The Chamber of Commerce PAC has launched their first major ad. The bulk of it is on the parks tax, Measure D, while a single line is dedicated in support of their endorsed candidates.

Executive Director Kemble Pope sent the email to Thomas Randall, the only known opponent to the parks measure.

Mr. Pope writes: "The Davis Municipal Code is silent on whether Independent Expenditures (I.E.) made by Committees for Measures must be reported to both camps. So, in the spirit of the code's intent for candidate I.E.'s, please accept this copy of an advertisement that the Davis Chamber PAC has paid for in support of Measure D."

"The attached advertisement will be published in The Davis Enterprise on Sunday, May 20th. It cost a total of $598.50. 1/15 of the advertisement is dedicated to the three City Council candidates that the ChamberPAC has endorsed. SO, 1/15 of the total amount ($39.90) will be accounted to our candidate I.E. limit per the City of Davis Municipal Code," Mr. Pope adds.

In the meantime, the PAC funding overall has grown, with contributions expanding to over $14,369.  In addition to the newspaper advertising, it appears that they have made another major expenditure on the website design.

They have also now received four $1000 contributions from Alyce LLC, John Brinley, Inc, and West Yost Associates.  Also John Youmans has sent a $1000 personal contribution.

According to our count, $9375 of the $14,369 has been received in increments of more than $100 and therefore cannot be used in support or in opposition to candidates.  However, at this point, it does not appear that this is their priority as they have yet to have a major ad in the Enterprise supporting their candidates and the $4000-plus in donations received in $100 increments would be enough for a May 27 and/or June 3 ad.

However, $2394 of that $4000 is from a starting balance, which would likely make that money ineligible for use for council candidates as well.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Mr. Parish wants the voters to believe that he is a good attorney who exercised some indiscretions as a political candidate.  The truth is that Mr. Parish is in fact the person that we saw this week.  That is the view that everyone in the courthouse got, that is why Public Defender Tracie Olson, normally cautious, early on signaled that her office would simply not trust him to preside over their cases.

Mr. Parish is dead as a judicial candidate and on life support in his current job.  If he lasts through the end of the year, we will be stunned.

The problem for District Attorney Jeff Reisig is what we saw was not the exception but rather a window into the operations of his office.  You see, Mr. Parish is not the most vicious employee at the District Attorney's office; he's simply the most bombastic and transparent.

Mr. Reisig's moves this week, and his words, show the conflict.  At first his reaction was simply that he did not approve of the means or manner of attack, but he was not inclined to pull his endorsement.

That was before he recognized that this was a potential liability on him.  When the Bee's scrutiny landed on Mr. Reisig too, it was enough.

The Bee editorial, entitled, "Parish Shows He's Unfit to Be a Judge," properly linked the employer to the conduct of the employee: "District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish.  By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig's embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again."

That was enough for Mr. Reisig to pull his endorsement, realizing that the judgeship race was a lost cause and throwing Mr. Parish under the bus could save his proverbial skin.

Later he would tell the Enterprise, "It's not only the type of piece, but what appears to be an absolute failure to confirm what was in the piece.  I can't endorse that kind of candidate."

He would add: "I endorsed (Parish) early on. He's a good lawyer, and I thought he'd make a good judge.  But this mail piece was a major blunder politically. A candidacy that doesn't fact-check is counter to everything the DA stands for, and that's pursuing the truth."

The problem for Mr. Reisig is that the mailer hits a lot closer to him than he's comfortable thinking.  While he argues that fact-checking is everything the DA stands for in his "pursuit of truth," in point of fact this DA's office often shoots first and asks questions later, and they have made truth secondary to getting the win - everything that Mr. Parish did in approving this mailer.

Mr. Reisig wants to distance himself now from Mr. Parish, but the Vanguard learned that week that he should not have been so surprised.  Mr. Parish, with the approval of Jeff Reisig, was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.

Despite this indiscretion, Mr. Reisig thought that Mr. Parish would make a good judge?

Of course, the worst part of this is the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Reisig.  At the end of a bitterly-fought campaign against then-colleague, Patricia Lenzi, Mr. Reisig unleashed a vicious attack mailer against his opponent.

In that attack piece, he raised issues that a convicted child molester was attempting to use Ms. Lenzi to have his case overturned, alleging that her memory issues from a 1999 traffic accident made his opponent unfit for office.

The attack piece was followed up by a seemingly confirmatory news story from the Daily Democrat in which every person interviewed except Ms. Lenzi herself was a supporter of Mr. Reisig.

In response, Ms. Lenzi in a letter to the editor wrote, "The voters of this county are entitled to know whether I am physically and mentally up to the job.  I am.  Presumably, if this temporary disability had affected my job performance in any other way these past seven years there would be some evidence of it.  There isn't."

She added: "In 2001, I was promoted in Sacramento DA's office before choosing to come to work in Yolo County later that year.  In 2003, Yolo County District Attorney David Henderson praised the quality of my work, calling me 'one of Yolo County's finest' in a letter, saying that I am 'quite effective in developing cutting edge expertise on legal issues....possess[ing] extraordinary determination.' "

"It's hard for anyone to argue that I could have received that type of praise had I been unable to function at a very high level.  My dedicated work and effectiveness in prosecuting child molesters and other predators in Yolo County speaks for itself."

The truth is that Mr. Reisig was angry at Judge Maguire for ruling against him in their office and the county's attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card.

It was Rick Gore's 2008 letter, first published in the Vanguard, that implicated the DA for, among other things, burying evidence in the 2005 Halloween Homicide case and also for the use of dirty campaign tricks against Ms. Lenzi.

He wrote, "I did not agree with what I perceived as unethical campaign practices during your campaign."

He refused to write a disparaging letter to the editor as some of his colleagues did, and was ostracized in an inappropriate manner by his colleagues.

"On one occasion, in the middle of the workday, I caught [now Chief Investigator] Bruce Naliboff searching DDA Lenzi's locked desk during the election. He told me he was looking for a case file, but we investigators all know attorneys keep case files on their desk, as she did, not in her desk drawers," Mr. Gore wrote.  "I thought all of these tactics were inappropriate and told you so."

Mr. Gore eventually was terminated and has been involved in a lengthy battle against the county.  As we noted earlier this week, Judge Maguire, following the law, ruled in Mr. Gore's favor and that seems to have set Mr. Reisig off as confirmed by a number of sources both in and out of that office.

What the voters need to remember is that what we have seen from Clinton Parish in this campaign,is not just a reflection of a bad politician gone wrong, but rather the reflection of the entire mentality of the office in which he works.

The only reason that Mr. Reisig abandoned Mr. Parish is that he proved to be a liability to him.  The public got a rare window into the inner workings of the DA's office on a regular basis.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Spoiler alert, if you are not interested in horse race analysis, do not read this.  It has been a rare week in Davis where the big story has been not the city council election, but rather the judicial race.

That is good news for some, a sense of relief for others, and bad news for those on the outside looking in... at least perhaps.

Dan Wolk: Still in First Place

Dan Wolk was the smart money to finish first when this race started.  Now with just over two weeks left in the election, nothing has changed.  The joke in this election is that there are two factions and Dan Wolk is a part of both of them.

His campaign has been smooth and without huge waves.  The one complaint is really that he has been a bit too handled and his campaign is a bit too slick.  The full book of photos of Mr. Wolk that was mailed to voters rubbed a few in the wrong direction.  We will forever make fun of his Madrigal days where he was decked out in tights.

He has taken the safe route at this point to his first election and likely ascension to Mayor Pro Tem and ultimately Mayor of Davis.

Second: Sue Greenwald

It gets a bit tricky here.  At the start, we believed that Sue Greenwald was in second place, but that Lucas Frerichs would get to second place.  We are not convinced he is there yet and given what has transpired, we do not believe he will get there.

The advantage that Sue Greenwald had and has over fellow incumbent Stephen Souza is that we believed her base was more intact.  Little has happened to harm that view.  And in fact, the attack mailer cements that view.

A letter to the Davis Enterprise sums up the thinking here: "I wasn't planning to vote for Sue Greenwald, but I am now." - Anne Elbrecht

How many of voters are of this belief at this point?  It is difficult to gauge.  The belief though is that Sue Greenwald was unfairly attacked and there is at least a segment out there that will rally around her.  The biggest beneficiary of that attack mailer was Sue Greenwald.  Right now we believe that she finishes second, though that could change.

That said, there are clearly segments in the community that believe that three terms has been enough.  The question will be just how many people fall into that camp and where do the people who do not follow politics in Davis regularly or consistently come down.

Third: Lucas Frerichs

In some ways Lucas Frerichs is the most difficult candidate to gauge.  It appears that among the establishment and more pro-development groups he is a solid second vote behind Dan Wolk.

It appears that he is out there and running strong.  He has spent well over a decade meeting the establishment and those involved in Davis politics.  Where it becomes more tricky to gauge is how much and how well his message is getting out and received in the general public.

While he has some clear intriguing facets to him and a wealth of experience, his responses to answers have been at times too guarded and too safe.

The budget issues continues to be a bit vexing for us.  He continues to respond: "My top priority is to get the city's "fiscal house in order"; we need to examine, prioritize and implement ways to achieve this."

And yet, he continues to give the answer that we have criticized him on: "Conduct a comprehensive line-by-line look at the budget, finding ways to make the city more efficient and effective when delivering services."

In our interview that will be posted tomorrow, we press him a bit and he acknowledges that this will not be enough to get our fiscal house in order, but he continues to focus on small programs like a $20,000 paid internship even in the midst of millions in needed cuts.

Does this caution serve him well?  Perhaps.  We shall see.  Right now, we believe if the campaign ended tomorrow, Lucas Frerichs would be in the top three.

Fourth: Stephen Souza

If No.2 and No.3 are interchangeable, No.4 and No.5 are increasingly this as well.  We believed that Stephen Souza was the more likely incumbent to suffer defeat.  We said this because we believed his base was more fractured than Sue Greenwald's.

The mailer may well have been his death-knell.  It seems to have taken energy and the wind out of his sails.

As we now know, there is at least a possibility that the mailer sought to do that.  When we spoke to Jon Li he was circumspect as to whether the intent was to take Stephen Souza out, but he acknowledged that was in fact the effect.

The truth is it is difficult to know what Stephen Souza is or is not doing.  Two weeks ago, the Vanguard ran into a strong supporter of Stephen Souza's at Farmer's Market who was very critical of Mr. Souza's efforts, including the fact that he had not been coming to the Market to meet the voters.

The revelations about the mailer this week had the opportunity to at least show that Mr. Souza was not behind the effort, but we are not sure what Stephen Souza has been doing this week.

From our vantage point it almost looks like he has given up.  Maybe that is not accurate, but he failed to take advantage of news that could have at least exonerated his involvement and he has failed to mount any kind of visible counter-attack.

Fifth: Brett Lee

Brett Lee is frankly the biggest unknown in this race at this point.  First, he is still largely unknown to the community.

Second, he is an unknown factor in this race.  I put him fifth because it is the most defensible place for him to be at this time.  But frankly he could in fact be fourth banging on the door of third.

Here is what we do know.  First, he is the least known of the five candidates.  Second, as he has gotten to know people he has impressed most of them with his intelligence, his compassion and his demeanor.

Can he storm into the council in the last two weeks?  We believe so.  But he is going to have to create a lot of momentum.  The Enterprise endorsement from a couple of weeks ago gave him a shot, but it's unclear how much he has done since then to build upon it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Most of our reading audience will not be able to vote in this race, which is why we have not covered it extensively as we have the judgeship race or the Davis City Council race.

However, it has been every bit as ugly, if not worse.  After all, campaign workers came to blows following an April 26 campaign forum in which a volunteer for the incumbent supervisor and the campaign manager for the mayor's campaign erupted over the allegations of removing lawn signs.

Woodland Police cited alleged battery and petty theft, but the DA's office two weeks ago made the determination not to file charges.

"We have concluded our review of the reports surrounding the events at, and before, last week's community candidate forum and have determined that the incidents do not warrant criminal prosecution at the present time," said Michael J. Cabral, assistant chief deputy district attorney, to the Daily Democrat.

He added, "However, the theft of campaign materials is a serious issue that can have a significant impact on the integrity and reliability of our elections. Any systematic theft of campaign materials will be prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law."

Then we have the scurrilous attacks by a Woodland blogger who attempted to seize on the Davis City Council controversy by attempting to spuriously tie Mr. Pimentel to the plumbers and pipefitters unions.

Dino Gay wrote: "Connect the dots to Lois Wolk who 'continues to endorse Art Pimentel for county supervisor.' Local 447 contributed $5,000 to the Pimentel campaign, the highest contributor who attained Pimentel's 'Farmers Level.' The union will undoubtedly benefit from the City of Woodland's surface water project... a project which has met opposition from Greenwald and the City of Davis."

That's pretty tortured logic in trying to attack Mr. Pimentel because he received $5000 allegedly from the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447.

Ironically, many of the attacks have focused on developments by Paul Petrovich, and yet Mr. Petrovich is a listed endorser of the Duane Chamberlain campaign.

Both candidates have assets and liabilities.  Mr. Chamberlain has been an unwavering protector of rural interests and has opposed development of farmland.  That has put him into being an ally with many on the left who seek to limit development.

However, the county is in trouble and the bigger issues may be social services and law enforcement - particularly realignment issues.  Mr. Chamberlain is unapologetic at supporting jail expansion and opposing more research-based efforts at reform.  He is also an unabashed supporter of Clinton Parish.

For his part, Mr. Pimentel told the Vanguard that he supports the current general plan including its provision with no county-based growth near Davis.

The Daily Democrat, in an excellent op-ed on Friday, distilled the race in giving their endorsement to Mr. Pimentel.

They wrote: "Being a voice for farmers on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors is all well and good, and in the race for the 5th District post on June 5, few would dispute that incumbent Duane Chamberlain has been a strong voice for farmers.  But being a staunch supporter on any issue amounts to nothing for an elected official if the votes aren't there, and Chamberlain has too often been the lone-person out on countywide issues."

They add: "In contrast, Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel has shown during his eight years on the City Council he is willing to listen, willing to compromise, and willing to find effective solutions to community problems."

"It may distress Yolo's farmers in the 5th District, but we have to be pragmatic about the fact the district has changed with the addition of a significant portion of Woodland as a result of redistricting. This means Woodland's voice must also be heard in addition to those living in the county. Pimentel is in the best position to hear all voices, and work to balance the diverse needs of the county's largest district."

"Pimentel, 33, directs a program at Woodland Community College that helps poor and first-generation students. And while we are adverse to so-called 'professional' politicians, we must acknowledge that Pimentel has been involved in politics since serving as student president of Sacramento State more than a decade ago, which gives him experience at finding compromise and working toward specific goals," they add.

They write that the political differences between the two men are minimal.  We are not that sure.  They write: "Both agree that growth should occur in the county's four cities and not the rural areas, both acknowledge the need for more jobs.  Pimentel is stronger on the need for Woodland to have a stable source of water for the future. Chamberlain is more focused on law enforcement."

They argue that the distinction between the two is approach, and that Mr. Chamberlain is more contentious, particularly "in his desire to stand fast on ag issues, which is a fine thing if the votes are there. However, being unwilling to find compromise means - in the end - being ineffective at representing agriculture and farmers."

The Daily Democrat writes: "The Yolo County Farm Bureau this week endorsed Chamberlain for re-election citing his 'fiscal conservatism and responsibility' and his opposition of unspecified 'budgetary actions' that 'the board approved by votes of 4-1 or 3-2.' We don't know what those actions were, but they were approved nonetheless, so Chamberlain's standing firm didn't do any good."

They add, "We don't want a supervisor who supports only rural residents (be they farmers or laborers). We don't want a supervisor who supports only city residents (be they merchants or office workers). We want a supervisor who supports the best interests of the community at large.  That would be a more productive approach, and that's why we're supporting Pimentel."

From our standpoint, here is a critical difference: "Both are concerned about the state's prison realignment that is sending lower-level inmates back to counties. Chamberlain puts a priority on law enforcement, while Pimentel places more emphasis on job training and education programs."

We sat in the chambers during the long discussion on how to proceed on AB 109.  After some very thoughtful commentary by his colleagues, Mr. Chamberlain simply said, "I support law enforcement."

What did that mean?  It means he was going to vote how law enforcement recommended.

We have nothing against law enforcement, but there were some nuances to that discussion and ideas put forward in a thoughtful manner by several of his colleagues, but Mr. Chamberlain was not interested in discussing or considering them.

As I told someone this week, in the next four years, we need to worry far more about what happens with county-level social services and AB 109, than we do about growth on Davis' periphery that everyone has said is not going to happen in the near future anyway.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

He sent an email to the Davis Enterprise stating: "Having considered all the facts and circumstances surrounding judicial candidate Clint Parish's attack mail piece, including recent explanations from his campaign, I have decided to retract my endorsement of his candidacy."

Clearly, Mr. Reisig sees the handwriting on the wall here, after the Sacramento Bee issued forth a scathing editorial arguing "Parish shows he's unfit to be a judge."

"On Wednesday, Parish continued to defend his lowdown hit piece, although he did back off, somewhat, from an allegation that as a private attorney, Maguire somehow was involved in a case involving a bribe," the Bee writes.  "Lamely, Parish told The Bee that the connection wasn't as close as he had been led to believe. The allegation is, in fact, false. Parish should have said so."

The Bee added, "Parish didn't apologize for making the mistake. Instead, he sought to shift blame, telling The Bee that the campaign worker who gave him the information no longer works for the campaign. He didn't identify the individual."

The Bee continued: "California's judiciary has been insulated from the sort of partisan politics that afflicts many other states. For the most part, California's trial and appellate courts are populated with professionals who follow the law and dispense justice fairly.

"Parish could have run on his own merits and explained why he is qualified to serve as a Superior Court judge. Instead, he stooped to cheap and unfounded partisan assaults on his well-qualified opponent."

The Bee's scrutiny landed on Mr. Parish's boss Jeff Reisig, too, as they wrote: "District Attorney Jeff Reisig criticized the mailer but unfortunately stuck by his endorsement of Parish.  By continuing to lend his support to Parish, Reisig displays a lack of insight into how such a mailer can politicize the judiciary. Yolo County voters should consider Reisig's embrace of Parish if Reisig appears on the ballot again."

The Bee admonishment probably was enough to make Jeff Reisig realize that this was not worth the battle.  There was no chance that Mr. Parish was going to survive this, and his chances of winning were relatively bleak.

If things go true to form, we would not be surprised to see Mr. Parish seeking other employment before the end of this calendar year.  Back in 2008, James Walker challenged Judge Fall and lost 70-30.  Now Mr. Walker works as a defense attorney in Sacramento.

The truth is that Mr. Parish is not an anomaly within Jeff Reisig's organization and Mr. Reisig cannot merely run from it, as his hands are all over it.

In fact, Mr. Reisig should not be surprised at all that Mr. Parish would get caught making false accusations of his opponent in this race.

The Vanguard learned from a former employee at the District Attorney's office that Mr. Parish was removed from his position as Major Narcotic Vendor Prosecutor (MNVP) for falsifying reports.

And yet Mr. Reisig had apparently no initial problem with supporting Mr. Parish for Judge.

The Vanguard learned and confirmed from former employees at the District Attorney's office, who asked that their names not be disclosed, that Mr. Reisig became angry at Judge Maguire when he ruled against Mr. Reisig's office's attempts to deny former employee Rick Gore his retired peace officer card.

Judge Maguire, who recognized the case, was unable to comment, due to it being an ongoing matter that may return to him after appeal.

Rick Gore, in a story that the Vanguard broke back in 2008, resigned angrily from the DA's office with a strongly worded letter accusing the DA of a number of improprieties.

The real question is, why Clinton Parish?

Mr. Parish is a strong advocate for victims' rights.  Nadine Pinkerton wrote a strong letter of support. "We met at a difficult time, when my family was the victim of a crime that occurred nearly five years ago. Since he was the prosecutor for this case, I came to know him well and can attest to his great personal integrity, intelligence, and sense of fairness: qualities essential for a judge."

The problem is that Mr. Parish, while a strong advocate for victim's rights, does not have a strong sense of fairness.  He's an advocate.  A judge needs to be dispassionate and look at both sides and render a fair judgment within the law.

What Ms. Pinkerton does not mention is that while Mr. Parish in her case rightly went after the daughter, who drove the car and failed to take responsibility for the accident, he also pursued the father who had nothing to do with the accident as an aider and abettor.  The problem is the facts just were not there to support those charges, and twice the jury failed to convict, and eventually Mr. Parish had to drop the charges.

In 2010, he launched forward one of the most infamous cases that we have been involved in, in which he tried to get a life conviction for a man accused of stealing shredded cheese.

Robert Ferguson, a career criminal, faced life in prison for stealing a $3.99 package of cheese - a case that drew national attention.

Mr. Parish played a crucial role in arguing for life in prison.

He argued that, given Mr. Ferguson's long history of being in prison for a total of 22 years, he has not learned from his mistakes.

Mr. Parish told the court, "The people gave him another shot, yet here we are again... Simply put, this defendant is a career criminal."

Mr. Parish pursued the matter, even in face of strong opposition from both the probation department and doctors, who had concluded that Mr. Ferguson was bipolar and had trouble controlling impulses to steal during manic phases.

While Mr. Ferguson had a long criminal history, many of his convictions were in the distant past, and the nature of his crimes were not violent in any way.  No weapons or injuries were involved. 

His only violent encounter was when he threw a coke bottle at his brother and received a misdemeanor assault conviction for it.

Eventually, Judge Warriner accepted the probation department's recommendation to disregard the prior strikes, and he sentenced Mr. Ferguson to the longest term for petty theft with priors.

As a result, he received 7 years and 8 months in prison, for the crime of stealing a package of cheese.

Mr. Parish told the Enterprise yesterday, "While I am not a great politician, I am a very good lawyer with significant criminal law experience and will make a very good judge."

The fact is, most of the people who have had to work with him over the years see him in a very different light.  They see him as arrogant and volatile.  Characteristics that came out this week in the mailer, the mailer that he apparently failed to vet.

The irony is that as a Deputy DA, that is his job - to vet accusations and determine their accuracy.  Moreover, as a judge, he must weigh competing positions and apply the law to them fairly and equitably.

If he cannot be trusted to vet his own campaign material, how can he be trusted to perform his duties as Deputy District Attorney, let alone a judge?

And as the Bee put it yesterday, what does that say about District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who knew of Mr. Parish's propensity to falsify reports even before he falsified these attacks against Judge Maguire?

---David M. Greenwald reporting