Students and Workers Celebrate May Day at UC Davis
Programs at Davis Methodist Focus on Immigration

Davis Enterprise Chastises City Council and Davis Vanguard

Vanguard cartoon
Cartoon by Druiddraws 

By Roberta Millstein, Rik Keller, and Colin Walsh

Having raised concerns about the Davis Vanguard’s upcoming fundraising event in previous Davisite articles (see here, here, and here), we were gratified to see the Davis Enterprise bring the full moral authority of actual journalists to bear on our concerns regarding ethics and access in a pair of Sunday articles, one by reporter Tanya Perez and one a stinging “Our View” editorial op-ed.

We note that the advertisement of this event has undergone a number of changes subsequent to the publication of each of our articles and our comments at the Davis City Council meeting of April 23rd. The event went from having Mayor Brett Lee as a “host,” to having four councilmembers “featured” with each speaking and participating in a Q & A session (with Will Arnold there “in spirit”). And now it has been scaled back to a speaking-only event with no mention of Q & As. The Enterprise’s coverage of this event suggests that event will be even more attenuated than that, with Councilmember Lucas Frerichs saying that he can “only stay a short time at this event because he has another to attend” and Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida saying that she “might not speak at all.”

In another change, the advertisement for the event includes a list of additional event sponsors, including Davis school board members, a member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, likely City Council candidate Linda Deos (committee created for 2020), and other well-known community figures, including many who have a direct connection to the Vanguard as Board of Directors and Editorial Board members. 

2019-04-29 23_30_14-(1) Davis Vanguard Fundraiser_ Come Support the Vanguard
The Vanguard claims to be thrilled with the negative press this event is drawing. In his 4/28 “Premium Newsletter” Vanguard founder David Greenwald brags that “if I could have planned this I would win an award in the annals of guerrilla marketing 101.” Greenwald claims that he got “41 additional people to sign up as co-sponsors” as a result of the bad press, but that is not what we are hearing from some of the people the Vanguard now claims are co-sponsors. Many of these commitments were made before the Enterprise articles went to press, and given that the Enterprise and our conversations with elected officials indicated that the Vanguard may have misrepresented what councilmembers actually agreed to do in the first place, we would not be surprised to find similar ongoing misrepresentations about what sponsors have been told.

But adding more names and changing the event around can’t put lipstick on this pig. The pig is still a pig, and the Enterprise’s editorial op-ed pulls no punches in pointing out the multiplicity of problems in both the Council’s and the Vanguard’s actions. Here are some selected quotes, with our emphasis added:

It’s all pretty sordid, and on the face of it, looks like a crass case of selling access to donors.

As it happens, Lee and Frerichs tell us that they won’t be taking questions. So maybe there was a communication breakdown, or the Vanguard is selling its donors a bill of goods. Maybe the confusion is the point.

Whether or not they know the specifics of what they’re getting into, it does not excuse the fact that council members are helping to raise money for a media company that covers City Council meetings … from someone who, in theory anyway, is supposed to be holding them accountable. On both sides of the ledger, this is a stunning lapse in judgment.

What is happening instead at this event is a favor indeterminate value — the use of the council members’ standing in the community as leverage for the Vanguard to raise money from other people. It is the definition of influence peddling.

We hope they can come to the realization that amateur-hour stunts like this fundamentally do a great harm to local media, by confusing coverage with activism and creating the impression that politicians and journalists alike are in the business of exchanging favors for their own ends.

We agree wholeheartedly with this op-ed. We further note that of all the councilmembers, Mayor Brett Lee seems the most in touch with the concerns, and the Enterprise articles quote others as conceding that there are some issues as well. Again, we are gratified to see these acknowledgements of our concerns.

However, even with the changes to the event and acknowledgements of issues we believe that the event's basic problems with ethics and access remain. The event is still being advertised with a recommended donation, using a picture of the five councilmembers in the Council chambers. Furthermore, because this event will not be properly noticed and agendized, the Brown Act concerns remain if any City issues are discussed while more than three councilmembers are present, even if only one councilmember speaks—merely receiving information from another councilmember on an issue over which they have jurisdiction is problematic according to the California Attorney General.

More importantly, the Vanguard is not any old 501(c)(3). It purports to be a “news reporting organization,” one that covers Council actions among other topics, and thus should be separate from fundraising by our elected officials, as even Greenwald himself seems to acknowledge (as reported by the Enterprise).

And even if it is true that the Vanguard's articles are not always in support of councilmembers' actions (as councilmembers or as candidates for re-election), that is not enough to prevent a conflict of interest. This is akin to saying, "trust me – I will provide fair and balanced reporting no matter what my entanglements with the subjects I am reporting on."  We believe, as does the Society of Professional Journalists, that we shouldn't have to have this kind of blind trust, and that the members of Council should keep more distance from the local news media.  Actually, it's an obligation on both sides to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

We call on everyone associated with the Vanguard fundraiser – members of the City Council and event sponsors alike – to withdraw their support from this troubled and disgraceful event.

In addition, we urge that the Council, School Board, and County Supervisors adopt policies stating that if there is attendance with a quorum of members at any type of event, there must be a disclaimer in the advertisement for the event that references the Brown Act and states that members are unable to discuss or even listen to matters under their jurisdiction.

Finally, we advocate that the Davis Vanguard (and any other non-profit news outfit) adopt the Institute for Nonprofit News’ “Ethics & Practices Policies”, particularly with respect to donor identity and funding transparency:

As a nonprofit, we will avoid accepting donations from anonymous sources, and we will not accept donations from government entities, political parties, elected officials or candidates actively seeking public office.

Implementation of these recommendations is necessary to restore the public trust.


Roberta L. Millstein

Bob Dunning has now taken a stand as well.

Quoting Dunning:

Councilman Lucas Frerichs noted that he has “zero expectations that any coverage of me/city council will be more positive,” because of his help enriching this organization.

Ah yes, Lucas, but don’t you remember that old guideline about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety?

Frerichs added, incredibly, that he’s “supportive of a wide range of nonprofits,” as if all nonprofits occupy sacred and holy ground.

Lucas, I have news for you. The NRA is a nonprofit. And, despite that lofty status, its CEO, one Wayne LaPierre, was compensated to the tune of $5.1 million in 2015.

The nonprofit status of the news organization in question has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is wildly inappropriate for elected officials to fatten its coffers.

Nora Oldwin

I appreciate the passion and dedication and research that has gone into this issue. As I told Collin earlier today when we talked, I am, and have been, focussed on issues of social justice- right now, people are being mowed down in the street, shot in churches, in synagogues, in mosques, in temples ; held in cages and separated from their families for being perceived as "other". If we worked together to combat this problem of "othering" that ends in sorrow and death for so many, we might make a difference as to how we want to be perceived as a society. I cannot, will not, support action that I perceive as divisive. This issue seems to me unnecessarily so, and a real expenditure of good time and effort that- at least to me- appears misdirected. Can't we work together? Isn't there a way other than destroying each other that will allow us to do the work we are capable of and want to do for the greater good of our community and our society? I promise to dedicate my efforts to work towards unity if anyone has ideas about how to change direction here and move forward together.

Rik Keller

Nora: a functioning and socially-just democracy depends upon institutions of power following ethical standards and an independent press both holding them to it and holding themselves to the same standards.

The “divisiveness” on this issue is coming solely from people acting like they are above the law. As Dunning’s op-ed in the Enterprise states, the standards exist for a reason.

At the end of our article we have listed a number of solutions to address the issue. Won’t you join us in solidarity in pushing for these ethical standards to be adopted and followed by our elected officials and the media who are supposed to be covering them?

Ron O

Rik's comment, above: "At the end of our article we have listed a number of solutions to address the issue. Won’t you join us in solidarity in pushing for these ethical standards to be adopted and followed by our elected officials and the media who are supposed to be covering them?"


Colin Walsh

You called us “divisive” and “misdirected” for standing up for good ethical government, yet you have no problem with Greenwald’s personal attacks and mudslinging? You have no problem that Greenwald and the Vanguard refuse to follow basic ethical standards? You have no problem that the Vanguard is not following basic and legally required standards for a non-profit? You have no problem with Greenwald’s threats and harassments? You have no problem that the Council is acting inappropriately?

You have even added your name as a sponsor for this very problematic event knowing the concerns that have been raised.

Bob Dunning has it exactly right in his column today.

This is not a small petty issue, and I am offended that you see it that way. Social justice goals fall apart without an underlying structure of fair and open government.

You told me directly that you have always had access to this council and your stories of personal connections with specific Council Members really disturbs me. It is not my experience at all. It’s a comment that assumes your privilege is experienced by others but it is not the norm. But if it were, it still would not be OK to also sell access.

You ask, “Can't we work together?”

Then you promised to dedicate your, “efforts to work towards unity if anyone has ideas about how to change direction here and move forward together.”

We have already made specific suggestions on how to move forward and work together in the article above. I told you the same on the phone before your post today. To summarize:

• Don’t be involved in this problematic event
• Local elected bodies adopt strong ethical guidelines for members attending events together
• The Vanguard adopt the INN “Ethics & Practices Policies”
• The Vanguard adopt policies of transparency and identify donors

Implementation of these recommendations is necessary to restore the public trust. Without that frame work it would certainly be a lot harder to work together.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)