That said, I’m as much a self-proclaimed and proud tax and spend liberal as anyone, but there are also budgetary realities and sometimes you have to really question the choices that are being made about city spending.
There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.
Claire St. John’s article last night demonstrates just such a problem. Tonight, the City Council will consider hiring consultants at a cost of between $50,000 and $75,000 to update the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan (adopted in 1998) and “create a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks.”
So we are going to pay a consultant to take a survey to learn how residents can be better served by their parks? Is this why we passed a park tax?
When the city council decided to hire an ombudsman, one reason that they created a part-time rather than full-time position, was the lack of money. Parks are important, but one has to question the priorities of the council in this matter. Granted this is undoubtedly one-time money, but it is not clear that this is the most pressing need for the city at this point—to survey residents about parks.
Meanwhile there is the heated battle brewing over the use of public tennis courts and whether the Davis Tennis Club should have permission to reserve tennis courts in Walnut Park for league play.
I do not agree with Don Saylor very often, however, he did make a couple of good points at the last meeting. The first was that the Parks and Recreation Commission had a full hearing on the tennis court issue and rendered a recommendation. Perhaps, the council should have heeded that recommendation rather than rehearing the issue. The second point was that council was bringing up a large number of items that required staff preparation work, and that perhaps the council ought to start prioritizing the items they agendize. The rest of the council clearly disagreed with Saylor, but he did have a valid point.
The council needs to recognize that they have a very limited budget. We all love parks and we enjoy having nice parks, but sometimes you cannot simply spend money to create a survey about park usage. There are priorities and there are more pressing concerns that need to be addressed and deserve funding opportunities long before we start hiring Park Consultants to design surveys.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.”
Sue Greenwald once told me that a big part of the problem with inflated salaries is that the negotiations are always done behind closed doors. That is, the city council, by law, goes into closed session and negotiates these deals without any public input. So the only side of the question that our representatives are hearing from is the employees’ representatives’ side.
Because labor costs are almost the entire city budget, that’s a very undemocratic process and hence an undemocratic outcome. Consider, by contrast, the consultancy fees you question in your intro. If the citizens of Davis disagree with spending that money — it seems like a waste of $75,000 to me, too — they can go before the council tonight and voice that view. But if the firefighters are asking for a 20% pay hike, we (the ordinary citizens) won’t hear about that until it’s essentially a done deal. The same holds for the benefits’ packages.
From my research into this issue, though, it seems like most of the problem starts with the pay given to the top administrators. Beyond the fact that we have a large number of city employees who seem to be in management positions, it is the top administrators’ salaries that drive the pay and benefits’ packages that everyone else gets down below. If the city manager gets a big pay raise, then so do each of his top deputies and so on down the line.
Another problem is the fact that almost everyone who gets elected to the city council does so while taking campaign contributions from city employees and employees’ unions. I can’t think of a bigger or worse conflict of interest. (So much ink is spent regarding who takes money from real estate developers. Yet the real money that the council spends is on its employees. That is where the attention ought to be paid.)
Anyone who thinks it is just a coincidence that every single firefighter in Davis — most of whom do not live in Davis — gives the exact same contribution to the exact same candidates for council at each election is quite naive. The fire fighters — whose union is by far the strongest among city employees — get a damn good return on their investment.
Yet, as much as I like to get on my high horse about this topic, it is fair to point out that the city of Davis is not a monopsonist. Davis, unfortunately, has to compete with West Sac and Elk Grove and Benecia for many of the same people. So if we don’t pay Bill Emlen or Rose Conroy the big bucks, they will bolt for a neighboring town which will. Maybe the city council ought to be suing Elk Grove and leave Dixon alone?
…. Speaking of that lawsuit against Dixon: I wonder how much money in legal fees the city of Davis will spend on that suit? At a bare minimum it will be in the $100,000 range. A whole lot more if it ever goes to trial.
“There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.”
Sue Greenwald once told me that a big part of the problem with inflated salaries is that the negotiations are always done behind closed doors. That is, the city council, by law, goes into closed session and negotiates these deals without any public input. So the only side of the question that our representatives are hearing from is the employees’ representatives’ side.
Because labor costs are almost the entire city budget, that’s a very undemocratic process and hence an undemocratic outcome. Consider, by contrast, the consultancy fees you question in your intro. If the citizens of Davis disagree with spending that money — it seems like a waste of $75,000 to me, too — they can go before the council tonight and voice that view. But if the firefighters are asking for a 20% pay hike, we (the ordinary citizens) won’t hear about that until it’s essentially a done deal. The same holds for the benefits’ packages.
From my research into this issue, though, it seems like most of the problem starts with the pay given to the top administrators. Beyond the fact that we have a large number of city employees who seem to be in management positions, it is the top administrators’ salaries that drive the pay and benefits’ packages that everyone else gets down below. If the city manager gets a big pay raise, then so do each of his top deputies and so on down the line.
Another problem is the fact that almost everyone who gets elected to the city council does so while taking campaign contributions from city employees and employees’ unions. I can’t think of a bigger or worse conflict of interest. (So much ink is spent regarding who takes money from real estate developers. Yet the real money that the council spends is on its employees. That is where the attention ought to be paid.)
Anyone who thinks it is just a coincidence that every single firefighter in Davis — most of whom do not live in Davis — gives the exact same contribution to the exact same candidates for council at each election is quite naive. The fire fighters — whose union is by far the strongest among city employees — get a damn good return on their investment.
Yet, as much as I like to get on my high horse about this topic, it is fair to point out that the city of Davis is not a monopsonist. Davis, unfortunately, has to compete with West Sac and Elk Grove and Benecia for many of the same people. So if we don’t pay Bill Emlen or Rose Conroy the big bucks, they will bolt for a neighboring town which will. Maybe the city council ought to be suing Elk Grove and leave Dixon alone?
…. Speaking of that lawsuit against Dixon: I wonder how much money in legal fees the city of Davis will spend on that suit? At a bare minimum it will be in the $100,000 range. A whole lot more if it ever goes to trial.
“There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.”
Sue Greenwald once told me that a big part of the problem with inflated salaries is that the negotiations are always done behind closed doors. That is, the city council, by law, goes into closed session and negotiates these deals without any public input. So the only side of the question that our representatives are hearing from is the employees’ representatives’ side.
Because labor costs are almost the entire city budget, that’s a very undemocratic process and hence an undemocratic outcome. Consider, by contrast, the consultancy fees you question in your intro. If the citizens of Davis disagree with spending that money — it seems like a waste of $75,000 to me, too — they can go before the council tonight and voice that view. But if the firefighters are asking for a 20% pay hike, we (the ordinary citizens) won’t hear about that until it’s essentially a done deal. The same holds for the benefits’ packages.
From my research into this issue, though, it seems like most of the problem starts with the pay given to the top administrators. Beyond the fact that we have a large number of city employees who seem to be in management positions, it is the top administrators’ salaries that drive the pay and benefits’ packages that everyone else gets down below. If the city manager gets a big pay raise, then so do each of his top deputies and so on down the line.
Another problem is the fact that almost everyone who gets elected to the city council does so while taking campaign contributions from city employees and employees’ unions. I can’t think of a bigger or worse conflict of interest. (So much ink is spent regarding who takes money from real estate developers. Yet the real money that the council spends is on its employees. That is where the attention ought to be paid.)
Anyone who thinks it is just a coincidence that every single firefighter in Davis — most of whom do not live in Davis — gives the exact same contribution to the exact same candidates for council at each election is quite naive. The fire fighters — whose union is by far the strongest among city employees — get a damn good return on their investment.
Yet, as much as I like to get on my high horse about this topic, it is fair to point out that the city of Davis is not a monopsonist. Davis, unfortunately, has to compete with West Sac and Elk Grove and Benecia for many of the same people. So if we don’t pay Bill Emlen or Rose Conroy the big bucks, they will bolt for a neighboring town which will. Maybe the city council ought to be suing Elk Grove and leave Dixon alone?
…. Speaking of that lawsuit against Dixon: I wonder how much money in legal fees the city of Davis will spend on that suit? At a bare minimum it will be in the $100,000 range. A whole lot more if it ever goes to trial.
“There is growing concern about the structural constraints of the budget—too much money being automatically tied up in ever-growing city staff salaries. Again, we do not begrudge people their livelihood but we have to question choices that are being made.”
Sue Greenwald once told me that a big part of the problem with inflated salaries is that the negotiations are always done behind closed doors. That is, the city council, by law, goes into closed session and negotiates these deals without any public input. So the only side of the question that our representatives are hearing from is the employees’ representatives’ side.
Because labor costs are almost the entire city budget, that’s a very undemocratic process and hence an undemocratic outcome. Consider, by contrast, the consultancy fees you question in your intro. If the citizens of Davis disagree with spending that money — it seems like a waste of $75,000 to me, too — they can go before the council tonight and voice that view. But if the firefighters are asking for a 20% pay hike, we (the ordinary citizens) won’t hear about that until it’s essentially a done deal. The same holds for the benefits’ packages.
From my research into this issue, though, it seems like most of the problem starts with the pay given to the top administrators. Beyond the fact that we have a large number of city employees who seem to be in management positions, it is the top administrators’ salaries that drive the pay and benefits’ packages that everyone else gets down below. If the city manager gets a big pay raise, then so do each of his top deputies and so on down the line.
Another problem is the fact that almost everyone who gets elected to the city council does so while taking campaign contributions from city employees and employees’ unions. I can’t think of a bigger or worse conflict of interest. (So much ink is spent regarding who takes money from real estate developers. Yet the real money that the council spends is on its employees. That is where the attention ought to be paid.)
Anyone who thinks it is just a coincidence that every single firefighter in Davis — most of whom do not live in Davis — gives the exact same contribution to the exact same candidates for council at each election is quite naive. The fire fighters — whose union is by far the strongest among city employees — get a damn good return on their investment.
Yet, as much as I like to get on my high horse about this topic, it is fair to point out that the city of Davis is not a monopsonist. Davis, unfortunately, has to compete with West Sac and Elk Grove and Benecia for many of the same people. So if we don’t pay Bill Emlen or Rose Conroy the big bucks, they will bolt for a neighboring town which will. Maybe the city council ought to be suing Elk Grove and leave Dixon alone?
…. Speaking of that lawsuit against Dixon: I wonder how much money in legal fees the city of Davis will spend on that suit? At a bare minimum it will be in the $100,000 range. A whole lot more if it ever goes to trial.