Last week from March 15-21, 2009 marked "Sunshine Week" across the country. This is the celebration and a reminder of the need to advance the cause of "open government." Since the foundation of the People’s Vanguard of Davis, we have strived to uphold a very simple principle–notion that the public has the right to know what the government is doing and the duty to hold the government accountable. Our focus has primarily been on the city of Davis with extensions into Yolo County, the region, and even the State of California from time to time.
In California there are two primary tools to insure openness in government. The first is the Brown Act which ensures open public meetings for most actions–so that the business of government is conducted in public and noticed meetings. This is a strong law with a great deal of teeth behind it.
On the other hand, the second tool is rather weak. That is the California Public Records Act (PRA), which purports to require the expedient right for the public to view government documents, records, and even communications. However, the bill contains numerous loopholes and exemptions that enable the government to withhold much of these documents. Moreover there is no enforcement mechanism other than a lengthy court process. And the penalties are minimal–an agency may simply be ordered by the court to turn over documents and at most must pay for court and lawyer expenses. The incentive then is for the agency to deny the public’s right to view documents that should be open to the public for scrutiny.
At the state, California’s Public Records Act is among the weakest in the country and in general the Governor has consistently vetoed efforts to strengthen it during his tenure.
It is the belief of the Vanguard that open government starts at home through local government. The Vanguard applauds the efforts that DJUSD in particular has employed in recent years, moving away from closed door meetings that were of questionable of legality and toward open government, often working in collaboration with the Vanguard to inform the public about their operations.
The Vanguard on most occasions has found the city of Davis relatively cooperative with public records requests. They generally provide the requested documents in full, thorough, and timely manner.
However, we also believe the city has room for improvement. We would like to still see the city of Davis pass its own ordinance on Open Government that makes both the PRA and the Brown Act minimum requirements that they are rather than the extent of compliance.
Last week the Davis Enterprise and the Vanguard ran articles on city of Davis employee salaries. Now the city has posted the full listing of employee salaries on their website with positions and salaries listed.
The Vanguard would like to see the city go further.
One issue we brought forward last year was that of archiving past city council meetings. During the course of research, the Vanguard discovered there was no record of meetings older than two years. The website had streaming video that went back six months and the public library kept videos for two years, but no further back. That means that other than minutes which are skimpy and often leave out much detail about discussions and actions, there is no record of most action taken by the council. The Vanguard brought this to the attention of the city, but at this point, we do not know where that prcoess stands.
Here are some other suggestions for expanding open government and transparency in Davis, inspired in part by work done by the Voice of San Diego.
Contract Transparency: In addition to employee salaries, the city ought to post all city contracts that exceed $10,000 in a searchable format online on the city’s website. In addition, any contractor that has received in excess of $10,000 ought to be posted with links ot all contracts awarded to that contractor. The public has the right to know who is getting taxpayer-funded contracts.
Budget Performance Review: In the past there have been problems in the city with the city failing to ensure proper quality of service from its vendors. Three specific issues immediately come to mind. First, the infamous solar panels at Community Park where the city paid in excess of $100,000 for a project where the solar panels never properly functioned and despite repeated cajoling by a member of the community, the council never held the vendor accountable for the project. Second, roadwork done on Covell Blvd between Sycamore and Anderson was so poor that the city needed to redo the street in 2007 at city expense. The roadwork was not properly done in the first place and the city never took action to hold the original vendor accountable, choosing instead to use taxpayer money once again to repair the road. Finally, the case of the police in-car video system. This was the work that Ombudsman Bob Aaronson helped with. The city spent a good deal of money for a system that did not work properly until it was finally brought to their attention. Did it cost the city additional money to make the system work properly?
It is our believe that taxpayers and residents deserve to know what they are getting for their tax dollars. A system needs to be put in place so that the city council has the ability to quickly and easily evaluate their city services, hold vendors accountable for failure to produce as contracted, and hold employees accountable when they are not providing adequate services.
Improved Disclosure of Agenda Items: The Brown Act requires the city to publicly notice an agenda at least 72 hours in advance. However, what often happens is that the city posts the agenda in a timely fashion but not support material. It is often difficult to tell what an item entails without the staff report and other support material. There have been numerous instances where supporting information for a docket item has arrived late — preventing councilmembers and the general public from having an opportunity to adequately review the material before a decision is made. While this does not violate the letter of the Brown Act, it violates the spirit of the Brown Act. Without full knowledge of a meeting and what will be discussed, the public may be unaware of a pending discussion. This has often caught groups of guard.
This is not an academic concern. Failure to properly and adequately provided notice has often led the council to have to bring back matters that have already been discussed and sometimes decided. A recent example is the objection of the Chamber of Commerce to the council’s resolution on the Employee Free Choice Act. The city has a tendancy to place such items as Consent Items where the receive little attention even though Consent Items are by their very nature supposed to be non-controversial.
The vanguard would support new rules that insures the timely disclosure of support documents. Moreover, we would like to see a review on the policy and criteria by which items are placed as consent items.
Public and Council Comment: We have brought this issue up numerous times. We are well-aware of time limitations. We also concerned about the lateness of meetings and the problems associated with discussion and deliberation when councilmembers are less than at full-strength and focus. Nevertheless, we are concerned with policies aimed at expediting meetings at the expense of public comment and on several occasions input from the council.
On most issues and for most council meetings, a fifteen minute public comment limitation is a non-factor. However, why should the council ever cut off public input whether it be during the specified public comment time or during an agenda item. We are even more alarmed that the Mayor has cut off councilmembers as they have spoken from the dais. These are elected members by the public, our representatives. We may not always agree with them, but that is what democracy is supposed to be about.
If the chief concern is the length of meetings, we suggest more meetings with fewer agenda items.
Do you have other suggestions? Please post them here. The council as has been mentioned on numerous occasions represents the governmental body closest to the people. It therefore has the duty and obligation to insure openness in process and procedure.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What about the teacher’s salaries? I’ve been trying to find out about how much we’re actually spending on teacher’s salaries and it’s impossible. Once those numbers are revealed, I think it will show a different picture rather than the one that teachers belong to a class of underpaid over worked professionals. Publishing the real numbers the teachers receive will bring to light some interesting facts and could change what happens to the teacher’s bottom line. It’s all about money. If they want Obama to have open government, then we should all practice what we preach and expect in terms of honesty and transparancy. We can’t expect it for the banks only, while everyone else gets away with murder.It’s hypocritical to say the least.
Madame, if you click here ([url]http://www.djusd.net/employment/certificated[/url]), you will see the complete “teachers’ salary scheduel” for the current contract (which expires this June 30). Their salaries are based, not on ability or performance, but on steps (meaning time in the classroom) and six levels of academic degrees.
[i]”Once those numbers are revealed, I think it will show a different picture rather than the one that teachers belong to a class of underpaid over worked professionals.”[/i]
It’s a subjective opinion, but if you compare what Davis teachers are making with what city employees are making, you might not think teachers are overpaid. In my opinion, because we don’t discriminate, we don’t pay the best teachers the most money based on the quality of their performance in the classroom, we undervalue all teachers, and certainly underpay those who do a great job. I am convinced that taxpayers would be willing to pay higher taxes for schools, if they thought that they money would go to those who are really top performers, those who are really helping their kids. Instead, under our raise-the-floor system, the benefits of higher taxes include teachers (and other district employees) who are not improving the educational product.
…if they thought that [s]they[/s] [b]the[/b] money would go to those who are really top performers…
DPD, good article. I particularly like the section and suggestions about public comment. It has become clear Madam Mayor has no patience w input, from the public or her own City Council members. She is not nicknamed “Mayor Imelda” for nothing. Mayor Asmundson has even ceased all joint meetings w the commissions, which is normally a yearly ritual. Her complete disdain for public input of any kind is notorious. Yet she let the public completely disrupt Council business to talk about foreign relations in the Gaza Strip at one Council meeting, which led to nothing much meaningful. Mayor Asmundson is a disgrace.
I would argue the length of public comment is not normally the problem, but the longwindedness of City Council members. The Mayor should limit some of the endless and pointless comments that come from some City Council members (and I am not talking about Sue Greenwald, who generally is trying to make a relevant point), rather than the public.
[b]”The first is the Brown Act which ensures open public meetings for most actions–so that the business of government is conducted in public and noticed meetings.”[/b]
I agree that “the business of government” needs to be conducted in public. However, an unfortunate consequence of the Brown Act is that it does not permit members of the council, as a group, to socialize with each other. That may seem unimportant, but I think people who can have a drink with each other now and then or break bread together, can get along better in their official capacities and can use that social amity to resolve problems as members of the council. I don’t think it helps, for example, that a member of the council who has expertise in a few areas is excluded as liaison to commissions which focus on those areas, largely because of personality conflicts. Personal differences might exist even if the council could socialize together. However, it is far less likely that a member would be disrespected in that way if the members of the council all regularly had each other over for dinner and drinks. That’s how it used to be in Davis before the Brown Act.
This nugget was in Mike Fitch’s history of Davis ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/cultural/30years/chapt02.cfm[/url]), discussing the time Vigfus Asmundson (Ruth’s husband) was mayor 30 years ago:
[i]”The council normally met twice a month, and, after meetings, council members and City Manager Howard Reese frequently stopped off to have a beer in a back room at The Club, a popular bar on G Street.”[/i]
“less from cc”–just say it, man or woman; “shut the hell up don saylor”-if you were even HALF as important as you think you are. The several thousand of you who voted him mayor should all be proud. Next time you think its playtime when election day rolls around-go to the coast and play on the beach instead. Saylor isn’t nice, kind or friendly-he is however a FRAUD and the epitome of close-mindedness.
Madame shoes says:
“What about the teacher’s salaries? I’ve been trying to find out about how much we’re actually spending on teacher’s salaries and it’s impossible.”
Does Rich’s link/info help? I’ve never had any trouble finding this information from the school district.
[i]Saylor isn’t nice, kind or friendly-he is however a FRAUD and the epitome of close-mindedness.”[/i]
We would have more and better people willing to serve the public interest if we didn’t have people like Duke in Davis, willing to make unfounded, vicious attacks while hiding behind a pseudonym.
If I could take back my Don Saylor vote back, I would. I will just be honest and say I didn’t pay much attention to local politics before finding Davis Vanguard. All we can do is elect better people in the future, because the past is past.
“I am convinced that taxpayers would be willing to pay higher taxes for schools, if they thought that they money would go to those who are really top performers, those who are really helping their kids. Instead, under our raise-the-floor system, the benefits of higher taxes include teachers (and other district employees) who are not improving the educational product.”
You place a cloud over the entire group of teachers by making that comment. I assume 90% of Davis are perfoming well. There are some who do not perform well but that is true in any business – even those where pay is based on merit. Only good teachers are given tenure and salaries rise based on training and experience. Seems reasonabble to me.
“The council normally met twice a month, and, after meetings, council members and City Manager Howard Reese frequently stopped off to have a beer in a back room at The Club, a popular bar on G Street.”
This is the epitome of “smoke filled back-room dealing” that the Brown Act is trying to avoid. What we need is a City Council who is willing to follow the letter and spirit of the Brown Act. Do you really think Sue Greenwald and Ruth Asmundson will ever be sociable together? Dream on. They can’t even get along when they are in a public restroom together for heaven’s sake! Mayor “Imelda” Asmundson has become extremely autocratic – which no dinner and drinks is going to fix.
“Saylor isn’t nice, kind or friendly-he is however a FRAUD and the epitome of close-mindedness.”
“We would have more and better people willing to serve the public interest if we didn’t have people like Duke in Davis, willing to make unfounded, vicious attacks while hiding behind a pseudonym.”
The characterization of Saylor is right on the money. If you can’t see that, then more’s the pity. Asmundson allows Saylor total latitude to drone on and on, while Saylor is not saying much of anything other than he is agreeing w another Council member. Very rarely does he express a thought of his own, carefully nuances every sentence or phrase ad nauseum. Obviously he plans to run for higher office, but I wonder how far he will get? His “niceness” mask has been slipping of late…