Post-Mortem: Davis Voters Approve Target Narrowly

Despite being heavily outspent by well over a 10:1 ratio, the grass-roots progressives who fought against a Target in Davis fought valiently and made this race much closer than I predicted.

The Don't Big-Box Davis people blasted out a statement early this morning:

"The election results show that there was no mandate for bringing a Target store to Davis - a razor-thin majority of votors chose faceless big-box retail, despite the obvious negative effects it will have on our city."

In the end, I believe that most people in Davis who ended up voting for this project were not ideological about their decision. They liked the idea of a cheap and convenient place where they could do their shopping.

I can appreciate that desire, particularly among the student population who lack resources and sometimes the ability to drive outside of town. The real question that I think a more responsible city council should have addressed was this: if we need a cheap and convenient place to shop for a variety of items, is Target the best option?

In the end, the Council Majority favored the building of Target--the four members who placed this on the ballot all endorsed it. We never had a true discussion about alternatives to Target. Instead we had another hard fought and bitterly divisive election that pinned citizen against citizen and merchant against merchant. And we'll see where this ends up. But the council has in the past expressed concerns about a bitterly divided community--and yet their own actions contribute to it. They dismissed, remember, the HRC because they felt it was dividing the community.

For me, I worry about the divide in this community between the progressive left that I have affinity to and those who seem much more pro-development even as it changes the nature and character of this community.

But I worry far more about the cynical manipulations that we have seen in the effort to get these things past. I wasn't heavily involved in Davis politics last year for Covell Village. I saw some of the tactics second and third hand and they were concerning.

This time there were a few issues that really struck as misleading and underhanded.

First, the whole Green Target issue. Look, it's Target, it's a large corporation, they buy products from sweat shops, they buy products that are not produced in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner. If that doesn't matter to you--that's fine, but let's not pretend like we can have a green Target. Let's not pretend that putting a Target in a LEED building is going to make environmentally friendly. That's a cynical and manipulative ploy.

Second, the issue of tax revenue. We never had a realistic discussion on how much revenue would come in, how much would be transferred from one sector to another, and finally how much Target would produce versus how much an alternative might produce.

Third, the issue of jobs which related to living wage. Fact is, people who work at Target will not be able to reside in Davis and that means that any benefit of drawing jobs into Davis will be negated by the loss of transfer of money from worker to economy.

Fourth, as we've been covering all week, the cynical manipulation of Davis voters on the issue of the PLA and labor peace. The railroading of Lamar Heystek's proposal to create a living wage ordinance under false guise that there was a deal in the works and this would jeopardize it. It turns out, as we have reported, there is no such overlap.

Finally, how much of the background activity by Souza and Saylor that took place without Council knowledge or approval, bent or broke laws. We need to have a fair accounting of that, I urge the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek to press for an investigation into these activities.

I do not think these issues are over and I urge the citizens of Davis to press their elected officials for answers on some of the behind the scenes activities that have been revealed.

In the end, the Council got their project, the slight majority got their cheap and convenient shopping outlet, and now the question is, what will be the price we pay for all of this. We'll find out in the next several years.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Update: AP reporting that Rumsfeld is resigning

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will step down.

UPDATE: AP Calls Montana for Tester

Democratic Challenger Tester has won according to the AP. If there is a recount, with a 3100 vote lead at this point, it looks like Tester will win. And Webb looks good in Virginia with an 8000 vote lead. Democrats look poised to take the Senate. Unbelieveable.

Narrow Divide

Democrats have picked up 28 seats in the House to take control, with a possibility of perhaps two more. Democrats hold a slight 229 to something majoirty at the moment. A narrow advantage.

Democrats have picked four seats in the Senate, with Montana the two candidats separated by 1800 votes, with Democrats John Tester ahead. Jim Webb leads George Allen by 7000+ in Virginia. Both will likely go to recounts. They might not be decided for weeks. If Democrats prevail, they will control the Senate 51-49--the slimmest of margins.

Charlie Brown narrowly loses to John Doolittle. Jerry McNerney defeats Pombo.

In Yolo County, the them continues. Matt Rexroad leads Frank Siefferman by a narrow 600 votes with some precincts perhaps outstanding. Much closer than perhaps some expected.

SMUD appears to be going down to a split decision--H passing by 400 and I failing by 400. Don't ask me how that happens.

Target is passing by the narrowest of margins--a 600 vote gape on Measure K. A further illustration of the very narrow divided in the City of Davis. Didn't council warn about dividing the city? Meanwhile Choice Voting wins by 1600, an advisory vote that had no campaign against it.

Statewide, the horrendous campaign of Phil Angelides for Governor doesn't doom the Democrats, as they win across the board for the constitutional offices except Bustamante going down thoroughly to defeat.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Election Night Update--DEMOCRATS WIN THE HOUSE AND SENATE

Democratic Pick ups:


House: (+28)

Ellsworth (IN-8)
Yarmuth (KY-3)
Donnelly (IN-2)
Murphy (CT-5)
Hodes (NH-2)
Sestak (PA-7)
Space (OH-18)
Shuler (NC-11)
Mahoney (FL-16)
Carney (PA-10)
Giffords (AZ-8)
Klein (FL-22)
Hill (IN-9)
Gillibrand (NY-20)
Shea-Porter (NH-1)
Arcuri (NY-24)
Mitchell (AZ-4)
Atmire (PA-4)
Boyda (KS-4)
Braley (IA-1)
Kagen (WI-8)
Hall (NY-19)
Walz (MN-1)
Lampson (TX-22)
Perlmutter (CO-7)
Loebsack (IA-2)
McNerney (CA-11)
Murphy (PA-8)

Senate: (+6)

Brown-OH (pick up)
Casey-PA (pick up)
Menendez-NJ (Dems hold this tight seat)
Stabenow-MI (Hold)
Klobuchar-MN (Hold)
Cardin-MD (Hold)
Whitehouse-RI (Pick up)
CLAIRE MC CASKILL-MO (Pick up)
JON TESTER-MT (Pick Up)
JIM WEBB-VA (Pick up) New pick up

Governor: (+6)

Strickland-OH
Deval Patrick-MA
Spitzer--NY
O'Malley--MD
Beebe--AR
Bill Ritter--CO

Local:

Brown loses to Doolittle
McNerney wins
Measure K is ahead pending absentees and provisionals
Measure H passes; I fails but irrelevent because Sac voted against L
Rexroad wins

Appearance of a Conflict of Interest

One of the major complaints about the Yolo County Criminal Justice system is the apparent close ties between the District Attorney's Office and the County Judges. Overly prosecutor-friendly judges seems to be common-knowledge in Yolo County.

One huge apparent conflict of interest is that Judge Stephen Mock is the lead Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. His wife is Ann Hurd, the Chief Deputy District Attorney. Judge Mock assigns cases to judges while his wife assigns prosecutors to the same cases.

The outward apparence here is that there is a conflict of interest in this situation. Indeed this has been a source of defense attorney complaints for some time.

Some have suggested the problem is more appearance than fact. They cite that the Judge position as one that is more administrative than a position of power. Moreover, they suggest that Hurd and Mock themselves go to great lengths to be above the board.

Nevertheless, this is a troubling arrangement for a number of reasons.

First, our system is predicated on the notion that we rely on rules and structure to prevent abuse of power rather than the good will of individuals.

Madison at the founding of our nation wrote in Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The basic premise here is that we produce government to control the governed but also the government itself. We do that through structures and laws that do have to rely on the good will and good behavior of individuals. So an apparent conflict of interest that is not abused, is still a conflict of interest. When Mayor Sue Greenwald the other week had an issue come up involving a portion of town where she owned property, she recused herself from offering in the deliberations or the policy decision. She may have indeed acted in good faith had she continued to sit, but the very possibility that interests would conflict necessitated her from recusal.

The second basic problem, if even if Mock act honorably and ethically in his position, the very fact that a Judge would be married to a Deputy DA in the same jurisdiction is a cause for concern. Once again, the suggest has been made that if anything Mock is more pro-defense counsel in his decision, once again, we are relying on the honor of a man rather than leaving no chances. Hon. Mock may indeed be above reproach, but it is the system that we are concerned about.

I think we need a close look at the way our system runs here in Yolo County, there have been a number of stories and incidents that are of concern. This one was brought to my attention by one of the readers of this forum, but there are several others that should be examined as well.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Heystek fights for Social Justice

In politics, even when you agree with someone on the issues, you never quite know what you are going to get. It was that way with Lamar Heystek. I supported now Councilmember Lamar Heystek in the June election along with Stan Forbes as they were the candidates of the progressive left here in Davis and opponents of the status quo candidates Asmundson and Levy. The question I wondered at the time, is “what kind of councilmember would Heystek be--would he try to please everyone, would he merely vote the right way, or would be a candidate who would go to the mat for his principles and be a fighter for Democratic / Progressive issues?” Well folks, I'm very pleased to say we have a fighter on our side now. We now have someone on the city council that will go to mat for our issues. And yet, at the same time, he's a gentleman. He doesn't have to roll in the mud with his adversaries.

Yesterday, Councilmember Heystek had a brilliant letter to the editor in the Davis Enterprise. Here's a key excerpt from the letter addressing the issue we've been talking about the last few days.

Less than two years ago, the Target Corp. spent at least $350,000 in its successful attempt to defeat Proposition 72, which would have ensured health care for millions of California's workers. Now, Target is spending nearly as much on Measure K in Davis to prevail once again against the interests of working people.

When the Target proposal weaved its way through the city's entitlement process, Target spokesman John Dewes had expressed no interest in pursuing any worker safeguards, including a labor peace agreement. Now, just hours before Tuesday's election, why do working people suddenly become his cause célèbre?

I am disappointed that the exclusive group working on behalf of Mr. Dewes is interested in pursuing labor issues only insofar as it will win the election for Target. Should Measure K pass, the days after Nov. 7 will surely test their mettle when it comes to fixing the long-term integrity of Target's labor practices. I invite them to express a full commitment to this issue by supporting legally tested safeguards such as a living-wage ordinance. It's the right thing to do.

There are a few key issues that Heystek brings up. First, Target does NOT support the values of progressive Davis. Not only did they spend money to defeat a health care proposal, but they spent money consistently to support very conservative politicians seeking elective office. Some have suggested that they don't want their tax money going out of city. Well, I don't want my hard earned money going to line the campaign coffers of conservative politicians. I don't want it used to defeat health care proposals for California workers.

Second, and most fundamentally, he points out the duplicity in the whole PLA agreement that Souza-Saylor are working on. Dewes and Target have no interest in unions. They've rejected all overtures for using unionized workers in their stores both in the future Davis store should K pass and nationally and globally. So why suddenly are they supporting a PLA with union construction workers?

Third, Heystek calls them to the task on their union support by inviting them to support a living wage proposal. That will be the true test of their support for the rights of workers. Heystek calls them to task for having an eleventh hour conversion on the eve of the election in an attempt to convince the public that they support the rights and values of Working Class America. The values of the progressive movement in terms of the rights of workers. This is as Saylor once described "malicious, cynical, and probably politically motivated."

Fortunately for the progressive, the City of Davis now has a progressive champion willing to stand up and fight for our values, even when those values may be controversial. That is all we can ask.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

OPEN THREAD: Election Predictions

In the style of the Daily Kos, I thought in honor of the election day tomorrow, I'd create a place where everyone can leave their election predictions.

One suggestion, I know a lot of people like to log in annonymously, either log in with some kind of name or leave some kind of name at the end of your message so that we can give you proper accolades on Wednesday.

So here are the predictions:

1. Breakdown of the House of Representatives--how many seats for the Dems and Reps
2. US Senate
3. Governor's Mansions
4. Local Races of interest:
* Doolittle vs. Brown
* Pombo vs. McNerney
* Siefferman vs. Rexroad
* Measure K
* Measures H & I (bonus for the Sacramento Measure L)
* Measure L (Choice Voting in Davis)
5. "Upset" of the Day

I'll post mine in the comments as well

Serious Questions Remain Unanswered by Souza and Saylor in Target Negotiations

On Friday and Saturday, the People’s Vanguard of Davis reported that Davis City Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor had entered into negotiations between the Target Corporation and the Builders Union regarding a project labor agreement (PLA) over the construction of the Target building should voters approve Measure K on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. A number of troubling aspects of this arrangement were raised both on Friday and Saturday. The following is an assessment of what we know and what we do not yet know in this arrangement.

Did city council authorize council members Stephen Souza and Don Saylor to enter into these negotiations? No. Souza and Saylor neither asked for nor received authorization to pursue these negotiations. Did they need to receive authorization? Souza claimed both in the Davis Enterprise article and at the September 18, 2006 City Council meeting that the PLA needs no council action and that they were not required to seek any sort of council approval for negotiations or the results of the negotiations. Is this true? Are their actions legal? These remain open questions. There has been some suggestion from off-the-record conversations that this might not be legal.

Who are the parties in this negotiation? According to the Davis Enterprise, one of the Target negotiators was Jay Ziegler. Ziegler is the Campaign Manager of the Yes on K campaign and he is apparently working with Saylor in some capacities on the Yes on K campaign as we know from the EPA’s letter of complaint regarding Councilmember Saylor. Moreover he is a paid consultant for the Target Corporation. Matt Kelly, a representative for the Sacramento-Sierra Building Trades Council, appears to be negotiating on behalf of the unions.

Are Souza and Saylor parties to these negotiations? Statements at both the September 18 council meeting and the newspaper indicate that they are. What role are they playing in these meeting? Are they neutral? Are they facilitators? Are they negotiating on behalf of Target? Why is the campaign manager for the Yes on K campaign involved in these negotiations? These are all questions to which there are no answers right now. Souza and Saylor as strong backers of the Measure K campaign and who have extensively worked behind the scenes on this campaign certainly do not appear to be neutral parties in these negotiation. So what role are they playing? If they are facilitators it would seem that their relationship with Ziegler and the Yes on K campaign would disqualify them from serving in an impartial role. Are they therefore negotiating on behalf of Target? That might not be unlawful, but it certainly would not sit well with many voters in Davis to have a sitting councilmember negotiating on behalf of a corporation. It seems that we need some answers as to what role the two councilmembers are playing in these negotiations. At minimum this appears unethical.

If they are parties to this, why did they not inform their colleagues until September 18, a month into their negotiations? Souza announced on September 18 that they had been involved in negotiations for 30 days. Even if they were not legally bound to disclose this—and again this is an open question, it would seem common courtesy to inform their colleagues of these undertakings.

Moreover why where Souza and Saylor able to participate in this process but not someone like Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong supporter of organized labor and the rights of workers? The decision to do this on their own, meant that they effectively decided which councilmembers could and which could not participate in talks. That’s part of the objection here. Perhaps a councilmember like Heystek would advocate more strongly for the union employees than someone like Saylor or Souza. By making this decision unilaterally and without consultation of their colleagues, Souza and Saylor took matters into their own hands.

Perhaps their defense would be that they are acting as private citizens? Saylor has often said in other contexts though, that he could never merely be a private citizen, he would always be associated with his office. If that is the case, perhaps there is a situation where Saylor and Souza are operating under a “color of law” where they are using their roles as elected officials and representatives of the city to give them authority and credibility to conduct negotiations. This is a key question because if we assume that as private citizens they are permitted to be involved in this process—are they actually acting as private citizens? There is no oversight of this, it has happened outside of public light, there was no authorization or sanction by the city council on this issue. Should there have been? This where I think, if the conduct of Councilmembers Souza and Saylor is not outright unlawful, where they really push up against the ethical line.

Is this merely a political issue or is there a greater problem with their conduct? Clearly, we have a situation where Souza used this as a reason to not support living wage and suggest that the discussion of a living wage might jeopardize future negotiations. That deception, is a political question rather than a legal one. There are a number of other political questions in this situation as well. Souza made the claim in the Enterprise that he thinks a PLA is better than a living wage. But again, the living wage and PLA do not seem to effect the same workers. Again, that’s a political question, but the legal question is whether laws have been broken and whether Souza and Saylor parlayed their positions on the council into trying to politically influence negotiations in an attempt to swing the election in their favor. These are serious charges that require a serious investigation by someone completely independent of this process and city government who is familiar with the laws.

I think there are serious questions raised and unanswered that deserve an investigation. I would recommend to Mayor Sue Greenwald, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, and Councilmember Lamar Heystek that they press for an independent investigation of the actions of their colleagues Souza and Saylor. These questions need answers and the citizens of Davis need assurance outside of the political process that everything that has occurred has been legal.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Chamber Clarifies Their Positions

Anyone see the letter to the editor in Thursday's paper, it was kind of buried but it was from Jeff Adamski and Sherry Puntillo:

Chamber reiterates its positions:

The board of directors of the Davis Chamber of Commerce wishes to reiterate its positions on Measures H, I and K. For Measures H and I, the SMUD annexation proposal, the Chamber has not taken any position and will not do so. With respect to Measure K, the Second Street Crossing development, while the Chamber supported the project through the planning process, we have updated our position to neutral.

Okay we're all clear now. Thanks for that.

Anyone wondering what that was all about?

On October 17, the People's Vanguard of Davis reported on the Chamber of Commerce's perplexing change from an endorsement of Target when it was a City Council issue, to no position once it became a ballot measure. The rationale behind that change is perplexing. Moreover, most of the key people in leadership positions are all personally supporting it and the change in position was never formally announced.

Meanwhile, a few days later we discovered that Bruce Gallaudet of University Honda, a board member on the Chamber of Commerce (and husband of Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis) used the Chamber of Commerce attribution on the Sample Ballot Statement against Measure H.

It is nice that they clarify that they have no position on SMUD or Target, but that's all they tell us. There is no public announcement repudiating the use of the attribution by Gallaudet and there is no explanation as to why they would support Target in June but not November.

This seems standard policy by the Chamber to not publicly deal with issues of these sorts, but it's almost like there is a cloak of secrecy involving some of this stuff.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Lamar Heystek in No on Measure K Ad

For those of you who are tired of watching Ted Puntillo support Measure K in the TV ad on cable, here's a grassroots effort with Lamar Heystek on a homemade video posted on youtube. Enjoy.

Saylor Distorts EPA Position on Measure K

A November 1, 2006 advertisement in the Davis Enterprise suggested that the EPA was in support of Measure K. The EPA spokesperson wrote a letter to the editor that appeared in the Davis Enterprise, clarifying that the EPA had not taken a position on the Target Development.

The text quoted in the advertisement was verbatim from the emails exchanged between the EPA's Project Manager and Councilmember Don Saylor. However, those quotes were juxtaposed with other material to suggest that the EPA had in fact supported the measure. This is a clear attempt to change the meaning of the information that the EPA provided to Councilmember Saylor.

Saylor completely twisted the words of the EPA to suggest to the public that the EPA was supporting this project. This is a gross attempt by Saylor to manipulate the public into supporting the Target project and Measure K.

Kathleen Johnson, Chief of Federal Facilities and Site Cleanup Branch, Superfund Division wrote a letter to members of the City Council, the newspapers, and the two campaigns dispelling the notion that EPA was taking a stand. The People's Vanguard of Davis has acquired a copy of this public document.

The letter says:

EPA is writing this letter to make very clear that EPA takes no position regarding the proposed Target development, currently up for a community vote as Measure K on the November 7, 2006 Davis ballot.

Unfortunately, a November 1, 2006 advertisement in the Davis Enterprise, could be read to suggest that EPA is taking a position on Measure K. In response to an email from Councilmember Saylor, EPA answered questions regarding our Superfund cleanup and potential impacts to the redevelopment in two emails, dated October 26 and November 1, 2006. As a public agency, we responded to the request and provided the information regarding the Site. Although the text quoted in the advertisement was taken verbatim from emails between EPA’s Project Manager and Councilmember Saylor, it was juxtaposed with unquoted headings and paraphrased materials that arguably change the import of EPA’s words.

The EPA had a dialogue with Councilmember Saylor answering questions about their Superfund cleanup and potential impacts to the redevelopment in two emails.

Don Saylor was the only one who had access to those emails. Thus it is clear that Saylor took the words of the EPA and twisted them to meet his needs and put them into an advertisement that would appear in the Davis Enterprise to try to convince the voters that the EPA approved of the Target project.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Poor Reporting Continues in the Cal Aggie

Last weekend we reported on an op-ed in the California Aggie criticizing Congressional Candidates Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney, it was an article long on opinion, but that played fast and loose with the facts.

Yesterday an article appeared on Target, again it is full of inaccuracies and unchecked quotes.

For instance, Saylor is quote as saying: "The Target is projected to generate between $750,000 and $1 million in annual sales tax."

In fact, the City projects between $500,000 and $600,000 in tax revenues, and some have criticized those projections as being overly optimistic. The writer should check quoted facts before reporting them as fact.

The writer further mentioned "nearly $300 million in one-time payments that the city will receive if the store is built." The actual number is $3 million. It has since been changed on the website, but the print edition went out with the inaccurate figure.

It is one thing for us to disagree with the editor of the Aggie politically, but efforts need to be made to report things accurately.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Souza Misleads on Labor Agreement at September Meeting

Yesterday we reported on what we are calling the "November Surprise"--a supposed announcement that there is a labor agreement on Target. Claire St. John in her defense claims that she is initiated the calls to Souza and Saylor rather than the other way around.

The newspaper article in Thursday's Davis Enterprise, has prompted me to go back to see exactly what Souza said on that September meeting. I have clipped together about a minute of Heystek's discussion of his living wage ordinance with Souza's comments, so that the readers can see the context in which Souza made these comments.

From a listen to the video, the opening line of St. John's newspaper article is:

At a September Davis City Council meeting, Councilman Stephen Souza said he and Councilman Don Saylor were in negotiations with Target Corp. to use union labor in the construction of a Davis Target and surrounding stores.

Watching the meeting on September 18, 2006, Souza never even mentioned construction of a Target, he only mentioned that he and Saylor were working on a PLA (project labor agreement). A PLA is a collective bargaining agreement between organized labor and contractors and/or owners that applies to a specific project site. However, Souza spun this into something a lot bigger than just a construction agreement--his statement that the discussions about a living wage ordinance gave the impression that such an ordinance would conflict with the PLA, when in fact, it appears that there is little to no crossover between the two.

There are two main things that Souza told us on September 18, 2006.

We were hoping that we'd be able to bring that to you as an announcement, but we have not got it completed but we are very close to having it completed.

That was 45 days ago, and it is still not completed.

However Saylor assures us in the November 2, 2006 article:

“We expect a final agreement in a matter of weeks"

Further the delay was explained:

Negotiations between Target and the construction union have been ongoing since late August, said Jay Ziegler, one of Target’s representatives in talks, but have stalled recently after Matt Kelly, a representative for the Sacramento-Sierra Building Trades Council, was called away for a family emergency.

Family emergencies happen, so we don't want to belabor this point any further, just demonstrate that a deal was expected in mid-September and now it's early November and the election is on top of us, but there is still no agreement.

The larger point is the ongoing deception by Stephen Souza on what this agreement entailed and why it was relevent to bring up at all at the September 18, 2006 meeting.

"We have been working on that and we've almost completed it, we're hoping that these actions won't jeopardize it, because all parties have been in agreement so far to date..."

By "these actions" he is speaking specifically to Heystek's living wage proposal. However, Heystek's proposal mainly affected Target workers who would be employed by a Target store that was open for business. The labor agreement that Souza and Saylor have been working on has nothing to do with employees of a Target store, it is only about the construction of the building. That Souza would use this as an excuse to attempt to kill any discussion of a living wage ordinance was dishonest.

And his dishonesty does not end at this point.

In Souza’s opinion, a project labor agreement is more effective than imposing a living wage ordinance on Target alone, he said.

Let's be very clear once again--the PLA (project labor agreement) that Souza is speaking of deals only with the construction workers. The end of the article makes this point crystal clear.

Current negotiations do not focus on future Target employees, [Jay] Ziegler [one of Target’s representatives in talks] said.

Souza at the September 18, 2006 meeting creates the impression that they are working on something that they are not working on. His suggestion that the discussion and reading of a living wage ordinance might have jeopardized the PLA is utterly irresponsible. There would have been absolutely no impact. His statement gave us the impression that there might be some sort of labor agreement in the works for future Target employees--which would have been news given Target's anti-union policies. But that is utterly untrue. Souza's continuing assertion that this is better than a living wage is also misleading because this is such a limited agreement. Finally, as we reported yesterday, Souza continues to repeat the deception that a living wage ordinance might be unconstitutional when in fact the city attorney made it clear to him that they had a similar case in Emeryville and expected the city to prevail.



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E buys Target Votes

A few weeks ago I suggested that PG&E’s campaign against SMUD may actually be Target’s best friend. A few days before the November 7 election, I think that notion needs to be explored again, especially in the wake of the financial disclosures this week.

Recall back to a year ago—the Measure X campaign rubbed people the wrong way with the amount of money they spent but also the professional looking brochures that bombarded the public on a daily basis. Flash ahead a year later, and we see that the Measure K campaign has actually slightly outspent the Measure X campaign. However, they have toned down their assault on our mailboxes while assaulting us with a slew of cheaply produced TV commercials.

However, much of the scrutiny is off the Target campaign, because whatever excesses you can accuse the Target and the Yes on K campaign of, they pale in comparison to what PG&E is doing to us.

This Monday, and I know I’m not alone because I’ve read it elsewhere, I opened my mailbox to find not two but FIVE different mailers from PG&E in there. FIVE. And because they sent to my wife as well on some of them, there was a total 8 mailers in my mailbox on Monday. They were professionally produced, multicolor mailers. PG&E isn’t shy.

While Target has spent in excess of $200,000, PG&E has spent $10 million plus in fighting to keep its market-share in Yolo County. TEN MILLIION DOLLARS.

PG&E is obviously committed to staying in Yolo County. Target on the other hand, I guess just doesn’t want our business nearly as badly.

I’ve said this several times already, but it bears repeating. I have favored the SMUD annexation for quite some time, but the PG&E campaign has really raised the stakes on this election—but then again, I guess $10 million will do that for you. If they are willing to spend that on a campaign, you can wonder how much this County is worth to them—a fairly small county as California goes.

I think we all knew PG&E would fight to keep Yolo County, I’m not sure anyone expected it to this extent. You have to wonder if they aren’t trying to send a message for future reformers. I think we all need to send them a message on Tuesday—Yolo County cannot be bought.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

NOVEMBER SURPRISE

There has been speculation since the September Davis City Council meeting when Councilmember Stephen Souza suggested that he and Councilmember Don Saylor were in negotiations with Target on a labor agreement. So it was no surprise at all to see the announcement/non-announcement in the Thursday Evening Davis Enterprise.

Claire St. John writes:

But since Saylor and Souza’s announcement — which came in response to a living wage ordinance proposed by Councilman Lamar Heystek — letters to the editor have asked if an 11th-hour announcement about Target’s new union-friendly business practices would be made.

Souza plays the political game to a tee with his non-announcement.

“We don’t want to make a big hoopla about this,” Souza said. “We don’t want to say anything about it, and then after the election we could say something.”

As is the usual with the Davis Enterprise, there is a lot that is not said here.

The article makes it seem at first like this was the announcement of some sort of labor agreement for the Target workers. Of course, this is no such thing. We are merely talking about using union construction work. I do not want to diminish that, but frankly those were the least of the concerns that those supportive of a both a living wage ordinance and supportive in general of unionize workers had about the Target project.

Second, it suggests that Souza and Saylor were in negotiations with the Target corporation. Well, under whose authority were they acting? The City Council has never authorized such negotiations. So are we to take it that Souza and Saylor are acting on their own? This seems very concerning.

Third, Claire St. John never contacted nor interviewed the minority on the Council--either the Mayor Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek who introduced the living wage ordinance. St. John is not a rookie, she knows you have to contact both sides of an issue. Why doesn't she?

Fourth, Souza is quoted as saying:

“We can always come back and discuss a living wage ordinance, but it’s about what is legal,” he said. “We can’t just focus on one employer.”

In fact, both Souza and Saylor both continue to repeat this deception. City Attorney Harriet Steiner at the September meeting told Souza that she had a similar issue in Emeryville and her law partner expected to prevail on it.

(Click here to see that video)

There are multiple serious ethical issues here with both the reporting of this issue and the practices of Souza and Saylor. We need to hold our elected official accountable for their conduct. Members of the city council should not be negotiating separate labor agreements without council authority and consent.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Printing versus Blogging

I started this blog during the summer and the rate of growth has been quite surprising and pleasing as thousands each week log onto this site. Hopefully over time that number will grow so that there can continue to be dialogue in our community on a variety of local, regional, and national issues.

Tuesday marked a couple of firsts; Matt Rexroad mentioned The People's Vanguard of Davis in his blog after responding to a piece that I wrote in which he was mentioned, and Richard Harris referenced this blog in his column in Tuesday's Davis Enterprise.

In his column, Harris writes:

The Halloween View From South Davis is across the digital divide instead of the great Interstate 80 concrete divide.I don't blog. Read them but don't write them.

I put my picture, real name and e-mail address on anything I write for public consumption. Straight up and simple. Shake your hand, look you in the eye and tell you what I think.

Call me old school or label me a Luddite but if you're going to opine, criticize, whine or aggrandize, you should not hide behind the electronic curtain of anonymous pseudonyms in today's blog eat blog world.

But the times are a changin,' Bob, and today's Thomas Paine-lite pamphleteers use blogs as the new water cooler, phone call, rumor mill and leaflet. Frankly, I think many bloggers suffer from print envy.

One presumably local blogger takes "Davis" as his (or her) own nom de plume and recently used his Internet curtain cover to disagree with me about Target and SMUD. He made some interesting arguments but it's hard to take anonymous critiques seriously.

"Davis" usually uses Enterprise columns, editorials or news stories as the foundation for his screeds. Serious envy. One day Mr. Pseudonym picked on Rich Rifkin for "pseudo-satire." The next day he tore into the paper's editor (curiously also named Davis) because her husband took a public position on an issue. Stop the presses on that one. Quit your job because your spouse has an opinion? "Davis" needs to get married.

At least the former "Yolo Blogger," a UC Davis employee who was busted for using school computers to blog, was funny. I hope he buys a home computer and starts it again. As for "Davis," it's a small town. Face your neighbors at the grocery store. Write a letter to the editor. Come out, come out whoever you are. Olly Olly oxen free.

Harris states that I have a serious print envy. I do have a serious gripe--it's not an envy--with the media monopoly in the city of Davis and the lack of reporting on a lot of key issues, the one-sided reporting on many more, etc. So when I go after the Davis Enterprise, it is not because I envy them, it is because I fear them. And I think they do not serve the majority in this community well in the service that they provide.

Now allow me to make a secondary point. Richard Harris gets a full column every other week to say basically whatever he wants. And that's fine, I don't begrudge him of that. However, in order for us to respond to Harris publicly, we'd have to write a letter to the editor, that Debbie Davis may or may not print several days later (and she's generally printed my letters, so I cannot complain there). They are limited to 350 words and they are a one-shot deal.

Harris points out my criticism of Rich Rifkin. I'll use this as an example to demonstrate why I prefer blogging to newspapers. Rifkin's column on Target, which I responded to on October 20, 2006, generated quite a bit of controversy within the No on K community, and people emailed me and asked me to respond. Now the policy of the Davis Enterprise is that you can only have one letter pertaining to a campaign. That is a very stringent policy and it means that you basically get 350 words, whereas Rich Rifkin or Richard Harris could get roughly 700 words or so every week--or twice the size--and again he can write on whatever he wants presumably.

Now let's compare the situation of the Davis Enterprise to this blog. When I wrote the blog on Rifkin's column, Mr. Rifkin was able to come over here and respond. And if he had chosen to, he could have repeatedly responded. I've never edited someone's comment, I've never deleted someone's comment, and as long as they aren't threatening people, breaking laws, or using profanity, I never will edit someone's comment. This is a space where there can be free discussion. You can choose to use your real name, put your home phone number as Matt Rexroad did, or post anonymously or psuedononymously in my case.

Blogs are the wave of the future, because the confines of communication are now open and not owned by a corporate and monopolistic entity. I make no profit on this forum. I charge no fee to access it. The public is free to come on here and respond. That's the way it should be.

So I don't envy print. I think it is limited and its exlusiveness is a thing of the past. In fact, if you look at most of the major newspapers, they have gone to blogging as well and you can log onto the Washington Post, read a column and post a comment. You can log onto the SacBee.com and post a comment to the news stories. Notice that the Davis Enterprise--large portions of their website is basically inaccesible because you have to pay to access a lot of the text and there is no blogging. Blogging is the wave of the future. Decentralized communication is on the rise. And print no longer exclusively meets the needs of the populace who no longer wants to sit by passively and accept what is written at face value.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

More Harsh Rhetoric in the Doolittle-Brown Race

It's almost election time, and the war of words has spilled over. You can tell when a race is close, by the heat of the rhetoric. You can tell who is feeling nervous and who is feeling confident by who is reaching a little further for traction.

The latest in the race for California's Fourth Distrct comes from Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who heads the House Armed Services committee. At issue, an email sent by Brown in 2004. Hunter attacked a Brown e-mail calling the Iraq campaign a "war of occupation/aggression" an e-mail Brown wrote in April 2004 while a civilian employee of the Roseville Police Department.

Hunter: "It is not a war of aggression in Iraq. I think his statement is an affront to the troops."

Is Iraq a war of aggression? You could certainly make the argument that it is, after all the U.S. attacked Iraq with little to no provocation on the premise that they possessed weapons of mass destruction--a notion that we now know is false. Iraq a nation that was not a threat and not involved in the September 11 attacks on the US.

Whether it is, or whether it is not, the striking feature of Hunter's statement was that Brown's statement somehow represented "an affront to the troops." The decision to attack Iraq was not made by the troops but rather by the civilian and political leaders in this country. Any criticism of the motives for the war does not reflect on the troops but rather on the civilian leadership. So the entire idea that whenever the civilian leadership is challenged, it somehow represents an affront to the troops is nothing more than a political red herring.

Hunter knows that the Fourth District is a heavily patriotic district and strongly supportive of our military. The question is whether the Fourth District like the rest of the country has had enough of the war on Iraq and sees it for what it is.

The rhetoric in the last week of attacking Brown's association with the anti-war movment is premised on the notion that the allies of Brown will make the constituents in the Fourth District uncomfortable and force them to come back home to the Republican party. We believe that the voters in the Fourth District see through this kind of cynical manipulation. And realize it for what it is--a desperate attempt to defend what is an indefensible policy in Iraq.

Meanwhile the fun continues with comments made yesterday by House Majority Leader John Boehner:

In an interview Wednesday on CNN, Boehner said, "Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer replied, "But he's in charge of the military."

"The fact is, the generals on the ground are in charge, and he works closely with them and the president," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said.

Apparently John Kerry isn't the only one putting his foot in his mouth.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E Now Under Investigation for Campaign Activities

This morning's Sacramento Bee reports:

The increasingly aggressive election battle over electricity service in eastern Yolo County landed on the steps of the Capitol on Tuesday, with several lawmakers calling for an investigation into Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s campaign tactics.

Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, and Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, denounced PG&E for using a customer service telephone line and billing inserts to oppose ballot measures that would enable part of Yolo County to drop PG&E and buy power instead from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Ortiz and Jones -- along with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who was not at the news event -- wrote a letter dated Tuesday to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce requesting that PG&E be asked to demonstrate that none of its inserts, telephone recordings or other political activities was paid for with ratepayer funds.

While we are certainly glad that people are starting to take notice about the campaign that PG&E has run against H&I, this issue only covers part of the story including the misuse of campaign and city logos for campaign purposes, the complaint filed by the No on Measure X campaign, the complaint filed by the City of Davis. The entire PG&E campaign has been misleading. The central issue in the campaign is over whether or not there will be savings for county ratepayers--the question I have to continually ask is whether you trust any claim that PG&E makes, because I sure don't. At this point, I would at least be inclined to investigate a claim that the sky was blue. That's how little credibility they have with me. I'll be honest, I was always going to vote for SMUD, but it wasn't an issue high on my radar until I watched the utterly contemptible campaign emerge.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A Vote For Target is a Vote for Doolittle and Pombo?

A reader sent in a link to some of the Target voter guides, it turns out Target has selected eight issues they consider pertinent for their interests and for all of the incumbents they compile a voting record.

First, let's look at John Doolittle, the Republican from the Fourth Congressional District in California, who is locked in a tight battle with Charlie Brown. He voted with Target 7 out of 8 times. Now the nice thing about the Target site (see I can give them praise) is that they give us a comparison as to where they stand versus where we might stand. So they list five voting ratings. The National Association of Manufactures, Doolittle had a 90% score. US Chamber of Commerce, 93%. BIPAC’s Prosperity Project, 91%. Those three are conservative, the next two are liberal. With the AFL-CIO, Doolittle scored a 7%. League of Conservation Voters, 0%. So let’s put this into perspective. Doolittle voted with labor only 7% of the time and for the environment on zero votes, whereas he voted with the conservative groups 90% of the time. Not a surprise since he is a conservative Republican. He voted with Target 87.5% of the time almost mirroring his conservative voting record. Which one of is closer to your values?

Richard Pombo, Republican from the 11^th Congressional District is locked in a tight battle with Jerry McNerney. He voted with Target 8 out of 8 times. He had a 90 percent rating from the National Association of Manufacturers, 97 from the US Chamber of Commerce, 100% with BIPAC. And on the liberal side—0% with AFL-CIO and 5% with the League of Conservation Voters. Again, 100% with Target. Which side of the fence is Target on? It seems obvious.

For the sake of comparison, I also looked up the voting record of Mike Thompson, the Democrat who represents much of Yolo County and the North Coast of California. Very different picture. He did vote with Target on trade issues, but not health care and benefits and not on privacy. So he voted with them 3 out of 8 times or 37%. How did he score on the other ratings: 38 percent with the Manufactures, 50 percent with the Chamber of Commerce, 20 percent with BIPAC. On the liberal side, 87% with the AFL-CIO and 90% with the League of Conservation Voters. And of course, 37.5% with Target.

It’s kind of scary how closely Target’s votes match up with the three other conservative ratings. And of course, they are the opposite of the AFL-CIO and League of Conservation Voters.

So again, it’s a clear choice. If you support labor and support the environment, you should not be supporting Target. Yes we know they have cheap socks and underwear (and deodorant Mr. Rifkin), but in terms of our values, Davis values, Target doesn’t support them. If you want Doolittle and Pombo to win, you should support Target. If you want Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney to win, you should oppose Target.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Davis Enterprise Endorses Rexroad

I haven't written about Matt Rexroad in this blog. However, reading the Davis Enterprise Endorsement of Rexroad, I was compelled to stick my nose into this.

In particular it was the last paragraph that caught my eye:

We're disappointed in the partisan politics that have been injected into this race. Sure, Rexroad is a Republican but he enjoys broad support from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. We respect him for his intellect, his abilities and his leadership.

Let me tell, I'm just relieved I was not eating when I read that last line.

First of all, the Davis Enterprise is just continuing their endorsements of the pro-growth and more conservative candidates and issues. In particular on local issues. Sure they may endorse Democrats at the State or National level, but at the local level, it's a very consistent record. They endorsed "Yes on Covell Village" and now "Yes on Target." They endorsed the pro-growth candidates for Council last election by endorsing Asmundson and Levy. They endorsed the conservative Republican Jeff Reisig for District Attorney and they've endorsed the conservative Republican Matt Rexroad for the 3rd District County Supervisor seat.

Second of all, don't give me the line "we're disppointed in the partisan politics that have been injected into this race." I'm of the belief that there are NO non-partisan races. The Republicans have understood this for a long time. In the 1970s, they devised a way to groom and recruit candidates from the ground up--a farm system to use sports parlance. In order to run candidates for the State Legislature or Congress that will be successful, you need a good crop of quality candidates who are well known at the local level and seasoned at local "non-partisan" offices.

Howard Dean in developing his 50-state strategy finally acknowledged the huge advantage that this strategy has given the Republicans and enabled them to re-take the Congress in 1994 and hold until possibly this election. Dean's plan is to seed the local level with young and committed candidates, building them into state candidates in future races.

I understand full well that Debbie Davis is not a Democratic activist (in fact as far as I know she’s a Republican), but her position on this the issue of partisanship represents the fundamental flaw in the thinking of local office holders and activists who should know better. Last spring, a number of Democratic activists and office holders supported Jeff Reisig, a conservative Republican. Don Saylor, Davis City Councilmember and Ed Prieto, Yolo County Sheriff, went as far as to wear "Democrats for Reisig" buttons.

Folks, Jeff Reisig is 34 years old, Matt Rexroad is 38 years old. Do you really believe that they are going to be content to stay in these offices for long? These guys are going to be prime candidates for Assembly, State Senate, Congress, etc. Democrats in this county will have helped the future members of Congress for the Republican Party.

Remember Machado barely beat Podesta, a Mayor of Stockton for the State Senate Seat. Do you think the huge Republican power brokers are dumping money into the Supervisor's race for fun? No, they are expecting a return on their investment when Rexroad parlays his Supervisor's seat into higher office--partisan office. And it's exactly the same thing with Reisig--a young, Republican District Attorney who will be a prime candidate for partisan office. And Democratic leaders and activists in Yolo County will have made it happen.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Ugly Face of Racial Profiling Rises Yet Again in Davis

An area couple, African-American, is on their way home, they were meeting with the police ironically enough about a pending lawsuit filed against the City of Davis and the police for multiple incidents of harassment and racial profiling. Heading home, a patrol car is driving the other direction, spotting them, Officer Jeff Beasley orders his trainee to pull a u-turn and come up behind them, turns on the lights and pulls them over.

There were a couple of disturbing things that occurred during this incident. When pressed for a reason as to why he pulled them over, Beasley (who immediately took control of the situation--recognizing the couple) said they had an obstructed rear license plate. The explanation makes no sense as it is clear that the police car was traveling the opposite direction, spotted their pick up truck and performed a u-turn behind them. There is no way that the officers could have seen an obstructed rear license plate from the front side. Moreover, of course, there is no obstructed rear license plate. When you see the vehicle it is clear as day. It was the most flimsy of excuses to pull over and continue to harass this couple.

The second and most disturbing feature of this incident is that the couple was able to capture it on film. (For a number of reasons unfortunately it cannot be shown on this blog). At one point, they informed the Officer that they were filming this and he responded that the police were filming it as well.

The City of Davis has installed expensive digital recording devices into all its patrol cars. This has been promoted as a means to not only protect the police officers but better serve the public. However, in most incidents of this sort, it seems that the recordings have not worked. Some have suggested that there are legitimate technical issues in getting such a system operational. Others have suggested that this is a little bit too convenient--especially since some of the most revealing footage is apparently not reporting.

When the attorney for this couple requested to view the police vehicle surveillance video, he was told that it didn't record it, despite the fact that Officer Beasley clearly informed the couple that it was being recorded. Moreover, there is a couple of minute period of time when the police officers go into the trunk of the police car and appear to be doing something back there. From the coverage we've seen it is unclear as to what they were doing, but it seemed to be a strange thing to do at that point in time.

All of this will be forwarded to the proper authorities, however, troubling aspects of this remain, particularly the unreliability of the recording equipment and the open question as to whether or not the officer has the ability to manipulate or alter recordings on the scene. These are questions for the new police ombudsman, Robert Aaronson, to address and we hope he is allowed to view and investigate this incident.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Cal Aggie's Criticism of Brown and McNerney Misses the Mark

Someone has sent me a copy of the Op-ed from Thursday in California Aggie that attacks Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney for failing to show up at a UC Davis campus event. The op-ed piece is filled with errors and inaccuracies.

First, the charge that the campaigns “they disrespected the campus population and demonstrated that the student vote is not a priority for their campaigns.” The UC Davis campus is nowhere near the districts for either campaign. The campaigns had been invited by a local political operative and the College Democrats of UC Davis to recruit volunteers to help with these campaigns. Unfortunately given the length of travel time--well over an hour-and-a-half round trip--it seemed better for the candidates to remain in their districts speaking to actual voters and to send surrogates in their place.

Second, “The two men are vying for the opportunity to represent the fourth district, which encompasses several counties in the Sierra Nevada area, including El Dorado and Sacramento.” Actually the two men are fighting for different districts. Brown is opposing Republican incumbent John Doolittle in the 4th district (which encompasses Roseville, Auburn, Lake Tahoe all the way up the eastern side of California's Nevada boarder to Oregon.) McNerney is in the 11^th district, facing incumbent Republican Richard Pombo (which encompasses Stockton, Tracy, down into the south Bay Area.)

Third, “While Stenhouse said his candidate believes young people play an important part in the election, Brown did not have the courtesy to give sufficient notice of his cancellation, thus potentially alienating student voters who showed up to hear him speak.” Potentially alienating the student voters who showed up? Only five students showed up and none of the students who showed up could have voted for them. Only 12 people in total attended the event including the students, the event organizers and the candidate's representatives. The campaigns were hoping to be able to mobilize young volunteers to help with their final effort. Unfortunately, due to the suspected low event turnout and the amount of time that the candidates would have to take out of their busy day, it was determined that it would not be productive use of their time to have the candidates themselves there. Facing many obligations each campaign must judge the value of using their candidate, their limited resoures and their time wisely. One of the lessons that people need to learn about politics is how much work a campaign involves. I’ve been to numerous events that have had to be altered or cancelled because of other commitments and priorities.

Fourth, “Students deserve to hear the political goals of congressional candidates as much as older voters. As such, any campaign official who visits the campus should be prepared and focus on the campaign issues.” The op-ed writer apparently was unaware of the purpose of this rally.

Finally, “With the election less than two weeks away, time is crucial. These candidates must now work to garner the support of student constituents before it's too late.” Again, the op-ed writer apparently has no idea where these districts lie or the fact that none of these students are constituents.

The bottom line is that while the California Aggie is a student paper, they need to do their homework and understand that this rally was not about garnering votes but tapping volunteers. Instead of throwing uneducated accusations towards the Brown and McNerney campaigns, had they done so they would have realized that these two candidates represent districts far from the UC Davis campus but were hoping to tap into the energies of young students to add grassroots workers in the final days of the campaign and had been invited to do just that. I find it illustrative that the op-ed never mentions the number of students (again, five) who actually attended this rally or explains to us what the purpose of the rally was. Unfortunately, the writers do not appear to understand it themselves.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Enterprise Reports on PG&E Using unauthorized logos

On October 20, we reported that the No on H & I campaign was trying to fool voters by using the No on X logo implying support by the No on X campaign for PG&E. A few days later we received a letter from the No on X campaign, demanding that PG&E retract "the implication that the No on X Committee has anything to do with your campaign against Measures H and I."

Finally, nine days after we first ran the article, the Davis Enterprise has run a story on the controversy. The main focus of the story is the unauthorized use of the City of Davis logo (see top right of the image above). Harriet Steiner wrote a letter to the FPPC and the Yolo County District Attorney's office. The City Council complained that they were not asked permission for the use of the logo and would not have granted permission had they been asked. You may recall that all of the members of the Davis City Council have endorsed the SMUD Annexation, along with the member of Woodland, West Sacramento, and the County Supervisors.

This follows another snafu from the PG&E backed group, where a ballot designation of the Davis Chamber of Commerce was used by Bruce Gallaudet, husband of Davis Enterprise Editor, Debbie Davis. Surprisingly that story has not been published by Davis Enterprise. Nor has the Davis Enterprise printed the complaint by the No on Measure X people, despite the fact that they sent the same letter to the Davis Enterprise that they sent to us.

---Doug Paul Davis Reporting

PG&E Continues its "Green" Makeover

Some things in politics just take your breath away and leave you shaking your head. The PG&E campaign is one of them. Actually in some ways, Target and PG&E are using the same script. If these were candidates, you'd be thinking, that they suddenly found environmentalism.

Theresa Francis wrote to the Davis Enterprise:

I'm going to open a Hummer dealership in a giant LEED building; that way I can help save the environment.

Bob Dunning of all people writes:

would we allow a strip joint on the site just because it was housed in an award-winning building?

(Personally I think that Bob just wants a strip joint, but that's just me).

PG&E is using the same play book. First, they use the No on Measure X campaign to tell us that a vote for No on H & I is just like a vote for No on X. Now they are leafletting the town (or at least my residence) with a door hanger that pronounced them the guardians of the environmental order and SMUD as the evil polluters.

Look I can understand them wanting to hold onto their natural monopolistic market share and that they hate it when competition comes along, but good gosh, give us at least some credit for having some intelligence. Just because you call yourself environmentally friendly doesn't mean that you are.

This is a company that built a nuclear power plant on an earthquake fault and that has been cited for numerous unauthorized releases of radioactive waste.

"Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has agreed to pay $96,000 in penalties for losing track of radioactive spent fuel at its defunct Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant. (12/05)"

"Facing fines of $25 million per day for the last 15 years, PG&E, owner of Diablo Canyon, faces a make-or-break ruling in June when the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control board decides whether to slap a cease-and-desist order on the plant for its thermal pollution and resultant marine environment kill-off -- allegations that PG&E denies. That could be on top of the $14 million PG&E was fined by the state and federal governments in a related case for withholding evidence of pollution. The utility is currently in negotiations with the board over the case that could include a potential trade of some of the 13,000 acres (including 10 miles of coastline) surrounding the plant. PG&E's customers, however, have paid for that land over the years and no one can explain how a trade of ratepayers-to-public ownership can work. (5/22/2000)"

The San Francisco Guardian reports:

• In 1997 PG&E was tried and convicted in criminal court for endangering the lives and property of gold country residents by failing to trim tree branches near electrical wires frequently enough to prevent major fires. Evidence showed that PG&E executives had diverted tree-trimming money to fatten profits and salaries of top corporate executives.

• The story of the company's poisoning of community water supplies in Hinkley became a major Hollywood movie called Erin Brockovich, and a similar environmental disaster is still underway just south of San Francisco. Meanwhile, residents of the Bayview-Hunters Point district in San Francisco are suffering from alarmingly high rates of asthma and other illnesses that they link to PG&E's dirty power plant in the neighborhood (see "Poison Power," 1/28/98). In addition, the nearby Potrero power plant, which PG&E sold to Mirant Corp. in 1998, is scheduled for expansion.

• PG&E stole nearly $200,000 from San Francisco by illegally running its power lines to the Presidio, according to a 1995 lawsuit the city filed against the company. Indeed, PG&E's service to San Francisco residents is illegal, according to the terms of the 1913 Raker Act, which requires the city to operate a public power system. The company's monopoly has led to decades of structural corruption at City Hall (see "How PG&E Wires the City," page 26).

• In 1998 a major blackout hit the city – leaving nearly half a million San Francisco residents without electricity (see "Still in the Dark," 12/16/98). Officials determined that a failure to make a key backup safety check at a San Mateo substation caused the outage. For several years the company had been cutting back on maintenance staff to fatten profits.

• In 2001, after lobbying for the 1996 bill that deregulated part of the state's electricity industry, PG&E shuffled off more than $600 million in profits to its holding company, gave its top brass $50 million in bonuses and raises, and declared bankruptcy. Since spring 2001, rates have soared 40 percent and customer service for everything from hook-ups to billing problems has worsened (see "Feeling the Crunch," 9/4/02).

• Under its proposed plan to get out of bankruptcy, PG&E wants to free itself of the last vestiges of state regulation while at the same time making a very anti-free market demand: ratepayers must protect its shareholders and CEOs from any potential future losses (see "Competing Energy Visions," page 30).

• PG&E has a long record of harassing internal whistle-blowers and reporters who dare to take on the giant company.

Whistle Blowers Beware

Also from that article in the Guardian:

Silencing critics

Although PG&E likes to insist it is a tolerant and responsible company, it has a long history of retaliating against any employee who blows the whistle on its irresponsible practices.

In the 1997 Nevada County fire case, one of the prosecution's star witnesses was Jim Sprecher, a PG&E engineer who had written a report concluding that the company was letting trees go untrimmed for too long and jeopardizing public safety. Instead of heeding Sprecher's concerns, the company demoted him, relegating him to an unimportant job and ostracizing him socially, he testified.

He also testified that the report mysteriously disappeared from his unlocked filing cabinet at work at some point between 1993 and late 1996, when he was contacted by Nevada County prosecutors (see "Vanishing Report," 5/21/97). The report's recommendation to increase spending on tree trimming was ignored by PG&E higher-ups.

At PG&E's April 1998 shareholders meeting, Neil Aiken, a shift foreperson at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, stood up and told shareholders about safety problems that came from cost cutting at the plant. He told the audience he came forward only in desperation, because he had exhausted all possible routes of solving the problem within the company. He also released a report detailing the safety issues called "Going Critical" (see "Nuclear Leak," 4/22/98).

That year PG&E executives forced Aiken to undergo psychiatric evaluation. He was locked out of the plant and forced off his job after 24 years (see "Plugging the Leak," 11/18/98). The Project on Liberty and the Workplace took up his case, and the U.S. Department of Labor found PG&E guilty of retaliation in November 1999 (see "PG&E Fires Whistleblower," 4/5/00).

PG&E also has a history of blackballing reporters who challenge the utility. Energy writer J.A. Savage sued PG&E in 1988, charging that the company had gotten her fired from two jobs because she had once worked for an antinuclear group and had written for the Bay Guardian. She settled the suit for an undisclosed sum in 1995 after the state Court of Appeals found that her allegations had enough merit to go to trial (see "Reporter Beats PG&E," 11/8/95).

"PG&E wields considerable power over the press covering its activities," Judge Williams Newsom wrote in a 1993 appeals court opinion dealing with the question of whether PG&E should be able to blacklist reporters who work for the Bay Guardian. "In the case of a public utility enjoying such extensive monopolistic authority ... there is an important public interest in assuring the freedom of the press in reporting on matters lying within the exercise of its franchise."

PG&E has used its formidable power to undermine that constitutionally protected freedom. The haze of P.R. the company generates regarding its operations has proved effective in protecting the utility's empire – at the direct expense of the public's financial interests, safety, and health.

Campaign manipulations are one thing, outrights lies are another. PG&E is about as environmentally friendly as the Bush administration. Yolo County voters should not get sold down the river on this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Patriotic Attacks: Last Refuge of a Losing Candidate

In the heat of battle is seems any attack is inbounds. Recall back to 2002, when Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost portions of his right arm and most of his legs in combat duty had his patriotism questioned because he dared to suggest there might be problems with the Patriot Act. Cleland would lose that race.

This past week, incumbent John Doolittle attacked Charlie Brown, his Democratic opponent for his patriotism. Charlie Brown not only fought in Vietnam but served for 26 years in the Air Force. Brown’s wife Jan also served in the Air Force. And their son, Jeff is an Air Force captain who will begin a fourth tour of duty in Iraq in December. How dare, John Doolittle attack Brown’s patriotism, HOW DARE HE.

Charlie Brown called Republican Rep. John Doolittle a coward who is "hiding behind the flag" and slammed him for failing to serve in Vietnam.

"While I was being shot at in Vietnam, John Doolittle was practicing his tennis game at (the University of California) Santa Cruz," Brown said during a news conference as he was surrounded by fellow veterans.

Meanwhile Doolittle attacks Brown for being linked to anti-war activists like Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and Sean Penn.

The writer Samuel Johnson once wrote that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, but false patriotism. What is false patriotism? Acting as though the only way to be patriotic is to back wars even as they are clearly going awry. Attacking the patriotism of brave veterans while at the time of were you were safely ensconced in your privileged life. False patriotism is pretending that the words of the constitution read, “my country right or wrong.”

Folks, we need to see through these facades of patriotism and realize that true patriotism is about honor, sacrifice, and principles. We should not sacrifice those principles at the alter of expediency or under of the false guise of national security. We need honest debates about the direction and leadership of this country. And we need to honor our brave war heroes with the praise that deserve whether we agree or disagree with their viewpoint. Much has been lost in this country, much of that that has been lost has been decency and respect. Brave people like Charlie Brown are again answering the call of our country to help win it back. We need to help him do so.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Continues to Seek Merger of Senior Citizen's Commission

At Tuesday's City Council meeting the council continued their move towards a merger of the Senior Citizen's Commission with the Social Services Commission. This is a move strongly opposed by the Senior Citizen's Commission and supported by the Social Services Commission.

For the first time, we see the rationale behind this rather perplexing move. It remains completely unclear as to why Souza has continued to push this issue other than sheer vanity. Souza's argument is that by combining the two commissions, you make a more powerful one.

He certainly to date has not made any kind of argument for why that might be. In fact, there are several reasons to argue that combining the issue would actually dilute the influence of both commissions. There would not be a single member lost, however, that means you are looking at a 12-14 person commission charged with a very broad range of issues. It seems likely that a lot of the specific issues may not get addressed and much of the work would have to be performed in subcommittee anyway (which begs the question, why not just leave it as it is if you have to hav a lot of subcommittees).

Mayor Sue Greenwald makes two very good arguments against the merger. The first, is that it is not clear that these two commissions really have compatible jurisdictions. The mayor argues that the Social Service's commission primarily focuses on issues of disabilities and the poor. When informed that they may not primarily focus on those issues, she strongly argues that they should. The Senior Citizen's commission heavily focuses on issues pertaining directly to Seniors.

While there is clearly some overlap between the duties, the overall focus is very different and seems better to remain distict except at those times when the issues converge. Councilmember Heystek suggested that they might have either liaisons to each other or have joint committee meetings when their jurisdictions overlap.

The second issue that Greenwald raises is the time of meetings. A lot of seniors, as she points out, cannot drive at night and cannot be out late. The Senior Citizen's Commission meets during the day, however, staff suggested that the meetings for the new commission would be at night--a great inconvenience to the seniors not only on the commission but in the community as a whole who might like to attend meetings. Staff's suggestion was that they arrange for rides, but that seems to be almost insulting and greatly erodes the independence of the membership and likely will erode future interest in serving on this commission.

Under fire, the Council is now suggesting they have meetings and discussion until December and then will wait to make a decision. Several suggested that at that time they might decide to keep things at is.

That seems very unlikely. While a view of the meeting reveals Souza in an amiable mood talking about the power that the merger will bring to these commissions, it is in striking contrast to his previous behavior with regards to this issue where witnesses suggested that Souza browbeat and attempted to intimidate the chair of the commission to go along with his plans.

The Senior community has responded in kind and now the council majority is complaining about the tone of discussion in the community. This is a typical game played by Souza and Saylor--they have free reign to attempt to get their way, but when people call them on it, they complain about tone and tenor.

At the end of the day, there seems to be no reason for this merger other than perhaps the ego of Souza. He named nothing concrete that would be gained by this. The senior citizen commission continues to oppose it. I see no reason whatsoever for this to be brought back at the December meeting.

Seniors would be wise to remember this effort by the council and the extent of this effort to merge the commissions.

Please view segments of the debate from Tuesday night beginning with a long talk from Souza. This is about a nine minute video clip. (It may take a little while before the link is active, please be patient).



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Target Panders to Far Right on Emergency Contraception

Target took a stand on emergency contraception. In a media statement dated November 10th, 2005 Target said: “In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy. The emergency contraceptive Plan B is the only medication for which this policy applies.”

While that official policy may seem reasonable it puts a tremendous amount of burden on a customer holding a valid prescription. Further, you need to understand that this has a huge impact in small rural towns where the choice is often Wal Mart (which won't fill the prescription at all) and Target (who might refer a customer to another location, which may be very far away). In reality that this leaves many rural people without much of a choice.

There is the convenience and the practicality charge and then there is the potential abuse, in the form of allegations that they actually just flat out have refused to fill prescriptions. The far right is now using this issue to further erode reproductive freedom as several states led by conservatives governors and legislatures have back legislation to allow pharamacists to refuse filling such prescriptions. Once again, this will leave the poor and the rural without true reproductive freedom.

This is just another example of the Target corporation not supporting the values of the Davis community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A look Target Business Practices: Very un-Davis

Supporters of Measure K have claimed that Target is a good fit for Davis values. However, some of the research into the Target Corporation calls this into question. For instance, the NAACP gave Target an "F" for their economic empowerment of African-Americans. If Davis is indeed a city of a diversity as the "Target in Davis" website claims, then they should take this sort of criticism seriously.

In 1996, the NAACP launched the ERI as a sustained consumer movement to measure corporate America's financial relationship with the African American community. Since then, the ERI has expanded its scope and has continued to annually highlight diversity efforts made in lodging, telecommunications, financial services, general merchandising and automotive industries.

Each of the industries is rated in five performance areas. Information contained in the report is based on data provided by participating companies in 2005. Survey questions are graded and assigned point values which are translated into a letter grade.

Company	Score	Grade
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.	2.67	C+
Federated Dept. Stores	2.42	C
Nordstrom, Inc.	1.79	C-
J.C. Penney Company, Inc.	1.63	D+
Saks, Inc.	1.16	D
Sears Holding Corp.	0.00	F
Dillard’s, Inc.	0.00	F
Kohl’s Dept. Stores	0.00	F
Target	0.00	F

Target received an F grade on this score. At the NAACP’s 97th annual convention, President Bruce Gordan called on all blacks to boycott all Target stores. The NAACP is focusing on Target because it is one of the nation’s most prominent retailers.

Target also have a poor record in terms of the use of sweatshop labor to produce the products that they sell. Target has been cited on many occasions in the past five years for extremely poor working conditions among those in third world production factories.

For example, Target continued to source from the Nobland garment factory in Guatemala despite management's aggressive opposition to union activity and the companies were slow to respond to intervention requests by U.S. LEAP. Union organizers were subject to harassment and termination, and the factory was abruptly shut down in June 2005. (see: http://www.coopamerica.org/tools/print.cfm?page=/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=295).

Also, Target sources from a factory in Guandong, China where management routinely hides evidence of poor labor conditions in order to pass screens. Some of the abuses include: 80-180 hours per month of uncompensated overtime; severe injuries to the workers; false documentation to make the labor practices look legit.

Finally from the National Labor committee:

"In April 2003, a federal court on the Pacific island of Saipan approved a $20 million settlement on a class action lawsuit filed against Target and 21 other companies. The lawsuit charged that the companies contracted sweatshop labor on Saipan, a U.S. Commonwealth and should be held accountable for worker treatment and conditions in foreign-owned factories operating on U.S. soil. According to the complaint, the more than 13,000 garment workers in Saipan regularly worked 12-hour days, seven days a week, often times "off the clock" without receiving any pay or overtime. The lawsuit also accused Levi Strauss and other companies of operating a "racketeering conspiracy" through which workers, who are mostly young women, sign contracts waiving their basic human rights and pay recruitment fees of up to $10,000 to secure sweatshop jobs. By agreeing to the settlement, the companies admitted no wrongdoing."

Are these business practices examples of Davis values? I find it very telling that while the "Target in Davis" folks are very aggressive on the issue of the LEED and having LEED certification, they have completely ignored the fact that Target in Davis will be but one store among thousands and the impact on Davis is small compared to the global impact by Target. Target has gotten a break because most of the media scrutiny for poor labor practices and poor environmental practices has fallen on Wal Mart--a larger and more notorious company.

However, Target continues torefuse to allow its workers to unionize and has practiced many of the same union-busting activities that the more notorious Wal Mart has used. Furthermore, the sponsors of "Target in Davis" such as Ruth Asmundson refused to allow a living wage ordinance to come before the city council. An ordinance that would have provided workers at Target with $10 per hour wages. As we've documented, current miminum wage would be insufficient to allow Target workers to reside in the city.

So while the 250 jobs claim might be true, most of those jobs will live in West Sacramento or even Woodland rather than Davis. That itself would negate some of the advantage putting a Target in Davis would have in terms of reduced oil consumption. If even 200 of the 250 projected new workers live outside of Davis you are talking about 5 round trips a week at 19 miles a piece for 200 workers. That's 1000 trips per week and 52,000 trips per year. So already a good portion of the existing trips are used up just by the employees of Target. I'm just not seeing a huge advantage in gas comsumption.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Real Environmental Record of PG&E: Manufactured Studies to Cover-up Environmental Crimes

For those who have seen the movie “Erin Brockovich” you know the story—residents of a small rural town in the Mojave Desert, Hinkley, California, alleged that PG&E contaminated drinking water with the carcinogen hexavalent chromium—chromium-6 and that this exposure led to widespread illness and disease. They used the chromium-infused water as a coolant at some of its natural gas compressor stations but the discharged water tainted local groundwater supplies. Earlier this year the company agreed to pay $315 million to settle the dispute, nearly a decade after agreeing to pay around $160 million.

Typical of settlements, the company refused to admit wrong doing however, PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne issued a statement Friday saying, "Clearly this situation should never have happened, and we are sorry it did." (USA Today, 2-16-06).

Given that those practices go back to the 1950s and 1960s, it’s not clear that we should use this case to taint PG&E. More stunning however, is their recent attempts to manufacture a study that demonstrated no link between chromium-6 and cancer.

From the USA Today article:

In December, the Environmental Working Group published a detailed account of PG&E’s alleged attempts to corrupt a previous medical study on chromium-6’s carcinogenic effects.

Drawing on records obtained under California’s Public Records Act, the public interest group chronicled how shortly after the first Brockovich case resulted in the huge plaintiffs’ award, a PG&E-paid; environmental consultant persuaded a respected Chinese scientist to participate in an update of his 1987 study that found chromium-contaminated water in rural China was linked to an increase in villagers’ cancer.

The new study found no such link between chromium-6 and cancer. In its investigation, the Environmental Working Group alleged that the revised study, published in the influential Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was written by PG&E consultants rather than by the now-deceased JianDong Zhang, whose revised paper misspelled his name three times.

The public interest group obtained records from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that supported its doubts about the revised study, including the sponsors’ alleged failure to disclose who actually wrote the manuscript and who paid for it, in addition to their allegedly incorrect use of several epidemiological terms, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Here’s the full report from the Environmental Working Group which documents how PG&E conspired to reverse findings of a cancer study.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the San Francisco-based consultants, ChemRisk, "conceived, drafted, edited and submitted to medical journals" a "clarification" of the Chinese study, according to documents filed in another chromium lawsuit against PG&E. They did so despite a letter of objection from the Chinese scientist who led the original study, calling their reversal of his findings an "inappropriate inference."

Davis residents who listen to the rhetoric of PG&E may want to read through that report. It is very illustrative—first, PG&E is running on its green record and while the actual Hinkley case did occur decades ago, the attempts by PG&E to manufacture a study to exonerate their past behavior is utterly indefensible and is a matter of recent record and behavior. Of course these facts have not been brought up in the current campaign, but I think Davis residents need to know about it.

The issue here is about responsibility and this is how PG&E reacts when they have made a mistake, instead of making things whole and doing the right thing, they try to lie and connive their way out of responsibility.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting