Councilmember Don Saylor spends more city money than the rest of his colleagues combined
The Vanguard made a public records act request for the city to disclose all reimbursements to Davis City Councilmembers for 2004 until the present. The findings here are interesting, but please do not read too much into them.
Nevertheless, the findings here are more interesting than one might first think.
However, one councilmember spent more than the other four combined and nearly four times more than the next closest councilmember. That was Councilmember Don Saylor.
The vast majority of those expenditures are for attending league of California City Meetings. In fact, that is the majority of everyone’s expenditures.
However there are a few of Councilmember Saylor’s non-travel expenditures:
- In 2004, $378 for Reimbursement for Comcast Interviews
- In 2005, $100 for DHS Jazz Group Fee
- In 2005, $150 for Music for Oeste Manor
- In 2007, roughly $150 for three expenditures for T-Shirts with the City Logo
The other interesting finding was the spending of Councilmember Lamar Heystek. Remember Councilmember Heystek was elected in 2006, and so his figures are a two-year total and yet, he is just behind Mayor Asmundson with just over $1500 in expenditures.
If you look down his list, you see a number of payments for what appears to be his internet service–either DSL or later on, Comcast. I inquired at the city and they informed me that paying for internet is one of the few perks provided to city council members, however, only Lamar Heystek had taken advantage of that offer. And it makes sense given his personal financial situation.
I asked Councilmember Heystek about it on the record.
“Thanks for asking. I’m glad you’re looking into councilmembers’ expenses. The Internet is the main way I connect with City staff and constituents. I also use my personal cell phone (not my City-issued Blackberry); however, the City does not cover any of my telephone costs.”
The expenditures for internet run roughly at $42 per month for a total of about $900.
Again, we are talking about a total $10,406.92 so it is difficult to draw much in the way of conclusion other than perhaps one councilmember has traveled much more on public expense than the other four combined. I am not sure there is much to be concerned about (not everything we report on has to be a major scandal); however, I did find it interesting to look at.
The Vanguard has been reporting on public records this week relating to expenditures and fiscal policy, stay tuned to future installments.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
If you want a good shot at a real story, audit the City Attorney’s invoices. They are public records.
And compare those against estimates for using in-house counsel. The City General Counsel would be solely responsible to the City.
If you want a good shot at a real story, audit the City Attorney’s invoices. They are public records.
And compare those against estimates for using in-house counsel. The City General Counsel would be solely responsible to the City.
If you want a good shot at a real story, audit the City Attorney’s invoices. They are public records.
And compare those against estimates for using in-house counsel. The City General Counsel would be solely responsible to the City.
If you want a good shot at a real story, audit the City Attorney’s invoices. They are public records.
And compare those against estimates for using in-house counsel. The City General Counsel would be solely responsible to the City.
Regarding the “Reimbursement for Comcast Interviews”:
In 2004, the city was involved in high-stakes franchise negotiations with Comcast. Comcast was spreading largesse through the community, and was offering free cable “air” time — in the form of friendly interviews by Comcast PR staff — to area politicians.
Ethics (and possibly campaign finance law) would regard these friendly interviews as political contributions.
As far as I know, Saylor was the only one who accepted the contribution, and I believe he took some heat for it. Is it possible that he used city funds to reimburse Comcast so that he wouldn’t have to report the in-kind contribution? Hopefully, Council Member Saylor will clear this up and show us that this is not what happened.
Regarding the “Reimbursement for Comcast Interviews”:
In 2004, the city was involved in high-stakes franchise negotiations with Comcast. Comcast was spreading largesse through the community, and was offering free cable “air” time — in the form of friendly interviews by Comcast PR staff — to area politicians.
Ethics (and possibly campaign finance law) would regard these friendly interviews as political contributions.
As far as I know, Saylor was the only one who accepted the contribution, and I believe he took some heat for it. Is it possible that he used city funds to reimburse Comcast so that he wouldn’t have to report the in-kind contribution? Hopefully, Council Member Saylor will clear this up and show us that this is not what happened.
Regarding the “Reimbursement for Comcast Interviews”:
In 2004, the city was involved in high-stakes franchise negotiations with Comcast. Comcast was spreading largesse through the community, and was offering free cable “air” time — in the form of friendly interviews by Comcast PR staff — to area politicians.
Ethics (and possibly campaign finance law) would regard these friendly interviews as political contributions.
As far as I know, Saylor was the only one who accepted the contribution, and I believe he took some heat for it. Is it possible that he used city funds to reimburse Comcast so that he wouldn’t have to report the in-kind contribution? Hopefully, Council Member Saylor will clear this up and show us that this is not what happened.
Regarding the “Reimbursement for Comcast Interviews”:
In 2004, the city was involved in high-stakes franchise negotiations with Comcast. Comcast was spreading largesse through the community, and was offering free cable “air” time — in the form of friendly interviews by Comcast PR staff — to area politicians.
Ethics (and possibly campaign finance law) would regard these friendly interviews as political contributions.
As far as I know, Saylor was the only one who accepted the contribution, and I believe he took some heat for it. Is it possible that he used city funds to reimburse Comcast so that he wouldn’t have to report the in-kind contribution? Hopefully, Council Member Saylor will clear this up and show us that this is not what happened.
City Council members essentially become full time employees of the City. Much of the work is done by email and phone. There is travel to and from meetings in and out of town, official and “unofficial” (meeting with neighbors over a specific issue). The out of pocket costs can be substantial. The hours spent servicing the community are unpaid. Only attendance at city council meetings are paid.
You could look at the reimbursements as the small cost the City pays for these “employees” to run an office. A DSL internet connection for a City Council member so he can do City business in the evening after he gets home for work is reasonable. Reimbursement for trips to League meetings and other conferences to represent our city would be reasonable as well.
The Comcast interviews – that sounds fishy. I would need more information about that.
Nevertheless, $10,000 over 4 years for 5 people doesn’t seem out of line.
As an aside – Mike Harrington’s response just tries to divert attention to another issue and is unhelpful.
City Council members essentially become full time employees of the City. Much of the work is done by email and phone. There is travel to and from meetings in and out of town, official and “unofficial” (meeting with neighbors over a specific issue). The out of pocket costs can be substantial. The hours spent servicing the community are unpaid. Only attendance at city council meetings are paid.
You could look at the reimbursements as the small cost the City pays for these “employees” to run an office. A DSL internet connection for a City Council member so he can do City business in the evening after he gets home for work is reasonable. Reimbursement for trips to League meetings and other conferences to represent our city would be reasonable as well.
The Comcast interviews – that sounds fishy. I would need more information about that.
Nevertheless, $10,000 over 4 years for 5 people doesn’t seem out of line.
As an aside – Mike Harrington’s response just tries to divert attention to another issue and is unhelpful.
City Council members essentially become full time employees of the City. Much of the work is done by email and phone. There is travel to and from meetings in and out of town, official and “unofficial” (meeting with neighbors over a specific issue). The out of pocket costs can be substantial. The hours spent servicing the community are unpaid. Only attendance at city council meetings are paid.
You could look at the reimbursements as the small cost the City pays for these “employees” to run an office. A DSL internet connection for a City Council member so he can do City business in the evening after he gets home for work is reasonable. Reimbursement for trips to League meetings and other conferences to represent our city would be reasonable as well.
The Comcast interviews – that sounds fishy. I would need more information about that.
Nevertheless, $10,000 over 4 years for 5 people doesn’t seem out of line.
As an aside – Mike Harrington’s response just tries to divert attention to another issue and is unhelpful.
City Council members essentially become full time employees of the City. Much of the work is done by email and phone. There is travel to and from meetings in and out of town, official and “unofficial” (meeting with neighbors over a specific issue). The out of pocket costs can be substantial. The hours spent servicing the community are unpaid. Only attendance at city council meetings are paid.
You could look at the reimbursements as the small cost the City pays for these “employees” to run an office. A DSL internet connection for a City Council member so he can do City business in the evening after he gets home for work is reasonable. Reimbursement for trips to League meetings and other conferences to represent our city would be reasonable as well.
The Comcast interviews – that sounds fishy. I would need more information about that.
Nevertheless, $10,000 over 4 years for 5 people doesn’t seem out of line.
As an aside – Mike Harrington’s response just tries to divert attention to another issue and is unhelpful.
yawn
yawn
yawn
yawn
We’re talking an average of $500 per council member per year in reimbursable expenses.
I agree this is a yawn.
We’re talking an average of $500 per council member per year in reimbursable expenses.
I agree this is a yawn.
We’re talking an average of $500 per council member per year in reimbursable expenses.
I agree this is a yawn.
We’re talking an average of $500 per council member per year in reimbursable expenses.
I agree this is a yawn.
I guess my question is–do you want to know stuff like this only when it’s exciting? Or do you want know stuff, just to see what your public officials are doing with public money? I didn’t think it was completely boring, but I didn’t think it was mindblowing either–in fact I said as much.
I guess my question is–do you want to know stuff like this only when it’s exciting? Or do you want know stuff, just to see what your public officials are doing with public money? I didn’t think it was completely boring, but I didn’t think it was mindblowing either–in fact I said as much.
I guess my question is–do you want to know stuff like this only when it’s exciting? Or do you want know stuff, just to see what your public officials are doing with public money? I didn’t think it was completely boring, but I didn’t think it was mindblowing either–in fact I said as much.
I guess my question is–do you want to know stuff like this only when it’s exciting? Or do you want know stuff, just to see what your public officials are doing with public money? I didn’t think it was completely boring, but I didn’t think it was mindblowing either–in fact I said as much.
yawn, Only when its important. The mundane business of government isn’t interesting.
yawn, Only when its important. The mundane business of government isn’t interesting.
yawn, Only when its important. The mundane business of government isn’t interesting.
yawn, Only when its important. The mundane business of government isn’t interesting.
zzzzzzz