From jflofland at ucdavis.edu  Tue Jun  7 10:34:04 2005
From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:34:04 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] Update on "prevent Sue Greenwald from becoming Mayor
Message-ID: <p06100509becb8a6e3582@[10.0.1.4]>

>
>From: Ken Wagstaff <kjwag at dcn.davis.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: A "power play" to prevent Sue Greenwald from becoming Mayor
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:17:19 -0700
>To: Sue Greenwald <suegreen at dcn.davis.ca.us>
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 169.237.104.195
>Status:  
>
>Sue,
>Two members of the Council, Steve Souza and Ted Puntillo, have 
>written to tell me that they do not want to change the rules 
>retroactively, and that you will be the next Mayor.
>They do not explain why they voted against your motion to prevent 
>any new rules from being retroactive.  Ted says you will "serve at 
>the Council's pleasure", which is accurate wording from the 
>ordinance but ominous, as every Council since 1990 has allowed the 
>Mayor pro Tem to become Mayor and serve a full two years in the 
>office.
>Ken
>



From jflofland at ucdavis.edu  Tue Jun  7 17:45:05 2005
From: jflofland at ucdavis.edu (John Lofland)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:45:05 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] More on the Mayor Selection Matter
Message-ID: <p0610050abecbef72e2ac@[10.0.1.4]>

>Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:20:42 -0700
>From: "Stephen Souza" <ssouza at ci.davis.ca.us>
>To: <kjwag at dcn.davis.ca.us>
>
>Hi Ken, at the City Council meeting of May 24th the Governance Task 
>Force Report was presented to us with info on 15 areas of governance 
>and we asked for further info on 3 of those areas. We with the 
>motion concerning the selection of the Mayor asked staff to come 
>back with info on how we could implement option A of their report 
>(see below). My desire is to have the rotation of mayor and mayor 
>pro tem for one year terms and nomination of mayor and mayor pro tem 
>by newly seated Council. My desire is to have Sue lead this 
>rotation, since she is in line to be the next Mayor under the 
>existing ordinance. This new method of selecting the Mayor could 
>also take place in 2008.  We could also do nothing with the method 
>of selection of the Mayor and leave it as it now is. We could also 
>do nothing with the other two recommendations that will come back to 
>the Council for further Council direction/action. Nothing has been 
>done to change the existing system yet and one can assume there may 
>not be any change. Just because one asks for further information 
>dose not mean one has to act on that information. I hope this helps 
>to clarify what I had in mind with my vote. Thanks, Stephen
>
>Staff Report
>
>Recommendation #4 - Change the Means of Selecting the Mayor
>Although the Task Force recommended changing the means of selecting 
>the mayor, they could
>not agree on the best alternative to the current system. The two 
>proposals presented were for
>council selection of the mayor and direct voter selection from among 
>the council members and
>candidates on the ballot through a system of instant runoff voting.
>The proposal for mayor selection by council is a minor adjustment to 
>the current system, and
>requires a modification to the language in the city code related to 
>the designation of mayor pro
>tempore as the candidate who receives the most votes. The proposal 
>to have the mayor elected
>directly by voters is closer to the way the status quo operates. The 
>primary difference in
>Proposal B of the Task Force recommendation is that there would be 
>separate lists of council and
>mayoral candidates on the ballot. This would help to clarify to the 
>public for whom they were
>voting for mayor.
>A survey conducted through the League of California Cities 
>List-Serve regarding Mayor/Mayor
>Pro Tem Succession by cities participating indicated the most common 
>method was rotation of
>mayor and mayor pro tem for one year terms and nomination of mayor 
>and mayor pro tem by
>newly seated Council. A few cities responding to the survey adhere 
>to the highest vote getter.
>The issue boils down to whether or not the mayor should be viewed as 
>the leader of the Council
>(in which case the Council should select its leader) or the leader 
>of the people (in which case, the
>voters should select the mayor directly).
>
>Task Force Report
>
>4. Change the System of Selecting the Mayor
>Currently the mayor is selected by the city council, but an existing 
>city ordinance
>creates a presumption that: 1) the incoming mayor will be the prior mayor pro
>tem; and 2) the mayor pro tem will be the council member who received the most
>votes in the prior city council election. There was consensus among the Task
>Force that the de facto current system for selecting the mayor is 
>problematic (see
>the rationale following Proposal A). However, the Task Force was 
>split about the
>best alternative for changing the system. Accordingly, we present 
>two alternative
>Proposal A: Council Selects the Mayor
>Recommendation and Vote
>The Task Force recommends that: 1) the mayor continue to be selected by the
>city council from among present council members; 2) the city 
>ordinance related to
>selection of the mayor be modified to remove the presumption that the person
>chosen as mayor be the council member who had been serving as mayor pro
>tempore in the prior term; and 3) the city ordinance be further 
>modified to remove
>the presumption that the mayor pro tempore be the person who had won the
>most votes in the prior city council.
>Ayes: Dolcini, Lascher, Levy, Li.
>Noes: Adler Gefter, Mariano, Poulos.
>Absent: Garamendi.
>Rationale
>* Link with Identified Problems. Two related problems with the present means
>of selecting the mayor have been widely noted: 1) the mayor chosen in the
>present manner may not be the person most skilled at running and organizing
>council meetings; and 2) the mayor may not have strong support among city
>council colleagues. The proposal to remove the presumption that the mayor
>be the person who won the most council votes specifically addresses the
>identified problems.
>* Consistency with Other Legislative Bodies. It has been suggested that it is
>"undemocratic" to have the council elect the mayor. That suggestion does not
>take account of the fact that in the vast majority of legislative 
>bodies in the
>United States (both houses of the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, county
>boards of supervisors, school boards) the chair/president is elected by the
>membership.
>* Maintenance of the "Weak Mayor" System. The case for electing the mayor
>separately would be much stronger if Davis had a strong mayor system-i.e.,
>a system in which the mayor himself/herself developed and presented the
>budget, made appointments to city agencies, had the power to veto proposed
>ordinances, etc. In a strong mayor system, being mayor may call for different
>skills and background. But Davis has a "weak mayor" system and no
>proposal to adopt a strong mayor system is being seriously considered.
>Given that the mayor is simply "another council member" with respect to
>governance powers (although not with respect to ceremonial duties) it makes
>less sense to elect that individual separately.
>* Added Complexity of the Process of Using Instant Runoff for Mayor Selection.
>The Task Force has endorsed a plan for choice voting for council members,
>while recognizing that this will lead to some additional complexity for voters
>and need for additional public education. Such a process is much simpler if
>voters only face a new system for electing council members and not a new
>system for electing the mayor as well. Reasonable prudence would suggest
>giving the voters a chance to focus on using choice voting to select council
>members.
>
>Proposal B: Voters Select the Mayor from Among the City Council Members
>
>Recommendation and Vote
>The Task Force recommends that the public directly select the mayor from
>among the city council members through a system of instant runoff voting. The
>Task Force further recommends that there be separate lists of mayoral and
>council candidates on the ballot.
>Ayes Adler, Gefter, Mariano, Poulos.
>Noes: Dolcini, Lascher, Levy, Li.
>Absent: Garamendi.
>Rationale
>The increasingly important and visible role of mayor has made the issue of how
>the mayor is selected/elected a topic of considerable discussion. Public
>comment to the Task Force has been forceful on this topic. The current system
>is vastly misunderstood. The public believes that the council is bound to
>designate as mayor (initially as mayor pro tem) the candidate who received the
>most votes in the last election. Although the ordinance does not so 
>compel, the
>city council has developed a practice of designating as the 
>mayor/mayor pro tem
>the council candidate who received the most votes in the last election. There
>could be a direct election of the mayor but the Task Force has not 
>supported this.
>Instead the Task Force has recommended that the mayor be a member of the
>city council.
>If choice voting is established there can be two lists on the 
>ballot; one list is for
>council elections and one is for the mayor. The list for mayor will 
>contain the
>names of all council candidates and present council members whose terms have
>not expired and who wish to be considered for the position of mayor. 
>Candidates
>for council are listed on the ballot in one column. Those candidates 
>for council
>and continuing council members that wish to be considered for mayor are listed
>on the ballot in a second column. Voters rank their preferences for 
>council in one
>column and their preferences for mayor in the other column -- separately. To
>decide the new council members, a choice voting election is first 
>conducted using
>the council rankings (as would be done anyway). Then, to select the mayor, an
>instant runoff election is conducted among those newly-elected and continuing
>council members that chose to be considered for mayor. The mayoral ballots
>would be tallied simply by skipping over any rankings of candidates 
>that were not
>elected. The result is the council member with majority voter support.
>
>
>Councilmember Stephen Souza
>23 Russell Boulevard
>Davis, CA 95616
>Office: 530-757-5602
>Cell City: 530-681-7385
>Cell Business: 530-400-2222
>Fax: 530-757-5603



From oldeastdavis at omsoft.com  Tue Jun  7 22:03:49 2005
From: oldeastdavis at omsoft.com (Old East Davis)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:03:49 -0700
Subject: [OldNorth] Power Play to prevent Sue Greenwald from becoming mayor
Message-ID: <p06010215becaa751dfdc@[192.168.1.101]>

Old East Neighbors & Friends--

Related in that Sue is a "neighborhood ally", and these days we need 
all we can get.

This sort of maneuvering based on a personality is vile no matter 
which "side" it comes from.

===================================================

Subject: A "power play" to prevent Sue Greenwald from becoming Mayor
From: Ken Wagstaff <kjwag at dcn.davis.ca.us>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:58:22 -0700

Dear friends,
The Davis City Council has launched an outrageous assault on 
democracy and the spirit of fair play in our City.  Angry that they 
did not win the position of Mayor in the last election, the Council 
majority has indicated that they intend to override that election's 
results by retroactively changing the rules.  We must not allow this 
to happen!

On May 24 the Council acted on a 4-1 vote to direct staff to prepare 
amendments to the City law that sets forth the process for selecting 
the Mayor. The current ordinance directs the Council to promote Mayor 
Pro Tem Sue Greenwald to Mayor after the March 2006 election. But the 
Council has directed that the ordinance be changed to select the 
Mayor by a straight vote of the Council.  Further, all four members 
pushing for this amendment also refused to second a motion by Sue 
Greenwald to delay the change until after her term as Mayor. 

This action is obviously intended, therefore, to prevent Sue 
Greenwald, the Davis Mayor Pro Tem, from becoming the next Mayor, as 
current ordinance directs.

Background:
The present mayoral succession ordinance has been in effect since 
1990. It provides that the person who received the highest number of 
votes in a Council election shall become Mayor Pro Tem.  It further 
directs the Council to promote the Mayor Pro tem to Mayor after the 
next election two years later. Sue Greenwald got the most votes in 
2004 and is Mayor Pro tem. According to the ordinance in effect when 
Sue was elected, she is to be the new Mayor after the 2006 election.

This 1990 ordinance was put into place because, in a "General Law" 
city like Davis, absent a legal directive otherwise, all five 
councilmembers decide among themselves who is to become Mayor.  The 
"vote by Council" mechanism, which was used prior to 1990, had 
resulted in nasty, divisive political wrangling.  Hence, the 1990 
City Council enacted an ordinance directing the Council to select the 
highest vote-getter as Mayor Pro Tem, and then to promote the Mayor 
Pro Tem to Mayor after the next election. 

The "highest vote-getter" ordinance has been honored by every Council 
since it was enacted.  When I was Mayor, Susie Boyd was a "minority" 
Mayor Pro Tem - exactly the same situation that Sue Greenwald is now 
in. Neither I nor anyone in the majority even dreamed of abusing our 
power by trying to change the ordinance under which Susie was 
elected.  In fact, I appointed her to all of the important 
interjurisdictional committees in order to prepare her for the role 
as Mayor (a courtesy that Sue Greenwald has not been afforded as 
Mayor Pro Tem). 

Two separate issues:
We are dealing with two separate issues here.  The first is the best 
method for selecting the Mayor.  The second is the fairness that lies 
at the heart of the democratic process, i.e. if a change is to be 
made, that change should not be used to override the results of an 
election held under a different set of rules.     

1. Method of Selection of Mayor
I strongly believe we must retain the current system of selecting our 
Mayor.  It gives the people some say in the selection of the City's 
major spokesperson.  It avoids the bitter, divisive politics that 
accompany Council selection of Mayor.  But most importantly, if less 
obviously, it allows progressives a chance to be elected Mayor.  With 
the cost of elections now surpassing $40,000, it is becoming 
increasingly hard to find citizens willing to run if they don't have 
financial backing from development and other big-money interests. 
Hence, it is becoming increasingly unlikely, absent a voter 
initiative that cuts down on campaign costs (like public financing of 
campaigns or district elections) that there will be three progressive 
votes on the council.   Under the current ordinance, citizens who 
want independent leaders can rally behind the few candidates that are 
running grass roots campaigns, and, even if they cannot get a 
majority on the Council, they at least have a chance to elect a 
grass-roots Mayor.

2. Changing the rules retroactively
Regardless of what you think about the best method of selecting our 
Mayor, the idea that the Council would consider overturning the 
results of the last election-- by retroactively changing the rules 
under which the election was held-- is an outrage.  This is a crude 
power play; it smacks of the kind of dirty politics that we have 
witnessed on the national level.   We cannot tolerate this method of 
governance in the City of Davis. 

Act now!
I urge all progressive people to immediately write a letter to the 
editor of the Davis Enterprise expressing our collective outrage at 
this action. 

Letters to the editor can be e-mailed to newsroom at davisenterprise.net    
It is important to include your address and phone number, and to 
write "letter to the editor" in the subject line. 

You can also talk with or e-mail  Ted Puntillo, Ruth Asmundson, Steve 
Souza, and Don Saylor. Their email addressess are listed below. Tell 
them what you think of this outrageous move.  

You could also send an email to all your friends. Tell them, whether 
they voted for Sue or not, that in the interest of fairness this 
change should not become effective until after Sue's term.

If we do our part, Sue Greenwald will be our next Mayor.  She won the 
election fair and square.  She ran a clean, positive campaign, was 
outspent by 50%, yet was highest vote-getter by a very large margin. 
This Council must not retroactively change the rules under which the 
Mayor is selected.  The citizens of Davis have always demanded fair 
play.  

Thank you,

Ken Wagstaff
Davis City Council Member, 1998-2002
Davis Mayor, 2000-2002

rasmundson at ci.davis.ca.us
tedpuntillo at prodigy.net
dnsaylor at dcn.davis.ca.us
ssouza at ci.davis.ca.us
suegreen at dcn.davis.ca.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20050607/42ca13b5/attachment.html>