Sometimes in this business you have to criticize your friends and if you cannot do that when the time comes, then you might as well hang up your hat, your gloves, shut down your computer and find a different line of work.
So at the outset here, I am going to state that I personally like both Joe Krovoza and Dan Wolk. I have gotten to know both a lot better, over the last four years for Mr. Krovoza and three years for Mr. Wolk. I think both have tremendous compassion, not only for our community but also their families.
It all started yesterday – I thought I had finished the Vanguard. It was 7:30, and I was shifting from David Greenwald the Vanguard founder and editor to David Greenwald, the father, guardian, uncle and husband. I went to get my phone which I had left downstairs after waking up the “babies” and noticed I missed a call from Joe Krovoza.
Didn’t think much of that, as it’s not unusual to get a call from the mayor on a variety of issues. When I answered he asked if I saw his email, and I said no. He said, he decided to run. He had a consultant and everything. He said he thought Dan Wolk was running too.
So now I shifted back into reporter mode, quickly punching out a story, sending Dan Wolk a text, and resumed getting the kids out.
Soon thereafter I got a call from one of Mr. Wolk’s advisors confirming that Dan Wolk was running, and that he had planned a release in a few weeks with a host of endorsements. The implication was that Joe Krovoza had attempted to co-opt the decision, but they were not changing their plans.
I asked for and received a statement from Dan Wolk who said via text, “In response to requests from the press, I can confirm that I will be announcing my candidacy for the California State Assembly in the weeks ahead. I am inspired by the strong support and encouragement I have already received throughout the district and I look forward to a great campaign.”
So there you have it, game is on. It should be interesting.
However, the more I think about this, the more I don’t like this. All of this started a few months ago. I think the assumption was that either Supervisor Don Saylor or Supervisor Jim Provenza, or more likely both would seek the vacated Assembly seat in 2014 when Mariko Yamada is termed out.
When both men declined to run, it opened the door for Joe Krovoza and Dan Wolk to jump in.
I understand the two men met at one point, but somehow, some way, they should have been locked in a room with the survivor emerging to run for the Assembly.
Kidding aside, there are actually multiple solutions here. One is that Dan Wolk could run for the Assembly and then in two years when his mother is termed out, he could run for Senate and allow Joe Krovoza to run for the Assembly.
The other is Joe Krovoza simply runs for the Assembly this time and stays there while Dan Wolk runs to succeed his mother.
The current arrangement is not in the best interests of Davis. I spoke with several of their colleagues that expressed grave concerns about what this will do to the relations on the Davis City Council which, after years of acrimony, is finally functional.
We have addressed water and now fire, at least on the staffing front, but some of the most serious heavy lifting remains. And Davis is seeking to transform itself into a regional power in terms of high-tech economic development.
I also have some concerns about both candidates. Joe Krovoza has the advantage of having a first career, and at the age of 50, has both professional and now political experience. But it was not long ago he was seemingly completely tone deaf on water.
At the same time, I admire his leadership on issues like the budget and structural reform of compensation and, of course, the tough votes he cast on the fire issue and other issues of import.
Joe Krovoza is also all-in here – meaning that if he runs, he is out as a councilmember. While that may show resolve, given the delicacy and fragility of the situation on council and the tough work that remains, it is not in the best interest of Davis necessarily for him to leave after just one single term.
Still, Dan Wolk’s candidacy is more troubling to me. He has been on the council now for two years, less than a year into his first elective term. He would be in the same position as Don Saylor, serving as mayor for six months, then resigning his term and leaving it to the Davis City Council to appoint his successor.
It was a messy process back in 2011, but ultimately produced a consensus pick – ironically, Dan Wolk.
Dan Wolk is a young man, he is only 34, he has a young family, and, to be very frank, his resume on its own merit is fairly weak. He disappointed some when he seemed to pander on issues like Davis Diamonds, the cellular network, and most recently, fire staffing.
His best vote was cast back in June of 2011 when he faced down an angry group of employees to join Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson in cutting $2.5 million from employee compensation. But since that time, we have not seen that kind of resolve.
Last December, Mayor Pro Tem Wolk strangely pushed for the Bartle Wells rate structure against the advice of city staff, consultants and the WAC. He was so adamant that he refused friendly amendments to allow the WAC to even consider the Loge-Williams rate structure, but a week later after the WAC reiterated their support for Loge-Williams, he and Rochelle Swanson issued an op-ed pushing a compromise.
Last week, Mr. Wolk was criticized by columnist Rich Rifkin for seeming to misunderstand the fire staffing issue and the importance of boundary drop and decoupling the rescue apparatus. Mr. Rifkin suggested that the vote was more about Mr. Wolk’s ambitions to go to the legislature than public policy concerns.
The water votes are messy for both Mr. Wolk and Mr. Krovoza. Mr. Krovoza was on the JPA and was among the original council members to push through the September 6 vote on water without a rate study, without community buy-in.
Dan Wolk pushed immediately for compromise, but when he and Rochelle Swanson could not find a third vote on the compromise, he joined Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza on a 4-1 vote.
That vote would be undone by a referendum drive, but comments by Mr. Wolk to Davis Enterprise’s Bob Dunning suggested Councilmember Wolk did not even really understand what he had voted for.
On December 6, Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson came back with another compromise, most of which was eventually adopted. It set forth the new Water Advisory Process that was lacking previously.
Mayor Krovoza had admitted to making some mistakes, and Rochelle Swanson stated later that she regretted not sticking to her guns.
Davis faces serious challenges. There is a new $6 million structural deficit opening. We still need to resolve labor strife, find funding for roadways and parks, and figure out the rest of the water situation. Davis needs five councilmembers who are committed to facing those challenges.
It would be nice if Mr. Wolk could have and would have stuck around the council for long enough to build his own resume and not be the automatic front-runner less because of his intellect, compassion and talent and more because he shares the last name of his mother, the current State Senator and former Mayor of Davis, Yolo County Supervisor, and Assemblymember.
Have no illusions, while Dan Wolk will start out the favorite, Joe Krovoza has demonstrated himself to be an effective campaigner. For all of the hype about Dan Wolk finishing first in every precinct in 2012, people forget that, but for a few votes in a tiny precinct, Joe Krovoza would have accomplished that feat in 2010.
Both Mayor Krovoza and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk have tremendous compassion for those in this community who are less fortunate, and I believe they sincerely want to make this community a better place. But by running against each other, they will inevitably inject politics into a fragile council situation. And that is in no one’s best interest.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It would be nice if Mr. Wolk could have and would have stuck around the Council for long enough to build his own resume and not be the automatic front-runner less because of his intellect, compassion and talent and more because he shares the last name of his mother, the current State Senator and former Mayor of Davis, County Supervisor, and Assemblymember.”
Cheap shot David. Just because he went to Stanford and Berkeley is no reason to attack his intellect. Just because he can cite John Kennedy while standing up for the poor is no reason to attack his compassion. Just because he is one of the best campaigners you will ever see is no reason to attack his talent. And just because his last name is Wolk is no reason to attack his lineage.
The real story here is that the change in term limits means that an open seat will be rarer and that Joe is the one who is out there without a net giving up his council seat to run. Dan can run, and if he loses ( an unlikely outcome in my opinion), still be mayor of Davis. If Joe had run for council again he could have run for senate in 16 without giving up his seat. Now that is an outcome without the battle royal that is going to happen. It should have been the outcome from locking them in a room, mano a mano, where instead of only one surviving, they both survive and support each other, Dan first for the assembly and Joe second for the senate.
David wrote:
> The current arrangement is not in the best
> interests of Davis…
Of course it is not, just like it would not be in the “best interests of Davis” if you took a more prestigious higher paying political blogging job in Sacramento (or if the owners of the many Davis restaurants I like to go had the chance to make more money and get more exposure by moving their restaurant to Sacramento or San Francisco)…
Let’s wish Dan and Joe the best of luck wherever they end up and work to find someone good to replace them and “work for the best interests of Davis” (until like everyone get voted out or decide to do something else)…
> Dan Wolk is a young man, he is only 34
Most of his Davis High classmates are 36, did he graduate from Davis High and start college at Stanford when he was just 16?
“Cheap shot David. Just because he went to Stanford and Berkeley is no reason to attack his intellect.”
You took that comment differently than I intended. I was actually praising his intellect, compassion and talent, but stating that his reasons for front-runner status were not due to his own talent, but rather his mother’s (and to some extent his father’s) hard work in making the Wolk name as solid as it is.
SOD: While I appreciate your point, mine was that aside from possibly losing two people to one position, we end up in a situation where because of politics, our council which is finally working could end up working a whole lot less well.
You act as if Ken Norton Jr. didn’t win those Super Bowl rings on his own. Dan won every precinct in Davis. If you would stop talking about his family, focusing on the issues facing AB4 and the California instead, I’m sure both Dan and Joe would be happy not bringing it up either.
I don’t see the parallel between Ken Norton Jr., and Dan Wolk. Without the Wolk name, Dan would have been Lucas Frerichs without a lot of Lucas’ experience and community service. Ken Norton Jr. was drafted not because of his name, but his skill set. He won the Super Bowl rings although without Aikman and Emmit Smith, as well as Steve Young and Jerry Rice perhaps not. But I digress.
The goal of our political system is provide the electorate with two or more highly qualified candidates from which to select. While I will rue the loss of either of these men from our City Council, no one can say that we will not have two or more highly qualified candidates from which to choose. To suggest that we would be better off having this choice made for us in some shady backroom deal is disturbing in many ways.
“To suggest that we would be better off having this choice made for us in some shady backroom deal is disturbing in many ways. “
i don’t read that as the suggestion here. there are two other candidates in this race, one from lake and one from napa who is the staffer for another state senator.
If Dan wins the Assembly seat, who takes over as Mayor? Should that person start serving as the Mayor Pro Tem now so that they get some on-the-job seasoning?
Both are strong options, but I would like to see one Davis candidate for AD 4. I also believe Mariko Yamada will serve well in the Senate and should be mentioned.
Regardless of Dan’s decision, Joe’s seat on the Council will be open in the next election. It will be interesting to see what candidates emerge for that seat. Some of the more obvious names are Sue Greenwald, Steve Sousa (although I have been told by a very good source that he will be an Assembly candidate rather than a Council candidate), and Alan Fernandes. The firefighters would strongly support Steve and Alan.
One name that popped into my mind was Mark Rutheiser. He was strongly being considered for the position that went to Mike Webb, but he might be even better suited to a Council seat.
Who would you like to see running for Council?
I see the issue here as not one of doubting Dan’s intellect, compassion, talent or potential, but rather one of experience. I think it is very likely that after some time getting his feet under him in the position he has won,
that of the Mayor of Davis, he would be a very good candidate to move into the Assembly. I feel that it is premature at this point in time. I would much rather see Joe, who has more depth of experience move up at this point in time, with Dan doubtless following after having deepened his own experience.
Toad seems to suggest that being Mayor-pro-tem is now the stepping stone. Winning all the precincts in Davis means one is now ready for higher office.
But what about the City. Mayor-pro-tem is the time to learn to seek consensus and help your hometown, not as a preparatory for some seat in the legislature. At this point Dan is in his mid-thirties. He has less than two years experience as a legislator (Barack had many more as an Illinois state legislator before moving to the Senate). Dan, I believe, deserves to spend more time in Davis working on Davis issues.
If one looks at the history of political progression in Davis, the school board was often the starting point followed by City Council then maybe a stint as supervisor (sound familiar?) before moving to the legislature. The office of Mayor-pro-tem is designed and historically has been used as training ground for Mayor – not higher office. It’s too bad. I think that Dan will be an excellent legislator – but not yet.
(For transparency sake, I have been a strong supporter of Joe and will continue to be when he is in the legislature.)
Joe Krovoza has served on the City Council only 8 months longer than Dan Wolk (July 2010 vs February 2011). It was the first public office held by either. So the claim the former is much more experienced than the latter is just not true.
you’re using one comparison point mr. arnold. krovoza has a full career while wolk has worked a few years for the solano county counsel’s office and before that in harriet’s former firm.
True. But is that not just ageism? It’s easier to have a “full career” if you’ve lived 15 years longer than someone who’s “worked a few years”. If that is the comparison point, then the older the better.
The point I was trying to make is that folks are touting Joe’s experience on the Council and diminishing Dan’s. I wanted to add perspective that the difference is not that significant.
it’s not ageism. it’s that i think there are things that dan will learn at the city council to make him a more effective legislator when the time comes.
Has Mariko Yamada said she won’t run for Senate in two years? Well, at least I’m not alone in missing that disappointing news: I see Heidy K, above, is also under the impression that Mariko Yamada will be an excellent Senator when that seat’s open.
Has Mariko Yamada said she won’t run for Senate in two years? Well, at least I’m not alone in missing that disappointing news: I see Heidy K, above, is also under the impression that Mariko Yamada will be an excellent Senator when that seat’s open.
Will – the difference is important. The Mayor has a larger role than the other council members and sets much of the tone of debate. Dan has zero experience as Mayor and in my mind that makes a difference. Dan is, in my opinion, too soon. I also don’t agree with some of the issues he supports – the Davis Diamond deal, the Cannery. There have been many young legislators – and my hunch is that in the long-run, experience matters in these situations – and that’s one reason we limit presidents to those over 35.
And to be frank, the question in my mind is, if Dan didn’t have the last name Wolk would he be running at this point in his career? I think its a fair question. (And to be fiar, it probably matters much more in Davis than it does in in Lake or Napa counties.)
[quote]True. But is that not just ageism?[/quote]
I don’t believe it is ageism. I believe it is about total life experience and the perspective that one gains from different jobs held, different public service roles, different life experiences. From my perspective this is not about chronologic age, but rather about relative maturity. Dan speaks, quite rightfully from the perspective of a young man with relatively limited life experiences. Joe, from a much broader range of experiences partially because of his age, but partially because of the variety of his life experiences.
“I believe it is about total life experience and the perspective that one gains from different jobs held,”
But Joe appointed Dan who he is now set to run against for state office 2.5 years later. Maybe Joe did it because Dan was the best candidate but there were some other good people as well. Still it does seem odd to me that you would appoint someone who would end up the favorite in the election for the next seat you hoped to win. This defies the basic human experience of not promoting your rivals.
i think joe and the council made a mistake appointing dan. they had an opportunity to appoint someone who normally might not have sought office and might not have had a chance to win office and instead picked a conventional choice who turned out to not be particularly strong.
[quote]But Joe appointed Dan who he is now set to run against for state office 2.5 years later[/quote]
This is an oversimplification of what happened. It was not up to Joe alone to make the appointment. The City Council made the selection after a fairly vigorous vetting process. I did not agree with their selection for a number of reasons, however, this was not a matter of Joe anointing his successor. Also, I do not agree that promoting someone who may someday be in competition with you for a desired position defies ” the basic human experience of not promoting your rivals.” I can think of many situations in which one might choose to promote an individual who they know will be an asset to a group, business or organization even if aware that they may be someday challenged by this individual. To not be willing to back the individual you perceive as the best candidate would be an extremely short sighted and narcissistic, to say nothing of self defeating strategy
in the long run.
Toad and DP, I think one can only label that Council action a mistake from a political career perspective. From a “making the best decision for the community” perspective, without question Joe and the Council made the best decision for Davis. I’ve been on the wrong side of some of Dan’s decisions, most notably on 12/11 regarding the WAC rate recommendation, but in total I believe Council made the right decision when they appointed Dan.
In closing, I will say that my gut instinct tells me that [b][i]”Dan Wolk for Senate – 2016″[/i][/b] is a stronger candidacy than [i][b]”Dan Wolk for Assembly – 2014″[/b][/i]
JMHO
It is disappointing to me that Dan would consider running before he has completed his term as council member. In the event he wins, it sets up the same undesirable situation that Don Saylor did: either an appointment by the council (undemocratic) or a special election (expensive to the city). He knew Mariko Yamada was termed out when he ran for council.
It is an unfortunate reality that the race will become a contest about public employee unions. It is obvious which candidate the public unions, particularly the firefighters, would prefer. Would Assembly member Wolk have supported the municipal bankruptcy law that Mariko co-authored? Joe has taken a stand in direct opposition to a position of the local firefighters union. Dan prevaricated, for what now appear to be political reasons.
This is a key issue for cities and counties. The interests of public employee unions are in direct conflict with the budget crises facing local governments.
Popular politicians always have fervent supporters urging them on to higher office. It would be sign of his respect for the voters of Davis, and his commitment to the city, for him to finish his term before seeking to move up the political ladder.
I disagree Don. You must consider that open seats will not happen as often now that you can hold a seat for 12 years instead of 6 or 8. Whatever other issues exist it will be a long time before there is an open assembly race again. Maybe there is a cost to running without finishing your present term but they are smaller than trying to run against an incumbent.
The question for me is what if Joe and Dan had not been contemplating a run for higher office, would they have taken different positions on Davis issues? There’s a danger that issues relating to the day to day operation of the city and public services, city and staff reports, etc., are not given detailed and critical attention, and hard votes not cast because of the desire for a “good” record to run for higher office.
Our current city council is such an improvement over what we suffered through a few years back. Although I’d barely heard of either before they were chosen, I think both guys under discussion contribute immensely to the better way the body now functions. Both seem to be nice folks, interested in public service.
If they want to move along, fine, but what do we have to judge them on at this point?
If it comes down to their performance on the council, Joe Krovoza wins hands down for his demonstrations of leadership, communication abilities, hard work and decision-making.
Dan Wold, on the other hand, blinked whenever he faced a difficult decision and took the easy route. That he’s been unable to make a comprehensible case for his votes on a half-dozen issues suggests he’s been more concerned about how his decisions affect his political future than their impact on the rest of us.
Maybe such a cynical view of Dan’s record isn’t fair. Perhaps he just has advisors who’ve got him nervous about how to be a successful political animal. But it hasn’t been a particularly flattering performance. (We’ll see whether the union suck up positions will bode well if he needs such support in years ahead.)
In any case, Dan could benefit from more council experience, including service as our mayor. It would give him chances to show that expediency isn’t his primary political skill and that he’s qualified to follow in Mom’s footsteps.
Finally, is it really surprising that today’s good Davis council members don’t want stay long in such an awful, thankless job?
There’s some odd fact shaping and selective memory going on here. That one of the candidates is 50 years old and the other 34? Please. I’m fairly certain age will not be the decisive factor.
Professional experience? Neither one of them has an extraordinary professional resume.
Public service? They’ve both stepped up to provide a valuable service to our community for which I commend them. This council by all accounts has been a vast improvement over previous councils. Both candidates have played a vital role in that improvement.
Mayor vs. mere councilmember? Last time I checked, we do not have an executive mayor form of local government.
Goofy votes? They’ve both had their share. Fortunately, the council as a whole has made prudent decisions more often than not.
Someone mentioned The Cannery, I’m pretty sure Dan and Joe have cast the identical votes on that project to date.
-Michael Bisch
One of the bloggers mentioned that Mark Rutheiser would make an outstanding council member. I agree.
-Michael Bisch
“Professional experience? Neither one of them has an extraordinary professional resume.”
You don’t consider Krovoza’s work with the university for two decades to be extraordinary professional resume or that just your bias for business experience?
Nor is Dan given much credit for working as a County Counsel.
Both of these guys are smart and talented. They both passed the California State Bar Exam the most difficult in the nation. Either would serve their constituents well.
DT Businessman says: [quote]Professional experience? Neither one of them has an extraordinary professional resume. [/quote]
I’m not sure how one measures that but one entry on Joe’s resume that may not be so obvious but is well known in the environmental community was his directorship of the Putah Creek Council in the mid-1990’s. Joe (along with a University representative and then-Mayor Lois Wolk) negotiated a historic water deal with the Solano Water Agency after winning a lawsuit to restore and maintain flows in Putah Creek below the diversion dam. Without this deal there would be no salmon in Putah Creek and it would not be the model small urban creek we have today. Without Joe’s expertise in water law and his negotiating skill we wouldn’t have this. And beyond Putah Creek, this was the first time some of the same principles used in the Mono Lake water battles were used in the Central Valley – not a small matter when it comes to water, which is not an insignificant issue in AD4.
And maybe Michael is not aware of the stature and prestige of the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies and Joe’s role in bringing national attention to UC Davis.
My comment regarding the candidates’ work experience is not negative. Like most of us, they have fairly ordinary jobs with which they support their families and contribute to society. As for Joe’s job, I wasn’t aware that he created the institute, led it through a significant transition, or was in some other type of leadership position, but maybe he did or is.
In my mind, an extraordinary professional résumé is one in which the individual is clearly a leader in their field, is in a significant leadership position, has developed significant technologies or innovations, has created widely acclaimed artistic work, started and grown successful companies, etc.
-Michael Bisch
My point is that I would not support one candidate over the other based on their professional resumes as some of the other bloggers have indicated. Nor would I do it based on one having been mayor and the other a council member. There’s not enough degree in separation in those 2 criteria.
-Michael Bisch
Hi David,
Do you really wear a hat and gloves when banging out the Vanguard? How dapper of you. No wonder your style is developing so smoothly.
Also, great pic of Da Mayor: he looks like the cat that ate the canary!
Brian
It’s been useful to hear these testimonials about the councilmen. It confirms that both deserved to have been selected for that job even though the council is their first elected-office experience.
Now that they’ve both got council experience, I’d think that Joe will get stronger support from Davisites who’ve watched both actually perform in office. And that Dan will get stronger support from outlying voters who’ll look at his “credentials” and his name recognition.
Interesting observation JustSaying.
“I’d think that Joe will get stronger support from Davisites who’ve watched both actually perform in office.” -JustSaying
Not sure what evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, the statement above is based on. I think they each have their local following, but have no idea which is numerically superior. Time shall tell.
-Michael Bisch
“Not sure what evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, the statement above is based on. I think they each have their local following, but have no idea which is numerically superior. Time shall tell.” — DT Businessman
“If it comes down to their performance on the council, Joe Krovoza wins hands down for his demonstrations of leadership, communication abilities, hard work and decision-making. Dan Wold, on the other hand, blinked whenever he faced a difficult decision and took the easy route. That he’s been unable to make a comprehensible case for his votes on a half-dozen issues suggests he’s been more concerned about how his decisions affect his political future than their impact on the rest of us.”
But, I’m repeating myself, Michael. It’s really a continuation of discussions Vanguard readers have been having for a couple years about council members’ actions/statements/performance on a number of issues the council has faced. I was particularly impressed by the most recent handling of the interim fire chief’s recommendations for better and less expensive fire department operations. Regardless of which side of the issue one was supporting, it was clear which of the two displayed leadership during the past couple months.
I’m just thinking that Davis residents will measure the men primarily on how they handle their council duties as opposed to their prior experience in non-elective work. But, voters outside Davis will be starting from scratch, agonizing over whether one of our city’s councilmen has superior credentials over the other as well as the non-Davis candidates.
At first glance, Dan would seem to have an advantage (via name recognition and, now, potential union support) beyond the city limits. But, that might be double-edged given that Saturday’s Bee felt it was “Worth Repeating” Matt Rexroad’s tweet that “A funny thing happened on the way to coronation of Dan Wolk for Assembly.”
Added to that new bit of nastiness is the campaign claim that Joe was “co-opting” Dan’s upcoming announcement. Now I’m starting to share David’s misgivings about the spectacle of these two running against each other. Oh, well, politics…
Davis isn’t even the biggest city in the newly drawn 4th District. A popular Davis politician has a leg up, but less than the incumbent did. The candidate has to win Napa, Woodland, Rohnert Park, Dixon, and a lot of rural areas that are concerned about water issues, fiscal problems, and more.
The fact that [i]we’ve[/i] never heard of Anthony Farrington, UCD graduate and rural water rights expert, doesn’t mean he’s a long shot. He’s been on the Board of Supervisors for several terms.
As one local pundit pointed out recently, being from Davis isn’t necessarily an advantage in other parts of this district.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California’s_4th_State_Assembly_district#Election_results[/url]