The Vanguard has learned that part of item 11 on tonight's agenda has been pulled. This item contained two separate but very important issues that generated concern from the community about the timing and the manner in which they came forward.
The first part of the item is a public hearing on an ordinance which would allow renters to display political campaign signs. According to city manager, this item will likely remain on the agenda despite student complaints about the timing of this hearing because students have largely left town this week at the conclusion of finals. According to our sources.
This is an item that first came before the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission. The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution in September, authored by Sen. Michael Lay, calling for an ordinance ensuring the right of Davis renters to post political signs. Several renters had complained to City and ASUCD officials that landlords were not allowing them to put up signs in support of certain candidates for public office.
The second and more controversial portion of the agenda item relates to an increase in the campaign finance limits for council elections. This would increase the limit from $100 to $250.
Yesterday, Mayor Sue Greenwald posted the following on the Vanguard:
In a conversation this morning with City Manager Bill Emlen, he acknowledged errors on his part for failing to properly scrutinize the council agenda. He saw the portion of the agenda on the political signage but missed the change in the campaign finance limitations. This is the same sort of error that I made when I initially missed this item as well.
He felt like this item was too controversial in this community to bring forth in this manner and will pull it back for re-examination. One possibility would be to have it before an ad-hoc committee to examine what other communities are doing and what this community wants.
He stressed that this error occurred not due to some untoward influence on the process but was rather an oversight and a misunderstanding by staff as to the nature of the topic being proposed.
The Vanguard will continue following this story in the near future. Stay tuned for new updates and commentary.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
The first part of the item is a public hearing on an ordinance which would allow renters to display political campaign signs. According to city manager, this item will likely remain on the agenda despite student complaints about the timing of this hearing because students have largely left town this week at the conclusion of finals. According to our sources.
This is an item that first came before the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission. The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution in September, authored by Sen. Michael Lay, calling for an ordinance ensuring the right of Davis renters to post political signs. Several renters had complained to City and ASUCD officials that landlords were not allowing them to put up signs in support of certain candidates for public office.
The second and more controversial portion of the agenda item relates to an increase in the campaign finance limits for council elections. This would increase the limit from $100 to $250.
"Campaign Contribution LimitsHowever, the item caught many by complete surprise including apparently the City Manager and members of the council who were apparently unaware that the item was on the agenda.
The current campaign contribution limit of $100 was set by ordinance 1624 on November 20, 1991. With the increase in costs to run a simple campaign over the past sixteen years, it is being recommended that consideration be given to increasing the individual limit from the current $100 to $250."
Yesterday, Mayor Sue Greenwald posted the following on the Vanguard:
"I was unaware that changes in the campaign contribution limits were under consideration until I received my packet this weekend. (I go over the agenda items, but don’t see the staff reports in advance).According to City Clerk, Margaret Roberts, she was asked to streamline the section of the city ordinance dealing with these campaign regulations. During the course of her inquiry, she discovered that Davis' regulation was out of step with other municipalities and therefore, according to her, she made the change on her own without any direction from anyone else.
I had expressed reservations to the City Manager about this item, since Ruth was to be out of town. He assured me that the item was not substantive, but involved moving the ordinance to a more logical chapter in the City code.
When I saw the $250 surprise item, I called the City Manager to ask him why the changes in the campaign contribution limits materialized at this time and in this manner, he said that it was a surprise to him."
In a conversation this morning with City Manager Bill Emlen, he acknowledged errors on his part for failing to properly scrutinize the council agenda. He saw the portion of the agenda on the political signage but missed the change in the campaign finance limitations. This is the same sort of error that I made when I initially missed this item as well.
He felt like this item was too controversial in this community to bring forth in this manner and will pull it back for re-examination. One possibility would be to have it before an ad-hoc committee to examine what other communities are doing and what this community wants.
He stressed that this error occurred not due to some untoward influence on the process but was rather an oversight and a misunderstanding by staff as to the nature of the topic being proposed.
The Vanguard will continue following this story in the near future. Stay tuned for new updates and commentary.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
