A Lesson in Civic Activism Saves Davis Bridge Program

Davis Bridge serves around 150 students at local elementary schools and Junior Highs.  The program features after-school homework, tutoring, and other in-school and out-of-school activities.  It is a program that focuses on those students who may be struggling academically, those who are economically disadvantaged, and those who are classified as English learners including a significant number of children of immigrants or migrants.

“Davis Bridge  serves an unseen population. In Davis, we have very high-achieving schools. … But if you look at the broad statistics, you may not realize that there are also kids who are English learners, and are in a family that may be living at the poverty line, or slightly above it. Yet these families shop at the same supermarkets, walk the same streets, their children attend the same schools.

“It’s hard to realize that we have such families in Davis when you look at the overall test scores, the property values, and the emotional attainment of the community as a whole. But these people are neighbors of ours, and deserve our attention.”

On Tuesday, he was fighting for its very existence.

According to the staff report:

“The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) are two federally funded grant programs administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The programs are designed to assist local governments in the development and improvement of their community through funding for affordable housing, special economic development, removal of architectural barriers, public facilities and improvements, public services and neighborhood revitalization. While local governments have a great deal of flexibility in the selection of projects, all funded projects must directly benefit low-income residents.”

Typically the programs go before the Social Services Commission who make recommendations to Council.

“Due to the amount of requests for funding more than doubling the amount available for Public Services activities and based on the critical needs list, the Social Services Commission and staff are recommending that four of the seventeen public service proposals not receive any funding for program year 2010-2011.”

Why would the Davis Bridge Foundation, a proven successful program get no funding?

“The Davis Bridge Educational Foundation and Paratransit programs are both educational programs that would be classified as indirect services under the City’s Critical Needs List. Therefore, they received less of a funding priority…  While it is regrettable that the City is unable to fund these proposals, there are some existing resources that can assist a few of these programs. Specifically, staff has encouraged the Davis Bridge Educational Foundation to access the School STEPS Program that is being provided by the Yolo County Department of Education for the next two years. This program can assist with school supplies, transportation to and from school, and other resources for the most at-risk youth.”

That was before the supporters of the Davis Bridge Foundation packed the room and council heard about the program and had to look these people in the eyes when they cut their funding.

Councilmember Heystek once again put it most succinctly when he spoke of the commitment to a segment of the community that often goes unnoticed.

“It’s a pittance.  It’s the least we can do because we’re serving an invisible population.  Statistics that we present in grant applications and when we demonstrate the success of this community, mask the existence of those who are on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.  It masks the existence of those who test scores don’t exceed state averages.  It masks their existence, they are among us.  They are our neighbors.  They are taxpayers.  They contribute to the vibrancy of this community.  If we don’t make a commitment tonight of at least $15,000 to this organization and to this community, I feel that in that respect I assume some responsibility for having failed this segment of our community.  If we don’t make a commitment tonight to this segment of the community, we have failed the whole community.”

The council directed staff to find the funding to support the Davis Bridge Program.  It was a great victory for a worthy program.  It was also a great lesson in civic activism. 

Councilmember Stephen Souza correctly acknowledged the impact of the people present.  He noted that had other groups come down, they might be the ones getting the bump up in funding.  He felt that many of these groups had critical programs that council would support.  And he is correct.  The process was unfair.  Those who organized and packed the room are advantaged.  Had others known to do the same, they might have been advantaged as well.  By the same measure, he voted to support the program.

This is indeed a lesson in civic activism, but as with anything that lesson only goes so far.  I remember now nearly four years ago, over a hundred people came to council to ask them to preserve the Human Relations Commission, and they were derided as rule by mob, regarded as threatening, and lectured by the council majority.

Likewise last summer, several dozen residents of the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Simmons Ranch development came to council and were lectured by Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who lectured them, “here’s just a possibility that applause and cheering and hissing and booing could intimidate a person who has a different point of view.  Frankly all citizens matter—all of them.  Even the ones who aren’t wearing a red shirt tonight my friends.”

On the other hand, a few months later when the issue of the rotating winter shelters came up, the council had originally voted to support the subcommittee’s recommendation.  However, activists organized community members who can out in force and the council reconsidered that decision.  Without direct public pressure, the council would not have changed their vote.  Interestingly, it was only when I personally pointed out that Mr. Saylor was not equal-handed in his lecture on applause that he suggested that perhaps I was correct in that standpoint.

The bottom line is that public pressure can influence the council’s vote under some circumstances.  When it comes like social issues such as grants for education, shelters for the homeless, perhaps a resolution regarding a war, the council is likely to try to do the right thing if they are shown what the right thing is.  However, when it comes to central policies such as land use, the council already has its mind made up long before the vote, protestations notwithstanding.

For example going back to the shut down of the Human Relations Commission, as Councilmember Souza started reading his comments, someone from the audience called him on it and he said he had just written the comments.  That was likely untrue.  He had made up his mind long before and was not about to change it or even listen to another perspective.

I point this out simply because if the public expects that they can influence the council on land use issues or other issues that are polarizing then they are probably in for a rude awakening.  On the other hand, for less controversial issues the public can influence the council both by raising an issue that council had not considered and neither had staff and by swaying them toward a given result.

Tuesday was a great example, however, in this case, Stephen Souza is correct, the council does need to be careful because the majority of groups did not come out, does not mean they do not have large amounts of community support and it does not mean their projects are unworthy.

There is a danger in changing policy based on public sentiment expressed at a council meeting and there is a lesson for those who are frustrated by the council’s policies.

—David M. Greenwald reporting