On Thursday, Davis Columnist Bob Dunning lamented the lateness of the Davis City Council Meeting which ran until nearly 2 am on Tuesday night. He got it right when he suggested that late meetings compromise democracy.
In fact, I agree with much of what he had to say, although I do believe that ending a meeting at 10 pm is impractical given that councilmembers, or at least two of them, have 9 to 5 jobs meaning that on a regular basis starting a meeting at 5 pm is impractical.
IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN A CITY? – Steve Souza and Sue Greenwald had it right when they said that 1:30 in the morning was not the proper time for the City Council to be making a decision about a proposed residential development in Northeast Davis – our council members may have time on their hands, but the rest of us don’t –
The Davis Enterprise picks up the theme as well in today Editorial:
WHEN THE DAVIS City Council went deep into the night Tuesday – actually, into the early morning hours Wednesday – to make a key decision on the Wildhorse Ranch development, our elected officials did no one any favors.
Every so often, the council apparently needs to be reminded that doing the city’s business when the bars are closing serves no one. And in this instance, a little prudence in planning could have saved everyone frustration.
They continue:
SECONDLY, IF OUR elected leaders can’t get the show on the road earlier, we urge them to think more clearly about their agendas: when to have public input on big issues and what kind of tributes to pay on the public’s dime.
We appreciated the outpouring of gratitude for UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef upon his retirement. But next time, consider a reception separate from the council meeting. Or, summarize the proclamations and get on with our city business.
Yes, exactly.
Both Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise get this right, but they do not go far enough. I understand a desire to restructure the meetings as the Davis Enterprise suggests, but the simple fact of the matter is that on Tuesday there was one item that had to be decided because of time sensitivity and that was the Wildhorse Ranch Project.
I understand that some people think we should have pushed it off until September and held the Measure J vote next June, that’s a legitimate viewpoint. The council majority opted not to delay this project. For the purposes of this discussion, if they were going to decide to hear the item, they needed to hear it first at 8 pm, not have a full discussion on the redevelopment item that would last until 10:15 pm and then rush through discussion on this item.
I agree with Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza on that, but I have never seen Councilmember Souza stand up against the Mayor. In fact, it was just a few weeks ago to the point of absurdity that the Councilmember spoke really fast when asking questions on the issue of Chiles Ranch because he refused to back Councilmember Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek on extending the time to question the project.
The problem is that the council attempts to cram all sorts of issues onto a given agenda without much apparent thought as to how long it will take. The Mayor then sets time deadlines because without them, they would literally be there all night. That certainly does not lend itself to democracy any more than meeting until 2 am.
A few weeks ago Mayor Asmundson declared that they had to move through the agenda if they wanted to take their traditional August vacation.
That got me thinking, how audacious Madame Mayor. What makes you think you are entitled to a vacation if the public’s business is not dealt with? Given the state of the economy many Davisites are not getting a vacation this year, some don’t even have a job to have a vacation from. Maybe you ought to worry more about doing your job and less about your junkets to the Phillipines and cavorting with sister cities.
This is a council that for the most part has met every single week since May but only AFTER meeting every other week prior to that. They have had packed agenda after packed agenda. The Mayor packed each item onto the agenda and then jammed every item through often leaving just five minutes to discuss crucial and complex issues.
I would like to argue that we should limit staff reports, and that would save some time, but there is a problem with that approach as well. Back in May, the first version of the budget arrived in councilmembers hands just hours before the council meeting. On June 16, the complex fire staffing study by Citygate and the Budget arrived just the day of the council meeting. Two weeks ago, the Planning Commission received the Final EIR for Wildhorse Ranch, a long and complex document, just two days prior to the meeting. And this week, the council received about 300 pages of the staff report on Wildhorse on Friday and then as several councilmembers demonstrated, supplemental material just before the meeting.
In other words, how in the world is the Davis City Council let alone the public supposed to have read hundreds of pages delivered right before a council meeting? Is this sloppiness on the part of city staff or is there something more?
So yes I am all for changing the way that council conducts business. I agree that 2 am is way too late to conduct the public’s business. I still believe that the council hearing on the Grand Jury Report back in January was compromised by the late hour and the tiredness of the council members, but the problem here is one of scheduling and one of prioritizing what public business needed to be conducted and that responsibility falls to the Mayor.
Now Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were attempting to use the lateness of the meeting as an excuse to delay the Wildhorse Project that they did not support. So I sympathize in terms of process, and believe that the Mayor could have designed the meeting better. She could have put this discussion up front and deferred the discussion on an important but less time sensitive Redevelopment Agency project until next week or September. I also do not believe that council made the wrong decision in allowing the project the opportunity to go forward. It is not the fault of Wildhorse that the city screwed up in terms of scheduling. As I understand it, both Councilmember Souza and Councilmember Greenwald were given ample opportunities to meet with the applicants and declined to do so prior to the meeting.
I also disagree with the Davis Enterprise that they ought to begin meetings at 4 pm. That would preclude working people from serving on the City Council. As it stands now it is difficult to do so–put in a full day of work and then put in an addition five to seven hours on the council dais in addition to the other duties involved with being a member of city council. That is why we see most of the members of the council do not work and that has often been the case in the past as well. While there is nothing wrong with that, it does leave huge segments of the population unrepresented.
My solution is that council ought to meet every Tuesday with one or two Saturdays available per month as needed to handle overflow. The council should not hear more than one major item per agenda as a regular rule of thumb unless time constraints make it unavoidable. And if the council should have no other choice but to hear more than one lengthy item, they ought to prioritize the item in terms of time sensitivity so that if they cannot reasonably act on two items, the item deferred is the item that is not time sensitive. That alone ought to change the way the city does business and avoid these kinds of problems.
I would also suggest that vacation is a luxury not a reason to cram agendas full for two months in hopes of being able to take it. If the public business is full for August, then meet in August. Seems much more logical than limiting council discussion and doing public business at 2 am.
On a final note, I notice that Bob Dunning chose to highlight the Vanguard’s brochure in his column today. Thanks for the publicity Mr. Dunning and the check is in the mail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…..Now Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were attempting to use the lateness of the meeting as an excuse to delay the Wildhorse Project that they did not support.”
…..a rather outrageous statement. Both Sue and Steve argued that Measure J was being compromised by rushing the vote to Nov.(why exactly was this project “time-sensitive”??)
Today (Sunday) Dunning took the opportunity to criticize the Vanguard in his column.
Yes, that’s why I thanked him at the end of my column this morning.
[quote]On a final note, I notice that Bob Dunning chose to highlight the Vanguard’s brochure in his column today. Thanks for the publicity Mr. Dunning and the check is in the mail.[/quote]
DPD, you make good solid suggestions. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL?
There is no question in my mind that Mayor Asmundson has to take much of the blame. She is the one who decided to have less meetings, so that now things are backed up to an impossible degree. Did you hear her comments on Tuesday night? At 12:30 am, after staff and the developer made their presentations, she then turned to CC members, and made the outrageous statement “We can wrap things up in half an hour, right?”.
What is she saying here?
“Our minds are already made up, so lets cut to the chase?”
“I’m tired and want to go home, so let’s cut out discussion on this item?”
“Who cares what the public thinks and most of them are gone anyway, let’s just make a decision?”
“I don’t care what any of you has to say on this project, I’ve heard enough to make my decision?”
Furthermore, Bill Emlin should take some heat too. His staff is very tardy in getting reports to CC in a timely manner. If his staff is overworked, then take that issue up w CC. He is such a gutless wonder. The staff reports are far too lengthy, loaded with unnecessary verbiage. One wonders if that is done on purpose, as a CYA maneuver, so definitive info is buried amongst junk.
Other CC members themselves need to take some blame here. Too much time is taken up with questions that should have been asked of staff beforehand if the report was available in a timely manner (Asmundson and Souza). Too much electioneering goes on from the dais (Saylor and Souza). Saylor is infamous for restating what someone else has already said. Souza asks too damn many pointless questions. Sue Greenwald keeps repeating herself. Lamar is about the only one who tries to keep things brief and to the point. The others could take a lesson.
I have visited other City Councils in West Sac and Woodland. Our meetings are a joke in comparison.
To David Greenwald:
Please disclose the nature of the flyer Dunning is referring to. Who paid for it? Did Jim Provenza authorize his inclusion in the flyer?
Dunning is leaving the impression that the money trail can now be track tracked directly to the Vanguard.
Dunning wrote:[quote]… if the efforts of the investigative journalist can … help a developer get his pet project approved, well, mission accomplished.[/quote]
NW: Out of curiosity, why do you think you get to ask those questions behind the cloak of anonymity? What do you think the answers will reveal?
What money trail are you implying?
Since you asked so nicely, Dunning also wrote:[quote]And I might also note that the blog … accepted advertising from the family of a developer with a project before the city and then – surprise, surprise – I shockingly read that the investigative journalist himself is actively advocating for the very same project … and suggesting that we should “embrace” this development with open arms. All of this is in keeping with the first rule of every investigative journalist. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
Connect the dots and follow the money.[/quote]
Didn’t the Enterprise accept advertising from Tandem Properties and also the Yes on Measure X Campaign and then endorse the project? I’m having trouble following the conspiracy here.
One obvious difference is transparency. That’s why I asked David for disclosure.
To “My View”
The bottom line is that Lamar was the swing vote to cut off debate.
All this focus on process, history, personalities, etc is an attempt to deflect attention from this single inconvenient fact.
According to Mike Harrington on a previous thread, Bill Ritter was the driving force that put Lamar in office. That puts Heystek (by virtue of the jaw-dropping break from his normal behavior on Tuesday night) at the central nexus of the neoprogressive agenda along with Ritter, D. Greenwald, the Vanguard, and Parlin Development.
Will you be transparent as to your identity? Does the Enterprise disclose how much they received from Tandem and Covell?
“That puts Heystek (by virtue of the jaw-dropping break from his normal behavior on Tuesday night) at the central nexus of the neoprogressive agenda along with Ritter, D. Greenwald, the Vanguard, and Parlin Development.”
Maybe we should call it the cabal? Ask the Grand Jury to investigate?
“Yes, that’s why I thanked him at the end of my column this morning.”
And so you’re also helping Dunning by spreading the word about his column?
😉
I suspect Dunning is still *just a bit* more well known than David.
To Observer:
Sure. You go first.
David, Steve and I have been voting consistently to end the meetings earlier. Steve and I also voted not to start a new general plan process, because it would just be another layer of council items on agendas that are already too long. The fact that a major development project was being rammed through with virtually no public discussion was not the only factor influencing my desire to hold the item over.
Bill Emlen wants to meet only twice a month. He says it is too hard for staff to meet weekly. When I was mayor, Bill would routinely put way too many large items on the agenda in an attempt to cut down the number of meetings to two a month. I had to insist every week that we remove items and have more meetings if necessary.
Bill Emlen says that staff finishes one set of reports and then has to immediately start the next. I suggested to him that we could keep the meetings reasonable while making it easier on staff by scheduling certain department items, say for example public works and parks on rec, on the first and third Tuesdays, and and planning and redevelopment agency on second and fourth Tuesdays, so that any given department would be preparing reports every other week. As far as I know, this suggestion was not followed.