While Councilmembers Sue Greenwald, and recently Stephen Souza, have been very vocal on DACHA, three of the other candidates have had less known positions on DACHA. The Vanguard inquired this week as to their views on what should happen with DACHA, and what they might do on the council.
Unlike Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee, Dan Wolk has actually cast votes on council on DACHA.
At that time, Mr. Wolk said, “This is actually one of the more vexing issues that I’ve confronted since being appointed to the council. It seems like we’re in a rabbit hole and it seems like this motion is the best way to get us out.”
He argued that we owe it to the community to settle this matter and “get it off our plate.” At the same time, he called for “an independent and objective look at the situation.”
This week he told the Vanguard, “My position on this issue is embodied in the successful motion I made at the city council hearing in February.”
He sees the need to do two primary things.
“First, we need to settle this matter, whether through discussions or the appointment of a trusted and qualified mediator. Both sides – the city and the plaintiffs – need to sit down and find common ground, so that all the time and resources spent fighting about this can instead be directed toward the ever-important goal of providing affordable housing to our community,” he said.
At the same time, he continues to believe there needs to be “an independent, objective examination of this situation, with an eye toward the proper disposition of the former DACHA units.”
Unlike, perhaps, Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald, he believes, “As the newest member of the city council, I come at this issue from a more independent perspective than the parties already involved, including city staff and my colleagues on the city council. That, coupled with my experience as a public agency attorney well-versed in negotiations and litigation, convinces me that my motion is the right path forward on this issue.”
Lucas Frerichs, one of two challengers to the three incumbents, told the Vanguard that he believes “there needs to be an fully independent investigation into the city’s entire affordable housing program.”
“This has been needed for years, and is something that the previous council never ultimately went for,” he said adding: “I think there have been irregularities on a variety of projects (over time), and it is high time the council pursued that option.”
Back in February he made specific comments to council, “Davis also has earned a California-wide reputation of having a model affordable housing program, as well as a progressive stance toward the development and promotion of its affordable housing stock, including a diversity of types of affordable housing, including housing co-ops, among others.”
He mentioned his time as Chair of the Social Services Commission, which has purview over the city’s affordable housing program, and said, “I am particularly concerned about the state of the affordable housing program.”
He added, “Over the years, there have been issues with the city’s affordable housing program, and I think that now is the time to investigate ways to help such an important program regain its luster. One solution is to call for a fully independent examination/investigation/audit of the City’s entire affordable housing program, and take a comprehensive look at its past successes, its current challenges, and our community’s vision for the future.”
He concluded his remarks suggesting, “We are not unlike other local governments, in that we are now in a new era for providing services. We have a real opportunity to step back from the ledge of a lawsuit, take a hard look at what services we should or can provide, and how we ensure their success.”
Back in early February, candidate Brett Lee wrote, “On a broader, long-term level we need to restore trust in our City government. We need to know that our taxes are well spent and that people are accountable for their actions. We do not need a ‘gotcha’ regime that looks to punish people for misjudgments; we are all human and sometimes we make mistakes, but at the same time we do not need a ‘let the good times roll’ mentality where we just cruise along with little accountability.”
At that time, he noted that, as a citizen, with the competing claims of the city and principals for Twin Pines and DACHA, “I cannot really tell what happened.”
He said, “As a taxpayer and community member, I would expect the City to conduct an objective investigation of its handling of this matter and to be honest and forthright about what it finds.”
He added, while noting the pending litigation, “In this disclosure, if the City has acted improperly, I would like to know the steps that were taken to prevent this from happening again and what steps were taken to provide some level of accountability. On the other hand, if the City has acted properly, then the community would also benefit from knowing it.”
Mr. Lee told the Vanguard, after reading the city council’s editorial, “While I am impressed by the fact that all five council members appear to have co-authored the article and hence show unanimity on the topic, I am not clear what to make of the article.”
He asks, “Is the article viewed as a sufficient addition to the public body of knowledge so that an independent review of the city’s role in the matter is not needed? Or is it merely an article designed to present the city’s view of a narrow aspect of the controversy, not intended to serve as a replacement for further review of the city’s role in the matter?”
“From the contentious back and forth on these pages here in the Vanguard on the subject, it is clear in my mind a more independent look is needed into this matter,” he writes. “The principals in this controversy are too closely involved with the issue to provide an impartial, measured, fact-based review of the matter. “
Brett Lee argues, “While the grand jury report does provide for a start in this direction, the goal and scope of their report was different than what I think we need here. We need to understand what happened, what was done right and what was done wrong, and we need to learn from this and move forward. We need to have some level of transparency, openness and accountability in city government if we hope rebuild the trust in government that will serve all of us well.”
Finally, Brett Lee notes that three of the five signatories to the council op-ed were not even in office at the time of an April 2010 “settlement offer,” and therefore he wonders “how these historical events were verified to them.”
He concludes, “As seemingly straightforward as this April 2010 ‘offer’ was, there does in fact seem to be some dispute about it. All in all, this is quite an interesting, puzzling affair that seems to provide us with an opportunity to learn more about the inner workings of our city. I hope we take advantage of this opportunity.”
What becomes clear is that three of the council candidates have expressed very clear desires for some level of investigation into what has transpired with DACHA. Both Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza opposed such a move back in 2009 and have been strong advocates for the current course of action.
However, we will see where current directions take them over the next three or four months.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I would like nothing better than an INDEPENDENT investigation of this matter…
I assume that everyone agrees that we need a thorough examination of what went wrong with DACHA and why it went wrong. Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued. I agree with everyone who says that we need a thorough review of our affordable housing policies.
[quote]”While Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and recently Stephen Souza have been very vocal on DACHA….This week he (Councilman Wolk) told the Vanguard, “My position on this issue is embodied in the successful motion I made at the City Council hearing in February.”[/quote]Actually, no one on the present council has been at all vocal–least of all, forthcoming–since they issued the misleading op-ed.
Only the Mayor and Stephen briefly appeared still to be alive once the op-ed first appeared and was questioned. Since then, they joined in the three other council members in a display of political cowardice and quietude we haven’t seen in Davis in recent memory.
David, did you offer Sue and Stephen the opportunity to answer your questions about DACHA and join the others who are candidates this time around? They have lots to explain about why they “have been strong advocates for the current course of action” to keep hidden the facts about DACHA’s history.
Did Dan’s “successful motion” really embody his professed two-part position? Did the council agree to “an independent, objective examination of this situation, with an eye toward the proper disposition of the former DACHA units.” If so, we’re on the right track…finally.
As SODA pointed out, an investigation should include a look at the problems that have resulted in most of our affordable housing supply to have dissolved, giving windfall profits to a favored few (including employees an their friends). A broader look might help keep us from making the same mistakes in future projects .
“. Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued. I agree with everyone who says that we need a thorough review of our affordable housing policies.”
Probably because I have no legal or public managerial experience, it is not obvious to me why a lawsuit and independent investigation could not occur concordantly. Can someone explain to me the correct order of operations here ?
Think of all the money everyone would have saved if an independent investigation had gone forward if Sue or Stephen had votesd yes to an investigation rather than no.
Sue and Stephen you have cost the City a lot in wasted and misspent public funds and NP TPCF and DACHA and its members a lot of money.
At the meeting where Lamar boldly moved for an independent investigation Sue vociferously argued against it. Stephen voted no and with Ruth’s np vote the motion failed.
A tip of the hat to Lamar and Don for not being afraid of the truth.
Sue and Stephen have never wanted an investigation.
Remember the “offer” contained a requirement:
“There would not be any additional investigation into past actions or allegations.”
David Thompson – you will get $150,000 for your personal pocket but to do that you must get the board of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation to drop its lawsuit against the DACHA board for its numerous breakings of California law and its own articles and bylaws and you must drop your demand for investigations. Sure sounded like a bribe to me and when I immediately told my lawyer he confirmed that had I done that I would have broken California law.
An independent investigation then would have shown all the illegalities, the improper role of City staff, the questionable role of the City Attorney.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]”I assume that everyone agrees that we need a thorough examination of what went wrong with DACHA and why it went wrong. Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued. I agree with everyone who says that we need a thorough review of our affordable housing policies.”[/quote]I didn’t see your note while I was typing and posting my own. Thank you for rejoining your friends at the Vanguard.
1. Did David contact you (as one of the candidates) for this story?
2. If you now assume that we need a “thorough investigation” of the DACHA situation, why were you against an independent investigation when David and others called for one two years ago?
3. Are you for or against selling the units on the open market to maximize the cash for the city? There’s suspicion that the staff wants to sell off the properties to give windfall profits to the former DACHA members.
4. Did you read Stephen’s allegedly fraudulent email (with the critical missing few words) before you signed onto the recent op-ed? Whose version is truthful?
5. Why would you agree to an op-ed that claimed the city had made an official offer that would have resolved things from the city’s and DACHA’s point of view–saving DACHA–but that David T. and Luke turned it down–dooming DACHA–when not one of those contentions is accurate.
6. Why is the council silent in the face of all the questions and denials about your op-ed? (The only exception was Stephen’s prompt retraction about the offer not being an offer but a “framework” for an offer that never got made.)
7. Do you think Stephen should provide the additional emails he said would prove the questioned points and the timeline?
8. Why do you claim that “Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued…?” That contention is neither obvious nor true. It does suggest that you fear what might be found out during a “thorough examination.”
9. Who came up with the scheme and first draft of the op-ed and why wasn’t it vetted for accuracy since it made such strong claims against NP/TP? Did anyone consider that it might lessen the odds for a successful settlement that would have kept the city from additional legal costs and out of court re. DACHA?
Just Saying; why would Sue bother to answer your long list of questions? There is a lawsuit and there appears to be agreement that an independent investigation is needed at this point. Experience on the Vanguard has shown that any reply is likely to result in a blizzard of posts countering everything. This whole issue is essentially being litigated here. I don’t happen to think this is the best venue for that.
Sue and Stephen, your opposition to an independent investigation in October 2009 has cost the City a lot in misused public funds, and NP and TPCF, DACHA and its members a lot of money.
We had gained a great deal of information from the documents and testimony during the Arbitration. It showed clearly the improper and illegal activities of DACHA and its members and the role of City Staff in helping DACHA and ignoring DACHA’s wrongdoings. Those were the comments of the Arbitrator.
We offerred to meet with Sue and Stephen to go over the details and you refused as you have done. Happy to still meet with you to show you how the laws were broken by DACHA with the presence of Citry staff.
Lamar and Don did agree to meet with us (although Lamar told us that Ms. Steiner had told them not to)
I think the meetings with them convinced them that an independent investigation was warranted.
At the October 2009 Council meeting the City Attorney and City staff gave you misleading answers to all your questions.
It was apparent that Sue and Stephen were being snowed.
Stephen then asked what would it cost. Think about how much it has cost bewcause you voted no.
(Souza) Madam Mayor, I need to ask a question because it appears that I’m probably the deciding vote on this motion. What kind of cost are we looking at for an independent audit at this point in time and is the agency going to be the entity that pays for it?
Asmundson: It’s still money, though.
Not being familiar with specifically this type of audit, but just in general things that we’ve looked at in the past you’re talking probably anywhere between $15 and $30,000.00.
Sue and Stephen have always voted no and we are all paying a price.
Time for an independent investigation?
David Thompson
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]”Just Saying; why would Sue bother to answer your long list of questions?”[/quote]Because, Don, Sue has written that she would answer [u]any questions[/u] if they are specific and because she [u]always[/u] has done that in the past.
If you’re tired of reading about DACHA and other Davis affordable housing projects, tell David to stop writing about such topics.
Take a stand against the City Council issuing a hit piece op-ed that blames their lawsuit opposition for the decisions that the city has made about DACHA. Or, do you recommend that we accept the city’s statement without question?
Anyway, what’s your problem with these issues “being litigated here”? Every issue that David chooses to write about gets litigated here–except the few that are too boring to his readers.
You don’t have any questions about Sue’s suggestion that she (as one of “everyone’) is for an independent investigation (although she chose “thorough evaluation” instead), but you don’t have enough faith in her to answer specific questions like she’s always done in the past?
Would you prefer that I ask the same questions one at a time (like medwoman has here) instead of nine at once? Would you prefer that other readers not speak up when they disagree with what Luke states or what Elaine states to avoid a blizzard of responses?
I’ve learned so much about 25 years of Davis affordable housing efforts from the “blizzard of posts countering everything” over the past weeks. Even in cases where it appears everything looks like it’s been “litigated” two or three times before, something new of significance seems to turn up (most recently, Joanne’s emailed comments).
I don’t like the blizzard of name-calling and unsupported claims, but there’s also been a blizzard of facts, links to background information, etc. that should make for better city decisions in the future.
Is it possible that you just don’t find this topic as interesting as some of the others in which you participate or that you’re tired of DACHA or that you want to get to lunch? What’s this venue for?
Sue’s quotes at that October 2009 meeting.
“Greenwald: Ruth, could I? I’m going to vote against this. Frankly, after reading this arbitrator’s comments I’ve lost all faith in the ability for external reviews. This is one of the most biased things I’ve ever read in my life.”
“If they go to an external body, they don’t have the money, their lawyers tend to be pro bono, they don’t have the type of representation, they don’t have the detailed information that the other side has to make their case.”
Sue you knew differently when you said this in October 2009. Pro Bono Bunkum!
You voted to allow DACHA not to pay its loan of public funds back to the City during 2007 and 2008 which gave DACHA $116,000 to pay its lawyers.
A lawyer obtained for DACHA by the City appointee to the DACHA board. A lawyer later appointed a judge. That lawyer (held in high regard)actually did another $90,000 dollars of work for DACHA at the request of the City that he was stiffed on. The lawyer that DACHA told the Council at the Dissolution Hearing had abandoned the case. (Not true as previously shown)
Then earlier in 2009, The Hefner firm (highly regarded) was given a $25,000 retainer by DACHA from its borrowed public funds. Not an allowed use said the City Attorney and Mayor by the City but City Staff did and nothing happened. Who is watching over our funds?
So while you are in October 2009 are talking about DACHA’s lawyers being “pro bono” the facts show your remarks to be untrue and certainly misleading to the citizens.
In October 2009 when you spoke about “pro bono” lawyers those “pro bono” lawyers asked by the City to help DACHA had already spent $241,000 defending DACHA’s wongdoings. Much of it paid for by public funds and the rest of it expected to be paid by public funds.
The City only stopped giving DACHA public funds when the Grand Jury stepped in.
What a terrible waste of public funds.
Sue do you still regard DACHA’s lawyers as being “Pro Bono” now you have the evidence of $241,000 of legal work done on their behalf?
An investigation would likely have helped bring an end to the use of public funds.
David Thompson Neighborhood Partners LLC.
Sue Greenwald:”I assume that everyone agrees that we need a thorough examination of what went wrong with DACHA and why it went wrong. Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued.”
Then why did you repeatedly vote not to do an independent audit.
Its not obvious to me why you can’t do one while being sued, please explain. Just get to the bottom of it. Mike Harrington is right just deal with it and face the music that you screwed up Sue. Quit trying to cover it up Sue.
Why didn’t Dacha file for bankruptcy protection?
Three votes against an independent audit. Whose votes were pennywise and pound foolish? Whose were an attempt to cover it up?
I believe the 3 votes against were Souza, Asdmunson and Greenwald (for votes Haystek and Saylor). Perhaps someone can confirm.
I think the need has become more clear, I really don’t think it was to cover anything up.
Mr. Toad.
Good question about bankruptcy as we felt that it would likely have been the best option for DACHA and its members.
Cat Huff, President of DACHA said they could not afford it?
So NP and TPCF took action to put them into bankruptcy. Our lawyers felt that the bankruptcy route would keep the Co-op intact, lessen the burden on the members and be the lowest cost path to solutions.
All the issues on the table could have been dealt with in Bankruptcy Court. The law cases could have been dealt with in Bankruptcy Court.
Our lawyer researched that you can also do a mediation in Bankruptcy Court which is very low cost. So we were ready to go. Every piece would have been finished in fall of 2010.
DACHA (Cat Huff told us)has no money so they were going to let it happen.
So DACHA’s lawyers get the filing. They then call the City Attorney (4/22/2010). I have all the billing records. They discuss the City’s strategy. The City’s Attorneys want to fight it but they are not DACHA’s lawyers so they cannot. However, they can get DACHA’s lawyers to fight it. But DACHA has no money. So DACHA’s lawyer asks City for public funds to fight it. City agrees to release $30,000 of DACHA’s repaid public funds (our money) to Hefner. Danielle Foster tells Finance Department to send check for $30,000 to Hefner.
On 4/23/2010 Hefner calls Cat Huff and tells her what the City is willing to pay Hefner to do. So after the City and Hefner agree on what to do and that the City will pay the bill they then tell DACHA. So much for an independent board.
Bankruptcy Judge basically tells City they have no role here. No matter, Harriet prepares various briefs and turns up in court.
What a waste of public funds.
Then towards the end of the foreclosure Mark Gorton of the City (on a Monday I believe)asks our lawyer if we will participate in settlement discussions. Through our lawyer we say yes. We never hear back.
Two days later with no notice the City forecloses.
Did we feel fooled.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC,
[quote]”….Frankly, after reading this arbitrator’s comments I’ve lost all faith in the ability for external reviews. This is one of the most biased things I’ve ever read in my life.”[/quote]This might be all the explanation that’s needed for reluctance to have any more outside, independent evaluations of the DACHA history.
It appears we’ve had three independent looks: 1) a professional audit, conducted by a firm contracted by the city staff, 2) the Yolo County grand jury investigation and report, and 3.) the court-certified, independent arbitrator’s decision, conducted by an arbitrator agreed on by DACHA and NP/TP. None of them put all of the blame on any single party; all of them found things to criticize with the performance of all parties.
To resist finding out things with which we don’t agree is a little silly. If the city had proceeded with a truly independent review of the DACHA situation back in 2009, we might have eliminated the need for foreclosure, have been equipped to conduct more effective and honest settlement with NP/TP and DACHA, and–now, most important of all, have been better prepared to go to trial about DACHA if negotiations keep failing.
Instead, the City of Davis is being readied for court by the same people who got us to this point and who wrote the faulty op-ed that appeared in the [u]Vanguard[/u] and [u]Enterprise[/u] last week and who don’t want to see a true picture of what happened over the last decade.
“None of them put all of the blame on any single party; all of them found things to criticize with the performance of all parties. “
I think this is the crux of the matter, mistakes were made by all sides. Now it is time to see reason and everyone do their part to move toward a resolution.
But dlemongello
One party DACHA broke the articles and by laws of a cooperative scores of times with City staff egging them on.
One party, DACHA broke Cooperative Law, Nonprofit law, Corporation Law, the Davis Stirling Act.
One party, DACHA illegally and purposefully removed Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation as the beneficary without meeting the Attorney General’s requirements of a public benefit corporation.
One party, DACHA wanted to make $4 million dollars through an illegal dissolution of a cooperative.
One party, DACHA wanted to take an asset of $4 million that was to be used for all cooperatives in Davis and turn it into their very own personal gain of $200,000 each.
These were not mistakes …
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Two independent reviews with formal standing have already made findings that the city did nothing legally wrong concerning the loan restructure and the associated membership share equalization. One was the grand jury report, the other was the court ruling on the involuntary bankruptcy which chose to specifically exonerate the city.
The larger issue, which is what the city could have done differently regarding judgement and procedure to avoid this situation, and what we could do to improve in the future, is definitely something that needs to be looked into, but again, examination of the matters specific to DACHA will have to wait until after the lawsuits are settled either in court or outside of court. You have to keep in mind that two organizations which have overlapping directorates are suing us and which are not under the same obligations for transparency as is the city.
Correction: I believe that, at this time, only one of the organizations is suing us.
[quote]Then why did you repeatedly vote not to do an independent audit (Sue)?[b]-Mr. Toad[/b][/quote]You’re a bit confused, Toad. I voted for a independent audit, and we did an independent audit, and you can read the results of the independent audit at the city website at http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/dacha/pdfs/dacha-audit-with-staff-report-2006-06-20.pdf
The confusion revolves around the definition of “independent investigation”, which sounds good but is a vague term. The City had an independent audit done. The Grand Jury did an independent investigation of the city’s handling of DACHA and found it legal. The Grand Jury is set up to investigate only the City, and hence it did not do an investigation of Neighborhood Partners’ or Twin Pines. Also, the court took an independent look at the city’s role in the financial restructuring during the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings brought by Twin Pines, and found the city’s actions to be legal.
Sue you were vocally against an independent investigation of DACHA when there were no lawsuits against the City.
Now you are vocally against an independent investigation because there are lawsuits against the City.
Does not make sense.
Why did you vote to give approve allowing the illegal board of DACHA to forbear on paying $116,000 of re-payment of public funds so they could fight their illegal breaking of a contract.
Why did you approve providing the DACHA board with public funds to fight a suit against them by Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation for breaking the law?
Are all Davis citizens who break the law eligible for these programs?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Sue. Pardon me but what you call an “Audit” is not an Audit.
An Audit is required to be signed by a CPA and affirmed by the CPA firm.
Look at the “Audit” yourself, do you see anywhere on the document where it offically says “Audit”?
Do you see anywhere were it is signed by a CPA?
No and No.
The author of the “Audit” you refer to describes it not being an Audit.
You have a 17 page biased document steered by Danielle Foster. You have seen the emails between the two of them?
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners LLC.
An “Audit” that misses idnetifying the problems below is not an “Audit” by professional standards.
Look at how much money the City could have saved if the “Audit” had been impartial and professional and had pointed out all the problems it saw.
Every CPA I have shown this to has said this is not an “Audit”.
•Continuing member delinquencies to DACHA ($19,165.17) (12/31/05) and
•Rent Rolls showing 75% of DACHA members delinquent (12/31/05), and
•Delinquencies of all three DACHA resident board members ($3,151) (12/31/05)
•Delinquencies were far beyond the norm of any public or private landlord
•No mention of related party transactions occurring in a cooperative (all three resident board members being delinquent and by the bylaws ineligible to serve and required to be automatically removed from the board)
•Self dealing transactions/Loans to board members required to be approved by the Attorney General
•Legal and fiscal responsibilities of the board of directors of a public benefit corporation
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
At 4:06 pm today, in her post above, Sue writes: [i][b]”Correction: I believe that, at this time, only one of the organizations is suing us.”[/b][/i]
Sue put her name on that Op-Ed, yet she doesn’t even know that there are two lawsuits in this matter. The city is being sued separately by Neighborhood Partners and Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation.
She claims to have a mastery of the issues, yet does not even know this basic fact. The city council has been in numerous closed session discussions on these matter in recent weeks. How could she be paying so little attention?
This confirms my perception all along over the past six years that Sue is (unlike her usual self on most issues) just not bothering to understand the details. Instead she has relied on the “audit” and then the grand jury report.
On May 29, 2006 the following statement was written by Jeff Dale (the auditor) in an e-mail to Danielle Foster (the city of Davis staffperson who selected and interacted with the auditor):
[i][b]Let me know if you can think of any points or clarifications that should be made that you don’t see in the “completed” sections. Ponder the points you think this report should make for the benefit of its intended audience, and what kind of questions or objections that audience may raise.[/b][/i]
Is that an appropriate request from an independent third party reviewer?
An impartial fair audit done meeting professional standards and being signed would have served the City, the Citizens and all the parties.
Instead we get an unsigned 17 page report with no back up documents and comments from the author suggesting the City break the law to get the homes to the DACHA members.The audit covered up the DACHA wrongdoing and delinquencies.
Mr. Dale, and therefore Gilbert Associates, appears to abdicate their professional responsibilities of independence to the City of Davis as their client.
Moreover, the City’s duty as a prudent lender and the City’s responsibility to the taxpaying public to protect public funds is harmed by Mr. Dale’s omissions.
Had Mr. Dale brought to the City’s attention the presence of financial irregularities and board misconduct he witnessed at DACHA, the City Council would have been able to take corrective action to reverse the improper actions of both DACHA and City staff.
Two years after the Gilbert report, DACHA delinquencies had climbed to $70,000, the DACHA board members were all ineligible to serve, the member were ineligible to vote, and yet they borrowed $4 million from the City without staff requiring an audit.
Two years later the City needed to foreclose on DACHA. The warnings from the financial evidence were all there during the audit period but Mr. Dale makes no mention of them. We think the prejudiced report of Mr. Dale prevented the City from protecting public funds. We wonder about the weak supervision that Gilbert Associates seemed to exercise during the process.
However, we think that Mr. Dale was either requested or encouraged by City staff to forego his professional responsibilities and impartiality.
The delinquencies of the DACHA members and the illegality of the DACHA board to serve plus numerous related party transactions were staring the auditor in the face yet none were mentioned by Gilbert in their report to the City. Where was the oversight?
The City spent $18,000 in public funds and got what?
David Thompson Neighborhood Patners, LLC.
The hell with a settlement… Luke Watkins and David Thompson appear by their posts to up the ante of what the settlement might be by political means. Let’s go to trial.
Forgot… the City should ‘cross-complain’ so that the City may recover its legal costs from NP, et al.
[quote]”. Obviously, we cannot do this while we are being sued. I agree with everyone who says that we need a thorough review of our affordable housing policies.”
“Probably because I have no legal or public managerial experience, it is not obvious to me why a lawsuit and independent investigation could not occur concordantly. Can someone explain to me the correct order of operations here ?”[/quote]I’m with you on this one, medwoman. Seems as though we’d [u]want[/u] to know what really happened–since there’s so much dispute about this matter–before we get surprised in court by the opposition. We keep acting as though David T./Luke haven’t got a single comment of merit, but many of the things they’ve claimed seem to be turning out to be true after opposition statements to the contrary.
I don’t know enough about the legal issues and who is suing who about what to predict a winner. But, I’m concerned about the apparent lack of official interest in finding out whether there’s any merit to the NP/TP claims. I hope the entire council isn’t taking Sue’s tack of believing the reports that agree with their preconceptions and resisting the ones that don’t agree.
The taxpayers are going to be the losers in all this, some (DACHA members) more so than others…
JustSaying
My comment was just a question. What I cannot escape in this whole mess is that while David and Luke repeatedly bemoan the waste of public money, they are the ones pushing the lawsuits. If the issue were exposing errors in process, that has been done, so mission accomplished. Time to accept an offer and go home. Clearly that is not happening. So there must be another goal here. What it looks like to me at this point is that the plaintiffs are trying for as much money as they can get. Is this their right to do within our legal system ? Apparently so. But I would find refreshing an end to the grandstanding, admission that this is all about how much money they can get, and an end to “good guy” vs “bad guy” rhetoric.
madwoman, your question is really a conclusion. Wouldn’t we all find it refreshing to have everyone (including the ones you’ve determined are the bad guys) come to agreement and stop insulting each other.
But, you must remember who the supposed aggrieved party is here, who are the defendants are and why there are lawsuits. This now is all about money, money allegedly lost when DACHA and the city engaged in improper acts to the detriment of the plaintiffs.
The issue is money, not “exposing errors in process” or bemoaning “the waste of public money.” Of course, the goal is money–that’s how our legal system corrects improper civil acts that damage people.
The amount of money David and Luke will get if they win lawsuits will be determined in the courtroom. Are you thinking they should ask for half of what they think they’re due because they keep bemoaning the fact that the city has spent $400,000+ on lawyering? Are you thinking the two should settle for the city offer or that it’s reasonable for the city offer to come in at $20,000 less than Councilman Souza proposed two years ago, reduced because of the $400,000+ that’s been spent?
Can’t we all just get along? Nope, too late for that.
JustSaying
“that’s how our legal system corrects improper civil acts that damage people.”
True, but incomplete statement. Our system has other ways of dealing with disputes as well. To site a few.
1) Accepting loss as part of the cost of doing business.
2) Coming to a mutually acceptable agreement through the process of offer and counter offer.
3) Accepting binding arbitration
4) Lawsuit
My point is not who is a “good guy” or a ” bad guy”. It is that the only ones who right now, today, could end what they themselves are choosing to characterize as a waste of public funds are the ones who are pressing the lawsuits. I am not claiming that these are bad people or that they have not accomplished good here in Davis. Merely that they are the ones prolonging what could be a much shorter process through the choices they are making.
[quote]…when DACHA and the city engaged in improper acts to the detriment of the plaintiffs…[/quote]
THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED!
To JustSaying: I am confused. At one point you seemed to be urging the city to settle, yet now seem to be saying this thing should go to court? If you believe it should go to court, you are ignoring the injustice of default judgments in this particular case, where one side cannot defend itself bc it has been stripped of all funding and thus has no money to hire an attorney and thus cannot even enter the courtroom…
[quote]”But, you must remember who the supposed aggrieved party is here, who are the defendants are and why there are lawsuits. This now is all about money, money allegedly lost when DACHA and the city engaged in improper acts to the detriment of the plaintiffs.”
“…when DACHA and the city engaged in improper acts to the detriment of the plaintiffs…
“THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED!”[/quote]As you know and can see from the comment to which you’re responding, Elaine, we are in complete agreement that this has not been proved and will not unless and until it’s decided in court.”
[quote]”I am confused. At one point you seemed to be urging the city to settle, yet now seem to be saying this thing should go to court? If you believe it should go to court, you are ignoring the injustice of default judgments in this particular case, where one side cannot defend itself bc it has been stripped of all funding and thus has no money to hire an attorney and thus cannot even enter the courtroom…”[/quote] I continue to urge all parties to settle or to accept binding arbitration rather than to keep pounding each other until they end up in court to resolve this. I’ve never said this “should go to court.”
Given the city staff’s and council’s actions this past couple weeks, however, I’ve simply concluded it’s obvious that our city leaders have no interest in settlement or arbitration.
I support settlement or arbitration for the good of the DACHA members who ended up on the bad end of the city’s decision to foreclose on the co-op and for the good of taxpayers who’ve shelled out $400,000+ in legal fees alone to fight rather than to settle.
If I were confident the co-op and the city did no damage to the plaintiffs in violation of contracts and laws, I might say “Fight on, never settle.!” But, the more I see, the less confidence I have. And, even then, all kinds of settlements get done for more practical cost-effective benefits and leave the levels of cause-effect blame aside.
With respect to the “injustice of default judgments.” I don’t see what I can too about this. Default judgments work in the favor of poor folks who take rich companies to small claims court. I can understand why corporations might not show up to defend themselves, but I can’t imagine a person or a co-op choosing to skip their trial for a significant issue (like this one).
Right now, I seen little more than a PR benefit to repeated saying that a poor plaintiff “…cannot even enter the courtroom…” but I’m skeptical that it’s even accurate. And I hope you’re not advising your DACHA client or another co-op members not to show up in court when/if their case is scheduled.