Enterprise Runs Sheriff Prieto Letter on Prop 6

Just over two weeks ago, we had a story on California's Proposition 6. Part of that story had to do with the fact that a letter to the editor appeared in the Woodland Daily Democrat from Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto.

It turned out that that same letter appeared in numerous newspapers across the state, each having the respective County Sheriff as the author.

Sheriff Prieto writes:

"Whether California faces rosy or gloomy times, we must always make public safety the number one priority. If our streets, parks and schools aren't safe from gang violence and other crimes, then nothing else really matters."

He goes on to argue:

"Democratic members of the Budget Conference Committee have approved deep cuts to public safety programs including the Citizens Option for Public Safety, which provides for front-line law enforcement, and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act while altogether eliminating several vital programs such as California's Methamphetamine Interdiction Program and the Small and Rural County Sheriffs Grant Program. Combined with a proposed corrections package that puts some offenders back out on the streets without supervision, these cuts will significantly exacerbate the ability of law enforcement to provide essential public safety services. These programs are critical in preventing our most at-risk youths from joining gangs, getting involved in drugs, and entering a lifetime of crime."

What else does this law do according to Sheriff Prieto:

"In addition to protecting important gang prevention and intervention funding, this initiative prohibits bail to illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes; it creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shootings, methamphetamine distribution and victim intimidation; it helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."

Finally he gives you the link to a place where you can get more information: http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/ .

I point this out once again because there in yesterday's Davis Enterprise was the same letter bearing the signature of Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto.

Now when Woodland Daily Democrat editor Jim Smith found out about this little scheme, he was not that happy.

The Woodland Journal Blog was the first to point this out.

We followed up with an article that detailed the proposition itself along with the Sheriff's comments on August 14, 2008.

On August 15, Jim Smith put a blurb in his editorial.

Last week, The Democrat published a letter to the editor allegedly written by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto, titled "Our communities suffer the most from public safety cuts."

I write "allegedly" today, because an alert reader noted at the local Woodland Journal blog site that the letter was the same as others sent to newspapers across the state, some of which also published the letter atop the names of county sheriffs.

Some of those sheriffs named were Tom Bosenko of Shasta County, and Dean Wilson of Del Norte County.

First, my congratulations to an alert reader. I urge anyone who spots these letters - which are called "Astroturf" - to let us know.

It turns out the letter was submitted en masse by the "Yes on Prop. 6" Committee to sheriffs throughout the state.

Yolo Sheriff Ed Prieto is listed as a backer of the "Yes on Prop. 6" measure.

I understand very well why some otherwise well-educated people submit letters that have in fact been written by someone else. Sometimes, people have trouble putting their thoughts together to form a cogent explanation about why they feel the way they do on a particular issue. Sometimes, the letter provided is just so much better written. Sometimes, there's too much going on at the time to permit a person time to sit down and put his own thoughts on paper.

In any respect, now that we know Sheriff Prieto is a backer of Prop. 6 and will put his name on something he didn't write, we will be on our guard against future letters from him. It's not that we don't trust our sheriff to submit original commentary, we just don't know when his submissions will be original commentary.

Given the reaction of Jim Smith, it will be interesting to see how Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis reacts.

Law enforcement groups have support proposition 6, but there is a long and growing list of opponents as well.

Some of the opposition to Proposition 6 includes the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. [Click here for a full list of opposition]

The ACLU has come out against the proposition as well. They say:

"This dangerous initiative would deepen the budget crisis by diverting billions of dollars annually from schools, hospitals, and violence prevention programs into the criminal justice system. It is a misguided effort to incarcerate more and more people, including youth."

Meanwhile in a stroke of deep irony, one of the major sponsors and backers of Proposition 6, Henry Nicholas III was indicted on 21 charges in June.

This is from an ACLU release:

"Billionaire Henry Nicholas III, who donated millions to get two crime-related initiatives on the November ballot, was arraigned on June 16, 2008, on an 18-page, 21-count indictment that includes charges of supplying prostitutes to big-ticket customers, drug use and trafficking, conspiracy, security fraud and making death threats. Nicholas donated a combined total of $5.9 million of critical seed money to Senator George Runner (R-Antelope Valley) and Assemblymember Todd Spitzer (R-Orange) for their "tough-on-crime" initiatives.

The media storm has forced both campaigns to distance themselves from Nicholas, who has resigned his active role in both campaigns. While Assemblyman Spitzer has committed not to spend any of the remaining $2 million their campaign has raised from Nicholas, it was the crucial seed money donated by Nicholas that helped to put both initiatives on the ballot."

That is what you might call irony, I hope he gets as tough on himself as he wanted to on other criminals.

Stephen Walker, a CEO of a group called Minorities in Law Enforcement wrote this:

"We understand Senator Runner's goal of trying to address the gang issue. Unfortunately, this measure takes a reactionary approach and does not effectively address the root concerns of the problem. The nature of which the bill was written fails to illustrate how it would actually make our neighborhoods safer. However, it does illustrate how to further overwhelm a prison system that is largely occupied with African American and Latino males by imposing sentence enhancements and targeting these particular demographics. This is especially inconsistent when our state's Governor has recently proposed a 22,000 prisoner early release to ease the states massive overcrowding challenges."

According to the California Federation of Teachers:

"The Runner Initiative directs billions of tax dollars to prisons, probation, and police (one billion dollars in the first year, and half a billion per year thereafter; plus additional unfunded mandates that local and county governments will be forced to pay)..."

Congresswoman Barbara Lee:

"The Runner Initiative's name on the November ballot is as misleading as what it proposes to do for our community. The so-called "Safe Neighborhood Act" will not lead to safer streets, less crime or a reduction in drug dealing in our community. While we all want our communities to be free of crime and safer for our families, the Runner Initiative doesn't address the core problems or create real solutions. In light of the current California budget crisis, we cannot afford to irresponsibly spend even more California tax-dollars on a failed policy of only funding prisons and criminalizing youth; we must make investments that prevent crime, in our communities where the impact is the greatest. We should be set our sights on finding creative ways to stabilize the economy, provide our children with educational centers of excellence and insist on equal access to the jobs marketplace."

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums:

"Everyone wants safe communities. Bringing peace to urban America is perhaps the most difficult and profound challenge facing the country today. However, in this time of crisis, the Runner Initiative is the worst kind of public policy. It plays on our deepest emotions but sets us up for failure. The Runner Initiative is an unfunded mandate that will gut California's budget. It won't result in safety and security. Instead it will leave us in more debt with less safety and stability than ever before."

As I wrote on August 14, 2008, this law seems to have much in the way of unintended consequences that will end up costing the state far more than the initial money upfront.

It seems like this imposes a lot of new rules on the criminal justice system that need to be clearly thought out in terms of their consequences. Voters will often vote for these measures because they want to be tough on crime. This one has a chance to fail because of the economic issues, but frankly some of the provisions could have startlingly unintended consequences.

It seems that the Sheriff's want the additional resources and I cannot blame them for that. But if it comes at the expense of beleaguered schools, it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.

So for that reason alone, I am voting against it. And I am alarmed at a number of the provisions in the law. I am saddened to see the Sheriff, one of the very few Democratic Sheriffs in California joining his Republican colleagues and supporting such a measure just to get additional funding.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Analyzing the Davis Enterprise's Choice

Last Friday the Vanguard reported that the Davis Enterprise would be endorsing Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and Sydney Vergis for the Davis City Council. What we did not know of course was what the Enterprise would use as their rationale for their endorsement.

The surprising aspect of reading their editorial was on the one hand how subjective the criteria was--in most ways it comes down to ideology. On the other hand, it seemed almost pro forma--bearing little resemblance to reality. There also surprisingly little detail or context provided by the editorial, it is written more like a campaign brochure than any type of informative insight.

The editorial for example, argues:

"Davis will need council members who drive hard bargains with the city's labor unions, make fiscally sound decisions to live within our means"

Of course a large number of people based just on what we know from yesterday question both of those statements. The council majority has not driven hard bargains with the city's labor unions, they have pretty much given them what they have asked for. Fiscally sound decisions are few and far between. We are running up a structural deficit that will require a series of tax measures in order to balance the books. No explanation is offered for these sweeping statements. No context, no details, just blanket assertions.

"stand firm against housing sprawl while allowing enough growth to bring young families back to Davis"

It is ironic that the Enterprise argues that these candidates have stood firm against housing sprawl. Don Saylor and Stephen Souza were leading advocates for Covell Village, a measure rejected by the voters by a 60-40 measure. Sydney Vergis is an avowed proponent of Covell Village.

The Enterprise then shifts to blurbs about each of the candidates. Somewhere along the way, Don Saylor has become the voice of reason and civility. His work at the California Youth Authority respected.

It is interesting that they cite forging compromises and comes to consensus with his colleagues. The first two years on the council he had a 4-1 majority, and the next two years, he had a 3-2 majority. His voting record is consistently the most pro-growth of the five on the council. When he sat on the school board, he was notorious for be the one vote in a 4-1 decision. On the council, he has always had a majority to support him. The last council was marked by at times better contentiousness of the core issues and a series of 4-1 votes.

They do not mention his record on the issues particularly his support for Covell Village. He has worked hard in the last two years to re-work his image and the Davis Enterprise endorsement reads like a self-written bio.

"Stephen Souza has been a breath of fresh air during his four years on the Davis City Council. He's direct, honest and forthright about his positions. He doesn't offer fancy answers or slick cliches...

Supporters describe Souza as articulate and thoughtful, dedicating to serving the needs of the community at large over special interests, humorous, patient, respectful, practical, intelligent, consistent, trustworthy and tenacious."

Does Debbie Davis or the Enterprise editorial boards watch the city council meetings?

My favorite Stephen Souza moment was when he angrily yelled from the dais that they were the deciders.

As I said last Friday, realistically you could make a non-ideological argument to endorse the incumbents again. But adding Sydney Vergis to the mix is difficult to defend other than on partisan terms.

The Enterprise cite "her professional background as a land-use planner," but let's talk about that for a moment.

Sydney Vergis was hired to a senior level position with the Sutter County planning office. However, she was hired back in October 2007. Her professional background as a land-use planner? It was March 25, 2008, that's right just over a month ago that Sydney Vergis made her first professional presentation to the Sutter County Board of Supervisors.

The most interesting aspect is that both of Don Saylor and Stephen Souza's endorsement statements focused less on substance and more on personalistic attributes. We can agree or disagree with those attributes, but we ought to also look to the record.

As I stated above, both of these candidates supported Covell Village. The editorial mentions nothing about that.

Both Stephen Souza and Don Saylor supported Target coming to Davis. That was a hotly contested issue and it won narrowly.

Both Stephen Souza and Don Saylor support the 1% growth guideline.

Both Stephen Souza and Don Saylor have voted to implement fiscal policies like the raises to the firefighters that threaten to push our city budget to the brink. The difference between the city of Vallejo and Davis will likely be the willingness of the taxpayers to bail out the fiscal mistakes of the city council much as they will bail out the fiscal mistakes of the school district from past years.

The Davis Enterprise argues that they can make the tough choices with regards to the unions--if they are referring to the firefighters union, they have not so far. Not even close. Their toughest choice is deciding which tax to implement first.

On top of that the city is looking to simultaneously upgrade our wastewater treatment facility and develop a water supply project. Those are both eventually necessary endeavors, but doing them simultaneously will result in probably at minimum at $500 million project that will be transferred to the rate payers.

These are all very important issues--issues that this community is divided on in terms of how best to approach. The Davis Enterprise has chosen to back the pro-growth candidates who are being heavily backed by special interests that are seeking to profit at the expense of the tax payers of the city of Davis. It will be up to the voters four weeks from tomorrow as to whether or not they will support such policies.

The Vanguard will continue its in depth coverage of this city council election.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Enterprise to Endorse Saylor, Souza, and... Vergis

The Vanguard has learned that the Davis Enterprise will be making its endorsements in the Davis City Council race this Sunday and will endorse Incumbents Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis.

This is not a particularly surprising development--the Davis Enterprise has a history of supporting the pro-development candidates and issues.

In their recent history here are some of their key endorsements:

• In November of 2006 they endorsed Yes on Measure K--the approval of Target.
  
  
• In June of 2006 they endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy over Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes for the Davis City Council.
  
  
• In June of 2006 they endorsed District Attorney candidate Jeff Reisig over Pat Lenzi.
  
  
• In November of 2005 they endorsed Yes on Measure X.

The selections of Sydney Vergis and Mike Levy are particularly telling of course, because they are non-incumbents.

Had the Davis Enterprise chosen to endorse all of the current incumbents, they could have done so on experience grounds or at least on non-ideological grounds. They could have argued that during tough times, we need to stick with experience and not change horses in midstream. But they did not. They are simply supporting the pro-development candidates.

The selection of Sydney Vergis over Mayor Sue Greenwald is particularly insulting. The Mayor has been a resident of Davis for over 30 years. She has spent nearly a decade in office which is as long as Vergis has lived in the city of Davis itself.

Sydney Vergis at one of the forums, admitted that she has only recently become active in Davis politics. Her political activism prior to last November consisted largely of activities she participated in as member of a sorority.

During her opening statement at candidate forums she cites her experience as a senior land use planner as a background that has prepared her to be on the city council. However, that experience is less than a year old.

Whether you agree or disagree with her, Sue Greenwald is among the most knowledgeable people in this community on the issue of land use. Her knowledge of the debates and issues in this community goes back decades. There is simply no comparison.

The Davis Enterprise has actually done the progressive movement a great favor. They have made their decision very transparent and very easily for those who have been in the trenches to dismiss. The choice for progressives is very clear and very simple.

While Measure J is indeed an important issue for the coming city council, the key differentiating issue in the past three years is Covell Village.

Sue Greenwald during the initial debate on Measure J was dead on when she wrote:

"Although Measure J is a useful tool for slowing growth, it does not replace the need for City Council members who will vote against excessive peripheral housing developments. This is because spending limits are not allowed in Measure J referenda, and development interests can always outspend citizens groups.

So although Measure J is a useful tool, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for Council members that you can trust to vote against approving excessive development in the first place."

In October of 2005, Stephen Souza and Don Saylor wrote an Op-ed in the Davis Enterprise supporting the passage of Covell Village.

"Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals...

Can't we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro's?

Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That's one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don't accept our fair share of growth, we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town...

By voting yes on Measure X we will support the kind of smart planning that makes Covell Village such a perfect fit for Davis...

This election is about how, when and where we grow. Measure X answers all these questions and ensures that Davis will remain Davis...

We cannot allow our destiny to be controlled by others. The future of our community is too important to leave to the whims of outsiders. We must control our own destiny in a responsible manner. This project is in the best tradition of what Davis is.

It is important to us that we keep Davis Davis. That's what Covell Village will do. We urge you to reject sprawl and vote yes on Measure X..."

By a vote of nearly 60-40, the voters of Davis rejected Covell Village precisely because they saw it as a sprawl development that grew too large without addressing key infrastructure needs.

One could argue of course that perhaps Don Saylor and Stephen Souza learned from their mistakes on Covell Village.

But, at the first candidate's debate Stephen Souza tipped his hand:

"Stephen Souza basically suggested that the community did not understand Measure X. He said this was the first exercise of Measure J and that a project as big as Covell Village takes longer to explain to the community, that it has to come with its impacts mitigated, and that the affordable housing component has to be explainable to the public. Finally we have to totally be engaged in a process that we are expected to vote on."

Stephen Souza's view of the lessons about the rejection of Covell Village by the voters is that they did not understand it. Not that it was too large. Not that they failed to mitigate for its impacts. No it is that the voters did not understand it. That does not sound like a person who will be changing his approach to land use.

The position of the candidates on this issue are very simple.

Sidney Vergis has stated on a number of occasions her support for Covell Village. At the recent Sierra Club forum, she twice supported good "infill" projects like the Nishi property. The Nishi property of course is explicitly written into Measure J as requiring a Measure J vote and rests outside of the city. In addition, while it would appear to be in a prime location, the limited access by way of Olive Drive and traffic problems associated with that location make its development problematic at best.

Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and Rob Roy were all opponents of Covell Village. The 1% growth guideline that the Council Majority supports would produce a Covell Village-sized development every five years or so. Covell Village was at least going to phase it in over 10 to 15 years. If you support that rate of growth in Davis, then follow the Davis Enterprise recommendations. If you believe we need slower and more prudent growth then you have an alternative. If you do not think Covell Village is the way to go, then you have candidates that will oppose such developments.

As Sue Greenwald argued nearly a decade ago, we cannot simply rely on Measure J to stop developments we do not like. The developers have the money and resources needed to fight these battles and it is only a matter of time before they start to win these battles. Measure X was so colossal it was relatively easy to defeat. But if these projects start coming rapid fire, eventually the vast grassroots movement is going to wear down. Measure J cannot be a replacement for city council majorities that will oppose such sprawling new subdivisions.

We are not talking about no growth in Davis, we are not talking about ignoring concerns about housing for young families and affordability, we are merely trying to address these issues within the framework of smart and responsible growth within the current borders of Davis.

The Davis Enterprise opposes this vision of Davis and embraces the vision that brought us developments like Covell Village and will bring us future iterations of Covell Village, Nishi, and other peripheral subdivisions should the council majority that currently resides in City Hall be re-elected.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

First Candidates Forum For City Council Shows Some Clear Differences

The Davis City Council candidates met in a forum for the first time yesterday for the Davis Chamber of Commerce Candidates' forum. The forum was moderated by Debbie Davis, assistant publisher/ editor of the Davis Enterprise.

Each candidate was given a two minute opening question that they were given in advance. Then it was rapid fire, with two candidates getting one question that they had one minute to answer.

The format meant that the questions were the luck of the draw and it also in general precluded specificity. Often the candidates simply did not answer the question directly and instead gave vague and rough answers.

Questions about housing and growth dominated the format. In what follows are some of the highlights from the discussion.

The first question suggested that many on the council are purported to be no growth proponents, Don Saylor and Sue Greenwald were then asked about their position on growth. Both suggested that they were not no growth proponents. Don Saylor argued that the community and the quality of life matter. He then went on to talk about the closure of schools and the lack of apartment vacancy. He wants to provide housing for seniors and students.

For Sue Greenwald, housing should be limited to those projects that fill specific needs. We need to look at the type of housing that we are building and ask if it is really serving the people in Davis. She further argued that there was no relationship between the price of housing and the amount of housing that we have built.

Stephen Souza and Sydney Vergis were both asked if they support zero-based budgeting and to explain why or why not. Neither of them answered the question. Stephen Souza suggested that we cannot rely upon the auto industry as our tax base. He then suggested that we need to look at industry that is green in nature. Of course, his big economic initiative to date has been Target, an industry that is inherently non-green by its nature.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy were asked whether they supported the general plan provision on senior housing. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald spoke of the need to prioritize the preservation of open space and agricultural land first and then to have community discussion about whether and what types of senior housing that we should provide. Rob Roy suggested he supported the general plan provision on senior housing.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were asked about the middle income housing ordinance and the internally generated needs for housing. Sydney Vergis was concerned that there is a large range of different kinds of people living in the city and the price of housing makes it difficult to live here. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talked about working with the university to help develop housing for faculty and students as a possible remedy to some of the housing demands.

The debate then turned to state mandated fair-share housing and whether the city can meet those mandates without rezoning land or approving any new peripheral developments. Don Saylor argued that RHNA was only part of what we needed. He focused on the internal needs assessment and argued that we need to take a look at our own planning regardless of RHNA requirements.

Sue Greenwald on the other hand suggested that the numbers were not interesting to her. She was concerned that if Davis went beyond the SACOG allotment that this would lead to increased SACOG numbers in the future. She then shifted to talking about her desire to look at projects on an individual basis and the need to pursue interesting projects like her proposal at the PG&E site.

Stephen Souza and Rob Roy were asked what they learned about Measure X. Stephen Souza basically suggested that the community did not understand Measure X. He said this was the first exercise of Measure J and that a project as big as Covell Village takes longer to explain to the community, that it has to come with its impacts mitigated, and that the affordable housing component has to be explainable to the public. Finally we have to totally be engaged in a process that we are expected to vote on. This is basically the Ruth Asmundson answer rehashed, Souza simply does not understand the opposition to Measure X and argues that the public did not properly understand it rather than take from the lesson that the public is not supportive of huge new develops on the Davis periphery.

Don Saylor then declared victory on retail development and expansion with the addition of Target and Trader Joes. Now he is looking toward the university providing the area with green energy and high tech development.

Sue Greenwald and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked about fresh ideas about fiscal stability without raising taxes.

Sue Greenwald argued that we are in a box right due to contract and expenditures on city desk workers. She said that she has taken the long view when it comes to planning, and has said no when it comes to expenditures.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald then discussed retail retention. She pointed out past failed businesses in poor locations and at the same time argued that we have two major shopping centers that do not have anchors right now. She suggested that we have a commercial real estate agent work with the city to try to determine the retail deficits and try to recruit what is complimentary to the city instead of predatory to the city.

Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were asked if our housing needs during the next six years can be met exclusively with infill development. Sue Greenwald questions what the housing needs really means and wants to find ways to insure that when we develop we are filling our internal housing needs rather than external ones. Stephen Souza on the other hand argued that we could not fill our internal housing needs with infill. He felt that we could meet the majority with infill but not all. Not everyone wants to live in a small condo or in the core. The strongest opponents of new infill are the neighbors. We can, he argued, provide for those who want to downsize however.

Rob Roy came out in favor of choice voting. Don Saylor on the other hand was nuanced. He said that he supported advisory measure on the ballot. He felt like the city hadn't really explored the idea and ramifications very much. Then stated it was a "solution looking for a problem." Most people don’t understand what it is and there will be problems the first time there is change of outcome due to choice voting. Places where been in place, the process is actually being challenged.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were both asked about economic development and how they define it.

Escamilla-Greenwald examined the factors that impacted economic development and then picked one to explore--the problem of parking and the disadvantage that businesses face currently with reparking laws.

She then went on to discuss her idea for dealing with the parking problem. Her proposal would be to use city redevelopment money to construct a multilevel parking structure near the Design House with an Olive Street entrance. The parking structure would only have access on the Olive Street side, however, it would have a ramp over the train tracks meeting up with the existing lot along first street. It would then have a pedestrian ramp which would put pedestrians within two or three blocks of nearly all of downtown.

This proposal would have the advantage of encouraging people to park outside of the core area and then walk to the core. It would greatly reduce traffic flow under the Richards Overpass. And finally, it would be a regional draw as people would have easy access to parking and shopping from the highway.

Sydney Vergis defined the concept of economic develop as the retention of new businesses. She then talked about a BEDC quantitative survey to determine what works and what doesn’t work; and then coming up with measurable objectives.

The funniest moment came when Stephen Souza admittedly got a bit carried away when asked what green meant to him. He went off on a litany of "green means" statements until Don Saylor practically fell out of his seat laughing. Don Saylor then talked about his church community creating a green sanctuary and each individual changing their life styles. For him it was removing his swimming pool and changing his washer to a low flow.

On Measure J, Sydney Vergis asked people if they had read it, complained it was complicated, and suggested that she would support renewing it with "non-substantive changes." Sue Greenwald flatly said she was in favor of renewing it.

Don Saylor and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald were asked about sales tax leakage and broader shopping in Davis. Don Saylor again declared victory on retail with Target and Trader Joe's--wants to build them out and call it good. Suggested the downtown needs more attention and wants to focus on parking.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talked again about making sure the shopping centers have key anchors and then proposed a Residence Inn at the Vacant lot near the train tracks on Richards as a possible lure for those individuals who do extended work at the university and need extended lodging.

Finally, Sue Greenwald and Sydney Vergis were asked about declining enrollment and what changes in our community if any would you support to reverse this trend.

Sydney Vergis argued that this is tied to housing availability and we need to dialogue for major housing needs in Davis.

Sue Greenwald suggested there is a disagreement over the decline in enrollment in Davis. That this is also a statewide phenomena. She argued there is not a problem with a declining enrollment but rather a question as to how we absorb and plan for it. She argued it was difficult to build schools in perfect increments and that new subdevelopments actually exacerbate the problem because of life cycle issues.

Overall it was an interesting forum. The format made for a quick, rapid fire, dialogue. However, specificity and substance sometimes was a bit lacking. The Vanguard will be closely following the council race and reporting far more in the coming weeks.

Disclaimer: Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald is the wife of Doug Paul Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Coverage of City Council Elections

When my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, announced last fall that she was considering a run for the Davis City Council, I believed that the only fair and reasonable course of action would be to not cover the Davis City Council race on the Vanguard. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that the Vanguard cannot afford to hire employees at this time and therefore finding good and reliable help has proven difficult.

As time has passed it has become clearer and clearer to me that the Vanguard needs to cover the Davis City Council race as an alternative voice to the Davis Enterprise. And while I might be biased and interested in the outcome of the City Council race—who isn’t? Who doesn’t have an agenda? I will simply lay mine on the line every time I discuss the council race and people can decide on their own whether what I have to say makes sense or whether it is political rhetoric.

But more than just that drives my concern. The policies set up by the Enterprise to cover this race—a highly important election that we face—are quite simply inadequate and unfair to the public who need to be able to make an informed decision come election time.

The Vanguard is planning to allow each of the candidates directly to submit one article per week to the Vanguard. This will allow the candidates to communicate directly with the public. It is the Vanguard’s hope that this will inspire community dialogue on a variety of topics. We are also working toward creating a reader-submitted questions for a candidates forum for later in the election.

Many in this community have become increasingly concerned with the tenor of the dialogue that has emerged in this city. They will point to the sometimes contentious city council meetings that at times erupt into personal and heated discord.

And yet in many ways, fueling that discord, indeed fanning it is Bob Dunning, a Davis Enterprise columnist. Bob Dunning has often made the claim that he has no politics and only desired good public people to target for ridicule. If that is true, then it is far more disturbing than if he simply had a political agenda. He fans the flames of discord, taking cheap shots when available. As one person told me, “The substance does not matter, only the neat-word fun you can make of people and get paid for it.”

Those who complain about civility in local politics ought to pay close attention to some of the current tactics employed by Bob Dunning.

The example of young candidate Sydney Vergis is a good one to illustrate the problem. It should be pointed out that Ms. Vergis is too closely affiliated with the developers for my taste, but that does not make the cheap shot, hit and run, and really uninformed rhetorical attack by Mr. Dunning any more appetizing.

Dunning writes:

“Vergis is just 25, younger than Lamar Heystek, but that hasn't stopped her from becoming a senior land use planner for Sutter County, which bumps into our esteemed county just as you hit rice country...

" Vergis said that in her job as a planner, she's working to preserve habitat in Sutter County," St. John's piece adds. "She also strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through smart planning, she said, and would like to put her talent in action for Davis."

I presume she jogs to work in Sutter County, which is more than a few kilometers north as the crow flies. Or maybe she works from home.
...

" Vergis said she believes the Davis City Council should support alternative transportation such as bike rentals at automated kiosks near the Amtrak station."

Hey, maybe she can ride a rented bike to Sutter County.”

The gist of Mr. Dunning’s attack is that it would seem on the surface to be a bit hypocritical to be talking about reducing carbon footprints while commuting 45 miles each way to Sutter County. But as we have often noted with Bob Dunning, he never quite checks his facts. If he had, he would have found that Sydney Vergis actually carpools to work with others and therefore her individual contribution to the carbon emissions is greatly reduced.

More importantly, what purpose does this uninformed attack play in terms of public discourse? It does not give us additional insight into Sydney Vergis’ viewpoints. It is negative. It is an unnecessary potshot.

Again, I have no particular affinity with Sydney Vergis, but I also do not believe she deserves to be hung out on a rail over this issue by Bob Dunning.

This moves me to an additional point that I noted again in the last week. Much has been made of the Anonymous postings on the Vanguard. And yet in the past week, we have “Terry at pacbell.net,” “K.O. at yahoo.com,” “a church member named Sarah,” among others launching into attacks on various candidates. These are essentially anonymous attacks posted in the Davis Enterprise. Except of course, the individual targets do not have the opportunity to immediately respond as they would in the Vanguard. And if indeed, if they took the time to write in a 350 word response in the letters to the editor, that would be published a week later, they could be attacked again in a future Dunning column, with no opportunity to respond.

Again I ask does this aid in the public discourse? Does this help in changing the tone at City Hall? Or it is just fanning the flames and creating more attacks to which people cannot respond? Is there any benefit to the Davis Enterprise printing essentially private communications to their staff in their newspaper?

The Vanguard was created in July of 2006 because first of all I thought the progressive viewpoint did not get a fair hearing in the Davis Enterprise. But secondly, because I believe we as a community deserve better overall. We deserve to be able to hear all of the candidates perspectives on various issues. We deserve to be able to make up our own mind as to who serves our interests the best. We deserve to be able to have a public dialogue without the mudslinging from disinterested commentators who simply wish to fan the flames of resentment by pummeling easy targets. And when these targets are pummeled, they deserve the ability to be able to defend themselves in a reasonable manner.

This blog may be biased, this blog may criticize, this blog may investigate, but every single person who is the subject of this blog has the right to respond as they see fit.

There is a better way to do things, and the Vanguard wishes to lead the way.

The Vanguard wholeheartedly encourages all candidates to read all the material on the blog dealing with the race and to encourage them to comment as often as they see fit. This could lead to some pretty interesting political discussion for the community.

Let the candidates speak for themselves and the public can decide what they want to believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Teachers Association Backs Off Endorsements

Back in September, it appeared that the Davis Teachers Association had endorsed school board candidates Joe Spector and Susan Lovenburg. However, after a series of votes, the DTA decided to back off the original endorsement and has decided not to endorse anyone in the school board race. Interestingly enough, the Vanguard became privy to this information a week and a half ago following the September 25 vote, but was asked not to report on it.

Yesterday's Davis Enterprise however, reported on the entire dealings.

The Political Action Committee had originally unanimously endorsed Susan Lovenburg and Joe Spector. The endorsement was viewed as controversial by some of the membership. An election was held at Korematsu which confirmed the original endorsements, but they had low turnout at that meeting and Rep Council made the motion to have another election, and hold it at the school sites where there would be more representation.

At this point, a vote was taken as to whether to endorse both Susan Lovenburg and Joe spector, both names were placed together, and that was rejected by the narrowest of margins--five vote separating the yes and no votes. As a result there was yet another election, but this basically confirmed the results of the second election.

The decision has been made not to endorse in the school board race, instead they have decided to focus their energy on Measure Q and contract negotiations. 98% of the membership voted to endorse Measure Q.

The Vanguard spoke by email with each of the candidates for a reaction.

Richard Harris:

"I had a number of teachers contact me and say they were upset with the entire process. Apparently they did something about it."

Bob Schelen said that he has respect for both the teachers on the endorsement committee and the DTA, and does not believe it appropriate to comment on an internal policy matter.

That said he said:

"I would urge teachers that live in the District and those that support teachers to cast one of their two votes for me. School budgets and teacher salaries matter, I will work to give teachers the tools they need to teach our children so they can compete for 21st Century jobs."

Susan Lovenburg also refused to add to the coverage in the Davis Enterprise, similarly suggesting that she was not privy to the inner workings of the DTA.

She did add:

"I am pleased, however, to have received the support of the California School Employees Association. They endorsed my candidacy at their meeting last Thursday."

Joe Spector who had originally been endorsed in the process was most outspoken in his reaction:

"I fully understand how the political process of the Davis Teachers Association works, having been a contract negotiator for my union for ten of my 25 years in the DTA. While I am honored that the Political Action Committee and the Representative Council recommended me for endorsement to the general membership, I am of course disappointed that a mere 5 votes prevented the leadership recommendation from being ratified. As a member of the Davis School Board, I will continue to support the dedicated teachers and staff of the DJUSD."

Meanwhile, speaking of endorsements, the Davis Enterprise has endorsed Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris for school board. I have never been fully comfortable with the concept of a newspaper endorsing candidates particularly in non-partisan, local races. Indeed, the Vanguard is remaining neutral in this race and shall make no endorsement. Ironically, the Vanguard has been accused of bias while the Enterprise purports to be fair and impartial.

Frankly, the Enterprise endorsement has always been a bit suspect in my mind. In 2004, they endorsed Stephen Souza and Don Saylor for City Council. In 2005, they endorsed Yes on Measure X. In 2006, they endorsed Ruth Asmundson and Mike Levy for City Council, Jeff Reisig for District Attorney, Matt Rexroad for County Supervisor, as well as Yes on Measure K for Target.

The Vanguard will have an election edition as we get closer to the election, it will likely feature statements from all four the candidates and let the reader's decide who they want to support.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Dunning: Populist or Social Conservative or Perhaps Both?

For those who read the Sacramento Bee article on Tuesday morning on Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning, it was an interesting read.

The article posits the almost existential question of who and what is Bob Dunning, and the answer is that he seems to be almost conflicted.

"So which is he? Closet conservative or closet liberal? The answer is: both and neither. In other words, nuance and ambiguity win out. Even Dunning says he's conflicted when asked about his world view and political leanings. (For the record: Yolo County's voter registration lists him as a Democrat.)"

It continues:

"To some, especially in Davis, he is considered too conservative to represent the progressive citizenry of the college town many dub "The People's Republic." These critics see him as a defender of the status quo and an apologist for pro-growth politicians and developers.

But among some Catholics, he is considered too liberal. Though Dunning is ardently pro-life, condemns homosexuality as a sin and boasts that he's "to the right of George W. Bush on the stem-cell issue," some of his other views have raised eyebrows among church conservatives. So, too, does the fact that he's been married three times -- though one short-lived marriage was annulled."

One of the interesting things, I learned from this article since I do not listen to Bob Dunning's radio show is how conservative he is on a lot of social issues. And perhaps, as the article suggests, he is not uniformly so. Nevertheless, some of the views here are rather shocking.

Except for a denunciation of right-wing Catholic League leader Bill Donohue, there was scant evidence of blatantly liberal Catholicism during several recent weeks of Dunning's show on Sirius:

* On homosexuality: "It's a sin. The Catholic Church teaches that the act is a sin. But don't violate anti-discrimination laws (against gays)."

* On the Good Friday prayer controversy: "Jews are upset because we're praying for their conversion, asking God to remove the veil from their hearts and overcome their blindness. ... If I was Jewish, I don't know if I'd make a big deal out of that."

* On pharmacists being forced to sell the morning-after pill: "People who are pro-choice are no-choice. They don't care about your conscience."

Recall that this is a columnist that accused this blog of being anti-Catholic. And yet he shows remarkable insensitivity toward Jews and their beliefs.

Back on January 12, 2007, Bob Dunning wrote in his Davis Enterprise column:

"Twice on this blog I've seen truly ugly references to Catholicism as it pertains to the Above-Pictured Columnist made by anonymous cowards … if this ugliness had involved any other faith, it would be condemned by this town's alleged civil rights activists as "hate speech," but it's apparently open season on Catholics … yes indeed, real life hate-mongers right here in the Most Relevant City in America …"

I was asked about this charge from the reporter when he interviewed me for the Bob Dunning story--he could not find a reference to Bob Dunning and Catholicism. In fact, if you do a search on Dunning and Catholic, you will find only my response to his January 12th column. There is a mild criticism of Dunning not living up to Catholic mores in some of the comments, but that is certainly not anti-Catholic nor is it something that emanated from my keyboard.

I did not realize it at the time of this interview, but apparently the very fact that I was personally willing to respond and criticize Dunning made me unique.

"Three other local critics of Dunning declined interview requests, saying they feared retribution in Dunning's column."

Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a Bob Dunning treatment can understand why that is the case.

Often, Dunning puts aside his breezy, snarky style and strikes back. In two January columns, he savagely dismissed the Vanguard bloggers, calling their analyses of his work "actionable libel and defamation" and writing, "In my book, this blog has become a rag, which makes it a blag."

One of the reasons that I began this blog last year was to create a vehicle by which to respond to Bob Dunning. The problem was that if Dunning attacked you, he twists your words. I have seen his columns where he attacks someone or completely distorts their email pulling key lines completely out of context to imply that they are saying something that they had no intention of saying. I have been shown original emails that bear no resemblance to his columns.

To respond to him, you get a 350-word letter to the editor and he can respond with five columns a week if he so chooses. At least with the blog, there is an opportunity to respond fully and to get the facts out there.

For his part,

"Dunning says people often mistake his humorous asides for attacks."

I do not buy this at all. I think it may be closer to the truth to suggest that Dunning dresses up his attacks in humorous asides. But they are attacks nonetheless.

"Among their examples, Greenwald and fellow critics point to what they perceive as Dunning's "personal attacks" against progressive councilman Lamar Heystek as well as his unwavering support of the Davis Police Department during a 2006 dispute about the adjudication of a controversial misdemeanor hit-and-run case involving a Muslim teen. (Some activists called it a case of racial profiling.)"

For example, in December, Bob Dunning through his confederate Noreen Mazelis unleashed an attack on Councilmember Lamar Heystek suggesting that he had not sufficiently suffered to be able to sit on a panel to discuss "struggle."

STRUGGLING WITH LAMAR....writes my friend Noreen: "Per Sunday's Enterprise ('Briefly,' Page A3) Lamar Heystek will be on a panel with three other privileged men to discuss 'struggle.'" ....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....

Reading this passage, you can see that it certainly is wrapped in heavy sarcasm with attempts at humorous interludes, but at its core, it is an attack and in fact as we devoted a large amount of space last fall to suggest--a wholly unfounded one at that.

This was of course not the first time that Dunning attacked Councilmember Heystek. During last year's election, the Councilmember found himself under attack for being anti-law enforcement.

Dunning suggested first that Mr. Heystek had slipped in the city council race based on his position on police oversight and Officer Ly's conduct in the Buzayan case.

"He is now running third, maybe fourth, in a race where only two seats are available and chances are fading that he can make up the deficit between now and Election Day …"

Moreover, after Mr. Heystek released a statement of support for the police, Dunning derided him:

"Great stuff, Lamar, but it's too little, too late..."

Dunning then proceeded to attack his association to a certain person that I happen to married to.

Is that a funny aside or a personal attack on someone? I suggest it is both.

As I am quoted in the Sacramento Bee:

"Sometimes he uses his column as a bludgeon instead of a way to enlighten the community on issues."

Of course, not everyone is critical of Mr. Dunning.

The article cites two people in strong support. One an individual named Richard Bruce:

"He's an institution. He's a populist who's been relatively friendly to economic growth so that people can afford to live here."

A populist? It is indeed difficult to pigeon-hole the guy, but I would say he is more often a "shill" for the political establishment than a populist. He's probably more often friendly to economic growth, but even here you have to be more careful and nuanced. Dunning was basically against Measure X. I am uncertain how much he cares about people being able to afford to live here, but perhaps someone can cite examples to the contrary.

The biggest cheerleader for Dunning is the one person who ought to be in the position of authority over him and that is Davis Enterprise Editor and Assistant Publisher Debbie Davis. Davis plays cheerleader for Dunning:

"What I totally admire about Bob is that he has the facts to back up his opinion."

Really, perhaps Debbie Davis can give us the facts to back up Dunning's opinion on Heystek and struggle? Sorry to keep using that as an example, but it is so blatantly inaccurate.

In most ways, the views and ideas presented in the Sacramento Bee article are unsurprising to those who have followed Dunning. I have been in the past accused of not appreciating the fact that Dunning takes his positions on a case-by-case basis. I can appreciate that. I can see how Dunning's radio views would anger those both on the left and the Catholic Church.

Yet at the end of the day, I view him as I do Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly claimed when he was a bit newer to Fox News, that he was neither conservative nor liberal. And what you would see is about 80% of the time he would be on the right and then 20% of the time he would say just enough that the right hated so that it would be difficult to pigeon-hole him and so that he could anger just enough conservatives and get them to complain, so that he could say, see, I told you, I'm in the middle. But anyone who views O'Reilly on a regular basis knows he is a strong conservative on most of the important issues and that ideologically he relates better to that side of the aisle.

That is mainly how I see Bob Dunning. I wonder how he would go over if more people realized how far to the right he is on social issues. I suspect he may be more of a typical old-time Catholic Democrat on some of the economic issues, but I have not seen enough of him to make that determination.

I can appreciate at times Dunning's humor, but I remain a strong critic of his precisely because of the way that he wields that humor and the sheer force of five columns a week.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Errors in an Article on the UC Davis Sociology Department Lead to Questions about the Davis Enterprise

On July 20, 2007 the Davis Enterprise ran an article, "Sociology courses canceled - UC Davis instructor complains after his workload is decreased" by Davis Enterprise Intern Talia Kennedy, a recent graduate from UC Davis.

The crux of the article is that the Sociology Department due to budgetary problems had to cancel a number of courses for the upcoming year.

Responding to fiscal shortcomings, the UC Davis department of sociology has canceled several courses for the 2007-08 academic year. Though department officials spared many classes led by tenured faculty, they slashed 16 undergraduate courses, many of which were taught by lecturers and acting instructors — a move that has disheartened at least one lecturer.

The article cites a sociology lecturer, David Gharagozlou who believes that his race and ethnicity are the reason that his courses were canceled.

"I (am) disappointed," said David Gharagozlou, who was hired as a sociology lecturer two years ago. Three of the courses he taught during the 2006-07 school year were canceled, and the department chairwoman, Vicki Smith, assigned him to teach only one course in the fall.

Smith, who just completed her first year as leader of the department, cited budget cuts as the reason behind the changes both in a letter to Gharagozlou and in an interview with The Enterprise. However, Gharagozlou said he believes her decisions were based on personal attitudes about his background: Gharagozlou is a native of Iran, where he once taught at the University of Tehran. His research and instruction largely focuses on political and religious fundamentalism.

"My class evaluations were good and if the personal antipathy (is) the reason for that, maybe she doesn't like my origin," Gharagozlou said in an e-mail from Sweden. "I am sorry for her because this is unprofessional and if she favor(s) others then it is a sign of favoritism, which is (a) very weak attitude and it doesn't belong to (the) quality of leadership."

The article generated a strong reaction from many others in the sociology department. In a letter to the editor, Ara Francis, a graduate student, and 23 other signators, writes:

As a doctoral candidate in the sociology department, I was alarmed to read Talia Kennedy's article about recent course cancellations. In this piece, Ms. Kennedy draws from an interview with lecturer David Gharagozlou who suggested that the department chair, Professor Vicki Smith, canceled his classes because of favoritism, the religious and political content of his courses and his Iranian heritage. These were very serious statements, none of which were corroborated, and it is unsettling that this piece was published without further investigation.

The letter goes on to criticize the writer, Talia Kennedy for failing to interview other teachers (Ms. Kennedy only interviewed Gharagozlou)--10 lecturers and instructors in the Sociology Department--about their reactions to course cancellations. Furthermore, Ms. Kennedy did not point out that the budget problems are universitywide and not specific to the Sociology department.

Finally and this is perhaps the key, lecturers are the last hired and first "fired" when budget shortfalls arise. Lecturers serve as temporary and adjunct professors and they do not receive the priority that full-time university tenured or tenure-track professors receive. So it is natural that a lecturer would have their classes cut first rather than a university professor.

Says Ara Francis, et al in the letter to the editor:

It is my impression that temporary instructors like Dr. Gharagozlou and myself constitute a "flexible labor force." This means that we are given jobs when money is available, and we are the first to lose our jobs when budgets are cut. Indeed, this is an unhappy state of affairs. However, the current status of university lecturers is a structural problem that has little to do with the hiring decisions of individual department chairs.

This is however, the beginning and not the end of the story. Though the letter to the editor was signed by Ara Francis and 23 others, when it appeared in the Davis Enterprise only Ara Francis was noted as the sole signer of the letter.

According to Ms. Francis,

When Talia Kennedy's article was published on July 20th, it generated a lot of discussion on our electronic listserv, and someone suggested that we put together a letter articulating our concerns. I drafted the letter and received endorsements from three lecturers and twenty-one graduate students (most of whom also work for the sociology department as instructors or teaching assistants).

Furthermore, the title of the published letter reads, "More Investigation Warranted." Ms. Francis believes that would lead readers to assume that the letter called for further investigation into the allegations made by Dr. Gharagozlou's when in fact, that is "quite contrary to the spirit of the letter."

The biggest complaint was that the letter only contained Ms. Francis' name.

The most problematic aspect of the published letter was that [Davis Enterprise Editor and Assistant Publisher] Debbie Davis neither included nor referred to the twenty-four endorsements, despite the fact that the original letter - signatures included - met the 350-word requirement. Those signatures were central to the letter because they presented a direct challenge to Dr. Gharagozlou's claims. Indeed, most of the endorsers were temporary instructors also affected by recent course cancellations.

Ms. Francis would speak to Debbie Davis by telephone regarding the decision to exclude the other signatures. According to Davis Enterprise Editor and Assistant Publisher Debbie Davis who graciously responded to my inquiries via email,

"It is our policy to make a follow-up phone call to confirm letters to the editor that we receive via e-mail. As I told Ara Francis, the letter writer to whom you refer, since we could not confirm the additional signers of the letter, I did not list them."

Ara Francis disputes this claim by Ms. Davis:

"I easily could have provided verification because all but one of the signatories had requested via email that their names be added to the letter."

Debbie Davis acknowledged it would have been better to have at least noted that there were additional signers.

"In retrospect, I wish I had added the line "and 24 other signers" beneath her name when her letter was published. At her request, we did just that in a separate squib published on Aug. 1."

The handling of the matter drew further scrutiny and criticism from Ara Francis. While Davis was willing to publish a small blurb in the paper noting that the letter had received twenty-four signatures rather than one signature, she was inclined to let the matter drop and not devote any further space to this incident.

According to Francis,

She went on to tell me that she preferred to not publish anything further regarding this story - including a third letter to the editor that she had received from another graduate student - because Talia Kennedy is a summer intern who feels "devastated" about the fallout from her story. She stated that she didn't want to push this young woman "over the edge."

In fact, the situation leads to questions about how the newspaper screens and eventually "hires"and supervises interns. The interns are selected and supervised by Linda DuBois, an associate editor who is on vacation and unavailable for comment. Interns receive no pay, only experience.

According to Debbie Davis:

"[I] feel it is a newspaper's responsibility to help train journalists of the future. This is a profession where much can be learned by doing. Each story gives a young reporter more experience, more confidence and more tools for the next story. We learn best by doing."

Ms. Davis went on to describe the process by which they receive and accept applications from prospective interns during the spring. Associate Editor Linda DuBois then interviews the candidates "whom she believes will suit our needs." One key consideration in that process is whether the intern has the ability to live in the area, since they are not paid for their work.

"Since we do not pay wages, that is of some concern to us. For example, we'd be unlikely to hire an intern from New York state who would have to incur a large debt to complete the summer internship"

Somewhere along the way however, this process must have broken down, as a reasonable review of Talia Kennedy and her past record would have revealed some startling revelations.

An incident occurred in mid-May of this year in which thirty-one members of the California Aggie staff, where Talia Kennedy served as campus editor last year, called for the resignation of Ms. Kennedy and Peter Hamilton, the editor in chief of the student run news paper.

In a pointed letter signed by 31 staff members, they complained that they had "no confidence" in the Aggie's leadership namely Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy, the ambitions of Talia Kennedy to ascend to the position of editor in chief for the following school year, and a huge amount of unnecessary expenses incurred while attending an awards banquet.

Problems had been brewing all year long. As early as December of 2006, I had spoken with a number of individuals at the California Aggie who complained about the methods of Ms. Kennedy and her relationship with the editor, Peter Hamilton. This was in response to a number of stories we did last fall complaining not only of poor coverage in the Aggie, but the lack of responsiveness of the editors to these complaints.

The Davis Wiki reported on May 24, 2007:

"The Media Board put both Peter Hamilton and Talia Kennedy on administrative leave for the remainder of their terms. In response, Hamilton locked the Aggie staff out of the website (he was drawing pay for both Online Editor and Editor in Chief). Additionally, there are reports that Hamilton changed the lock on his office, preventing access from the rest of the Aggie staff."

Was the Davis Enterprise aware of these problems just two months prior to the article on the Sociology Department? According to Debbie Davis, they were not.

"I was not aware of any internal problems at the California Aggie involving Talia Kennedy. I don't believe Linda was either."

However, a quick search on Google of "Talia Kennedy" and "California Aggie" would have revealed this incident and might have called into question the hiring of this intern.

According to Ara Francis, problems with the story on the sociology department may lead to changes with how the paper mentors their student interns.

"[Debbie Davis] said that this situation has caused the paper to reconsider how they mentor their interns, and she agreed that the story had needed further work before going to print."

However,

At the same time, she said that this issue wasn't important enough to pursue publicly. When I said it sounded like a "big mess," she replied that it was not, and that in fact, this situation it was "not even a bump in the road."

In the meantime, Talia Kennedy continues to intern at the Davis Enterprise until later this month when she will attended the UC Berkeley graduate school in their Journalism program.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Judge SLAPPs Down Buzayan Suit Against Newspaper

It was reported last week in the Davis Enterprise that a judge had dismissed the portion of the Buzayan suit that was aimed at sanctioning the Davis Enterprise for posting the audio tapes of the arrest of then 16-year old Halema Buzayan in 2005.

That suit was based on two key factors. First, that the District Attorney's office had leaked the tapes to the newspaper against the orders of Judge Thomas Warriner. And second, that the Davis Enterprise had failed to edit out specific personal information about the Buzayan children and their family, not to mention also personal information about the victim. The tapes containing that personal information were left up for five days, until the victim emailed Assistant Publisher/Editor Debbie Davis at the Davis Enterprise and the paper pulled down the tapes until they could edit them.

Of the 19 complaints filed in the Buzayan lawsuit, from the beginning this would appear to be the most problematic. Could a paper be sanctioned for knowingly publishing tapes that they had acquired from a government body--in this case the DA--that under most conditions they knew should be confidential by law.

If we think about it from another standpoint, the answer appears to be more obvious. Suppose this were not the District Attorney's office but rather a whistle-blower leaking this information to the press. Instead of a case against a juvenile, it involved some sort of corporate malfeasance about a major company and their CEO. The whistle-blower illegally leaks the information to the press and the press reports it as a huge expose. Do we want that company to be able to sue the newspaper under those conditions? I think the answer is simply that we do not. Therefore it is difficult for me to fault the ultimate ruling from Judge England.

However, from other angles this ruling is still a bit perplexing.

Judge England decided this case under SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). He writes:

"California’s Anti-SLAPP law is aimed at curtailing civil actions designed to deter private citizens from exercising their rights of free speech."

SLAPP primarily refers to the suits placed by large corporations or other wealthy entities against individuals who are practicing free speech activities. These large entities can simply use their vast resources to force individuals to defend themselves in the legal arena. The huge discrepancy in resources means that an individual is severely disadvantaged in the fight and therefore such suits create a chilling effect on the free exercise of speech.

In this case, you have a family suing the newspaper for releasing what they deem to be confidential information regarding a juvenile case and negligently posting private information that could end up being used by identity thieves against the family. The Davis Enterprise is not disadvantaged in their resources compared with a private family and so SLAPP in this manner seems to be used to prevent a suit for which it was not intended to be used.

In response to the verdict, Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis proclaimed:

“We're very pleased with the judge's ruling. We were sued, basically, for doing our job - for covering a story of intense public interest and for making important audio files available to the public. We're happy that Judge England affirmed our constitutional right to do so.”

This is a misleading statement by Ms. Davis. The Davis Enterprise was sued because they chose to print and post material from a juvenile case that was supposed to by law and Judge Warrnier's ruling remain confidential. The Deputy District Attorney in this case, Patty Fong was explicitly told by Judge Warriner that the district attorney's office could not release information or discuss this matter because it was a juvenile case. The family is always permitted to release information and discuss this matter. As Judge Warriner explained when he denied Fong a motion to gag the defense, the juvenile laws were set up to protect the rights of minors not to protect the government from charges of impropriety.

It does create a burden on the government, but the law was set up to protect minors and juveniles from just the sort of abuse that Ms. Buzayan received from the DA's office. The DA's office used the Davis Enterprise to achieve their goals here and I think attorney Whitney Leigh was exactly right when he said that "the reporting and recordings were meant to embarrass, humiliate and cause hardship to the Buzayan family.” They clearly were.

The family was not suing the Davis Enterprise for doing their job. They sued the Davis Enterprise for working with the DA's office to violate a juvenile's right to privacy.

In the end, I think the Judge here made a tough ruling. It took him nearly two months from the time of the hearing to the time of his ultimate verdict. That indicates that he felt this was a very close call.

However, what the newspaper failed to note is that 18 of the 19 complaints filed by the Buzayan family have been allowed to go forward for trial. That includes the meat of the case against the Davis Police Department and the District Attorney's Office. In looking at this case, this complaint against the newspaper seemed to be the most difficult to sustain and proceed to trial because of free speech protections provided to newspapers and the unwillingness of most Judges (and rightfully so) to sanction a paper for reporting on something that they obtained legally (at least on their end).

In the end, the Buzayans will get their day in court. The Davis Enterprise will eventually have to own up to Debbie Davis' proclamation that the officer "was doing his job and doing it well." That will be the Buzayan family's ultimate vindication.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Thursday Midday Briefs

Davis Enterprise Headline on Anderson Bank Building Issue Causes a Stir

Under the headline of "City opts for history over commerce," the Davis Enterprise article caused some controversy of its own as I received a number of complaints via email.

The article itself also generated complaints of people claiming that the coverage was skewed toward building owner Jim Kidd and his comments and away from the 3-2 council majorities' viewpoints.

The headline alone though has to give one serious pause because it actually takes sides implicitly in the policy dispute.

On one side of the argument was Jim Kidd's initiative to lower the building windows citing the need for improved space for retail development.

"Over the last twenty years I have been attempting to rent and keep retailers at the corner of the location of the Anderson building. For the most part it has been a constant revolving door of these struggling to be successful."

This argument by Kidd and his supporters suggests that the issue is about commerce, and that in order for the downtown to be vital and to war off the big boxes which "are at the gates of Davis" you must allow him and others like him to create a more business friendly image.

However, the majority on the council on this issue rejected that Manichean view of commerce and history as a zero-sum game in which a choice in favor of history is automatically a choice against commerce (as the headline applies).

Councilmember Lamar Heystek spoke of the need to weigh the character of our downtown community in addition to the economic value such development may create. He did not view economic goals as the only important consideration, however, it is unfair to suggest as the headline would that he chose historical importance over commercial uses.

"If we place the goal of economic development above all other goals, I think the city would look a lot different."

Councilmember Stephen Souza was explicit and adamant that retail development is not the only realistic alternative for that space and preferred to look at other commercial uses.

This evening we've been fixated on retail, we've been fixated on this notion of retail, and trying to find a use that meets the building, rather than trying to find a use that fits the building." And I'll say that again in a different way, we want to find a use that fits the building rather than altering the building to fit a use. I'm not convinced, I'm just not convinced at this point in time that we have exhausted and been creative in trying to find a use that fits the building.

For some reason in recent debates commerce has been limited in those debates to retail. Retail is not even the majority commercial use of downtown. Thus the headline also denotes a very limited conception of commerce as only applying to retail rather than the much broader array of types of commerce that the term actually implies.

The problem with the headline is that it adopts the perspective of the applicant rather than a neutral perspective for framing the issue. The applicant's perspective was that this was a struggle between history and commerce and that commerce lost. Whereas those on the council majority saw it as a question of balancing the considerations of history with the possible alternative types of commercial enterprises that could more appropriately fill that space.

It is worth noting since the issue arose, that the boards of directors of the Davis Downtown Business Association and the Davis Chamber of Commerce both supported lowering the windows. It is also worth noting that the chief editor of the Davis Enterprise is a past member of that board and that her husband is a current member of that board. It's not clear that the decision was made by that individual, but it is worth noting.

EVENTS

Malcolm X Day Event

Malcolm X: Davis Library Blanchard Room 6 PM - Sat. May 19th

We will celebrate the life of Malcolm X this Saturday in the Library. Bring your friends and the whole family as we learn about the important events in the life of Malcolm X.

Refreshments will be served.

Awards will be presented.

Malcolm will be remembered and honored.

Davis High School Catalysts for Social Justice

This Monday, May 21st, the DAVIS HIGH SCHOOL CATALYSTS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE STUDENT RESEARCH SCHOLARS will host their 4th Annual Research Presentation, entitled:

GROWING UP BIRACIAL IN DAVIS: STUDENTS' PERSPECTIVES AND AN UPDATE ON RACIAL DISPARITIES IN ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND DISCIPLINE PATTERNS

7PM AT DAVIS HIGH SCHOOL MULTIPURPOSE ROOM (OAK AND W. 14TH STREETS)

These young people have worked and are working hard to present a body of data that will be of service to Davis families, teachers, and community members. They have undergone an abbreviated training in research and advocacy regarding race relations at Davis High, Davis, and the country. Please come and support them.

You can contact Jann Murray-Garcia (753-7443) if you have any questions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Midday Briefs

Response to Letter to Sacramento Bee

Ruth Pagano of West Sacramento wrote into the Sacramento Bee complaining what she believes are about my blatant false representations of recent events in Davis.

An unfair blog on Davis PD

In the article "Political blog is the talk of Davis," Jan. 14, John Lofland is quoted as saying about David Greenwald's political blog on the city of Davis: "It was very entertaining . ... He's producing an alternative reading of everything that's happened in Davis' recent history." For some, the blog may in fact be only viewed for entertainment purposes, but it is clear, at least for this observer, that Greenwald's personal agenda and blatant false representation of what has "truly" occurred in Davis' recent history is causing more harm than good.

The fact that Greenwald is upset over the unfounded complaints against Davis PD (yes, Davis PD has been cleared of any wrongdoing) is an outrage and should be publicly protested instead of being praised with almost a full page in the Sunday Metro section.

I wonder what Greenwald would write on his blog if he either required police assistance or if someone hit his car and ran.

- Ruth Pagano, West Sacramento

Her chief example is my being upset over "the unfounded complaints against Davis PD." She goes on to further write--"yes, Davis PD has been cleared of any wrongdoing."

There are plenty of areas where reasonable people could disagree with my views on various issues that pertain to Davis. That's why we have elections and public discourse.

However, in this instance Ms. Pagano is patently wrong in her complaint. I assume she is referring to the Buzayan case, since that is the case I have written most about. She is correct that the city of Davis police department's own internal affairs department cleared the officer of wrongdoing, however, a Federal Judge found enough credible evidence which refutes that opinion to hold the lawsuit over for trial. To suggest that the officer or his supervisors have been cleared in this case is patently misleading. The outside entity that has cleared the police officer of wrongdoing is the Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning and Editor Debbie Davis.

We shall see what happens in this court case, and the police officer will get his day in court to defend his conduct, however, from what I have seen, there is plenty of evidence to sustain findings of misconduct on the part of multiple agencies.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: More Thinking About the Police Audit

For those who did not catch Debra LoGuercio's column in yesterday's Davis Enterprise, it is worth a read if you haven't already turned your paper into compost. LoGuercio is editor of the Winter's Express, also owned by the McNaughtons.

LoGuercio really questions what we learned from this study that has been given coverage across the state from the non-profit group Cal-Aware. I have never directly submitted a public records requests with the Davis Police Department, but I have with the city and requested information from the Police Department with City Clerk Margaret Roberts and I have always been treated fairly and received the information I have wanted.

The most pertinent portion of her column though relates to our article that we ran on Sunday, January 14, 2007 that dealt with the handling of the story by the Davis Enterprise and tip off (claimed to be inadvertent) by Debbie Davis. If you haven't read the story there is a good response from Davis Enterprise reporter Cory Golden who was the reporter who conducted the audit. My major concern with the handling of it was that I believe the test should have been invalidated when Davis Enterprise Editor Davis tipped them off--hey mistakes happen, we understand that. But they continue. Interim Police Chief Steve Pierce then is quoted as saying his department would have handled it the same way, despite questions raised by the reporter himself in his notes to that effect. And the Davis Enterprise article never really illuminates all of this.

LoGuercio writes:

Some local police departments fared better. Dixon got an A-minus, Davis scored a B-plus, and Winters a B. However, not only was the Davis Police Department inadvertently tipped off about the audit, their "average citizen" was a familiar Davis Enterprise reporter. Big, fat cheaterheads. Davis should've gotten a zero and been disqualified. On the other hand… they cheated and still only got a B-plus? Losers. Elsewhere, Fairfield scored a solid F, while Suisun and Vacaville less-than-failed.

So let me get this straight, the police department that happens to be tipped off, also gets one of the higher grades. Now in fairness, again, Golden points out that in fact, a number of departments around the state figured out what was going on and still rated very low--which makes you all the more concerned.

Nevertheless our concern from the start was the lack of public accounting of this story--when you read the Enterprise it is more of a whitewash of the event buried in the middle of the story and without the background which should truly concern the average reader.

--Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sacramento Bee Covers the People's Vanguard of Davis

This past Sunday, January 14, 2007, the Sacramento Bee had a feature article on this blog. I thought that reporter Erika Chavez did an excellent job on this. I thought it was a good article and also a balanced article in that, they had a number statements from people that this blog has criticized in the past. I absolutely welcome that, as I want this blog to be a way to facilitate open and honest discussion for the community.

By now the vast majority of my readers have read this article:

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/107637.html

I did want to point out a couple of interesting comments in the article.

First of all, I said:

"The blog is not a tool to vindicate his wife, Greenwald said."

This point needs clarification. The purpose of this blog was to present information to the public that in my opinion and I think the opinion of others was not getting told by the local newspaper and some local officials who have a vested interest in outcomes favorable to their politics and public policy positions. Certainly, some of that revolved around issues that arose from the Human Relations Commission (where my wife served for over four years as chair) including the need for police oversight and racial profiling. But, as anyone can see by reviewing the many articles written and posted on this blog most issues and subjects covered have had nothing to do with the HRC or specifically my wife. This blog was founded to help disseminate information to the community about issues which are misreported, underreported or not reported on at all by the Davis Enterprise. This blog has focused on issues such as the lackluster as well as the biased reporting or omission by the Davis Enterprise on government malfeasance and misfeasance at both the city and county level, the aborted attempt to disband the Senior Citizens Commission, the Target and SMUD vs. PG&E election, misconduct at the District Attorney's Office, gay-bashing in the DJUSD schools etc. Those issues are what drove the creation of this blog and have built its readership over the past six months.

"Born and raised in San Luis Obispo"

As my mother pointed out, she was there when I was born and I was not born in San Luis Obispo. This is a slight correction, I probably was not that clear during the interview. I moved to San Luis Obispo with my family when I was 10 months old. I was born in Los Angeles county and lived in Santa Ana. I also briefly lived in St. Louis, Missouri.

While [Stephen] Souza supports blogs as a form of expression, "the problem is there doesn't necessarily have to be factual content," he said. "I appear to be the target of many close-to-defamatory statements. You don't have to get personal; I think that takes away from the credibility of his position, so I have personally chosen not to participate in that discussion."

The defamation charge is interesting--while I have been very critical of Souza's policies, I'm not sure any of them rise to the level of defamation if he were a private citizen, let alone a public official.

If he takes it personally that I question his positions, statements, and actions, then I say welcome to politics. I also note that he responded to the MLK thread and I hope he will continue to do so.

Chavez also interviewed Debbie Davis who had mostly kind words for this blogger.

"Our news coverage is fair and accurate"

That sounds like a Fox News self-description to me. I will point out that the very day this article was published, the People's Vanguard of Davis had an article that demonstrated that the Davis Enterprise coverage was neither fair nor accurate with regards to the police public records audit story and their failure to disclose some key information about the tipping off of interim Chief Steve Pierce to the study.

"Steven Pierce, the Davis Police Department's interim police chief since June, said Greenwald is entitled to express his opinions, whether he agrees with him or not.

But he cautions readers who would take any media, be it television, newspapers or blogs, at face value.

"It's certainly not without its own political slant," said Pierce, who said he has read the blog on several occasions. "To assume that it's neutral and without its own bias is naive and inaccurate."

I have never claimed to be neutral or without bias, I think that's pretty clear from the People's Vanguard of Davis site description.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Enterprise: Sabotage and Misreporting in Police Audit Study

In Friday morning’s Sacramento Bee—four Sac Bee staff writers composed a story on an audit of California law enforcement agency practices in response to public records requests. The audit was performed by a nonprofit group known as Californians Aware and conducted by reporters at 27 newspapers and three TV stations across the state. They visited 216 law enforcement offices in 34 counties on December 4, 2006. Overall, law enforcement agencies scored in the “F” range in terms of responsiveness to the compliance with the California Public Records Act.

The Sacramento Bee reported:

“The Davis Police Department earned a B minus, a low grade considering that a Davis Enterprise editor tipped the police chief to the audit on the day it [the requests] happened.”

In Friday’s Davis Enterprise, reporter Lauren Keene wrote a front page story on the audit. On the second page, she discussed in some detail the results from the Davis Police Department. In it she indicated, accurately,

“The Davis Police Department was the county’s highest-scoring agency, receiving a B+ from CalAware (which raised the agency’s grade from a B- in light of a scoring error discovered Thursday night).”

Moreover, she also reported that Interim Police Chief Steve Pierce was tipped off by a Davis Enterprise editor; however, Pierce “said it did not affect how his agency responded to the requests.”

This raised a number of questions about the efficacy of the scoring process and whether the Davis Enterprise had inappropriately sabotaged the process.

The Californians Aware website provides some of these answers. There is a detailed account of the audit conducted by Davis Enterprise reporter Corey Golden.

Golden provides us with detailed notes.

“On Dec. 4, just before 9 a.m., I went to the station. The front desk clerk recognized me immediately, though I'm not our regular police reporter. She accepted the requests but said the station was short-staffed. I offered to wait, but she said she would not be able to get to any of them that day. I was given the name of the head of the records department, Karen Berry, and was told she'd contact me. Within about two hours, the interim chief called my editor, Debbie Davis.”

Apparently Debbie Davis was supposed to stick to the script so as to not tip off the Police Chief to the fact that they were conducting an audit.

“Unfortunately, Debbie [Davis] did not stick to the script, explaining what was going on.”

Notice that Golden does not characterize this error as inadvertent or unintentional.

“The chief [Steve Pierce] said he'd fulfill the requests within 10 days. He later called and e-mailed me a couple of times with questions and in one voice mail mentioned that he and others were working on the requests.”

Contrary to the statement from Steve Pierce that “it did not affect how his agency responded to the requests,” Golden openly wonders whether an ordinary citizen in such a situation would encounter such devoted treatment from the interim Chief of Police and his staff.

“Certainly not the sort of situation a normal citizen would encounter, I'm sure. However, I suppose it says something that the interim chief knew exactly what these requests were for, but it still took until 12/13 -- nine days -- to fulfill them. What that says likely varies widely depending on your point of view.”

Golden does not jump to conclusions; however his questions—which were completely appropriate—are very telling.

More telling is that the Davis Enterprise never mentions Golden’s report nor his concerns about the process.

There are three critical concerns in this incident. First, the question has arisen in the past about the inappropriate collaboration between the Davis Enterprise and the Davis Police Department. Editor and Assistant Publisher Debbie Davis used exceedingly poor judgment in how she chose to handle this situation. Golden suggests that she “did not stick” to the script. The Davis Enterprise chooses to characterize this as inadvertent, but it is clear that Debbie Davis knew in advance the role that she was to play, so it is unclear how she could inadvertently disclose the reasons for the Public Records Act requests.

Second, there is an issue of reporting. Davis Enterprise reporter Lauren Keene does not disclose the misgivings that Golden expresses in his report. Instead she takes Pierce at his word that it had no effect on how his agency responded to the requests.

Finally, even knowing that the express purpose of the public records request was to test his department, Pierce could only score an 86 which was graded a B+. Pierce purportedly disagreed with some of the grading criteria:

“But Pierce took issue with some of the deductions, saying additional time was needed in some cases to properly fulfill the auditor’s requests. Collecting the desired crime and arrest reports was particularly time-consuming, he added.”

However, the bottom line is that this test and its purpose was revealed to Steve Pierce & the Davis Police Department and therefore loses any element of credibility that it might have had. Part of the test was to see how ordinary citizens are treated in response to requests for information. That test was sabotaged the moment Debbie Davis revealed to Steve Pierce that this was part of an audit and would be reported in the newspapers.

While Californians Aware was less concerned about any single department, this should have invalidated this examination of the Davis Police Department responsiveness and thoroughness as a part of the statewide study as soon as it was clear that the cover was blown and most likely intentionally so by Ms. Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting