Regardless of the answer to that question however, the fact remains is that the current City Manager of the City of Davis has been out of compliance with a City Ordinance for nearly fourteen months that requires him to reside in the City of Davis while being employed as City Manager.
The City of Davis Municipal Code requires the City Manager to live in Davis.
2.03.010 Office created; appointment and qualifications.
There is hereby created the office of city manager. The city manager shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council he/she shall be chosen solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications. At the time of appointment he/she need not be a resident of the city or state, but during his tenure of office shall reside within the city. (Ord. No. 379, § 1.)
Sources close to the situation vary in terms of City Manager Bill Emlen’s intentions about moving to Davis. One source suggests that he never intended to move to Davis, the other that he was waiting until his son finished high school. Nevertheless he was hired with the provision that he move to Davis and he is still a resident of the City of Vacaville.
The Vanguard has received word that the City Council is aware of this ordinance and a majority of the members of the council remain largely unconcerned about the City Manager residing in another city perhaps for varying reasons.
I believe that there is a good reason to have such an ordinance on the books. The City Manager’s policies go a long way toward shaping the City of Davis, and it only makes sense that the individual serving in that office be a resident of Davis, just as the elected members of the City Council have to reside in the City of Davis.
In fact, I think that all the city employees in management positions should reside within the city limits. I do not believe that “outsiders” should be making vital decisions about the quality of life in a given city.
Reasonable people perhaps could disagree on the utility of having the city manager and other key city employees living in the city, but the fact remains there is a law on the books and it is incumbent upon the city council to either follow that law or change that law.
One suggestion for the reluctance of at least one person on the council to enforce the law was that requiring the city manager to live within the city might be used as a reason for Mr. Emlen to receive a pay raise. Frankly if that is what it takes to get him to move to Davis, I think that is worth it. I think it is that important for the city manager to live in the city.
It is my view that the city council is extremely negligent for allowing this situation to go on as long as it has.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
he excepted the position at a certain salary knowing that salary included living in Davis. No Raise.
he excepted the position at a certain salary knowing that salary included living in Davis. No Raise.
he excepted the position at a certain salary knowing that salary included living in Davis. No Raise.
he excepted the position at a certain salary knowing that salary included living in Davis. No Raise.
Ed Jew in SF is in big trouble right now for the same reason.
Ed Jew in SF is in big trouble right now for the same reason.
Ed Jew in SF is in big trouble right now for the same reason.
Ed Jew in SF is in big trouble right now for the same reason.
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
“A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.”
Don’t disagree, but that should have been stated in public, to my knowledge this is the first mention of this issue. Why is that?
“A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.”
Don’t disagree, but that should have been stated in public, to my knowledge this is the first mention of this issue. Why is that?
“A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.”
Don’t disagree, but that should have been stated in public, to my knowledge this is the first mention of this issue. Why is that?
“A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.”
Don’t disagree, but that should have been stated in public, to my knowledge this is the first mention of this issue. Why is that?
How much did it cost to get the prior city manager to live in town?
I recall he got a highly subsidized loan plus moving costs. What do you have to give up in the budget to encourage him to move?
How much did it cost to get the prior city manager to live in town?
I recall he got a highly subsidized loan plus moving costs. What do you have to give up in the budget to encourage him to move?
How much did it cost to get the prior city manager to live in town?
I recall he got a highly subsidized loan plus moving costs. What do you have to give up in the budget to encourage him to move?
How much did it cost to get the prior city manager to live in town?
I recall he got a highly subsidized loan plus moving costs. What do you have to give up in the budget to encourage him to move?
Your city manager makes what $180,000 and cannot afford to live in Davis? My, what an elite city you have.
Your city manager makes what $180,000 and cannot afford to live in Davis? My, what an elite city you have.
Your city manager makes what $180,000 and cannot afford to live in Davis? My, what an elite city you have.
Your city manager makes what $180,000 and cannot afford to live in Davis? My, what an elite city you have.
Anonymous said…
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
8/2/07 8:32 AM
It is a very important consideration, during the hiring process. That process has been concluded and his current compensation package takes into account those considerations.
Anonymous said…
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
8/2/07 8:32 AM
It is a very important consideration, during the hiring process. That process has been concluded and his current compensation package takes into account those considerations.
Anonymous said…
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
8/2/07 8:32 AM
It is a very important consideration, during the hiring process. That process has been concluded and his current compensation package takes into account those considerations.
Anonymous said…
It is not unheard of to give assistance to recruited employees in moving. These would be one time funds, not a raise.
A child in High School is a consideration on timing of the move.
8/2/07 8:32 AM
It is a very important consideration, during the hiring process. That process has been concluded and his current compensation package takes into account those considerations.
“The fact remains there is a law on the books and it is incumbent upon the city council to either follow that law or change that law.”
I very much agree with this. What is the point of having a law if it is not going to be followed, particularly by our lawmakers?
“One suggestion for the reluctance of at least one person on the council to enforce the law was that requiring the city manager to live within the city might be used as a reason for Mr. Emlen to receive a pay raise.”
With all due respect, this is hot air. If you want to give Mr. Emlen more money, first tell us where you plan to get that money from? Many times in your blog, David, you suggest we need to spend more money on this or that or the other, without accounting for the fact that such decisions involve difficult trade-offs. My feeling is that Emlen and all of the 30 or so top managers in city government are overpaid, right now.
“The fact remains there is a law on the books and it is incumbent upon the city council to either follow that law or change that law.”
I very much agree with this. What is the point of having a law if it is not going to be followed, particularly by our lawmakers?
“One suggestion for the reluctance of at least one person on the council to enforce the law was that requiring the city manager to live within the city might be used as a reason for Mr. Emlen to receive a pay raise.”
With all due respect, this is hot air. If you want to give Mr. Emlen more money, first tell us where you plan to get that money from? Many times in your blog, David, you suggest we need to spend more money on this or that or the other, without accounting for the fact that such decisions involve difficult trade-offs. My feeling is that Emlen and all of the 30 or so top managers in city government are overpaid, right now.
“The fact remains there is a law on the books and it is incumbent upon the city council to either follow that law or change that law.”
I very much agree with this. What is the point of having a law if it is not going to be followed, particularly by our lawmakers?
“One suggestion for the reluctance of at least one person on the council to enforce the law was that requiring the city manager to live within the city might be used as a reason for Mr. Emlen to receive a pay raise.”
With all due respect, this is hot air. If you want to give Mr. Emlen more money, first tell us where you plan to get that money from? Many times in your blog, David, you suggest we need to spend more money on this or that or the other, without accounting for the fact that such decisions involve difficult trade-offs. My feeling is that Emlen and all of the 30 or so top managers in city government are overpaid, right now.
“The fact remains there is a law on the books and it is incumbent upon the city council to either follow that law or change that law.”
I very much agree with this. What is the point of having a law if it is not going to be followed, particularly by our lawmakers?
“One suggestion for the reluctance of at least one person on the council to enforce the law was that requiring the city manager to live within the city might be used as a reason for Mr. Emlen to receive a pay raise.”
With all due respect, this is hot air. If you want to give Mr. Emlen more money, first tell us where you plan to get that money from? Many times in your blog, David, you suggest we need to spend more money on this or that or the other, without accounting for the fact that such decisions involve difficult trade-offs. My feeling is that Emlen and all of the 30 or so top managers in city government are overpaid, right now.
Rich:
That’s interesting because my perception is that more often than not I’m complaining that we are spending too much money. One of the very few exceptions was on the need for new police officers, and even then it was couched in a criticism of our spending in other areas. So I do not believe that is accurate at all.
And I agree with you, he is paid enough as it is (not 180,000 closer to 140,000 I think) that he should be able to live in the city of Davis.
All I’m suggesting is that if the money is the hindrance to him living in Davis, it should not be. However, I agree, he is paid enough and should live in Davis.
Rich:
That’s interesting because my perception is that more often than not I’m complaining that we are spending too much money. One of the very few exceptions was on the need for new police officers, and even then it was couched in a criticism of our spending in other areas. So I do not believe that is accurate at all.
And I agree with you, he is paid enough as it is (not 180,000 closer to 140,000 I think) that he should be able to live in the city of Davis.
All I’m suggesting is that if the money is the hindrance to him living in Davis, it should not be. However, I agree, he is paid enough and should live in Davis.
Rich:
That’s interesting because my perception is that more often than not I’m complaining that we are spending too much money. One of the very few exceptions was on the need for new police officers, and even then it was couched in a criticism of our spending in other areas. So I do not believe that is accurate at all.
And I agree with you, he is paid enough as it is (not 180,000 closer to 140,000 I think) that he should be able to live in the city of Davis.
All I’m suggesting is that if the money is the hindrance to him living in Davis, it should not be. However, I agree, he is paid enough and should live in Davis.
Rich:
That’s interesting because my perception is that more often than not I’m complaining that we are spending too much money. One of the very few exceptions was on the need for new police officers, and even then it was couched in a criticism of our spending in other areas. So I do not believe that is accurate at all.
And I agree with you, he is paid enough as it is (not 180,000 closer to 140,000 I think) that he should be able to live in the city of Davis.
All I’m suggesting is that if the money is the hindrance to him living in Davis, it should not be. However, I agree, he is paid enough and should live in Davis.
Ed Jew’s issue is radicaly different than that of Bill Emlen. There’s a big difference between professional staff and elected office.
However, Bill Emlen has what might be the worst job in the country. The ego from EVERY council member is appalling, but sadly only reflective of the vocal minority that stay involved in Davis City politics. To be responsible for managing that – he deserves twice the money.
Ed Jew’s issue is radicaly different than that of Bill Emlen. There’s a big difference between professional staff and elected office.
However, Bill Emlen has what might be the worst job in the country. The ego from EVERY council member is appalling, but sadly only reflective of the vocal minority that stay involved in Davis City politics. To be responsible for managing that – he deserves twice the money.
Ed Jew’s issue is radicaly different than that of Bill Emlen. There’s a big difference between professional staff and elected office.
However, Bill Emlen has what might be the worst job in the country. The ego from EVERY council member is appalling, but sadly only reflective of the vocal minority that stay involved in Davis City politics. To be responsible for managing that – he deserves twice the money.
Ed Jew’s issue is radicaly different than that of Bill Emlen. There’s a big difference between professional staff and elected office.
However, Bill Emlen has what might be the worst job in the country. The ego from EVERY council member is appalling, but sadly only reflective of the vocal minority that stay involved in Davis City politics. To be responsible for managing that – he deserves twice the money.
the law may well be unconstitutional, as I vaguely recall attempts to require police to live in the cities in which they work were struck down
similarly, a law that required superior court judges to reside in the county in which they served was also struck down, Quentin Kopp being the judge who sued, as he was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court, but resided in San Mateo County
Ed Jew is not in trouble for the same reason. Jew ran for office in a supervisorial district, claiming to live there, and it has generally been accepted that elected officials have to live in their districts
Emlen works in the civil service, even if his employment status may be more of an at-will kind
–Richard Estes
the law may well be unconstitutional, as I vaguely recall attempts to require police to live in the cities in which they work were struck down
similarly, a law that required superior court judges to reside in the county in which they served was also struck down, Quentin Kopp being the judge who sued, as he was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court, but resided in San Mateo County
Ed Jew is not in trouble for the same reason. Jew ran for office in a supervisorial district, claiming to live there, and it has generally been accepted that elected officials have to live in their districts
Emlen works in the civil service, even if his employment status may be more of an at-will kind
–Richard Estes
the law may well be unconstitutional, as I vaguely recall attempts to require police to live in the cities in which they work were struck down
similarly, a law that required superior court judges to reside in the county in which they served was also struck down, Quentin Kopp being the judge who sued, as he was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court, but resided in San Mateo County
Ed Jew is not in trouble for the same reason. Jew ran for office in a supervisorial district, claiming to live there, and it has generally been accepted that elected officials have to live in their districts
Emlen works in the civil service, even if his employment status may be more of an at-will kind
–Richard Estes
the law may well be unconstitutional, as I vaguely recall attempts to require police to live in the cities in which they work were struck down
similarly, a law that required superior court judges to reside in the county in which they served was also struck down, Quentin Kopp being the judge who sued, as he was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court, but resided in San Mateo County
Ed Jew is not in trouble for the same reason. Jew ran for office in a supervisorial district, claiming to live there, and it has generally been accepted that elected officials have to live in their districts
Emlen works in the civil service, even if his employment status may be more of an at-will kind
–Richard Estes
Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.
Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.
Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.
Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.
This issue hinges on the power balance between our Council and the City Manager. Since it is my understanding that the governance model for Davis is that it is a City Manager-run operation, the City Manager is a lot more than a civil servant simply doing the will of the Council. He/She needs to be a resident of Davis, living amongst us not commuting home to Vacaville every evening.
This issue hinges on the power balance between our Council and the City Manager. Since it is my understanding that the governance model for Davis is that it is a City Manager-run operation, the City Manager is a lot more than a civil servant simply doing the will of the Council. He/She needs to be a resident of Davis, living amongst us not commuting home to Vacaville every evening.
This issue hinges on the power balance between our Council and the City Manager. Since it is my understanding that the governance model for Davis is that it is a City Manager-run operation, the City Manager is a lot more than a civil servant simply doing the will of the Council. He/She needs to be a resident of Davis, living amongst us not commuting home to Vacaville every evening.
This issue hinges on the power balance between our Council and the City Manager. Since it is my understanding that the governance model for Davis is that it is a City Manager-run operation, the City Manager is a lot more than a civil servant simply doing the will of the Council. He/She needs to be a resident of Davis, living amongst us not commuting home to Vacaville every evening.
this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.
this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.
this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.
this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.
According to my source, he was given a year to move to Davis as a condition of his employment. Now according to my source, he has no intention of moving to Davis. If it is not constitutional, then he can challenge the law, at this point, no one to my knowledge has made that argument.
According to my source, he was given a year to move to Davis as a condition of his employment. Now according to my source, he has no intention of moving to Davis. If it is not constitutional, then he can challenge the law, at this point, no one to my knowledge has made that argument.
According to my source, he was given a year to move to Davis as a condition of his employment. Now according to my source, he has no intention of moving to Davis. If it is not constitutional, then he can challenge the law, at this point, no one to my knowledge has made that argument.
According to my source, he was given a year to move to Davis as a condition of his employment. Now according to my source, he has no intention of moving to Davis. If it is not constitutional, then he can challenge the law, at this point, no one to my knowledge has made that argument.
“this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.”
The solution is very apparent to me: he move to Davis. Gee, how novel. So I think your anonymous drivel is bunk.
“this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.”
The solution is very apparent to me: he move to Davis. Gee, how novel. So I think your anonymous drivel is bunk.
“this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.”
The solution is very apparent to me: he move to Davis. Gee, how novel. So I think your anonymous drivel is bunk.
“this blog is great at finding a solution in search of a problem. or, problems with no solutions. the two rarely converge.”
The solution is very apparent to me: he move to Davis. Gee, how novel. So I think your anonymous drivel is bunk.
“Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.”
I disagree. And obviously someone else did as they wrote it into law. Emlen needs to reside in the city that he runs. Period.
“Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.”
I disagree. And obviously someone else did as they wrote it into law. Emlen needs to reside in the city that he runs. Period.
“Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.”
I disagree. And obviously someone else did as they wrote it into law. Emlen needs to reside in the city that he runs. Period.
“Of all of the issues facing our fair city, Bill Emlen’s home zip code rightly ranks near the bottom. Let’s either amend the code or move on to more pressing concerns.”
I disagree. And obviously someone else did as they wrote it into law. Emlen needs to reside in the city that he runs. Period.
Whether the “law” is constitutional or not is not the issue.I would guess that it can be a factor that the Council is allowed to “consider” in its hiring practices. The weight of that consideration, in my opinion, should be extreme.
Whether the “law” is constitutional or not is not the issue.I would guess that it can be a factor that the Council is allowed to “consider” in its hiring practices. The weight of that consideration, in my opinion, should be extreme.
Whether the “law” is constitutional or not is not the issue.I would guess that it can be a factor that the Council is allowed to “consider” in its hiring practices. The weight of that consideration, in my opinion, should be extreme.
Whether the “law” is constitutional or not is not the issue.I would guess that it can be a factor that the Council is allowed to “consider” in its hiring practices. The weight of that consideration, in my opinion, should be extreme.
Whether Bill lives in Davis is irrelevant to me as long as he has integrity. A person with that character would not do anything that would bring harm to the citizens of Davis knowing that they would not be subject to that same discipline.
The law is the law, I know, but it seems questionable whether it’s a good law and can stand up in court. Has Bill done anything that his non-residency has been subject to questioning because of it? When something like that happens let’s be all over him, for now he has a pass on this from me.
What are the issues? Is it that Bill isn’t adding his fair share in taxes from his $140K job through housing, sales, etc?
Now that this has been brought to the attention of a lot of people it will be recitified one way or the other.
Whether Bill lives in Davis is irrelevant to me as long as he has integrity. A person with that character would not do anything that would bring harm to the citizens of Davis knowing that they would not be subject to that same discipline.
The law is the law, I know, but it seems questionable whether it’s a good law and can stand up in court. Has Bill done anything that his non-residency has been subject to questioning because of it? When something like that happens let’s be all over him, for now he has a pass on this from me.
What are the issues? Is it that Bill isn’t adding his fair share in taxes from his $140K job through housing, sales, etc?
Now that this has been brought to the attention of a lot of people it will be recitified one way or the other.
Whether Bill lives in Davis is irrelevant to me as long as he has integrity. A person with that character would not do anything that would bring harm to the citizens of Davis knowing that they would not be subject to that same discipline.
The law is the law, I know, but it seems questionable whether it’s a good law and can stand up in court. Has Bill done anything that his non-residency has been subject to questioning because of it? When something like that happens let’s be all over him, for now he has a pass on this from me.
What are the issues? Is it that Bill isn’t adding his fair share in taxes from his $140K job through housing, sales, etc?
Now that this has been brought to the attention of a lot of people it will be recitified one way or the other.
Whether Bill lives in Davis is irrelevant to me as long as he has integrity. A person with that character would not do anything that would bring harm to the citizens of Davis knowing that they would not be subject to that same discipline.
The law is the law, I know, but it seems questionable whether it’s a good law and can stand up in court. Has Bill done anything that his non-residency has been subject to questioning because of it? When something like that happens let’s be all over him, for now he has a pass on this from me.
What are the issues? Is it that Bill isn’t adding his fair share in taxes from his $140K job through housing, sales, etc?
Now that this has been brought to the attention of a lot of people it will be recitified one way or the other.
Forcing Mr. Emlen to move to town could open his eyes to the problems of housing prices in Davis. It would be a nasty thing to do though. However high his salary might be, trying to support 2 mortgages (or a mortgage and a rental) could be tough with a college age child, and possibly other children. Given that he is unlikely to be City Manager over a time period that would make it worth investing in a house, it’s tough to make a pragmatic argument that he should move here.
I do agree with the original post, however, in that Davis, and all cities, should have their manager living in the city. Perhaps a solution would be for the city to simply establish a house or apartment which is available for the City Manager and family for the duration of his/her tenure?
Side note: States generally establish laws relating to residency and elected offices, at least at the federal level. (Incidentally they vary quite a bit) It is highly unlikely that there is any state or federal law relating to residency requirements for municipal employees, and so if someone were determined, he could probably challenge the City of Davis law. Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say how that challenge would fare.
Forcing Mr. Emlen to move to town could open his eyes to the problems of housing prices in Davis. It would be a nasty thing to do though. However high his salary might be, trying to support 2 mortgages (or a mortgage and a rental) could be tough with a college age child, and possibly other children. Given that he is unlikely to be City Manager over a time period that would make it worth investing in a house, it’s tough to make a pragmatic argument that he should move here.
I do agree with the original post, however, in that Davis, and all cities, should have their manager living in the city. Perhaps a solution would be for the city to simply establish a house or apartment which is available for the City Manager and family for the duration of his/her tenure?
Side note: States generally establish laws relating to residency and elected offices, at least at the federal level. (Incidentally they vary quite a bit) It is highly unlikely that there is any state or federal law relating to residency requirements for municipal employees, and so if someone were determined, he could probably challenge the City of Davis law. Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say how that challenge would fare.
Forcing Mr. Emlen to move to town could open his eyes to the problems of housing prices in Davis. It would be a nasty thing to do though. However high his salary might be, trying to support 2 mortgages (or a mortgage and a rental) could be tough with a college age child, and possibly other children. Given that he is unlikely to be City Manager over a time period that would make it worth investing in a house, it’s tough to make a pragmatic argument that he should move here.
I do agree with the original post, however, in that Davis, and all cities, should have their manager living in the city. Perhaps a solution would be for the city to simply establish a house or apartment which is available for the City Manager and family for the duration of his/her tenure?
Side note: States generally establish laws relating to residency and elected offices, at least at the federal level. (Incidentally they vary quite a bit) It is highly unlikely that there is any state or federal law relating to residency requirements for municipal employees, and so if someone were determined, he could probably challenge the City of Davis law. Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say how that challenge would fare.
Forcing Mr. Emlen to move to town could open his eyes to the problems of housing prices in Davis. It would be a nasty thing to do though. However high his salary might be, trying to support 2 mortgages (or a mortgage and a rental) could be tough with a college age child, and possibly other children. Given that he is unlikely to be City Manager over a time period that would make it worth investing in a house, it’s tough to make a pragmatic argument that he should move here.
I do agree with the original post, however, in that Davis, and all cities, should have their manager living in the city. Perhaps a solution would be for the city to simply establish a house or apartment which is available for the City Manager and family for the duration of his/her tenure?
Side note: States generally establish laws relating to residency and elected offices, at least at the federal level. (Incidentally they vary quite a bit) It is highly unlikely that there is any state or federal law relating to residency requirements for municipal employees, and so if someone were determined, he could probably challenge the City of Davis law. Not being a lawyer, I couldn’t say how that challenge would fare.
I believe the City Manager of Vacaville lives in Davis….maybe they should just switch jobs.
I believe the City Manager of Vacaville lives in Davis….maybe they should just switch jobs.
I believe the City Manager of Vacaville lives in Davis….maybe they should just switch jobs.
I believe the City Manager of Vacaville lives in Davis….maybe they should just switch jobs.
maybe he is just waiting for Mariko to give him some good sprawl-style housing. 🙂
maybe he is just waiting for Mariko to give him some good sprawl-style housing. 🙂
maybe he is just waiting for Mariko to give him some good sprawl-style housing. 🙂
maybe he is just waiting for Mariko to give him some good sprawl-style housing. 🙂
Members of city commissions have to be residents. Some commissions have been having quite a lot of turnover as a result, but nobody has suggested yet that the requirement be abolished.
One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).
This leads to some peculiar Council situations in the current 3-2 split, when one has to recuse.
Just owning a home – let alone income property – in Davis can really disable someone on a commission when a great deal of the action is in the vicinity of the property.
Where representation is by district, this doesn’t often arise, except of course where the issue pits one district or neighborhood against another.
I’ve heard that Lamar rents. Renting or leasing would probably be a good idea for any official who plans to move on in a few years.
Members of city commissions have to be residents. Some commissions have been having quite a lot of turnover as a result, but nobody has suggested yet that the requirement be abolished.
One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).
This leads to some peculiar Council situations in the current 3-2 split, when one has to recuse.
Just owning a home – let alone income property – in Davis can really disable someone on a commission when a great deal of the action is in the vicinity of the property.
Where representation is by district, this doesn’t often arise, except of course where the issue pits one district or neighborhood against another.
I’ve heard that Lamar rents. Renting or leasing would probably be a good idea for any official who plans to move on in a few years.
Members of city commissions have to be residents. Some commissions have been having quite a lot of turnover as a result, but nobody has suggested yet that the requirement be abolished.
One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).
This leads to some peculiar Council situations in the current 3-2 split, when one has to recuse.
Just owning a home – let alone income property – in Davis can really disable someone on a commission when a great deal of the action is in the vicinity of the property.
Where representation is by district, this doesn’t often arise, except of course where the issue pits one district or neighborhood against another.
I’ve heard that Lamar rents. Renting or leasing would probably be a good idea for any official who plans to move on in a few years.
Members of city commissions have to be residents. Some commissions have been having quite a lot of turnover as a result, but nobody has suggested yet that the requirement be abolished.
One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).
This leads to some peculiar Council situations in the current 3-2 split, when one has to recuse.
Just owning a home – let alone income property – in Davis can really disable someone on a commission when a great deal of the action is in the vicinity of the property.
Where representation is by district, this doesn’t often arise, except of course where the issue pits one district or neighborhood against another.
I’ve heard that Lamar rents. Renting or leasing would probably be a good idea for any official who plans to move on in a few years.
[QUOTE]On second thought, let’s not go to Davis. Tis a silly place.[/quote]
Bill Emlen not being a Davis resident raises my esteem for him considerably.
Sadly, there is little to be done for a single narcissistic personality, let alone an entire city similarly afflicted.
[QUOTE]On second thought, let’s not go to Davis. Tis a silly place.[/quote]
Bill Emlen not being a Davis resident raises my esteem for him considerably.
Sadly, there is little to be done for a single narcissistic personality, let alone an entire city similarly afflicted.
[QUOTE]On second thought, let’s not go to Davis. Tis a silly place.[/quote]
Bill Emlen not being a Davis resident raises my esteem for him considerably.
Sadly, there is little to be done for a single narcissistic personality, let alone an entire city similarly afflicted.
[QUOTE]On second thought, let’s not go to Davis. Tis a silly place.[/quote]
Bill Emlen not being a Davis resident raises my esteem for him considerably.
Sadly, there is little to be done for a single narcissistic personality, let alone an entire city similarly afflicted.
just for the record, I didn’t post the comment by anonymous at 12:00pm, although I certainly would have been tempted to do so in less abrasive form
I mean, really, the world outside of Davis isn’t nearly as different as some people in Davis seem to believe
–Richard Estes
just for the record, I didn’t post the comment by anonymous at 12:00pm, although I certainly would have been tempted to do so in less abrasive form
I mean, really, the world outside of Davis isn’t nearly as different as some people in Davis seem to believe
–Richard Estes
just for the record, I didn’t post the comment by anonymous at 12:00pm, although I certainly would have been tempted to do so in less abrasive form
I mean, really, the world outside of Davis isn’t nearly as different as some people in Davis seem to believe
–Richard Estes
just for the record, I didn’t post the comment by anonymous at 12:00pm, although I certainly would have been tempted to do so in less abrasive form
I mean, really, the world outside of Davis isn’t nearly as different as some people in Davis seem to believe
–Richard Estes
“One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).”
I’m personally unsure as to whether it is better or worse to have a law that requires the city manager to live in Davis. However, his living outside of our city limits does relieve him of any conflict of interest, in terms of advocating for or against a policy which affects his property.
Nevertheless, if we have this law on the books and Mr. Emlen agreed to abide by it when he was hired, he ought to live up to his agreement and we ought to enforce this law.
“One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).”
I’m personally unsure as to whether it is better or worse to have a law that requires the city manager to live in Davis. However, his living outside of our city limits does relieve him of any conflict of interest, in terms of advocating for or against a policy which affects his property.
Nevertheless, if we have this law on the books and Mr. Emlen agreed to abide by it when he was hired, he ought to live up to his agreement and we ought to enforce this law.
“One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).”
I’m personally unsure as to whether it is better or worse to have a law that requires the city manager to live in Davis. However, his living outside of our city limits does relieve him of any conflict of interest, in terms of advocating for or against a policy which affects his property.
Nevertheless, if we have this law on the books and Mr. Emlen agreed to abide by it when he was hired, he ought to live up to his agreement and we ought to enforce this law.
“One Catch 22 of residency though is that it sometimes prevents city staff, officials and commissioners from engaging in discussions of issues where they have a “constituency” or a particular expertise, because of where their home is, even if it doesn’t really affect their economic interest (home ownership).”
I’m personally unsure as to whether it is better or worse to have a law that requires the city manager to live in Davis. However, his living outside of our city limits does relieve him of any conflict of interest, in terms of advocating for or against a policy which affects his property.
Nevertheless, if we have this law on the books and Mr. Emlen agreed to abide by it when he was hired, he ought to live up to his agreement and we ought to enforce this law.
Annonymous 12:00 – Why mock a city when it’s a city ordinance that is not being followed? We already have a large portion of our city employees living outside of Davis and coming here to work, yet they participate heavily in city politics (Example, the Fire Department endorsed and actively campaigned for Sue Greenwald amongst others.) I wonder if as a whole, these city employees have a certain amount of disdain for their employer, but still work here. If these employees actually lived in town, maybe they would be more concerned about what happens here.
I must defend Bill Emlen though. He has the unenviable job of working for a very dysfunctional employer in the current City Council, with constantly changing directions, constant criticism. We have difficulty watching it. Imagine working under such conditions. For right now, if he needs to leave Davis after work every day and come back fresh in the morning ready to slog on, then I think we should leave it be.
Annonymous 12:00 – Why mock a city when it’s a city ordinance that is not being followed? We already have a large portion of our city employees living outside of Davis and coming here to work, yet they participate heavily in city politics (Example, the Fire Department endorsed and actively campaigned for Sue Greenwald amongst others.) I wonder if as a whole, these city employees have a certain amount of disdain for their employer, but still work here. If these employees actually lived in town, maybe they would be more concerned about what happens here.
I must defend Bill Emlen though. He has the unenviable job of working for a very dysfunctional employer in the current City Council, with constantly changing directions, constant criticism. We have difficulty watching it. Imagine working under such conditions. For right now, if he needs to leave Davis after work every day and come back fresh in the morning ready to slog on, then I think we should leave it be.
Annonymous 12:00 – Why mock a city when it’s a city ordinance that is not being followed? We already have a large portion of our city employees living outside of Davis and coming here to work, yet they participate heavily in city politics (Example, the Fire Department endorsed and actively campaigned for Sue Greenwald amongst others.) I wonder if as a whole, these city employees have a certain amount of disdain for their employer, but still work here. If these employees actually lived in town, maybe they would be more concerned about what happens here.
I must defend Bill Emlen though. He has the unenviable job of working for a very dysfunctional employer in the current City Council, with constantly changing directions, constant criticism. We have difficulty watching it. Imagine working under such conditions. For right now, if he needs to leave Davis after work every day and come back fresh in the morning ready to slog on, then I think we should leave it be.
Annonymous 12:00 – Why mock a city when it’s a city ordinance that is not being followed? We already have a large portion of our city employees living outside of Davis and coming here to work, yet they participate heavily in city politics (Example, the Fire Department endorsed and actively campaigned for Sue Greenwald amongst others.) I wonder if as a whole, these city employees have a certain amount of disdain for their employer, but still work here. If these employees actually lived in town, maybe they would be more concerned about what happens here.
I must defend Bill Emlen though. He has the unenviable job of working for a very dysfunctional employer in the current City Council, with constantly changing directions, constant criticism. We have difficulty watching it. Imagine working under such conditions. For right now, if he needs to leave Davis after work every day and come back fresh in the morning ready to slog on, then I think we should leave it be.
I find it very difficult to have extreme focus on myself when you outsiders keep calling me a narcissist. Knock it off!
I find it very difficult to have extreme focus on myself when you outsiders keep calling me a narcissist. Knock it off!
I find it very difficult to have extreme focus on myself when you outsiders keep calling me a narcissist. Knock it off!
I find it very difficult to have extreme focus on myself when you outsiders keep calling me a narcissist. Knock it off!
This is supposed to be about a description of the dark underbelly of Davis, isn’t it?
This is supposed to be about a description of the dark underbelly of Davis, isn’t it?
This is supposed to be about a description of the dark underbelly of Davis, isn’t it?
This is supposed to be about a description of the dark underbelly of Davis, isn’t it?
I do not agree with the blogger, David Greenwald, on this one.
Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I favor changing the ordinance. No other city employee must reside in the city. As has been noted, you can live in the city and be uninvolved, or live 20 minutes away and be very involved.
All of our city managers have been available 24/7 by cell phone, and have been very responsive. This has been true whether they live inside or outside the city. I don’t feel that the city should be in the business of micro-managing the personal lives of our employees. What counts to me as how well they are doing their job.
I do not agree with the blogger, David Greenwald, on this one.
Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I favor changing the ordinance. No other city employee must reside in the city. As has been noted, you can live in the city and be uninvolved, or live 20 minutes away and be very involved.
All of our city managers have been available 24/7 by cell phone, and have been very responsive. This has been true whether they live inside or outside the city. I don’t feel that the city should be in the business of micro-managing the personal lives of our employees. What counts to me as how well they are doing their job.
I do not agree with the blogger, David Greenwald, on this one.
Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I favor changing the ordinance. No other city employee must reside in the city. As has been noted, you can live in the city and be uninvolved, or live 20 minutes away and be very involved.
All of our city managers have been available 24/7 by cell phone, and have been very responsive. This has been true whether they live inside or outside the city. I don’t feel that the city should be in the business of micro-managing the personal lives of our employees. What counts to me as how well they are doing their job.
I do not agree with the blogger, David Greenwald, on this one.
Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I favor changing the ordinance. No other city employee must reside in the city. As has been noted, you can live in the city and be uninvolved, or live 20 minutes away and be very involved.
All of our city managers have been available 24/7 by cell phone, and have been very responsive. This has been true whether they live inside or outside the city. I don’t feel that the city should be in the business of micro-managing the personal lives of our employees. What counts to me as how well they are doing their job.
Well said, Sue
Well said, Sue
Well said, Sue
Well said, Sue
Dear Mayor Greenwald,
I am very surprised to see you say that and frankly very disappointed.
The most powerful position in the city of Davis is the City Manager. Even more powerful than you as a minority member of council–as some of your valid complaints about inability to frame policy and agendas will attest.
Should we allow non-citizens of Davis to run for council too? If not, then what is your rationale for allowing an outsider effectively run this city?
Frankly I’m appalled to see you say that as I have long been a supporter of yours.
I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.
But regardless of that belief, there is no excuse whatsoever not to have been following the law. Wanting to change the law does not excuse non-compliance with a valid and legal law that is on the books.
To Richard:
If I lived in Vacaville, I would be equally disturbed that a non-resident was city manager there. I don’t see the complaint that this is Davis or that Davis is unique, I would expect the city manager of other cities to reside in the city as well.
Dear Mayor Greenwald,
I am very surprised to see you say that and frankly very disappointed.
The most powerful position in the city of Davis is the City Manager. Even more powerful than you as a minority member of council–as some of your valid complaints about inability to frame policy and agendas will attest.
Should we allow non-citizens of Davis to run for council too? If not, then what is your rationale for allowing an outsider effectively run this city?
Frankly I’m appalled to see you say that as I have long been a supporter of yours.
I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.
But regardless of that belief, there is no excuse whatsoever not to have been following the law. Wanting to change the law does not excuse non-compliance with a valid and legal law that is on the books.
To Richard:
If I lived in Vacaville, I would be equally disturbed that a non-resident was city manager there. I don’t see the complaint that this is Davis or that Davis is unique, I would expect the city manager of other cities to reside in the city as well.
Dear Mayor Greenwald,
I am very surprised to see you say that and frankly very disappointed.
The most powerful position in the city of Davis is the City Manager. Even more powerful than you as a minority member of council–as some of your valid complaints about inability to frame policy and agendas will attest.
Should we allow non-citizens of Davis to run for council too? If not, then what is your rationale for allowing an outsider effectively run this city?
Frankly I’m appalled to see you say that as I have long been a supporter of yours.
I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.
But regardless of that belief, there is no excuse whatsoever not to have been following the law. Wanting to change the law does not excuse non-compliance with a valid and legal law that is on the books.
To Richard:
If I lived in Vacaville, I would be equally disturbed that a non-resident was city manager there. I don’t see the complaint that this is Davis or that Davis is unique, I would expect the city manager of other cities to reside in the city as well.
Dear Mayor Greenwald,
I am very surprised to see you say that and frankly very disappointed.
The most powerful position in the city of Davis is the City Manager. Even more powerful than you as a minority member of council–as some of your valid complaints about inability to frame policy and agendas will attest.
Should we allow non-citizens of Davis to run for council too? If not, then what is your rationale for allowing an outsider effectively run this city?
Frankly I’m appalled to see you say that as I have long been a supporter of yours.
I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.
But regardless of that belief, there is no excuse whatsoever not to have been following the law. Wanting to change the law does not excuse non-compliance with a valid and legal law that is on the books.
To Richard:
If I lived in Vacaville, I would be equally disturbed that a non-resident was city manager there. I don’t see the complaint that this is Davis or that Davis is unique, I would expect the city manager of other cities to reside in the city as well.
“I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.”
Every employee has to live in Davis, Vincent? Are you kidding?
If a person works for the city as a traffic engineer, for example, and she and her husband have the opportunity to purchase a small farm outside of town, you would force her to quit her job if she and her family wanted to move out to Road 96?
You must be about 17 years old if you are so naive to think that your idea makes any sense. It’s total nonsense, Vincent. It’s a terribly stupid idea to put irrelevant constraints on your employees as conditions of their jobs. When you do that kind of thing, you either lose your best people or you will fail to attract them to work for you in the first place. You would know that Vincent if you had any experience as a manager in the real world.
“I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.”
Every employee has to live in Davis, Vincent? Are you kidding?
If a person works for the city as a traffic engineer, for example, and she and her husband have the opportunity to purchase a small farm outside of town, you would force her to quit her job if she and her family wanted to move out to Road 96?
You must be about 17 years old if you are so naive to think that your idea makes any sense. It’s total nonsense, Vincent. It’s a terribly stupid idea to put irrelevant constraints on your employees as conditions of their jobs. When you do that kind of thing, you either lose your best people or you will fail to attract them to work for you in the first place. You would know that Vincent if you had any experience as a manager in the real world.
“I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.”
Every employee has to live in Davis, Vincent? Are you kidding?
If a person works for the city as a traffic engineer, for example, and she and her husband have the opportunity to purchase a small farm outside of town, you would force her to quit her job if she and her family wanted to move out to Road 96?
You must be about 17 years old if you are so naive to think that your idea makes any sense. It’s total nonsense, Vincent. It’s a terribly stupid idea to put irrelevant constraints on your employees as conditions of their jobs. When you do that kind of thing, you either lose your best people or you will fail to attract them to work for you in the first place. You would know that Vincent if you had any experience as a manager in the real world.
“I would go in the opposite direction, I think city employees should reside in the city and have to reap what they sow.”
Every employee has to live in Davis, Vincent? Are you kidding?
If a person works for the city as a traffic engineer, for example, and she and her husband have the opportunity to purchase a small farm outside of town, you would force her to quit her job if she and her family wanted to move out to Road 96?
You must be about 17 years old if you are so naive to think that your idea makes any sense. It’s total nonsense, Vincent. It’s a terribly stupid idea to put irrelevant constraints on your employees as conditions of their jobs. When you do that kind of thing, you either lose your best people or you will fail to attract them to work for you in the first place. You would know that Vincent if you had any experience as a manager in the real world.
Dear Mr. Lemoyne:
We ask you to refrain from personal attacks on other posters on this forum. You are free to disagree with them, but do so respectfully. Your post definitely crosses the line into incivility.
Dear Mr. Lemoyne:
We ask you to refrain from personal attacks on other posters on this forum. You are free to disagree with them, but do so respectfully. Your post definitely crosses the line into incivility.
Dear Mr. Lemoyne:
We ask you to refrain from personal attacks on other posters on this forum. You are free to disagree with them, but do so respectfully. Your post definitely crosses the line into incivility.
Dear Mr. Lemoyne:
We ask you to refrain from personal attacks on other posters on this forum. You are free to disagree with them, but do so respectfully. Your post definitely crosses the line into incivility.
Sue Greenwald said…
I do not agree with “the blogger, David Greenwald,” on this one.
Interesting phraseology, putting his title first with a definite article to boot…almost as if he held an office.
(Or, as if none of us knew who David Greenwald was)
Sue Greenwald said…
I do not agree with “the blogger, David Greenwald,” on this one.
Interesting phraseology, putting his title first with a definite article to boot…almost as if he held an office.
(Or, as if none of us knew who David Greenwald was)
Sue Greenwald said…
I do not agree with “the blogger, David Greenwald,” on this one.
Interesting phraseology, putting his title first with a definite article to boot…almost as if he held an office.
(Or, as if none of us knew who David Greenwald was)
Sue Greenwald said…
I do not agree with “the blogger, David Greenwald,” on this one.
Interesting phraseology, putting his title first with a definite article to boot…almost as if he held an office.
(Or, as if none of us knew who David Greenwald was)
to blog administrator: lemoyne could have been less sharp in his response, but he is basically correct, the notion of requiring all city employees to live in Davis is divorced from reality, as anyone involved in public sector employment would tell you
-Richard Estes
to blog administrator: lemoyne could have been less sharp in his response, but he is basically correct, the notion of requiring all city employees to live in Davis is divorced from reality, as anyone involved in public sector employment would tell you
-Richard Estes
to blog administrator: lemoyne could have been less sharp in his response, but he is basically correct, the notion of requiring all city employees to live in Davis is divorced from reality, as anyone involved in public sector employment would tell you
-Richard Estes
to blog administrator: lemoyne could have been less sharp in his response, but he is basically correct, the notion of requiring all city employees to live in Davis is divorced from reality, as anyone involved in public sector employment would tell you
-Richard Estes
Mayor Greenwald: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Not following this Vanguard rule results in immediate deletion by the blog administrators..
Mayor Greenwald: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Not following this Vanguard rule results in immediate deletion by the blog administrators..
Mayor Greenwald: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Not following this Vanguard rule results in immediate deletion by the blog administrators..
Mayor Greenwald: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Not following this Vanguard rule results in immediate deletion by the blog administrators..
Blog administror said: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Really? Where is this rule and the other rules documented?
Blog administror said: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Really? Where is this rule and the other rules documented?
Blog administror said: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Really? Where is this rule and the other rules documented?
Blog administror said: Being relatively new to this blog, perhaps you missed the rule that all participants are to be referred to by the moniker that they have chosen to use in the Vanguard.
Really? Where is this rule and the other rules documented?
I believe that this issue is certainly one where there are valid arguments on both sides..What is most important here is the fact that this established rule was apparently being silently ignored by our Council. We have seen this Council “blow off” long-established process protocol on how development proposals come to be considered, our General Plan directives to them, the HRC ordinance(apparently unread and unknown to the Council Majority). Rules and established process cannot be just ignored as the Council chooses.
I believe that this issue is certainly one where there are valid arguments on both sides..What is most important here is the fact that this established rule was apparently being silently ignored by our Council. We have seen this Council “blow off” long-established process protocol on how development proposals come to be considered, our General Plan directives to them, the HRC ordinance(apparently unread and unknown to the Council Majority). Rules and established process cannot be just ignored as the Council chooses.
I believe that this issue is certainly one where there are valid arguments on both sides..What is most important here is the fact that this established rule was apparently being silently ignored by our Council. We have seen this Council “blow off” long-established process protocol on how development proposals come to be considered, our General Plan directives to them, the HRC ordinance(apparently unread and unknown to the Council Majority). Rules and established process cannot be just ignored as the Council chooses.
I believe that this issue is certainly one where there are valid arguments on both sides..What is most important here is the fact that this established rule was apparently being silently ignored by our Council. We have seen this Council “blow off” long-established process protocol on how development proposals come to be considered, our General Plan directives to them, the HRC ordinance(apparently unread and unknown to the Council Majority). Rules and established process cannot be just ignored as the Council chooses.
darnell… you’ll have to search the postings archives to find this directive from Douglas Paul Davis.
We have been operating this way for some time now and have had a one or two postings that were deleted… Everyone appears to have accepted this with no problems.
darnell… you’ll have to search the postings archives to find this directive from Douglas Paul Davis.
We have been operating this way for some time now and have had a one or two postings that were deleted… Everyone appears to have accepted this with no problems.
darnell… you’ll have to search the postings archives to find this directive from Douglas Paul Davis.
We have been operating this way for some time now and have had a one or two postings that were deleted… Everyone appears to have accepted this with no problems.
darnell… you’ll have to search the postings archives to find this directive from Douglas Paul Davis.
We have been operating this way for some time now and have had a one or two postings that were deleted… Everyone appears to have accepted this with no problems.
The comments by the mayor were not removed.
The comments by the mayor were not removed.
The comments by the mayor were not removed.
The comments by the mayor were not removed.
Regardless there is to be no profanity on this blog, either in the comments or in a moniker. A certain poster whose initials were BA (not standing for Blog Administrator) posts were removed for this reason.
Regardless there is to be no profanity on this blog, either in the comments or in a moniker. A certain poster whose initials were BA (not standing for Blog Administrator) posts were removed for this reason.
Regardless there is to be no profanity on this blog, either in the comments or in a moniker. A certain poster whose initials were BA (not standing for Blog Administrator) posts were removed for this reason.
Regardless there is to be no profanity on this blog, either in the comments or in a moniker. A certain poster whose initials were BA (not standing for Blog Administrator) posts were removed for this reason.
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Back to point.
Comparing elected city council members and residency to the non-elected City Manager is not apples to apples. Even if some think his position is the most powerful in the city, I don’t see him acting unilaterally or without the consent of our elected officials. It is not often that I agree with the mayor but she’s correct, the ordinance needs to be changed. Why bring Bill down at this point? I don’t think any of us know the full story behind this at this point.
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Back to point.
Comparing elected city council members and residency to the non-elected City Manager is not apples to apples. Even if some think his position is the most powerful in the city, I don’t see him acting unilaterally or without the consent of our elected officials. It is not often that I agree with the mayor but she’s correct, the ordinance needs to be changed. Why bring Bill down at this point? I don’t think any of us know the full story behind this at this point.
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Back to point.
Comparing elected city council members and residency to the non-elected City Manager is not apples to apples. Even if some think his position is the most powerful in the city, I don’t see him acting unilaterally or without the consent of our elected officials. It is not often that I agree with the mayor but she’s correct, the ordinance needs to be changed. Why bring Bill down at this point? I don’t think any of us know the full story behind this at this point.
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Back to point.
Comparing elected city council members and residency to the non-elected City Manager is not apples to apples. Even if some think his position is the most powerful in the city, I don’t see him acting unilaterally or without the consent of our elected officials. It is not often that I agree with the mayor but she’s correct, the ordinance needs to be changed. Why bring Bill down at this point? I don’t think any of us know the full story behind this at this point.
Darnell:
I have to disagree with you, while the final decisions on the big issues end up in council hands, the City Manager possesses a tremendous ability to frame the issues, draft staff reports, present information, and frame the debate.
Darnell:
I have to disagree with you, while the final decisions on the big issues end up in council hands, the City Manager possesses a tremendous ability to frame the issues, draft staff reports, present information, and frame the debate.
Darnell:
I have to disagree with you, while the final decisions on the big issues end up in council hands, the City Manager possesses a tremendous ability to frame the issues, draft staff reports, present information, and frame the debate.
Darnell:
I have to disagree with you, while the final decisions on the big issues end up in council hands, the City Manager possesses a tremendous ability to frame the issues, draft staff reports, present information, and frame the debate.
While it seems archaic to have such a rule a discussion reviewing the intent of the ordinance might be illuminating.
While there is no rule about residency of members of the House of Representatives with respect to the districts they represent there is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state. This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas. A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object. Being more modern nobody really cared and Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much. But just think if someone had challenged it and kept Chaney out of the VP spot arguing that two oil men from Texas would get us in a war that would drive up the price of oil and make all their oil friends rich. How things would be different now if people had heeded the precautions of those who came before us which is why the intent of the drafters of the ordinance about the City Managers residence is relevant today.
Ron Glick
While it seems archaic to have such a rule a discussion reviewing the intent of the ordinance might be illuminating.
While there is no rule about residency of members of the House of Representatives with respect to the districts they represent there is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state. This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas. A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object. Being more modern nobody really cared and Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much. But just think if someone had challenged it and kept Chaney out of the VP spot arguing that two oil men from Texas would get us in a war that would drive up the price of oil and make all their oil friends rich. How things would be different now if people had heeded the precautions of those who came before us which is why the intent of the drafters of the ordinance about the City Managers residence is relevant today.
Ron Glick
While it seems archaic to have such a rule a discussion reviewing the intent of the ordinance might be illuminating.
While there is no rule about residency of members of the House of Representatives with respect to the districts they represent there is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state. This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas. A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object. Being more modern nobody really cared and Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much. But just think if someone had challenged it and kept Chaney out of the VP spot arguing that two oil men from Texas would get us in a war that would drive up the price of oil and make all their oil friends rich. How things would be different now if people had heeded the precautions of those who came before us which is why the intent of the drafters of the ordinance about the City Managers residence is relevant today.
Ron Glick
While it seems archaic to have such a rule a discussion reviewing the intent of the ordinance might be illuminating.
While there is no rule about residency of members of the House of Representatives with respect to the districts they represent there is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state. This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas. A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object. Being more modern nobody really cared and Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much. But just think if someone had challenged it and kept Chaney out of the VP spot arguing that two oil men from Texas would get us in a war that would drive up the price of oil and make all their oil friends rich. How things would be different now if people had heeded the precautions of those who came before us which is why the intent of the drafters of the ordinance about the City Managers residence is relevant today.
Ron Glick
darnell said…
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Darnell,
Do you mean “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald?”
–Brian Orr
If “The Blogger, Dave Greenwald,” has rules you don’t like…well, it’s his blog. At least he’s not taking his blog and going home!
darnell said…
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Darnell,
Do you mean “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald?”
–Brian Orr
If “The Blogger, Dave Greenwald,” has rules you don’t like…well, it’s his blog. At least he’s not taking his blog and going home!
darnell said…
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Darnell,
Do you mean “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald?”
–Brian Orr
If “The Blogger, Dave Greenwald,” has rules you don’t like…well, it’s his blog. At least he’s not taking his blog and going home!
darnell said…
Thank you for the info Blog Administrator. People violate this rule all the time; see the 9:38AM posting today. Why single out the mayor?
Darnell,
Do you mean “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald?”
–Brian Orr
If “The Blogger, Dave Greenwald,” has rules you don’t like…well, it’s his blog. At least he’s not taking his blog and going home!
Anonymous 9:11PM
If you took my comments as not liking or wanting to play by the rules, you are mistaken.
You mean “The Blogger,Doug Paul Davis”, don’t you?
Anonymous 9:11PM
If you took my comments as not liking or wanting to play by the rules, you are mistaken.
You mean “The Blogger,Doug Paul Davis”, don’t you?
Anonymous 9:11PM
If you took my comments as not liking or wanting to play by the rules, you are mistaken.
You mean “The Blogger,Doug Paul Davis”, don’t you?
Anonymous 9:11PM
If you took my comments as not liking or wanting to play by the rules, you are mistaken.
You mean “The Blogger,Doug Paul Davis”, don’t you?
Darnell,
That was a quote from “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald.” The quotee may have bent the rules, but never the quoter.
Darnell,
That was a quote from “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald.” The quotee may have bent the rules, but never the quoter.
Darnell,
That was a quote from “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald.” The quotee may have bent the rules, but never the quoter.
Darnell,
That was a quote from “The Mayor, Sue Greenwald.” The quotee may have bent the rules, but never the quoter.
The Mayor is well-known to be a supporter of the City Attorney, no matter how incompetent or conflicted the advice from that firm. Mayor Sue does it because she sees the City Attorney has a power center for herself … Well, I read her comments about the City Manager is the same vein. OF COURSE the City Manager should live here. The Ordinance is clear, and Mr. Emlen knew it when he negotiated for the job. So why is she now giving him a pass? Because it enhances her personal power and authority, as she gets by supporting the City Attorney no matter how bad or conflicted the advice. (Anyone read that law firm’s list of clients? It reads like a Who’s Who list of companies that want to pave for profit this county from the Sacramento River to Winters.)
Personally, I think that the law should be followed.
The Mayor is well-known to be a supporter of the City Attorney, no matter how incompetent or conflicted the advice from that firm. Mayor Sue does it because she sees the City Attorney has a power center for herself … Well, I read her comments about the City Manager is the same vein. OF COURSE the City Manager should live here. The Ordinance is clear, and Mr. Emlen knew it when he negotiated for the job. So why is she now giving him a pass? Because it enhances her personal power and authority, as she gets by supporting the City Attorney no matter how bad or conflicted the advice. (Anyone read that law firm’s list of clients? It reads like a Who’s Who list of companies that want to pave for profit this county from the Sacramento River to Winters.)
Personally, I think that the law should be followed.
The Mayor is well-known to be a supporter of the City Attorney, no matter how incompetent or conflicted the advice from that firm. Mayor Sue does it because she sees the City Attorney has a power center for herself … Well, I read her comments about the City Manager is the same vein. OF COURSE the City Manager should live here. The Ordinance is clear, and Mr. Emlen knew it when he negotiated for the job. So why is she now giving him a pass? Because it enhances her personal power and authority, as she gets by supporting the City Attorney no matter how bad or conflicted the advice. (Anyone read that law firm’s list of clients? It reads like a Who’s Who list of companies that want to pave for profit this county from the Sacramento River to Winters.)
Personally, I think that the law should be followed.
The Mayor is well-known to be a supporter of the City Attorney, no matter how incompetent or conflicted the advice from that firm. Mayor Sue does it because she sees the City Attorney has a power center for herself … Well, I read her comments about the City Manager is the same vein. OF COURSE the City Manager should live here. The Ordinance is clear, and Mr. Emlen knew it when he negotiated for the job. So why is she now giving him a pass? Because it enhances her personal power and authority, as she gets by supporting the City Attorney no matter how bad or conflicted the advice. (Anyone read that law firm’s list of clients? It reads like a Who’s Who list of companies that want to pave for profit this county from the Sacramento River to Winters.)
Personally, I think that the law should be followed.
As a follow-up, I think the City Manager and all Department Heads should live here. The one year requirement is reasonable. If someone wants to bid on a job in Davis … they know the rule.
As a follow-up, I think the City Manager and all Department Heads should live here. The one year requirement is reasonable. If someone wants to bid on a job in Davis … they know the rule.
As a follow-up, I think the City Manager and all Department Heads should live here. The one year requirement is reasonable. If someone wants to bid on a job in Davis … they know the rule.
As a follow-up, I think the City Manager and all Department Heads should live here. The one year requirement is reasonable. If someone wants to bid on a job in Davis … they know the rule.
Ron Glick wrote: “There is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state.”
The prohibition only regards a member of the electoral college voting for both candidates from his/her same state. For example, if John Kerry had selected Edward Kennedy as his running mate in 2004, an elector from Massachusetts could not legally vote for both Kerry and Kennedy. He could, however, vote for Kerry for president and vote for a qualified VP candidate who was a resident of any other state. At the same time, a member of the electoral college from California or Kentucky could have voted for Kerry for president and Kennedy for vice president, even though both men are from Massachusetts.
“This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas.”
Although his name is actually spelled Cheney (and pronounced CHEE-nee, not CHAY-nee), you are correct that he changed his residency. The salient point is that the states (and not the federal government) determine residency rules. As such, Cheney was a Wyoming resident when he ran for Vice President, because under Wyoming law he met the residency rules.
“A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object.”
I don’t know of any grounds upon which a strict constructionist or even a loose constructionist could object. The Constitution grants Wyoming the right to determine its residency requirements and Cheney met them. Constructionists believe in states’ rights, and therefore would be fine with Wyoming’s decision. Further, no strict constructionists (of whom we have many in the United States) did object at the time.
“Being more modern nobody really cared…”
Nobody who follows the Constitution cared, because Cheney did not violate the Constitution in that respect. However, there were some political hacks who attempted to make some hay out of his residency. However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.
“Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much.”
I’m not sure if most Americans believe that the 12th Amendment is archaic. Nonetheless, you are right to note that it is far easier today for a person to change his state of residence or to travel to a distant state than it was in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was ratified.
Ron Glick wrote: “There is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state.”
The prohibition only regards a member of the electoral college voting for both candidates from his/her same state. For example, if John Kerry had selected Edward Kennedy as his running mate in 2004, an elector from Massachusetts could not legally vote for both Kerry and Kennedy. He could, however, vote for Kerry for president and vote for a qualified VP candidate who was a resident of any other state. At the same time, a member of the electoral college from California or Kentucky could have voted for Kerry for president and Kennedy for vice president, even though both men are from Massachusetts.
“This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas.”
Although his name is actually spelled Cheney (and pronounced CHEE-nee, not CHAY-nee), you are correct that he changed his residency. The salient point is that the states (and not the federal government) determine residency rules. As such, Cheney was a Wyoming resident when he ran for Vice President, because under Wyoming law he met the residency rules.
“A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object.”
I don’t know of any grounds upon which a strict constructionist or even a loose constructionist could object. The Constitution grants Wyoming the right to determine its residency requirements and Cheney met them. Constructionists believe in states’ rights, and therefore would be fine with Wyoming’s decision. Further, no strict constructionists (of whom we have many in the United States) did object at the time.
“Being more modern nobody really cared…”
Nobody who follows the Constitution cared, because Cheney did not violate the Constitution in that respect. However, there were some political hacks who attempted to make some hay out of his residency. However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.
“Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much.”
I’m not sure if most Americans believe that the 12th Amendment is archaic. Nonetheless, you are right to note that it is far easier today for a person to change his state of residence or to travel to a distant state than it was in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was ratified.
Ron Glick wrote: “There is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state.”
The prohibition only regards a member of the electoral college voting for both candidates from his/her same state. For example, if John Kerry had selected Edward Kennedy as his running mate in 2004, an elector from Massachusetts could not legally vote for both Kerry and Kennedy. He could, however, vote for Kerry for president and vote for a qualified VP candidate who was a resident of any other state. At the same time, a member of the electoral college from California or Kentucky could have voted for Kerry for president and Kennedy for vice president, even though both men are from Massachusetts.
“This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas.”
Although his name is actually spelled Cheney (and pronounced CHEE-nee, not CHAY-nee), you are correct that he changed his residency. The salient point is that the states (and not the federal government) determine residency rules. As such, Cheney was a Wyoming resident when he ran for Vice President, because under Wyoming law he met the residency rules.
“A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object.”
I don’t know of any grounds upon which a strict constructionist or even a loose constructionist could object. The Constitution grants Wyoming the right to determine its residency requirements and Cheney met them. Constructionists believe in states’ rights, and therefore would be fine with Wyoming’s decision. Further, no strict constructionists (of whom we have many in the United States) did object at the time.
“Being more modern nobody really cared…”
Nobody who follows the Constitution cared, because Cheney did not violate the Constitution in that respect. However, there were some political hacks who attempted to make some hay out of his residency. However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.
“Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much.”
I’m not sure if most Americans believe that the 12th Amendment is archaic. Nonetheless, you are right to note that it is far easier today for a person to change his state of residence or to travel to a distant state than it was in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was ratified.
Ron Glick wrote: “There is a prohibition in the constitution about the President and VP being from the same state.”
The prohibition only regards a member of the electoral college voting for both candidates from his/her same state. For example, if John Kerry had selected Edward Kennedy as his running mate in 2004, an elector from Massachusetts could not legally vote for both Kerry and Kennedy. He could, however, vote for Kerry for president and vote for a qualified VP candidate who was a resident of any other state. At the same time, a member of the electoral college from California or Kentucky could have voted for Kerry for president and Kennedy for vice president, even though both men are from Massachusetts.
“This was relevant in 2000 when Bush and Chaney were both from Texas. To get around this Chaney changed his residency to Wyoming from Texas.”
Although his name is actually spelled Cheney (and pronounced CHEE-nee, not CHAY-nee), you are correct that he changed his residency. The salient point is that the states (and not the federal government) determine residency rules. As such, Cheney was a Wyoming resident when he ran for Vice President, because under Wyoming law he met the residency rules.
“A strict constructionist, who, interprets the constitution literally, would object.”
I don’t know of any grounds upon which a strict constructionist or even a loose constructionist could object. The Constitution grants Wyoming the right to determine its residency requirements and Cheney met them. Constructionists believe in states’ rights, and therefore would be fine with Wyoming’s decision. Further, no strict constructionists (of whom we have many in the United States) did object at the time.
“Being more modern nobody really cared…”
Nobody who follows the Constitution cared, because Cheney did not violate the Constitution in that respect. However, there were some political hacks who attempted to make some hay out of his residency. However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.
“Chaney got away with it since people saw it as an archaic part of the constitution from when people didn’t travel much.”
I’m not sure if most Americans believe that the 12th Amendment is archaic. Nonetheless, you are right to note that it is far easier today for a person to change his state of residence or to travel to a distant state than it was in 1804 when the 12th Amendment was ratified.
“However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.”
If I recall correctly, there was a suit filed in the state of Florida objecting to Cheney calling himself a resident of Wyoming, but it was thrown out as meritless.
And then later, as
this USA Today story explains, there was a case filed in Dallas County, Texas, where Cheney had been a resident (prior to his “moving” back to Wyoming). This case was also dismissed as meritless.
“However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.”
If I recall correctly, there was a suit filed in the state of Florida objecting to Cheney calling himself a resident of Wyoming, but it was thrown out as meritless.
And then later, as
this USA Today story explains, there was a case filed in Dallas County, Texas, where Cheney had been a resident (prior to his “moving” back to Wyoming). This case was also dismissed as meritless.
“However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.”
If I recall correctly, there was a suit filed in the state of Florida objecting to Cheney calling himself a resident of Wyoming, but it was thrown out as meritless.
And then later, as
this USA Today story explains, there was a case filed in Dallas County, Texas, where Cheney had been a resident (prior to his “moving” back to Wyoming). This case was also dismissed as meritless.
“However, they understood there were no legal grounds on which to object.”
If I recall correctly, there was a suit filed in the state of Florida objecting to Cheney calling himself a resident of Wyoming, but it was thrown out as meritless.
And then later, as
this USA Today story explains, there was a case filed in Dallas County, Texas, where Cheney had been a resident (prior to his “moving” back to Wyoming). This case was also dismissed as meritless.
Fire Emlen. He has violated the terms of his contract and the law. Obviously, he has no integrity. City Manager is the most powerful position in city government. It should go to a city resident. I am sure there are plenty of residents who would be more than happy to accept $140,000 salary.
Fire Emlen. He has violated the terms of his contract and the law. Obviously, he has no integrity. City Manager is the most powerful position in city government. It should go to a city resident. I am sure there are plenty of residents who would be more than happy to accept $140,000 salary.
Fire Emlen. He has violated the terms of his contract and the law. Obviously, he has no integrity. City Manager is the most powerful position in city government. It should go to a city resident. I am sure there are plenty of residents who would be more than happy to accept $140,000 salary.
Fire Emlen. He has violated the terms of his contract and the law. Obviously, he has no integrity. City Manager is the most powerful position in city government. It should go to a city resident. I am sure there are plenty of residents who would be more than happy to accept $140,000 salary.