In her monthly Vanguard column, Elaine Roberts Musser argued in part, “it is what makes Davis uniquely Davis.” But if we look at the last four years, you could argue otherwise.
However, they asked the HRC to write a report and make a recommendation about the nature of the problem and possible solutions. In January of 2006 however, just before the HRC came forward with their recommendations, then City Manager Jim Antonen beat them to the punch and came up with his own recommendations, recommending the creation of an Ombudsman, an individual with expertise who could investigate the police and review their actions upon citizen complaint.
The problem here is that they asked the HRC to do a full report, which a subcommittee headed up by Ms. Escamilla Greenwald and Dr. Jann Murray-Garcia spent hours working on, but before that report came to the council, they preempted it. Two weeks later, when they had Ms. Escamilla Greenwald deliver her report, it was DOA.
In fact, it was worse than that. Members of the Council denounced it. Ted Puntillo said it was not worth the paper it was written on.
It is, of course, the council’s prerogative as to whether or not they accept the recommendations of a commission. However, to publicly criticize the work of volunteers and to intentionally undermine the report before it goes forward was in my view unacceptable.
Fine, I am biased on that issue. But for much of the next four years, the city council has pretty much operated in the same manner. They asked for the Natural Resources Commission to weigh in on the wood-burning issue and make recommendations, and then city staff recommended a completely different course of action. As Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza pointed out that evening, why have citizen commissions if the council intends to ignore the findings.
In the fall of 2006, the same year as the HRC controversy, council attempted to consolidate the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission. They did this without consulting the commissioners or having community discussions. The community rose up and the council had to clumsily back off.
Did they learn from this mistake? No, they did the same this year, trying a bigger effort to consolidate 20 commissions into 13. That did not work either.
The city has had a lot of trouble finding adequate numbers of commissioners. In fact the attendance and vacancies were factors used to justify consolidation.
But what has really happened is that Davisites are civic-minded, but they also pragmatic.
The last four years saw a slew of “political” appointments to commissions. The intention of the council majority, even before the HRC fiasco, was to stack the commissions with members sympathetic to their agenda. But what happened is that many of those people were not particularly engaged in the community. Long-time commissioners with knowledge and history dropped out and were replaced by people who often lacked interest and failed to show up or do work.
As the council continues to undermine policy that does not fit their agenda, many otherwise civic-minded people have decided to put their energies elsewhere.
I am well aware that all commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. That point was driven home that night in June of 2006 when the Davis City Council voted 4-1 to put the HRC on hiatus. The HRC has never been the same since. It had been a dynamic force in helping to drive policy in Davis from bullying to hate crimes to gay rights. Now it is a shell of its former self.
However, I think the point that the council misses and needs to remember is a point that Elaine Robert Musser made this week in her column, the idea that while all commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council, at the same time, all council members serve at the pleasure of the voters.
And there has been a disconnect between the policies of the council that pushed growth and fostered fiscal mismanagement, and the voters who have voted to consistently limit development. The Council does not have a monopoly on the views of this community and the commission system is one way to bridge that gap.
However, if the council is seeking advice and guidance, they occasionally need to acknowledge that sometimes they are not going to agree with the advice. Why take advice if you are simply going to do what you want anyway?
But it’s worse than that, because at the end of the day, who wants to give advice only to face criticism and ridicule and have the council ignore them. Maybe that is the history of the HRC, but it is also the history of every commission that has weighed in on an item in a manner different from what the council wanted.
Who wants to serve on a commission in the face of that? Don’t we have better things to do in our lives?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “It is of course the council’s prerogative as to whether or not they accept the recommendations of a commission, however, to publicly criticize the work of volunteers and to intentionally undermine the report before it goes forward was in my view unacceptable. Fine, I am biased on that issue.”
I don’t think you are being biased when you chastise certain City Council members for “publicly criticizing the work of volunteers and to intentionally undermine a report before it goes forward”. I think that is a very legitimate criticism. When I fought to save the Davis Senior Citizens Commission 4 years ago, Council member Don Saylor said he was disappointed in the “tone of the community”, implying that those seniors who fought to save their commission were somehow in the wrong for “raising their voices too loudly” in signing a petition against eliminating their commission. As if, had they been more “polite” and not bothered with a petition, they would have been just as successful in their endeavor. At the time Council member Sue Greenwald in turn chastised Council member Don Saylor, pointing out that it was not fair to criticize seniors for fighting to save their own commission. She was right.
dmg: “But it’s worse than that, because at the end of the day, who wants to give advice only to face criticism and ridicule and have the council ignore them. Maybe that is the history of the HRC, but it is also the history of every commission that has weighed in on an item in a manner different from what the council wanted.”
I understand your point, but I think you are missing something vital here. If a commission is politically savvy, they work with city staff ahead of time, to come out with a product that is more likely to get City Council approval. But it takes a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering and perseverence. I cannot speak for other commissions, but with respect to the Senior Citizens Commission, we were able to achieve approval of the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility and the Senior Housing Guidelines – despite enormous forces brought to bear in opposition. To some extent, commissioners have to garner support for their proposals ahead of time and behind the scenes, getting all their ducks in a row. City Staff wisely does this, and commissions have to do it in conjunction with City Staff.
The problem is that a lot of people do not want to sign on for that kind of fight. It takes a lot of patience, a thick skin, a marshalling of support from a commission’s constituency, and a determination to do what is right and ethical for the city. And quite frankly, I think a lot of us learned from the experiences of the HRC, in how to be more successful at it. The HRC was the first on the chopping block and had to wing it – fighting blindly as it were. The Senior Citizens Commission was the next target, but proved to be a harder foe to bring down. I firmly believe that is bc we (only 4 commissioners were left standing at the time) were able to garner strong and uniform support from a large voting block -seniors. But we knew from the HRC example that we had to garner that uniform and massive groundswell of indignation, or perish.
dmg: “However, I think the point that the council misses and needs to remember is a point that Elaine Robert Musser made this week in her column, the idea that while all commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council, at the same time, all council members serve at the pleasure of the voters.
And there has been a disconnect between the policies of the council that pushed growth and fostered fiscal mismanagement, and the voters who have voted to consistently limit development. The Council does not have a monopoly on the views of this community and the commission system is one way to bridge that gap.”
Well said. Commissions very much reflect public views. A good commission makes sure to encourage maximum public input. Our commission has off-site meetings, where we go to the seniors where they live, to find out what they have to say. It has been a very effective way to discover what seniors want/need.
I think a lot of people have the view that bc commissioners are appointed by the City Council, they are “plants” that will reflect the views of whoever appointed them. Sometimes that may be the case. But speaking from my experience w our commission, we have members that completely disagree with the Council members who appointed them, and have no problem saying so. Once a commissioner is seated on a commission, they have a duty to represent their constuency to the best of their ability, BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S MISSION STATEMENT. The commissioners are to act independently of the City Council, which sometimes some City Council members would just as soon forget. Commissioners are not supposed to be the City Council’s “rubber stamp”.
dmg: “The announcement reads the “City needs commissioners.” As usual it got me thinking as to whether or not the city really wants commissioners.”
One more point. I’d like to think the City Council members learned a lesson from this latest dust-up, that to tinker with the commissions is a lost cause and counterproductive to the best interests of the city 🙂
Is there a trend to ignore Commissioners? I thought the Zip Car debacle was on the recommendation of a commission?
[quote]despite enormous forces brought to bear in opposition[/quote] Darth Vader &/or Evil Empire? Who/what were the enormous forces?
[quote]But it takes a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering and perseverence.[/quote] I have no problem with perseverance… “maneuvering” with staff is a concern in municipal governance, IMO.
[quote]I’d like to think the City Council members learned a lesson from this latest dust-up, that to tinker with the commissions is a lost cause [/quote] Scary… right before halloween… to my knowledge NO commission was created by voters… no commissioners are elected by voters… no commission has the “right” to exist… no commissioner has the “right” to serve, or decide anything within the purview of the CC… some appear to assert that “right”.
That being said, I actually have “no dog in this fight”… I do have a concern where applicants may get into the ‘spanking machine’ where they cannot “satisfy” multiple commissions w/o getting into contradictory directions…
hpierce: “Darth Vader &/or Evil Empire? Who/what were the enormous forces?”
A suspect a developer and its supporters.
hpierce: “I have no problem with perseverance… “maneuvering” with staff is a concern in municipal governance, IMO.”
If process is being circumvented it takes a good deal of political “maneuvering” to convince the powers that be to “do the right thing”. For instance, Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility developers were not being given a chance to have a fair hearing before commissions. Their project was caught up in the city’s bureaucratic vortex, and being kept in what seemed to be permanent limbo. It took a lot of behind the scenes “maneuvering” to force the issue to a fair hearing, despite the efforts of DWR and DPD and the City Manager from allowing Carlton due process. Once the fair hearing process was jump started by the Davis Senior Citizens Commission at my behest, then we worked very hard with city staff to ensure all sides were heard. In consequence, city staff assigned to this project were not able to sustain its initial disapproval of the project, and changed to a recommendation of approval upon strong evidence presented at the fair hearing before the Senior Citizens Commission and Planning Commission.
hpierce: “Scary… right before halloween… to my knowledge NO commission was created by voters… no commissioners are elected by voters… no commission has the “right” to exist… no commissioner has the “right” to serve, or decide anything within the purview of the CC… some appear to assert that “right”.
As I have said before, the commissions serve at the pleasure of the City Council, but the City Council serves at the pleasure of the voters. But city commissions have the right and duty to act independently of the City Council to provide advice on proposed projects or city issues/policies. Commissions act as a bridge between the public and the City Council, provide special expertise the city otherwise would not have on particular issues. Commissions act as an additional forum for public comment. Commissioners are bound by their mission statements, but are not bound by the opinions of City Council members when commissions analyze an issue coming before the City Council. Ultimately it is the City Council that makes final decisions, but they are supposed to be receiving independent input from commissions.
That being said, I actually have “no dog in this fight”… I do have a concern where applicants may get into the ‘spanking machine’ where they cannot “satisfy” multiple commissions w/o getting into contradictory directions…
Can you give examples of your concerns? It appears you are very antagonistic towards commissions. Correct me if I have the wrong impression. I would comment that it is possible that commissions may have conflicting missions with each other, but more often than not the missions are complementary.
With respect to the Carlton Plaze Davis issue, the Planning Commission paid attention to the motion the Senior Citizens Commission passed in favor of this project as a facility the senior community very much needed, especially its dementia wing. The Planning Commission then got into more specifics of zoning issues, which they were far more knowledgeable on. This is when DWR was called in and actually questioned at length as to why they could not provide mitigation measures, since a senior facility was located right across the street from them already (Eleanor Roosevelt Circle), a fact our commission had brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. DWR admitted they could mitigate any and all problems they had claimed before were insurmoutable. Ultimately the Planning Commission sided with the Senior Citizens Commission. The Carlton project was ultimately approved by the City Council on a 5-0 vote. This is the kind of “behind the scenes manuevering” I am talking about that keeps the process honest, and includes city staff in the process.
[quote]This is when DWR was called in and actually questioned at length as to why they could not provide mitigation measures, since a senior facility was located right across the street from them already (Eleanor Roosevelt Circle), a fact our commission had brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. DWR admitted they could mitigate any and all problems they had claimed before were insurmoutable. [/quote]
Interesting… usually the “new” development/use has to mitigate ‘their’ impact. Both Eleanor Roosevelt and the Carlton project were re-zones that came long after DWR was in place. By this standard, the homes in Wildhorse and Davis Manor should have been asked to mitigate the effects of Wildhorse Ranch.
hpierce: “Interesting… usually the “new” development/use has to mitigate ‘their’ impact. Both Eleanor Roosevelt and the Carlton project were re-zones that came long after DWR was in place. By this standard, the homes in Wildhorse and Davis Manor should have been asked to mitigate the effects of Wildhorse Ranch.”
In this case, DPD and DWR were claiming there might be problems if they both wanted to expand their operations in the future. The expansion would have been “new development”, and hence their need to mitigate since Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC) is already across the street from them both. This was the crux of the issue. Had ERC not been where it is, directly across the street, DWR and DPD would have had a good argument against putting an assisted living facility in the middle of an industrialized neighborhood. But DWR and DPD had to face the reality that residential growth has come out to meet them, which already has limited their operations. If they can mitigate to accommodate ERC, they can mitigate to accommodate Carlton.