Jonathan Greenberg as a team player

Hats off to all of the candidates running for the Sebastopol city council and for the sincerity of their civic engagement and their willingness to offer their talents and energy in serving on a council which offers little compensation in exchange for long hours dealing with complex issues.

The only person with whom I have extensive personal experience is Jonathan Greenberg, who I have known for much of his seven years living in Sebastopol and have worked with at a grassroots level on the State-Wide Prop-37 campaign to label GMO foods in addition to being part of the crew behind the creation of the Progressive Sebastopol Voter's Guide. I can personally speak to his ability to work effectively as a team player. He often created space to listen to the voice of the feminine in the group context and actively sought out and encouraged me, a new mother in the community, to voice my perspective and opinions. In addition to his important work locally, Jonathan is a founding Board member of the Bella Abzug leadership institute, which trains young inner city women to connect to their unique voice and capacity to lead.

Jonathan is a leader who is actively inclusive of diverse voices, and it is this side of him that I want to celebrate and communicate so that people see the whole package of what Jonathan offers. He isn't afraid of both sharing -- and listening to -- divergent perspectives, and in this way is genuinely democratic in the deepest sense of the word.

Thanks for your post Gaiakai, I'd have to agree. I've been working closely with Jonathan for nearly a year, and have helped him with the campaign to restore library hours, Palm Drive, as well as his work supporting the Lakota Law Project in South Dakota. He is fiercely dedicated to the good, and from a leadership position he encourages others to speak and act for positive change they believe in.

My own experience working with Jonathan is that he wants to be in charge. I have worked with him and do not find him to be a good team player. I have also worked with Sarah, Una, and Patrick, whom I do find as team-players, even when we disagree.

Quote:

---

Shephard wrote: "My own experience working with Jonathan is that he wants to be in charge.

---

I have also known Jonathan for years, most intimately for the last two months I have been living in his home, babysitting his two adorable boys, and assisting in his campaign efforts as a precinct walker. As a housemate, employee, colleague and friend I can assure everyone that Jonathan Greenberg is a good team player. His "wanting to be in charge" comes from a strong sense of what needs to be done in order to accomplish a task. This is by no means an overbearing trait, and he is always receptive and considerate of other viewpoints.

Jonathan is on good terms with his "opponents"and potentially fellow council members. If elected Jonathan will be a strong force for positive change in this city. He is not the kind of guy who will play along just to get along. He will fight, politely but with fiery determination, to bring about the picturesque sustainability that is the goal of modern society. Transparency is one of his running platforms, he will actively engage the public to get involved and comment on current issues. He will carefully examine every decision the council makes and question his answer not just himself but also with the help of his community. Jonathan is what politics needs in general, integrity, and if all you see when you look at Jonathan defending his integrity is a man trying to be in charge, then you can't see the whole picture. Jonathan raises the bar, and he has my full support.

Kai,
As someone living "intimately" in Jonathan's home, babysitting his children, and working for him, that does not seem as if you are very independent.

You claim that Jonathan "is on good terms" with what he describes as enemies. Yet that is not what Sebastopol Mayor Robert Jacob says in the PD article that I quoted from and that Jonathan posted online. Which "opponents" do you have in mind when you say that he is on "good terms" with and what is your proof? His attacks on Councilmembers John Eder and Patrick Slayter does not suggest good terms. "Fiery determination," which apparently appeals to you, is not enough, in my opinion. Nor is "fighting" enough. You describe Jonathan as "always receptive and considerate," which has not been my experience with him, nor that of many others.

On the other hand, if Jonathan were to "carefully examine every decision the council makes" from outside the council, that could be helpful. Otherwise he might bankrupt our wonderful small town, as Mayor Jacob suggests, or at least take up lots of time with his pet projects. I do not agree that Jonathan is what the City Council needs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kai Daniel:

I have also known Jonathan for years, most intimately for the last two months I have been living in his home, babysitting his two adorable boys, and assisting in his campaign efforts as a precinct walker. As a housemate, employee, colleague and friend I can assure everyone that Jonathan Greenberg is a good team player...

---

I posted this on another thread, but it seems worth repeating here:

As I read Mr. Greenberg's rants on (waccobb), I come away with a feeling that, he really doesn't get it. I don't believe he's got a grasp of what it takes to work together with others to make a city work. All points made by Mr. Greenberg are confrontational (on all fronts) at best. He exhibits a need to confront and combat. To work together means to consider - to understand the opposing viewpoints. It seems to me, that if Mr. Greenberg is elected, he has already made up his mind NOT to work with the other four members of the City Council.

If elected, I am looking forward to working with for other excellent Council Members, and helping empower the Council to practice more responsive and transparent government. I have full confidence in the capacity for each of us to work together in our common intention of serving the public of our great community.

I am reposting my response to the PD article here:

I would like to comment on Sarah Gurney’s inference that because I vocally disagree with some major City Council policy decisions, I am not fit to serve on the City Council. Disagreement and deliberation are the cornerstones of democratic governance.

A year ago, I expressed repeated and loud disagreement with the Sonoma County Library Commission and the County Board of Supervisors about the need to find funding to resolve the library’s worst funding crisis in history and restore Monday and evening hours. The Restore Library Hours Campaign that I started was joined by thousands of petitioners, letter writers and callers. We eventually found common ground with our public officials. We worked together to get Measure M on the ballot, and for months, have been working hard, with scores of library leaders and dedicated volunteers, to get it passed on November 4. I think that our community can--and will-- come together to restore an urgently needed life saving emergency room at Palm Drive, as well. Solving the huge challenge of reopening a thriving hospital will require expressing--and then resolving--disagreements. Not ignoring them.

Ms. Gurney stated: “You wouldn’t have a law partnership and put people together on purpose who were opposed to each other and intended to be dysfunctional and frustrate each other.”

I disagree. In a successful democracy,elected representatives are not elected to agree with one another and the city staff 100% of the time. I want to assure the public that I have no intention of being "dysfunctional "or "frustrating" anyone. Instead, I believe that my participation and independence will empower our Council to better practice responsive government in a more transparent manner. If this means more public debate about budget priorities and staff funding recommendations, I have full confidence in my proven ability, and the ability of the other Council members, to work through such deliberations in a functional, effective manner.

In response to Robert Jacobs’ suggestion that I recklessly attack staff and budget issues, this stems from my repeated attempts to provide transparency to an opaque budget, and what I consider a deference to city staff on budgeting and priority issues.

For example, passing a budget with a six year $8 million capital plan that does not earmark a single dollar for bike lanes strikes me as unrepresentative of a “green Sebastopol.” Is it “reckless” to inform a public that has been promised our City’s first bike lanes for years of this unknown budgetary fact? Or to tell them about large staff salary increases which were passed by our Council without any information about how much they wold eventually cost the City?

I am surprised that the article portrayed me as being irresponsible for being the only candidate to oppose Measure R’s four new taxes (just two years after a major half cent sales tax was passed). The Press Democrat’s editorial page also came out against Measure R. This was for the same reason I oppose it: a lack of transparency in how the money will be used.

In addition, the article notes that I have “also engendered protests on the part of council members by using the term “budget surplus” to describe a $1.2 million general fund reserve the council worked hard to set aside after reserves fell to zero during the recession.”

As an award winning financial journalist, with more than 30 years experience writing for national publications, I would like to ask what term Mayor Jacob thinks is more appropriate for a one year surplus of $1.2 million, as reported in the City’s annual budget for the year ending June 30, 2014?

My transgression, it seems, it to be providing transparency by speaking inconvenient truths to the public. If this is a political crime, then I plead guilty, as charged. If it strikes Sebastopol citizens as a public benefit, than I ask you to vote for me, Jonathan Greenberg, for City Council.

I would like to add a few comments about Jonathan Greenberg. Facts are he was a financial reporter for more than twenty years for a big financial magazine. He came to Sebastopol from the Big Apple. He is married with two young children.

Please understand I am no politician, but I try to call 'em as I see 'em. I first met him through our mutual concern for getting the Sonoma County Library back on its feet again. Actually the first time I met him was when we both showed up at a Library Commission meeting last January or February, I believe. I did not know what to expect as it was (is?) the first real Library Commission meeting I attended. It was at the downtown branch. While there were several items of business, our attention, Jonathan's and mine, was on trying to interest the commission members on getting a poll of possible voters for some kind of funding ballot measure.

Mostly through HIS effort, not mine, the poll was taken which showed better than 2-1 support for such a measure. After that "victory" we moved on to try to convince the Board of Supervisors to permit what became Measure M on the ballot. Without their public vote to OK it (5-0 by the way), the Library would have had to spend something on the order of $150 to $200,000 and get all the signatures necessary. That is about when he began or created the "restorelibraryhours.com" website. It helped raise both $ and awareness of the Library's plight.

It is not easy or quick to wend your way through the hoops needed to even approach the Board of Supe.'s these days. You HAVE to be patient and wait for the correct moment. Jonathon, along with the help of several members of the Friends of the Library from branches around the county, brought the motion forward. I did not find him to be at all "a non-team player" as Ms. Councilwoman Gurney has charged. In fact, he listens well and showed me patience, competent leadership, and understanding for everyone involved. He made it happen in other words.

Regardless of the CVS fight, the facts are the City Council is in the hole for $336,000 and counting, regardless what the present members say. Also, their combined attitude toward Palm Drive Hospital having been closed and remaining closed is: "Do not bother us with it. WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING, as it is up to their Board to do everything to reopen it." Councilman Slayton said as much in their only public debate a couple of weeks ago at the Community Center.

Thanks for reading! Please vote on Nov. 4th if you have not already done so via absentee ballot. I hope Greenberg gets elected since the Sebastopol City Council needs some fresh insights and new hope for the future. And an end to the present stagnant status quo!

At the farmer's market this last Sunday, Jonathan and Una Glass conversed pleasantly for 3 hours! I often see Jonathan as humble, caring, and respectful - especially with those he's working with.

It has been brought to my attention by Mr. Shepherd Bliss that I was wrong to assert that Mr. Greenberg is still married. If he and his former wife are now separated but cooperate in raising their children together, is he so different than many folks these days!? To me, that is not NECESSARILY such an important thing when choosing whom to vote for.

It is important to keep clear what matters and what may not be so important when making such an important decision on whom to support and vote for. I can only speak from personal experience with Mr. Greenberg. That is that he is one "Hell-of-a-good-listener!" He takes the time to stop and listen to others. It has been asserted by Mr. Bliss also that Greenberg "likes to be in charge." OK, so what? Is THAT a reason not to vote for somebody? I, for one, do not think so. Politics is not beanbag tossing! Let's face it. If you want to have some influence or to make a positive impact in the world today, SOMETIMES YOU MUST TAKE CHARGE!

Greenberg is running for Sebastopol's City Council. All i know is what I have said before. We would not be voting for or against Measure M- to restore the Sonoma County Library's Monday hours, and I trust, hours in the evenings, and the money to buy new books and other media, had it not been for Jonathan's sustained and heartfelt dedication to this important cause. At first, and for a long time, he was about the only person in Sonoma County who took the bull by the horns to DO something to help.

Like Palm Drive Hospital, the Sonoma County Library is a very, very expensive business. Solving the mess left by others in each case will not be simple or easy. Regarding the hospital, it faces drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement that started January 1, 2014. Perhaps only an ER where really hurt or sick patients can be stabilized so they can be transported to hospitals like Memorial MAY be ALL THAT should be started or restarted for the present. Then, the Palm Drive Board might just run with a very limited operation for a year or more to see if it can be profitable. Too much money has been poured down the drain over the past thirty years to not be careful about how it is reopened. But reopen it must be. West County cannot do with less unless we are going to have folks dying on bumpy long ambulance drives. In other words, unnecessary deaths.

If you want to take swipes at Mr. Greenberg for other matters in his personal life, fine. Do it. Stoop to dirt tossing. But I say it is unfair to criticize him for things that are NOT true. Or, to doubt his love and dedication to his own children's education and thus their future as well as the future of other kids.

And also through his work to restore the Library to help struggling single Moms and Dads who only want the best for their children's future.

Sorry to go on so darned long. Thanks to whoever may see this!! Please vote. Thanks, again!

Frank,
Is there a double standard here? I write you a private email to correct a statement you make, in the interests of truth. Then you accuse me of taking "swipes at Mr. Greenberg for matters in his personal life." I simply did not "stoop to dirt tossing." In fact, I honor Jonathan in my private email to you by saying "they seem to collaborate well on caring for their children." I have no doubt that Jonathan loves and cares for his children, which I have seen on many occasions. Among his many good qualities, which I have frequently mentioned, he seems to be a good father. My concern has to do with who I perceive as most qualified to help govern our city at this point in its future.

Actually, it was Jonathan that brought up the personal partnership of City Council member John Eder and MarshaSue Lustig. He put that personal relationship on the table, or I would never have tried to rectify your incorrect statement.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

It has been brought to my attention by Mr. Shepherd Bliss that I was wrong to assert that Mr. Greenberg is still married. If he and his former wife are now separated but cooperate in raising their children together, is he so different than many folks these days!? To me, that is not NECESSARILY such an important thing when choosing whom to vote for...

---

The facts on the postcard speak for themselves. Jonathan’s marital status is none of my business or yours.

The credit he has claimed for the work of others is my business, and yours.

Jonathan decided to jump into the public arena. That is his choice. We believe he should not be elected to a position of trust, to be one of five people who have the responsibility to govern our town, and yes, our broader community. It requires honesty and openness. Jonathan had no inhibition in targeting one of the other candidates. That was his choice. Speaking out is the choice of the signers of our message. Now you make your choice. You be the judge.

If Sarah Gurney compared an elected city council to a law partnership, this is truly appalling. A law partnership looks out for the good of the partnership. Members become members because of what they bring to the partnership. Clients are valued from this perspective as well.

A democratic body is supposed to look out for its constituents. Disagreeing is not being dysfunctional, disagreeing in order to make the system fail is dysfunctional. Disagreeing in the context of a commitment to the well being of the community as a whole serves to make sure the interests of the community as a whole will be considered. When a supposedly representative body puts its own interests ahead of its constituents (who often disagree with one another) it is corrupt.

Again, Gurney's comparison, if made as reported, is truly appalling. It strikes at the heart of why a representative council is important.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan:

...Ms. Gurney stated: “You wouldn’t have a law partnership and put people together on purpose who were opposed to each other and intended to be dysfunctional and frustrate each other.”....

---

The City Council 's charge and responsibility are the welfare of Sebastopol citizens. The Council's only duties are to represent and care for our community, and collectively they must act for our good. Sarah's characterization of the council as a law firm is apt. And we are their only clients. They take an oath affirming that upon being seated on the Council. And City staff, from the City Manager/Attorney down to the members of the police and fire departments, are the citizens' employees.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

If Sarah Gurney compared an elected city council to a law partnership, this is truly appalling. A law partnership looks out for the good of the partnership. Members become members because of what they bring to the partnership. Clients are valued from this perspective as well.

A democratic body is supposed to look out for its constituents. Disagreeing is not being dysfunctional, disagreeing in order to make the system fail is dysfunctional. Disagreeing in the context of a commitment to the well being of the community as a whole serves to make sure the interests of the community as a whole will be considered. When a supposedly representative body puts its own interests ahead of its constituents (who often disagree with one another) it is corrupt....

---

I must disagree, and the issue is very important. And the more I read the debates here the more important it becomes to me than Greenberg be on the city council. I apologize for the length, but its necessity will become clear, I think.

Helen writes, correctly, that the council's only duties are to represent and care for our community. But the key issue is "represent," not "care."

If a law firm has one client, it will focus on serving that client, but primarily for the good of the firm with the client's well-being being a result of the lawyers' self-interested activities on their own behalf. It's a version of the invisible hand argument that works some of the time in markets. In a democratic political context it is libertarian twaddle.

Parents' duty is to care for and represent the interests of their children. Good parents do this. But they do not subordinate themselves to their children by running for election by them. And for parents 'care' is more fundamental than 'representing'. Parents are regarded as competent to understand the children's interests in ways the children are not. Up to a certain not always clear point this is entirely true.

A pure democracy has its adult citizens meet directly, without representation, to vote what they believe is in their community's interests, just as an ideal monarchy has its king care for the interests of the people. Both fall short of their ideal, but one is not hierarchical because adults are regarded as competent enough to be treated as equals, the other is entirely hierarchical. In a democracy the people are regarded most of the time or in the long run as better able than the king to recognize and protect their community's interests. As M
A representative democracy differs from a pure democracy ONLY in that the people elect representatives to stand in their place either because they cannot be there themselves, or because there are too many to meet.

They meet to decide what to do and to do so a variety of views need to be able to be put forth when there is disagreement among the citizens being represented. Disagreement is basic to making the institution work. Openness is also essential for the system to work. Madison argued representative democracy was superior to direct because it could better handle the "mischiefs of faction" because of this.

A law firm is weakened by disagreement once its interests are clear and a strategy exists to meet them. But even there openness is needed to enable those who see something troubling to speak up without fear. How much more important must this be when the challenge of what to do is itself not obvious.

Gurney's views are a pretty good description of government by enlightened monarchs or technocratic experts, such as lawyers or engineers, but it falls far short of what a democratic community is supposed to be. Lawyers and engineers should be hired by a city council elected by and representative of the citizens. Internal harmony is desirable only to the degree it makes representation work better. Group think got the Hospital Board into the trouble it found itself when it suddenly closed the hospital and it is disturbing to see what are essentially the same qualities defended for the city council.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

The City Council 's charge and responsibility are the welfare of Sebastopol citizens. The Council's only duties are to represent and care for our community, and collectively they must act for our good. Sarah's characterization of the council as a law firm is apt. And we are their only clients. They take an oath affirming that upon being seated on the Council. And City staff, from the City Manager/Attorney down to the members of the police and fire departments, are the citizens' employees.

---

Sorry, Gus, I cannot accept your analogy. I spent a few minutes looking for a description of the Council's charges, unsuccessfully. But I will look again and I hold that my description is accurate. I'll share that with you when I do. BTW, I liked the greeting cards you did some years ago. Kind of loopy, like lotsa Sebastopolians/Sebastapudlians.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

... Gurney's views are a pretty good description of government by enlightened monarchs or technocratic experts, such as lawyers or engineers, but it falls far short of what a democratic community is supposed to be. Lawyers and engineers should be hired by a city council elected by and representative of the citizens. Internal harmony is desirable only to the degree it makes representation work better. Group think got the Hospital Board into the trouble it found itself when it suddenly closed the hospital and it is disturbing to see what are essentially the same qualities defended for the city council.

---

One last post. Hopefully, I will be through. Obviously many disagree on the subject of "Jonathan Greenberg as a team player." Please, someone define for me what is meant by the term "team player." (?} I think that can mean many things.

Most of us have had some experience in civics and how our democracy works. And how sometimes it doesn't work so well. What I want to add today about Jonathan Greenberg is simply that he is running-in effect, asking or applying to the Sebastopol's general voting public-for a job on its city council. While I respect all of the present members, I do not respect the way they have closed ranks to oppose Mr. Greenberg's candidacy. He knows he is a newcomer and as someone who did not have the privilege of being born and raised in Sebastopol, he is also like an immigrant. The analogy to the subject I am attempting to get a book about, Jasper O'Farrell, is a bit eerie. But I digress. Sorry.

As I posted yesterday, politics can be a rough process (not beanball tossing). I simply feel Mr. Greenberg would make a good addition to the present council because he is working hard to support his family and knows how to work hard under pressure to cooperate in making progress. He has been an investigative financial reporter and has established his own company. Not bad for anyone I would say. Now he would like a paying job at doing what might benefit a whole city and community. ALMOST----- End of message! Thanks to all who might see this AND your patience so far!

Please, whether you are Giants fan or if you HATE sports, vote next Tuesday. The advantages you will receive is that you can complain with a good conscience that you have done your civic duty. That is about all most of us ever get to do! :vote:

It's simple, really. Greenburg goes door-to-door with an emotional issue to hang his campaign on; re-open our hospital. He says if elected, he'll get this done. Well, he can't. He knows he can't. It'd be like the City Council telling Box Office Video to re-open. They can't. It's moot.

Well, to me a team player, as a member of the City Council is one who listens to other council members' opinions and concerns, gives weight to that speaker's experience and expertise, listens to staff's comments, listens to citizens' views, then makes a decision based on the distillation of all this. One puts aside personal prejudices and agendas and acts responsibly for the good of her/his clients...the city and it's citizens, and how the action complies with and promotes the General Plan Goals and Zoning Ordinance requirements. Well, you asked. In a very secondary way, that's how I operated in my eight years on the Planning Commission, during which we had multiple, gut wrenching meetings on the O'Reilly project. Oh, yes, did I mention compromise, too?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tree14:

... Please, someone define for me what is meant by the term "team player." ...

---

Helen's has the experience of someone who has been on the inside and had to make decisions in a small town. I remember those days of the O'Reilly project, which was a rough time. Though certainly not perfect, all 5 members of the Seb. City Council are very available to residents. I hope that Jonathan continues to advocate for a progressive agenda, which I think he can do better from outside than being elected.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

... Well, you asked. In a very secondary way, that's how I operated in my eight years on the Planning Commission, during which we had multiple, gut wrenching meetings on the O'Reilly project. Oh, yes, did I mention compromise, too?

---

I might add that Greenburg has set the stage for adversity with his attacks on Slayter and Eder. These are people he may be working with if he IS elected and he's already made up his mind that it's gonna be a fight. A fight that, if it includes the hospital and library issues, will only waste time and misdirect energies from the business at hand - Sebastopol. The only team Jonathan Greenburg plays on is Team Greenburg.

I certainly disagree with Helen Shane's view of 'team player". She puts listening to the citizen's views at the bottom of her list of priorities.....giving priority to other council member's opinions, then that speaker, then staff and FINALLY citizens.....Jeez, I thought the City Council was a representative body, elected by the citizens and accountable to the citizens.......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

Well, to me a team player, as a member of the City Council is one who listens to other council members' opinions and concerns, gives weight to that speaker's experience and expertise, listens to staff's comments, listens to citizens' views, then makes a decision based on the distillation of all this. ..,.

---

Dusty G prioritized my list. I did not.

If the human element were not involved in city government, staff could make up an algorithm for each issue that needed action; however, the human element is involved, and that's where input priorities are decided. That's why we vote for one candidate for Council over another. We vote for the one(s) who represent best our own philosophies and agendas. At least I hope that's how people decide on our future.

:vote:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

I certainly disagree with Helen Shane's view of 'team player". She puts listening to the citizen's views at the bottom of her list of priorities......

---

This is a direct quote from Helen Shane, where she listed the attributes of a team player, mentioning the citizen's view last. Check it out Helen, these are YOUR words, YOUR order.....

"Well, to me a team player, as a member of the City Council is one who listens to other council members' opinions and concerns, gives weight to that speaker's experience and expertise, listens to staff's comments, listens to citizens' views, then makes a decision based on the distillation of all this."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

Dusty G prioritized my list. I did not.

If the human element were not involved in city government, staff could make up an algorythym (sp) for each issue that needed action; however, the human element is involved, and that's where input priorities are decided. That's why we vote for one candidate for Council over another. We vote for the one(s) who represent best our own philosophies and agendas. At least I hope that's how people decide on our future.

:vote:

---

:firstplaceribbon:
Vocabulary Word of the Day

trenchant

"vigorously effective and articulate"

Thank-you Gus for this trenchant and timely comment.
All legislative bodies need opposing viewpoints.
That is how issues get discussed and resolved.
There is something seriously amiss when a legislative body consistently votes 5-0.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

...
Gurney's views are a pretty good description of government by enlightened monarchs or technocratic experts, such as lawyers or engineers, but it falls far short of what a democratic community is supposed to be. Lawyers and engineers should be hired by a city council elected by and representative of the citizens. Internal harmony is desirable only to the degree it makes representation work better. Group think got the Hospital Board into the trouble it found itself when it suddenly closed the hospital and it is disturbing to see what are essentially the same qualities defended for the city council.

---

:thumbsup:

Ah, but no one has said the Council speaks with one voice or point of view or always votes 5-0. Members of the public in attendance learn quickly that what happens is respectful discussions are held, staff and the public give their input, and then, if appropriate, a vote is taken.The vote count is all over the lot. That's why in most cities in our County there are five council persons, or, in the case of Petaluma, seven. That way one point of view or the other prevails and the business of the body is accomplished. What happens is that there are no standoffs; no blocking of the town's business due to posturing or side-tracking or grand standing.
I urge you all, no matter how this election turns out:

Attend several council meetings in succession, listen and watch and get a real grasp of how it works, There is nothing better, in a democracy, than an informed public.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by artur:

Thank-you Gus for this trenchant and timely comment. All legislative bodies need opposing viewpoints. That is how issues get discussed and resolved. There is something seriously amiss when a legislative body consistently votes 5-0.

---

The council; does not always speak with one voice, but the criticisms of Greenberg's supposed inability to play well with others suggests that is its preferred position. This criticism impress me as reflecting a basic misunderstanding of democratic government, and so gets me to write these long posts. (I am a political theorist by training.)

Democratic committees, particularly small ones, where the members serve together for a long time, tend to evolve a go-along-to-get-along culture. This tendency is well documented in a many settings. This tendency is also only human and not altogether bad, because it helps get things done and makes meetings much more enjoyable. But it is not altogether good either, because it leads to isolation from those on the outside who if they were on the inside would have worthwhile contributions to make.

Small groups tend to become an "us" compared to a sometimes threatening "them." This is also well documented. Absent serious conflict, we are more loyal to those most concretely in our lives. In politics where some of the critics are uninformed and some are intemperate this trend is only the stronger.

An elected council is basically a stand in for a direct democracy. Madison wrote as much for the national government and the same is true here. Comparing a representative democratic body to a law firm (another small "us" surrounded by "them" is a basic misunderstanding of democratic politics that grows out of accepting the increasing distance between representatives and constituents. As Madison knew, representation has advantages and disadvantages over direct democracy, and he felt the advantages were the greater if the representatives were kept realistically subject to citizens.

Representation, especially in small groups, is subject to incumbents developing attitudes where the citizens' points of view come in last and the staff first. This is so even though the staff only legitimately exists to either implement those points of view or explain why they cannot be implemented. It also leads to representatives not being as open as might otherwise be the case, (issues are too complex for the outsiders to understand and they just complicate things anyway) and to looking at new blood as somehow not able to work as well with others, even despite a record of productive service to the community. Which is what has led to these remarks of mine.

NO villains are needed for this to happen, just the dynamics of small organizations where there is an in and an out. If I were on a committee I would be as subject to these pressures and temptations as anyone else. That's why the checks need to come from the outside, including a robust sense of what a democracy is.

People are unlikely to change, so the solution is elections and a democratic ethic that constantly reminds the small body of representatives that other points of view need to be addressed rather than ignored or discussed only in private, as the Hospital Board did all too often. To me the criticisms of Greenberg, whom I do not know, have convinced me it is essential for him to get in because the council has become too much a "us" against those who will shake things up, if for no other reason than that they are new and have different priorities. If his criticisms and observations are valuable on the outside, they are equally valuable on the inside- and much more likely to be listened to by those making decisions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

:thumbsup:

Ah, but no one has said the Council speaks with one voice or point of view or always votes 5-0. Members of the public in attendance learn quickly that what happens is respectful discussions are held, staff and the public give their input, and then, if appropriate, a vote is taken.The vote count is all over the lot. That's why in most cities in our County there are five council persons, or, in the case of Petaluma, seven. That way one point of view or the other prevails and the business of the body is accomplished. What happens is that there are no standoffs; no blocking of the town's business due to posturing or side-tracking or grand standing.
I urge you all, no matter how this election turns out:

Attend several council meetings in succession, listen and watch and get a real grasp of how it works, There is nothing better, in a democracy, than an informed public.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

This is a direct quote from Helen Shane, where she listed the attributes of a team player, mentioning the citizen's view last. Check it out Helen, these are YOUR words, YOUR order.....
"Well, to me a team player, as a member of the City Council is one who listens to other council members' opinions and concerns, gives weight to that speaker's experience and expertise, listens to staff's comments, listens to citizens' views, then makes a decision based on the distillation of all this."

---

Dusty, in that sentence, Helen listed four things she felt should come before a decision. There is no implication whatsoever that her list is in order of importance. If you're inferring that it is, you're simply inferring something that wasn't implied (a problem that crops up a lot in these heated Wacco discussions). Distorting the other discussant's argument with such misinterpretations accidentally can happen to any of us, but when someone attempts to clarify what they meant and you cleave to your misinterpretation, you're not arguing in good faith.

And so has it been ruled...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Dusty, in that sentence, Helen listed four things she felt should come before a decision. There is no implication whatsoever that her list is in order of importance. If you're inferring that it is, you're simply inferring something that wasn't implied (a problem that crops up a lot in these heated Wacco discussions). Distorting the other discussant's argument with such misinterpretations accidentally can happen to any of us, but when someone attempts to clarify what they meant and you cleave to your misinterpretation, you're not arguing in good faith.

---

" There is nothing better, in a democracy, than an informed public."

Well, it's a start ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Helen Shane:

...Attend several council meetings in succession, listen and watch and get a real grasp of how it works, There is nothing better, in a democracy, than an informed public.

---

I don't believe I am misinterpreting Helen's order of considerations. Perhaps I am more old fashioned than you, but my education taught me that when you make a list, you put the list in the order of importance related to the subject at hand. Old fashioned, but not uninformed nor misinterpreting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

And so has it been ruled...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dustyg:

...my education taught me that when you make a list, you put the list in the order of importance related to the subject at hand....

---

That may be the way you do it, but for most of us, lists are in random order, each item written down in the order it occurs to us, or maybe chronological order, or alphabetical order, and yes, occasionally in order of importance (and usually prefaced with "in order of importance"). If you look around at the lists you encounter in daily life--shopping lists, to-do lists, guest lists, lists of points in a discussion--they often (usually?) are not in any particular order. There's no problem with thinking Helen may have meant her list to reflect order of importance, but assuming that's the case and refusing to be corrected when she tells you it isn't is not a constructive or fair way of arguing. How would you like it if someone misconstrued your intended meaning and then simply refused to accept your clarification? Misrepresenting someone's position so you can attack it is the logical fallacy known as Attacking a Straw Man (or, in gender nonspecific lingo, which I prefer, Attacking a Straw Figure). There's enough real disagreement without having to distort the other's position to make it seem even more disagreeable. That violates the Critical Thinking tenet known as Intellectual Fairness.

I believe it was implied, and don't think I've distorted Helen's argument, or misinterpreted it. As I've already written, this is the way I was educated and it probably is, in this contemporary world of social media and all, old fashioned. No apologies. I'm glad for my education (public schools) and I feel I have fairly brought up a point. If you disagree fine, no problem, I'm certainly not going to attack you for it. I do discuss in good faith.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Dusty, in that sentence, Helen listed four things she felt should come before a decision. There is no implication whatsoever that her list is in order of importance. If you're inferring that it is, you're simply inferring something that wasn't implied (a problem that crops up a lot in these heated Wacco discussions). Distorting the other discussant's argument with such misinterpretations accidentally can happen to any of us, but when someone attempts to clarify what they meant and you cleave to your misinterpretation, you're not arguing in good faith.

---

I have had the pleasure of working with Jonathan on numerous occaisions, and he is always open to suggestions on how to do the job better. He also often comes up with smart and efficient ways we can work together better.

It is a sad situation when people accuse Jonathan of saying bad things about other people, and then turn around and do it to him, when all he did was point out the facts that some people would prefer not be known.

I believe Jonathan, if elected, would at the very least make sure that erroneous reports are not accepeted as fact, but will dig into the details to make sure the council has the information it needs to make smart choices. He will also help the council find creative ways to help support the hospitalto reopen and be able to continue to serve our community.

THANKS TO BARRY for Wacco and for the chance to discuss the future of the town we love, Sebastopol.!!!:thumbsup:

I cannot vote for Greenberg, but I would if I still lived in beautiful Sebastopol. He would bring a fresh perspective and an extremely sharp mind, insights, good people skills, and the benefit of many years of financial reporting to the City Council. With membership will come a somewhat greater degree of influence. Not as much as he would like, probably, but some. Lets be honest: the City Council has done a decent job dealing with the one problem that really was or is insurmountable: CVS's determination and deep pockets to have its way. Honestly, I do not know anyone who could have done any better than the council's members, and Helen Shane, did. My son tells me there may NOT be much new traffic as a result of the new store's existence after all due to the no left turns.

The only thing I can say, for sure, is that CVS will not, EVER, see my face again in ANY of its stores! Finally, I would like to thank the Pellini family, all of its members past and present, for all it did to help Sebastopol over the many years the dealership was on the corner of Petaluma and Bodega. Whenever there was a civic cause or worthy need, the Pellinis ALWAYS came through AND IN TIME...:thumbsup:. Thanks, and I am very sorry to see you go! :hmmm:

While some probably think I should not say anything since I do not live in Sebastopol, I have good friends there who I care deeply for. I drive there, on average, to meet someone, to do or buy something, or for a meeting, about twice a week.

Finally, the election is tomorrow. Whoever you like, please get to the polls and vote, if you haven't already. Voting has NEVER been more important than it is now. So, please, take a second and do it. Thanks!