In light of recent discussions on the amount of staff time devoted to commissions, the Vanguard made a Public Records Act request of the city to disclose how much staff time was devoted to liaison work for commissions. The response from the city was that they have no idea how much time is devoted to commissions.
Janice Bridge, a well-known Davis resident who serves as an alternate on the Senior Citizens Commission, in a letter to the Davis Enterprise wrote, “It is true that the city staff members are not paid extra for their liaison duties. However, it is equally true that each staff liaison assigned to a commission invests at least 100 work hours for that commission every year. This can be documented through the minutes kept for each commission meeting.”
However, it is not clear at all where Ms. Bridge got her 100-hour figure.
In response to a public records request from the Vanguard, City Clerk Zoe Mirabile responded, “Staff Liaisons and supporting administrative/clerical staff do not itemize their time spent on commission activities, so the records you are requesting do not exist.”
She continued, “Also, commission expenses are not even identified in the city budget, with the exception of Human Resources Commission-supported ceremonial activities, such as the Thong Hy Huynh Awards.”
However, in their staff report, Mayor Don Saylor and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson argued, “The proposed restructuring of commissions will likely result in savings to the city, as staff time allocated to coordinating commission work will be more directly tied to Council goals and staff work-plans. 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.”
If staff is one of the critical concerns that drove the restructuring and merging of commissions, perhaps the city ought to do an audit to determine exactly how much staff time was being devoted to such commissions, and more importantly, how much staff time the merger might save.
Remember, there are really three different components of this. First is the time it takes to attend the meeting. Second, there is the time it takes to prepare an agenda. Third, there is the time it takes to prepare staff reports for items on the agenda.
Assuming the typical commission meets ten times each year for even two-and-a-half hours, that is 25 hours per staffer. If you reduce by six the number of commissions, you might save the city a total of 150 hours.
How much time it takes to prepare and distribute the agenda has to be relatively small, probably less than hour each time, so you are talking about perhaps ten hours per commission, or sixty hours saved total.
Finally, the staff reports are the most lengthy, but also the least likely to be impacted. After all, the staff report for a development has to be written, regardless. There might be additional presentation time by staff going to each commission, but that could be saved through joint meetings.
However, we do not even know how much time is being spent. So the first step ought to be to collect data rather than throw a large number of citizens through a rollercoster ride.
My proposal is simple. The council should ask staff liaisons to log their hours spent on commission work, and to include in those logs a brief description of what they are doing. That will give us an idea not only of how much work is being done, but also a look at the type of work that is being done.
That would allow us to figure out ways to cut back on time in the existing process.
They could come back in six months and then, based on those findings, come forward with recommendations to address any problems that arise.
What is the rush to do this anyway? We have had this process in place for several years, why not take six months to have real data rather than uninformed speculation, like Janice Bridge throwing the 100-hours estimate to the public with no substantiation or evidence to support that claim, whatsoever?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is the proposal to combine commissions fiscal-responsibility-driven? A rational person would think not. Most items brought to commissions are “proposal-driven” by an applicant who either pays a fixed fee, or is on the hook for T&M (they get billed for any/all staff time, as long as staff remembers to charge their time to the project).
Are there other rational reasons to minimize the number of commissions? Perhaps.
Why the rush? Can’t think of a good one, but that doesn’t mean that we should have all the fiefdoms/commissions. Commissioners tend to just like to tell other people what they have to do. Still, no need to expedite the review of whether we go on a “commission diet”.
David, you suggest that the CC should direct staff to document hours on commissions that you couldn’t get (as they are not accounted for that way). Then, supposedly you’d want to have that disclosed under a PRA request… so you have ‘grist’ that costs you essentially nothing. Documentation takes staff time. Are you willing to cover all of the direct & indirect costs to create a “record” for your use, just to refute the opinions of others as to how much staff time is consumed by staff support for commissions?
dmg: “However, we do not even know how much time is being spent. So the first step ought to be to collect data rather than throw a large number of citizens through a rollercoster ride.”
The savings and/or money brought in to the city, and expertise a commission brings to the table ought to be factored into the equation. As the Tree Commission has pointed out, they have brought in grant money bc they are a stand alone commission. The Historic Resources Management Commission has advised us that owners of historic landmarks will have to apply for any building changes to a state agency if there is no local stand alone commission. The Senior Citizens Commission garnered $25,000 in SACOG funding to provide Davis Seniors with Transit Mobility Training, and more is on the way to continue this program.
hpierce: “Most items brought to commissions are “proposal-driven” by an applicant who either pays a fixed fee, or is on the hook for T&M (they get billed for any/all staff time, as long as staff remembers to charge their time to the project).”
It depends on the commission and their particular mission. Most of what the Senior Citizens Commission does is NOT “proposal-driven” as you suggest. We try and find out what seniors need, and address those needs in whatever way we can. At the moment, with the Social Services Commission leading the charge, the Senior Citizens Commission has joined them in an effort to draft a Universal Design ordinance – which I assure you is not “proposal-driven”, but is the brainchild of the Social Services Commission bc of their concern for those currently disabled and for those who want to “age in place” – which is most of us.
hpierce: “Commissioners tend to just like to tell other people what they have to do.”
How many commission meetings have you been to? Our commission actually conducts off site meetings so we can better understand what seniors want – so they can tell us what they want us to do. I would suggest that most commissions are trying to make Davis a better place for citizens to live. I don’t think commissions as a whole exist just because they want to “tell people what to do”. They are there to provide the City Council with the viewpoint of their particular constituency, be it seniors, tree enthusiasts, bicyclers, and so forth. Some commissions actually weigh in on where money is to be spent bc that is their charge.
hpierce: “David, you suggest that the CC should direct staff to document hours on commissions that you couldn’t get (as they are not accounted for that way). Then, supposedly you’d want to have that disclosed under a PRA request… so you have ‘grist’ that costs you essentially nothing. Documentation takes staff time. Are you willing to cover all of the direct & indirect costs to create a “record” for your use, just to refute the opinions of others as to how much staff time is consumed by staff support for commissions?”
Is it better to eliminate entire commissions on the rationale to save costs, when the City Council does not even know if there will be any cost savings? Don’t you think the CC needs to do its homework first, before making such a draconian decrease in public participation?
Is it logical that Rochelle was selected for this as a rushed first assignment, given her status as the council member with the least knowledge about and experience with city staff, commissions and costs involved? It smacks of another decision made before its impacts are studied (with supporting information cherry-picked, conflicting data discarded and significant unknowns ignored).
Nothing against Ms. Bridge or David trying to fill in the blanks with educated guesses, but one would think our leaders early on would request more reliable estimates directly from small number of city employees who work with the Council’s commissions.
Howard, assuring that we maintain open government is a cost of doing business and is well worth spending enough to do it right. Ever considered how much we must [u]save[/u] because you and I (and David and Debbie) have the right to find out what’s being done in our names? Send David a nice donation for saving our time by taking on this job for us!
I’m curious as to where the savings would come from by combining or eliminating commissions. It may reduce staff workload, which is a legitimate goal in itself. But I’m assuming those who staff committees are not hourly employees. So, unless there would be corresponding staff reductions, it’s not obvious to me where the savings come from.