Yesterday we reported that the city plans to hold budget meetings where the public can come and the city can receive input and suggestions about budget priorities, as the City Council considers additional cuts to the 2011-2012 fiscal year budget in late September.
Participants are asked to consider which programs and services they feel are the most critical to the community, as well as those they feel are less important.
There will also be an opportunity to provide general comments or suggestions.
Yesterday we suggested this was akin to a fool’s errand, where the public has limited knowledge of the topic and thus their input will provide limited direction and value.
But there is more than that going on. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized that, at least in late August, this topic is worth a second go around.
The key question is really, where did this come from? The best we can track, it came out of the final budget meeting and a suggestion by Councilmember Stephen Souza that the city seek input from the community on what should be cut.
He laid out a vision where members of the community would come forward and give feedback to the council as to their own priorities.
He said he wanted true constructive dialogue and believes the prior path was the right path. “This one is not the right path.”
But, to the best of anyone’s recollection, there was no council consensus on doing this, there was no motion made by Mr. Souza, there was no vote. So who decided that we needed to do this?
If it seems like not a big deal and perhaps a good idea, okay, but consider this, would the city be having meetings if Sue Greenwald had suggested we have a water hearing to discuss the rate hikes? I don’t think we would – certainly not without a vote by council or at least three councilmembers indicating interest. And yet, here we are.
The mind could then dip into conspiracies, and foresee this as an opportunity for large numbers of city employees to show up and pressure council – not that that really worked the first time around
Or perhaps this is a reelection thing, Stephen Souza showing leadership in pushing for the public hearings and then playing to the crowd.
But that is all speculation that likely has no basis in reality. It is just when the inexplicable comes to pass, we have to invent a logical explanation. If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the answer.
The reality is that this is doomed to fail. We are talking about hearings late in August and early in September, on the budget. That inter-period of time when council is still mostly on vacation, the public schools have just started, and UC Davis is slumbering in its September quiet period.
Even in the best of times, the subject matter is a challenge.
The Vanguard had a budget townhall meeting, back in 2009. We had City Finance Director Paul Navazio, Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission Johannes Troost, and past Chair Mark Siegler. We spent weeks promoting the event and got all of 40 people to show up from the public – or about one third of those who showed up a month earlier to the Vanguard event at Lamppost Pizza celebrating the launch of our new site.
The public has not been engaged on this issue. Sure, a few will show up when they threaten to close a pool, but for the most part, budgets in Davis are not like housing developments – even now, ConAgra can fill a room for a demonstration and presentation. That will not happen here, unless the public employees pack the room.
Part of the problem is not just the nature of the issue, but the fact that the city is in the stone ages in terms of communications. Instead of a vast network of email addresses and social networking ploys, the city has sent out press releases to the paper which will invariably be buried in the middle of the paper where no one will ever notice.
And did I mention it is August 25 today?
My hope is that the new city manager, himself an avowed fan of Twitter and a blogger, will have a more modern approach to communications. My hope is that the new city manager will not capriciously plan such events on a whim.
But if we are to press on with what appears to be a charade to be able to say that we have taken public input, perhaps where the public is not interested, we need to make this event at least meaningful.
Unless staff, read: Paul Navazio, is willing to stand up with a PowerPoint presentation and give the public background on this issue, it is going to be very difficult to get quality input from the public that helps the city council choose between programs.
Moreover, I often wonder which PowerPoint we will get from Mr. Navazio, the one where he shows people the real story behind the scenes, or the one in the public, full of rosy projections and papered-over assumptions.
Call me a cynic, call me a conspiracy theorist, something just is not right about this plan and I do not know what yet.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have the exact same feeling – queasy. The point made about there being no formal motion for this idea is a good one. Why is city staff wasting time and running with a mere suggestion from a City Council member, that got no traction at the dais, a city staff that is overworked? I understand Council member Souza’s motivations, as this is just political theater/cover, but I am at a loss as to city staff’s part in this…
[i]”Why is city staff wasting time and running with a mere suggestion from a City Council member, that got no traction at the dais, a city staff that is overworked?”[/i]
Perhaps all members of the staff who show up at this meeting get the axe?
Or staff may be hoping the public will raise up in opposition to cuts and CC’s resolve will melt? Are any CC members planning to be there?
Ok, so basically we stop having meetings to educate the public because the public isn’t educable? Or maybe we stop having open meetings, because the wrong number of people should show up?
Meetings and open forums, regardless of who shows up are part of democracy. Slamming city staff because you don’t like their story is part of democracy.
Where is the money going to come from to get better connected? I notice the vanguard solicits donations to run this blog. Technology costs something. Not everyone engages in or with it either. Why should also only those folks who blog or twitter have access?
Come on, write something that is actually objective. Your work on the compensation is good. Why not keep on that track.