Four years ago, a council subcommittee of Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza attempted to, among other things, merge the Social Services Commission with the Senior Citizens Commission. The result was a huge uproar that led to much public acrimony and a backing down by the council.
Learning nothing from that debacle, the council is now proposing a far broader consolidation that would put commissions with very different functions together, in effect gutting the entire system and making the idea of citizen involvement questionable.
However, they admit they have no idea what the savings would be: “At this stage, exact savings are difficult to determine, although the subcommittee is confident that the changes will result in increased efficiencies, allowing staff to prioritize time working on projects and programs that is now devoted to commission liaison duties. In addition, the subcommittee expects cost savings due to reduced paper, copying and deliveries of packets, as well as other incidentals.”
Once again, the subcommittees proposed to be merged are the Senior Citizens Commission and the Social Services Commission. However this time, they will add the Human Relations Commission to it and thus create the Human Services Commission. As much as the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission were shown to have very different functions in the past, the Human Relations Commission shares virtually nothing with the other two commissions.
The rationale for this merger is: “Rather than looking at one specific demographic in the community, a merged commission allows participants to understand the needs and issues of specific groups within the larger context of the broad community. This provides balanced feedback and increases possibility of creative solutions given limited resources.”
So seniors, the poor and those with disabilities, and minorities are now all lumped together. They no longer have commissions that examine their specific issues. These are all very different issues. The HRC has had an important role in this community coming out of the death a Vietnamese High School Student in the early 1980s. It focused Davis on issues of diversity, which will now be watered down to compete with issues that are equally important, which the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission cover.
What seems to be happening is that HRC caused the council trouble, the Senior Citizens Commission has not gone along with the housing agenda, and so the council is trying to bury dissent.
The subcommittee also plans to gut the functions of the Historic Resources Management Commission, which has a specific purpose of ensuring that the city follows guidelines on historic sites. Now they will be merged with the Planning Commission, and while their functions may be expanded, they will not have the specific purview of protecting such cites.
The subcommittee writes, “Will allow for more comprehensive community planning which will include historic consideration. Will result in additional training requirements for all Planning Commissioners in order to retain Certified Local Government Status. Training may be completed locally or through outside workshops and may require anywhere from two to eight hours.”
That sounds good, but the practical effect is that you will be taking people who were selected for their expertise in Historic Preservation and merging them with people whose primary interest is land use. That will completely and totally gut the purpose of having a separate Historic Resources Management Commission to protect Davis’ historic treasures.
The other proposed mergers include creating a Transportation and Circulation Commission, by uniting the Bicycle Advisory Commission and Safety and Parking Advisory Commission; creating a Resources and Environmental Sustainability Commission, by combining the Natural Resources Commission, the Open Space and Habitat Commission and the Tree Commission; and appointing a one-year Technology and Communications Task Force, to replace the Telecommunications Commission.
Writes the subcommittee on the Transportation and Circulation Commission, “Consistent with Climate Action Plan. Will allow comprehensive integrated and holistic review of transportation and circulation issues from multi-modal perspective in a more timely manner.”
Of all the moves, this one probably makes the most sense, but even there, I think there I see that diluting or mitigating the role of the Bicycling Advisory commission is a mistake.
On the latter merger they write, “A single Resources and Sustainability Commission will encourage a more integrated review of a wide range of resource issues, including a focus on the implementation of the Climate Action Team.”
It seems like the result will be a lot of ground that is missed because the commissions, at least two of which have heavy workloads, will be merged. The Tree Commission has a very specific function (just as the HRMC does), in this case to manage the city’s trees, and that is very different from the broader-scoped commissions. The loss of that detailed oversight will harm this community, in my view.
This is a community that prides itself on advocacy for bicycling, and they are now talking about merging that into a more generalized safety and parking advisory commission. There is some overlap, but that would seem to water down the BAC.
I am more concerned with the proposal to merge the Natural Resources Commission, which has a very different purview than the Open Space Commission. That would not only water down their functions, it would make them far less effective.
We talk about how much money we spend on the commission in terms of staff time, but it would be interesting if they actually did the math and figured that out. How much money does the commission save by allowing ideas to come forward that improve our system of governance? How much money do we save by vetting ideas or bringing them forward? That part is more difficult to quantify.
Writes the subcommittee, “The subcommittee undertook a review of twenty-three boards, commissions and groups and found a great deal of variance in the operations of each. The subcommittee also had difficulty assigning an exact cost to each commission, since some commissions more closely align with work already being performed by staff. In addition, meeting schedules and intensity vary.”
They continue, “Rather than simply focus on ‘how much’ a commission costs, the subcommittee also focused on whether each particular commission fit into the core goals of the council and what information the council needed to have from each commission. The result is a proposal that, while reducing the overall number of commissions, focuses on a structure to provide the information the Council wants and needs over the next two-year period.”
Do we have too many commissions? Perhaps, but commissions also reflect the engagement and diversity of our citizenry. In a lot of cases, you will be diluting the purview of certain commissions and making their advocacy work less effective on some issues.
It is interesting to note that some of the more “troublesome” commissions, those that raise policy questions and challenge the council at various times, have been merged.
I am very disappointed with these recommendations, I think they run contrary to our goals of citizen participation and move to consolidate power in the city council and city staff. I see this as a power grab by the council subcommittee, particularly the Mayor, to get rid of “troublesome” commissions that get in the way of progress and development as they see it.
This needed far more community input, I urge this community to stand up and oppose these changes.
—David M. Greenwald
No, wait! We also need to merge Planning, Finance & Budget, Business & Econ Development, and Telecom, thereby creating a mini-mega-commission capable of talking amongst themselves (on a landline) about how much to charge, and where to set up, a roving mechanical service for all the new Zipcars in town.
The highly efficient but tongue-twisting PF&BB&ED&T Commission. “Doing Absolutely Nothing for the Benefit of No One”.
“I am very disappointed with these recommendation, I think they run contrary to our goals of citizen participation and move to consolidate power in the city council and city staff. I see this as a power grab by the council subcommittee, particularly the Mayor to get rid of “troublesome” commission that get in the way of progress and development as they see it.”
This is a thinly veiled attempt to cut down on citizen participation, pure and simple. The very fact that the city staff cost cannot be quantified tells you that. This is also an attempt by city staff to rid themselves of duties they would rather not be bothered with. I doubt that many of the city staff liaisons particularly mind their commission assignments – but is a parting shot by the City Manager as Bill Emlen leaves and Paul Navazio takes over.
Interesting note – City Council specifically directed that the Senior Citizens Commission be left alone at the time of the “merger” fight. Ruth Asmundson specifically directed staff from the dais not to bring the issue up again. And yet here we are 3 years later, rehashing the same issue.
What is Don’s last day?
I guess I’ll be one of the odd balls here. This seems like a good step to take in my opinion. While I do value the work of commissions, I also realize that the city is in a world of hurt financially. Whether we have the exact figures or not (in terms of savings), it’s an attempt to cut some expenditures. So, I have to give props to city council for at least trying to think creatively.
But beyond that, I think some of these mergers make sense. I definitely hear the concern of combining a few of these commissions. However, I think some of them could be merged. The key isn’t how many commissions we have, but the people on them. If these mergers occur, it’s more important than ever to have the right people on them.
I’ll likely support this move.
concerned citizen: “I guess I’ll be one of the odd balls here. This seems like a good step to take in my opinion. While I do value the work of commissions, I also realize that the city is in a world of hurt financially. Whether we have the exact figures or not (in terms of savings), it’s an attempt to cut some expenditures. So, I have to give props to city council for at least trying to think creatively.”
There is no extra cost involved. City staff are not paid extra for attending commission meetings. All eliminating commissions does is cut down on citizen participation – especially since so many decisions handed down by commissions run counter to what the CC majority views have been. This is nothing but the CC trying to get rid of a thorn in their side, so they have unfettered power to do whatever they want. Had we not had the Senior Citizens Commission, for instance, there would be no Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility. I’m sure other commissions can point to their own successes in making end runs around the CC majority, who tended to cater to certain vested interests. Commissions serve as a check on City Council majority power. I’m very disappointed in this clearly cynical move to cut down on citizen participation and proper process…
JustSaying: What is Don’s last day?
Jan. 3
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=62303[/url]
[quote]I’m sure other commissions can point to their own successes in making end runs around the CC majority, who tended to cater to certain vested interests. [/quote]
Scary thought… advocating that it’s a good thing to have folks appointed, not selected by voters, having more power than those actually elected by voters. I’m hoping that wasn’t what was intended to be said.
I may be uninformed, but I did have the notion that commissions were [mostly] intended to exist longer than the exact makeup of a city council (usually changing every two years, with the staggered elections). This would, among other things, minimize political effects upon the commissions. But these proposals sound like this subcommittee wants the commissions to be specifically and intensely responsive to the sitting city council, and that seems to instill a political connection.
Also, as everyone has mentioned, I was under the impression that a primary function of the commissions was to “serve as a conduit for citizen input.” As someone who has spent time involved in decision processes such as [almost] pure consensus, I think that it should be clear that citizen input does not happen so effectively in broad-scoped discussions. Input is more useful when overall issues get broken down into more specific sections or issues.
“JustSaying: What is Don’s last day?”
Yesterday wouldn’t be soon enough. I don’t trust Saylor, but that’s just my own opinion. As far as the commissions go, I’m okay with most of them but anything that weakens or rids us of the HRC I’m all for.
erm: “I’m sure other commissions can point to their own successes in making end runs around the CC majority, who tended to cater to certain vested interests.”
hpierce: “Scary thought… advocating that it’s a good thing to have folks appointed, not selected by voters, having more power than those actually elected by voters. I’m hoping that wasn’t what was intended to be said.”
I was not as articulate as I could have been. Let me give you a specific example of what I am talking about. The developer of Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility could not get city staff to forward their application for an up or down vote by the CC. Forces were at work behind the scenes to bury this project. The Senior Citizens Commission forced the issue to a fair hearing, despite resistance from the Davis Police Dept/Davis Waste Removal. Finally city staff held commission hearings, changed their position once it went to both the Senior Citizens and the Planning Commission. Then the CC approved the project. Had the Senior Citizens Commission not pushed for a fair hearing in the first place, this project would never have been developed bc of the opposition by DPD/DWR.
Senior Housing Guidelines were bitterly opposed by some supporters/developers of proposed Covell Village. City staff supported the Guidelines, as did Social Services and Senior Citizens Commission. City Councilmember Don Saylor pulled the Guidelines from the consent calendar to be put on the regular agenda, despite the 3 years of hard work by two commissions and city staff. The objections to the Guidelines were contrary to CA law; and contrary to the best interests of senior citizens in particular and the citizens of Davis in general. For instance, there was an objection to an independent needs analysis for senior housing. There was an objection to a fiscal needs analysis for senior housing. Clearly developer interests were holding sway over attempts to get the Guidelines passed. However, with concerted effort, the Senior Citizens Commission was able to convince the City Council to approve the Guidelines 5-0.
Commissions can and do point out the realities of a situation when City Council members choose to be beholden to special interests rather than the Davis electorate, which is what I meant by the statement “I’m sure other commissions can point to their own successes in making end runs around the CC majority, who tended to cater to certain vested interests.” I should have said “I’m sure other commissions can point to their own successes in making end runs around CC majority WHEN tending to cater to certain vested interests”.
[i]”There is no extra cost involved. City staff are not paid extra for attending commission meetings.”[/i]
From what I understand that’s not really accurate. Salaried staff are expected to work (including time at after-hours meetings) 40-45 hours per week. So while they don’t get “overtime” for the hours they spend attending commission meetings, they are on the clock.
At the “end of the day”, the City Council is THE ONLY [u]deciding[/u] body. All commissions are advisory, although some have approval authority in some areas, but even then, those “decisions” are subject to appeal, and the CC makes the FINAL determination. This is how it should be.
Some commissioners have been ‘subject matter experts’, and have been of great value to informing staff & Council. Some just like the idea of imposing their will on others. the majority are “in between”, and that’s where most of the work is done.
hpierce: “Some commissioners have been ‘subject matter experts’, and have been of great value to informing staff & Council. Some just like the idea of imposing their will on others. the majority are “in between”, and that’s where most of the work is done.”
This is incredibly sad. If commissions are merged, there will be so much less citizen oversight of what city staff and the City Council do – so be careful what you wish for if you are in favor of merging these commissions…
hpierce: “At the “end of the day”, the City Council is THE ONLY deciding body. All commissions are advisory, although some have approval authority in some areas, but even then, those “decisions” are subject to appeal, and the CC makes the FINAL determination. This is how it should be.”
What you have to understand is that commissions act as a check on the absolute power of City Council/city staff. Eliminate/merge commissions, and you will get a consolidation of that power, and less citizen oversight of any kind. As I pointed out above, the developers of Carlton Plaza could not get a fair hearing on their project bc city staff would not allow it. City staff had aligned themselves in the camp of DPD/DWR. The developers came to me, as Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, to get assistance. I and our commissioners invited the developer to present his case. Ultimately city staff changed its position after it conceded to a fair hearing – but would not have had our commission not investigated the matter in our advisory capacity. Without commissions, desirable projects are going to get buried, other projects are going to be pushed forward that the citizens don’t want. Commissions keep the playing field more level than it ordinarily would be…
rr: “From what I understand that’s not really accurate. Salaried staff are expected to work (including time at after-hours meetings) 40-45 hours per week. So while they don’t get “overtime” for the hours they spend attending commission meetings, they are on the clock.”
And somehow they manage to achieve accomplishing all their duties now don’t they? With the merging of commissions they will reduce their workload – how nice for them. Now what it more important, volunteer citizen participation or the convenience of city staff who are handsomely paid for the work they do?
[i]”And somehow they manage to achieve accomplishing all their duties now don’t they?”[/i]
I am not arguing the consolidation issue. Just the fact issue.
You claimed it costs nothing for staff to attend meetings. That’s not really true. By my calculation, the savings in staff time will not be very large: probably around 3-4 weeks* worth of staff time (i.e, 120-160 hours) per year. That is far too little to either leave a position unfilled or to lay someone off.
But, as the staff report says, it could “allow staff to prioritize time working on projects and programs that is now devoted to commission liaison duties.”
That trade-off might not be a good one. But it’s mistaken to think there is no trade-off (in terms of how time is used).
*My assumption is that merging 10 smaller commissions into 4 larger ones and eliminating 1 commission altogether will result in the erasure of roughly 60 meetings per year at 4 hours of staff-time per meeting. (240 hours.) I presume also that most meetings of the 4 larger new commissions will be longer than the meetings of the existing commissions now are, increasing total meeting time by 100 hours. The net result is thus a savings of staff time of 140 hours per year, give or take 20 hours. I have a 17.36% confidence that these estimates are roughly accurate.
Under community pressure to resign after he was guaranteed his next political advancement in order to allow us to vote on his replacement, Don told Crystal Lee he would “serve out his six months as mayor prior to joining the Board of Supervisors, especially because he has goals he wants to accomplish on the Davis City Council.” Her [u]Enterprise[/u] report continued:[quote] ‘I think that’s keeping faith with the voters,’ Saylor said of his decision. He said his top priorities in those six months will be the city budget, water quality issues, and setting the stage for improved communication between council members.”[/quote] It appears Don’s been engaging in settling some old scores rather than undertaking the honorable mission he claimed was more important than letting us select his replacement without paying for a special election we can’t afford.
Yes, he has been busy hasn’t he, tho not too careful with Zip, Hanlees, or city attny (or maybe yes on all three). I am disappointed in Rochelle for going along with this so early in her term. I thought she was more a grass roots person who appreciated citizen input. sigh.
If staff cost is the issue, simply inform the commissions that they will no longer have staff support for their meetings. Let each appoint a Secretary to take minutes and print agendas, and allow the secretaries access to the city web site to post the minutes of the meetings. Commission Chairs can set the agendas and follow Brown Act by posting them in advance. Council liaisons will need to attend meetings more regularly in lieu of staff, so if a liaison misses two meetings in a row a new one could be appointed by the council.
“It appears Don’s been engaging in settling some old scores rather than undertaking the honorable mission he claimed was more important than letting us select his replacement without paying for a special election we can’t afford.”
Lame duck politicians can pull all kinds of shenanigans and try and push through policies they’d never attempt if they were trying to keep their seat. Come Nov. when the Democrats get thoroughly slashed watch what they try and push through Congress before they’re kicked out of office.
rusty49 and SODA: Good points! We need to be keeping an eye on what Don is pushing through in addition to his “getting even” initiatives. Some recent actions seem to be ingratiating him for future pay-offs from the “big boys” (like Hanlees, Zipcar and whoever else might be in line for a give-away of City money in the next four months).
[quote] “At this stage, exact savings are difficult to determine…”[/quote] I don’t buy this as a legitimate explanation. No one would expect “[u]exact[/u] savings” figures, just [u]estimated[/u] ones.
This comment is a tip-off that one of two things is going on: either the issue has been inadequately evaluated or existing estimates are too low to use as a strong argument to implement the changes. I can’t imagine the City doesn’t track commission costs in some manner. If not, a quick questionnaire to involved staff would allow some kind of benefit-cost evaluation. The language used suggests the desired outcome came first and the “justifications” were tacked on later.
Since we allegedly don’t know how much it costs to operate our city commissions, why is this initiative being pushed at this time? Why would a lame-duck mayor be paired with a a new council member with one-meeting experience to determine “whether each particular commission fit into the core goals of the council and what information the council needed to have from each commission” in future years.
Seems like a more logical team would have been two experienced councilors who would have a stake in what information the council needs to be effective in the years ahead. I think Rochelle did the best she could with her limited council know-how, and her insight no doubt helped improve Don’s commission-elimination scheme.
Of course, I also thought she’d be too smart to quickly lash up with Don’s controversial final agenda at the possible expense of her longer-term effectiveness with the rest of the council.
[quote]- so be careful what you wish for if you are in favor of merging these commissions… [/quote]
I [u]NEVER[/u] said what I was for or against any merging… I do not believe, nor will accept, that appointed people (by the way they serve at the discretion of a majority of the Council… which you seem to reject) can make critical decisions. I actually don’t give a darn if the commissions are merged or not.
You seem to be very self-righteous, for example if a commission agrees with your world view… (see earlier comment)… is the concept of Carlton Plaza a good idea? Yes… is the project needed in Davis? Yes… should it be sited next to PD & DWR & SF housing? I would say that honorable people could disagree on that.
What still is disturbing is that “appointed” people, un-vetted by the public, should have the final say, as you seem to advocate.
Why I have Served on the Senior Citizens Commission
My initial motivation for serving on the Senior Citizens Commission was based on my sense of obligation to my family (kin), my faith (communion), and my City (community). The hard “Ks” of my life continue to give it meaning. My wife, Pegi, and I have been residents in Davis since 1974. During this period, we bought a home,raised a family, and experienced the inevitable ups and downs of life. In summary, we matured in place in Davis, our adopted home town.
The perspective I have gained from these experiences has proven to be valuable to me as a member of the Senior Citizens Commission. I have been gratified to find that senior citizens within Davis continue to be as diverse and vibrant as they were when they were younger. As a parent, I empathize with the needs of younger generations as they strive to meet the challenges and responsibilities of their lives. As a result, I see the need to fully and fairly represent and resolve senior citizen issues within the City, but not to the detriment of younger generations, given the finite resources within the City.
For the past two years, it has been my pleasure to serve with Chairwoman Elaine Roberts Musser and other members of the Senior Citizens Commission as we prepared the Senior Housing Guidelines, ensured that the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility received proper due process, and completed numerous other activities within our mandate. I believe we have done our job well.
In summary, I believe that the citizens of Davis and those willing to serve on commissions within Davis will not be well served by the proposal to merge commissions within Davis.
Rich’s estimate is off a tad… like estimating the size of the iceberg based on what you see above the surface… preparation of agendas; preparation for, writing, and supervisor review of staff reports; preparation/review of minutes… these also factor in to the “expense” of supporting commissions…
Like Rich, I am NOT advocating one way or the other re: consolidation. I just want the facts out there.
[quote]What [u]you[/u] have to understand is that commissions act as a check on the absolute power of City Council/city staff.[/quote] With all due respect, what YOU have to understand is that commissioners serve at the pleasure of a majority of the City Council
[quote]The developers came to me, as Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, to get assistance.[/quote]So, are you the subject matter expert, or are you the type that just likes to tell people what their opinion should be? Carlton Plaza should happen… should it happen on Fifth Street, next to Konditorei (sp?), the PD, DWR, single family homes, and professional offices? Not sure, but I can see where reasonable people could disagree.
rr: “*My assumption is that merging 10 smaller commissions into 4 larger ones and eliminating 1 commission altogether will result in the erasure of roughly 60 meetings per year at 4 hours of staff-time per meeting. (240 hours.) I presume also that most meetings of the 4 larger new commissions will be longer than the meetings of the existing commissions now are, increasing total meeting time by 100 hours. The net result is thus a savings of staff time of 140 hours per year, give or take 20 hours. I have a 17.36% confidence that these estimates are roughly accurate.”
I have no confidence these figures are accurate. Too many imponderables. First of all, commissions only meet 10 times per year. Our commission only meets 2 1/2 hours at a time. The staff has managed to do its work and staff commissions too, not to mention often the work commissions do helps staff do their work. How do you quantify that phenomenon?
Don Shor: “If staff cost is the issue, simply inform the commissions that they will no longer have staff support for their meetings. Let each appoint a Secretary to take minutes and print agendas, and allow the secretaries access to the city web site to post the minutes of the meetings. Commission Chairs can set the agendas and follow Brown Act by posting them in advance. Council liaisons will need to attend meetings more regularly in lieu of staff, so if a liaison misses two meetings in a row a new one could be appointed by the council.”
The irony is that this solution has been repeatedly suggested, but staff won’t have any of it. This is not about money, or staff time, it is about getting rid of public participation, which has been a thorn in the side of the CC majority and some city staff.
hpierce: “You seem to be very self-righteous, for example if a commission agrees with your world view… (see earlier comment)… is the concept of Carlton Plaza a good idea? Yes… is the project needed in Davis? Yes… should it be sited next to PD & DWR & SF housing? I would say that honorable people could disagree on that.”
Honorable people would not disagree that any developer has a right to due process. My “self-righteous world view” as you call it (I thought we were supposed to avoid personal attacks) has nothing to do with this issue. The developer was being shut out of the possibility of having a fair hearing. It was the DPD/DWR who were using their connections to the city to keep this lot vacant in perpetuity, by gaming the system.
The fact of the matter is, surrounding this site were already two other senior facilities/developements – ERC and Rancho Yolo. The city had grown out to meet an industrialized part of the city. Neither could DPD/DWR justify their positions, once a fair hearing was held. They admitted there were indeed mitigations that could be used to solve all the “problems” they were asserting.
And just for the record, it was not my “self-righteous world view” that was at issue, but the fairness of procedure. This has been an indemic problem with the city – the behind the scenes machinations that go on that favors vested interests over others, process be damned. The only reason I intervened is because I could see the unfairness of the situation.
I came into the fair hearing with an open mind, not a preconceived view of whether Carlton Plaza should locate there or not. Every one of the objections raised by DPD/DWR were “suppositions of what might occur”, but nothing was tangible. And they just could not justify why it was OK for ERC to be next to them, but not Carlton Plaza Davis. The Planning Commission saw it exactly the same way I did, as did city staff eventually.
But guess what, had we not had that hearing, we would have never heard the developer’s side of the issue. DPD/DWR would have been able to use their connections with the city to kill yet another project proposed for that site. Apparently this has been going on for about 10 years is my understanding – to keep this lot vacant. Once Carlton Plaza Davis is built, and serves 125 of our frail seniors, come back and tell me our commission did the wrong thing in allowing proper process to happen…
hpierce: “So, are you the subject matter expert, or are you the type that just likes to tell people what their opinion should be?”
Usually commmission members are pretty knowledgeable on the subject matter, sometimes more than city staff. But on the other hand, city staff is more familiar with competing interests of the city than are commissioners. So there is a natural and healthy tension that exists between commissioners and city staff. If there is honest dealing, city staff listen carefully to what commissioners have to say, take it into account when evaluating an issue, in light of other countervailing concerns. I know this happened extremely well with the Senior Housing Strategy – so much so that city staff backed our commission 150% against serious vested interests that brought extreme pressure to bear. Other times, city staff has explained to our commission why it has to take into account other considerations (say a younger demographic, etc.)
Without commissioners, city staff may only receive one side of an issue, as in the case of Carlton Plaza Davis. Clearly commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council and do not make the ultimate decision. But they can assist with framing the argument in a fair way, so that all sides are heard. But often the CC majority has not wanted to hear all sides, but rather wants to bypass proper procedure and public input so they can answer to special interests without consequences. Look at what Saylor is going right now as an example… pushing through HIS own agenda with almost no public input bc he is moving on to a County Supervisor position and feels there will be no consequences to what he is doing. Bob Dunning has has a field day explaining what a bad deal the city is getting with the Zipcar mess.
I find it disconcerting that a commission chair appears unwilling to acknowledge that staff time spent on commission duties is staff time that could be spent on other duties. And then to go on to say that, “The staff has managed to do its work and staff commissions too.” It clearly is the case that projects are currently not being pursued or are taking far too long due to insufficient staff attention. To claim the opposite is astounding. It is difficult to conduct productive policy debates when obvious facts are rejected out of hand. The legitimate question is whether the savings from reconstituted commissions outweigh any negative repercussions from the reconstitution. Perhaps they do, perhaps the don’t.
As for the Carlton project, great project, wrong location. The opposite case would be to site a 50 employee software development facility in the middle of a neighborhood. It would be great to have such a firm in Davis, but not in a neighborhood.
DTB: “I find it disconcerting that a commission chair appears unwilling to acknowledge that staff time spent on commission duties is staff time that could be spent on other duties.”
Our commission has been willing to take over all staff liaison duties, yet the offer has been repeatedly rejected. Additionally, commissions often assist staff in their duties.
DTB: “As for the Carlton project, great project, wrong location.”
Why is it the wrong location when ERC, a facility for the elderly is right next to DPD/DWR? Rancho Yolo, a senior mobile home community is right across the street from the DPD. Not to mention all the residences in the area? How do you explain the fact that the DPD/DWR had to admit mitigation measures could be used to alleviate all the “problems” they supposed “might happen”? Were you at the fair hearing on this project? How do you explain support for this project by our commission, the Planning Commission and city staff? How do you explain the vacancy of this lot, desite numerous suggestions for its use over the last 10 years?