Citizen commissions have become a way of life that embodies the Davis spirit. Now, as we reported Thursday, a proposal has been put forth by the subcommittee composed of Mayor Don Saylor and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson that would effectively gut several of the key commissions.
It is easy to ascribe motivation absent other information. However, the fact remains that the proposals put forward into policy recommendations, without vetting through the community, are premature at best. This would have been much better off introduced through a workshop format, allowing all the commissions and citizens who understand their history to come forward, and then attempt a policy discussion.
From the discussions I have had so far, there appear to be three key points that need to be discussed. The first explanation for this proposed policy is cost savings. The problem immediately is that we have no idea how much in the way of cost savings this will produce. There is no quantification of staff time. There is no calculation of cost for staff time.
One suggested explanation for why this would save money is that because of the number of commissions that we have, we have to carry extra staff members just to staff these commissions. That idea seems a bit hyperbolic to me. I will discuss in a moment that issue, but I believe we are going about this backwards.
However, regardless, the budget problems we face in this community are not due to commissions. We could get rid of every commission and eliminate several additional staff positions and we would still be facing fiscal calamity in five years.
The fact is the city is not in fiscal crisis because of commission or policies. We are facing fiscal crisis because we grew our salaries too fast, supporting them with a tax increase and the real estate bubble. Once the economy burst, the backing of salary increases went bust as well.
We need to fix our compensation system. We know that requires fixing the unfunded liability for retiree health care and our pension system.
In so much as this proposeal does not fix the fiscal problem, it seems to be another attempt to nickel and dime the city’s finances, without producing the real savings that we need. Put this up there with the furloughs and reorganization.
Speaking of which, what became clear through various discussions is that the real problem is that the commission restructuring that took place prior to the election simply was not sufficient.
To illustrate this second key point, let’s talk about the tale of two uses of commissions – one that worked and one that was more of a disaster.
Last year an artificial group known as CHA was formed by a developer to promote a specific land use (senior housing) on a specific property (Covell Village) for a specific project. The result was the creation by the developer of a movement for senior housing.
One thing that came out of that flawed process was the work of the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission, who both looked into the issue separately and were able to foster good and solid proposals that steered the city away from the developer-driven model. That is an example of how the commission system should work, and an example of why two commissions looking at different aspects of a project are better than one.
A bad thing that came out of the process was again a developer-driven process occurred, when the developers of Verona went to the Planning Commission to ask for a redress on a number of issues. Eventually, staff came forward with a plan based on what would have cost the city a ton of money. The Parks and Recs Commission looked only at its portion, and Finance and Budget its portion of the project. Were it not for specific questions that emerged, driven from outside of the commission process, the proposal might have looked very different.
The council itself was forced to put everything together, because each commission only looked at its own bite of the action. That is not a good way to run a commission system, and it caused work at the council level that should never have gotten that far.
What we need to do and did not do was to come up with a specific process, whereby projects and other ideas are evaluated. One of the things that the restructuring is looking to do is to bring together larger subject expertise. For me, that is something could be accomplished through joint-committees, or better yet, subcommittees based on multiple commissions who can then return a proposal to the commissions and re-examine the proposal from a narrower perspective.
The solution is not to gut the commission system, but rather to change the way it works and interacts with itself, with the council and with the community. That is what the restructuring from the spring failed to accomplish, to create a system that effectively examines issues that come forward.
Finally, a third key point is that a lot of commissions, or some, have vacancies, and many have trouble getting people to show up at meetings. To me, this goes back to the start of the current council era, with the loading up of commissions in 2004 with political appointments and the dismissal of many commissioners who did not agree with that council majority.
The culmination of that process was the disbanding of the HRC for a variety of reasons, the discussion of which will likely reignite some political differences. But the bottom line is that after that point, the HRC and other commissions were denuded of their strengths. People were placed onto commissions who were quite frankly duds. And fewer people were willing to serve because their services were disrespected.
We do not fix this problem by further denuding the strength of commissions, we fix it by building them up and making them stronger. We should be reaching out to members of the community who offer expertise and passion, and asking them to serve their community. The commissions should not reflect the will of the council majority, they should reflect the diversity of the community and represent it. A good commission should challenge the council, advise the council, question the council, and push the council.
If we weaken the commission structure and process, then we will fail to convince strong, interested and active members of the community to come forward once again. Right now, many commissioners have done little in the community, have little investment, do not know the city’s politics and passions, and thus treat attending meetings as a chore rather than a privilege.
The bottom line is that the commissions are not going to save or break the budget, and if there are problems we can solve them through restructuring each commission’s purview and process. We can come up with ways to save staff time if that is a concern. We can come up with ways to encourage membership and recruit people who will be more active members. But if we consolidate, we will lose the expertise on some of the strongest commissions.
I think we need a separate Social Services and Senior Citizens commission. We need an independent Historic Resources Commission to make sure our Historic Treasures are preserved. We need to look out for civil rights in this community. I understand the need to save money, but to me it seems we are looking everywhere, except to the financial problem itself, to do so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “The commissions should not reflect the will of the council majority, they should reflect the diversity of the community and represent it. A good commission should challenge the council, advise the council, question the council, and push the council.”
Commissions often serve as a check on the absolutism of the City Council or city staff if either chooses to circumvent process in order to answer to vested interests.
dmg: “The bottom line is that the commissions are not going to save or break the budget, and if there are problems we can solve them through restructuring each commission’s purview and process. We can come up with ways to save staff time if that is a concern.”
Our commission has repeatedly offered to take over liaison duties, we do not ask for staff to appear at our commissions very often (rarely), and when staff does appear we have offered them expert advice on seniors that they have used to develop their plans.
By the way, or city staff liaison Maria Lucchesi (who is relatively new)has been stellar to work with, has not once complained about any onerousness of duties. But our commission has offered to take over liason duties with our previous staff liaison, and we were rebuffed, but never knew the reason why.
During multiple recent council meetings, I have explained that Don Saylor is exerting far too much control via the subcommittee process. I have explained that by delegating the recommendations on important policy issues to a subcommittee, and by appointing himself and one of the new councilmembers to each of these subcommittees, Don Saylor is assuring that one of the new councilmembers hears only one side of the story before committing to a line of action (due to the Brown Act, which is state law, once Don Saylor forms a subcommittee with another councilmember, no other councilmember can talk to any of the councilmembers on the subcommittee.)
In general, the Brown act prohibits us from speaking with potential swing vote councilmembers outside of council meetings if that councilmember is on a subcommittee with another councilmember. I have explained that the new councilmembers should hear the long and multi-faceted history of each of these policy issues from every member of the council, including myself.
As I have said at the council, subcommittees should not be used to make policy recommendations on major issues; these issues should be discussed on equal footing by the entire council, in public, before a councilmember makes a formal recommendation.
And as I have explained during councilmeetings, it is no accident that Don did not appoint me to any subcommittee, and that even the subcommittee on the City Manager process, which the council appointed me to over Don’s objections was relegated to a “purely ministerial role”.
In general, the Brown act prohibits us from speaking with potential swing vote councilmembers outside of council meetings if that councilmember is on a subcommittee with another councilmember. I have explained that the new councilmembers should hear the long and multi-faceted history of each of these policy issues from every member of the council, including myself.
Can you attend subcommittees (unassigned to you) when no second council member is assigned, or if one of the council members is absent? It would give you a way of having a voice, and/or motivate other partisan council members to be more regular in their attendance.
wdf, no. If three members of the council are in the same room and any city business is discussed without a public notice of an official meeting, that is a violation of the Brown Act.
That’s not completely accurate Rich. Three councilmembers can attend a public meeting that is noticed under the Brown act. What can’t happen is for them to all discuss policies that pertain to the council. But if one member of the council wants to sit and watch and not say anything, there is nothing to preclude him or any other member of the public from attending. Also all three could make public comments as any member of the public can.
wdf1: No, once one councilmember discusses an item that is before the council with another councilmember, neither councilmember can discuss that item with a third councilmember simultaneously or serially.
[quote]That’s not completely accurate Rich. Three councilmembers can attend a public meeting that is noticed under the Brown act. What can’t happen is for them to all discuss policies that pertain to the council. But if one member of the council wants to sit and watch and not say anything, there is nothing to preclude him or any other member of the public from attending. Also all three could make public comments as any member of the public can. [/quote]
As I understand it, you are technically correct, but the legislative body can open themselves up the the “appearance of impropriety”, which may lead to the body to need to defend themselves in a court of law at the taxpayers’ expense (if there is an “aggrieved” party)… they should be obviously distanced during breaks, recesses, etc. to minimize the risk… or avoid the situation entirely… something about “Caesar’s wife”…
RICH: “If three members of the council are in the same room and any city business is discussed [b]without a public notice[/b] of an official meeting, that is a violation of the Brown Act.”
DAVID: “That’s not completely accurate Rich.”
It is completely accurate, David.
DAVID: “Three councilmembers can attend a public meeting [b]that is noticed[/b] under the Brown act.”
No one is questioning that. We are talking about a discussion [i]without[/i] public notice. That is what happens when you have a subcommittee of two–in this case Saylor and Swanson.
Sue: Your description of Don Saylor’s agenda is too kind! Mayor Don appointing himself to subcommittees that recommend Council policy when he abandons his Council seat in approx. 3 months is anoutrageous act of hubris and contempt for the Davis Council and electorate.
Definition:
Aritocracy: rule by the elite
Oligrachy: rule by a few individuals or institutions
anarchy: rule by no one
Saylorarchy: rule by Don Saylor, generally characterized by little democratic process and directed by special interests (see oligrachy)
We are becoming a Saylorarchy. The only good news is that he will leave soon. Maybe JoRo will learn that Davisites do not want Saylrarchy.
“The only good news is that he will leave soon…”
The constant threat of a recall is the only thing that will keep Supervisor Saylor in check. No one should have any doubt that he will “sell out” the Davis electorate’s interests if it significantly advances his quest for Mariko’s assembly seat.
davisite2: “The constant threat of a recall is the only thing that will keep Supervisor Saylor in check. No one should have any doubt that he will “sell out” the Davis electorate’s interests if it significantly advances his quest for Mariko’s assembly seat.”
If Saylor has higher aspirations, he certainly is not helping his cause.
Interesting piece. I think there’s some legitimacy to the idea that there are more commissions than needed… however, I would have liked to see the consolidation be a far more involved process.
Its nice to see such attention being paid to the Brown Act.
If you disagree with Saylor’s policies or issues, go right ahead. I’ve certainly been on both sides of him many times. But lets not confuse the issues; if someone’s voted Mayor by popular vote, I would expect them to continue to push the issues and policies they’ve held onto and talked about while running for office. For that matter, if they’re only in office for three months, I’d expect them to make the most of it.
And talking about “recall” is outright foolish, no matter which side you’re on. Successful recall campaigns almost never happen unless there is a serious criminal scandal involved… and failed recall campaigns or whisperings of them always galvanize the position of the politician being attacked.
Justin Kudo: “Interesting piece. I think there’s some legitimacy to the idea that there are more commissions than needed… however, I would have liked to see the consolidation be a far more involved process.”
How would you know, not having heard what the various commissioners say about this? They never had the time to react, consider the issue, or vote on it. The only reason I know as much as I do is bc I went through it once before, nearly four years ago.
Actually Elaine, tone aside, I’m currently co-chair of the HRC.
That said, I was saying I have the same issue with it you do. I pretty tenatively said that I feel there’s some waste and the commissions can be consolidated. However, I think it should have been a far more involved process (time to react, consider the issue, etc).
Justin Kudo: “Actually Elaine, tone aside, I’m currently co-chair of the HRC. “
Just curious, are you OK with your commission being subsumed by Planning Commission? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Correction: “Just curious, are you OK with your commission being subsumed by Planning Commission? If yes, why? If no, why not?” should read “subsumed by Human Services Commission”.
Seems that the Council heard from a few people – the item has been tabled for tonight.
Is that true? It was taken off of the agenda tonight?
DAVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Roll Call & Approve Agenda*
*Note: Item 8 – Council Subcommittee on Commissions Report – City Commission Structure will be tabled
1)6:30(30 min)Item 1PUBLIC COMMENTS
2)7:00(5 min)Item 2CONSENT CALENDAR
REGULAR CALENDAR
3)7:05(10 min) Item 3Public Hearing: Submit the Program Year 2009-2010 CAPER to HUD to Fulfill Required Reporting on CDBG and HOME Funds
4)7:15(30 min)Item 4Public Hearing: Yolo Federal Credit Union Project Proposal / 501 G & 511 G Street –Construction of 7,850 Sq. Ft. Building
5)7:45(60 min)Item 5Pursue Negotiations with Yolo County Housing Regarding Rehabilitation and Reuse of Pacifico Affordable Housing Project
6)8:45(45 min)Item 6Commercial Account Agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for Provision of Banking Services
7)9:30(30 min)Item 72009 Davis Economic Health and Prosperity Report
8)10:00Item 8Council Subcommittee on Commissions Report – City Commission Structure
Item to be tabled
9)10:00(10 min)Item 9City Council, City Manager and City Attorney Brief Communications
A.Brief reports: announcements, questions, meeting reports
B.CC/RDA Calendar
C.AB 1234 Reporting of Meetings Attended at City Expense
10)10:10Adjournment