The column on Sunday generated a lot of attention – it was meant to be a stark and eye-opening exposé on what went wrong from 2008 to 2012. For some, the truth proved to be highly valuable – a way for the public to understand the enormity of what we have to do.
It is perhaps unfortunate that some strategic missteps have ironically enough not allowed the public to see the forest through the trees. The decision to lay off nine city employees the day after the election, an election where the public passed a parcel tax to fund the city’s parks that everyone knew would be insufficient to fund parks, has diverted the attention.
The real story should have been the seven to eight million in budget cuts that the city’s next budget calls for. We can see the glass both half full and half empty at the same time. The good news is that we have a city council and city manager that are not going to be ducking and dodging the truth.
The bad news is that for our city employees, many of whom work long and hard hours to put food on the table, many will be going through a period of hardship and struggle as they cope with the loss of their jobs or reduced salary and benefits.
I thought it was important to understand why it has come to this. After all, that is what everyone will be asking on June 26. I had actually forgotten the phony math of attempting to call a reduction of salary increases a budgetary cut.
In 2009, we were talking about $850,000 in cuts, pushed upward to $1.57 million by Councilmember Lamar Heystek, only to end up at roughly $1 million by city staff. It was never fully implemented, and the next number we saw was $2.5 million in 2011. That has not been implemented and now we are at $4 million.
On Sunday we wrote, “People need to understand this and understand unequivocally, people’s lives are going to be damaged if not destroyed, because of the political ambitions of some and the cowardice of others.”
I wrote that statement and I believe that statement is the 100% truth.
A poster took exception to it. Concerned Citizen writes: “What a damning thing to write. I appreciate your reporting David, but the times are calling for a different type of mentality. Yes, mistakes may have been made in the past, but we need to be looking forward, not backward. I’d love to see a piece that is inspiring and hope-filled.”
Are the times calling for a different type of mentality? Because personally I think one of the reasons we got to this point where we are talking about $8 million in cuts, is that we refused to call a spade a spade.
We elected people we liked who told us what we wanted to hear. And we never bothered to question the order of things.
My response pulled no punches. I don’t know how you can be hope-inspired at a time when we are laying off at least 40 city employees and cutting $7 or $8 million from the budget.
People made a lot of mistakes, we need to acknowledge them to avoid repeating them, and we need to acknowledge them because people are going to lose their jobs because of them.
Those are unfortunate facts.
I’m grateful to have seen a council and city management willing to make these kinds of tough decisions, but you are not going to see hope-inspired pieces from me at a time like this.
This is going to be a miserable few months for many in our community. The worst part of it is that with better management and quicker action a lot of this could have been prevented.
I think people deserve the truth.
If there is a silver lining to this, I would argue it is that we actually have people in place that are there to fix these problems and diminish them. There have been mistakes made along the way, many of those unavoidable as public officials no longer have a clear roadmap to follow.
Earlier this year and late last year, I thought things would be better by this point. They are not. If anything, they are worse, simply because we no longer have the reserves and the resources to buffer reality.
Our schools have been the hallmark of our community. Last week, it was reported that our school district barely has enough cash on hand to borrow against the current deferrals. Without enough cash, the district will not be able to make payroll.
But all hope is not lost. The Davis Schools Foundation announced that they are halfway to their half million goal. That could be enough to shore up the cash flow crisis. And it could be enough to help pay for classroom instructional aides at the elementary schools to offset larger class sizes next year, increased campus safety (vice principals) at the junior high schools and counselors at the high schools.
Richard Harris’ radical proposal will be debated on Thursday night, and such measures could hold off the possibility of disastrous cuts.
Thinking of the school board reminded me to look back at 2008. That was the first real crisis of education in this community, facing $6 million in cuts and no time for another parcel tax. The district and school board looked remarkably like the current city situation.
The school was comprised of five members who had been elected within the last two years just as the city council is today. They had a brand new superintendent and a new finance director.
Steve Pinkerton has just come over from Manteca, but he lacks experience in Davis. Likewise, James Hammond had a previous job as superintendent but lacked experience in Davis.
What we saw were a series of long meetings with proposals of closing down Emerson, Da Vinci, music, art, and foreign language programs.
In subsequent years, the board learned to brace against such unpopular program cuts.
Now the council finds themselves in a similar position. The decision to cut a tree trimmer position may have made fiduciary sense, but it has residents angry.
A letter from DB Robinson stated, “I don’t envy City Manager Steve Pinkerton. His task – bringing the city’s budget into line with reality – is difficult and, in many ways, thankless. But was it necessary to eliminate two positions from Parks and Urban Forest Management Division, effectively gutting it and depriving it of all field staff?”
DB Robinson notes, “I have served on the Tree Commission since September 1986. In those 25 years, the staffing of the tree division has never been as low as it is now, and if the scheduled cuts are implemented we truly will have reached a new low.”
“Having worked with the last three of the city’s urban foresters, I can say unequivocally that necessary work will not get done if staffing is reduced. Pinkerton may think otherwise, but if he does, he is misinformed,” he continued. “I can only hope that his employers see the folly in his approach and reverse his decision.”
A similar letter from Walt Sherwood noted, “I was saddened and dismayed to read of the recent layoffs of city parks personnel, especially as they come after the recent election in which Davis voters overwhelmingly approved a tax measure to help fund our parks.”
“I am especially disturbed to learn that tree trimmers are among those to feel the ax,” he continued. “I thought we were so lucky to live in Davis where we have such skilled people dedicated to maintaining our beloved urban forest. Now I learn that the same people are losing their jobs. I can only think that there’s something very wrong here, and the city management should rethink what they’re doing.”
The overwhelming sentiment I get from the public is that they get that we have to cut from the budget, but that this position is a priority.
One day after being told that the city can do the same quality of job for less money, I was informed that there will be no explanation of this forthcoming.
The city is going to lose this PR battle even as they are fundamentally right on the budget.
Meanwhile, the folks at the Chamber PAC wrote an op-ed that said they are ready to work with the new city council.
Steve Greenfield, Kemble Pope, Janis Lott, Tom Cross and Michael Bisch write: “The Davis community has been through a difficult period of economic adjustment the past five years. Our schools and city are confronted with significant structural budget deficits. The Davis Joint Unified School District and city of Davis have cut a number of services affecting our quality of life with yet more cuts likely.”
They add, “Parcel tax measures and fee increases have been implemented, with more proposals under consideration to fund existing services. Deferred maintenance on streets, water and other vital infrastructure continue to accrue with no clear strategy to address these deficits threatening to further degrade our quality of life.”
They argue that the business “leaders agree that our community and elected officials must take a more proactive role in this time of uncertainty. “
This time they argue: “Immediate action must be taken to create sustainable school and city budgets; however, we also must adopt and execute economic development policies and strategies now that will benefit us in the medium and long term.”
” ‘Business as usual’ is no longer a viable course of action. It is imperative that the Davis community have political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable,” they write.
So are things doom and gloom right now? I think they are. The good news is that everyone seems to agree that we have a problem and appear ready to work toward the solution.
The bad news is that the light I thought I saw at the end of the tunnel back in January must have been a mirage.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
And it could be enough to help pay for classroom instructional aides at the elementary schools to offset larger class sizes next year, increased campus safety (vice principals) at the junior high schools and counselors at the high schools.
“umm…..if we are in that much of a crisis, instructional aides, counselors, and more than one vP per school seem like luxuries we cannot afford….”
That’s because you’ve never had to deal with a kid who actually NEEDS those services. Believe from where I sit, those are not luxuries at all. They are the only thing that has kept our 8 year old nephew in school and has gotten him on the right track.
[quote]That’s because you’ve never had to deal with a kid who actually NEEDS those services.[/quote]And how is this different from a City (or other public employee) who has a special needs child, being “asked” to contribute significantly more for health insurance coverage due to the crisis in funding? Are you, or your nephew’s parents contributing additional funds to offset the costs of the positions you see as essential for him?
[quote]The overwhelming sentiment I get from the public is that they get that we have to cut from the budget, but that this position is a priority.[/quote]
There will always be disagreement of which positions to cut…
“For some, the truth proved to be highly valuable….On Sunday we wrote, ‘People need to understand this and understand unequivocally, people’s lives are going to be damaged if not destroyed, because of the political ambitions of some and the cowardice of others’….I wrote that statement and I believe that statement is the 100% truth.”
Maybe we are facing doom and gloom at every turn. However, blaming our awful condition on avarice and cowardice, without offering anything beyond your own gut feeling, probably is unnecessary and unfounded. And, too cynical by a bunch. We very well could be in this spot because well-meaning leaders got trapped by poorly anticipated circumstances, including a world-wide financial collapse.
[quote]Maybe we are facing doom and gloom at every turn. However, blaming our awful condition on avarice and cowardice, without offering anything beyond your own gut feeling, probably is unnecessary and unfounded. And, too cynical by a bunch. We very well could be in this spot because well-meaning leaders got trapped by poorly anticipated circumstances, including a world-wide financial collapse.[/quote]
Yes, the worldwide economic collapse was a huge contributor to the city’s current economic crisis…
The economic collapse definitely exacerbated the problem. But it didn’t cause it.
We were spending money that we never allocated in multiple ways in the last decade whether it was the unfunded OPEB or the retroactive PERS increases.
We were able to balance the budget in 2008 on paper because we relied on 10%+ increases in property taxes plus the one-time $3 million increase due to the half-cent sales tax. That was unsustainable.
And even then we only were able to balance the budget by putting unmet infrastructure needs off budget.
This was in 2008. This was pre-worldwide economic collapse.
The collapse hastened this problem, it did not cause it.
It’s so nice when we find ourselves in 100% agreement, don’t you think?
Just tell me when to look for 3 member fire crews in those trucks. And 10%. Cut to management level salaries. And stop trying to dump a huge unneeded surface water project onto us
Then…. I will take the rest of it seriously.
The cutting of those tree trimmer positions was unnecessary
I’m with Mr. Harrington. There’s still much fat that can be cut.
They are cutting $7 to $8 million, there is going to be a lot of bone and muscle to go with the fat.
Well David, many us us tax paying Davis homeowners have already given up bone and muscle.
Understood. My only point is that we are not going to fix this by cutting “fat”
Getting rid of the fourth man on a fire truck and 10% paycut for management salaries would be a great help.
The current CC has to yet to fire theCity Attorney for all the many reasons discussed as naseum by many commenters
Also, there was NO enforcement. — zero — to the loudly announced $2.5 million cut last year. David, you were played, so far.
And the same CC who has sat here and been manipulated by the water staff and consultants into the Sept 6 fraudulent rates is trying to push through a project that is clearly not ready for prime time, with binding rates. Why? What’s the rush? There is none.
Hate to say it, Mayor Joe, but your Mayorship has benn a flat out disaster, with one thing after another going wrong on your watch.
Your defense of the DACHA debacle and apologies to the staff who duped the CC was embarrassing to watch on Feb 6
I assume that there is a lot that goes into “what and who to cut”. For example, I think tree trimming is easily outsources to private contractors that will do the job for much less than it costs to maintain our own city staff of tree trimmers. Maybe liberals should consider their typical views on immigration as contributing to the availability of substantially cheaper alternatives.
Seriously thought, those that want to use the Great Recession as the primary reason we are facing cuts, need to revisit the history of discussions about state and local budget problems. They were going on even during the boom years of wild tech stock and real estate exuberance.
This all boils down to tendency for political leaders and their constituents to kick the financial responsibility can down the road. That can has continued to grow to the point it can no longer be kicked. It is time to significantly cut. The only question is what and who. So, if you want to voice your objection to the tree trimmers being cut, then also voice your alternatives to cut. Otherwise you are being part of the problem of fiscal irresponsibility that got us into this mess.
91 Octane, you said
“umm…..if we are in that much of a crisis, instructional aides, counselors, and more than one vP per school seem like luxuries we cannot afford….”
This is why people who are not teachers [b]in the classroom[b]should not be making decisions about what is considered a necessity. Counselors, aides, VPs are not luxuries they are a necessity.
Anne, when I attended school we always had only one VP. I had teachers who taught classes of 30 children with no aides. The schools and the teachers always seemed to get by just fine.
[i]”My only point is that we are not going to fix this [u]by cutting fat[/u] …”[/i]
Nor are we going to fix this by cutting services.
We are primarily going to fix this by restricting the long and short-term growth of labor costs (and other variable costs) to the long-term growth of revenues. All the changes in that regard are remidiable by reforming the labor contracts.
We can make the strain of that arrangement less painful by 1) doing whatever we can to increase the City’s revenue stream; 2) eliminating inefficiencies (by consolidating management, outsourcing, eliminating excess staffing, etc.); and 3) setting terms of employment for new hires which are sustainable.
With regard to ongoing employees, the changes we need will cut to the bone for some. If a person is now making $48,000 per year and paying next to nothing for his pension, it will hurt when he is required to pay the full employee share. When CalPERS inflates the cost to fund the employer share of his pension, and that means his salary will have to be reduced to cover the added costs, that will hurt. If that same person is now pocketting $18,000 a year for not taking healthcare coverage and that is reduced to a max of $6,000, that will hurt. If that person wants to retire at age 55 and the new agreement requires him to pay almost all of the cost of his retiree medical benefit until he is 65, that will hurt. … But we have no choice to make these changes to avoid bankruptcy.
The most pain will be felt by those who lose their jobs. Where we have excessive management, excessive firefighters and perhaps excessive costs which can be outsourced far more cheaply, we will be laying off employees. I maintain that this is the wrong avenue to go, and that wherever we can avoid it, we should. My preference is to share the pain more by spreading it out over all employees, and to lose those “excessive” positions through attrition over time. It seems like that share-the-pain route is not one being pursued.
[i]”… in that regard are [b]remidiable[/b] by reforming the labor contracts …”[/i]
Sorry: remediable.
Rusty: were 25% of the students in your 30 person classroom learning disabled and special needs kids?
[quote]Rusty: were 25% of the students in your 30 person classroom learning disabled and special needs kids?[/quote]
Oh good grief! What makes you think there are significantly more learning disabled and special needs kids now than there were in my day? They were perhaps not diagnosed as such, but they were there…
[quote]My preference is to share the pain more by spreading it out over all employees, and to lose those “excessive” positions through attrition over time. It seems like that share-the-pain route is not one being pursued.[/quote]
I share your preference, but the employee bargaining units have to buy into that mindset, and I’m not sure whether they will…
For one thing meth wasn’t invented. For another people are waiting longer to have kids. I agree that there were undiagnosed students in those days, but that is not a good reason not to give them help. My nephew would have no chance of a decent life without this level of help, sadly he’s not the only one. Last year, he was one of 8 students who had similar problems in his classroom.
That’s because you’ve never had to deal with a kid who actually NEEDS those services. Believe from where I sit, those are not luxuries at all. They are the only thing that has kept our 8 year old nephew in school and has gotten him on the right track.
So an instructional aide per classroom is absolutely necessary, in addition to the teacher?
How many VP’s per school? One per grade level?
And counselors… you are telling me a school cannot function without counselors….
anne: “This is why people who are not teachers in the classroomshould not be making decisions about what is considered a necessity. Counselors, aides, VPs are not luxuries they are a necessity.”
I disagree. If teachers unions had their way they would do everything in their power to milk the system for all its worth.
What I’m hearing from you, David, is that substantial cuts are needed in City and DJUSD budgets, but these should not impinge on DJUSD employees’ compensation nor services that you or your family receive. I’ll bet that this is a very popular sentiment. I do not share it.
BTW… I do wish the best for you and your family, David. Others have challenges, too. I would hope that you can respect that.
[quote]For one thing meth wasn’t invented. For another people are waiting longer to have kids. I agree that there were undiagnosed students in those days, but that is not a good reason not to give them help. My nephew would have no chance of a decent life without this level of help, sadly he’s not the only one. Last year, he was one of 8 students who had similar problems in his classroom.[/quote]
What makes you think students did not get help in my day? It was perhaps less formalized, but they did get help…
Today, the schools are more apt to label your child as learning disabled or troubled, then shove them into something like Transition Academy, where they can’t shake the label and don’t get the help they need…
I find it interesting that you are speaking in hypothetical, whereas in this case, I know what the district has done for my nephew. They haven’t shoved him into something like Transition Academy. Instead they have vastly brought up his skills, particularly in reading, and given us tremendous assistance dealing with other areas that would be inhibiting his development. Without the assistance of para-educators I suspect his two teachers would have collapsed under the strain of dealing with several kids who were in situations like my nephew simultaneously. I don’t know how things were handled in your day, I don’t know how many kids like my nephew your teachers had to deal with, but I don’t see how they could handle him let alone several others like him without many additional resources.
“So an instructional aide per classroom is absolutely necessary, in addition to the teacher?”
I would say at least one in the K-3 classrooms, especially if they are expanding back up to 30 students.
“How many VP’s per school? One per grade level?”
We don’t have anything close to one per grade level, nor should we.
“And counselors… you are telling me a school cannot function without counselors…. “
Yes I am. We’re not talking about guidance counselors here.
I was in a parochial elementary school way back in the 50s and I can absolutely tell you that what we now know to be “special needs” kids did not get help. They were considered behavior problems and spent a lot of time standing in the corner or kept in at recess. Frequently a parent was called to come and get them and take them home until they learned to behave in class. I would imagine that more than a few of them went on to become dysfunctional adults.
Here’s the difference between our viewpoints David. You tend to focus on the doom and gloom (in almost every one of your articles); and you seem obsessed with mistakes that have been made in the past. There’s no denying they occurred, and there is a great deal we can learn from them. But, true leaders, leaders that make a real and lasting impact in communities, are the ones that set a hopeful vision for people to live into.
This [i]doesn’t[/i] mean that they are to ignore the past nor the reality of the present. What it means is that they keep their sights set on the horizon and inspire people to change things for the better. I reject the paradigm of “doom and gloom.” Fear and doom & gloom lead to nowhere.
I’m sure you’ll disagree with this statement, but the way forward lies in innovation and thinking outside the box. That’s what the greatest leaders in history did. That’s what we need to do now.
Why not look around and highlight some of the innovation that’s occurring… Davis Roots, Mosaic Tea & Coffee, Open Door Art Studios… these may be small steps, but they are future directed. Can these small steps make a difference? I dunno, why don’t you ask the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter? I’m sure they’d be able to answer that for you. They seem to have solved a problem at zero cost to the City. In fact, they’ve even PAID the city for the privilege of running the shelter in the past.
The community needs visionaries and people who can believe in a new paradigm. That’s what this community needs right now. As Emily Dickinson would say, “Dwell in possibility.” I for one choose to dwell there.
Elaine[
Oh good grief! What makes you think there are significantly more learning disabled and special needs kids now than there were in my day? They were perhaps not diagnosed as such, but they were there…quote][/quote]
Respectfully disagreeing. Many of them were not there. Some were. But for better or worse, many of those most severely disabled such as those with severe physical handicaps such as debilitating cerebral palsy or other conditions leaving them wheel chair bound were not in the public schools. They were at home or in private homes for the severely disabled. While it is true that those with more minor challenges were simply undiagnosed, I don’t think it can be argued that the public schools now have a much higher burden in terms of special needs children than they did when we were in school.
[quote]I find it interesting that you are speaking in hypothetical, whereas in this case, I know what the district has done for my nephew. They haven’t shoved him into something like Transition Academy. Instead they have vastly brought up his skills, particularly in reading, and given us tremendous assistance dealing with other areas that would be inhibiting his development. Without the assistance of para-educators I suspect his two teachers would have collapsed under the strain of dealing with several kids who were in situations like my nephew simultaneously. I don’t know how things were handled in your day, I don’t know how many kids like my nephew your teachers had to deal with, but I don’t see how they could handle him let alone several others like him without many additional resources.[/quote]
I was NOT speaking in hypotheticals about the Transition Academy. I also used to teach school, including learning disabled kids…
Do we have a transition academy?