Saylor’s Parliamentary Sleight of Hand
It was an interesting dynamic at the council meeting with Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson absent due to an exclusive invitation with the Pilipino President. Suddenly the narrow 3-2 majority became a 2-2 deadlock on anything controversial. The battle lines were drawn on the issue of hiring a $75,000 consultant to conduct a survey on future park usage.
Heystek and Greenwald came out strongly against the suggestion, citing as we did in yesterday’s blog, concerns about budgetary priorities. Realizing that he lacked the votes, Saylor first tried to table discussion until December 12, when Asmundson would return. But that move was defeated by a 2-2 vote (a tie is essentially non-action). Saylor then attempted to convince Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek that the consultant was the right way to go. This made for an interesting exchange, but ultimately failed. I’ll say this—when you need their votes, it makes for a much more cordial atmosphere than when you know you have a de facto majority.
Finally, they voted to take no action. But Saylor had one more trick up his sleeve and with a shocking move he joined Heystek and Greenwald in support of that motion. Why would he do that? Parliamentary procedure states that in order to reconsider an item, a person who voted with the prevailing side is the only one who can bring it up for discussion again. Saylor could not bring the item back had he voted against taking no action. (At least that's my understanding of the rule, I am no parliamentarian). Thus, when Asmundson returns, Saylor can bring the item back for discussion and they can vote to hire the consultant.
It was a little disappointing that a fiscally cautious member such as Saylor would approve such an expenditure. Thus we urge Saylor to practice the type of fiscal restraint he has repeatedly urged council and the school board to undertake over the years.
Dunning Goes After Heystek Again
Dunning in yesterday’s exegesis references Noreen who remarks that “Lamar Heystek will be on a panel with three other privileged men to discuss ‘struggle.’” I had to look it up and among the other privileged men is none other than Desmond Jolly. I do not know how many people know Desmond Jolly, but if Desmond Jolly does not know what struggle means, none of us do. Yes, he is a well-regarded Professor Emeritus now, but I’m willing to bet he had to jump through more hoops in life than most people in this town to get there.
Now Heystek is actually the butt of the joke by Dunning, but I need to point out that clear oversight by Dunning (and Noreen who may not know who Jolly is or where he comes from, but Dunning certainly does or at least should).
Dunning with his usual rapier writes:
A lot of cities who expect City Councilmembers to do a full-time job actually pay a full-time job’s wage. For those who cannot survive on the $500 per month salary that a councilmember in Davis gets, they have to work an additional job. No one should feel sorry for Lamar, he’s done well and he’s doing what he wants to do, but let’s not pretend that he lives some kind of privileged life--in fact, he's probably the councilmember who can most relate to the issue of struggle as he's fought hard to obtain good wages and fair treatment for workers. And while we are at it, maybe if we do not want all our councilmembers to come from wealthy backgrounds, we can actually pay them a more decent wage. But then again, we'd have to have money to do that and we keep paying that money out for consultants.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
It was an interesting dynamic at the council meeting with Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson absent due to an exclusive invitation with the Pilipino President. Suddenly the narrow 3-2 majority became a 2-2 deadlock on anything controversial. The battle lines were drawn on the issue of hiring a $75,000 consultant to conduct a survey on future park usage.
Heystek and Greenwald came out strongly against the suggestion, citing as we did in yesterday’s blog, concerns about budgetary priorities. Realizing that he lacked the votes, Saylor first tried to table discussion until December 12, when Asmundson would return. But that move was defeated by a 2-2 vote (a tie is essentially non-action). Saylor then attempted to convince Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek that the consultant was the right way to go. This made for an interesting exchange, but ultimately failed. I’ll say this—when you need their votes, it makes for a much more cordial atmosphere than when you know you have a de facto majority.
Finally, they voted to take no action. But Saylor had one more trick up his sleeve and with a shocking move he joined Heystek and Greenwald in support of that motion. Why would he do that? Parliamentary procedure states that in order to reconsider an item, a person who voted with the prevailing side is the only one who can bring it up for discussion again. Saylor could not bring the item back had he voted against taking no action. (At least that's my understanding of the rule, I am no parliamentarian). Thus, when Asmundson returns, Saylor can bring the item back for discussion and they can vote to hire the consultant.
It was a little disappointing that a fiscally cautious member such as Saylor would approve such an expenditure. Thus we urge Saylor to practice the type of fiscal restraint he has repeatedly urged council and the school board to undertake over the years.
Dunning Goes After Heystek Again
Dunning in yesterday’s exegesis references Noreen who remarks that “Lamar Heystek will be on a panel with three other privileged men to discuss ‘struggle.’” I had to look it up and among the other privileged men is none other than Desmond Jolly. I do not know how many people know Desmond Jolly, but if Desmond Jolly does not know what struggle means, none of us do. Yes, he is a well-regarded Professor Emeritus now, but I’m willing to bet he had to jump through more hoops in life than most people in this town to get there.
Now Heystek is actually the butt of the joke by Dunning, but I need to point out that clear oversight by Dunning (and Noreen who may not know who Jolly is or where he comes from, but Dunning certainly does or at least should).
Dunning with his usual rapier writes:
wow, nobody knows the trouble he's seen, overcoming his college education and teaching position at UC Davis to become one of the youngest City Council members in Davis city history … struggle? … Lamar? … heck, he's not old enough to have even struggled with a razor …While Heystek probably isn’t going to be auditioning for “Oliver Twist” any time soon, I’d hardly say he’s lived a privileged life. He worked his way through school while working at Safeway to support himself. That’s not worthy of a pity party (and he’s never asked for one), but I doubt most students at UC Davis these days have to work to get through school. He was a clear underdog for the council but managed to create enough support in the progressive community and with a grassroots organization to get on the council where he makes a very meager income. Meanwhile he has another full-time job just to scrape by as a university lecturer, which is not a high paying gig.
A lot of cities who expect City Councilmembers to do a full-time job actually pay a full-time job’s wage. For those who cannot survive on the $500 per month salary that a councilmember in Davis gets, they have to work an additional job. No one should feel sorry for Lamar, he’s done well and he’s doing what he wants to do, but let’s not pretend that he lives some kind of privileged life--in fact, he's probably the councilmember who can most relate to the issue of struggle as he's fought hard to obtain good wages and fair treatment for workers. And while we are at it, maybe if we do not want all our councilmembers to come from wealthy backgrounds, we can actually pay them a more decent wage. But then again, we'd have to have money to do that and we keep paying that money out for consultants.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
