CIO Focused Discussion on Key Land Use Decisions Involving Economic Development – The city of Davis this spring brought on board Rob White to the position of Chief Innovation Officer (CIO). The position, launched through a private-public partnership, was to be co-founded in part by public money and in part through the non-profit group techDAVIS, a 501(c)(3) business association comprised of current and former senior technology executives with close ties to UC Davis and/or the Davis community, as well as ex officio members from the government, academic and business services sectors.
Their goal is to help grow the innovation economy in Davis and surrounding areas. At the time, the city of Davis and techDAVIS described the venture as “a unique public-private partnership to enhance connections between the city and the technology industry.”
The city and the private company will equally share the funding for the new Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) position, which will report directly to the city manager and “is tasked with working on technology-based economic development throughout the community, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors.”
Rob White, as part of the outreach effort and the effort to focus public discussion on economic development, agreed to write a weekly Thursday column for the Vanguard. During the course of discussions, particularly on the nexus between growth and economic development, the issue has arisen about who is bankrolling the private portion of the venture.
Mr. White explained in a comment, “Half of my salary is paid by businesses through the partnership with the non-profit techDAVIS, but they do not manage or control my work. And the businesses that have generously donated to techDAVIS for this effort are all at equal donation amounts and are comprised of local and regional banks, attorneys, specialty stores, land use reps and grocers.”
He added, “No one business segment dominates and the managing directors of techDAVIS are local residents that are mindful of the community’s concerns and needs.”
One of the Vanguard‘s goals, in addition to providing a forum for public discussion, is to promote transparency in government operations. Naturally, when a position is partially privately funded, questions will arise as to where that money is coming from.
The Vanguard contacted David Morris, the Managing Director and co-founder of techDAVIS. He confirmed that techDAVIS has committed to funding half of Mr. White’s salary for three years, which amounts to $360,000.
Mr. Morris committed to posting the names of the sponsors on their web site. He noted that they have recently brought some interns on board to do this kind of task and hopes to have it posted shortly.
Their goal is to assemble a group of 36 sponsors at $10,000 so that no individual sponsor will contribute more than 2.8 percent of Rob White’s compensation.
He stated in an email, “This is by design, to dispel any notion that individual sponsors might have some undue influence on Rob. He reports directly to, and only to, the City Manager.”
To date, the donors include: First Northern Bank, DLA Piper, Davis ACE, Davis Waste Removal, Hallmark Inn, and a “prominent Davis tech entrepreneur that wishes to remain anonymous.”
Rob White’s article last week drew a lot of attention. As noted in a comment, the article itself is not a policy statement nor was it meant to lead to specific conclusions. Rather, the goal was to identify an issue and promote community discussion – which to some extent it did.
As Mr. White notes, “I am a staff member of the City of Davis. I answer to Steve Pinkerton, who answers to the City Council. The Council sets policy and direction, and it is my job to implement that policy under Steve’s direction. I take direction from him and no outside entities are driving my work product.”
He continues, “The article I wrote was intended to share the information I have heard directly from businesses over the last few months, not suggest outcomes. The community has a rich body of work on economic development from the past decade, and it is my job to help synthesize that in to a single unified (and measurable) effort which will be presented to Council during the upcoming budget year (hopefully in early 2014).”
“This effort will be conducted in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, the City’s Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), the Downtown Business Association and other local and regional economic development orgs and groups.”
An additional point of clarification involved what Mr. White’s job actually is.
He writes, “I do cover innovation and attracting tech businesses as one of my many job duties, but I am also the City’s lead for economic development. That means all businesses – all types and all sizes.”
The key question addressed is where will new businesses go, which is a question that both the community and City Council are struggling to address.
He writes, “As suggested, maybe Davis becomes a home to startups and mid-sized tech companies? Maybe when businesses grow to a certain size they must inevitably leave ‘the nest’ and move on.”
He adds, “One factor to consider in this dialogue is that Council has set strong policy goals of trying to increase jobs and the number/diversity of businesses to increase revenues to the City, but there are a myriad of ways to accomplish this goal.”
“The city does need revenue,” he writes. “We need it for better streets, open pools, replacement of aging infrastructure, delivery of police and fire services, parks, etc. And we are locked in to very few sources of that revenue d[ue] to State laws and practice. Typically these are made up of property taxes, sales taxes, grants and fees.”
He adds, “It seems apparent that increased property taxes is a significant opportunity for increased revenue, but not just from churn of existing housing stock. Companies like Mori Seiki install millions of dollars’ worth of equipment that is taxed as unsecured property. There are plenty of examples in California where a single plant full of high tech manufacturing equipment can generate as much tax annually as a neighborhood of a few hundred homes. And these are companies comparable in size (facility and number of people) to Mori Seiki.”
Again, the Vanguard‘s position is to promote transparency, even (especially) when there is nothing to see. We also believe that the future requires important discussions about policy outcomes and the consequences of those decisions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
hopefully this will put this issue to rest
Ensuring transparency is a noble and valuable mission of any reporting entity protected by the First Amendment. I would add something else… striving to be fair and balanced in reporting. Doing both of these things well should earn kudos from the media-consuming public. Doing either or both poorly and I think we should relegate the reporting entity to a category of something not worth of respect nor First Amendment protections.
So far so good related to Mr. White and his role. I appreciate the fact that the Vanguard has put effort into getting to know the person and the surrounding circumstances of his new role with the city. We will undoubtably see the attacks and claims of conspiracy ramp up as Mr. White begins to materially pursue what he has been hired to do. Hopefully the Vanguard will continue to publish a fact-based accounting of these attacks and claims, and also continue to resist the pull to sensationalize the trivial and emotional.
i don’t see why attacks are inevitable. i have detected a slow but noticeable change in how the vanguard reports news stories as opposed to editorials. seems like there has been real effort to separate the two functions, more so than in the past.
Soon after the CIO announcement by the COD, I wrote to techDavis (twice, the second time CC’ing the City Manager) asking for a copy of their 501c3 determination letter and a list of their officers. I even offered to visit their office to see the documents. I received no reply.
So, David, let me ask: have you seen the 501(c)3 determination letter? How does it characterize the activities they are allowed to engage in? A 501(c)3 is normally an education or charitable organization, and is not able to engage in the same activities as a business association. Business associations are usually organized under a different portion of the tax code.
And, how about a list of directors and officers and their associations? And bylaws?
That would be nice step towards transparency.
By the way, I am not supposing any growth conspiracies. I just think it’s important to know the character and limitations of an organization that will be strongly connected to the City of Davis. It would be quite humiliating for the city, for example, if techDavis is not a 501(c)3 or its determination letter doesn’t allow this kind of activity.
[quote]”The Vanguard contacted David Morris, the Managing Director and co-founder of techDAVIS. He confirmed that techDAVIS has committed to funding half of Mr. White’s salary for three years, which amounts to $360,000.”[/quote]Does this mean that Mr. White is earning $240,000 a year salary? Or, that his salary is $120,000 a year of which techDAVIS is paying half?
If he is an employee of the City of Davis, does he get benefits? If so: what benefits, how much do they cost and who pays for the benefits that are in excess of salary?
Who selected him? How does techDavis contribute to his salary (and benefits?)? Does the organization just pay a flat grant to the city? Will there never be a direct payment to Mr. White? Who pays for travel expenses and other related costs of doing business?
This could turn out to be an excellent on the part of the city. There is, however, the appearance of a conflict of interests.
The first time that Mr. White speaks out on policy matters, the folks who disagree will have an easy target. (Oh, yeah, already been there.) Is he speaking on behalf of the city government (his employer)? Are his recommendations influenced by his half-sponsor, techDAVIS?
This would have been cleaner all around if the city had provided a grant to techDAVIS. Or, contracted with techDAVIS to produce products (reports, studies, advocacy pieces, etc.) Instead, it could look as though techDAVIS is buying influence in city government. Is Mr. White solely devoted to his city employment for the next three years?
So far, there are five (big, low-hanging) sponsors of the 36 needed to make it through three years. What happens if fund-raising isn’t as successful as is hoped? Is the city obligated to keep paying salary and benefits during any periods of techDAVIS late payments?
So far, Dick Morris is the only one providing information about this arrangement. Have you asked the city manager for the “official word” on all of these matters?
Thank you all for your thoughts on this and other topics and to David Greenwald for using this media platform to continue to inform the discussion and disseminate information around my role in the City.
I appreciate the dialogue and look forward to hearing the diversity of views as we work to have rational and informed conversations on topics around innovation, economic development and sustainability. I would again point to a very interesting report completed by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute in February 2008 that demonstrates the strong linkages and reasons for compatibility between the three subject areas. The link to the report is: http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/media/files/pdf/InnovationDrivenEconomicDevelopmentModel-final.pdf
Regarding SteveM’s comments:
The slow response by techDAVIS is largely because the directors are 1) formalizing the board structure and governance of techDAVIS, 2) implementing techDAVIS activities to support entrepreneurialism and technology transfer, and 3) constituting a venture capital fund to assist early stage tech companies in their efforts to create jobs. I interact with them regularly as we have similar goals and desired outcomes and they are a partner for the City. Their efforts are big tasks… probably much bigger than the managing directors realized when they stepped forward to lead the effort.
Since I have personal experience in starting two non-profits (both 501c3s) in Livermore, I can attest first-hand just how difficult that effort can be! I am sure you are aware that IRS code allows for operation under the application code while the IRS takes the 6 to 12 months to finalize their determination. But rest assured, techDAVIS legal counsel (DLA Piper, a global law firm) would not have let them file under a 501c3 status unless they had reasonable expectations to be designated as such.
In the spirit of due diligence, I too made inquiries when first approached by the managing directors of techDAVIS about potentially coming to Davis and the proposal to partner with the City. I met with the managing directors many times over a few week period at local restaurants, often late in the afternoon/evening and after having worked a full day in Livermore. I met with techDAVIS legal counsel and talked with their initial donors. I needed to know how techDAVIS planned to meet the financial requirements to be an equal weight partner with the City in funding my position (as described well by David in the article above). And I reviewed the Secretary of State filings, the Articles of Incorporation and the initial bylaws to be sure that the partner I would be working with would have aligned goals with what I knew City Council and leadership wanted.
continued…
I can say that I took all of this due diligence very seriously because for the next 3 years my family’s financial security would be on the line. And I would NOT have been inclined to take this position had the managing directors of techDAVIS not been able to demonstrate the ability to perform. These are long-term residents that have successfully run local and global businesses and been recognized in their respective fields.
At the point that techDAVIS approached me I had a very respectable position as a regional leader in the East Bay and working for a similar community with no cause to look elsewhere. It was techDAVIS that approached the City of Davis, then me, to propose this partnership. I would also note that I took a total compensation cut when changing positions, including paying the whole 8% of the employee share of PERS, taking a reduction in my PERS calculation rate, and paying a percentage of my medical coverage. But I was happy to do this in exchange for an opportunity to come work for a university community with a growing technology sector and a desire for innovative approaches to economic development and service delivery.
In the coming days, I am told that the techDAVIS reps will be expanding their Board. They have recently engaged a few UC Davis grads to assist in website development and fundraising. And I am pretty sure they would welcome assistance in raising the funds for their projects, including the public-private partnership. Their website is http://www.techDAVIS.org where you will be able to find contact info and increased web presence as they build capacity. Starting a new organization is always difficult, both from time commitments and requirements. I might suggest that offering to help build their capacity to meet the needs of the community would be a useful spend of time instead of attempting to check their bona fides. These are your neighbors and they surely could use positive encouragement to meet an obvious demand to expand local employment opportunities and diverse revenue streams to the City.
As always, I welcome feedback and discussion and you can reach me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org or feel free to stop by City Hall and meet with me face to face. I will warn that I am in many meetings with businesses, community groups and organizations, but if I am available when you stop by, I will surely make the time! Or email to set up a time to talk.
Thanks for listening.
Good to see you on DV Rob. Thanks so much for reaching out.
Your article last week about dearth of available smallish office space in Davis prompted several of us to question whether you felt the cannery property as business park would be a solution. Comments?
In response to the comments of Just Saying:
My total compensation annually is $240,000, including benefits. My salary is much less than that. And as stated in my comments above, the total compensation is less than I was making in Livermore for a lower level position (Director of Economic Development versus CIO). This is also reflected in all of the staff reports and information disseminated by the City back in March when my employment was announced.
I was selected by the City Manager as the appropriate candidate due to my success in Livermore, and with the Davis business and technology community over the last 2 1/2 years through the i-GATE Innovation Hub. For all intent and purpose, I had a multi-year interview by City leadership and it was determined by them that I was the individual who brought the greatest network and resources to the table.
And the reason for my engagement as a City employee instead of as a contractor is that being part of the City Manager’s Office leads to increased credibility with our current (and prospective) partners in academia, research, business, finance, sustainability and government. Rarely does a contractor get calls returned, meeting requests fulfilled, or dialogue taken seriously when representing the goals of City Council and leadership. This engagement was created determinatively and with much rigor in defining scope and desired roles.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for filling in the blanks. I’m certainly not questioning your qualifications or the city manager’s selection. Is there any association that might result in the appearance of a conflicting interest? Is this your only money-making endeavor during the three-year city employment period?
I understand the increased credibility that comes with a high-level city assignment. Having been a contractor, I understand the advantages it provides when dealing both with other city employees and with outside groups. This, however, puts you in a situation probably unlike any other city employee.
How is the techDAVIS funding provided? Does it include any related expenses (travel, publication development, etc.). From your descriptions, I’m assuming there are no payments for any purpose to be paid by techDAVIS directly to you.
I’m questioning the arrangements partly because of experience in federal agencies, which have prohibitions against some of these practices in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
It’ll be interesting to see how the tightrope goes, trying to get the community to look at things in an innovative way while needing accommodate the various existing council goals and the citizens’ very strong opinions about changing just about anything.
Good luck on your new assignment. And, thanks for agreeing to provide regular reports via the [i]Vanguard[/i]. Since David keeps a close eye on everything that goes on in City Hall, you’ll likely be very effective if you don’t do anything that gets him suspicious.
Thank you SODA for reminding me of that piece of the conversation. Some thoughts:
The Cannery site can appear to present an opportunity for new commercial space because it is 1) in the City and therefore doesn’t seem to create edge development pressures and 2) is a large swath of underdeveloped commercial/industrial land. These factors should not be quickly disregarded.
But the industry standards have evolved. My experience from professional travels around the US and observations from over 15 years of working in the business sector leads me to think that these types of business park developments are largely not being developed for (at least) the following reasons:
1)Businesses primarily prefer to have high visibility locations from major transportation networks.
2)Commercial parks away from main transportation corridors are suffering financially throughout the country and many communities are struggling with how to repurpose these parks, usually in to a housing (or at least a mixed-use) development.
3)With a lack of access to viable multi-modal transit networks, including rail, auto and walkability, the parks tend to suffer most observably from a lack of workforce willing to be engaged in these businesses. This can be masked by times of bad economic conditions, when people really want a job and are more willing to be inconvenienced. But as economic conditions improve, employees begin to make choices around quality of life, including ease of travel.
4)At least a few examples in Northern California from similar types of communities can inform us about the viability of this business park model (one example that comes quickly to mind is the Shadelands business park in Walnut Creek, with a 40% plus vacancy rate and quickly declining in ability to sustain a viable business model).
5)As workers become more mobile with an improving economy, lack of proximity to services (like restaurants, drycleaners, cafes, hotels and professional services) can be a significant factor in how people make decisions of where to work, and therefore dictate workforce availability.
In Santa Clara and Mountain View, one of the most demand-driven locations for commercial parks, the commercial spaces are being realigned and redeveloped to implement these concepts. This includes significant costs for installation of transportation infrastructure (like light-rail) to create a more desirable environment and working conditions.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
In the context of Davis, I think a more apparent item for this discussion might be how to deal with traffic. So here is my completely non-scientific scenario comparison:
The current housing and mixed-use proposal would have about 650 house, which means about 1750 residents (using the somewhat standard 2.7 per household multiplier). These residents will primarily create transportation needs throughout the day, with peaks likely to be around early morning for commuters and school, early afternoon for school returns, and evening for commuters. And not all of these 1,750 residents can drive because about 30% of the residents are likely children (using typical demographics).
Alternatively, if you were to develop the 100-acre Cannery site with a critical mass of commercial, you are likely looking at about 1.5 to 2 million square feet (using a pretty standard floor area ratio for business parks of 0.3), which would be about 2,500 workers (again using a typical standard of about 600 square feet per employee). That would likely translate into about 2,000 car trips arriving between 7:30 and 8:30 am and leaving between 4:30 and 5:30 pm. Obviously, factors like ride-share, biking, local residents working at the commercial park, and other transit options would skew this factor. But just taking in to account typical employment trends and commute rates, this is a pretty typical scenario.
That means about a 70% increase in traffic over a housing development scenario, and the trips would be compacted primarily in to commute hours. My understanding from discussions with businesses and residents alike is that would be seen as an undesirable impact to local circulation on Covell Blvd.
Again, let me state that I am merely working through a math problem. There are rounding errors, assumption, and use of typical standards in describing this scenario. And I do so only to illustrate the point that a commercial park on Cannery, though it can seem like an easy and rational option, has seemingly undesirable outcomes of increasing traffic in ways that may not be acceptable. This is not an official CEQA analysis, I did not conduct a specific traffic survey, and I am most definitely not stating that this means the community must take this scenario comparison as proof of one option over another.
Above all else, the Council will be tasked with weighing the official input from the studies, commissions and the community in their deliberation of the current Cannery proposal. My description of this very simple scenario comparison is based solely on my observations and experience, though I believe it is reflected in the more robust analysis done during the Innovation Park Task Force work.
Let me know if this makes sense or if you need more info.
Just-sayin –
I am always open to dialogue and respectful analysis, so I in no way find your questions anything more than seeking understanding. I am hopeful that the entire community (business and residents alike) will come to see my work as an asset and will be celebratory of the opportunities that we are exploring, especially since the primary outcomes desired from my efforts are quality of life and sustainability (revenue, environmental and community).
The funding from techDAVIS goes directly to the City and the City provides my compensation. I am not part of the funding chain, i.e. it doesn’t come directly to me, ever.
techDAVIS does not pay for any of my ancillary costs, i.e. travel, meals, subscriptions, etc.
As you know, the City is vigilant about conflicts of interest, real or perceived. So I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the relationship.
Currently, my City paycheck is the only compensation I receive, though I am hopeful to get a chance to do adjunct teaching so I can utilize my professional doctorate degree in policy that I am currently pursuing from the University of Southern California. I plan to have my dissertation competed by next Spring (2014). And of course, I also hope to someday be able to work on some grant-funding on my dissertation topic. These would also have to be cleared through the very specific COI process by the City.
Again, thanks for letting me get engaged through this platform. I relish the opportunity to gather more info and receive input from diverse sources.
To sum up Mr. White’s reply to my inquiry: techDavis is not — as has been indicated in numerous official communications and perhaps its MOU with the COD — a 501(c)3. But, Mr. White assures us that it has applied to become so and has a “reasonable expectation” of success in its application. Did the city manager and council know this when it approved the MOU with techDavis?
Mr White assures us that he examined techDavis’ “initial” bylaws before considering the job. Did the City Manager or City Attorney? And, why is a request for a list of officers and their associations something that can’t be answered in a timely way? Did the Council have a list of officers when they approved the agreement?
I’m sure there are reasonable answers to these questions. At the moment, though, I’m mystified as to why they go unanswered.
Thanks Rob for your thoughts on Cannery site. I do not have access to your original article now but believe your examples for need were for small companies of more tech/info categories so if so traffic would not be as much of an issue. Services would be an issue; I know when I rented a one room office in two downtown locations, walk ability downtown was a big advantage.
SODA – here is a link to the earlier article…
https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7320:where-will-all-the-business-go&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86
SteveM – Though your posts appear to be focused on causing doubt about the legitimacy of the City’s partnership with techDAVIS and the transparency of the relationship, I think it is important to clear up a few misnomers in your last post.
According to IRS codes for 501c3s (and as described on page 12 of IRS Publication 4220 – found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf), “while an organization’s Form 1023 is waiting
for approval from the IRS (otherwise known as a Letter of Determination), the organization may operate as a tax-exempt organization.”
In contrast to your statements above, techDAVIS is in fact operating as a 501c3 while it awaits its formal determination, in accordance with IRS codes.
Secondly, yes, the City Manager, City Attorney and leadership have reviewed the appropriate formation documents and the City Council and City Manager are well aware of who the techDAVIS officers are, who the prospective officers are, and of the organizations activities. This was not just my due diligence, though I used that as a way to describe what I think most would view as a reasonable baseline.
In general, I am puzzled why there is so much discussion from the actions of a set of local businesspeople in the technology sector… they are working on behalf of the community to create better outcomes by assisting the City in paying for the resources that many agreed were lacking. And the funding mechanism described by techDAVIS and reported on by David Greenwald in this article shows that much forethought went in to how to structure the financial aspect of the partnership to ensure that no one entity or sector would dominate the donation pool.
So SteveM, in the spirit of transparency, I imagine there are at least a few of us that would be curious to know your background, who you represent, and why this topic is of such interest to you? I realize that posting anonymously on the Vanguard is one way to create dialogue, but I think there is clear evidence that in this case it doesn’t inspire the kind of fact-finding and transparent discussions that you are advocating for in your comments. If you want to meet and have a conversation and discuss your ideas, views and concerns, I am sure there could be an outcome that would be much more satisfactory to you.
Let me know if this has interest for you. My email is rwhite@cityofdavis.org. As I have previously stated, I relish rational dialogue and respectful discussion. But I am pretty confident that neither an accusatory tone nor a generally demeaning discourse have yet to lead to any satisfactory outcomes.
Mr. White, I’m sorry if you found my questions accusatory or generally demeaning. From my point of view, the absolutely worst thing I said was that I had not received answers to my questions.
I’m Steve McMahon, and for the last over 10 years, I’ve been chair of the City’s Telecommunications Task Force, then member and the initial chair of the Telecommunications Commission. My interest in this matter arose from surprise that the city had made a no-search, tech-oriented hire and formed a tech-oriented public-private partnership without mentioning it to our commission. I was also surprised never to have heard of techDavis before, nor had others I asked, and I found no useful information on their web site. My interest increased when I received no response to multiple queries to techDavis.
My time dealing with Comcast during cable franchise negotiations taught me that when it comes to public-private partnerships, it’s wise to “verify first, then trust” and it’s in that spirit I’ve asked these questions.
While I’m happy to offer up my background, it shouldn’t matter. Anybody gets to ask a tax-exempt organizations questions about their tax status. And, any Davis citizen usually feels welcome to ask about whether or not the council and city manager have been diligent. Usually, they get answers rather than accusations that their questions might cause doubt about the legitimacy of an arrangement. Legitimacy is built upon the willingness of public officials to answer questions without taking offense, and to do so publicly and verifiably.
By the way, operating as a “tax-exempt organization” is not the same as being a 501(c)3 and being able to receive tax-deductible contributions. One should not claim that an organizations “is” a 501(c)3 until it has received its determination letter. And, one should not claim that an organization is “comprised of current and former senior technology executives with close ties to UC Davis and/or the Davis community, as well as ex officio members from the government, academic and business services sectors” without being willing to publicly disclose officers, directors, and the names of those ex-officio members. I’m sure this information is easily available. Why not just disclose it and put an end to this? I assure you’ll I’ll shut up about this. You might even find me a diligent and cooperative person, willing to help the city whenever I can.
While I can’t speak for stevem, I appreciate his concerns about transparency. The city is in the midst of the most serious budget crisis it has faced in my 40+ years here, yet it chose to create and fill a highly-paid staff position under a very unusual (for Davis, anyway) deal with a shadowy private entity made seemingly in the dead of night. Consultation with the Telecommunications Commission — on which I sit, and which was constituted to advise the Council on tech matters — was nonexistent; commissioners read about the fait accompli in the Enterprise. Details of the arrangement still seem to be lacking, despite the supplemental information Rob has posted here. (What happens if techDavis can’t come up with the money? What happens after 3 years?)
While it seems unlikely that the city has breached any laws in the matter, I give it an F for PR. I give Rob an A for trying to address the concerns, but I wish our city leaders hadn’t put in the position of having to defend the circumstances under which he was hired.
Steve and Jim – Good to more formally meet you both. Thank you for the descriptive posts. Steve, you are correct, any one in Davis should be able to ask any question… my only modifier would be that I perceive we need to get to a level of discourse that puts the best foot of Davis forward first before we assume that things are amiss.
I was unaware that the Telecommunications Commission filled the role as tech sector advisors for the City. But I am absolutely committed to creating fruitful dialogue and jointly seek shared outcomes… so it is my offer that I come to one of your upcoming Commission meetings and discuss my CV, my observations about the tech sector in Davis to date, and gather input from the Commission on their views of how the tech sector might be best engaged to create positive outcomes for the community.
Does this seem like a good step forward? I have already done this with the Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC) and some community groups like the Rotary and the Chamber. I am more than happy to also sit down with each of you to hear your personal thoughts.
I am anxious to hear your ideas. Let me know how I might best be of service and engage you from this point forward.
Rob,
You asked for my background, and I gave it. However, I’m not trying to drag you in front of the Telecommunications Commission. I’m just trying to get a few questions answered — questions that anyone in the city should be able to ask.
To be fair, these aren’t really questions for you. They’re questions for the directors of techDavis and the City Manager. They do, though, directly relate to the issue of transparency as regards your position. Why don’t you ask someone from techDavis to step in and answer them?