You would not know it from anything we have seen or heard. Later this week most likely, the Vanguard will have a guest commentary that comes out against Measure N featuring some prominent Davisites. As many will recall, on August 24, 2008, Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek had a guest commentary in support of Measure N–the Case for home rule.
On July 23, 2008, we had the Councilmember on Vanguard Radio talking about the Charter City.
This morning, however, the silence on the issue has been broken with articles in both today’s Davis Enterprise and Sacramento Bee. Nevertheless, given the quiet nature of the campaign, the lack of ground swell of support, and the uncertainly facing many residents about the impact of the measure, it seems highly unlikely that the measure will pass.
The Davis Enterprise article is in fact called, “Effects of a Davis Charter is Unknown.”
But more than that, two years ago, there seemed to be a strong grassroots movement in support of choice voting in Davis. In order to enact choice voting however, the city of Davis must change from general law status, which gives it only the authority granted to it by the state legislature, to charter status.
The charter status would give it far broader powers to make its own rules on a variety of issues including public utilities, elections, revenue, and taxation.
There are some very good things that can come out of a charter city, Davis would not have to rely on Sacramento voters to form its own public utility like it did two years ago with SMUD. Davis could impose state of the art environmental regulation. It could vastly expand open meeting and public record laws. For choice voter fans, it could enact a choice voting system. These are the tip of the iceberg and frankly those who disparage some of these I think are being extremely wrongheaded.
On the other hand, there is a huge downside to a charter city.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald pressed the city council to put language in that would prohibit binding arbitration. The city council did. But here is the tricky thing about the charter, some suggest that the city council has more power under a charter, but I am not sure that is true. The voters also have more power under the charter.
In the town I grew up and where my family still lives, San Luis Obispo, in 2000, as a charter city, public safety employees put a measure on the ballot to enact binding arbitration for labor negotiations. We have spent much time on this blog talking about the power of public safety employees both in terms of bargaining and in terms of elections. They put this on the ballot, bankrolled it, had their members walk for it, and it passed. San Luis Obispo is a charter city.
This is from the October 1, San Luis Obispo Tribune and it shows the depth of the problem:
“The San Luis Obispo City Council filled a $4.8 million budget shortfall on Tuesday night, but not before reiterating its dislike of a binding arbitration agreement with police that forced the emergency meeting…
Although the meeting was not intended to be a forum for discussing the city’s voter-mandated binding arbitration for police and firefighters, council members renewed their complaints that the man-date has stripped them of their budget-making authority and threatened financial ruin for the city.
“Binding arbitration was a huge mistake,” said Councilwoman Christine Mulholland, who vowed to work to overturn the requirement.
Police and firefighters counter that binding arbitration is fair because they do not have the ability to strike as part of their labor negotiations.
In June, an arbitrator gave sworn police officers a 30 percent raise and increased dispatchers’ and other non-sworn police staff’s pay by 37 percent.”
Could that happen in Davis? You betcha.
Binding arbitration means that a public employees union can press for arbitration at impasse and whatever the arbitrator rules, is what they get. What happened in San Luis Obispo is the police officers got a 30% payraise this year. That is right, an arbitrator from the bay area awarded them a 30% payraise. That will cost the city $4.8 million. That is their budget deficit this year. That is larger than the Davis School District’s budget deficit they were facing this past winter. It is a disaster for the city of San Luis Obispo.
Now, here’s what you need to understand, and again, I am not opposing this measure, only telling you what can happen. The Davis City Council put in a measure that protects Davis from binding arbitration. The city councils of the future cannot change that provision. But the voters can. They can do the same thing that happened in San Luis Obispo.
Is that a likely occurrence? No. For one thing, we have San Luis Obispo as a model, that people can use against the sponsors of such a measure, but it can happen.
Again, I want to emphasize, I have not decided how I am going to vote on this measure.
The strongest opponent of the measure is Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor.
Councilmember Saylor told the Sacramento Bee that he thinks the “proposal is too vague and gives voters little idea what their votes would actually do.”
“Most charters list some specific services, Saylor said. But this measure, he said, just gives the council broader powers.
A previous provision that talked about choice voting was deleted, he said.
“If it’s intended to enact choice voting, we should specify that,” he said.
Saylor said he believes moving to choice voting is so important that it should go to a direct vote of the people and not be decided by the City Council.”
Councilmember Saylor is also uncomfortable with the broad powers it gives the city council.
He told the Davis Enterprise:
“Someday later, the council could come up with a boutique tax, one that we’re not allowed to do in a general law city. Which means the charter is probably premature, and we ought to get our act together before we put it on the ballot.”
He continued:
“Saylor said that even if the current council would put choice voting on a future ballot, there are no guarantees that future councils would be so considerate.
“The authority that happens under the charter is the City Council takes on a greater amount of potential authority, and I’m not sure that’s such a good idea… I’d like to know specifically – and I think the voters should demand to know – what the charter would do, not what might it do. What, exactly, are we intending to do?”
Now according to Kelly Stachowicz, Deputy City Manager, the charter city does not change anything immediately.
She told the Enterprise:
“What it does is provide the city with flexibility to consider additional options or potential change.”
Moreover, after researching dozens of city charters, many look a lot like the one Davis is proposing.
“What we found was that the charters that have passed more recently have been very similar to the approach that Davis has taken… Those charters have been brief and broad. They did not have a whole lot of detail in them about what they wanted to change and alter. In most cases the community stayed the course and passed the charter in order to provide additional flexibility.”
The curious thing for me is that in 2006, when the choice voting advisory measure was on the ballot and it passed largely with no organized opposition with 55% of the vote, there was a large grassroots movement behind it.
This year, with the step to make choice voting operational, is there a large grassroots movement behind it? All I have seen are Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, the principal proponents on council, leading a small and informal campaign on the measure. There does not seem to be energy behind it.
My sense from the response to these articles is that most Davisites have no idea that this measure is on the ballot, no idea what this measure will do, and no idea why they would want this measure in the first place. That is a recipe for defeat at the polls.
I hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor, but I think he has a good point when he argues that the charter is premature and that we ought to have our act together. It seems to me that the charter is premature, that the council was acting largely on its own, and that there is no huge groundswell of support for the charter as there was for choice voting.
I could be completely misreading the situation here, but right now, I just do not see the impetus to pass this measure.
But there are three weeks until the election, I doubt there is much solidified opposition to it either, but right now, I do not think this issue has been sold to Davis, I do not see the money behind to sell it to Davis nor do I see a volunteer network base who will push it through at the grassroots level.
At this point, I think proposal is dead on arrival. But we will see for sure in the coming weeks.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?” If he is right on a policy, then what is the problem? It sounds like your differences are personal rather than policy-based. While I don’t agree with you in some areas, I’m a bit surprised you would take such a stance, as I generally view your intentions as good, if not always your conclusions.
In terms of the charter city issue, it seems Saylor makes a good point. What is the overall intent of moving to a charter city, and what specific things might we expect? Just giving the council more power for its own sake doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, especially given all the misgivings about the lock on control by the “council majority.”
Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?” If he is right on a policy, then what is the problem? It sounds like your differences are personal rather than policy-based. While I don’t agree with you in some areas, I’m a bit surprised you would take such a stance, as I generally view your intentions as good, if not always your conclusions.
In terms of the charter city issue, it seems Saylor makes a good point. What is the overall intent of moving to a charter city, and what specific things might we expect? Just giving the council more power for its own sake doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, especially given all the misgivings about the lock on control by the “council majority.”
Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?” If he is right on a policy, then what is the problem? It sounds like your differences are personal rather than policy-based. While I don’t agree with you in some areas, I’m a bit surprised you would take such a stance, as I generally view your intentions as good, if not always your conclusions.
In terms of the charter city issue, it seems Saylor makes a good point. What is the overall intent of moving to a charter city, and what specific things might we expect? Just giving the council more power for its own sake doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, especially given all the misgivings about the lock on control by the “council majority.”
Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?” If he is right on a policy, then what is the problem? It sounds like your differences are personal rather than policy-based. While I don’t agree with you in some areas, I’m a bit surprised you would take such a stance, as I generally view your intentions as good, if not always your conclusions.
In terms of the charter city issue, it seems Saylor makes a good point. What is the overall intent of moving to a charter city, and what specific things might we expect? Just giving the council more power for its own sake doesn’t seem like a particularly good idea, especially given all the misgivings about the lock on control by the “council majority.”
“Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?”
It was just an expression, didn’t mean much by it.
“Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?”
It was just an expression, didn’t mean much by it.
“Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?”
It was just an expression, didn’t mean much by it.
“Why would you “hate to agree with Councilmember Saylor?”
It was just an expression, didn’t mean much by it.
I agree with your conclusion. And given the historic “eccentricities” of our council, I think that most folks from Davis would be reluctant to give them any additional authority to do much of anything. As I recall, district voting is an option without switching to charter and might be a useful move.
I agree with your conclusion. And given the historic “eccentricities” of our council, I think that most folks from Davis would be reluctant to give them any additional authority to do much of anything. As I recall, district voting is an option without switching to charter and might be a useful move.
I agree with your conclusion. And given the historic “eccentricities” of our council, I think that most folks from Davis would be reluctant to give them any additional authority to do much of anything. As I recall, district voting is an option without switching to charter and might be a useful move.
I agree with your conclusion. And given the historic “eccentricities” of our council, I think that most folks from Davis would be reluctant to give them any additional authority to do much of anything. As I recall, district voting is an option without switching to charter and might be a useful move.
Thught it was interesting that the language in the sample ballot had little if anything about choice voting. You would need to know the background to know why ostensibly this WAS put on the ballot. Was that a good tactic?
DPD, expected your blog today to be a followup to Enterprises story about city job pay…since it will be discussed tonight at City Council. What are your predictions?
Thught it was interesting that the language in the sample ballot had little if anything about choice voting. You would need to know the background to know why ostensibly this WAS put on the ballot. Was that a good tactic?
DPD, expected your blog today to be a followup to Enterprises story about city job pay…since it will be discussed tonight at City Council. What are your predictions?
Thught it was interesting that the language in the sample ballot had little if anything about choice voting. You would need to know the background to know why ostensibly this WAS put on the ballot. Was that a good tactic?
DPD, expected your blog today to be a followup to Enterprises story about city job pay…since it will be discussed tonight at City Council. What are your predictions?
Thught it was interesting that the language in the sample ballot had little if anything about choice voting. You would need to know the background to know why ostensibly this WAS put on the ballot. Was that a good tactic?
DPD, expected your blog today to be a followup to Enterprises story about city job pay…since it will be discussed tonight at City Council. What are your predictions?
I wanted to wait until I see the discussion tonight before writing about that. I’ll be very interested to see what comes of it, I really have no idea what to expect right now.
I wanted to wait until I see the discussion tonight before writing about that. I’ll be very interested to see what comes of it, I really have no idea what to expect right now.
I wanted to wait until I see the discussion tonight before writing about that. I’ll be very interested to see what comes of it, I really have no idea what to expect right now.
I wanted to wait until I see the discussion tonight before writing about that. I’ll be very interested to see what comes of it, I really have no idea what to expect right now.
First of all, the voters agreed to look at choice voting, not a charter city. And they did not endorse choice voting, just agreed to consider it.
Secondly, when in doubt, I vote against anything newly proposed. Too often new ideas not well thought out have a nasty way of having unintended consequences.
IMHO Don Saylor is against the charter idea bc Lamar (and Steve) was instrumental in bringing the idea forward and not Don. Don would not be getting any political credit for the charter city idea. What else is new.
Davis politics and the City Council power dynamic being what it is, there is no way I would vote on anything that might give the City Council more power. I have not been particularly impressed w any of the Council members – many are well intentioned but either extremely naive or have a hidden agenda.
First of all, the voters agreed to look at choice voting, not a charter city. And they did not endorse choice voting, just agreed to consider it.
Secondly, when in doubt, I vote against anything newly proposed. Too often new ideas not well thought out have a nasty way of having unintended consequences.
IMHO Don Saylor is against the charter idea bc Lamar (and Steve) was instrumental in bringing the idea forward and not Don. Don would not be getting any political credit for the charter city idea. What else is new.
Davis politics and the City Council power dynamic being what it is, there is no way I would vote on anything that might give the City Council more power. I have not been particularly impressed w any of the Council members – many are well intentioned but either extremely naive or have a hidden agenda.
First of all, the voters agreed to look at choice voting, not a charter city. And they did not endorse choice voting, just agreed to consider it.
Secondly, when in doubt, I vote against anything newly proposed. Too often new ideas not well thought out have a nasty way of having unintended consequences.
IMHO Don Saylor is against the charter idea bc Lamar (and Steve) was instrumental in bringing the idea forward and not Don. Don would not be getting any political credit for the charter city idea. What else is new.
Davis politics and the City Council power dynamic being what it is, there is no way I would vote on anything that might give the City Council more power. I have not been particularly impressed w any of the Council members – many are well intentioned but either extremely naive or have a hidden agenda.
First of all, the voters agreed to look at choice voting, not a charter city. And they did not endorse choice voting, just agreed to consider it.
Secondly, when in doubt, I vote against anything newly proposed. Too often new ideas not well thought out have a nasty way of having unintended consequences.
IMHO Don Saylor is against the charter idea bc Lamar (and Steve) was instrumental in bringing the idea forward and not Don. Don would not be getting any political credit for the charter city idea. What else is new.
Davis politics and the City Council power dynamic being what it is, there is no way I would vote on anything that might give the City Council more power. I have not been particularly impressed w any of the Council members – many are well intentioned but either extremely naive or have a hidden agenda.
District voting is preferable to choice voting. Removing the large amounts of money now necessary to run for the Council is the best way to strengthen the Davis voters’ ability to elect Council members who will truly represent them.
District voting is preferable to choice voting. Removing the large amounts of money now necessary to run for the Council is the best way to strengthen the Davis voters’ ability to elect Council members who will truly represent them.
District voting is preferable to choice voting. Removing the large amounts of money now necessary to run for the Council is the best way to strengthen the Davis voters’ ability to elect Council members who will truly represent them.
District voting is preferable to choice voting. Removing the large amounts of money now necessary to run for the Council is the best way to strengthen the Davis voters’ ability to elect Council members who will truly represent them.
I don’t know why certain people continue to say that a Charter will give the people more power! The charter language specifically gives the power to the electeds and this includes the power to enact and abolish ordinances without approval of the voters. (The language is, in part: “The City shall have the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to restrictions and limitations provided for in this Charter…”. And there are NO restrictions or limitations in the Charter. The only powers conferred on the people in the language of the Charter are our right to resort to referenda and initiatives. We have that right now! There is NO additional power conferred on the people with this Charter.
This was rushed to the ballot with no public discourse whatsoever. Changing the fundamental manner in which we are governed is too important a decision to be left to 4 members of the city council. This requires much public debate and careful consideration before we can even consider whether we would be better off under a Charter, and then we need to carefully draft that Charter to benefit our community, not the council.
This Charter, Measure N, needs to be voted down.
I don’t know why certain people continue to say that a Charter will give the people more power! The charter language specifically gives the power to the electeds and this includes the power to enact and abolish ordinances without approval of the voters. (The language is, in part: “The City shall have the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to restrictions and limitations provided for in this Charter…”. And there are NO restrictions or limitations in the Charter. The only powers conferred on the people in the language of the Charter are our right to resort to referenda and initiatives. We have that right now! There is NO additional power conferred on the people with this Charter.
This was rushed to the ballot with no public discourse whatsoever. Changing the fundamental manner in which we are governed is too important a decision to be left to 4 members of the city council. This requires much public debate and careful consideration before we can even consider whether we would be better off under a Charter, and then we need to carefully draft that Charter to benefit our community, not the council.
This Charter, Measure N, needs to be voted down.
I don’t know why certain people continue to say that a Charter will give the people more power! The charter language specifically gives the power to the electeds and this includes the power to enact and abolish ordinances without approval of the voters. (The language is, in part: “The City shall have the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to restrictions and limitations provided for in this Charter…”. And there are NO restrictions or limitations in the Charter. The only powers conferred on the people in the language of the Charter are our right to resort to referenda and initiatives. We have that right now! There is NO additional power conferred on the people with this Charter.
This was rushed to the ballot with no public discourse whatsoever. Changing the fundamental manner in which we are governed is too important a decision to be left to 4 members of the city council. This requires much public debate and careful consideration before we can even consider whether we would be better off under a Charter, and then we need to carefully draft that Charter to benefit our community, not the council.
This Charter, Measure N, needs to be voted down.
I don’t know why certain people continue to say that a Charter will give the people more power! The charter language specifically gives the power to the electeds and this includes the power to enact and abolish ordinances without approval of the voters. (The language is, in part: “The City shall have the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs subject only to restrictions and limitations provided for in this Charter…”. And there are NO restrictions or limitations in the Charter. The only powers conferred on the people in the language of the Charter are our right to resort to referenda and initiatives. We have that right now! There is NO additional power conferred on the people with this Charter.
This was rushed to the ballot with no public discourse whatsoever. Changing the fundamental manner in which we are governed is too important a decision to be left to 4 members of the city council. This requires much public debate and careful consideration before we can even consider whether we would be better off under a Charter, and then we need to carefully draft that Charter to benefit our community, not the council.
This Charter, Measure N, needs to be voted down.
In the Bee article this morning, Jerry Adler stated that we often have a 60-40 vote on the council which swings one way or another depending on who’s on the council at the moment; and that the charter would somehow stop this wild swinging back and forth.
Here is the quote:
For many years, the Davis City Council has had a 60-40 split that swings between more liberal and more conservative members being in control, [Jerry Adler] said. The split has affected the city’s divisive politics on growth.
Choice voting would make it harder for one side or the other to get its candidates elected, he said. Those who do get elected would need “support across-the-board from left to right,” he said.
“It would stop this factionalization,” Adler said. “That, to me, is very important.”
That assessment seems optimistic to me, to say the least.
In the Bee article this morning, Jerry Adler stated that we often have a 60-40 vote on the council which swings one way or another depending on who’s on the council at the moment; and that the charter would somehow stop this wild swinging back and forth.
Here is the quote:
For many years, the Davis City Council has had a 60-40 split that swings between more liberal and more conservative members being in control, [Jerry Adler] said. The split has affected the city’s divisive politics on growth.
Choice voting would make it harder for one side or the other to get its candidates elected, he said. Those who do get elected would need “support across-the-board from left to right,” he said.
“It would stop this factionalization,” Adler said. “That, to me, is very important.”
That assessment seems optimistic to me, to say the least.
In the Bee article this morning, Jerry Adler stated that we often have a 60-40 vote on the council which swings one way or another depending on who’s on the council at the moment; and that the charter would somehow stop this wild swinging back and forth.
Here is the quote:
For many years, the Davis City Council has had a 60-40 split that swings between more liberal and more conservative members being in control, [Jerry Adler] said. The split has affected the city’s divisive politics on growth.
Choice voting would make it harder for one side or the other to get its candidates elected, he said. Those who do get elected would need “support across-the-board from left to right,” he said.
“It would stop this factionalization,” Adler said. “That, to me, is very important.”
That assessment seems optimistic to me, to say the least.
In the Bee article this morning, Jerry Adler stated that we often have a 60-40 vote on the council which swings one way or another depending on who’s on the council at the moment; and that the charter would somehow stop this wild swinging back and forth.
Here is the quote:
For many years, the Davis City Council has had a 60-40 split that swings between more liberal and more conservative members being in control, [Jerry Adler] said. The split has affected the city’s divisive politics on growth.
Choice voting would make it harder for one side or the other to get its candidates elected, he said. Those who do get elected would need “support across-the-board from left to right,” he said.
“It would stop this factionalization,” Adler said. “That, to me, is very important.”
That assessment seems optimistic to me, to say the least.
Not only do we need district/precinct style elections for city council, knowing the candidates political affiliation would be helpful too. I don’t want more “non-partisanship”. Clinton gave us that, and all the Republican passed legislation of the 90s that has brought us to where we are today: the brink of economic disaster. I want more partisanship and I want to know who’s on which side.
Not only do we need district/precinct style elections for city council, knowing the candidates political affiliation would be helpful too. I don’t want more “non-partisanship”. Clinton gave us that, and all the Republican passed legislation of the 90s that has brought us to where we are today: the brink of economic disaster. I want more partisanship and I want to know who’s on which side.
Not only do we need district/precinct style elections for city council, knowing the candidates political affiliation would be helpful too. I don’t want more “non-partisanship”. Clinton gave us that, and all the Republican passed legislation of the 90s that has brought us to where we are today: the brink of economic disaster. I want more partisanship and I want to know who’s on which side.
Not only do we need district/precinct style elections for city council, knowing the candidates political affiliation would be helpful too. I don’t want more “non-partisanship”. Clinton gave us that, and all the Republican passed legislation of the 90s that has brought us to where we are today: the brink of economic disaster. I want more partisanship and I want to know who’s on which side.
Can we have district elections without a charter?
Can we have district elections without a charter?
Can we have district elections without a charter?
Can we have district elections without a charter?
Jerry Adler is an Elder Statesman in Davis. I highly covet and value his sage wisdom. I feel fortunate to see him actively involved in city affairs and issues.
Jerry Adler is an Elder Statesman in Davis. I highly covet and value his sage wisdom. I feel fortunate to see him actively involved in city affairs and issues.
Jerry Adler is an Elder Statesman in Davis. I highly covet and value his sage wisdom. I feel fortunate to see him actively involved in city affairs and issues.
Jerry Adler is an Elder Statesman in Davis. I highly covet and value his sage wisdom. I feel fortunate to see him actively involved in city affairs and issues.
Anonymous 11:55:
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect I believe.
The city currently has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations under general law status.
This charter neither expands nor contracts that current power.
Under the current charter, which grants them no additional authority, they could only pass laws that would be allowable under general law status.
In order for them to pass laws that are allowed under charter status but forbidden under general law status, they would have to amend the charter.
Amending the charter requires a vote of the people.
The people will have the ability to directly propose changes to the city charter–changes that are not available to them now. That gives the people additional power to make changes that they do not have presently.
The charter as written does not give the council additional powers without consent of the voters.
Anonymous 11:55:
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect I believe.
The city currently has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations under general law status.
This charter neither expands nor contracts that current power.
Under the current charter, which grants them no additional authority, they could only pass laws that would be allowable under general law status.
In order for them to pass laws that are allowed under charter status but forbidden under general law status, they would have to amend the charter.
Amending the charter requires a vote of the people.
The people will have the ability to directly propose changes to the city charter–changes that are not available to them now. That gives the people additional power to make changes that they do not have presently.
The charter as written does not give the council additional powers without consent of the voters.
Anonymous 11:55:
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect I believe.
The city currently has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations under general law status.
This charter neither expands nor contracts that current power.
Under the current charter, which grants them no additional authority, they could only pass laws that would be allowable under general law status.
In order for them to pass laws that are allowed under charter status but forbidden under general law status, they would have to amend the charter.
Amending the charter requires a vote of the people.
The people will have the ability to directly propose changes to the city charter–changes that are not available to them now. That gives the people additional power to make changes that they do not have presently.
The charter as written does not give the council additional powers without consent of the voters.
Anonymous 11:55:
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect I believe.
The city currently has the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations under general law status.
This charter neither expands nor contracts that current power.
Under the current charter, which grants them no additional authority, they could only pass laws that would be allowable under general law status.
In order for them to pass laws that are allowed under charter status but forbidden under general law status, they would have to amend the charter.
Amending the charter requires a vote of the people.
The people will have the ability to directly propose changes to the city charter–changes that are not available to them now. That gives the people additional power to make changes that they do not have presently.
The charter as written does not give the council additional powers without consent of the voters.
Here is the date and time for a local public forum concerning local ballot measures Measures N and W:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum (including local Measures N and W)
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions
on these state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures).
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
Here is the date and time for a local public forum concerning local ballot measures Measures N and W:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum (including local Measures N and W)
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions
on these state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures).
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
Here is the date and time for a local public forum concerning local ballot measures Measures N and W:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum (including local Measures N and W)
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions
on these state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures).
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
Here is the date and time for a local public forum concerning local ballot measures Measures N and W:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)
State Ballot and Local Measures Forum (including local Measures N and W)
Yolo County Democratic and Republican Party
Officials are slated to debate the differing positions
on these state ballot measures (with the exception of the local
ballot measures).
7:00 p.m.
Open to the Public. Admission is Free.
If more information is desired, please log on to the following website:
http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html.
Councilman Saylor has it right , needs more study and intentions looked at ..
The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..
Bob Dunning says ” choice voting is wrong “..
Councilman Saylor has it right , needs more study and intentions looked at ..
The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..
Bob Dunning says ” choice voting is wrong “..
Councilman Saylor has it right , needs more study and intentions looked at ..
The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..
Bob Dunning says ” choice voting is wrong “..
Councilman Saylor has it right , needs more study and intentions looked at ..
The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..
Bob Dunning says ” choice voting is wrong “..
“The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..”
No they don’t.
“The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..”
No they don’t.
“The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..”
No they don’t.
“The City of Davis already has binding arbitration for all of its employees ..”
No they don’t.
As I said in a previous comment on this blog: choice voting would have made no difference in the last three council elections. The same people would have been elected. Though people did not rank in the last three elections, I think you can assume that they voted in order for the top candidates they supported. If you apply the calculations for Choice Voting to the last elections, all the top candidates got far above the number needed to trigger knocking off the last person and redistributing votes. So, how Jerry thinks choice voting will change that, is beyond me.
Yes, we can have district elections without a charter.
And, David, please re-read the charter language that I quoted. It specifically states that there are NO restrictions on the council in enacting or abolishing ordinances. If that language can be interpreted by you to mean one thing and by others to mean the opposite, then there is something wrong with the Charter.
In fact, when considering the language of the Charter, our city attorney was asked and responded that if the Charter passed, the council would have the authority to implement choice voting without a vote of the electorate. I assume this could apply to other ordinances.
The fact that we are having such discussions re the charter and what it does and does not do is a strong indication that there is a problem with this charter and it should be defeated.
As I said in a previous comment on this blog: choice voting would have made no difference in the last three council elections. The same people would have been elected. Though people did not rank in the last three elections, I think you can assume that they voted in order for the top candidates they supported. If you apply the calculations for Choice Voting to the last elections, all the top candidates got far above the number needed to trigger knocking off the last person and redistributing votes. So, how Jerry thinks choice voting will change that, is beyond me.
Yes, we can have district elections without a charter.
And, David, please re-read the charter language that I quoted. It specifically states that there are NO restrictions on the council in enacting or abolishing ordinances. If that language can be interpreted by you to mean one thing and by others to mean the opposite, then there is something wrong with the Charter.
In fact, when considering the language of the Charter, our city attorney was asked and responded that if the Charter passed, the council would have the authority to implement choice voting without a vote of the electorate. I assume this could apply to other ordinances.
The fact that we are having such discussions re the charter and what it does and does not do is a strong indication that there is a problem with this charter and it should be defeated.
As I said in a previous comment on this blog: choice voting would have made no difference in the last three council elections. The same people would have been elected. Though people did not rank in the last three elections, I think you can assume that they voted in order for the top candidates they supported. If you apply the calculations for Choice Voting to the last elections, all the top candidates got far above the number needed to trigger knocking off the last person and redistributing votes. So, how Jerry thinks choice voting will change that, is beyond me.
Yes, we can have district elections without a charter.
And, David, please re-read the charter language that I quoted. It specifically states that there are NO restrictions on the council in enacting or abolishing ordinances. If that language can be interpreted by you to mean one thing and by others to mean the opposite, then there is something wrong with the Charter.
In fact, when considering the language of the Charter, our city attorney was asked and responded that if the Charter passed, the council would have the authority to implement choice voting without a vote of the electorate. I assume this could apply to other ordinances.
The fact that we are having such discussions re the charter and what it does and does not do is a strong indication that there is a problem with this charter and it should be defeated.
As I said in a previous comment on this blog: choice voting would have made no difference in the last three council elections. The same people would have been elected. Though people did not rank in the last three elections, I think you can assume that they voted in order for the top candidates they supported. If you apply the calculations for Choice Voting to the last elections, all the top candidates got far above the number needed to trigger knocking off the last person and redistributing votes. So, how Jerry thinks choice voting will change that, is beyond me.
Yes, we can have district elections without a charter.
And, David, please re-read the charter language that I quoted. It specifically states that there are NO restrictions on the council in enacting or abolishing ordinances. If that language can be interpreted by you to mean one thing and by others to mean the opposite, then there is something wrong with the Charter.
In fact, when considering the language of the Charter, our city attorney was asked and responded that if the Charter passed, the council would have the authority to implement choice voting without a vote of the electorate. I assume this could apply to other ordinances.
The fact that we are having such discussions re the charter and what it does and does not do is a strong indication that there is a problem with this charter and it should be defeated.
Anonymous, you are incorrect on this point and miss the fundamental point of charters, and this is laid out in the city attorney’s opinion.
There are General Law cities and Charter Cities. General Law cities have to follow the laws that are laid out by the state legislature that govern cities.
Charter Cities allow for a sort of city constitution–or charter to supercede state law.
But any changes from state law have to but placed into the charter.
They have said up the charter very broadly which means that until we change the charter, the same rules that govern the city now, govern the city under a charter.
Then we can decide if we want a choice voting system.
They cannot do that by ordinance. They can only do that by changing the charter, and that needs to go to the vote of the people.
Any of the other changes that could have under a charter also require a vote of the people.
So, you are wrong on this point. That’s why a choice voting system cannot merely be done by ordinance, but rather by changing the charter which requires a vote.
My use of the term I interpret was misplaced and confusing, I should have said the state recognizes… or something more grand.
Anonymous, you are incorrect on this point and miss the fundamental point of charters, and this is laid out in the city attorney’s opinion.
There are General Law cities and Charter Cities. General Law cities have to follow the laws that are laid out by the state legislature that govern cities.
Charter Cities allow for a sort of city constitution–or charter to supercede state law.
But any changes from state law have to but placed into the charter.
They have said up the charter very broadly which means that until we change the charter, the same rules that govern the city now, govern the city under a charter.
Then we can decide if we want a choice voting system.
They cannot do that by ordinance. They can only do that by changing the charter, and that needs to go to the vote of the people.
Any of the other changes that could have under a charter also require a vote of the people.
So, you are wrong on this point. That’s why a choice voting system cannot merely be done by ordinance, but rather by changing the charter which requires a vote.
My use of the term I interpret was misplaced and confusing, I should have said the state recognizes… or something more grand.
Anonymous, you are incorrect on this point and miss the fundamental point of charters, and this is laid out in the city attorney’s opinion.
There are General Law cities and Charter Cities. General Law cities have to follow the laws that are laid out by the state legislature that govern cities.
Charter Cities allow for a sort of city constitution–or charter to supercede state law.
But any changes from state law have to but placed into the charter.
They have said up the charter very broadly which means that until we change the charter, the same rules that govern the city now, govern the city under a charter.
Then we can decide if we want a choice voting system.
They cannot do that by ordinance. They can only do that by changing the charter, and that needs to go to the vote of the people.
Any of the other changes that could have under a charter also require a vote of the people.
So, you are wrong on this point. That’s why a choice voting system cannot merely be done by ordinance, but rather by changing the charter which requires a vote.
My use of the term I interpret was misplaced and confusing, I should have said the state recognizes… or something more grand.
Anonymous, you are incorrect on this point and miss the fundamental point of charters, and this is laid out in the city attorney’s opinion.
There are General Law cities and Charter Cities. General Law cities have to follow the laws that are laid out by the state legislature that govern cities.
Charter Cities allow for a sort of city constitution–or charter to supercede state law.
But any changes from state law have to but placed into the charter.
They have said up the charter very broadly which means that until we change the charter, the same rules that govern the city now, govern the city under a charter.
Then we can decide if we want a choice voting system.
They cannot do that by ordinance. They can only do that by changing the charter, and that needs to go to the vote of the people.
Any of the other changes that could have under a charter also require a vote of the people.
So, you are wrong on this point. That’s why a choice voting system cannot merely be done by ordinance, but rather by changing the charter which requires a vote.
My use of the term I interpret was misplaced and confusing, I should have said the state recognizes… or something more grand.
Now I am being told I am wrong on this point. I am going to look a little further into it. But at least according to one interpretation we do not need an amendment to the charter to implement choice voting and we could do so by ordinance. If that is true, then, this does indeed greatly expand the power of the council.
Now I am being told I am wrong on this point. I am going to look a little further into it. But at least according to one interpretation we do not need an amendment to the charter to implement choice voting and we could do so by ordinance. If that is true, then, this does indeed greatly expand the power of the council.
Now I am being told I am wrong on this point. I am going to look a little further into it. But at least according to one interpretation we do not need an amendment to the charter to implement choice voting and we could do so by ordinance. If that is true, then, this does indeed greatly expand the power of the council.
Now I am being told I am wrong on this point. I am going to look a little further into it. But at least according to one interpretation we do not need an amendment to the charter to implement choice voting and we could do so by ordinance. If that is true, then, this does indeed greatly expand the power of the council.
The Blog had a long and much commented upon article several months ago?
I’ll just say again that I dont think there is any need for a charter city here at this time. No one has shown me there is a problem with city government, other than choice voting would be enabled under this charter proposal. I support choice voting, but not enough to fundamentally change city government. As others have said, “charter city is a solution in search of a problem.”
Or, as Ken Wagstaff and others have said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The Blog had a long and much commented upon article several months ago?
I’ll just say again that I dont think there is any need for a charter city here at this time. No one has shown me there is a problem with city government, other than choice voting would be enabled under this charter proposal. I support choice voting, but not enough to fundamentally change city government. As others have said, “charter city is a solution in search of a problem.”
Or, as Ken Wagstaff and others have said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The Blog had a long and much commented upon article several months ago?
I’ll just say again that I dont think there is any need for a charter city here at this time. No one has shown me there is a problem with city government, other than choice voting would be enabled under this charter proposal. I support choice voting, but not enough to fundamentally change city government. As others have said, “charter city is a solution in search of a problem.”
Or, as Ken Wagstaff and others have said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The Blog had a long and much commented upon article several months ago?
I’ll just say again that I dont think there is any need for a charter city here at this time. No one has shown me there is a problem with city government, other than choice voting would be enabled under this charter proposal. I support choice voting, but not enough to fundamentally change city government. As others have said, “charter city is a solution in search of a problem.”
Or, as Ken Wagstaff and others have said, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
At least on this blog, discussion about adopting a charter has been framed almost entirely in terms of increasing the power of the city council. That’s a self-defeating way to look at it.
One of the central mantras of progressive politics in this country is local control (conservatives call it “home rule” instead, but it’s the same thing). Charter adoption is about increased local control. So it’s unusual to see so many folks on a progressive blog being down on having a charter.
I gather that distrust of the current city council is a major motivation for this. The cure is not continued reliance on instructions from Sacramento — those folks are even harder to replace than the city council. The cure is to increase the city’s ability to adopt governance reforms and policies outside the constraints of state law.
Choice voting and public financing of campaigns are just two of the things that come to mind. An increased range of options for installing and paying for solar panels is another.
Look beyond your disagreements with members of the current city council and think about the long run.
At least on this blog, discussion about adopting a charter has been framed almost entirely in terms of increasing the power of the city council. That’s a self-defeating way to look at it.
One of the central mantras of progressive politics in this country is local control (conservatives call it “home rule” instead, but it’s the same thing). Charter adoption is about increased local control. So it’s unusual to see so many folks on a progressive blog being down on having a charter.
I gather that distrust of the current city council is a major motivation for this. The cure is not continued reliance on instructions from Sacramento — those folks are even harder to replace than the city council. The cure is to increase the city’s ability to adopt governance reforms and policies outside the constraints of state law.
Choice voting and public financing of campaigns are just two of the things that come to mind. An increased range of options for installing and paying for solar panels is another.
Look beyond your disagreements with members of the current city council and think about the long run.
At least on this blog, discussion about adopting a charter has been framed almost entirely in terms of increasing the power of the city council. That’s a self-defeating way to look at it.
One of the central mantras of progressive politics in this country is local control (conservatives call it “home rule” instead, but it’s the same thing). Charter adoption is about increased local control. So it’s unusual to see so many folks on a progressive blog being down on having a charter.
I gather that distrust of the current city council is a major motivation for this. The cure is not continued reliance on instructions from Sacramento — those folks are even harder to replace than the city council. The cure is to increase the city’s ability to adopt governance reforms and policies outside the constraints of state law.
Choice voting and public financing of campaigns are just two of the things that come to mind. An increased range of options for installing and paying for solar panels is another.
Look beyond your disagreements with members of the current city council and think about the long run.
At least on this blog, discussion about adopting a charter has been framed almost entirely in terms of increasing the power of the city council. That’s a self-defeating way to look at it.
One of the central mantras of progressive politics in this country is local control (conservatives call it “home rule” instead, but it’s the same thing). Charter adoption is about increased local control. So it’s unusual to see so many folks on a progressive blog being down on having a charter.
I gather that distrust of the current city council is a major motivation for this. The cure is not continued reliance on instructions from Sacramento — those folks are even harder to replace than the city council. The cure is to increase the city’s ability to adopt governance reforms and policies outside the constraints of state law.
Choice voting and public financing of campaigns are just two of the things that come to mind. An increased range of options for installing and paying for solar panels is another.
Look beyond your disagreements with members of the current city council and think about the long run.
Davis Greenwald,
Thanks for your input and work on this. It was interesting to note that there was a 30% raise given to city workers due to employee unions in a charter city.
Just what we don’t need here, another way for the self serving greedy unions to screw and burden the taxpayers. One fire department in Davis is enough.
Davis Greenwald,
Thanks for your input and work on this. It was interesting to note that there was a 30% raise given to city workers due to employee unions in a charter city.
Just what we don’t need here, another way for the self serving greedy unions to screw and burden the taxpayers. One fire department in Davis is enough.
Davis Greenwald,
Thanks for your input and work on this. It was interesting to note that there was a 30% raise given to city workers due to employee unions in a charter city.
Just what we don’t need here, another way for the self serving greedy unions to screw and burden the taxpayers. One fire department in Davis is enough.
Davis Greenwald,
Thanks for your input and work on this. It was interesting to note that there was a 30% raise given to city workers due to employee unions in a charter city.
Just what we don’t need here, another way for the self serving greedy unions to screw and burden the taxpayers. One fire department in Davis is enough.
The City Council could have written the charter so it was limited to choice voting, without another vote of the people. Then educated the public about choice voting, then put it on the ballot. It started off that way, but along the way it morphed into this broad and highly uncertain change to city government. I did not track the details of the changes, but it went in the sausage factory one way, out totally different.
The City Council could have written the charter so it was limited to choice voting, without another vote of the people. Then educated the public about choice voting, then put it on the ballot. It started off that way, but along the way it morphed into this broad and highly uncertain change to city government. I did not track the details of the changes, but it went in the sausage factory one way, out totally different.
The City Council could have written the charter so it was limited to choice voting, without another vote of the people. Then educated the public about choice voting, then put it on the ballot. It started off that way, but along the way it morphed into this broad and highly uncertain change to city government. I did not track the details of the changes, but it went in the sausage factory one way, out totally different.
The City Council could have written the charter so it was limited to choice voting, without another vote of the people. Then educated the public about choice voting, then put it on the ballot. It started off that way, but along the way it morphed into this broad and highly uncertain change to city government. I did not track the details of the changes, but it went in the sausage factory one way, out totally different.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to confirm that the City Council could adopt choice voting by ordinance. In my article, Stephen Souza said he’d prefer to put it to a vote since it’s a big change, but there is no requirement to do so.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to confirm that the City Council could adopt choice voting by ordinance. In my article, Stephen Souza said he’d prefer to put it to a vote since it’s a big change, but there is no requirement to do so.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to confirm that the City Council could adopt choice voting by ordinance. In my article, Stephen Souza said he’d prefer to put it to a vote since it’s a big change, but there is no requirement to do so.
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to confirm that the City Council could adopt choice voting by ordinance. In my article, Stephen Souza said he’d prefer to put it to a vote since it’s a big change, but there is no requirement to do so.
Claire, until near the end of the “morphing” at CC, the mantra that I remember from all concerned was choice voting would not occur without a final vote of the people. Now, you confirm what I suspected: the final “morph” that was adopted by the CC and put on the ballot would allow a 3/2 CC vote to adopt choice voting. That was never, ever supposed to happen unless there was a public education campaign and a specific vote of the people.
It goes to show what I have been saying: the broad charter city on the ballot will allow a 3/2 vote of the CC to do nearly anything they wish to our little city’s government structure. Now, at least, state law tempers what our general law city can do.
It was not supposed to be like this, and somehow it morphed into a fiasco that needs to be voted down.
Claire, until near the end of the “morphing” at CC, the mantra that I remember from all concerned was choice voting would not occur without a final vote of the people. Now, you confirm what I suspected: the final “morph” that was adopted by the CC and put on the ballot would allow a 3/2 CC vote to adopt choice voting. That was never, ever supposed to happen unless there was a public education campaign and a specific vote of the people.
It goes to show what I have been saying: the broad charter city on the ballot will allow a 3/2 vote of the CC to do nearly anything they wish to our little city’s government structure. Now, at least, state law tempers what our general law city can do.
It was not supposed to be like this, and somehow it morphed into a fiasco that needs to be voted down.
Claire, until near the end of the “morphing” at CC, the mantra that I remember from all concerned was choice voting would not occur without a final vote of the people. Now, you confirm what I suspected: the final “morph” that was adopted by the CC and put on the ballot would allow a 3/2 CC vote to adopt choice voting. That was never, ever supposed to happen unless there was a public education campaign and a specific vote of the people.
It goes to show what I have been saying: the broad charter city on the ballot will allow a 3/2 vote of the CC to do nearly anything they wish to our little city’s government structure. Now, at least, state law tempers what our general law city can do.
It was not supposed to be like this, and somehow it morphed into a fiasco that needs to be voted down.
Claire, until near the end of the “morphing” at CC, the mantra that I remember from all concerned was choice voting would not occur without a final vote of the people. Now, you confirm what I suspected: the final “morph” that was adopted by the CC and put on the ballot would allow a 3/2 CC vote to adopt choice voting. That was never, ever supposed to happen unless there was a public education campaign and a specific vote of the people.
It goes to show what I have been saying: the broad charter city on the ballot will allow a 3/2 vote of the CC to do nearly anything they wish to our little city’s government structure. Now, at least, state law tempers what our general law city can do.
It was not supposed to be like this, and somehow it morphed into a fiasco that needs to be voted down.
Steve and Lamar,
You two were the subcommittee that pushed this through. Would you care to tell us how the heck this proposal morphed so drastically to its current form on the ballot? I didn’t follow the last couple of meetings and drafts … but I have a vague recollection that staff pushed the breadth, rather than limiting it certain subjects that was the original intent of everyone who worked on this thing?
Steve and Lamar,
You two were the subcommittee that pushed this through. Would you care to tell us how the heck this proposal morphed so drastically to its current form on the ballot? I didn’t follow the last couple of meetings and drafts … but I have a vague recollection that staff pushed the breadth, rather than limiting it certain subjects that was the original intent of everyone who worked on this thing?
Steve and Lamar,
You two were the subcommittee that pushed this through. Would you care to tell us how the heck this proposal morphed so drastically to its current form on the ballot? I didn’t follow the last couple of meetings and drafts … but I have a vague recollection that staff pushed the breadth, rather than limiting it certain subjects that was the original intent of everyone who worked on this thing?
Steve and Lamar,
You two were the subcommittee that pushed this through. Would you care to tell us how the heck this proposal morphed so drastically to its current form on the ballot? I didn’t follow the last couple of meetings and drafts … but I have a vague recollection that staff pushed the breadth, rather than limiting it certain subjects that was the original intent of everyone who worked on this thing?