On June 8, Davis elected two new members of the Davis City Council. Finally they will be sworn in on Tuesday, more than a month later. At the same time, Don Saylor will become Mayor. One of the interesting questions may be whether Joe Krovoza is immediately seated as Mayor Pro Tem. If he is, it would be difficult to see how anyone other than Mr. Krovoza would become Mayor after Don Saylor moves on to the Board of Supervisors.
The final regular meeting for the old council was June 29, 2010. Last week’s meeting was entirely ceremonial. This week’s meeting will be almost entirely ceremonial. Next week will have the first meeting of the new council and that appears to be a workshop. There will be a special council goal setting retreat on Saturday July 24, a regular meeting on July 27 and finally the special morning meeting on Monday August 2 which is largely non-business.
Under normal conditions this would be problematic. Part of the reason for late meeting is that we simply attempt to stuff too much onto a given night’s agenda. The council then ends up in situations where it is discussing key and vital issues late into the night when no one is fresh and the public has long since gone home and turned off their television sets.
Of course these are not normal times. The city faces several key issues and an overall crisis. I have a general problem with the notion of taking the month of August off, particularly during a time when people in this community face an unprecedented challenges in the form of a down economy, furloughs, layoffs, pay cuts, and now for state workers, they face the possibility of receiving minimum wage.
One of the most immediate questions is what will happen with the city attorney now that Harriet Steiner’s firm is about to close its doors. The city was caught somewhat unaware and at least the last week checked, the council has had no discussions about what to do with about the city attorney. That gives the council barely two meetings to deal with this.
The city seemed to simply assume that they would want to retain Ms. Steiner who has served the city as city attorney since 1986. However, the council may need to discuss it and also determine what level of a service Ms. Steiner and a new firm could give or whether they even want to retain her services. The city council gets two hiring decisions, the city manager and the city attorney, it should not be up to the city staff to make this determination for the new council.
The DACHA issue remains up in the air as well. The city foreclosed on DACHA and now the city is operating the non-profit co-op, but that would not seem to be a permanent solution. There is also the matter of the pending lawsuit against DACHA and now the City.
The biggest problems facing the city have been well-documented on these pages and they involve the city’s budget and compensation. One issue that may come up will be an update on the city-UC Davis talks involving the merger of the UC Davis and City of Davis Fire Departments. Successful merger talks could reduce costs for both the city and university. There are questions about how this plan is progressing and hopefully we will find out more when the acting Fire Chief Bill Weisgerber gives a progress report in the coming weeks.
This has been a slow summer in terms of policy issues though since the election. Verona popped up briefly and appears to be resolved with the developer agreeing to the city council’s changes which included maintaining the same level of supplemental fees along with adjusting the buffer area for a more uniform green belt.
It is my hope that the new council will come in with a strong reform minded agenda and be able to change the trajectory of the way this city has been run. But it appears at least for now that the city will remain in a slow period with the real business perhaps not coming forth until the council returns from vacation in Mid-September.
With the city facing a budget crisis, a pension crisis, and now possibly many members of this community will have to receive minimum wage, it appears that there is a lot of work that should be done, that’s frankly not even on the agenda for now. Hopefully business as usual changes, but it seems like that will take a fight to do that.
So in the meantime, enjoy another ceremonial council agenda on Tuesday night, one week we had a ceremony for the outgoing council and this week a ceremony for the incoming council. Good thing there is no business that is pressing that the city should address. Oh wait.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”… it would be difficult to see how anyone other than Mr. Krovoza would become Mayor after Don Saylor moves on to the Board of Supervisors.”[/i]
Who becomes mayor in January, I would think, will be foretold by who is selected to take over Don Saylor’s erstwhile seat. And who is selected will depend on which coalition forms over the next 5-6 months to pick that Saylor-seat-filler.
If the selectee is a unanimous choice* of all four remaining members of the council, my hunch is that they would pick Joe to be the next mayor, because he would represent unity, having never been a part of the Souza-Saylor faction or the Heystek-Greenwald faction.
*(I think this is actually likely. My ideal for the unanimous pick is someone who is an older person who does not have any ambition to stay on after two years; someone who perhaps has served on commissions and is well liked by others who have worked with him/her; and someone who is well known but not close friends with any of the four on the council.)
If the selectee results from a 3-1 bloc of Sue, Joe and Rochelle, I think they would hand the mayor’s gavel to Sue. Not only does she have much more experience on the council than Joe, but Joe will get to take over as mayor in 2012 no matter what.
If the selectee results from a 3-1 faction of Stephen, Joe and Rochelle, I think they would make Stephen mayor. He has more experience on the council than Joe; and Joe will get to take over as mayor in 2012.
If come January our council is split 2-2 — a Souza faction vs. a Greenwald faction — rochambeau ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors[/url]) happens. By state law, they have 30 days to either fill the seat or call an election 114 or more days later.
Calling an election the first week in January would mean a costly special election in May and four months with an empty seat on the council. They could also appoint an interim member to fill the seat. However, if they could agree on an interim member, then why have a costly special election? I really doubt they will go for the costly route and 4 months of 2-2 gridlock.
If there is an immutable division, I suspect each side will suggest a seat-filler; and then the two sides square off in rock-paper-scissors three times. Winner gets the seat. [quote]If a vacancy occurs in an elective office provided for in this chapter, the council shall, within 30 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy. The special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent.[/quote]