City Officials Less Than Forthcoming About Discrepancies Between City Claims and Zipcar Contract –
City Officials Less Than Forthcoming About Discrepancies Between City Claims and Zipcar Contract – Furthermore, the city staff put out information to the public that reflected their verbal agreements with Zipcar but not their written contract, meaning the released information had no force of law behind it.
In July, the Davis City Council quickly passed approval of a contract with Zipcar that would authorize roughly $74,000 from a non-general fund source to help get a Zipcar program off the ground.
At the next council meeting, Councilmember Sue Greenwald moved to reconsider that 5-0 vote on the grounds that she was concerned about language in the Zipcar contract that would potentially expose the city to liability. She was joined by Rochelle Swanson, but the vote failed.
In the ensuing weeks, Davis Enterprise Bob Dunning began to hammer the city for the deal, arguing that this was a subsidy to a private company, that the city was advantaging an out-of-town car rental company over existing business, and that the city could face liability in the case of an accident.
After getting hammered for several weeks, the city eventually put forth a Fact Sheet and Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza wrote an op-ed based on the Fact Sheet, defending the program.
On October 8, Bob Dunning returned from vacation and hammered them, calling it a series of “lies our leaders told us.”
Wriote Mr. Dunning, “Council members Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza repeat the lie that ‘Car-sharing is different because it is instant, hourly, friendlier to the environment and located near users who need short-term mobility.’ “
While I believe Mr. Dunning was inaccurate in this description, particularly on a subjective issue such as the issue of car-sharing, and I also believe even now that the city faced, at the very most, very limited liability on the contract, he was correct in pointing out the discrepancies between the claims that the two councilmembers made and the contract itself.
Bob Dunning reported this Sunday, quoting from Paul Navazio’s letter to Council which he apparently received on October 25.
In that letter to council, Mr. Navazio states, “Contract amendments are being worked out to essentially reflect the agreements reached with ZipCar – on selected program elements – after the Council approved the original contract, and prior to the roll-out of the program last month.”
Mr. Navazio continues with a shocking admission, “The need for the amendment(s) came to light as inconsistencies were identified between the current, executed contract and the ZipCar Program FACT SHEET that we have on our City website.”
Actually, this quote from the acting City Manager downplays what really happened – in that it implies that these inconsistencies were inadvertent, when in fact, according to sources inside the city, they were quite deliberate.
As we understand it, the city worked out the contract with Zipcar and Council approved it. This occurred during the first regular meeting of the new council – an agenda that contained several complicated agenda items but Council, at the behest of Mayor Don Saylor, raced through it and completed the meeting by 8:30 pm.
Zipcar, sources informed the Vanguard, urged the city to sign the contract with the understanding that they would work out the details later and clean up some of the language.
A source close to the city told the Vanguard that the city signed the contract knowing full well that there were holes in the contract that under some circumstances might expose them to unnecessary liability, but that Zipcar assured them it could be handled after the fact.
But what was the rush? Why not clean up the language before sending it to council? We have no answers for this other, than the need, perhaps, to make the trains run on time.
Council was basically told by City Staff and the City Attorney that this contract had been thoroughly reviewed, that it was fine and that they had nothing to worry about. As a result, Council did what they ought to do, they trusted their professional staff and hired attorney and passed the item without a close read of the contract. This was a huge mistake.
The source does believe that the city only faced limited liability, but even that was unnecessary. The city needed to change that provision and also remove the provision where a city employee would have the responsibility of transporting the Zipcars for repairs.
There was never a real danger that the city could be sued for an accident. The insurance provision in the contract covers liability and stipulated that this would be handled by Zipcar and the driver’s insurance, not the city.
Wrote Bob Dunning “The city is not likely to escape liability when and if a Zipcar driver is involved in a serious accident causing great bodily harm or death.”
He continued, “The folks at Zipcar certainly think that’s the case or they wouldn’t have demanded the contract state that the ‘City will maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, will have Zipcar named as an additional insured under such policy and will provide Zipcar with a certificate evidencing such insurance.’ “
We do not believe he is correct here, however, the city’s claims about liability were not reflected in the actual language contract – despite the FACT Sheet representing to the public that it did.
Nevertheless, even by the provisions of the contract, Zipcar itself carried insurance that covered the individual driver.
Indeed, in the contract, Zipcar was said to maintain the following insurance in Schedule C section 3 of the contract, “During the term of this Agreement, Zipcar will maintain the following insurance: (a) Commercial Automobile Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit (CSL), with Personal Injury Protection (PIP) and Uninsured (UI) and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage at state minimum limits; (b) Commercial General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000 each occurrence, general aggregate and products and completed operations aggregate; and (c) Commercial Excess in an amount of $1,000,000 each occurrence and annual aggregate. Zipcar will add City as a designated insured on Zipcar’s Commercial Automobile Liability policy and as an additional insured on Zipcar’s Commercial General Liability Insurance policy. Eligible Persons are insured as described in the Member Agreement. At City’s request, Zipcar will provide City with a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage.”
However, in Schedule B under “City Obligations” it says, “City will maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, will have Zipcar named as an additional insured under such policy and will provide Zipcar with a certificate evidencing such insurance. City will notify Zipcar not less than thirty (30) days in advance of any cancellation of such policy. City will also carry any required Worker’s Compensation, Disability or other insurance on behalf of its employees providing maintenance services to Zipcar hereunder. Any City employee transporting vehicles for maintenance services must apply for membership and be approved by Zipcar prior to operating any Zipcar Vehicle; provided, however, that with respect to the foregoing, Zipcar shall not charge the City or employee any membership fee.”
The Vanguard spoke with City Attorney Harriet Steiner back in October, who clarified the city’s obligations.
City Attorney Steiner told the Vanguard, “The Zipcar Agreement has two different insurance and indemnity provisions.”
“The first,” she said, “is on Schedule C paragraph 3 and it provides that Zip Car will maintain insurance and name the city as a designated insured and additional insured under Zipcar’s insurance policies. This provision applies to the use of Zipcars by customers of Zipcar.”
The second provision, as we had suspected, puts the city as the active party due to the fact that city employees are using the vehicle.
“The second provision is Schedule B, paragraph 3 and relates to times when the city staff is transporting a Zipcar for maintenance,” she told the Vanguard.
“Here, the City is the active party (since the city employee is driving the car for the purpose of taking it for service),” she continued.
She concluded, “Under this provision, the city employee is still entitled to the same insurance benefits as any other Zipcar driver, but the city agreed to provide insurance in addition to the general insurance.”
According to Ms. Steiner, the city and Zipcar have now agreed to delelete Schedule B, paragraph 3 entirely.
She reports, “This amendment to the Zipcar agreement will go to the City Council next month for approval.”
At this time it looks like that will either come down on November 16 or November 30.
In making the changes, Ms. Steiner stated, “Zipcar has hired its own employee to transport the cars for maintenance so that the city will not have any active role in this contract (other than providing the parking spaces). Zipcar’s obligation to transport its cars for service shall be included in the contract.”
It is that last part which attempts to correct discrepancies between the city’s Fact Sheet and the contract.
There are several appalling aspects of this.
First, the city pushed forward the contract knowing that it was not as clean as it could be. It could have been cleaned up very quickly and sent back to council prior to passage. Instead, it was rammed through with virtually no discussion.
Second, the city, in response to the grilling by Bob Dunning, produced a FACT Sheet that reflected their unwritten understanding with Zipcar as to how the contract would work, but it did not reflect the language of the contract. That means it was not legally binding. It also means that Zipcar had no obligation to honor it.
Moreover, the city appears to have been completely unconcerned about the discrepancy. They dragged their feet for four months on it.
In defending the city on this issue, I completely underestimated the level of sheer incompetence on the part of city staff and the city attorney. Council should be able to listen to the advice of staff and their attorney and make an informed decision without having to have their own lawyer dissect the contract. But that is not what happened here.
The final appalling aspect is that the city put out a Fact Sheet KNOWING that it was at odds with the written contract, and then tried to claim that was the deal.
Bob Dunning makes a lot of accusations about lies here, and I certainly do not think Joe Krovoza or Stephen Souza lied here. They were given bad information by the city and hung out to dry by city staff.
But I do think the city comes pretty close to lying when it claims in the Fact Sheet terms of the contract that are not, in fact, terms of the contract.
This is the key provision, “The insurance liability provisions are standard and do not cost the city any money. Drivers are provided insurance through their Zipcar membership, not through the city. The insurance provisions have been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management and provide sufficient coverage to minimize the city’s risk to the maximum extent provided by law.”
The truth is that the city had intended at some point to do away with that clause from the contract that put the liability figure at $1 million, but they had not yet done so. Most likely, the city did not face real liability, certainly not for collisions. But the language was not good and the city recognized that.
So, to tell the public that the insurance provisions were thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management, and yet a few weeks later announce it was changing said contract is pretty disingenuous.
Bottom line, Bob Dunning deserves a lot of credit for continuing to pursue this story, well after the point I thought it was beating a dead horse. I criticized him for continuing to pursue this story, in part because of the relatively low exposure the city would face should the deal go awry. I still think he was wrong about the car rental issue, I think the city’s liability was minimal, but without pushing this story we would not be at this point.
The key point of this story is the dishonesty of city staff. The Fact Sheet is pretty close to a lie. They knowingly told the public something about the contract that was not true. I understand they believed they had an understanding with Zipcar, but it was not legally binding and so Zipcar has no obligation to change the contract. That is inexcusable.
I asked who was responsible for this mess. The finger squarely has to be pointed in several directions. It starts with Bill Emlen, the City Manager at the time this was done. It extends to Ken Hiatt and Stacey Winton, who handled this project specifically. It extends to Harriet Steiner, the city attorney, who signed off on language that was less than clear. It extends to the transition from Bill Emlen to Paul Navazio, and I don’t think Mr. Navazio is blameless here either.
There is a policy problem here. Council was given assurances by city staff and the city attorney that this was a good contract and they should be able to rely on the advice of their staff. Council got hung out to dry here. The city was very slow to react to Bob Dunning when they knew there were problems with the contract.
And the idea to put out a Fact Sheet based not on the contract but on verbal understandings with Zipcar was a horrendous blunder. That is really where the problem comes into play.
Mistakes happen. If language needed to be fixed, then admit the mistake, tell the council to rescind the contract, do what you need to do. It is a one-day story and they should get it right.
The problem happens when you know there is a problem and you claim to the public otherwise. That is a breach of the public trust. Heads need to roll on that. To me, the other errors are forgivable in the sense that mistakes can happen.
Finally, I am going to put some of the blame here on Mayor Don Saylor. Twofold, really. First, he rammed that first agenda through and failed to allow proper discussion. He wanted to show that he could run a quick, efficient and civil meeting. But in so doing, mistakes occurred.
The second mistake is that he has never came forward to acknowledge there are problems here. He thwarted Sue Greenwald and Rochelle Swanson’s efforts to reconsider the vote, while letting Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza put their necks on the line, in part for his mistakes. And as Mayor, what has he done to make sure the city language in the contract was consistent with the FACT Sheet? This is because of his policies, and on his watch.
I close with an apology to Bob Dunning. I don’t think he got everything right here, but without his staying on this story the truth would not have come out. I will be the first to admit, I thought this was much ado about nothing. I still wish Mr. Dunning would pay half as much attention to the retirement and compensation issues in the city, but now, based on what I have been told, everything of which is borne out in the public record, I think this is a huge fiasco upon which heads should have to roll.
Finally, while I am supportive of the Zipcar program in theory, I think the city should now nullify the contract. In addition, I believe the city council should forward this matter to the grand jury for an independent investigation into what occurred and to determine if city staff broke the public trust and laws in this matter.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]heads should have to roll on[/quote] reprimand? dismissal? guillotine?
Yes
Maybe we need a recall election?
ah! all three! the latter may run afoul of the CA Supreme Court, however…
[quote]Council … trusted their professional staff and hired attorney and passed the item without a close read of the contract. This was a huge mistake.[/quote]
Even a quick read would reveal the problems of the contract. Were people just slow-witted or was someone bought off?
Good job David and thanks for apologizing to Dunning.
Is it possible to nullify as you suggest? I had suggested this before and was told no way…..
OR…combine with UCD contract. How can we get usage data from the city, from zipcar. Can you obtain that?
I put much blame on Harriet and again say her services should have been put out to competitive bid.
Glad to see that you have buried the hatchet with Dunning on this issue. And I think he could be right on this:
[quote]Wrote Bob Dunning “The city is not likely to escape liability when and if a Zipcar driver is involved in a serious accident causing great bodily harm or death.”[/quote]
I am not a lawyer (though I have stayed at the Holiday Inn) however it appears that the insurance contracts are limited to $1 million, which is standard in these cases. THat means someone could sue for over $1 million and these days $1 million is not a lot for serious injury. There are a number of potential liability issues for the City that several of us have blogged on, city employees, drunk drivers, poor maintenance (which is City’s responsibility).
Heads should indeed role. The easiest place to start is with our City attorney, who appears to have been negligent on a matter which could expose the City to liability. And having a staff which a) seems to put zipcar’s interests ahead of ours, b) misinforms our City Council, and c) covers its ass when things go bad is inexcusable. Somehow this culture needs to change. If Navazzio is not up to the job we need to hire someone who is.
I hope our CC will be more skeptical in the future. Its understandable given their deplorable pay, but still unacceptable, though Sue once again was the first to look into this and Rochelle has shown pragmatism. Saylor will be gone soon; enough said.
dmg: “A source close to the city told the Vanguard that the city signed the contract knowing full well that there were holes in the contract that under some circumstances might expose them to unnecessary liability, but that Zipcar assured them it could be handled after the fact.”
And the city could have been held to the initial SIGNED contract under contract law, their and Zipcar’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
dmg: “While I believe Mr. Dunning was inaccurate in this description, particularly on a subjective issue such as the issue of car-sharing, and I also believe even now that the city faced, at the very most, very limited liability on the contract, he was correct in pointing out the discrepancies between the claims that the two councilmembers made and the contract itself.”
If the liability were so “limited” as you believe, then why would the city go to so much trouble to “amend” the contract?
dmg: “Mr. Navazio continues with a shocking admission, “The need for the amendment(s) came to light as inconsistencies were identified between the current, executed contract and the ZipCar Program FACT SHEET that we have on our City website.””
The “need for the amendment came to light” in order to make the contract AGREE WITH what City Council members/City Staff HAD ALEADY PUBLISHED(verbally and in writing) about what was contained in the contract – as a CYA move? Naturally the city would not want to be caught in an outright lie (the contract said one thing, the fact sheet said the other) to the public?
dmg: “Zipcar, sources informed the Vanguard, urged the city to sign the contract with the understanding that they would work out the details later and clean up some of the language.”
And of course we know Zipcar is being absolutely truthful here, claiming they would “work out the details later and clean up some of the language”? They aren’t just playing along with Navazio’s/City Council’s CYA version of events?
dmg: “But what was the rush? Why not clean up the language before sending it to council? We have no answers for this other, than the need, perhaps, to make the trains run on time.”
I have an answer. The contract would have stood firm as it was (there was no intention initially to change it), if Dunning and commenters on this blog had not raised such a huge stink. I am not convinced the verson of “events” that is being floated out there that the contract would be changed later to make the terms match the oral agreement is even remotely truthful. To my mind it stretches credulity to the max.
You are trying to tell me that a seasoned attorney like Harriet Steiner would allow the city to sign a contract where some of the details were oral and not in writing? Ever heard of the parole evidence rule? From Black’s Law Dictionary – “Under this rule, when parties put their agreement in writing, all previous oral agreements merge in the writing and a contract as written cannot be modified or changed by parole [oral] evidence, in the absence of a plea of mistake or fraud in the preparation of the writing.”
Harriet Steiner is well aware of the parole evidence rule, and I don’t see any evidence of “mistake” (“unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, impositiom or misplaced confidence”) or “fraud” (“intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to…surrendor some legal right”).
dmg: “Council was basically told by City Staff and the City Attorney that this contract had been thoroughly reviewed, that it was fine and that they had nothing to worry about. As a result, Council did what they ought to do, they trusted their professional staff and hired attorney and passed the item without a close read of the contract. This was a huge mistake.”
In other words, no one did their fiduciary duty here. The citizens had to do it for CC/City Staff after the fact, led by Dunning and the commenters on this blog…
dmg: “The source does believe that the city only faced limited liability, but even that was unnecessary. The city needed to change that provision and also remove the provision where a city employee would have the responsibility of transporting the Zipcars for repairs. There was never a real danger that the city could be sued for an accident.”
If it were true there was no real danger the city could have been sued for an accident, then why amend the contract in such a way as to cause the city so much embarrassment – unless it was absolutely necessary?
(I’ve said this before – my guess is the city’s insurance carrier probably would not have provided coverage to the city if the city took the cars in for maintenance, bc it opened the city up for too much liability.)
dmg: “There was never a real danger that the city could be sued for an accident. The insurance provision in the contract covers liability and stipulated that this would be handled by Zipcar and the driver’s insurance, not the city.”
No contract can sign away a party’s responsibility for its own negligence. Had the city failed to do proper maintenance, and someone died in a Zipcar accident as a result of that negligence, the city could have been sued for a hefty sum under the original contract. Explain to me where I am wrong in my legal thinking here… I’m ready to listen… Am I missing something here?
dmg: “She concluded, “Under this provision, the city employee is still entitled to the same insurance benefits as any other Zipcar driver, but the city agreed to provide insurance in addition to the general insurance.” According to Ms. Steiner, the city and Zipcar have now agreed to delelete Schedule B, paragraph 3 entirely.”
Schedule B was eliminated for a very good reason – the city could have been seriously liable for the negligence of its own employees. And considering how this contract was improperly vetted, the competence of some city employees is highly questionable at the moment…
dmg: “In making the changes, Ms. Steiner stated, “Zipcar has hired its own employee to transport the cars for maintenance so that the city will not have any active role in this contract (other than providing the parking spaces).”
And how do we know that providing parking spaces next to a bar won’t be a liability issue in the future?
dmg: “Second, the city, in response to the grilling by Bob Dunning, produced a FACT Sheet that reflected their unwritten understanding with Zipcar as to how the contract would work, but it did not reflect the language of the contract. That means it was not legally binding. It also means that Zipcar had no obligation to honor it. Moreover, the city appears to have been completely unconcerned about the discrepancy.”
I suspect the city was unconcerned bc they were perfectly satisfied w the contract as it was, until Dunning and the commenters on this blog pointed out the contract’s shortcomings…
dmg: “In defending the city on this issue, I completely underestimated the level of sheer incompetence on the part of city staff and the city attorney. Council should be able to listen to the advice of staff and their attorney and make an informed decision without having to have their own lawyer dissect the contract.”
“Sheer incompetence” or were they willing to bend over backward bc the Zipcar program was PC and what they knew CC members and the Climate Action Team wanted?
dmg: “But I do think the city comes pretty close to lying when it claims in the FACT Sheet terms of the contract that are not, in fact, terms of the contract.”
“Close to lying”?
dmg: “So, to tell the public that the insurance provisions were thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal counsel and risk management, and yet a few weeks later announce it was changing said contract is pretty disingenuous.”
Ya think?
dmg: “Mistakes happen. If language needed to be fixed, then admit the mistake, tell the council to rescind the contract, do what you need to do.”
Mistake? Not a legal mistake. The City Council does not have the power to rescind the contract once it is signed.
dmg: “Finally, I am going to put some of the blame here on Mayor Don Saylor. Twofold, really. First, he rammed that first agenda through and failed to allow proper discussion. He wanted to show that he could run a quick, efficient and civil meeting. But in so doing, mistakes occurred.”
How was Saylor at fault here, when he relied on staff just as much as the other CC members? The only thing done wrong here by Saylor is in not allowing sufficient time for public comment, since obviously the public does a much better job of vetting contracts than the city’s attorney and manager. But how was he to know that ahead of time? He trusted staff…
dmg: “I close with an apology to Bob Dunning. I don’t think he got everything right here, but without his staying on this story the truth would not have come out. I will be the first to admit, I thought this was much ado about nothing. I still wish Mr. Dunning would pay half as much attention to the retirement and compensation issues in the city, but now, based on what I have been told, everything of which is borne out in the public record, I think this is a huge fiasco upon which heads should have to roll.”
Yes, Dunning got this one right, and most of the commenters on this blog as well. We could see what was staring us right in the face. I remember the night I sat in the CC chambers when Zipcar was voted on. I was shaking my head in disbelief that the CC approved such a risky and one-sided venture just to be PC…
dmg: “Finally, while I am supportive of the Zipcar program in theory, I think the city should now nullify the contract.”
In so far as I am aware, there are no grounds to nullify this contract. Perhaps some other lawyer more familiar with contract law can weigh in…
You give Dunning too much credit here. The faster the transparent lies flowed, the more fodder that was hand-delivered to him. Of course, he had to start with an initial assessment that this was a stupid venture on its face, that it doesn’t make any sense to duplicate the UCD’s existing Zipcar operation (and pay to do it to boot!).
Once that determination was made, it was like shooting fish in a barrel, as they say. It got even easier for him once the city strategy changed from trying to convince folks of the wisdom of the scheme to covering up the official actions involved.
You give yourself too little credit here. The [u]Vanguard[/u] provided a forum to develop information as well as to express opinion. By keeping the conversation going every couple weeks, you generated questions and a body of answers (or silences) that exposed the unhealthy way this flawed contract was pushed through.
I suspect the [u]Vanguard[/u] had as much to do with the contract’s subsequent “fine-tuning” as other coverage, probably more. It would have been easy for city leaders to write off Dunning’s snappy comments, but the sheer magnitude of the information here was hard to ignore.
Good points “JustSayin” BUT now what???
Will the staff be held accountable, the city atty?
What recourse does the community have?
And to what end?
The participants in this coverup don’t seem to fear any accountability. The misleading reports coming from City Hall continue unabated in Sunday’s [u]Enterprise[/u] story, “City Fine-tunes its Contract with Zipcar.”
Now, it’s Kelly Stachowicz”s turn to minimize this screwup by issuing outlandish statements about how the contract changes will “formalize the working agreement we have had with Zipcar since we started the program.” How does it improve the city’s reputation to claim that the City has been violating the contract from the beginning? [quote]”We are suggesting we clarify the language in the on the roles and responsibilities of Zipcar and of the city….”[/quote] The deputy city manager pretends this is a minor language clarification issue when it’s obvious that it’s a strategy designed to eliminate undesirable contract requirements that already are very clearly written.
Why is the council being asked to approve an ever-growing number of contract changes? Why were these conditions approved in the first place? Did a $20,000 under-the-table cash payment from Zipcar’s CEO to a city employee intimately involved with two of our city councilors have something to do with it? I hope not! (I just tossed that in for your benefit, David.)
My own current theory is that Zipcar attorneys wrote this contract, incorporating every little favorable condition they thought they could get away with–and may even have been a little surprised themselves to find such an unthinking, willing partner in the city.
At every step of the way, we had people involved whose job it is to look out for our interests but who were not doing it. I’d call it a crime of omission and inattention rather than one of personal gain.
But, back to your thoughtful questions, SODA: I’ve become quite skeptical about the handling of this matter. It would seem that the council would want to get to the bottom of this to learn for the future, but it’ll be difficult since so many of the main players have been complicit in the decisions and/or in the coverup.
One also has to wonder why the proposed changes now include the fiction that we started the contract two or three weeks after we actually did.
JustSaying seems to have a feel for City Hall. I found this tidbit interesting:
[quote]My own current theory is that Zipcar attorneys wrote this contract, incorporating every little favorable condition they thought they could get away with–and may even have been a little surprised themselves to find such an unthinking, willing partner in the city.
[/quote]
It would be interesting to examine other zipcar contracts such as the one in San Francisco to see if JustSaying’s hypothesis is validated.
Something tells me that this is not the end of zipcargate. And zipcargate provides interesting insights into what is rotten in City Hall.
Dr Wu…..also to compare the Davis contract with the UCD contract….
Good luck on finding out, SODA and Doctor Wu. [quote]From [u]Vanguard[/u], Sept. 20:”‘Under almost the same contractual provisions…” by Joe Krovoza, Stephen Souza, Kemble K. Pope and Danny Tomasell, [u]Davis Voice[/u] (9/18/10) and [u]Davis Enterprise[/u] (9/19/10).
‘The city of Davis has roughly the same contract as UC Davis…’ by David, here (today).
Either way, this oft-repeated claim needs your verification. Since I’ve only seen the City’s contract, I’m asking Joe, Stephen, Kemble, Danny and David to verify the critical provision.
Does the University’s contract obligate UCD to pay the same per-vehicle subsidy based on the same usage percentages as the City’s contract calls for? (If not, the two contracts barely could be called similar, let alone ‘almost the same.’)” [/quote] These five folks kept repeating the talking points, but have refused to respond to many legitimate questions that people have asked for two months now. If they’d asked questions themselves–or cared to follow up on questions that others asked–this corporate hustle would have been cut off early. Now, it might be too late.
[quote]Good luck on finding out, SODA and Doctor Wu.[/quote]
I believe contracts with cities in CA (and UCD) are subject to the Public Records Act.
The main blame appears to go towards the authors of the Fact Sheet and the original Climate Commission (or whatever they are called) that has been pushing this thing from the start.
It is quite disappointing to see some of these guys so easily blinded by Zipcar. The further you get from urban centers, the closer “car share” becomes “car rental.”
To think this is considered a progressive idea in Davis says something about our current lack of creativity or progressiveness.
[i]”The main blame appears to go towards the authors of the Fact Sheet …”[/i]
Who wrote the Fact Sheet? When was it first published?
FWIW, it seems to me at this point a lot of the blame should be heaped on the city attorney, presuming she was paid to review the contract in advance of it being signed and it is her responsibility to uncover any potential problems in it and then disclose those problems to the members of the city council.
I agree with David’s point in this piece that Mayor Saylor deserves blame for rushing this through. However, he has only one vote. The other members of the council should have been asking questions of the city attorney, and should have voted no if they did not get satisfactory answers.
[quote]“The main blame appears to go towards the authors of the Fact Sheet …”
“Who wrote the Fact Sheet? When was it first published?”[/quote] The fact sheet contains information that couldn’t have been known until well after the contract signing. [quote] “Zipcar not only fulfilled this obligation but exceeded it by purchasing six additional cars from University Honda for use in other Northern California locations.” [u]Enterprise[/u] Op-Ed. 9/19/10. “Zipcar purchased 6 additional Hondas for other California programs from the Davis dealer….They have gone above and beyond our expectations.” City Fact Sheet, undated”[/quote] Most of the public promotion for Zipcar was written by Kemble K. Pope and Danny Tomasell. (The two co-authored–along with Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza–the piece in the [u]Enterprise[/u] and[u] Davis Voice[/u]. If they didn’t have a hand in preparing the fact sheet, their earlier writings must have been some of the principal source material for whoever did the preparation.
However, it’s not fair to assign “main blame” to the fact sheet author(s). This document is an after-the-fact piece–not involved in any of the staff or council decision-making processes.
JS, then I suspect you would largely agree with my 1:04pm post.
Rich… I am assuming you are aware that the city counsel advises the Council as to whether there are ‘issues’ re: something the council wants to do… the city counsel has no power/veto rights… if the city counsel is asked is it a good idea for the city to shoot itself in the foot, counsel would advise against, and outline the nature of injuries that could result… city counsel is not empowered to take away the gun, nor pull the trigger… based on the recommendations of the CAT (Climate Action Team or some other variation the Council has ’empowered’), I’m not sure we know what the Council knew, nor any possible advice to the contrary that the city counsel provided…
[quote]”JS, then I suspect you would largely agree with my 1:04pm post.”[/quote] I certainly would. But, now Howard’s post makes me nervous: Is it possible that Harriet is paid to operate only at the “issue advice” level and is not actually writing or reviewing our legal documents?
That could explain how many of the goofiest Zipcar conditions got through the system, I guess. For instance, the contract states the city is responsible for assigning an employee to transport Zipcars for maintenance, “coordinating all cleaning and maintenance, etc.” Then, somebody (Harriet?) adds: [quote]”City Addendum: Zipcar may offer City the option to perform the routine maintenance of Zipcar Vehicles at the City of Davis Fleet Management Division in Zipcar’s sole discretion.”[/quote] However, the city’s fact sheet describes this provision in this way: [quote] “The City will not provide any vehicle fueling, cleaning or maintenance services. Zipcar will transport the vehicles to local Davis auto service businesses for maintenance. This will be done by a local Zipcar employee and will not cost the City of Davis any money.”[/quote] You might think these conflict a little, but we’re told the “verbal agreements” are what we’re following.
The staff took 18 months–with exceptional help from Zipcar lawyers, no doubt–to carefully compose this provision in which the original intent is obvious. The council took minutes to consider and approve the contract, filled with similar unfavorable conditions, then it refused to reconsider the matter while there still was time to renegotiate or bail out.
Instead of supporting Rochelle and Sue in their request to take another look, Stephen and Joe embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign that included outright untruths about the contract provisions. (“The contract simply says there is a person to contact on marketing opportunities.”)
Rather than looking into these questions and concerns, they kept repeating the generalized “car-sharing is good for the planet” line we’ve heard before. David (with his typical lack of skepticism about matters government) fell for the misdirection–see “The Zip Debate: Separating Fact from Myth.”
Re. other content of the fact sheet:
1. It directly contradicts the approved contract on at least four major points, apparently anticipating approval of the new contract that’s being developed for council and Zipcar consideration. If accurate, the fact sheet is announcing that the city purposefully has been violating conditions of the contract now in force since the program started in mid-September.
2. It conveniently fails to mention parts of the program that might irritate the citizenry, such as the free memberships for city staff. (Wonder if employees will have to leave city vehicles idle so they can run up Zipcar usage rates?)
3. Many comments are there to deal with criticisms expressed after the Zipcar deal became public. One example is: “As with other small market community-based Zipcar programs, the City is required to pay a quarterly fee for the cars.” Is this really true is all other Davis-like cities? According to a Zipcar spokesman: [quote]”It’s common for smaller cities to enter into risk-sharing agreements because they lack the necessary population to guarantee financial success.”[/quote] But, why in Davis when the “necessary population” question already has been answered by the long-successful UCD program?
And, then there’s Trudy
In short, the fact sheet is a damage-control piece, aimed at changing Trudy’s mind: [quote]”Councilman Souza said subsidizing Zipcar is no different than paying money for other transit services. But some Davis residents remain skeptical. Trudy Black interrupted a News10 interview with Souza to chew him out for approving the Zipcar subsidy. ‘I’ve lived here for 64 years and I’ve never seen such a stupid thing in all of my life,’ Black said.” KXTV News.[/quote]