ASUCD Senate Passes Resolution in Support of Living Wage

In a resolution authored by ASUCD President Ivan Carrillo, Co-authored by Senator Steven Lee, and introduced by Senator Lula Ahmed Falol, the UC Davis student government unamously voted in "support of the establishment of a living wage for City of Davis employees."

In the resolution, the students register concern that the city of Davis hires "for-profit contractors for the ongoing provision of certain municipal services such as tree trimming, custodial work and landscaping" and these contractors pay as little as $9 per hour to their employees.

These wages preclude employees from even being able to live in affordable housing the city of Davis and the wage is larger than $4 per hour less than that for the lowest paid direct wage earner from the city of Davis.

"The City of Davis prides itself on being a progressive community with the aim of advocating social justice for its least advantaged members; and... the broader financial resources of larger employers such as the City of Davis places them in a better position to feasibly provide a living wage that places workers above poverty level."

The ASUCD "supports sustaining a community in which City of Davis employees can adequately support themselves financially within the city of their employment"

And they urge "the Davis City Council to pass an ordinance establishing a living wage requirement for City of Davis employees engaged through for-profit service contractors"

They also note that the current budget does not include a living wage in its provisions and thus in their resolution they call on the Davis City Council to include a living wage in their budget and to pass a budget that pays these employees a living wage.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Senator Leland Yee Named "Legislator of the Year" by ASUCD and then comes to Davis and Shows Us Why

On Thursday night, California State Senator Leland Yee came to UCD to receive the "Legislator of the Year" award from ASUCD. During the course of his awards reception, we got a small glimpse as to why he received this award.

Senator Yee:

"I am honored to receive this award from UC Davis students. UC Davis students were essential in helping pass the Higher Education Governance Accountability Act. I look forward to continuing our work to improve educational opportunities for all, bring transparency to the institution's governance, and make UC affordable for all qualified students.”

Derick Lennox, ASUCD Lobby Corps Director:

“Senator Yee is an ideal recipient for this award, not only for his leadership on pro-student legislation, but also for his willingness to partner with students in the state capital.”

Specifically, SB 190 (Chapter 523) requires all executive compensation packages to be voted on in an open session of a subcommittee and the full board. The law also requires full disclosure of the compensation package with accompanying rationale, allows the public to comment on such action items, and makes public advisory group meetings that deal with compensation matters.

Senator Yee:

“The Legislature and the Governor sent a very clear message to the UC and CSU: it is time to end the culture of secrecy and arrogance. No longer should the students, faculty and staff – the backbone of our public universities – be left to bear the burden, while top execs live high on the hog. As a graduate of both the UC and CSU, I want to make sure our higher education systems succeed by investing in instruction, not creating a get-rich factory for executives. SB 190 brings much needed sunshine to executive compensation discussions, provide members of the media the democratic access they deserve, and help restore the public’s trust.”

Senator Yee then severely criticized the discrepancy between the plush contracts of those who run UC with the continued soaking of students through tuition hikes.

"People at the top of UC are living high on the hog, while students are living hand to hand, mouth to mouth. Students are having to work more in order to pay their tuition. Students are working rather than studying, and then are also not able to participate in campus life."

"We need to shed light on the secret backroom deals at UC."

And then Senator Yee criticized the outsourcing of Sodexho workers, the failure to provide them with a livable wage and benefits.

"The battle is not over. There are workers on this campus who are denied the living wages and health care benefits they deserve. It is not right that there are some people on this campus who enjoy benefits and good salaries, while others don't."

After his speech, people asked questions and made statements, including Lidia Uribe, a cook at Segundo, who told Senator Yee:

"Thank you for your support. We really need support because our work has been really hard and there is a lot of discrimination and racism. My co-workers and I want to be part of the University and the Union so we can receive the protection at our work that we need."

Senator Yee indicated a willingness to take on Sodexho and outsourcing of UC Food Service jobs by cutting money to UC Davis--one of the few powers that the state legislature has.

This follows a lobbying effort last week from a group of concerned citizens went to Sacramento to lobby four legislators on behalf of the Sodexho Workers. These legislators included Senator Mike Machado, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Assemblyman Dave Jones, and Senator Darrell Steinberg.

They delivered a letter to those legislators which in conclusion read:

"We ask our elected officials to help us end this policy of discrimination by withholding public funds until UC Davis is in parity with the rest of the UC System."

The Sodexho workers have a powerful ally in Sacramento who is willing to take the fight to them.

This follows on the heels of President Clinton on Tuesday night, agreeing to join the fight as well, supporting the efforts of outsourced Sodexho workers to become UC Employees.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Behind the Scenes: Former President Clinton Comes to UC Davis

[Also See Vanguard Exclusive: Former President Clinton Pledges Support to Sodexho Food Service Workers]

Last night Bill Clinton came to the ARC Pavillion at UC Davis to campaign for his wife Hillary, ahead of the California Primary on February 5, 2008. It was a last minute event, that turned out to be highly successful. According to some of the organizers, the Hillary for President campaign had called and asked if they could get 1,000 people to show up at an event with the Former President as the speaker.

Instead, as early at 7 pm, two full hours before the event a crowd wrapped around the entire recreation field waiting to get in. An estimate 7,000 people showed up inside the ARC and another perhaps 2,000 were eventually turned away. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the crowd was that perhaps 90 percent of it was students.

I originally got into the event as a member of the press corps. However, eventually I went with the Sodexho Food Service Workers who were VIPs and able to go into the "Green Seating Area" which gave them access to the behind the stage seating and eventually a personal meeting with the former President himself (see the other article for more details).

The President was introduced by among others, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, Senator Mike Machado, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma from San Francisco, Speaker Fabian Nunez, and Lt. Governor John Garamendi. The special introductions were done by Max Mikalonis, the President of the Davis College Democratic Club, one of the events sponsors and organizers.

The former President showed up his customary 20 minutes late and spoke for upwards of 45 minutes. He himself seemed surprised by how many people showed up. He said he called up Hillary after the debate, and said,

"Hillary there is a line outside this stadium that is four or five football fields long."

Clinton spend a good deal of time talking about themes such as the crunch that the middle class are facing in this country, the lack of job growth in the last eight years opposed to his years on the presidency.

One of the big points he made was the housing crisis where people who took out mortgages in good faith were taken advantage of.

He talked about the America's fall in stature over the last eight years and restoring the trust of the international community.

One of the more important points he made was he felt that in this election--meaning the primary--he was voting for someone--his wife--rather than against someone. He went on to spell out his tremendous respect and personal ties for each of the key challengers. He talked about the service that former Candidate Bill Richardson had served this country both as a cabinet member under him and a Governor. He talked about the service Chris Dodd had given this country as the Senator who sponsored the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first act he signed. He talked about the statesmanship of Joe Biden.

He talked about going to North Carolina to campaign to John Edwards in 1998 and going to Illinois to campaign for Barack Obama in 2004.

He then went on to talk about health care and how important it was that hard working people have access to universal health care. He talked about one of the key failures of his administration, the failure to get universal health care. Pointing out that he was hardly to the first to do so. And that this failure was a failure of Hillary Clinton.

The key he said was not whether you fail, but how you respond to that failure and he listed off a litany of programs that he passed after health care went down that helped out working people in this country. And he made the point that you cannot be afraid to fail. Everyone who attempts to do something will fail at some of their endeavors. You cannot be afraid of failure to the point where you never try to succeed.

Following the speech, the Former President greeted a good portion of the crowd that had swarmed against the barricades, at times threatening to breech those barriers. We were allowed as VIPS to go behind the barricades and wait to meet the President himself. But first we had to wait for the President to sign autographs, shake hands, and take picture with literally hundreds if not thousands of supporters.

Anyone wondering of the strength of the Hillary candidacy amid the enthusiastic throng that got into the ARC needs to reevaluate. If all of these students and young people come out and vote in a few weeks, Hillary Clinton will be in very strong position. If all of these students and many more like them across the nation come out and vote in November, we will see yet another wage of support and a new Democratic President.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Signs, Signs, Everywhere Are Signs

The Davis City Council did the right thing this week when it unanimously passed the sign ordinance by emergency ordinance. This ordinance would allow renters to post political signs on their rental units. Given the perceived level of opposition during the commission hearing back in October, it is somewhat surprising that this measure turned out to be as non-controversial as it did.

Of course there is some fine print that we must take note of. For instance, because of the emergency status of the ordinance it is only a temporary ordinance. At some point in the future, the council will have to pass the ordinance on a permanent basis.

Some of the students in the audience drew concern from this believing that perhaps during the of a non-election period, when council members were not trying to appeal for student vote, there might be a change of heart.

At the time of the commission, there was expressed concern that signs would like to dispute and conflict. But those concerns never made it passed the commission level. At neither the hearings at the council did a single individual object to the ordinance.

There are three interesting features of this council meeting.

First, if the perception in this city is that student are apathetic, one should have attended this past week's council meeting. There was a large contingent of UC Davis students who waited patiently for issue to come forward. My estimate would be upwards of 20 to 30 students. This after six students showed up in December, after finals, and waited until nearly midnight for their item to come forward. This may not be an important issue to many in this town, it is to students. One must remember however, 40 percent of residents of Davis are renters, this is not merely a student issue.

Second, I would be remiss not to point out that the students dressed better than many of the councilmembers and other town residents. Many of them wearing jackets and ties. Some wearing full suits.

This just underlies the level of student activism and commitment. Their level of commitment is the highest I have seen from student groups since I have been here over the last decade plus.

Also I should point out there were two separate groups from campus involved. One of ASUCD. The other was the Davis College Democrats.

Finally as I told Tom Cross, the lone property owner who showed up, I always complain about lack of communication when it occurs against issues that I favor and groups that I work with, I would be remiss not to make the same claim when it happens to others.

Mr. Cross was concerned with the lack of awareness on the part of property owners. The lack of communication by the city to property owners. He said that he did not talk to any property owner who was against this ordinance, however, they felt excluded from the discussion.

Frankly I am not sure how that occurred. There were representatives of the property owner community at the commission meeting. Brenda Little works for Tandem Properties, one of the largest rental property owning companies in the city. In fact, she voted against the ordinance.

It is true that on December 18, 2007, the ordinance was strengthened to overrule local property owner decisions on the issue. Originally it was written weakly to provide the right to post a sign if there was no rule against it by the manager. It was obviously that that language would have little teeth and so at the December 18 meeting the ordinance was strengthened to make the right to post signs in place regardless of any rules to the contrary by property managers.

This provision apparently never got out to the property owners in the near month interceding, which of course was interrupted by the holidays. Clearly communication needs to improve for the city of Davis. There needs to be a better mechanism whereby citizens and interested persons can be made aware of coming discussions.

As Mr. Cross pointed out to me there is no longer any kind of overarching organization capable of bridging that communication gap by the property owners and managers. As a result there is no good way to get the word out a group that is often scattered and some of whom reside out of town.

I am glad that there was no opposition from the property owners and I agree that the lack of communication, as it always is, is a concern.

Overall though, I think the city did the right thing and I think people in this city need to start paying attention to students and their concerns. It looks like they will play a much larger role in city discussions than they have in the past.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Second Reading of Political Sign Ordinance To Be Heard Tonight

In December, the Davis City Council unanimously voted to pass the first reading of an ordinance that would enable renters to post signs on their rental unit space.

During the course of the hearing, the Council amended the original language to strengthen the ordinance.

As originally written, the ordinance would only impact those renters whose landlords did not have a provision in their lease that would ban campaign signs. While that turns out to be most of the rental agreements, the fear was that for this election cycle, renters would be able to display signs, but new rental agreements would contain provisions that would prevent the display of signs.

City Clerk Margaret Roberts during her staff report said:

"The ordinance that's before you minimally addresses that in that it says that they [political signs] are allowable, however, currently if a lease between a landlord and a tenant prohibits political signs, or any signage in their windows, that contract would supersede our ordinance. With that said, the city attorney has prepared at my request some alternatives that would disallow landlords from forbidding them to put that in."

City Attorney Harriett Steiner suggested that nothing would preclude the city from adding a section to the ordinance dealing with non-commercial advertising signs, that would enable renters to post signs on their rental unit space.

Councilmember Don Saylor voted in favor of the first reading, however, he requested to see material for the second reading. He suggested that the new language has not been seen by people outside of the room.

Due to the urgency of passing the ordinance in time for the early February primary, both Councilmember Saylor and Souza voted to pass the ordinance, but also to hear more at the meeting tonight.

Usually a second reading would merely be a consent agenda item, however, this is a full-blown regular item on the agenda.

In response to council request, City Attorney Harriet Steiner drafted a memo on the legal aspects of a sign ordinance.

Specifically she mentioned that there is not currently case law that protects the rights of individuals to post signs on private property. On the other hand, there is no law that prevents the state (or municipal government's ability to enact laws that prevent a landlord from restricting the tenant's right to display signs).

She writes:

"While neither the state Constitution nor existing statutes explicitly protect tenant speech, the applicable cases do not appear to limit the state's ability to enact laws prohibiting landlords from restricting tenant speech. In fact, as noted above, the state has already enacted laws regulating common interest developments and private owners of mobile home parks, without any court challenge."

The open question at this time however is whether landlords, now being forewarned, will mobilize against this ordinance. Recall that there was strong opposition to this ordinance aired at the City-UCD Liaison Commission.

The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution, 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.

Both Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Sherrie Puntillo and Tandem Properties Representative, Brenda Little, aired strong dissent at that meeting. Not coincidentally both are strong political allies of the Council Majority, particularly Stephen Souza and Don Saylor who both had expressed reservation about the lack of notification on the language change at the December meeting.

Will this ordinance hit a snag at the last hour or will political pressure and expediency force it through? We shall find out the answer to this at the meeting tonight.

---Doug Pauld Davis reporting

Council Passes Ordinance That Would Allow Renters to Display Political Signs on their Units

The City Council did, at Councilmember Stephen Souza's motion, pull back the portion of the election code item that would have changed the campaign contribution limitations from $100 to $250.

However, they left the sign ordinance on the agenda. Six UC Davis students stayed until late in the evening on their winter break on behalf of this issue.

The item was not without some controversy. As originally written, the ordinance would only impact those renters whose landlords did not have a provision in their lease that would ban campaign signs. While that turns out to be most of the rental agreements, the fear was that for this election cycle, renters would be able to display signs, but new rental agreements would contain provisions that would prevent the display of signs.

City Clerk Margaret Roberts during her staff report said:

"The ordinance that's before you minimally addresses that in that it says that they [political signs] are allowable, however, currently if a lease between a landlord and a tenant prohibits political signs, or any signage in their windows, that contract would supersede our ordinance. With that said, the city attorney has prepared at my request some alternatives that would disallow landlords from forbidding them to put that in."

City Attorney Harriett Steiner suggested that nothing would preclude the city from adding a section to the ordinance dealing with non-commercial advertising signs, that would enable renters to post signs on their rental unit space.

Councilmember Don Saylor voted in favor of the first reading, however, he requested to see material for the second reading. He suggested that the new language has not been seen by people outside of the room (I am not certain that has been a concern in the past when he has proposed amended language to agenda items and ordinances).

One item of interest was Senate Bill 540, which passed both houses of the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor.

That bill would have established:

"that a landlord may not prohibit a tenant from posting a sign, flag, or banner relating to an election or legislative vote, or the initiative, referendum, or recall process, subject to certain limitations."

Councilmember Stephen Souza had similar reservations about the change in langauge as Mr. Saylor, but he also had a concern about the timing since the primary election is around the corner in February 2008.

The council settled on presenting material on the second reading.

Lamar Heystek, lauded and applauded ASUCD for bringing forward this issue and getting it to the city council. He wanted to honor their commitment and the fact that they were there late into the evening during Winter Break, with appropriate action.

"It's very clear that tenant's should have equal freedom of speech rights, that they have political views, that they have opinions to express, and if they do them within the constraints of other residents, be they owners or not, I think it's a reasonable accommodation to make and I think frankly it's unfair to ask tenants to shop around for that right. To ask tenants to look for a place that will allow you to do that. It's a fundamental freedom of speech right. And just because students don't own the land that they live on doesn't mean that they don't get that right either."

He concluded by suggesting that around 40% of our residents are renters, and therefore if we do not pass this ordinance, we will be excluding 40% of our residents from an ability to post political signs.

Don Saylor supported the ordinance but he had reservations.

"I think as we express our heartfelt appreciation for the six people who are here this evening and who have worked to bring this to us... I think as we applaud free speech, and the opportunity for all people who are interested in an issue to be present to discuss it. It's also important to understand that many people who might have been interested in this issue aren't here. And one reason that they aren't here is that they weren't aware that this issue was going to be discussed in this fashion. I'm going to support the resolution, the ordinance with the amendment that has been suggested, I think it's appropriate that we proceed. But I have to say that we don't have information for alternatives for how to approach this. We have one point of view represented. That is not a good way to do business. For that reason, I'm giving you a little bit of a cold shoulder on loving it to death, because I want to know on all issues what the various points of view are so that when we pass something, we know that we have weighed them carefully and understood the tradeoffs and understood what the points of view are that may not be represented. There is always something that we pay attention to whether we agree with it or not is another questions. So democracy and free speech includes all points of view."

A few thoughts from my perspective. This is the most committed and most organized I have seen students in this community since I arrived in 1996. Don Saylor's view is ironic because the students felt that the timing of this item was inappropriate--students were on winter break, finals were over, most have left town. So it is greatly ironic that students who do not permanently live in town in some cases would show up and stay until 11:30 p.m. and that town residents would not.

Secondly, it is also interesting that no one showed up. From our description of the October commission meeting, this was indeed a lively and at times contentious debate. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce was present for that debate. As was a representative from one of the largest property management companies in town--Tandem Properties owned by John Whitcombe. This is to suggest that if they were not aware of this issue, I would have a tendency to put it on them.

Finally, it is ironic because Mr. Saylor, is just a bit disingenuous throughout this statement. He is concerned about these factors on issues that he cares about. The fact that he and Mr. Souza supported the ordinance reflects political realities more than personal preferences.

Nevertheless this is a moment for applause rather than criticism. The work of members of the ASUCD Senate should be applauded. As should their dedication. It was their work and the strong support of Councilmember Lamar Heystek that made this passage possible.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Portion of Controversial Agenda Item Pulled From Tonight's Council Agenda

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.

"Campaign Contribution Limits

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."

However, 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.

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).

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."

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.

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

Quietly... Council Looks to Change City's Campaign Finance Ordinance

You had to be very alert to notice it, but on the agenda for Tuesday night's council meeting, as the last part of the last item, buried at the end of the council agenda, reads the following:

Missed it the first time? I did. I wasn't the only one.

The item seeks to put three separate aspects of election law into a single section of the election code.

These ordinances will remove all political campaign sign regulations from Chapters 3 and 40 of the Municipal Code and include them in Chapter 12 (Elections). This will put all regulations related to elections in one chapter making it convenient for the public to look an election related question up. They will also increase the allowable campaign contribution per person to $250 from the current $100 and impose a $25 removal fee for signs placed on public property.

The guise of this move is stated as "convenience." But it also has the advantage of enabling the item to be slipped through in relative obscurity, buried at the end where few are looking for it.

The first part of the item is a public hearing on an ordinance which would allow renters to display political campaign signs. This is an item that we discussed in October that came before the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission.

It has full backing of ASUCD (Associated Students of UC Davis). 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.

ASUCD Sen. Andrew Peake:

"The right to free speech is a right guaranteed to everyone, not just to those who own property. When it comes to political participation, it shouldn't matter whether you own your home or not. When certain members of the community aren't allowed to participate in the democratic process in this way, it's a form of disenfranchisement."

City staff circulated a legal memorandum stating that landlords who prohibited their tenants from posting political signs were most likely out of step with the law.

Staff has now however taken the rather unusual step of putting together two relatively distinct ordinances into the same item. Therefore, having read the first part of the item, one might not notice that there is a second very distinct ordinance carried within it.

Adding to the confusion, is the fact that the second portion of the item has received little discussion leading up to its placement on the agenda. To the point where one wonders where it came from and under whose direction it was placed there.

Even in the agenda packet, the ordinance is buried and extremely brief. Unlike the political sign ordinance, the ordinance to change campaign finance laws has no background or discussion. It was a very simple single paragraph description.

It simply reads:

Campaign Contribution Limits

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.

The merits of the increase aside, the fact that this was done in such a quiet manner, is of grave concern. Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed similar concerns to me. This was the first he had heard of any proposed changes and he was unclear as to how the issue came about.

As Liaison the UC Davis-City of Davis Student Liaison Commission, he was very familiar with the political sign ordinance. The issue of renters having the same rights to place political signs around their rental units is an issue at the very basic levels of free speech.

However, the issue of campaign finance laws is a separate matter and needed to be brought up separately.

One can make arguments on both sides of the issue of increasing the amount an individual can donate in a city council race. However, that is not the point here. The point here is about open government, transparency, and having a full public discussion of this item. The item did not make the Davis Enterprise. It did not have any sort of prior discussion in a commission, and apparently even members of the council had no idea it was even being considered.

That is very alarming to me, again regardless of whether you think this is a good idea or a bad idea. What does seem clear is that three of the members of council are running for reelection. It takes thirty days for an ordinance to take effect after it's second reading which would be the first council meeting in January, meaning that by early February, candidates facing reelection can suddenly experience a 250% increase in their available campaign funds. And let me go out on a limb and suggest that this idea did not come from the Mayor. That leaves two likely culprits who would personally benefit from changing this ordinance.

To make things even more interesting is the fact that the Mayor Pro Tem, Ruth Asmundson, will not be at the meeting on Tuesday as she is out of town. That will leave open the strong possibility that this will not pass and perhaps it will leave open the possibility that this would be delayed until January or even after the current election.

Regardless of one's feelings on the current law or the proposed changes, the public must be heard on this issue and weigh in. Attempting to close off public input, scrutiny or debate, is a very dangerous precedent in my view. Let us have this debate with full notice in January and if the public wants to see these changes, then at least there will have been a chance for people to weigh in. My guess however is that is exactly what the timing and secretive nature of this ordinance attempted to avoid.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commission Recommends Free Speech Ordinance for Renters

Last Wednesday, the City-UC Davis Student Liaison Commission, which serves as an advisory body to the Davis City Council and examines a variety of issues that relate student affairs within the city of Davis, voted to to recommend passage of an ordinance protecting the right of Davis renters to display political signs in their windows or yards.

The issue came to the commission's attention after the ASUCD Senate passed a resolution, 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.

ASUCD Sen. Andrew Peake:

"The right to free speech is a right guaranteed to everyone, not just to those who own property. When it comes to political participation, it shouldn't matter whether you own your home or not. When certain members of the community aren't allowed to participate in the democratic process in this way, it's a form of disenfranchisement."

City staff circulated a legal memorandum stating that landlords who prohibited their tenants from posting political signs were most likely out of step with the law.

The meeting itself was marked by harsh dialogue and contentious debate between students and property owners and business interests coming primarily from the property owners and business interests.

The most remarkable was an exchange between ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake and Davis Chamber of Commerce CEO Sherry Puntillo. There seemed to be concern on the part of Ms. Puntillo and also Brenda Little who is the manager for Tandem Properties (owned by John Whitcombe), that the allowance of signs on rental property would lead to disputes and hostility.

It was pointed out that neighbors have similar problems potentially and it does not seem limited to just rental problems. Sen. Peake suggested that this is not a huge issue and that neighbors would be able to resolve such conflicts on their own.

Sherry Puntillo then suggested that Mr. Peake was "naive" to believe that this would occur and rudely asked "what color is the sky where you are." Ms. Puntillo did not respond to emails inquiring into the incident.

In the end however, Sherry Puntillo voted with the majority to recommend the city council pass this ordinance. Only three members ended up voting against it, Brenda Little, Steven Worker who chairs the commission, and Christine Bonilla.

The issue of disputes--while clearly a concern--seems like a non-issue. It is not clear that there is any more danger about such disputes between apartment or rental unit neighbors than the rest of the population. And in fact, the sheer number of signs is likely to be significantly lower on such property.

I think the real issue is that apartment owners such as Tandem's John Whitcombe, have traditionally supported pro-development candidates and placed a multitude of signs on their property. Now by allowing renters to place their own signs there will be competition.

According to several who participated and witnessed it, the disdain showed to the viewpoint of students by Brenda Little and the Chamber of Commerce CEO was alarming.

There was the belief that the comments were patronizing and they lacked a modicum of respect for students. This commission was set up to give students a voice in Davis City Government, but the students at this meeting came away somewhat believing that they were viewed as second class citizens, and not treated as equals with respect.

Nevertheless, this incident should not overshadow what was viewed as a huge step toward victory for students to be able to gain a voice in politics even from their rental units. It is the hope that with the support of the City-UCD Liaison Commission that the council will approve an ordinance that allows renters to post signs in and around their rental units.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting