Friday Afternoon Briefs

More on the County Supervisor’s Pay Raise

Okay so Bob Dunning obviously decides he too must weigh in on the issue of the pay raise for County Supervisors.

Dunning bets us that if we polled 100 residents, 80 percent couldn’t even tell you which county supervisor represents them and of the 20 percent who could, no one could name all five current supervisors.

That would be an interesting test. I know I’m not a random person on the street in Davis but I know my supervisor, Helen Thomson. And I can name all four of the other supervisors–I’ll even name both Sieferman AND Rexroad, for good measure. I’ve personally met all of them except for Duane Chamberlain. So I think it’s fair to assume that a random sample would find at least one person who could name all five.

I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.

Most polls of the American electorate have shown that slightly less than 50% of Americans can identify their own representative in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.

So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise? Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.

Despairingly Dunning writes that “apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”

I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning who is pulling in decent bucks is making comments like this about people who are not wealthy and are true public servants. They certainly are neither making nor asking for outrageous salaries.

Getting Small Results from Public Servants

Upon hearing that Supervisor Thomson had read from the Davis Vanguard at the recent County Board of Supervisors Meeting, I thought it would be a good idea to try to get a hold of a copy of the meeting or at least find out when the shows aired.

So I checked the website–no mention.

I called them up, and I spoke to a very nice lady in the Supervisor’s Clerk’s office, and they did not have the current information.

I called up the WAVE and got no answer there.

Finally, in frustration I emailed Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Within a day, the Public Officer had added the vital information to their webpage:

http://www.yolocounty.org/org/BOS/BOS-Meetings07.htm

There you go; constituent service at its finest.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Board of Supervisors

120 comments

  1. I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”

    Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.

    “On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”

    You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.

    Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”

    Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.

    And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.

    “So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”

    No one but you has said this or suggested as much.

    “Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”

    The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.

    “Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”

    What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.

    “I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”

    Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.

    It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.

  2. I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”

    Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.

    “On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”

    You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.

    Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”

    Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.

    And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.

    “So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”

    No one but you has said this or suggested as much.

    “Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”

    The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.

    “Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”

    What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.

    “I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”

    Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.

    It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.

  3. I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”

    Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.

    “On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”

    You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.

    Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”

    Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.

    And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.

    “So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”

    No one but you has said this or suggested as much.

    “Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”

    The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.

    “Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”

    What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.

    “I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”

    Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.

    It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.

  4. I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”

    Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.

    “On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”

    You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.

    Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”

    Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.

    And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.

    “So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”

    No one but you has said this or suggested as much.

    “Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”

    The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.

    “Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”

    What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.

    “I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”

    Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.

    It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.

  5. “Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”

    You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.

    “In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””

    Actually he did not.

    He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”

    In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”

    Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.

    I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.

  6. “Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”

    You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.

    “In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””

    Actually he did not.

    He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”

    In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”

    Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.

    I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.

  7. “Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”

    You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.

    “In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””

    Actually he did not.

    He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”

    In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”

    Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.

    I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.

  8. “Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”

    You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.

    “In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””

    Actually he did not.

    He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”

    In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”

    Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.

    I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.

  9. As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.

  10. As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.

  11. As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.

  12. As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.

  13. Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.

    Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!

  14. Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.

    Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!