David Thompson,
President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
My apologies to all for not commenting on the Vanguard about the DACHA blog this past Thursday. I had left Davis last Thursday at 5am for a conference in Massachusetts about cooperative development. Until today (Monday) I was not aware that a blog has been done about DACHA. A lot was written and I appreciate the opportunity by the Vanguard to respond to a number of the comments and questions raised.
About $2.5 in Public Funds used for DACHA now spent or lost by City staff
We think that City staff have now spent or wasted about $2.4 million on DACHA; $700,000 on 22 lawyers billing up to $375 per hour; $200,000 on public funds paid to DACHA for their 8 lawyers billing up to $350 per hour; $140,000 still owed by DACHA for work done by lawyers in co-ordination with City Attorney; at least $600,000 in staff time for the past six years; $250,000 in illegal payments to DACHA members of interest, debts paid and refunds made against Co-op law; $300,000 in lost income when City staff set new rents at 80% of median income (for which no DACHA resident was qualified) rather than the 110% for which they did qualify (loss of $7,668 per month in income to the City); $400,000 in lost income (the first DACHA home became vacant in September 2009), All through 2011 there were ten empty homes all year, the vacancy losses are running at about $20,000 a month.
The City Attorney and City staff appear to be using public funds on a personal vendetta against Neighborhood Partners (NP), Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation and myself because of my role as a whistle blower. I first blew the whistle when the City Attorney had “forgotten” to place recapture notes on 52 “affordable” homes in Wildhorse. See www.community.coop/davis click on DACHA. As a result, the City of Davis lost out on sharing $11 million in pure gain on two years of ownership. A big mistake the Council did nothing about. I blew the whistle on fiscal problems associated with staff on another 150 affordable for sale homes and hundreds of multi-family apartments in Davis. I think that the City Attorney and City staff have taken it upon themselves to retaliate. Not a wise or proper use of City public funds but who cares when someone else (the public) is paying the bill? These mistakes, errors, omissions have cost the City of Davis tens of millions of dollars and that is just in housing. As Delaine Eastin said the Council needs to act.
Some of the questions raised about DACHA board and members and City Attorney and City staff are answered in these one page summaries at www.community.coop/davis click on DACHA
Evidence #1 Ineligible board members/membership DACHA
Evidence #2 City staff role (Foster, Cochran, Garcia) DACHA
Evidence #3 City staff presence at DACHA meetings with no legal quorum
Evidence #4 City Attorney Conflict of Interest & Due Diligence 11-10-11
Evidence #5 Audit warned City that DACHA was breaking State Law. Neither City staff nor the City Attorney took action to prevent illegal board actions and misuse of the assets of a public benefit corporation
Evidence #6 Delinquencies, Deadbeats Sanctioned by City Staff
Evidence #7 Alleged Illegal Actions City Staff and Reps Present
Evidence #8 City Staff helps remove TPCF from board
Evidence #9 City Staff allows DACHA treasurer to be 6 years delinquent on rent
Evidence #10 29 City reps @17 illegal DACHA meetings lacking Legal Quorum
Evidence # 11 CPA Questions City Audit
Evidence # 12 Public Funds used to defend DACHA wrongdoing?
Evidence # 13 Did City App. Break Law and Attorney General on Self Dealing?
Evidence # 14 Did City Mgr (Emlen) Uphold State Law as Required by City Code?
Evidence #15 After illegally receiving $200,000+ members return to delinquency?
The rent/carrying charges were all approved by City Staff
Some people falsely accuse the rents of being too high. Not true. Each of the rents for every DACHA homes was approved by city staff as meeting the City guidelines. NP did critique the way in which City staff calculated the rents and we showed staff how DACHA had been overcharged $400,000 on the 20 homes. However, City staff refused to make the price adjustments we recommended until it was too late for the 20 DACHA members. Living in a new 3 bedroom single family home with two car garage for $1,568 including utilities compared to a smaller 3 bedroom apartment for $1,995 plus utilities at the Lexington. And the Co-op member got to deduct over $13,000 each on their taxes.
City Staff refused to support Share Loan Fund
The DACHA bylaws planned for a Share Loan Fund. Section 5.3 (j) To establish a share loan fund and to approve share loans to members.
NP proposed at least five simple “no cost” ways to create a Share Loan Fund. Each of the options was turned down by City staff. NP even pointed out to City staff how to apply for $500,000 in CalHOME funds for which co-ops were eligible. (Luke assisted Jerilyn Cochran in the application) City staff refused to make those funds available to DACHA. In the end for lack of use City staff made only four loans over a three to five year period and was required by the state to return nearly $200,000 in unused funds. At $10,000 each we could have helped all 20 DACHA members. Through the Yolo Federal Credit Union we have $15,000 grants to award to income qualifying households. We’ve awarded over $500,000 of them to people in every city in Yolo County- except Davis. City staff refused to approve changes to allow DACHA members to each get a $15,000 grant. At that point we figured City staff was intent on starving DACHA to death. They were! It was always No! No! No! We thought of trying to blend the co-op into a land trust. I think the Council is now convinced of the need for a Loan Fund but it is too late to help DACHA.
The Red Herring of the Land Trust
Yes, NP did apply for funds to study converting to a Land Trust. However, City staff opposed us getting those funds. In the short few months while the Land Trust concept was on the table NP’s research had shown that a co-op could not legally convert to a land trust and there were numerous other problems with land trusts. We recommended to the board that DACHA should withdraw its request, which it did.
City staff then led City to loss of $615,000 on their Land Trust Model
Although City staff opposed NP getting funds to study a land trust they soon turned around and awarded Community Housing Opportunities Corporation (CHOC) $25,000 to study a land trust. This grant was made by City staff without any public notification. NP met with the CHOC representative and shared with them why we had learned that a Land Trust would not work in Davis. After five years of holding the Fifth Street site, CHOC arrived at a point where no one would fund the Land Trust model (just as NP had advised). Regretfully, CHOC had borrowed a substantial amount of funding from the City that the City had borrowed on their behalf from the State. By 2010, CHOC announced that the Land Trust could not be done. The Land Trust project was shut down by the Council. In December of 2010, City staff recommended to the City Council that CHOC be forgiven paying back $615,000 and the City used its money to repay $615,000 to the State. The Land Trust pushed by City staff should never have been tried in Davis.
How Much NP was paid for DACHA
In 2008, CHOC was approved by the Council to receive $34,482 per home to develop 29 single family homes. A total of $1 million dollars for CHOC. NP actually received $130,500 to develop all 20 DACHA homes for an earned fee of $6,525 per unit. NP earned $27,957 less per home than CHOC. And yet the City attacks NP for our fee being too high and former City Manager, Bill Emlen and Elvia Garcia get most of the numbers wrong in their Op-Ed. NP’s 20 units got built and the City paid an additional $615,000 for the 29 units that CHOC could not build. Where’s the old fashioned American reward for results?
Role of City Attorney
A number of lawyers in Davis and elsewhere have brought up that the City Attorney and her firm appears to have a conflict of interest in the DACHA matter. Look at the role of the City Attorney’s advice in the “Evidences” at the web site. The City Attorney and City staff appear to have played a role in overlooking the legal actions of the ineligible board and membership. The Yolo Superior Court approved Arbitration Award pointed out that the President and Treasurer should have been removed from the board. City Attorney and City staff did nothing. There certainly is a lack of due diligence in what the Council was told when City staff recommended that the City loan $4 million in public funds to DACHA.
Of the over 300 ownership units created in Davis Dos Pinos (a co-op) is the only home ownership model that still works as it did when it began in 1985!
Some people say the limited equity co-op does not work. Yet Dos Pinos (our first Davis co-op) has worked well for almost 30 years. While other ownership models in Davis have failed, have been allowed out of their restrictions, been used improperly, been rented out rather than owner occupied, Dos Pinos has quietly shown the experts the virtues of a co-op. You can see the success of Dos Pinos at the DACHA website. Click on NAHC Dos Pinos 2004 Journal. The co-op business model works well. You just need to follow the bylaws and state law. Regretfully, we think the staff vendetta got in the way of repeating the Success of Dos Pinos. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been harmed by staff’s apparent wish to “kill the co-op” rather than to seek solutions. What could have been so easily achieved appears to have been lost on City staff. The breaking of DACHA’s bylaws and state law by DACHA should never have been allowed by City staff. No matter what some say, the City’s loan documents and Regulatory Agreement allowed City staff to take remedial action. Yet, City staff never did act to uphold the law for six long years. What a waste of $2.5 million in public funds?
A majority of the Council were not around when most of the illegal acts by an ineligible DACHA board and membership took place. City staff seems to have a brazen disregard for the law. Each of the Council members has now been provided with extensive evidence that the board and membership have been ineligible from fall of 2005 up to and including today. The Council has also been provided with access to all of the documents on the DACHA web site.
However, TPCF would rather solve the problem and has attempted to do so on a number of occasions. We continue to seek solutions. What will now be done?
David T., it’s about time you showed up here. TP/NP is losing the “PR war” with DACHA and the City of Davis.
In your absence, you’ve been portrayed as a money-grubbing, cheating scam artist who has taken advantage of the poor, stupid, uneducated DACHA members as well as an under-informed, under-funded, trusting city council and staff and local citizenry.
TP/NP has been called out as responsible for DACHA’s failure and the city’s foreclosure of the operation because you forced upon it a “business model for this co-op (that) was flawed,” imposing fees that violated city ordinances, winning a lawsuit that DACHA couldn’t pay and a variety of other fatal acts that surprised council members who approved for this project.
Now, it’s said that you’re refusing to settle your lawsuit with the city or that you’re insisting that the city turn over ownership of the former DACHA housing or some equally outrageous demand and that you’re abusing the legal system by harassing former DACHA members including poor children.
On the other hand, I’m impressed that you cite the success of the Dos Pinos project. You are the only one (including all of the “affordable housing” advocates who frequent the [u]Vanguard[/u]) who has been responsive to my request for examples of projects that have left Davis with affordable housing and in which they’d take pride.
However, your regurgitating of the grievances you’ve made against the city (including all the documentation that might present in a court case) really are not responsive to the many charges that have been leveled here and in the press against you and your partner and TP/NP.
You’re becoming portrayed as a pariah, and I think you should deal with the charges being leveled by Sue, Elaine and Rich before they become generally accepted as fact in the community.
This would be a good time to make a couple of points:
1. Mr. Thompson asked if the Vanguard would run his response
2. The Vanguard’s policy is that it will run any submissions (within reason)
3. The Vanguard extends the Officer to the City of Davis, DACHA Members, or their Attorney Elaine Roberts Musser as to a reply
4. Obviously the opinions expressed here are solely those of Mr. Thompson and not reflective necessarily of the Vanguard
Mr Thompson asserts in his caption, [quote]Evidence #4 [b]City Attorney Conflict of Interest[/b] & Due Diligence 11-10-11[/quote]… yet he offers no evidence that either the City Attorney, nor the firm she is a member of, benefited in any manner from the actions taken or not taken. The legal term “libelous” comes to mind.
[i]. . . the City of Davis, DACHA Members, or their Attorney Elaine Roberts Musser as to a reply[/i]
Generally speaking, a rational group of people who don’t seem interested in litigating a complex civil case(s) on a blog.
Neutral, you no doubt failed to read the recent comments by Sue and Elaine, representing DACHA and the city council, to which David T. Is supposedly–if ineffectively–responding here. This is most certainly an example of the Vanguard (and the Enterprise) being the forum for conducting the PR initiatives of this complex legal case.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe one needs to benefit in order for there to be conflict of interest and in my prior service on boards, it was extended to “perceived” conflict of interest that was stressed to us as members.
@JustSaying: OK, I really have to complain about your representation of events. Clearly your opinion is biased in favor of DT; it doesn’t really matter. But to accuse us of engaging in a “PR war” is really inaccurate. I have to admit I’m very, very angry that you choose to represent matters thus. We’ve mostly kept our lip in this situation because we’re afraid of further legal repercussions from having our words twisted. Everyone has been asking us to respond — yourself included. So finally in the face of a hurricane of invective, Elaine opts for a rare word on our behalf in an attempt to clarify — and then you turn around and accuse us of engaging in a PR war. I guess we’re not allowed to raise a word in our defense, huh? With reactions like yours, is it any wonder why we’ve been so tight-lipped?
Your anger is misdirected. Noting that there’s a “PR war” involved here is my observation, not an accusation.
My observation is based on David’s Jan. 19 article and today’s “response.” Although I didn’t see a “hurricane of invective” involved in Delaine Eastin’s comments, I did not accuse Elaine of “engaging in a PR war.” Ms. Eastin’s comments are as much a part of the PR efforts going on in this case as are Elaine’s or Sue’s or DT’s.
I don’t understand why you feel “clearly your opinion is biased in favor of DT.” I’m most sympathetic for the DACHA members who have lost so much in this venture.
I most disappointed with the city officials who allowed this to happen, and now plead they didn’t have the responsibility or staffing to oversee DT’s and DACHA’s efforts. I don’t know yet what to think about DT’s role because he tends to keep attacking the city without responding to the claims leveled by DACHA, Sue, Rich, Elaine, etc. about his own acts.
I’m most respectful of Elaine’s pro bono efforts. Perhaps she and I have gone back and forth on this the way we usually do, but it’s academic to me while (unlike our other discussions) it’s personal to her and the others involved.
[i]. . . the recent comments by Sue and Elaine . .[/i]
. . are just comments on a blog. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
“are just comments on a blog”
What does this mean exactly? They are comments by two public figures under their own names (something that you have not chosen to do – which is your right under the rules I have established but noted nonetheless in this case) in what is largely a public forum, are they not? Does the fact that they chose this site as opposed to another somehow invalidate their comments?
To JustSaying: It is David Thompson himself who has chosen to repeatedly “try his case in the press”, by submitting numerous articles to the Davis Enterprise, which in turn publishes David Thompson’s numerous articles ad nauseum at every turn, whether libelous or no. David Thompson has also appeared numerous times before the City Council, often viciously referring to all DACHA members as “deadbeats”. Yet if DACHA members dare to defend themselves, threatened lawsuits and dire consequences are the result – until I finally entered the picture and took up DACHA’s cause bc I was so disturbed by what I had observed/heard. Even I have to be careful/guarded in what I say…
Some inconvenient truths are beginning to trickle out, creating valid questions as to the veracity of David Thompson’s version of events. Yet you say [quote]David T., it’s about time you showed up here. TP/NP is losing the “PR war” with DACHA and the City of Davis. [/quote] Is this more about the “PR war” as you put it, or should it be more about getting at the truth? You actually put your finger right on it with your statement [quote]However, your regurgitating of the grievances you’ve made against the city (including all the documentation that might present in a court case) really are not responsive to the many charges that have been leveled here and in the press against you and your partner and TP/NP. [/quote]
[quote]“Some inconvenient truths are beginning to trickle out, creating valid questions as to the veracity of David Thompson’s version of events. Yet you say: ‘David T., it’s about time you showed up here. TP/NP is losing the “PR war” with DACHA and the City of Davis.’ Is this more about the “PR war” as you put it, or should it be more about getting at the truth?”[/quote] What it [u]should[/u] be is an interesting question. In my opinion, there is no getting to the truth is this forum with these spokespeople about this topic. It is what it is in the Vanguard; it it ends up in a courtroom, we may be “getting at the truth”…or not.
I guess you agree with me that DT didn’t appear to support or contest what was said about him last week and, now that he did, was not effective in the effort to gain public support with what he did write.
DT has repeatedly tried, as you put it, to “try his case in the press”–just as you do when you when you characterize him as libelous and untruthful and vicious and threatening. And just as Sue does when she argues with case law about “de facto” boards and “explain(s) the city’s action in the face of a lawsuit against the city launched by Neighborhood Partners.”
Money Grubbing
I have spent a lifetime serving the public good not just in Davis but around the world. In particular, much of my work has been developing cooperatives. I am the longest serving member of the board of the Davis Food Co-op (17 years). I helped get the Co-op moved from behind the gas station at J to G Street and co-led efforts to move to G Street, to manage the entire building and to finally have the DFC take over the building and then led the efforts to buy the property.
I made not a dollar from all of that effort. Neither did my wife Ann Evans make a penny from her ten years of helping get the co-op started.
Against numerous obstacles I fought to build and strengthen the Co-op, change its capital structure and create the foundation for its present success. I am proud of my role in all of that and proud of what others have now done to make the Co-op such a pillar of good in the community.
Certainly were the board of the Davis Food Co-op to be ineligible to serve and then try to dissolve the Co-op for personal gain I would put up the same fight to uphold the bylaws of the Co-op and State Law.
But as to DACHA and Money Grubbing
NP received $6,525 for each home brought into DACHA. Our fee is the lowest by far of any developer of affordable housing in Davis. Most per unit fees charged in Davis are around $30,000 a unit. We did a tremendous amount of work on each of the homes. NP even appealed the County Assessor taxation of the homes and won a reduction to lower the taxes on each of the homes from $360,000 to $180,000. That brought the property taxes down from $4,320 to $2,160. A savings per year on 20 homes of $43,200 or a savings per month of $180 per each of the 20 homes. There are numerous problems to solve in doing affordable ownership housing and NP pursued getting the Assessor to reverse course. NP asked the City Attorney and City Staff to support our efforts and to come to the hearing. No one from the City did anything. Since 2002 to now our efforts and our fight the residents of DACHA have each been saved $21,600 in property tax costs. No other developer has achieved such savings on property taxes.
David Thompson
[quote]“Generally speaking, a rational group of people who don’t seem interested in litigating a complex civil case(s) on a blog.. . .[i] the recent comments by Sue and Elaine[/i] . . . . are just comments on a blog. Thank you for reinforcing my point.”[/quote]Well, you got me there, Neutral. As you must have figured out, I took your statement seriously and figured it needed correcting.[quote]“What does this mean exactly? They are comments by two public figures under their own names (something that you have not chosen to do – which is your right under the rules I have established but noted nonetheless in this case) in what is largely a public forum, are they not?”[/quote]David, did you get snookered in also, or just fail to read Neutral’s comment about “litigating a complex civil case(s) on a blog”? “[u]Litigating[/u]” was his point, nothing personal about your blog.
Anyway, I understand it when people apparently using their real names try to discredit others’ views by noting their phony names. But, I sure wish you wouldn’t encourage this tactic yourself by suggesting that Neutral’s comments are somehow invalidated by his/her anonymity.
You made the rules; don’t be setting up two classes of participants and their credibility by “(noting) nonetheless in this case.” You shouldn’t give [u]any[/u] case this treatment.
Lets’ be honest about definitions “Low Income” is being purposefully misused.
The critics of our efforts with DACHA almost always talk about low-income families/people. Being on the Council and serving on the Senior Commission you know that your terminology is incorrect when it comes to describing DACHA but you continue to use it anyway. According to the City requirements the homes entering DACHA were meant for families between 90-120% of median income. Each of the DACHA homes was approved by City Staff to be made available for people in either the median or moderate income groups (90%-120%). That is what all the proformas show.
None of the homes were ever approved for families at 80% or below which is the HUD definition of low income. Each of the DACHA families approved by the City staff to move in was either in the median or moderate income group. The management company was required to review the income of each household and make sure they met the City requirements for affordability. Once the Management Company had all of the back up materials for the income and expenses of the members the unit they would occupy and the rent/carrying charges on that unit the materials were sent to City staff.
City staff then reviewed the entire package and approved the household to either move in or be rejected as not being financially adequate. The John Stewart Company and the Madsen and Walton Company do this financial review for tens of thousands of units of affordable housing.
Families living in DACHA were almost all professionals with many having good positions at the University. A family of four earning up to $90,950 is eligible to live at DACHA. That is not the definition of low income that is bandied around by people who know better.
Let’s be honest City staff only approved families as either median or moderate income to move into DACHA. Yes there has been an impact on the families. But the problems of DACHA were easy to solve a long time ago and should have been. Regretfully, I think the families became a pawn in City staff’s retribution for my whistle blowing.
David Thompson, TPCF
hpierce wanted examples of Conflict of Interest that I had used.
Evidence #4 City Attorney Conflict of Interest & Due Diligence 11-10-11
This was a perspective and terminology I have gained from other lawyers who have been watching the proceedings. I may not be using the correct terminology so am happy to be corrected.
However, there are a number of instances of Harriet Steiner, the City Attorney giving advice to either the City staff or the Council about DACHA that appears to be incorrect and certainly against the Legal Opinion about state law on cooperatives provided to the City by Goldfarb and Lipman. If you read some of the “Evidences” you will see the examples I use.
The fact that the City staff reports on DACHA to the Council never ever mention delinquencies, ineligible boards or ineligible members, improper votes, as it relates to use of public funds is for me a lack of due diligence that the Council should have been made aware of.
I don’t think that any bank lending staff or attorney for a financial institution would dare to leave that out of a recommendation for a loan of $4 million dollars.
Some of that advice is very relevant to some of the causes of action against DACHA and now the City. It seems to me that Harriet and her firm billed the City for advice, that advice is now being challenged and she and her firm are now billing the City for time defending those issues. The lawyers watching the blog will know the terminology that describes this situation. So please chime in.
When the PERB Board recently found against the City (and in particular it seems Harriet’s advice) and for the employees it looked like the City hired another firm to clean up the mess. That seemed the right thing to do.
Someone suggested to me recently, “Why isn’t the council protecting the Citizens of Davis and file a claim against the attorney’s E&O insurance?”
I don’t know the answer to that but it has now come up a number of times.
David Thompson, TPCF
[quote]What it should be is an interesting question. In my opinion, there is no getting to the truth is this forum with these spokespeople about this topic. It is what it is in the Vanguard; it it ends up in a courtroom, we may be “getting at the truth”…or not. [/quote]
It is David Thompson and David Thompson alone who is choosing the forum for “discussion”… the Davis Enterprise, the Vanguard, the courts…
Elaine I came home to a column on the Vanguard about DACHA. I notice that of the 55 posts on the DACHA column 23 of those posts are yours and that is okay with me. But certainly you were not short of getting your point of view and accusations out.
The Vanguard fills a valuable role in allowing everyone to share their perspectives on issues. I appreciate that the Vanguard provides a forum for different opinions. It is possible that the dialogue here might lead to better understanding of the situation and possibly to solutions?
However, the rent rolls show that since late 2005 the DACHA board were ineligible to serve and could not achieve a legal quorum and then made various decisions that broke the bylaws and state law. And City staff were present at most of those ineligible meetings. You seem to have no interest in DACHA having to follow the law. Coming from an appointed Commissioner I don’t think that is good for the reputation of the City of Davis.
Perhaps you can explain to the Vanguard readers how under the DACHA bylaws that the DACHA members and board were eligible to vote and to take the legal actions they did?
I await your reply.
David Thompson, TPCF
Brian Johnson,past president of RYCA has allowed me to make his letter to the Council public. I have now been helping the residents of Rancho Yolo for about five years to both purchase the park and to achieve greater stability. City staff have been pretty harsh on RYCA as you will see. The DACHA problem is just the tip of the iceberg.
David Thompson, TPCF
It’s not at all easy working with City Staff.
By Brian Johnson,
For several years I was president of the Rancho Yolo Community Association (RYCA) the group that represents the residents living within the Rancho Yolo Senior Mobile-home Park in Davis. During that time, we as a board had a contract with Neighborhood Partners, (NP) whose principal’s, David Thompson and Luke Watkins were to help us prepare an offer to buy the Park from its owners. Hopefully this would mean that the Park would become Resident-Owned under the Co-operative Model.
What follows is my from my own records and what is otherwise expressed is my own personal opinion.
After many meetings and struggles a grant from the City was awarded to us and city staffers Ms. Foster and Garcia-Ayala were directed to work with us. At one of the first meetings with City staff (Jerilyn Cochran & Danielle Foster) they told us they preferred to work with Community Housing Opportunities Corp (CHOC) rather than NP and they preferred the park be owned by another nonprofit rather than a resident owned cooperative. From then on we experienced friction in working with them. So much so that at a later time I, as president, asked each board member of the RYCA to express to me how they felt the attitude of city staff was toward each of them. These are a few of their individual comments:
“We’re volunteers, we have had to jump through hoops for the grant.”
“We seem to have to toe the line… We appreciate the City’s help, yet it comes at some cost. Looks like the City doesn’t like David Thompson and we suffer for it.”
“Treat us like children. City is not aware that many of the (RYCA) board have had successful business careers before retiring. Engineer responsible for a two million dollar budget. Self-employed Contractor for over twenty years. Many years in Real Estate. Property management, and so on.”
“We’re on a tight leash it seems. We want to do what’s right for the Park but also need to please the City.”
“City does not understand what it is to live in a Mobile Home Park – homes are not Mobile! I think staff looks down on us, especially Danielle”
“Don’t think that the City owns us. The young staff woman is too young to understand older people and work with the volunteer board.”
At one point we did a major re-write and updating of our bylaws, assisted by an attorney experienced in Non-Profits. After reviewing the proposed new bylaws, Ms. Foster attended one of our meetings and afterwards told me that if we as an association hoped to get any more grant money (CDBG or HOME) from the City we had better let the City have the final say on our bylaws! (We refused to let them.)
After the first grant ran out, the RYCA applied for another grant. City staff advised City Council to deny our application. Fortunately the Council voted that the grant be awarded to us. As with the previous one, our treasurer had a great deal of work to do. David Thompson himself had to account for his work in excruciating detail.
In my dealings with David Thompson I have found him to be honest and trustworthy. A man who for much of his life has worked to better peoples lives through the development of community, with the spirit of people working together for their common good. His work turning Leisureville in Woodland into a limited equity co-op has been extremely successful. They now pay $200 per space per month less than we do.
I sincerely hope that in the case of DACHA, the city’s financial resources are no longer squandered defending the unlawful actions of City staff. Justice demands that this mess be cleaned up and the employees involved have their employment with the City terminated.
In retrospect, I believe that we in Rancho Yolo suffered “collateral damage” during the years of 2007 to 2010 due to the triangulation between City Staff – David Thompson and DACHA – The Rancho Yolo Community Association.
I have a council meeting tonight and don’t have time to participate in this discussion now.
For people who didn’t read the last blog on this topic, JustSaying is inaccurately portraying my contribution. I was merely trying to give a factual accounting of what happened from the city’s perspective. The city has taken many actions over the years; someone has to explain them.
I was not calling anyone names; I was relating documented events.
I will see if I can get the city to post more of the documents so that people see them.
The City Attorney is conflicted due to her drafting the documents and policies and providing advice on subjects that are now being litigated by her firm. It’s clear California law.
Why is she still working on this?
How can she provide objective advice to a client, when she in effect is critiquing her own prior work?
Ms. Eastin called it “cutting a fat hog.”
I will make one short comment about the city’s role. The city could not micromanage this organization; the organization was not even set up this way. The city had one appointee to the board. We appointed an attorney named John Gianola. John only had one vote.
I’ll be happy to answer any questions that after the council meeting.
Sue. The City did not need to micromanage the organization but it should have monitored it as required by the loan documents and promissory note. Every lender gets to keep an eye on things and demand an organization conform to its bylaws and the law as the City’s documents required of DACHA. The City staff simply failed to act when it discovered illegal and improper acts.
When TPCF as a lender asked to see the books and the IRS filings the DACHA Board that the City representative sat on (John Gianoloa) refused to hand them over. State law requires that a public benefit corporation make its filings available to those who request them. I have asked Ethan Ireland for the IRS filings for 2009, 2010 and 2011 and have not had a reply. Perhaps you as a Council member can get a copy for us? TPCF tried to monitor the situation but we were prevented from obtaining fiduciary information.
Yes John Gianola had only one vote but he used it at scores of meetings where there was no legal quorum and a majority of the board were ineligible to serve. As Evidence #13 shows at http://www.community.coop/davis click DACHA, John as City Appointee was involved in numerous improper voters and actions.
David Thompson, TPCF
January 14, 2012
To: Davis City Council
(for DACHA Hearing to forward to California Attorney General)
Fr: David Thompson, President of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (TPCF)
Re: Evidence #13. Did City Appointee Break Law & Attorney General’s Requirements & assist DACHA’s illegal Self-Dealing Transactions? No action yet by City Council.
cc: Steve Pinkerton, City Manager; Danielle Foster, City staff and interested parties.
As a Public Benefit Corporation, DACHA is required by law to meet certain standards when it comes to self-dealing transactions between members of the DACHA Board and the organization. There is a section of the DACHA bylaws 5.4 (256 words) on Self-Dealing Transactions (taken from the Law) and instructions on the Attorney General’s website for a public benefit corporation to meet the law.
Regretfully, City staff, the City Attorney, and the City Appointee on the DACHA board never appear to have ever mentioned or met the Attorney General’s requirements.
Self-Dealing Transactions at DACHA Executive Session Meeting of August 24, 2006
First, there were not enough eligible board members to achieve a legal quorum. With the City Appointee on the DACHA board, a City staff member in attendance and the meeting at a city office the illegal DACHA meeting was held anyway.
According to the Law and to the Bylaws of DACHA a self-dealing transaction is required to be noticed, the members provided with detail, and the meeting should be open. For this self-dealing transaction there is no published Agenda, no explanation of the required details as an attachment to the Agenda and the meeting was held in Executive Session with no one other than Danielle Foster of City staff attending.
At this closed meeting the excessive delinquencies of two members were dealt with. One of the delinquents was Garcia, (a board member & Board Treasurer) the other a non board member. The Treasurer was given 4 years/4 months to pay off $4,307 she owed DACHA. John Gianola, the City Appointee to the DACHA board made the motion. Even though the Bylaws required that Garcia be automatically removed from the board, there is no mention of that issue and she was not removed as she should have been.
The non-board member was required to pay a lump sum (which she did) and to pay off the balance of $3,454 at $250 per month. The non board member was given only 14 months to pay off a delinquent amount smaller than the delinquent Treasurer. By September 30, 2006, the Treasurer’s delinquency to DACHA had been allowed to increase to $5,748 (64 months on a $90 per month) and the non board member’s delinquency had dropped to $3,454 (14 months on a $250 per month plan). Why did the Treasurer get a much better deal than the non board member on a motion by John Gianola the City Appointee? The board and City staff has a history of favoritism to the Treasurer.
The City Appointee, John Gianola was appointed to the board by Mayor Asmundson partially because he knew a lot about housing law. The City Appointee -more to come!
For more about DACHA and the City role visit http://www.community.coop/davis.
Att: Minutes DACHA Executive Session August 24, 2006.
TPCF asks you to speak at the Public Hearing on February 7, at 6.30pm and write a letter ASAP on this matter to the Davis City Council and Davis Enterprise.
Dear Sue:
Just checked our documentation.
John Gianola attended 14 different meetings of DACHA. Not one of the them had a legal quorum of eligible DACHA members.
At those illegal meetings, there were self-dealing transactions, the illegal removal of the TPCF board member, actions to illegally suspend the bylaws, the improper borrowing of $4 million in public funds, etc.
Do bylaws and state law have any meaning to City staff and the City Appointee? Seemingly Not!
Did anyone ever tell the Council what was going on behind DACHA’s doors?
David Thompson, TPCF
[quote]“For people who didn’t read the last blog on this topic, JustSaying is inaccurately portraying my contribution. I was merely trying to give a factual accounting of what happened from the city’s perspective. The city has taken many actions over the years; someone has to explain them. I was not calling anyone names; I was relating documented events.” [/quote]I said, with respect to Elaine’s contention that “It is David Thompson and David Thompson alone who is choosing the forum for “discussion”… the Davis Enterprise, the Vanguard, the courts…:”[quote]DT has repeatedly tried, as you put it, to “try his case in the press”–just as you do when you when you characterize him as libelous and untruthful and vicious and threatening. And just as Sue does when she argues with case law about “de facto” boards and “explain(s) the city’s action in the face of a lawsuit against the city launched by Neighborhood Partners.”[/quote]I’m not sure how you feel that I’m “inaccurately portraying” your contribution. I didn’t say that you called anyone names.
One thing to keep in mind: my recollection of events is there were few members of DACHA who were in arrears on the monthly payments until after there was a request to the City to reduce the monthly nut. When the City did not agree, suddenly many of the DACHA members were seriously behind. Definitely some type of discussion occured within DACHA? Has anyone subpoened their emails yet?
Also, I and hundreds or thousands of Davis homeowners have had their challenges with mortgage companies over the past several years. My main issue was with Chase Home Finance. Now, let me see: if I was struggling to pay the monthly, and I found about 20 other Chase borrowers to plot with me to stop paying the monthly, then I wonder what would happen to all of us?? Foreclosure time, in a little over 90 days. Here, DACHA members got access to those homes for dirt cheap, stopped paying when they got a little tight and unhappy, then tried to use the City political leverage, and the City Council majority, to simply take ownership of the reduced cost homes.
We all owe David and Luke and Twin Pines a huge debt of gratitude for seeking to stop the illegal transfer, and to protect the housing co-op model which has worked so well at Dos Pinos with little or no drama or hassle or illegal goings-on.
Also, I will verify that City housing staff, and several Council members, have spent years trying to punish David and Luke for outing many millions of dollars of malfeasance by staff that cost us huge amounts of public money.
The DACHA model was a direct result of staff being caught, and a CC majority made DACHA happen while I was still on the CC. However, after I left the CC in 2004, staff and some CC members have done everything they can to torpedo the DACHA housing model and to hurt the business of David and Luke and Twin Pines.
I hope they take staff depositions, and file them with the Yolo County Grand Jury.
Steve Pinkerton: You have the power to fire or discipline the involved housing staff who still work for the City. What are you going to do about it?
It appears to me that not one of the city water staff who set up you and your City Council for the September 6 water rate debacle has been disciplined or fired. Why is that? The exact same staff who did it to you and your CC are working with the Water Advisory Committee. Why is that?
Do you and the CC understand why the voters are cynical, and why you got nearly 5000 protests and the CC still relied on those same water staff members to stick it to the rate payers?
There is a lot of overlap between the DACHA and water rate debacles: city staff who are intentionally or negligently botching their work product to the public and the CC, and there has been none, and I mean zero, accountability to the public.
Sorry to be so blunt, but part of your mission coming here was to set things straight.
Who do you think should be fired, Michael? Please be specific, and give the exact grounds you believe should be the cause of their termination. In writing, right here, please.
[quote]Also, I will verify that City housing staff, and several Council members, have spent years trying to punish David and Luke for outing many millions of dollars of malfeasance by staff that cost us huge amounts of public money.–[b]Mike Harrington[/b][/quote]I don’t understand these charges at all, Mike. Why did staff recommend DACHA and why did council vote for it if they/we were trying to “punish” David and Luke for “outing” staff “malfeasance”. There is not an ounce of truth to these charges. Everyone wanted to make the project work. That is why we voted to provide the money to reduce the share cost.
In the end, the low income members lost $6,500 dollars per family. This is a terrible loss for a low income family. No one came out a winner in this.
Actually, I should say it this way: it is my understanding that the low income members lost $6,500 dollars per family. Assuming that this is true, it is a terrible loss for a low income family. No one came out a winner in this.
David: [i]They are comments by two public figures under their own names [/i]
‘Comments on a blog’ are *opinion*, not *testimony*.
And that’s why I used the word “comments” not “testimony”
Glad to see we agree.
Last night Sue Greenwald wrote:
Actually, I should say it this way: it is my understanding that the low income members lost $6,500 dollars per family. Assuming that this is true, it is a terrible loss for a low income family. No one came out a winner in this.
My reply:
Once again, even after having it explained to her, a Council member who knows better uses the words low income to describe DACHA residents. All of the residents of DACHA were approved by City staff as meeting the median and moderate income categories. None of them were qualified as low income. The DACHA program as per city requirements was a program for median and moderate income households.
As to losing their life servings.
The present so called President and Vice President, never owned a share in DACHA, by their own words DACHA never had their money and at a meeting called by themselves as the only two board members they approved refunding their deposits back to themselves. Four people were in thsi category.
In August of 2008, City staff moved everyone’s rent down to 80% of median income for which none of them had qualified. This gave the residentsa savings of an average of $384 per month over what they had qualifed for.
In the 28 months since that imrpoper reduction the residents have each saved $10,763. The former Treasurer pays $953 dollars to live in a single family home in Alhambra Estates.
She and the others still owe $47,000 in unpaid rents.
None of them lost their life savings,
David Thompson, TPCF
[quote]Elaine I came home to a column on the Vanguard about DACHA. I notice that of the 55 posts on the DACHA column 23 of those posts are yours and that is okay with me. But certainly you were not short of getting your point of view and accusations out. [/quote]
You/your friends/associates are the ones choosing the various forums to paint DACHA members in a bad light – Davis Enterprise/Davis Vanguard/City Council meetings/court – relentlessly without letup. DACHA members and I have merely RESPONDED to your accusations. You can hardly fault DACHA for defending itself against the onslaught you yourself instigated and continue to sling at DACHA as nauseum…