By E. Roberts Musser –
By E. Roberts Musser – An article appeared in the Davis Vanguard Feb. 8, 2010, in regard to a suggestion by City Staff that the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) have fewer meetings to save staff time. Apparently the Safety Advisory and Bicycle Commissions have already agreed to reduce their meeting frequency. However, Commissioners of the NRC felt fewer meetings would merely result in longer meetings, but wouldn’t result in decreasing staff time. It should also be noted about three years ago, there was an unsuccessful push to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission by the City Council Subcommittee on Commissions (Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Councilmember Steve Souza), presumably to trim staff time.
City Staff has argued their time spent researching issues is costly. Wouldn’t City Staff have to research the issues anyway, for the City Council? Additionally, I would question whether City Staff spends a lot of overtime hours researching topics, or is it just done within the normal workday? If overtime hours are used by City Staff to research issues, just how many and by whom? For instance, is it really necessary for the City Attorney to be present throughout every City Council meeting, at a premium cost? So often it would have seemed easy enough to consult with the City Attorney outside of meetings on the few limited issues referred for legal advice, incurring far less expense then having her sit through an entire City Council meeting.
It has also been suggested by various commissions that commissioners are more than willing to set their own agendas and take their own minutes to save City Staff time. This reasonable accommodation has not been well received by City Staff. Why is that? If there is so much concern about saving City Staff time, this economic proposal should be welcomed with open arms. Or is there more worry by City Staff about a loss of control? Which is probably more at the heart of the issue of eliminating commissions ostensibly for budgetary reasons than anything else – the matter of power and who wields it.
Public participation is messy, contentious and puts City Staff on the proverbial hot seat frequently. Because City Staff makes the initial determination of the City’s position on an issue, it is natural for City Staff to not want to be second-guessed. It is hardly comfortable to have one’s every statement held up for minute public scrutiny. And sometimes the criticism can get exceedingly vicious, especially if the issue at hand has anything to do with housing development. But think what the results might be if the City were to do away with commissions, and the relative “cost” that would involve.
The new Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility is a case in point. Initially City Staff determined the location for this facility was not suitable, based on complaints brought by the Davis Police Department and Davis Waste Removal. Had City Staff not been closely questioned initially by the Senior Citizens Commission, and subsequently by the Planning Commission, the City Staff’s erroneous position might have stood unquestioned. Because of public input and further scrutiny, City Staff completely reversed its decision. In consequence, Davis will be fulfilling the important internal demand of permitting the construction of an assisted living facility that incorporates a much needed dementia unit.
Nevertheless City Staff supposedly did the proper research on the proposed Carlton Plaza Davis, or was that really the case? Or did City Staff merely accept the word of Davis Waste Removal and the Davis Police Department, rather than dig deeper? And was the failure to probe further because DWR and DPD are connected with city government? It is normal and natural for City Staff to form alliances with various entities throughout the city for any number of reasons. But additional close examination by commissions is necessary to ensure power-brokers of various sorts don’t obtain an unfair lock on the decision-making process.
I would argue commissions keep government more honest. They are the price required to carry on the business of government. We need more public participation, not less. Without vigorous community involvement, power-brokers move in, so that taxpayer funds are siphoned off in ways that are not in the best interest of the city. Poor planning as a result of not having commissions may be far more costly in the long run, than the small amount of city funding expended to facilitate commissions. The City, during feeble labor negotiations, allowed millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for future salaries and benefits to go unaddressed without batting an eye. Then the City continues in attempting to nickel and dime the budget to death with anemic suggestions of eliminating some commissions to save relatively small amounts of funding? I think not!
Lesson to be learned: Without constant public scrutiny in the form of commissions, public taxpayer dollars are more prone to wastage and being influenced by corruptive influences.
Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.
I support the commission structure as it democracizes and distributes power in the community.
City Council meetings are busy and long enough, and the only other alternative is for city staff to make decisions, and take the heat as there is no easy appeal process short of over-burdened city council.
That all said, it is frustrating when Commissions:
> Are controlled by volunteers of one interest group and not representative of general community. For example when volunteers, (including chair), from a non-profit funded by the city also make up a majority of commission that is supposed to review actions of that non-profit. The opportunity for “off line” circular meetings (illegal per state AG) and conflicts of interest is obvious.
> Don’t follow Open Meeting laws for Announcing and agendizing discussion, and likely have secrete, off line meetings. City staff is often ignorant of state open government law requirements–and one staffer to a commission told me “What do you want me to be, a lawyer” when I noted these laws. I have been told “commissions are different from city council” when I objected to an unagendized discussion of local concern–without notifying locality effected– in those cases what alternative does citizen have but to embarassed city staffers but to presenting excerpt from City Attorney’s position in the Commission hand book that states “Commissions are Legislative bodies and the Brown Act Applies to them”.
> Trying to avoid open process and input: some City Staff maintain that Commission can form subcommittees of 3 members, and that these subcommitees can hold secrete, unagendized / unannounced meetings in contradict the spirit, if not letter, of Brown Open meeting Act.
> City staff to commission often do not sent out agenda of commisson by mail and email in advance of meetings, as required by law.
> City staff to commissions do not make public- proactively — all documents & communications it sends to commissioners. This is easily done in this eamil age, but still not done by the City. (A low/no email system to do this has been set up for years in other less hi-tech places then Davis).
We need to return to basics of open government in Davis and now 20 year old Open Government Law. It is not a time to turn to cynicism that Government does not work, or idea that City staff is malevolent or lazy.
Instead their needs a culture shift among some parts of city staff and (some) commissions so that good public public involvement process and collaborating with citizens is seen as good thing, a community building thing, not a necessary evil that gets in the way of efficiency and progress.
To Treeguy: I am unaware, personally, of the violations of the Brown Act you refer to. I do know that all City Staffers are supposed to be aware of the Brown Act and follow it to the letter. Our commission’s current City Staff liaison is very good about following the Brown Act. If you feel strongly about commissions as an invaluable way to make sure public participation in governance remains possible, I would strongly urge you to apply to be on a commission that interests you. And do continue to point out violations of the Brown Act. If necessary, bring it up during Public Comment at a City Council meeting. It is very important that our commissions follow the Brown Act to ensure full transparency in the political process…
No commissions? Goodness! Think of it–what a stratagem for those who want to minimize public input and forms of oversight. Imagine being in government and being able to make decisions the way YOU want to, with minimal interference! In fact, think of the money we could save if we did away with our senators and representatives!
As a Natural Resources Commissioner, I agree with all commenters that commissions are generally a democratizing force. Regarding Treeguy’s Brown Act concerns:
1. We all have to learn the Brown Act rules, and City staffers attending meetings clarify all questions and are ready to jump in if a commissioner unwittingly suggests something in violation of Brown. (Things like “I’ll email everyone my thoughts”)
2. The Brown Act’s intent is to prevent decisions being made out of the public eye, which is why it forbids a majority of a commission or council from discussing an item. It’s not made to prevent collaborative research out of the public eye and therefore cannot prevent minority factions from making political plans out of the public eye. We do break into subcommittees to research issues and to bring proposals to the entire Commission, at which point they are on an agenda and the public has input. This saves city staff research money, and later makes our Commission discussions better informed, but I think Treeguy’s concerned because a subcommittee will have more information backing its recommended action (if it has one) than other Commission members who may turn out to disagree. A subcommittee recommendation is persuasive to the rest of the Commission but by no means decisive. Interested citizens can show up at the public Commission meeting with their own research, since these are agendized. And the subcommittee may anyhow just present research results and a range of options.
As someone who volunteers my precious time on a subcommittee looking into ways to lessen the carbon and landfill impacts of our garbage, obviously I think what I’m doing is useful. The subcommittee includes 2 commissioners and 2 members of the public who showed up and expressed interest. If someone reading this has expertise or wants to do serious research and dedicate every other Thursday evening to this subject for the next several months, speak up please. For expressing a strong opinion but doing no research work, it’s best to show up at the NRC meeting where we’ll present options and research results (look for it to be agendized probably in October).
Adrienne Kandel