Generally speaking on issues I consider major, I offer a post mortem outlining what happened, the impacts. There are critical substanative impacts from the council’s approval of the fire budget that need to be weighed in the coming weeks. However, from my standpoint, the most shocking aspect of it all is the abuse of process that we witnessed on Tuesday night where debate was cut off and the council voted against the advice and recommendation of their own advisory commission.
Mayor Asmundson said:
“We still have a lot [to cover at this meeting]”
Councilmember Greenwald responded:
“There is nothing more important than getting this right, Ruth.”
Mayor Asmundson:
“We have had allotted 30 minutes for this, this is already over an hour and a half.”
Councilmember Greenwald:
“The future of the fiscal integrity of the city is at stake. This is the only time we’ve ever had to discuss this and you’re trying to interrupt me. Ruth this inappropriate.”
Mayor Asmundson:
“You asked those questions earlier.”
Councilmember Greenwald:
“I never got to ask those questions earlier because I never had these figures.”
Councilmember Greenwald would eventually be cut off and the Council Majority would prevail on a 3-2 vote. Some will undoubtedly chalk this up as a typical catfight between Mayor Asmundson and Councilmember Greenwald. It is important to move past the personal aspect and understand the policy implications here. What we have is an abuse of process by the Mayor cutting off an elected representative of Davis voters who was asking important questions about one of the most important issues facing our community.
From the start, the Vanguard warned that if a process was not laid out for public input and vetting of the labor contracts, we would be stuck in the exact predicament we were stuck in last week. I was personally ASSURED by the Finance Director that there would be some form of transparency even if the labor negotiations could not be held in public.
That never happened. Here’s what did happen from a procedural standpoint. For months, negotiations have been held in private. The council met in a long series of closed door meetings with the negotiating team directing policy. For months the public was completely shut out of the process.
Finally on Friday, it was announced that an agreement had been reached, the MOU was included in the council packet.
The Finance and Budget Commission had asked twice for a 30 day sunshine period and the ability to review and advise the council on the agreement. The Finance and Budget commission expressed disappointment through their council liaison Lamar Heystek that they were not able to review the MOU at its December meeting. They repeated their expressed desire for more transparency and asked for a 30 day sunshine period prior to formal ratification.
City staff basically killed any such notion that there could be a sunshine period. Harriet Steiner strongly implied that it would be inappropriate even though there is no law that would preclude it. With that, Council voted 3-2 against any such sunshine period whereby the contract could be looked at. They ignored the advice and request of their own commission for a closer scrutiny of the document.
We were left with a document that was made available on Friday afternoon, late in the day. We were left with a staff report that did a tremendously poor job of laying out where the numbers came from. At least the council was given a bit more to work with, but in terms of the public, it amounted to a series of assertions.
We could at least take solace that during the only open and public meeting, the issues could be vetted and the councilmembers could ask of staff tough questions. And then with one brief stroke, one fell swoop, that was demolished by the brazen Ruth Asmundson who was more concerned about the length of the agenda than she was the fiscal health of the city. Who allowed her personal animus to cloud for Councilmember Greenwald her professional judgment. Who has consistently practiced favoritism in her Mayoral discretion.
When Stephen Souza asked a long series of questions, she never said a word. He was able to ask each and every question. When Sue Greenwald was pressing Navazio, the Mayor cut her off and cut off the rest of discussion. For the public that was it. End of discussion. The council had ramrodded a contract through that does nothing to solve the long-term fiscal health of the city and little fix the short-term deficit. We are left to wonder why.
We do not have to wonder too much. Rich Rifkin appeared before council and politely reminded the councilmembers that several of them had taken large sums of campaign contributions from the firefighters.
There is of course nothing illegal about this. However, it does seem unseemly that the firefighters could give thousands to council candidates who then turn around a both negotiate and vote on their contract. If that is not unethical, I am not sure what is anymore. The problem is that it is not illegal in our political system and none of the council majority have the fortitude or the ethics to stand up for principle here.
Of all the people, I am most disappointed with Mayor Asmundson. A year and a half ago, she called the firefighters arrogant in the face of the Grand Jury testimony. She expressed alarm at the rate of increase in employee salaries. She personally encouraged me to continue to press the issue. In fact, she had despite earning the firefighters endorsement previously, earned their animus and become persona non grata to them.
But things change and apparently at the moment she decided to run again for re-election, she realized she could not do so with the firefighters as her enemy. She led the charge to keep the results of Bob Aaronson’s report on the Grand Jury findings secret from the public and now she joined in giving the firefighters their new contract that does little solve our problems and for good measure, she voted for the battalion chief model, something that just a few years ago she voted against.
Does anyone think that campaign donations by the firefighters do not matter? Look at the change in her vote from 2007 to 2009. Look at her cutting off debate. Look at her joining to prevent the Finance and Budget Commission from looking into the MOU.
I have to ask the council majority–what are you afraid? Why do you fear public scrutiny. To Mr. Souza, a few months ago you were complaining very vehemently about process when it came to Measure P, the lack of commission review, the lack of discussion, the last minute nature of the proposal and yet here you have a chance to correct those problems with the fire contract and chose not to do so. Measure P had one huge advantage over this–the voters would be the final decision makers, not the council. A certain columnist would spend weeks going over the problems of process by the council. The public was inflamed and outraged and that very much played a role in the final verdict on Measure P. There will be no such conclusion here. The public is shut out of the process. The columnist couldn’t care less. And the public may not feel the impact of this for another 15 to 20 years.
I personally invite the Council Majority to write an Op-Ed on the Vanguard and tell the public why you have acted as you have done.
But for me, right now, what happened is all too obvious, debate was stifled and this time at least, we all know why.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
I agree that the CC should spend more time on these important issues and rather less time on other issues, many of which should have been solved by staff (e.g., cell phone towers, noise abatement at daycare center), but which come to Council due to staff incompetence or willfull neglect.
THe fiscal health of our city is paramount. Next year may very well be the year of public defaults. Greece may default along with several possible Eastern European countries. Our own state will not default but has seen its credit rating slide and its budget deteriorate. Many cities in this state are heading toward bankruptcy as sales and property tax revenues have slid.
Davis’ fiscal health is a paramount concern. Only Sue and Lamar (who is leaving) seem to get it. And I hope we all remember this after the trashing Sue took on this blog a few months ago. Sue has consientently stood up for Davis and spent countless hours on this often thankless work. Even if you don’t agree with her on every issue we all should support her. I would say the same about Lamar even though we disagreed on P.
It would be nice if at the very least Council members had to disclose conflicts of interest (in particular campaign contributions from unions and developers) before they voted. I liked Rich’s suggestion yesterday that CC members with these conflicts not be allowed to vote (a judge would have to recuse him or herself–why not a CC member?) but it does not seem feasible. Perhaps if we ever get an honest CC majority they could pass an ordinance which required disclosure of conflicts.
The time to be concerned is now. At some point the hole will be too big to crawl out of.
While I agree that Council campaign contributions and “earned IOU’s” for future campaign war-chests play a large part in Councilman Saylor’s ambitious future plans to run for higher office, I do not think that this is a major factor with Ruth Asmundson. Her “thinking” is and always has been rigid, autocratic and insultingly maternalistic with regard to the role that Davis citizens should play in their own governance. Most people do not really gain wisdom as they move into their senior years, they just become MORE of who they have always been. It’s really time for Ruth Asmundson to retire(or be “retired”) from elected office.
“”We do not have to wonder too much. Rich Rifkin appeared before council and politely reminded the councilmembers that several of them had taken large sums of campaign contributions from the firefighters.””
#1. Sue Greenwald
#2. Ruth Asmundsen
#3. Don Saylor
#4. Steve Souza
These four have all taken contributions from firefighters .
What we need to fo is find viable candidate(e) to run. How can this best be accomplished?
As an aside, my household received a survey letter(described as one of 500 randomly selected opinions) asking about support for Davis district elections. The origin of this letter/survey was not clear. Does anyone know who/what group sent out this survey??
“”I was personally ASSURED by the Finance Director that there would be some form of transparency even if the labor negotiations could not be held in public.””
Trust , is earned , do you really believe that you have earned that ?
[i]Many cities in this state are heading toward bankruptcy as sales and property tax revenues have slid.[/i]
Which is why Lamar and the Davis Vanguard came out against the sales tax renewal? If you put these two positions together, you cross the line from mature budget concerns to a taxpayers-are-God crusade.
[i]Many cities in this state are heading toward bankruptcy as sales and property tax revenues have slid.[/i]
Which is why Lamar and the Davis Vanguard came out against the sales tax renewal? If you put these two positions together, you cross the line from mature budget concerns to a taxpayers-are-God crusade.
Avatar: “These four have all taken contributions from firefighters.”
It would be useful to list them in the order of magnitude, or — even better — to show the donations in dollar amounts and by election cycle.
I don’t think Sue Greenwald is getting much in the way of donations from firefighters lately.
Has Ruth formally declared yet if she is running for re-election?
If she is, I sincerely hope that Davis voters will NOT re-elect her; as no better example of her leadership style, look at the July vote with Measure P, where she essentially asked Parlin what was their preference for an election (November or June), and now she is doing the same type of pandering to the firefighters, putting the city’s fiscal interests (and indirectly, those of its citizens) behind her own politcal agenda.
If Sidney Vergis runs again, she is NO different than Ruth, and in fact, what we may see is if Ruth doesn’t run again, she will throw all of her support and voters to Sidney, God help us, if a younger version of Ruth is elected!
What the firefighters discovered about Sue, making her distinct from the others they gave money to, is that she would not act as their agent on the council. Once they realized that many years ago, they turned against her and fought hard to defeat Sue. They have not given her any money (AFAIK) since her first winning campaign. And if they could take back that money, they would.
Because it is lawful in California for members of the council to accept funds from people who do business with the city — including developers, contractors and suppliers of goods — my view is that the best answer is to change our council’s ethics’ guidelines to force recusals of anyone who took funds from those parties*.
A member of the council in Davis is deemed to have a conflict of interest if he owns property 500 feet away from a project under consideration. In reality, most projects 300, 400 or 500 feet from yours don’t materially affect your property value. But we err on the side of caution because such proximities can have [i]the appearance of a conflict of interest.[/i]
It seems to me, if Councilmember P has accepted money for his campaign from Developer Q or from Union O, any votes P casts which materially affect Q or O appear conflicted.
* I’m not sure what we would do about a quorum if multiple members of the council had to recuse themselves.
Greg S: I was told by someone who would know that Ruth is running again and that She and Sydney are running as a “team.”
She and Sydney are running as a “team.”
“The Dream Team” (for developers!)
If you look at Sydney Vergis’ list of endorsers from hr failed 2008 CC run (on Davis Wiki), you will see listed:
“Davis Professional Firefighters, local 3494”
and Ruth’s daughter served as her campaign treasurer;
also supported by Kevin (Mr. “Measure J light”) Wolf;
what is more interesting is that Joe Krovoza was listed an endorser that year, and he will be running against her next year….unless Ruth changes her mind, and this is the new “team”???
Heaven Help Us. We need someone else to run!