the number the city needs to compute the budget for the water project. With the budget, the city can ask, “Is there a firm would could design and implement a water system for us within this budget?”
If no firm can afford to do that, then the people can re-evaluate how much they would contribute. Suppose there is a firm that can do it for 101% of the budget provided, some voter might be willing to be generous and contribute more to get it done. Or that the whole city simply wait until another firm can do it within the budget.
Throughout this dialog between the city and the people, no money has changed hand yet. All that happened, is that everyone knows how much money the city could mobilize to fund a water project. All the money are still in the people’s pocket.
The City is a [b]Facilitator[/b] of power. It has no power of its own.
Next year, there is still no firm that can do it within budget. But one of them said, “You know what, I could do this with the budget, but I need 100 volunteers for manual labor, and 10 volunteer civil engineers. Do you have this resource to give me for the project?
At this point, the city puts out a call to the people to ask for volunteers. The result is that the city has a reserve of 80 manual labors and 8 civil engineer volunteers. The city again puts the project on hold, for the simple reason that the city [b]cannot afford the project[/b].
No trickery, everyone understands what is going on.
Eventually, what will happen is one of these:
a) People figure that the water they have is not so bad. The demand for the water project drops. Each year, fewer money is in the fund, and fewer people would volunteer.
b) People figure that the water rate is going up on its own, the demand for the water project increases. At some point, the demand reaches a point that the people can afford the project. Now the project starts. Everyone pays the amount they could afford. There is no conflict anywhere. People who didn’t want to pay for the water project simply didn’t pay, but they were never in the budget anyway. The other ones who paid for it didn’t hold those didn’t pay with contempt because they are generous.
In this process, the people can’t blame the city. There is nothing to blame. Instead the people might blame one another. For example, people who really want the water project might accuse his neighbor for being too stingy for not contributing more. In this case, the city has a responsibility to ask each person to be nice.
The city council is never the target of the blame because the council never has any power. It facilitates and makes peace without any power.
[i]Accusations of hyper-sensitivity, “political correctness,” and passive-aggressiveness are usually used by people who just want to make unsubstantiated generalizations about other groups of people. Often they are people who just want to be rude, but can’t accept the blowback. Don’t you think it’s a little “passive-aggressive” to accuse someone of being “passive-aggressive” after you typecast them? If you can’t have a dialogue without type-casting other people, without disparaging whole sectors of the citizenry, then you probably don’t really want to have a dialogue.[/i]
Don, then how might you proceed with a dialog that attempts to deal with those problems? If a person is hyper-sensitive to the point that discussing differences of opinion are limited, then the value of that dialog would be diminished. Passive-aggressive is also a problem for cooperation. If someone goes back-door, or goes around… instead of dealing directly with those key stakeholders, then there cannot be meaningful dialog and trust erodes.
I can accept any blowback. However, I recognize these types of tactics as destructive to trust. Why doesn’t Obama every go on Fox News, but he consistently goes on MSNBC and other “friendly” left-leaning news shows.
The guy is passive-aggressive and he is surrounded by the thought police protecting the hyper-sensitive.
Frankly, I think with your response you are proving my point a bit. You just attacked me personally without any meaningful dialog.
And while you are at it… I would like to know what “group” you are protecting?
Alas due to other commitments I have come to this issue late and the one on the same subject yesterday. Yes, I am among those that have come over the course of my 13 years in Davis to often distrust the information that I/we get from city staff on a range of issues, and also info from our CC. Let’s just go back to Covell Village: I mean is there not one thing that was put out by the city or the people that did the EIR for the city that, in retrospect at least, some of you pro I (and formerly pro X) people now admit was either false, misleading, or reflective of sloppy research and planning? May I address that question specifically to Don Schor. To take one example: what about the facile assumption in the EIR for CV that we could safely assume that there would not be any serious or additional costs to the city because we could safely assume that housing values would appreciate by at least 5%??? This at a time when some experts, and people like myself, could see that there was a bubble.
As Mike H. suggests, a long list could be compiled of instances where city staff whether working at the behest of the CC or not, or working to please them, have put out what has turned out to be inaccurate, incomplete, or totally misleading information that growth advocates, big water advocates, you name it, have then feasted upon and cited as FACT.
I know there are some city staff that do an excellent job and a hard one, but there are also those (especially at the higher echelons) that have their agenda for Davis or that are closely wedded to the agenda of a CC person or the CC majority. Someone like Sue or Mike who have been minority CC progressives, could cite countless examples. I did not follow the story closely, but I gathered that large savings were made on the waste water project after city staff accepted the initial bid/plan. How much this was due to Sue G. is another issue, but the savings were made, I gather. Here is just one more example of city staff and CC majority making major miscalculations, in the tens of millions of dollars, because of their incompetence, lack of thoroughness or whatever–let’s set aside more sinister motives for purposes of argument.
So yes, David and Don, there is a substantial constituency that simply does not trust city staff and the CC majority–and for very good historical reasons. And yes, people like me do question a lot of the so called facts we are getting from pro I advocates because of this history. That doesn’t make me a nihilist averse to rational argument and evidence, but it does make me skeptical of some of the arguments and so called facts we are barraged with when so much money is at stake not to mention the David and Woodland economies. Do I sound so very unreasonable or irrational?
[i] May I address that question specifically to Don Shor. [/i]
I have to confess that I wasn’t involved in any way in the Covell Village debate. I opposed CV because I thought it was way too big, but — unlike many here — I didn’t follow the campaign all that closely. I’m not a growth advocate, as others here can attest.
By comparison I followed Wild Horse Ranch very closely, and recall robust discussions here on the Vanguard about the staff reports, assumptions, analyses, etc. I agree that people picked apart the staff work pretty thoroughly here at that time. Maybe if there had been a Vanguard when CV was before Davis voters, things would have been different.
Your questions on the water issue have always been incisive and useful. So my question in return would be: what have staff or consultants produced, generally or specifically, that you don’t trust? My inclination generally is to read the reports and then dig deeper if I can, if something seems superficial or if assumptions seem skewed.
I believe I’ve come to support the WDCWA water project for rational reasons, not emotional ones. I get irked when I see a lot of posts designed to trigger emotional negative responses. I get especially irked when those posts malign individuals, be they staffers or project supporters. I think that tendency has been very much more common from one side than the other on this issue. So I would love to see more reasoned discussion, which means focusing on facts and logic rather than on issues of trust and emotion.
I’d like to add two things.
I think one of the major benefits the Davis Vanguard has brought to us is that city staff knows that their work is going to be analyzed and discussed in public, in detail, in real time. That FOI requests will be submitted for information that isn’t forthcoming. That citizens like Matt Williams will pick up the phone and call and get data, and then work with it independently. Our city staff and our public officials give better value because of the Vanguard.
As to the issue of trust, I certainly agree there have been mistakes. But I really have to point out that trust has also been eroded by the relentless attacks. The best example I can think of over several years here is the disparagement of West Yost and Associates. At no point has anyone ever provided any evidence that their consultant reports are biased or even unprofessional. They have an outstanding reputation in their industry. But I can’t count the number of times David Greenwald has run a grainy file photo of Mr. West standing with Don Saylor, and the things Mike H. has implied about them (and every other consultant) have been appalling.
So it’s fine for David to write an essay about the lack of trust. But along with the great benefits the Vanguard provides, he also bears responsibility for the atmosphere that this essay is focused on. Need an example?
Here. Note the factual errors, and note especially the comments.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4904:commentary-water-problems-were-a-long-time-coming-with-the-principles-absent-on-tuesday&Itemid=79&cpage=0[/url]
Don, we agree on many more things than you might expect. Above all I agree with you that, despite some lapses, the Vanguard does a fantastic job and it has really improved the depth (maybe not the tone, but that’s the nature of argument and politics) of public policy debate in Davis. It is a wonderful forum to have that we did not have at the time of Covell Village. And while at it: thanks for being a great moderator however much we may disagree on the water issue. Just being the moderator is a real public service for which you should be commended.
I largely agree with Jeff in his first couple of posts on this thread, about communication.
With a good robust ego, you need not even develop a thick skin to deal with the insults of life!
Hard to tip-toe around delicate egos all the time; when your blood is up and you want to charge like a Rhino!
(This is part of the fun, the color, the liveliness of civic debate; passion quiet as well as noisy need not be excluded!)
On the other hand, there is something to be said about avoiding name calling.
In my own life; I am always careful to say “you are being/acting like a jerk”(or s.o.b.), which describes a temporary state; rather than “you are a jerk”(or s.o.b.), which describes a more permanent condition. Surely there are very few of us who have never been jerks or bastards or idiots on occasion; hopefully on a temporary basis without getting stuck there?
[quote]”Anyone reading this Blog is always welcome to call me on the phone (530) 759-8400 or stop by my office at 430 D St to discuss water or other civic matters, at any time.”[/quote] Thanks for the invite, Michael. I’m hoping, rather, that you’ll be more upfront and responsive in your [i]Vanguard[/i] comments themselves.
It bothers me that you repeatedly engage in name-calling and non-factual comments and when folks call you on it, you ignore and brush things off with flip retorts.
It’s frustrating to watch how others on both sides of this issue have tried to exchange complex information and debate the issues while you’ve engaged in such an odd way.
Tossing out “facts” that seem untrue upon limited research–then repeating them even though they’ve been exposed as non-factual–is a strange way for the main spokesperson for a Davis political cause to operate.
As a confused and undecided water issue voter, I’d appreciate a more forthcoming approach from you.
Just one example, following up on your repeated descriptions of poor water quality. This will be the third time I’ve asked: [quote]”MH: But, why do you say the things you do? For example, you still haven’t answered this old question: ‘Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that: ‘We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue’. ??????”[/quote]If you have contrary information, please provide it.
Finally, I wonder how you’ve come up with such an inexplicable comment tonight: [quote]”I’m just pointing out that many have noticed the change in the content and tone of the ([i]Vanguard[/i] water) articles.”[/quote]You’ve had no better supporter (one who gives your contentions only superficial questioning) than David. Trying to pressure him by alleging that he’s going over to the opposition is such a transparent tactic.
[quote]Surely there are very few of us who have never been jerks or bastards or idiots on occasion; hopefully on a temporary basis without getting stuck there? [/quote]
I used to refer to arguments as “shallow” when they don’t have enough considerations in their evaluation. Even though that was not name-calling, the term affects cooperation. I did not understand the rejection of the term because I thought that we get letter grades all the time in school, shouldn’t we understand that what we write could be “crap”, and someone who knows better may call it “crap”? If we didn’t accept that there are grades, what were we thinking when we went through school? That when the teacher gave me a C, the teacher was bad?
My understanding was that when someone gives you an F, it means that they know what A is. Ask them what A is. If they tell you what it is, and you agree and improve what you do, then it is for your own benefit. When someone gives a negative feedback, the act of giving the negative feedback is a positive action.
I used to get offended when people can’t directly say that they disagree. To me that would be an insult to someone’s intellect. You sugarcoat a message only when you think that the receiver can’t handle criticism. That is an insult. Do we want to live in a society where everyone is living in their own bubbles thinking that everything they do is right and commendable?
Now I don’t use terms like “shallow” because it is meaningless without also providing a rubric. And when you provide a rubric, the label itself is redundant and can only hurt the discussion.
Now I also don’t get offended when people sugarcoat their criticism because if they think I can’t handle criticism, I must not be presenting myself good enough.
I also stopped using rhetorical questions because they tend to irritate people, because they are “fake” questions, they apparently poses a sense of freedom and then denies it. Even now, when I see a rhetorical question I feel irritated. So I stopped using them. The ones I used in this post are just used to demonstrate the effect. Even though I wrote them myself, I feel irritated. On someone else’s rubric on rational-emotion decoupling, I might be getting an F.
Re: Edgar “You sugarcoat a message only when you think that the receiver can’t handle criticism. That is an insult.”
An illustration of how difficult it can be, in communication, not to insult at least some of the people some of the time however inadvertantly; maybe the best that anyone of us can do is to not insult everyone all of the time.
That said, I hope to continue to hear of healthy expressions of disagreement in City Council meetings and see them on the Vanguard website. Seems to me that when ones viewpoints are expressed, however controversial they may be, this helps people to know where you stand and helps de-fuse distrust. I think the Vanguard helps with this.
I don’t know how it is in the city council meeting.
If I were to rank the civility of discussion in various places my rank is this:
o PhysicsForums.com, artofproblemsolving.com, Gamedev.net
o davisvanguard.org
o Chronicle.com
The forums more “civil” are the ones where most people are seeking advices. I think behind every conflict that has a disagreement, there is a question on how best to resolve the conflict. When we focus on asking how best to resolve the conflict, the dynamics of the discussion changes from opposition to cooperation.
A: [i]I know you want to do this, but I think the numbers you used aren’t correct. What should we do?[/i]
B: [i]I don’t see how the number can be wrong, how do you know that they are incorrect?[/i]
A: [i]Because I calculated it with this equation and I get a different answer.[/i]
B: [i]How should we find out which answer is correct?[/i]
A: [i]Well, what are the assumptions you use for your calculation?[/i]
(And so on…)