Water, Budget, Process Issues Dominate the PastTwo Years –
I will never forget the first time I met Joe Krovoza. It was 2009, it was just after the Measure P election and he invited me to breakfast at Black Bear Diner. He told me he was going to run for city council, talked to me for an hour and I left there thinking, this guy has no chance to win.
I tell people this story all of the time because I had made a mistake, I had underestimated Joe Krovoza. What I underestimated was his ability to adapt, to learn and to apply. These are critical traits for anyone in public office.
I start at that point for a very specific reason that I will get back to. Last fall, I think the council made a tremendous mistake. The mistake they made was pushing through the previous council majority’s plan for water.
The previous council majority basically brought on the consulting firm West Yost Associates, they formed a Joint Powers Authority with Woodland, they came up with a price, they did not do a rate study, they did not have real public outreach, and then they in their last days pushed forward a modest 5% rate increase rather than the NRC recommended 18% rate increase, and left the entire mess to the next council.
The mistake that Joe Krovoza made, along with Stephen Souza, was continuing down that path. The mayor got locked into that mindset, and when Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson could not get Sue Greenwald to join them for the third vote, the council by a 4-1 vote went down this wrong path.
This was the wrong decision that was done in the wrong way. However, for those thinking that this is the end of the story, they are missing the lesson here.
There were at least three things that the old council did not do: have a rate study and conduct public outreach, but the third is most crucial – the citizen’s water advisory committee, known as the WAC, has been a revelation and a paradigm-shifter.
One of the big problems that the Vanguard had been arguing from 2007 up until 2010 and again last year was the extent to which the project was consultant-driven. Here was the problem. West Yost Associates is by all accounts an excellent firm and the fact that it is locally based is a great positive, but there was an inherent conflict that the city was ultimately getting advise from a consultant that sought to profit from a surface water project.
Through the WAC process, an alternative project has moved forward that has the potential to cut the costs of the project down considerably. The WAC has been able to call on its own water experts for advice and the city has recognized its early mistakes as well as hiring Herb Niederberger, who they hope can also give the city independent advice.
To his credit, Mayor Krovoza acknowledges mistakes of the past.
“I have no doubt that we will set rates that are better for the overall management of our water resources, and fairer for our ratepayers,” the mayor said in an email to the Vanguard. “On project selection, the WAC, city and JPA work to right-size the Woodland-Davis project and drive down costs is being effective. That’s all positive.”
“We should have conducted a full rate study before proceeding with the Prop 218 rate-setting,” the mayor acknowledged.
“I was very pleased that before the council proceeded with the Prop 218 process that led to the September vote, it insisted on full, multi-year rates, not a one-year rate that wouldn’t have shown the public the full magnitude of what was coming,” the mayor said. “However, I take responsibility for not seeking a major rate study at that point.”
We can also defend the mayor somewhat. He came onto the water project midstream. The city was relying at that time on an interim public works director, an interim city manager, and a misplaced point person on water.
The team in place now with City Manager Pinkerton and Herb Niederberger, along with the WAC, gives the city a chance to break out of the previous paradigm.
That is the key to this council as a whole. This is not a perfect council and it will not be. There is a fundamental lack of experience and they have made mistakes along the way.
The water episode is one example. It is a big example, but in the end they are going to get it right. They will have a water project that will be one that Davis can embrace, not the rammed through 2004-2010 council majority project, not the Woodland project, but a Davis project.
What we have seen in the last two years, and we expect to continue with the newly-elected council members, has been a sea change on the council. Gone is the intractable council majority and back is a community-responsive body.
They view public input and proper process as an asset, even if it means a slower time frame and delay.
They have had huge challenges that are ongoing, such as the budget. The council last June made a huge and bold move to start addressing budgetary issues and, while that move did not pan out, it set the stage for future moves.
Challenges await. The council still has not completed the labor contracts that expired on June 30. The council still needs to fix the structural issues. The council needs to finesse the cost-cutting approach with an approach to cost-savings that gibes with the community’s values.
The council needs to finish dealing with the structural problems in the budget. They need to evaluate the provision of services. They need to find ways to cut costs without sacrificing either our services or our core community values.
The fire issue must be dealt with. The city is expending tremendous resources to overstaff the fire department above and beyond what most communities provide with four rather than three on an engine.
The council needs to figure out a way to settle the DACHA dispute, whether that involves an independent investigation or a new settlement offer. The council needs to figure out how to merge community values into a robust economic development plan. The council needs to reassess the city attorney situation. And the council needs to figure out the proper length and quantity of council meetings.
Two recent events give us confidence in the future. First, the noose at Davis High. In the past, councilmembers and city officials have been afraid of their own shadow on these issues. Mayor Krovoza, Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, the school district and police department worked hard to issue a strong but balanced statement to express dismay with the incident, to admonish it, and then to bring the community together to move forward.
In the past, these incidents were not handled as cleanly, and the situations grew, as did tensions. A quick response diffused the situation.
Second, with the coyote shootings. The community came forward to express that the handling of the coyote killings did not comport with Davis community values. The council did not delay. They put an urgency item on the agenda.
They listened to a remarkable group of city residents. This is what makes Davis unique. The people speaking out at the meeting were professionals and experts – ecologists, biologists, wildlife experts. These are people with experience and expertise.
When it became clear that the USDA’s wildlife service department was part of the problem, the council evaluated it, and did not hesitate to cancel the contract until it could be evaluated.
There are issues that the council needs to deal with. But the council has come a remarkable way in a very short period of time to deal with the most egregious policy and process problems that beset the previous councils.
There have been bumps in the road, mistakes get made along the way, but the council has worked hard not only to minimize those mistakes, but to rectify them. That is all we can reasonably ask. But this is only a snapshot of where we are. Things can and will change quickly. Council does not get a blank check – not now, not ever.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]He told me he was going to run for city council, talked to me for an hour and I left there thinking, this guy has no chance to win.[/quote]
To think that you could sit down w a person and really know them from 1 hour speaking w them seems naive – what someone says means nothing, it is their actions that speak volumes…
[quote]The previous council majority basically brought on the consulting firm West Yost Associates, they formed a Joint Powers Authority with Woodland, they came up with a price, they did not do a rate study, they did not have real public outreach, [/quote]
The Vanguard keeps repeating that there was no real public outreach, whatever “real public outreach” means. There was plenty of public outreach, but people were not paying attention. I know, bc I attended many of these public outreach meetings – there were at least 5 of them. I remember one lady in the audience saying something to the effect that she didn’t read newspapers, didn’t have a computer, didn’t read her mail, but she was very upset that she didn’t know about the proposed rate hike. When people don’t pay attention, refuse to be informed, no amount of public outreach is going to do much good…
[quote]The Council needs to figure out a way to settle the DACHA dispute, whether that involves an independent investigation or a new settlement offer.[/quote]
Unless the city is willing to fork over millions, the DACHA case will end up in court…
[quote]But this is only a snapshot of where we are. Things can and will change quickly. Council does not get a blank check – not now, not ever.[/quote]
Is that a threat?
“To think that you could sit down w a person and really know them from 1 hour speaking w them seems naive – what someone says means nothing, it is their actions that speak volumes…”
Just my impression at the time, turned out to be wrong.
“The Vanguard keeps repeating that there was no real public outreach, whatever “real public outreach” means. There was plenty of public outreach, but people were not paying attention. “
Joe, Rochelle and Dan told me pointblank this was a huge problem with the process. Doing the same thing over and over again when it is not working is not public outreach – particularly when the council had to know that when the true rates were actually posted the public would be responding.
“Unless the city is willing to fork over millions, the DACHA case will end up in court… “
Then the city will spend millions defending itself.
“Is that a threat? “
No it’s a statement that simply suggests that just because things are moving in the right direction now does not mean it is time to rest on your laurels.
[quote]Joe, Rochelle and Dan told me pointblank this was a huge problem with the process. Doing the same thing over and over again when it is not working is not public outreach – particularly when the council had to know that when the true rates were actually posted the public would be responding. [/quote]
There was public outreach, and saying over and over that there wasn’t doesn’t make it true. There may have been flawed processes, the information that was given out may have been less than optimal, etc. But there was public outreach – in the form of 5 community Q&As, numerous written materials, plenty of opportunity for public comment at CC/JPA meetings. Now one could certainly credibly argue the public wasn’t being listened to, but I don’t think it is credible to argue there was no “real public outreach”…
[quote]erm: “Unless the city is willing to fork over millions, the DACHA case will end up in court… ”
dmg: Then the city will spend millions defending itself. [/quote]
And you know it will be millions how? And you know it will be more than settling for the millions being demanded how?
“And you know it will be millions how? And you know it will be more than settling for the millions being demanded how? “
I suspect based on incurred costs so far and costs that I have seen in other efforts.
If I add the term “effective” to say there was no “effective” public outreach – you would be okay with it?
[quote]”Unless the city is willing to fork over millions, the DACHA case will end up in court… “
Then the city will spend millions defending itself.
“Is that a threat? “
No it’s a statement [/quote]
BTW… that’s how extortion works… you make the victim believe it will cost more to fight than to capitulate.
[quote]If I add the term “effective” to say there was no “effective” public outreach – you would be okay with it?[/quote]
There is no question the public outreach was not “effective” 😉
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”To think that you could sit down w a person and really know them from 1 hour speaking w them seems naive – what someone says means nothing, it is their actions that speak volumes…”[/i]
Elaine, we are all guilty of “first impressions.” It is a very human characteristic. However, we all do adjust those first impressions as time passes . . . if adjustment is warranted. My first meeting with one of the candidates in this election cycle produced a very similar reaction on my part about the candidate, but as I observed the election cycle unfold, what I saw was a progressive evolution of the candidate, and in fact, the stark contrast from my initial impression made the evolution even more impressive.
I’ve said may times that two years ago Rochelle earned my vote. That too came after an unfavorable first impression (in her case the initial information came to me second hand). Rochelle and I have an inventory of “shared experience” and the way the initial unfavorable impression has evolved is very much a part of that shared experience.
So, it won’t come as a surprise to you that I have no problem at all with David’s sharing his initial thoughts about Joe. That is part of the shared experience the two of them share.
[quote]I suspect based on incurred costs so far and costs that I have seen in other efforts.[/quote]
You can “suspect” anything…
Do you advocate the city pay the plaintiffs in the DACHA case what they are asking for? What middle ground for settlement are you suggesting dollarwise? How far should the city go to settle this case? Does fault matter?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”If I add the term “effective” to say there was no “effective” public outreach – you would be okay with it?”[/i]
David, public outreach can only be effective if the public chooses to participate, The staff can not drag citizens to the meetings and force them to engage and comment. As far as any failure of past public outreach the citizens of Davis have no one to blame but themselves.
Let me take this point even further in a way that is germane to you personally. You wrote a series of very pointed articles about water here in the Vanguard back at the time that the City was making past decisions and conducting past public outreach. Were your articles “effective”? If you judge them through the lens of how much traction they got with a disengaged/disinterested public, then they were totally ineffective; The fact that the public chose to tune out was outside your ability to control. However, anyone who reads them again now, will see them as very “effective” IMHO.
So bottom-line, hold staff to the same standards you hold yourself to.
Well, to make it effective maybe they should hire a public relations firm. Oh, wait…
At this time, by the information we have from discovery the City of Davis has directed $906,000 of public funds to defend and cover up DACHA.
The cost to the City plus lost income amounts to $2.6 million of lost public dollars.
Using figures the Vanguard obtained from the City, Best Best and Krieger and the City Attorney have been spending on average $20,000 per month on DACHA from June of 2011 to December of 2011.
Knowing how much the City Attorney ramped up activities in 2012 I would imagine that the average monthly bill is now between $25,000 to $30,000.
On a separate housing account obtained from another source BBK billed the City $208,315 for legal costs January through June this year. That amounts to $34,719 a month we are paying to BBK.
As the City won’t tell us anything that could be what DACHA is costing us citizens.
I can tell you that some of the recent legal costs incurred by the City were futile uneeded actions.
But with no one watching them the City Attorney is cutting a fat hog as Delaine Eastin said about the City Attorney and DACHA.
There are sensible ways to settle DACHA.
In July, the City Attorney recently offered Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation $6,000 to settle. That was the first offer TPCF has ever received from the City.
A business friendly city – I think not at this time.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
ERM: [i]To think that you could sit down w a person and really know them from 1 hour speaking w them seems naive -[/i]
I don’t think so. I find so many voters spending less time than that to consider whom they will support for city council. So if a potential candidate can’t make a compelling case for themselves within an hour, then you’d be reasonable to question if they could make it.
Plus, I think you underestimate David G. in this regard. You underestimate David’s ability to adapt, to learn and to apply.
I think the key here is will the present Council continue the DACHA coverup.
The $6,000 offer from the City to settle in July was the first offer to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation.
But remember Stephen Souza on this blog claiming that he and the City had made an offer to TPCF and that he was out at the time but would get back and post it on the blog. That was February and we are still waiting.
Remember,the City Council doing an OP-ED which opened with the claim repeated again that the City had made an offer to both NP and TPCF.
Then, we provided all of the documentation to show that what the City Council claimed in an almost full page editorial to the entire Davis public was not true.
Who wrote that Op-ED?
Was it a case of Stephen Souza and Harriet Steiner sucking the rest of the Council into signing onto an OP-ED that began with a “big lie” about an offer being made to TPCF.
Joe, Rochelle and Dan were not there when that happened. But they went along with it. Perhaps they’d like to apologise now they know they were misled into signing the OPED.
The Council is waking up to the issues where city staff and the City Attorney have led them down the garden path.
However, in the meantime, DACHA is devouring millions of dollars in public funds without restraint.
We learn that the City will put in $5,000 towards a $15,000 economic development study.
Then under questioning by Brett Lee we find out that the total study will be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The City Attorney claimed the City had only spent $440,000 of public funds on DACHA. The facts tell us otherwise that is about one million dollars.
What the City Attorney has not told the public is that the City staff provided first $110,000, then another $25,000 and then another $29,000 to the illegally seated DACHA board so it could fight a private suit and then allegations of breaking the law. A board that City staff knew was not legally seated.
Anybody here who would like $164,000 public funds to help you defend yourselves against breaking the law?
City staff do not practice transparency in much of what they do. Hopefully, this new Council will require transparency ging forward.
A start would be to do an independent investigation of DACHA.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David Thompson
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
CC: DACHA is really hurting your credibility. No investigation; no mediation; no interest in resolving it. I met with one CC recently and there was zero interest in settlement. It was all about effectively grinding our two local small businessmen and leaders and volunteers in affordable housing into the dirt
Again, all of you CC members walked into this mess, but you have to fix it to go on and try and regain the communuty’s trust after the parking garage to nowhere, 4th FF still riding around, DACHA still costing us precious dollars; City Attorney has not been fired; no investigation as to how and why you were given those bogus rates for Sept 6th by the City Attorney and others?
Then you allow your City Manager to fire a couple of innocent tree trimmers the day after we voted for your parcel tax?
We elected you to fix things.
[i]A start would be to do an independent investigation of DACHA.
We elected you to fix things.
[/i]
What’s the point? It’s going to court.
City staff provide $4 million to an illegal board and membership.
At a Council Meeting City Attorney answers Lamar Heystek’s with an answer that every realtor, banker and title company officer knows to be completely incorrect.
City Attorney advises DACHA on what to do and how to do it and that is in the legal documents. But wait a moment City staff knew that the DACHA Board and membership were ineligible to vote. But City staff still lent them $4 million dollars of public funds.
City staff answer Council Member Souza with perhpas on occasion a fewm mebers were behind. How about 19 of the 20 owing $64,000 in the month the loan was made?
Is it okay for all City staff to allow anybody using city services to not have to pay?
Where was the oversight?
Who let ten homes sit empty for two years?
Over $400,000 of lost income to the City over the past two years due to City staff allowing empty DACHA homes to sit empty.
A thorough investigation of DACHA would reveal the waste and mismanagement?
And on top of this a million dollars of public funds to cover it up.
A couple of good investigations will reign in staff abuses.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David T: the term is extortion. Luke had a questionable history with a previous affordable housing entity. You complain about Davis not being “business-friendly”… yet the City has forwarded, one way or the other, (fee deferments, limits on staff time charged towards your projects). Are you saying that you have not received any money from those projects? What are your and Luke’s profits/salaries?
[quote]”Unless the city is willing to fork over millions, the DACHA case will end up in court… ”
Then the city will spend millions defending itself.
[/quote]
It seems to me that the threat is being posed by those who are continue to engage in litigation against the city. Where else would the “threat” be coming from ?
Elaine’s question about. whether David was making a “threat” had nothing to do with DACHA. It was a general conclusion about where the new council stands with the multitude of problems it faces.
Dear hpierce:
You are welcome to make assertions but to be responsible you should show evidence of your claims. You have made this before and I have asked you to provide the specifics of your claims. So far you have not.
“…yet the City has forwarded, one way or the other, (fee deferments, limits on staff time charged towards your projects). “
Tell me the details of this claim you so boldly make re: fee deferments and limits on staff time charged towards your projects.
At this point I do not know anything about what you are claiming but would be happy to answer specific questions from you on your claims.
Please do not make claims if you do not have the facts to back them up.
I await specifics of your claims about NP.
Am always willing to have dialogue about the facts.
David Thompson, NP
“David, public outreach can only be effective if the public chooses to participate, The staff can not drag citizens to the meetings and force them to engage and comment. As far as any failure of past public outreach the citizens of Davis have no one to blame but themselves.”
On this point I disagree. I think the city uses outdated methods of getting out the word and events that are unlikely to attract more than the usual suspects. I have spoken at great lengths with several councilmembers about this and they are all in agreement.
“What middle ground for settlement are you suggesting dollarwise? “
Obviously I would need to know what the current offer is and what the current asking price from the plaintiffs to even begin to assess this question. I think you are probably too vested in this situation to offer an objective analysis at this point.
Aaqqqqqqqaqqqwqqqqqqqqqqaqqqwqwwwqwwqqwqqqwwqqqqqqqqqqwqqqq
Qqqwqwwwqqqqqq
Aqqqqqqqw
qaqqqawaq
A
Wawaaawqqaawwawwwqqwwwwwwqqqwqqwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwqwwqwwwww
Wwwwwwwawaww
AWwwwawawa
Away wawawa
Awaaa
Waaaawaaaaaa
A
AA
Aaaaaa
AaaawaAaWaaaaaAAAaAAAaaaaWaaAawAaa
WAaAAAw
AaAaAAAA
a
Aaaaaaaaaa
AAa
A
AaaA
AA
A
W
WAAAaaaaAaaaAaAA
AaAaAaAA
WAA
aaa
Aaa
A
AA
Aaaa
AAAAAA
a
AAaa
AAaaaAAAAA
aaAA
Awaaaa
AaAAwaAAAAAaAAAAaAAAWAa
A
qAwaAAaaAWAAAAAaAaAAA
AaAAAAaAwAaaaaaWaAAAWAAaWAAAAAAAAAAWAAAAWaAaA
AAAAAaazaa
AAAAAAAAa
AAa
AAaaaaaaA
AaAaaaaAAaAaaAaaAaaAaAA
Just Saying: Were you trying to post something or make a point with those “A”s and “W”s?
JustSaying
[quote]Elaine’s question about. whether David was making a “threat” had nothing to do with DACHA. It was a general conclusion about where the new council stands with the multitude of problems it faces.[/quote]
I understand that. However, I felt that the comment about a threat was a nice entry into what really poses a financial risk to the city. At least one of these economic threats could be mitigated if those posing the threat would not choose to embroil the city in a lawsuit for their own economic gain. There is a huge difference in true whistle blowing with the goal being to highlight wrong doing to prevent it from happening in the future,
and bringing a lawsuit at taxpayer expense for ones one’s own financial gain. I completely support the former, and completely reject the latter strategy as in any way helpful to our city.
Medwoman:
Had the whislteblowing had effect, been investigated, and disciplinary action taken then we would not be in this position.
But the ten year whistle blowing on affordable housing has never been dealt with:
Wildhorse $5 million lost to City due to “forgetting” documents
Staff member (s) get bounty on Wildhorse homes
Marden $1.6 million not shared in
Self help homes not done as self help
Other “For Sale Homes” forgotten docs costing millions
Green Terrace 15 homes not owner occupied as required
Sharps and Flats Fees forgotten
DACHA debacle costing over $2 million
There were two votes Saylor and Heystek to do an investigation but three no’s.
At that same Council meeting Souza asked how much would it cost to do an investigation, I think the answer was about $18,000. He seemed to think that was a lot of money and voted no.
A million dollars later in public funds on legal costs and over $2 million in costs and loss of income. $18,000 was a bargain then.
Then staff asked the Council to have DACHA stop paying their mortgage to fight the breach of contract which the Arbitrator found they had. That cost the City $110,000 in income.
At the time the DACHA members owed $64,000 to DACHA. Should the City staff have made the DACHA members pay their delinquencies before giving them use of $110,000 of public funds. DACHA members used the cash flow from not needing to pay the City to increase their delinquencies.
Should the City be making funds available to people fund defending breach of contract.
Then the City makes $164,000 of public funds available to allow DACHA to fund its defence of breaking the law. DACHA did break the law so why is the City staff giving them public funds?
And this July the City makes its first offer to TPCF to settle the suit.
The City offers $6,000 to TPCF after it has given an illegal board not able to achieve a legal quorum composed of ineligible members (membership delinquent to the tune of $64,000) $164,000 of public funds to fight us.
An investigation is sorely needed.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
hpierce:
I would hope that you will post the details of your assertions about NP soon so I can review them and provide answers.
Happy to separate facts from claims upon receipt of details.
David Thompson, NP
[quote]Obviously I would need to know what the current offer is and what the current asking price from the plaintiffs to even begin to assess this question. I think you are probably too vested in this situation to offer an objective analysis at this point.[/quote]
You don’t know what the current offer is; or what the current asking price from the plaintiffs is, to even begin to assess this question. However you opine I am “probably too vested in this situation to offer an objective analysis”. And you would know this how? Based on what?
To David Thompson: Let’s see what a judge determines in the DACHA case…
“However you opine I am “probably too vested in this situation to offer an objective analysis”.”
Forgive me, I’m late to this battle, but are you not an attorney for one of the parties in this dispute? Does that not by definition making you too vested to offer objective analysis?
ERM:
Due to numerous mismanaged senior staff actions the citizens of Davis have lost a great deal of faith in how City Hall is run.
DACHA is just one of them. It is not the only one but the new City Council has a decade of costly coverups to overcome.
The minutes of 2007 DACHA meetings with City staff attending show numerous discussions of suspending the bylaws so that ineligible members of DACHA can vote to borrow $4 million dollars of public funds.
Is it City policy to lend to illegal boards?
City staff do not tell the City Council that the board and membership of DACHA that voted to borrow $4 million of public funds are not able to achieve a legal quorum.
What happened to the professional due diligence the citizens should be provided with?
Staff of financial institutions lending $4 million knowingly to an illegal borrower would be fired or removed.
City staff advise DACHA on how to change the Articles knowing that the Board and membership are ineligible to serve or vote.
It does not look good for the City of Davis to be lending $4 million in public funds to an ineligible board and membership of an illegal organization.
What role did the City Attorney play in all of this?
go to http://www.community.coop/davis click on DACHA.
David Thomspon, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
PS” The DACHA situation has numerous parallels to what is happening at the Davis Senior Center and I thank you for bringing that up on the blog. My neighbors co-signed a good letter to the Enterprise about that today.
[quote]Forgive me, I’m late to this battle, but are you not an attorney for one of the parties in this dispute? Does that not by definition making you too vested to offer objective analysis?[/quote]
Why by definition?
To David Thompson: Let’s see what a judge says in the DACHA case…
David Thompson
I know very little about intricacies of board rules, and less about establishing cooperatives both of which would seem to be areas of expertise for you. So I am making no argument what so ever about the appropriateness or lack thereof of the actions of previous City Councils or staff.
However, what is apparent to me is that you now have a completely new group to work with. It would seem to me to be a reasonable time to stop the legal posturing, and attempt to work with this new group. If you do not find the offer that has been made acceptable, how about negotiating in good faith instead of holding the threat of lawsuit over the heads of these folks who had nothing to do with DACHA and the taxpayers they have been elected to represent ?
“Why by definition? “
Because as an advocate you’re an interested party.
Dear Medwoman. Thank you for your observation. Perhaps we will be able to work with the new Council. We are open to that.
However, to receive the first ever offer to TPCF of $6,000 was an insult to rationality.
Secondly, if the attitude of the Council is that of the Council member who spoke to Michael Harrington last week is one of trying to put us out of business then TPCF is left with little room.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Dear All:
There is an excess of additional stories about the mismanagement of City housing programs that have nothing to do with TPCF or NP. These are major issues that not at present known to others.
They again point to millions of dollars of mismanagement, waste and favoritism by City staff.
What should I do with this information?
I’d be happy to receive advice from anyone on the blog.
Love to hear what options there are?
David J. Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David M. Greenwald
07/22/12 – 10:03 AM.
Just Saying: Were you trying to post something or make a point with those “A”s and “W”s?
David, I don’t know. Did you pull down something goofy from me? I’ve tried to stay out of this discussion as it converted to TP/NP/CC/DACHA renewal with the same participants saying the same things as we discussed when the CC (with all but two of the current cc members) issued its fraudulent op-ed re. supposed official settlement offers.
I didn’t want to express hope yet again that the parties would settle the matter without continuing this expensive litigation and landing in a courtroom where every side will Lise one way or another. I didn’t feel it necessary to repeat my support for your call for an independent investigation of the waste and corruption that’s dogged our affordable housing proarams–not only DACHA.
Anyway, what are you getting at? My only comment was an attempt to clarify your observation to medwoman (who, it turns out didn’t need any help). Sorry if I did something wrong in trying to post. “A’s and W’s” you say?
JustSaying: I pulled three posts from you that were all AAAAAAQQQQQWWWW’s. Looked like a keyboard problem.
[quote]Because as an advocate you’re an interested party.[/quote]
An interested party can’t be objective?
“An interested party can’t be objective?”
I would say in my experience, no. You are an advocate for one side. I suppose it is technically plausible that that side can be 100% completely correct, but it seems unlikely. Your role is to advocate to the best of your abilities, not to view both sides of the story and find a middle ground.
[quote]Your role is to advocate to the best of your abilities, not to view both sides of the story and find a middle ground. [/quote]
And a good advocate tries to remain objective!
Thanks, Don. Usually, when I fall asleep with my nose on the keyboard, it’s TTTGGGYYYY.
“And a good advocate tries to remain objective!”
And yet you dismiss defense attorney claims out of hand – you can’t have it both ways.
[quote]And yet you dismiss defense attorney claims out of hand – you can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
I would never make a blanket statement in which I “dismiss defense attorney claims out of hand”. If I ever did, please show me…