TOUGHEST TEN: Lamar Heystek

This is a new feature on the Vanguard.  Every week, we will put a local official in the spotlight and ask them ten tough questions with follow ups.  The goal is to press them on the tough issues of the day.  We will also be tallying a running scorecard to let the public know which officials were willing to go under the gun and which officials refused to.  Last week we start things off with County Supervisor Matt Rexroad.  This week we talk with Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek about issues that face the city.  The interview follows.

1.        How can the city solve its budget mess?

I want to be careful about calling it a mess.  It is a mess in that it’s a huge problem.  I won’t point any fingers as to who created the problem.  I wasn’t on the council when a number of the issues that underlie this budget were created. 

The issue that really gets at solving the long-term deficit issue it’s going to be the employee contracts, retiree benefits including medical, cash out of healthcare, the issues related to the fringe benefits, overtime issues, and the pay scale.  All those issues have contributed to the situation where we’re compensating the people at a rate that rises quicker than we can raise money.  So really the issue is our memoranda of understanding (MOU) with the employees. 
We must get at a sustainable compensation approach.  We have to take a look at not just compensation outside of salaries; we have to look at the salaries themselves.  With the fire department, the argument has been made that we have 150 applicants for a few fire spots—can we expect to pay people a little less and expect to get the same quality if not higher quality applicants?  I think the argument can be made that our city employees are faring better than their state and university counterparts, and I think that we need to take a look at ways of compensating employees with retirement benefits that more mirrors how we do it in other government service including the university.

Our PERS rates are going to skyrocket.   According the existing MOUs, we’re going to have to contribute an exorbitant of money to pay for retirement for employees.   Employees need to take a greater responsibility in providing for their retirement.  Take a look at teachers who have to pay towards their retirement.   We have no vesting period which means you can work for the city for a day and get your retirement.  There are ways that we can get at compensation, not just the salaries, but total compensation.  All benefits, retiree benefits, including the medical.  We have to see how those costs can be brought under control. 

The round of MOUs that we’re going to pass, from my perspective, there cannot be any increases in total compensation.   Employees need to take responsibility in helping close the gap.  I would like to see at least 50 percent of the general fund deficit addressed through these contracts.   That’s just general fund, we need to look at all funds and look at how we compensate all employees, even those who are funded out enterprise funds out of public works, sewer, water and funds of those nature. 

Ultimately we have to think about doing business differently.  We have to look at ways that we can deliver services in ways that are more efficient, costs less money, but maintains quality or in fact increases it.  An example is to take a look at our fire department, can we deliver service in a way that costs less, and still fills the need to address medical calls, address structure fires and things like that.  We don’t want to decrease the quality of service, but there are ways that we can provide that service with a less costly model.

If we don’t think about doing business fundamentally different, through contracts or staffing, we’re not going to solve any mess.  We’re not going to solve the budget issue this year and we’re not going to solve it in the years to come.

The city is bargaining with many of its bargaining units this year, what measures will you take to ensure that the labor agreements address your concerns as well as the concerns of many that our labor costs including benefits and retirements are way too expensive and unsustainable?

I have said during our budget workshops that I simply will not support budgets that don’t get at the fundamentals.  If we simply try to trim along the edges, we’re not going to solve any issue; it would simply be cosmetic window dressing.  I have been vocal during closed sessions; I would actually like to be more transparent.  We as a council should make our guiding principles during these labor negotiations, visible and understood by the community so that they know what we’re trying to achieve as a governing body.  I hope that people don’t think that because we’re not laying our last and best offer on the table during our open meetings, that that means to them that we’re not trying to drive our best bargain. 

We have to do things differently; we cannot simply do business as usual.  And if we do not do things differently, the voters will not extend existing tax measures.  They are not going to support any new measures.  They are not going to have faith in our ability to manage public funds.

What steps will you take to ensure that there is transparency and accountability built into the process?

I think that the principles that guide the city council in its negotiations should be made public.  Where is the city council coming from when it’s bargaining with its employee groups?  What are the issues that we feel need to be seriously addressed?  Not just articulated, but actually codified in the new memorandum of understanding with each of our bargaining groups.  We have not done a very good job at all of communicating to the public what our priorities are, what our goals are, what needs we seek to meet in closing the budget gap that looms not only this year, next year, but also years to come.

My preference would  be that we hire an outside negotiator.  There are only two councilmembers that I know of, including myself, who have stated they are for that.   I would like to see some of our discussions to be in public.  There seems to be a notion that certain things are not tenable to have a discussion in public, well certainly if it’s public business there can be a way for bargaining groups to present their cases to our negotiators who are currently Bill Emlen, Paul Navazio, and Melissa Cheney.  I want people to see where our employees are coming from.  I think not just the city council but employees should be very clear about what their expectations are. 

Make no mistake we want to make sure we have a well-compensated, fairly-rewarded, employee base.  But these are public funds, so if we don’t allow the public to participate in some meaningful way, they’re not going to feel like their funds are allocated properly.  I can’t imagine that people just trust that we’re doing the right thing if they’re not seeing anything that we’re doing.  At the very least we have to articulate our guiding principles.

Do you trust the negotiators to do the right thing?

I trust that they will take the direction that they have been given to carry out.  Do I trust that we will give them the right direction all the time?  Not necessarily.  Ultimately our staff works for the city council as a whole.  The city council direction is driven by the will of a collection of at least three councilmembers.

In what I have participated in so far, our conversations have been constructive.  There has not always been exact unanimity.  I am hopeful that we can get to a point where the city council can properly instruct staff.  Staff is also the supervisors of some of our employees.  I would say that that is an issue that blurs the lines, but I think that having outside negotiators would make it perfectly clear and provide us some leveraging in terms of our negotiations.  It would mean staff and supervisors are not subject to the whims of council or the bargaining groups, but that we have someone coming from the outside who doesn’t have a dog in the fight.  They aren’t representing employees, but they are representing truly city interests when we give them that direction, I think there is some level of greater impartiality. 

So when it comes to trust, I think the trust is ultimately in the direction that we as a council provide.

2.       How would you like to see the city address its revenue issues long term?    Will you support new taxes as a means to increase revenue?  (Existing taxes?)

The general fund is largely funded through property tax and sales tax revenue.  Let me start with sales tax.  We have an existing mechanism for how the city gets funding.  I don’t think that’s going to change any time soon.  The fact of the matter is that sales tax revenue has not met our expectations as of late.  It’s a very sensitive revenue stream given our economy.    People are spending a lot less, so we are taking in far less sales tax dollars.
It isn’t quite clear to me what city staff has laid out as its economic development strategy.  I think that’s because the council hasn’t laid that out.  So I think if we are going to use sales tax revenue to fund the general fund, we need some kind of coherent  strategy for how sales tax dollars flow in that shore up existing businesses , that support the downtown, that ultimately provide a mechanism where a high tide rises all boats.  It just isn’t clear to me what our approach is.  Lately it’s been second street crossing and that approach, but I think that is not going to support the downtown. 

With regards to other mechanisms, another way that we fund the city outside of the general fund is through Measure G, our park maintenance tax.  That measure sunsets in 2012.  I have said that as long as I’m on the council, I would not be onboard with extending existing taxes like Measure G if we did not demonstrate some fiscal discipline. 

There was talk of taking Measure P, which is the sales tax override, and folding it into Measure G creating one mechanism.  Frankly I’m open to that.  However, whether we have another parcel tax or sales tax, ultimately we cannot do it until we get our costs under control.  That is regardless of the economic condition, we have got to get our costs under control.  We would have a cost issue even if we had good economic times. 

I would like to see us get to a structure that is more progressive that does not penalize smaller home owners.  We really need to look at whether we can justify raising taxes.  At this point, I am still trying to justify whether or not existing taxes should be extended let alone raising new forms of revenue. Ultimately with a flat parcel tax, there is not a lot of progressiveness.    And I would like to see how we can be more progressive in our how we raise revenue.

3.       What are your views on the water situation regarding the proposed Sacramento River water supply project and the waste water project?  What steps will you take to ensure that ratepayers do not end up receiving 200% to 300% increases in cost?

Very interesting that the analysis by the independent experts show that it makes a lot more sense to do a water supply project first before you address waste water treatment.  We’ve been constantly told that we really have to comply with the wastewater discharge permit and do that while going for a new supply of water.  That only came about because one councilmember had insisted that we do a third party analysis.  I’m lucky to be on a council that has embraced that approach to actually invite people who are outside of the city and outside of our consultants, to actually give us advice and take a look.

There is no question that we have an issue with the quality of water and the quantity of our existing water supply.  I don’t think anyone really disputes that.  I don’t think anyone would dispute that we have an obligation to comply with the waste water permit especially after it has been extended. 

The question is how you sequence the projects, what are ways that you can buy time?  It’s not quite clear to me that we have done all that we can to address the issue of water supply outside of a new importation project.  In fact, the independent analysis suggests that we can do a lot more in terms of conservation and more stringent measures to save our water. 

A lot of people would say that the water importation project would induce growth.  For me, honestly, that argument does have merit.  But there is still an issue for the water supply for our existing infrastructure for existing residents.  So whether or not water importation is growth inducing is one thing, but the fact of the matter is that we have an obligation to provide the best possible water to our citizens, whether or not the city decides to grow.
We cannot afford to do both projects at the same time.  In my mind, the scoping of the wastewater treatment, the current plans have not included the most cost-cutting measures.  I feel like we feel that we have to pursue a path because we have gone too far down the road.  But when we’re thinking about a near half-billion dollars of ratepayer funds, we have got to say, what we can feasibly do, what can our citizens afford to do, and what can we afford to do legally? 

I think we need to continue to hear what our legal mechanisms are.  We’ve focused on the fact that we have a problem and focused on building the plant and importing the water without hearing—and I think that Councilmember Greenwald to her credit has been different options within the law to get cooperation with the state water regulators. 

We simply cannot afford a rate increase—I don’t use a heckuva lot of water here and my bill goes up.  I’m one small homeowner.  I can’t imagine how people in more dire straits are doing when their water rates go up.  Senior citizens, how are they going to afford these improvements?  They will not be here long enough some of them to realize the improvements themselves.

What I’m trying to say is that we cannot afford to do both at the same time, what can we do to put the wastewater project off for as long as possible so that we can address the surface water side if we choose to import.   We should also think about tapping into our deep aquifers a bit more than city staff has suggested because I believe there is enough water to provide citizens from that source without rushing into a surface water project that we may or may not be able to afford.

4.       What is your view on the firefighter staffing issue and whether we should switch from four person engine teams to three person teams?

The second part of the question, I can’t answer that question now.  I can only tell you that if we don’t properly analyze that scenario, moving from a four engine company to a three engine company model, then I don’t think we’ve done our jobs.  So that’s what I want to look into—does our fire staff scenario really work given our economic constraints.

It would be nice to have four, or five, or even six on an engine company.  But are we able to afford that kind of staffing?  If the council is not interested in looking into this situation given our economic situation, never mind that we should look into this irrespective of the looming budget deficit, then I’m very concerned about the council’s financial priorities.

The fire department is obviously a very important department.  Public safety is a sacred cow in this community.  People are entitled to the core emergency services that fire and police provide.  Every councilmember embraces the services that those departments provide. 

I ask the fire chief is fire prevention has to been provided solely by “sworn” (for lack of a better phrase) firefighters?  Some of our fire prevention has been provided by overtime fire personnel.  An organizational model that promotes the use of overtime to do public outreach at the Farmer’s Market, it doesn’t sit right with me. 

The police department uses its volunteers in policing to do a lot of work that does not have to be performed by sworn police officers.  Is there also work in the fire department that does not have to, 100 percent of the time, be performed by “sworn” firefighters?  I don’t think that issue has been examined very critically.  To some extent we have not taken fire staffing seriously.  I am encouraged that there will an opportunity for the council to say, we can have a battalion chief’s model, but there has to be some adjustment of the staffing to the engine company.

Can we provide the same level of service with three to an engine company as we do with four?  Can we address simultaneous calls?  Can we provide the service that our citizens deserve given our economy constraints?  If we don’t study those issues, we have not done our job.  If we ignore those issues, I think we’ve abrogated our responsibility. 

Overtime is an issue to some extent in all of our departments.  I don’t want to single out one department over another.  To some extent, overtime has been built into the system at the fire department and with overtime, our most expensive employees are firefighters.  We think that that’s the way to do business.  If we don’t get at these issues, then we deserve to be in economically precarious positions.  Leaving no stone unturned, we need to look at how we staff all departments including fire that is our responsibility.

5.       In your view is the city’s proposals for dealing with climate change and GHG emissions sufficient?  What further steps would you like to see?  What programs would you like to implement?  Would you support implementing programs such as the solar program that Berkeley has employed and the building efficiency program that SF has employed?    Do you feel that all future buildings both residential and commercial should use all the available energy and water conservations methods available?

I say yes to the yes and no questions that you pose.  We should not delude ourselves into thinking that Davis has been environmentally cutting edge in the last decade.  It has not, that’s a fact.  If you’re asking tough questions, that’s an answer that’s very easy to give.  The green house gas emissions policies that we have just passed, are they sufficient?  I think they’re a start.  I think they are a sufficient start, I don’t think they’re where we want to end up.

When developers tell us they prefer to pay into a low carbon diet, as a way to mitigate the carbon footprint of our projects, I think that’s just a joke.  I don’t think that’s the way we achieve permanent carbon neutrality.  I think we should do those things anyway, not because developers are paying for that.  We have to push the envelope and I am afraid we are not doing that enough. 
Developers are not taking the carbon footprint into their business model.  The city of Davis, needs to get serious with all of its components which includes households, it includes the city as agency itself, and it also includes business concerns like developers—they all have to be part of the strategy. 

If we are serious about meeting some target that goes below 1990 standards, then we have to look at ways that get to that in some less comfortable ways.  It’s not going to just be about giving up meat.  It’s not just going to be about recycling.  It’s going to be about doing things like Berkeley and San Francisco.  It’s going to be about making us, as Councilmember Souza would say, carbon negative—that we would take more carbon out than we put in as opposed to putting more in than we would take out. 

Specific programs that you would like to push in the next few years?

I think the issue that Councilmember Souza has brought up, the solar farm—a city owned and operated solar farm.  I think that we need to be in the photovoltaic business.  We cannot rely on PG&E to be on the cutting edge of greenhouse gas emissions to meet this community’s needs.  The citizens need to take power into their own hands, public power through the provision of solar farms is going to be a way to achieve a carbon negative footprint.  I would like to see the city use land that it owns to produce electricity in the most environmentally sensitive ways. 

I think that is one concrete way that we can do it.  We recently took a look at a mechanism that help fund solar improvements that people can buy into and can be funded by bonds.  That’s a great way to achieve carbon neutrality through the legal mechanisms that are provided through state law.  So doing the Berkeley model.

Water conservation we think about a lot of things as being environmental, but we often don’t think about the conservation of water.  Conserving water is a way that we can reduce our carbon footprint.  It is not simply an H2O issue.  If we conserve water, it reduces the amount of electricity and gas that it takes to heat the water. 

We keep talking about being a green community, but we have to catch up.  We are behind.  We are behind large communities and small communities.  If we don’t catch up, I think we can lose our cache as being a green community.  I don’t mean to be hyperbolic about this, I think we’re a very environmentally conscious community, but it’s a matter putting our environmental consciousness into practice.  At a community wide scale, I think people are environmentally conscious in our own ways.  But when is the city agency going to provide that leadership.  That’s really where the rubber meets the road.

6.       Giving the current economy and housing market, how do you view the development issue?  What steps would you like to see Davis take to maintain its character and preserve open space and ag land at the same time providing affordable workforce housing?  When considering future residential developments will not increased density and sustainability be key goals to our ability to use less ag land to accommodate more people as well as reduce our carbon footprint?

The houses that are here are not flying through the store shelf like gangbusters.  The argument can be made that we have the housing to address some of the needs of our community.  There is always going to be the argument that we need to provide housing at the most affordable levels.  I’m not just talking about equity-controlled situations, but I’m also talking about market-rate situations.  If we’re going to build new housing in this economy climate, there has to be a high threshold met. 

One of the thresholds is whether this is providing housing that is fundamentally different from the housing stock that is available now.  Is it going to house people in a way that is carbon neutral or carbon negative?  Is that housing going tax existing resources?  There are roads that we have that we cannot even pay to rehabilitate.  And they are existing roads.  So why would we add new roads to our transportation network when we cannot afford to maintain the existing roads?

There is always talk about workforce housing.  We certainly need workforce housing, but I’m looking for a development that really takes not only the need for housing into account, but it needs to take into account the ability to pay for itself, the ability for people to afford it, it has to take into account that we already have an existing stock of housing, it has to take into account the fact that we count on UC Davis to meet some of its not only student, but faculty and staff housing.

UC Davis signed an MOU with the city committing to provide a certain percentage of housing—35 to 45 percent of student housing.  But the onus has been on the city to provide that housing.

I just don’t see development as the most attractive prospect for the city right now given this economic climate.  There has to be a case made that the housing that is provided is fundamentally different from what we have now.  I would like to see us densifying in the downtown.   We talk about the PG&E courtyard, but are there opportunities to provide—like the house that I’m in now, it’s condominium style housing.  People don’t need sprawling lots.  People don’t need McMansions, people need a place that they can call their own that they can afford. 

Where are we willing to do that?  We need to work with neighborhoods to stay that we want to provide housing where the people who work in Davis can afford to live here.  But where can we do that in a way that provides a benefit to the city’s coffers and helps us address the needs of the future?

I don’t think that we’re going to be able to build ourselves out of this economic problem.  If we were able to build ourselves out of our economic problem, then we would see communities that are sprawling like Elk Grove, outside of the economic problem.  That’s not the case, sprawling communities are in even larger economic problems in some cases because they have to pay for more services.   We’re not going to be able to build ourselves out of this problem.

Neighbors complain about density all the time—but if we want greater density, how can we reconcile it with the neighbors’ concerns?

That’s a very difficult question because sometimes the need to maximize resources, can run counter to the issue of neighborhood character.  We have a list housing that can provide the kind of housing that we might want to have.
I think the where is important because density is more suitable in certain sites.  I don’t think we should put pressure on a housing site simply because it is available and the developer wants to develop it.   The neighborhood character may not be suitable for densification.  I talk about where because there are sites on that list that the HESC had prioritized where densification would be appropriate.  We take a look at the school district administrative site—the district might not be interested at this time in selling the property, but that doesn’t mean we cannot be proactive about elements within the site that might lend it to densification.  

Another site that may come online, that may or may not suit the need for densification would be the Nugget Fields site.  There are issues with that site as well.  It is off of Pole Line and adding more units there would add more traffic to Pole Line and that was the issue with the site to the west, the Covell Village site.

But when you ask the question about how we achieve the desire to maximize the use of land and air to meet housing needs, so that we’re not presenting these large and sprawling housing units in neighborhoods where that might not be acceptable, that’s a very good question David, I cannot give you the complete Reader’s Digest answer to that because every site is going to be different, the neighbors are going to have different needs.  The reason why I have voted against certain projects is because there are double-standards where we would do one thing in one neighborhood and we would not do that in another neighborhood because it’s deemed less palatable because it’s a low density neighborhood, how dare we consider medium density. 

All I would say is that we have to be comprehensive; we can’t just put the burden on any one neighborhood.  We have a responsibility to address the needs of the people who work here, even the lowest paid workers mind you,  we as a community need to be able to find a place where we can build in a responsible way.   I don’t have the answer as to how we can reconcile neighborhood issues with maximizing density.

7.       Do you believe that building a Target while at the same time talking about local products is antithetical to our long term goals?

Yes.  Absolutely.  When we want people to buy local and then we build a huge big-box store on our periphery, we are sending two different messages.  I don’t think we can ask people to be loyal to our downtown and patronize a peripheral shopping district at the same time.  It is not environmentally sensitive to do so.  I don’t think it makes a lot of economic sense.  The kind of consumerism that places like Target promote, does not benefit our environment.

We all have to challenge ourselves to figure out what our impact is on this world when we buy.  I’m not saying that anyone is above reproach—certainly not I.  I don’t see a very healthy future when we choose to prioritize the raising of sales tax dollars to places like Second Street Crossing. 

I hate to be a pessimist, but I work in Woodland, I see Main Street every day, and it would be doing a lot better if there weren’t other places on the periphery where people could shop.  The city of Woodland has chosen to adopt new places on the outskirts of the city where people can shop.  That’s what they have chosen to do and that’s their prerogative. 

Promoting the peripheral shopping district on the edge of our town is not environmentally sensitive.  It doesn’t take into account the greater impact of our buying habits.  That doesn’t mean that people that shop at places like Target are evil people, certainly not.  It just means that the city of Davis as an agency is saying to its citizens, that’s the kind of economic development we want.  I think some people suffer.  Downtown businesses will suffer.

8.       How important is it for the city to address the Fifth Street Corridor issue?  What would you like to see happen and what will you do to make it happen?

We talk about making our street pedestrian safe, bicycle friendly, safe for vehicular traffic, promoting access to our downtown to the neighborhoods that are adjacent to it.  If we don’t take a look at the issues on Fifth Street, with regards to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, we have abrogated our responsibility to not only the neighborhood directly north of Fifth Street but also the downtown. 

I will continue to support the study of the corridor and ways to improve it.  But I don’t think we need to study it to death.  I think we need to get the point where the council can take action to reconfigure Fifth Street, if it’s deemed that that approach; the road diet issue can benefit not only pedestrians, bicyclists, and also vehicular traffic.

I think it’s a red herring to say that the road diet would hurt the downtown.  I don’t know what the evidence is—we have never been presented with any kind of empirical evidence showing harm to the downtown.

Your question is what am I going to do about it—well I’m going to vote to continue to support a process that is economically sound, doesn’t pour money down a bottomless pit, but actually allocates resources toward an end that is foreseeable.

9.       What is your view on Westlake Plaza Shopping Center and how can the city weigh in on that issue to help?

That’s a very good question.  My view on Westlake is that that neighborhood deserves a grocery store.  The existing zoning provides that.  The neighborhood group that has worked in Westlake to bring a grocery store to their shopping center, I completely support.

I think it’s reasonable to say that if the existing zoning calls for it, that we can have a grocery store there.  If we don’t believe in such a fundamental justice, being able to shop in the neighborhood you live, then we’re basically saying that it’s okay to shop at peripheral shopping malls.  We’re basically saying that it’s okay to go somewhere else, to add to our carbon footprint.

That neighborhood clearly is entitled to a grocery store that is congruent with the zoning or reasonably within what the zoning provides.

What should the city do?  I think the city should push just as hard as they did with Trader Joe’s to bring them to Davis.  They should push just as hard to bring a grocer—if it’s not Trader Joe’s and I understand you can’t put a gun to Trader Joe’s head and say you must come to Davis and you must build your store in the shopping center or else—we should work just as hard if not harder to bring a grocery store to Westlake.

I would like the city council to get to the point where can direct staff to allocate their time and their resources to working with the property owner and with the neighbors to bring a grocery store that meets their needs.   If we won’t do that—I just wonder we choose to do that with Trader Joe’s.  With Westlake we actually have a site, with Trader Joe’s we still don’t actually have a site.  We don’t have a place to put it.  So as much as people want  Trader Joe’s at Westlake, they’ve not expressed any interest and I don’t think we could pay them enough to come to Westlake.

So it’s not Trader Joe’s and it goes somewhere else in Davis, what should we put in that shopping center?  I don’t have the answer.  We need to find the answer with city assistance.  City staff needs to be directed to allocate their time and their resources to finding a neighborhood grocery store for Westlake.

10.   What specific steps would propose the city take to improve its transparency?

One way we can build transparency into city government is that we actually allocate money to meeting public records request.  The city spends thousands of dollars a year on public records act requests.   I don’t think that is something that we don’t anticipate—I think that’s something that we should expect.  We should expect our people in this community to want to know what’s going on at city government.

Another way we can make city government more transparent is provide all staff reports online.  Our commissions get staff reports too and I’ve asked our city clerk in the past to provide all those documents on line, just as they would provide the commissioners they should provide them to the public.  All the public gets is an agenda and they don’t know what the accompanying material is.  So citizens aren’t prepared to respond to staff recommendations because they have not seen them.  The citizens  don’t have the benefit of that unless they are savvy enough to ask for that information from city staff.

We have to establish a standard as to whether we want the council to act on an issue when we’re being handed this information at the dais.  Basically as I joke with city staff, if you put something on the dais at the meeting, you’re basically asking me not to read it.  How can I have formulated an opinion when I come to the meetings with my binder and then I see more paper on my desk?  You can’t come to the meeting, formulate an opinion, listen to the public, then you have this mass of paper to read.  So I really think that our standards have to be much higher.  If we’re going to legislate on these issues, we have to expect that people will know what we’re talking about, we know what the information is that we’re using to formulate our opinions and our policies.

There are so many different ways to bring sunshine to our city government.  I’m glad that our city staff has put notice of our standing committees, our subcommittees, our 2-by-2’s online.  There needs to be a way where more of our workshops where we have information that is handed to us, needs to be either posted in a prominent manner online.  But we should not base our decisions on materials that the public has not seen ahead of time.  We have so much information that we want to share, I don’t know why we wouldn’t do it.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories: