But it has, just below the surface, and it is going to bubble up sooner or later.
The expected change from the last election was not immediate. Removing Don Saylor and putting Joe Krovoza in as mayor made a major difference. Whether the emerging council majority was catching its footing or being too deferential to the mayor is unclear. What is clear is that from the moment that Don Saylor left, the council majority was dead.
More subtle was the change when Bill Emlen left the city manager position at the beginning of the fall. It is unclear if Paul Navazio will end up being the city manager. It is unclear who else would be. We are simply not far enough into that process to be sure. But even the change from Mr. Emlen to Mr. Navazio has been subtle but huge.
That sets up the dilemma, a collision course really between the old guard and the incoming wave. City staff is going to have to adapt very quickly, or we will see some very radical changes.
What has happened is that Bill Emlen put his people into key positions – I am not going to call people out, anyone around city government knows who these people are – people that really were promoted beyond their experience, expertise and competence.
The result is that a bunch of people are in key positions that have no business being in those positions. The tough thing is that a lot of these people are good people, hard workers, well-meaning people, but they have been cast into a position where they are doomed to fail.
But even beside that point, the ground has shifted underneath their feet, as they have a different city manager than they had and Paul Navazio does things very differently than Bill Emlen, and they have a council that does things very differently from the last council.
I thought the Wednesday comment from the poster, “Just Saying,” hit the exact right note when he or she wrote, “Is it just me or does the staff look like the next big hurdle the City faces in becoming a smooth-running municipality again? Last night’s extended meeting brought out some interesting interactions between our council members and the on-camera staff members.”
The individual continued, “From the council members’ concerns about the incomplete way issues are brought to them, to the staff’s reluctance to accept direction and requests, the meeting dragged on far beyond what the agenda seemed to need.”
Key point here, “It was as though the ‘staff recommendations’ eventually could be approved if logical alternatives weren’t included in the reports…or if motions could be ignored or action delayed through feigned ignorance of the council members’ expressed intentions…or if the staff could send enough signals that they didn’t approve of the direction the council conversations were headed on a particular issue.”
And adding, “Slouched in their chairs, talking with chin resting on hand, avoiding direct response until asked a second or third time, providing incomplete packages until the meeting was underway, negotiating to assure that the city manager would get the decision-making when the council was making obvious their desire to be more involved, bringing issues so late in the process that something suffers without immediate council action and without adequate consideration, denying responsibility for inadequate staff planning on the water project and on and on.”
This describes to a tee the problem faced now in city government. The previous council, even if they disagreed with staff, would have eventually given in to them. Very rarely did council come back and attempt to radically alter staff recommendations.
That either implies that council was a rubber stamp for city staff – and sometimes it appeared that way – or that the staff that was brought in was generally in sync with the council and a reflection of their views.
Things are going to change in city government, because the council is going to do things differently.
Earlier, when I said I wasn’t going to single people out, I lied. I am going to use two examples. I had a conversation earlier this week, and one of the key factors in the city trying to change contracts, collective bargaining agreements and therefore the budget, is the HR Director.
In order for the city to really do a good job of negotiating, we are going to have to bring in an outside consultant that will work with the council and represent them at the bargaining table. That is supposed to be the job of the HR Director.
As those of you who read this site last year knows, HR Director Melissa Chaney was not even able to clear herself from a conflict of interest, let alone forcefully negotiate on behalf of the city.
As we reported back in January 29, 2010, Ms. Chaney “sat at the management table as part of the negotiating team on behalf of the city during the discussion and negotiations with the city management employees group. Not only is Ms. Chaney a member of that bargaining group, but so too is her husband, Rick Guidara, who is an information services manager.”
Mr. Guidara has since left the city, but the fact of the matter is that this is a rather serious breach. Now, this is not only on Ms. Chaney, it should also fall on the backs of Bill Emlen and the City Council.
For the record, then City Finance Director Paul Navazio recused himself from being on the city bargaining team when the department heads discussion came up, due to the fact that he deemed it to be a potential conflict of interest.
That illustrates the climate that we have to change in city government.
The second example comes from this week’s ConAgra discussion. The council had, by 3-2, voted to allow the application to go forward on the Cannery Park site. However, a December meeting was not well-received by the public. So they went back to the drawing board and tweaked the design.
The problem is that the design did not need tweaking, as though it were close and only needed changes at the margin. No, the site needs major revisions – if we need development now at all.
Unfortunately, city staff let this proposal come forward and be presented to the public on Monday night. This was a waste of city staff time.
Development projects like this are like gold to the planning department. They get work, they get paid, and it is all paid for. That is good for planning staff, but not for this community.
The previous council was very accepting of this policy and pushed through projects that never should have been pushed through. City staff should be able to deliver the message that this project either needs to change or it is not going to be approved.
Personally, I think council needs to just kill it and they may have the votes to do just that. Short of that, they need to provide direction to city staff that is clearly missing right now.
The council is now set. The direction is going to be extremely different than the previous council.
The key change is going to be to find a new city manager, whether it is Paul Navazio or someone else, and direct them to change the culture in city government. This is not going to happen overnight, but my guess is by this time next year, we will have a very different looking city government – and that will be a good thing for this community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I was at the City Council meeting Just Saying referred to, and did not agree with Just Saying’s view of things. Neither did DTBusinessman, who was also at that meeting. What I would say is I agree that business will not be conducted as usual at City Council meetings. It is going to take some time for staff to get used to the new City Council’s desire to have more oversight and not just rubber stamp city staff recommendations; and the newer City Council members will have to take some time to understand their role in interacting with city staff so they don’t micromanage issues they have no expertise in. I don’t think there is any need at this point to somehow villify city staff.
Understandably, the newly formed City Council seems definitely more concerned about “getting things right”; but at the same time needs to be careful not to micromanage processes they know nothing about. Micromanaging has always been a problem w the City Council and continues to be. A case in point is what happened at the last City Council meeting. There was a request by a City Council member that construction consultants for the wastewater treatment upgrade be required to give millions of dollars worth of design expertise up front at no cost merely in the “hope” of winning the contract – just so the City Council would have the opportunity to compare various proposals. City staff rightly pointed out from a practical point of view, no construction design company is going to put forward that much design work for free. Similarly, City Council members put forward the idea of some sort of subsidy for low income folks who cannot afford the extreme rate hikes, but city staff rightly pointed out such a subsidy would have to come out of the general fund, which is strapped right now. However, city staff was more than willing to look into the matter to see what other cities have done to see how something like that might work. But city staff was not willing to promise what the city might not be able to deliver.
I think it is important to give each side, both new City Council members and city staff some time to get used to each other, time to figure out appropriate boundaries, time to learn where to interfere and when not to, time to understand when to approach city staff ahead of city council meetings and when to confront city staff in a City Council meeting. Here are my observations thus far of our new City Council and city staff:
1) The Gang of Three is dead – that is a good thing. They had such a lock on processes that they could run roughshod over everyone and everything. It was not good for the city, and bad decisions were the end result.
2) Former City Manager Bill Emlen was very much a part of that Gang of Three, and exploited them to his advantage and vice-versa.
3) The newly formed City Council seems to want to do the right thing by its citizens. But it is feeling its way, not quite sure how far to get involved, to what extent it should form coalitions w each other, what the most important issues are, to what extent it should micromanage, and so forth. The City Council needs a chance to obtain a bit of leavening/experience under its belt.
4) The newly formed City Council is definitely more civil, which is a breath of fresh air. Neither does it seem antagonistic to public comment – thank goodness. This is a good thing, and bodes well for better decisions being made.
5) The newly formed City Council is inheriting a lot of the mess created by the former Gang of Three. That makes it extremely tough, and puts the new City Council in the unenviable position of taking the heat for decisions not of its own making. Nevertheless, this newly formed City Council seems willing to do what is necessary, so I am cautiously optimistic.
6) Interim City Manager Paul Navazio seems to be an improvement over Bill Emlen. Navazio appears willing to be a bit more truthful about the economic woes of our city, rather than paper over the problems with what I like to call “creative bookkeeping”. An example of this, under former City Manager Bill Emlen’s tutelage, was placing basic needs in the “unfunded liability” category, and then declaring a “balanced budget” just in time for the re-election of some of the old Gang of Three Council members.
7) City staff, it should be remembered, are also newly formed. Bill Emlen is gone, Katherine Hess has been moved elsewhere to a different position, the head of Public Works Bob Clarke is new (Bob Weir retired). There has been some reshuffling, new leadership under Paul Navazio, and new direction from the City Council. City staff has to be given the opportunity to re-adjust as well to the new dynamic it is experiencing.
I would also like to make an observation about “The Cannery” project. Many have complained that development projects have been selectively pigeonholed/disappeared into the bureaucratic vortex by city staff. Proponents of Wildhorse Ranch and Carlton Plaza Davis both had this complaint, and legitimately so I think. Yet the Cannery project seems to be fast-tracked all of the sudden, as if the wheels have somehow been greased. Or another way to look at this is perhaps city staff have gotten the message that if a project is proposed, it should at least be given a fair hearing. It is not clear to me which is the case. Bottom line, is there should be some sort of consistent system, not showing favoritism, for deciding whether a project gets put forward or not. I and others have expressed concerns for this over a very long time. In fact Bill Emlen would notoriously and disingenously concede favoritism, then promise he would do better, only to continue the identical corrupted approach. This is something I would like to see the new City Council give direction to city staff on – a consistent approach to processing applications for development that removes any appearance of favoritism.
1) It is not clear to me why the council would reverse course by killing the ConAgra application after having directed staff to process it. The only substantive change in the equation since last fall as far as I’m aware is a political change; Wolk replacing Saylor. DG, you suggesting that the ConAgra application has simply been a council trial ballon to determine the level of public resistance to a project on the cannery site?
2) The Wednesday post from JustSaying regarding the waste water treatment project hit exactly the wrong note. There was a fairly obvious discrepancy between Council directive to staff and the stated objective of the directive. Staff, the city manager, and even the legal advisor repeatedly pointed the discrepancy out. It was extremely painful to follow. ERM, in another thread refuted JustSaying’s ill considered statement in detail. DG, you might consider either conceding this point or refuting the substance of ERM’s detailed posting.
3) Rifkin for city bargaining rep!
A better description of how I perceived the wastewater treatment project discussion was council instructing staff to pound a square peg through a round hole. Staff maintained that such an exercise would likely prove futile. And council kept insisting that staff take a few more wacks with the mallet. Perhaps there were dynamics involved that had nothing to do with the substance of the issue, political posturing, ego, horse trading, I don’t know. Perhaps individual council members might chime in on this thread with their perspectives.
[i]”As we reported back in January 29, 2010, Ms. Chaney “sat at the management table as part of the negotiating team on behalf of the city during the discussion and negotiations with the city management employees group. Not only is Ms. Chaney a member of that bargaining group, but so too is her husband, Rick Guidara, who is an information services manager.”[/i]
For the record, Melissa Chaney told me about 4 years ago that she believed [i]the City should hire a professional negotiator.[/i] She told me that some time around the late ’90s (if I am recalling her words correctly) that Davis had an outside negotiator and she thought it was a better set-up than having top staff negotiate on behalf of the taxpayers. However, it was the decision of the City Council, not staff, to forego a professional negotiator.
In my opinion, hiring an outsider solves only half of the problem. It gets rid of the serious conflicts of interest–such as the ones David points out above–and it gets rid of the indirect conflicts where the City Manager, who benefits from having his employees like him, has an incentive to go easy on his subordinates in negotiations. Further, it gets rid of the problem that when staff negotiates, any goodies (such as massive amounts of vacation time, sick leave, holidays and the most expensive possible medical plans) that are taken away from employees in negotiations will also be taken away from the top staff doing the negotiating.
The other half of the equation is hiring the right person and giving her the right instructions. If the Council simply hires a negotiator and then instructs her to give away the store–as our council did from 2000 to 2010–then an outsider cannot help too much. The negotiator cannot really be any tougher than the Council. Maybe this Council is going to be different. I still have my doubts. I still don’t think any of them gets the fact that there are so many rip-offs to the taxpayers inside these MOUs that need to be torn up. I think more people now on the Council get that we cannot continue to afford our pension benefits or retiree health packages. But they are not clued into what is so wrong about obvious things like the rip-off way the way we schedule firefighters to ensure they get overtime pay for every single paycheck. I doubt there is a majority who understands why we ought to go back to 3 on a truck scheduling. Who among them has the testicular fortitude to demand we get rid of union bank hours? Why are we giving “management leave” to so many employees who don’t manage anyone?
And finally, if the Council gets its act together and gives proper instructions to a professional negotiator, they need to hire the right person. They need someone with experience, toughness and the right temperament. (I lack two of those, fwiw.)
As the DCEA situation is playing out, it’s clearer to me now that an impasse declaration is not necessarily going to result in smooth sailing. However, because state law allows that avenue, I think our negotiator needs to be told to keep that in mind before making any serious (and costly) concessions. If push comes to shove and the labor groups feel they cannot live with “our last best offer” and the City cannot afford to make the offer more lucrative, then that’s a possible route to consider.
I think the Council’s main focus needs to be this: our costs moving forward cannot inflate faster than our revenues. We want to maintain services. Any labor deals we reach must restrain the cost of labor and maintain vital city services. It does not serve our community or the city workers if large numbers of staff have to be furloughed or fired.
WOW ,
“”””Earlier, when I said I wasn’t going to single people out, I lied. “””””
Business as usual , half-truths , hearsay , reported by . Do you believe in informational sources ?
I don’t agree with David Greenwald’s analysis of this particular example with which he chose to make his case.
I should point out that in this specific phase of the ongoing wastewater treatment facility approval process, I agreed with staff and I made a motion to approve staff recommendation, which was not seconded.
I also agreed with staff that the motion to send out an RFP was too ill-defined, and would be impossible for staff to comply with in the absence of further discussion.
After much back and forth between council and staff, I made a motion to hold a workshop so that the council better define its goals and direct staff.
That motion was not seconded, but a very similar motion was eventually passed.
David, I had to really evaluate SO carefully to find anything to criticize in your exceptional article. I’ve read it three times, and still have to admire it. It’s just outstanding. But….
Elaine and Mr. Businessman already had offered “different takes” on how they observed the council meeting in the original discussion. Granted, being there could lead to a significantly different impression than I developed. I only had a front view of the staff and only when the video controller decided to cut to them. But it was a troubling view from where I where I was sitting on the couch.
I guess my current concerns are performance and process, not personality or political issues, of the council operation.
[u]Performance[/u]: From the front view of the staff, it appeared several were just bored and/or tired as well as unhappy with the direction several of the discussions took during the long evening. That could have been a mistaken impression, but I still think the staff should take a look at whether they’re pleased with their “performances” to see if they want to work on the verbal and non-verbal impressions. Of course, you also were in the room and may have come up with another perception.
[u]Process[/u]: It’s still a mystery to me why our council almost always has to show up unready to act with reasonable dispatch.
Most formal get-togethers in which I’ve participated called for more preparation ahead of time–reports provided in time for adequate review and additional research before the meeting, plenty of discussion between staff and the chair to minimize “square peg/round hole” chitchat during the meeting and *collaborate on meeting effectiveness ideas, preliminary subcommittee efforts with staff so staff develops better understanding of management’s views and management develops better expertise on technical issues, taking up matters far enough ahead to allow for more staff work and avoid rushed decisions on inadequate understanding and so on.
Just basic management of the process. Most of the burden really falls to the full-time staff to assure that part-time management is informed, is communicating and is effective.
If these kinds of process issues get handled, I’d guess that some of the concerns you express, David, might be better handled and that the council and staff both would be pleased with the results.
– – – – – – – – – –
*And, where the hell was the setup for having motions projected on the wall, anyway!?
I think that the council has to take some responsibility for this one in terms of improving process.
It is very difficult to completely change course on the fly. If it develops that a majority of the council is not satisfied with staff recommendation and the issue is complicated and a simple and effective alternative is not apparent, council should not hesitate to bring the item back rather than to waste too much time on it, only to have to bring it back anyway.
The L.A. Times today has a fascinating (though very long) piece ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2011/03/when-flawed-plan-meets-perverse.html[/url]) about waste in government, especially when it comes to government purchasing “green” energy solutions. I think there may be lessons in this story for the City of Davis. We seem to always want to be on the cutting edge when it comes to solar power, yet sometimes solar power does not make good fiscal sense.
“It is not clear to me why the council would reverse course by killing the ConAgra application after having directed staff to process it. The only substantive change in the equation since last fall as far as I’m aware is a political change; Wolk replacing Saylor. DG, you suggesting that the ConAgra application has simply been a council trial ballon to determine the level of public resistance to a project on the cannery site?”
The political change, I think is rather substantial, but aside from that, I think the poor quality of the application and the resistance of the applicant to adapt the project to community needs presents the question as to whether we want to have city staff, reimbursed as they may be, spending a year of time on this project.
I recognize that Just Saying’s comment was directed specifically at the water issue and I understand Sue’s (and others) point with regard to that specific issue. My commentary was meant to be very general, and I took JS’s specific concerns and applied it more generally. Part of that decision was based on no less than five conversations I had had in the community in person and via email about city staff. You’ll note that my examples here were ConAgra and the HR Department, but I could have and perhaps should have hit on things like Fifth Street as well.
[quote]WOW ,
“”””Earlier, when I said I wasn’t going to single people out, I lied. “””””
Business as usual , half-truths , hearsay , reported by . Do you believe in informational sources ? [/quote]
It was a joke and this was a column. Get a sense of humor.
I think the biggest impediment to an effective working city staff is council loading staff down with too many priorities plus council losing focus on priorities and sidetracking staff with non-priorities. There is a certain rigor and focus lacking.
DT: I don’t disagree that this could be a problem. I also agree that in the past council has not prioritized well. My question would be for you to provide current examples of “sidetracking staff with non-priorities?”
Second Street reverse angle parking is a great example of “sidetracking staff with non-priorities.” Non-priorities may very well have merit; they are merely items that were not identified as priorities in goal-setting sessions. That being said, there’s something to be said for taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. It’s a difficult balancing act.
DT Businessman makes good points. The whole plastic bag ban issue is another non-priority that I think will be coming up… Oh, or the whole mess with what was going on in Gaza is another w the past City Council. Or how about the back and forth mess having to do w the tank art project where the artists were not given clear direction? Or the zip car fiasco. I could go on and on about relatively inconsequential matters that are taken up by the City Council for hours and hours and hours…
City staff is asked to generate staff reports on so much nonsense, that it becomes difficult for them to focus on the most important projects and do them well. It is also very, very difficult for city staff to withstand regular “grillings” from City Council members on the fly. There does not seem to be any concerted effort by City Council members to get questions answered ahead of time. On the other hand, city staff often do not get documents out to the City Council until right before the meeting! And city staff reports are very wordy and densely packed with huge amounts of information. So there is plenty of “blame” to go around, if blame we must.
It almost seems as if all sorts of projects are dreamed up just to give city employees something to do; and City Council and Commissions something to feel important about. And if there is a more expensive way to do things, the city will find and implement it. Our city is so busy trying to be innovative, it loses sight of the necessary and mundane… just my take…
To Just Saying: I respect your point of view of city staff, but just don’t happen to agree. Had you been sitting in the room, we very well may have had differing viewpoints. I do think, however, one does get a somewhat different sense of things when one is sitting and watching the give and take in the City Council chambers. It is also necessary, I think, to give this new group of city staffers and City Council some time to get to know each other and figure each other out. But could things be improved? You bet! For starters:
1) Shorter staff reports, distributed before or on time.
2) Fewer daft projects proposed; more focus on the important issues.
3) More attempt by City Council members to ask questions of city staff before Council meetings.
4) More City Council meetings, that run shorter lengths of time.
One problem I see immediately is that the council and many in the community have prioritized the climate action plan and the local reduction of use of carbon. Now that might not be your priority, or even my priority, but that’s a priority.
That doesn’t mean there were not blunders along the way, I’m not going to defend the civics arts commission issue or handling of the zip car issue.
The bigger problem I see were huge mistakes in judgment by city staff on those issues.
Perhaps we should look at priorities (some of which are integrated, and not mutually exclusive):
Greenhouse gas emissions (reduction of)
Senior Housing
Ability to turn on faucets and have acceptable water
Ability to flush toilets and let human wastes disappear
Affordable senior transit
Ability to get permits to repair/improve homes
Child Care
Recreational opportunities
Protection from flooding (minor &/or major)
Rapidity of responding to Public Records Act requests
Quality of open space &/or habitat
other?
We’re heading in the wrong direction here. The discussion began with making staff/council interation more efficient. I mentioned that efficiency would be increased if council focused on the agreed upon priorities instead of waylaying staff with unrelated projects. Now we have posters who are doing the same thing, making up a whole new set of projects. We’ve already gone through this exercise. The priorities for the next 2 years were already set last summer.
[quote]The priorities for the next 2 years were already set last summer.[/quote]
I disagree. They are going to revisit them because Dan Wolk is now on the council and priorities have changed. Also I suspect they won’t say this out loud, but Don Saylor was more influential than his one vote would suggest, especially at that time before Joe and Rochelle got their feet wet.
Yet, DG, you blame staff in your initial commentary, but go on to agree that the council lacks focus and has shifting priorities with no end in sight.
I was asked in a policy discussion not long ago to list the impediments to fostering an innovative local economy. The last item on the list was governmental instability. I did not mean thereby that we were suffering from a series of revolutions or coups. Rather, the point was that it is very difficult to achieve ANYTHING, let alone foster an innovative economy, if there are ever shifting priorities and strategies for achieving priorities. It’s akin to sailing a ship without a destination and no navigation equipment. Sure, you’re likely to arrive somewhere eventually, but where?
“Yet, DG, you blame staff in your initial commentary, but go on to agree that the council lacks focus and has shifting priorities with no end in sight.”
You imply that the two are mutually exclusive.
I would also suggest that the current council is distinct from past councils in this respect. We will see what the current council does, I suspect we will see a lot change by council and the staff is going to have to play catch up. Nevertheless, I think there are a lot of problems and shortcomings in city staff, I have highlighted some. I did not get into things like the Zip Car fiasco or NewPath which would have highlighted a number of other problems with city staff.
I did not intend to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. The point that I’m not having a great deal of success in making is there’s little point in trying to fix the tear in the seat if the car won’t start and wouldn’t steer straight even if it did. Building an effective organization begins with goal setting, setting strategies to achieve the goals, allocating the resources necessary to implement the strategies, monitoring progress, and focus. I’m no management guru, so I may not be using the correct terminology and/or missing key components. But I’m pretty sure that’s the gist of it.
I agree with you.
I suspect we have different views over which is the car starting.
To me, we fixed the car when we elected new members to the council and they appointed Dan Wolk, taking the group that had controlled the city council for six years prior out of power and replacing them with fresh blood.
I view the problem of city staff as needing to replace the tires and realign the car rather than a tear of the seat.
My objective is to foster a sutainable, vibrant community. I don’t much care who is driving the car, so long as they are driving the car toward the objective post haste. It drives me nuts to see us not moving toward the objective because of squabbling over who gets to drive the car. It also drives me nuts when the driver has the radio blasting so loud that you can’t even have a discussion regarding whether we’re actually headed in the right direction. It also drives me nuts when the driver pulls over to complain about a tear in the seat cover. Just keep driving for chrissakes. The driver can drive and complain at the same time for all I care. The Davis car reminds me of one of those movie scenes where someone is learning to drive a stickshift for the first time letting the clutch out too slow, too fast, stalling out, weaving all over the place, running the stop sign, smashing into a wall, coming to a stop, all the while arguing with the driving instructor.
DTB: “My objective is to foster a sutainable, vibrant community. I don’t much care who is driving the car, so long as they are driving the car toward the objective post haste. It drives me nuts to see us not moving toward the objective because of squabbling over who gets to drive the car. It also drives me nuts when the driver has the radio blasting so loud that you can’t even have a discussion regarding whether we’re actually headed in the right direction. It also drives me nuts when the driver pulls over to complain about a tear in the seat cover. Just keep driving for chrissakes. The driver can drive and complain at the same time for all I care. The Davis car reminds me of one of those movie scenes where someone is learning to drive a stickshift for the first time letting the clutch out too slow, too fast, stalling out, weaving all over the place, running the stop sign, smashing into a wall, coming to a stop, all the while arguing with the driving instructor.”
Great analogy! I like your point of it not really mattering so much who is driving the car (it will be whatever City Council is in power w the help of city staff), so long as we are driving towards the stated objective. But instead of driving toward the objective of fiscal sustainability, the car goes off onto too many dead end side roads… Until fiscal sustainability is reached, there won’t be enough gas to take any side trips!
ERM, absolutely, it is not possible to have a sustainable, vibrant community in the absence of sound fiscal underpinnings.