Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Will the (new) City Council Uphold Democracy?

DemocracyThis article was originally posted on July 17, 2022. The City Council, which will be composed of four members: Mayor Will Arnold, Vice Mayor Josh Chapman, and Councilmembers Gloria Partida and Bapu Vaitla, will decide this Tuesday (Jan 3) whether to go forward with an election or not. I stand by what I wrote below, calling for an election for District 3 with no interim appointment, and I urge Davisites to email members of the City Council before 3 PM on Tuesday at CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org to let them know your views.  You can also call 530-757-5693 to leave a public comment between 12-4 PM the day of the meeting – this is item #5 on the agenda – or give public comment in person (the item is estimated to be heard at 7:20 PM).

By Roberta Millstein

This City Council does not have a good track record on democracy.  It has the opportunity to do better this time.  Will it?

Newly appointed Mayor Lucas Frerichs, having served on the Council since 2012, is anticipated to step down on January 2, 2023 to become Yolo County District 2 Supervisor.  That will leave a vacancy on the Council in District 3 (note that county and city district numbering is different) until the November 2024 election.  The Council has a choice of two ways of filling the vacancy: 1) call a special election to fill the vacancy (see staff report for possible dates) or 2) appoint someone to fill the vacancy.

The first way is the democratic way.  It’s the way that allows the voters of District 3 to select a representative who they feel listens to them and understands their concerns about their district.  It’s the way that allows new voices to put themselves forward for leadership of the city, fulfilling one of the promises that district elections were supposed to bring – i.e., more localized campaigns being easier and less expensive to run.

The second way is the power-abusing way.  All the other districts will have elected their representatives, but District 3 would be appointed by councilmembers who are not even in their district.  There is nothing about this process that would ensure that the appointed representative would know about and care about issues particular to District 3.  What this process does allow for, however, is for councilmembers to appoint someone who sees things their way or who is part of the current power structure in Davis.

Note that the Council also has the option of calling for a special election (the second way), but then appointing someone to fill the vacancy until the election.  I think this option is problematic too.  The person appointed for the interim period before a special election would have the advantage of incumbency in that election. The council should refrain from any appointment at all and simply call an election to fill the seat.[1]

Consider this: Would the City Council, who was unanimously in favor of Measure H, appoint someone who was against those sorts of projects?  Yet almost 2/3 of Davisites rejected Measure H.

Some might think we ought to simply trust the City Council.  But this is the same City Council on which Councilmember Dan Carson (who is up for re-election this November) serves – the Councilmember who sued the six citizen authors of the ballot statement against Measure H.  He didn’t prevail in his lawsuit and he (or rather the developer who funded the lawsuit) had to pay the ballot authors’ lawyer $42,000, but the fact remains that instead of encouraging and welcoming the democratic free speech of his constituents, he attempted to squelch them and was ready to have them personally liable for thousands of dollars.  And not one of the other councilmembers ever publicly condemned Carson’s lawsuit.  This was a failure of democracy.

This is also the same City Council who, in April 2021, purged several citizens from commissions who, “coincidentally” were also vocal opponents of various Council actions.  They also failed to appoint Kelsey Fortune (who is running for election to City Council this November) to the Utilities Commission even though she is earning a PhD in the Energy and Environmental Economics (to be completed next month), and even though the Council was ostensibly seeking to include more young people and more women on the commissions.

The last time a Davis City Councilmember was appointed rather than elected was in 2011.  That City Council chose to appoint Dan Wolk, the son of then-state Sen. Lois Wolk, a former mayor of Davis and two-term City Council member, and Bruce Wolk, the Dean of the UC Davis Law School.  Dan Wolk was chosen from 10 applicants.  He was the name that everyone knew.  He was the name connected to power and influence in Davis.

The Council has the opportunity to do better at supporting democracy this time.  The Council will be discussing the vacancy at its meeting this Tuesday.  Staff is recommending that no decision be made at this time, and perhaps that is the right way to go, but that does not prevent Councilmembers from taking the opportunity to make a strong stand for democracy, inclusion, and representation in Davis.  They could express their strong belief that a special election is preferable to an appointment.

An added benefit of signaling the City’s plans now is that it would give people from District 3 more time to weigh whether or not they would like to run for City Council. After all, this is no small decision and takes preparation. Not disclosing publicly that the Council would like to put the seat on the ballot gives an advantage to insiders.

If you agree, I encourage you to express your view to the City Council in one or more of the following ways:

  • Submit written public comments to CityCouncilMembers@cityofdavis.org. Emails are distributed to City Council and staff. To ensure the City Council has the opportunity to review information prior to the meeting, send emails by 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date.
  • Submit comments by voice mail prior to the meeting: Call the City’s dedicated phone line 530-757-5693 to leave a voice mail message for public comment. Staff will play comments during the appropriate agenda item (Item #7). Comments will be accepted from noon until 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Remote public comments will not be accepted after 4:00 p.m. Speakers will be limited to no more than two minutes.
  • Give public comment in person. This item is estimated to be heard at 8:45 PM.

[1] There is technically a fourth, “do nothing” option, which would meant that the seat would be filled at the next regular election.  I consider it unlikely and also unwise for the Council to take this path.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

19 responses to “Will the (new) City Council Uphold Democracy?”

  1. Tuvia ben Sima Rivka ve Avraham Aharon

    Provided there’s a May special election:
    1) Appoint someone who can participate in discussions but can only vote in a tie breaker. Given the track record of Council, this is unlikely to happen very much. Perhaps they can vote normally if someone is absent?
    2) Require – at least informally – that this appointee cannot run in May (or August).
    If appointing someone who can’t vote makes no sense, consider that multiple Commissions have Alternates who discuss but don’t vote.

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    I don’t see what the big deal about having only 4 people is, especially if it is only until May. When someone is sick/out of town, there are only 4. When someone has to recuse themselves, there are only 4. It’s not like this is unprecedented. Better to have no representation than possibly mis-representation (and then locking in that person for the future).

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    “I don’t see what the big deal about having only 4 people is, especially if it is only until May.”
    I don’t either, especially since the result would almost always be “4-0”, rather than the usual “5-0” (especially in support of development proposals).
    In other words, what difference does it make?

    Reply
  4. Tuvia ben Sima Rivka ve Avrahan Aharon

    Okay so if the primary outcome of this discussion is that it doesn’t really matter if we have four or five Council people because they mostly agree with each other then I wish you all a Happy New Year

    Reply
  5. Sharla Cheney

    So you’d rather the District have no representation at all? So if there is an issue in the meantime, when my District has no representative on the Council (even temporarily) who should people from District 3 appeal to for help? Should they contact the representatives for other Districts? But, wait…aren’t you saying that these other people can’t be trusted – that they “don’t have a good track record” of fair representation? Have you really thought this through?

    Reply
  6. Roberta L. Millstein

    Yes. I think that no representation is better than mis-representation. It is what I would want if it were my district, but the fact is, this affects all of us. It is in no one’s benefit to have an “insider” be selected, which is a serious risk if the Council appoints — unless, of course, one is an insider themselves. And yes, I have thought this through. Have you?

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    Since council members sometimes have to recuse themselves for issues that impact them personally (e.g., in their own neighborhoods), it seems to me that council members outside of a given district are the ones who will (more consistently) be the ones making decisions in others’ districts.

    Reply
  8. Sharla Cheney

    Unless you live in the District, I recommend you butt out. My hunch is that you have a candidate in mind that you feel would not be successful in the appointment process, so you’d rather have no one. For the purpose of transparency you should name the person you intend to campaign for in the election. The voters in District have been well represented by Lucas. He has been responsive and present as a Councilman. This is who we are replacing for 2 years. “Nobody” is a very poor replacement.

    Reply
  9. Roberta L. Millstein

    “Butt out.” How charming, Sharla, especially for someone who (if I recall correctly) has decried the level of discourse in Davis. This is very much my business, since all 5 councilmembers decide for the whole city, and also, since what happens here makes precedent for any such cases in the future.
    In addition, your accusations are completely false. I know two people have said that they plan to run. I have had maybe one conversation with one of them (we agreed on some issues, disagreed on others) and I don’t think I have met the other, and know very little about either of them. I have no candidate in mind for this race.
    As for Lucas, I disagree with you about how good of a job he has done, but let’s suppose for the sake of argument he has been fabulous. Now suppose the City Council were to appoint someone much less fabulous — you get no say in it — but it’s only a few months and so no one really realizes, since the person is really just getting their feet wet. But they have the name recognition of an incumbent and the stamp of approval of the councilmembers, so now they are in a better position for re-election. That would be poor democracy, and I will ALWAYS speak up against poor democracy, no matter who shows up on my post and is rude enough to tell me to “butt out.”

    Reply
  10. Roberta L. Millstein

    Also, if you have an idea of which of the two candidates — if either — are likely to be appointed by the City Council, then you know way more than me, and you should reveal what you know and whether you support that person, since you seem interested in transparency.

    Reply
  11. Sharla Cheney

    I would like to hear from my neighbors in District 3. I would like to know if they agree with the proposal to leave the District unrepresented, because of worry about how we may vote in a future election.

    Reply
  12. Roberta L. Millstein

    Sure, I welcome hearing from people in District 3 and all other districts concerning this issue.

    Reply
  13. Alan C. Miller

    “Unless you live in the District, I recommend you butt out.”
    Well, S.C., I live in THE district, and I am BUTTing. In that is. I agree with R.M. on this: I’d rather our District be represented by an elected person after a four-month hiatus. No one is seriously considering two years without representation.
    The typical voter does not have a high attention span. What the Council recommends in an appointment will likely stand in an election. Three current and former members certainly thought that when the posed for campaign pictures with their candidate-of-choice for District 1, who won. I wasn’t in favor of appointing Wolk, but at least one could say that people representing “us” made that selection. That can’t be said now. With districts, the rest of the City would be choosing our representative. That not only doesn’t make sense, it may not even be valid.
    SC: “My hunch is that you have a candidate in mind that you feel would not be successful in the appointment process, so you’d rather have no one.”
    Your hunch? I have no idea where this came from.
    SC: “For the purpose of transparency you should name the person you intend to campaign for in the election.”
    You’re the one accusing based on a personal ‘hunch’. Why instead don’t you be transparent and say who this unnamed person is you believe RM is supporting, and who you claim would not survive an appointment process by four people who don’t represent our district. The lack of transparency isn’t coming from RM, it’s coming from SC, the accuser. So back at you: MY ‘hunch’ is that support the person who IS likely to be supported by the council in an appointment. So transparency: who is THAT?
    I have no idea who the two people are who RM says are apparently ‘running’. So I’m just going on a ‘hunch’.
    Of course, like so many things, we must look at original sin. All of this is coming from the original sin here, which our totally-wrong-and-unneeded Districts that our Council-at-the-time failed to stop or oppose. Yes, I would have favored suing to stop it and spending that money.
    But those same three current-and-former didn’t support Kelsey Fortune, who was the only candidate actively stating that she would actively work to dissolve the District system.
    Once in place, the district system only helps to solidify the incumbent, so there is no incentive for a Council-member to oppose districts.
    To oppose the original sin.

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    AM, obviously I am largely in agreement with you, so in the interests of transparency, here are the people who the Davis Enterprise named as planning to run if there is a special election:
    “Donna Neville, chair of the city’s Finance and Budget Commission, and Francesca Wright, recipient of the city’s Thong Hy Huynh Memorial Award for civil rights advocacy in 2021.”
    https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/city-council-to-decide-tuesday-how-to-fill-district-3-vacancy/

    Reply
  15. Sharla Cheney

    If either of these applied for appointment, would either be acceptable? I know neither. I suspect there are more people thinking about running. Leaving the District without representation is just not OK, especially for the reason that is offered – potential voter manipulation. Especially after the shenanigans of the last election. A special election has a high price tag – $250K? Could that money be spent elsewhere, i.e. addressing the continuing blight around the respite center, rehab of Chestnut park turf, etc.

    Reply
  16. Roberta L. Millstein

    Nobody is acceptable for appointment because no one should be appointed. They should be democratically elected. I am sure that both of these candidates have their strengths and weaknesses just as everyone else does, but that is for the district to decide, not elected people elected by people from other districts.
    No one said anything about voter manipulation. It is a known and well demonstrated fact that incumbents have an advantage.

    Reply
  17. George Galamba

    I suspect that each member of the council has already decided how they will vote, so the meeting tonight will be pro forma. I would simply argue that making an appointment is not a violation of the democratic process; I assume the city charter allows it, and that charter was formed in a democratic manner . It is done at all levels of government, e.g. Alex Padilla. I am happy to butt out and leave it to the residents of the district, but saving a quarter of a million dollars is nothing to sneeze at.

    Reply
  18. Roberta L. Millstein

    George, I am fairly certain that the appointment process was crafted when we had at-large elections. It is no longer appropriate for district elections and should be — should have been — revisited.
    As Gilbert Coville wrote on Colin’s article on this topic, posted earlier today: “ The whole notion that the existing council can fill the vacancy is ridiculous. Imagine a scenario where our congressional representative Mike Thompson’s seat became vacant. Would we want the entire House of Representatives choosing his replacement? Or, even a small committee (appointed by the current house leadership) to do it? No, of course not. We would say that the representatives from elsewhere have no business choosing our representative. Well, even though very few in our town like our district elections, the fact is that they are here and we have to live with them. The representatives from the other districts have no business choosing or influencing in any way District 3’s choice of representative.”

    Reply
  19. Roberta L. Millstein

    It’s also worth noting that even approved processes can be more or less democratic. Arguably, our Electoral College is not as democratic as it should be. I certainly have that view.

    Reply

Leave a comment