The City of Davis is facing a fiscal crisis far worse than any it has faced in the last five and a half years since September 2008. In fact, it’s far worse because the city has already cut 103 positions, cut $5.8 million from the budget, and agreed to new contracts with five bargaining units and imposed contracts on the next two.
The city council in the next two weeks is going to ask the city’s voters to step up and approve at least one and possibly two new taxes. In the best of circumstances, that would be a tough order. Voters have already approved five parcel taxes for the School District since 2007. They have already approved a surface water project expected to at least double and potentially triple water rates.
There are voters who are angry that city staff and the council botched an economic development project on the city’s own land and instead turned it into a conservation easement. There are those voters who distrust that the city (which largely got into this mess with increased compensation for salaries, retiree health, and pensions) can restrain fiscal savings.
Last week, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce expressed his belief that the will of the Chamber members is to “keep cutting,” and that they are “willing to give up services [and] willing to give up programs.”
At least one councilmember has told the Vanguard that he/she cannot support the revenue measures as currently proposed.
It is against that backdrop that the city faces more uncertainty than ever before. It is against that backdrop that Davis faces the imminent loss of its city manager. There has been much debate (both in public and behind the scenes) about whether the city manager’s decision to pursue the Incline Village position was personal or related to job security.
I believe it to be both. But I believe that the loss of Mr. Pinkerton at this time would be catastrophic to the city. I have heard from a number of people in the community that they will be unwilling to support a tax measure if Steve Pinkerton leaves.
This tumultuous consideration of whether Mr. Pinkerton is leaving Davis is an interesting bookend to the very tumultuous beginning of Mr. Pinkerton’s tenure as city manager. In the summer of 2011, the council hired him to begin on September 1, 2011. A few days later, in its September 6, 2011, city council meeting, the council approved the surface water project in the wee hours of the next morning. That decision shaped the early portion of his tenure.
As important as the water issues were for the city, Mr. Pinkerton was really hired to fix the city’s fiscal problems. In June of 2011, with a 3-2 vote in which Dan Wolk joined Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza , the council sought to cut $2.5 in personnel cuts. When Mr. Pinkerton arrived on the job, he recognized that he needed time to make those cuts.
In his two and a half years here in Davis, he has proceeded to reorganize and restructure city government, and has guided the city through a successful collective bargaining process that dealt finally and belatedly with the structural issues.
Some of his finest work was directing a process to restructure the fire department. The city, after twenty years of stalling, adopted boundary drop to enable the first-in responder to respond to an emergency regardless of jurisdiction. He moved the city to a fire engine staffing policy that is in line with 90 to 95 percent of other communities by putting three on an engine, and by decoupling the rescue apparatus from the main engine, he created a faster, more reliable response.
Finally, he championed a shared management of the fire department that put the city under the authority of a fire chief, a professional fire chief, who is not beholden to the firefighters’ union, but rather would answer to both the City of Davis and UC Davis. In so doing, he achieved a number of objectives, including a savings of money.
Unfortunately, some of those efforts at reform angered the firefighters’ union, who fought back by pushing two councilmembers to seek the ouster of Mr. Pinkerton.
While there are personal reasons to go to Incline, job security is a critical concern. Right now, we believe there are two votes to fire Mr. Pinkerton and with the looming council elections and at least one new candidate opposing some of the fire staffing changes, there are real concerns that the council could swing against Mr. Pinkerton.
It certainly did not help matters that on Tuesday, the day before Incline Village’s board of trustees voted 4-1 to enter into negotiations with Mr. Pinkerton, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, on a non-action item, not only asked tough questions of the new fire chief and the city manager, which are appropriate, but crossed the line by making accusations about Mr. Pinkerton.
“To be quite honest, I found the staff report to be written almost as if it were making an argument,” he said. “Written with a certain amount of persuasion in mind. One of those was the staffing changes where the first part of the staffing changes talks about the benefits and it sort of talks about how, it says, ‘finally there is no evidence that the staffing changes have created an unsafe condition for the city and its firefighters.’”
Later, near the end of the item, he would add, “I was very disconcerted by your sentence at the end of overtime, saying, ‘It is interesting to note that once the staffing levels were reduced, making the extra Firefighter II available for coverage of the first vacancy that the sick and vacation usage increased.’”
He said that this “is an insinuation that the firefighters are taking more sick leave and vacation time on purpose… because of this new policy.” He added, “I found it very disconcerting again with regards to getting unbiased information to us, that that was in there. I thought it was inflammatory, I think what it insinuates is very inflammatory.”
Steve Pinkerton responded, “Point taken. I’m sorry if it seemed inflammatory. We’re just doing a data analysis and pointing out the disparities in the data.”
Was that really necessary? Especially knowing that Mr. Pinkerton was going to interview the next day in Incline Village?
The situation at Incline Village is not great. They have their own turmoil and dysfunction. They may have trouble making Mr. Pinkerton’s salary demands. And they have already botched a year-long hiring process.
The search firm, Peckham & McKenney, that they hired to aid in the search botched the hiring process when it was discovered this week that local candidate Eric Severance did not have the minimal requirement of a bachelor’s degree. That led to the de facto hiring of Mr. Pinkerton. If Incline is unable to reach agreement, that would be further embarrassment to the IVGD.
Davis is now in the unenviable position of not controlling its own destiny. The decision now is clearly in the hands of the board up in Incline Village and, ultimately, in the hands of Steve Pinkerton and his wife.
In our view, the city has come a long way from the days prior to June 2010 when the council majority underestimated the fiscal hit and the city manager failed to alert the council to the coming dangers.
There is no doubt that the city would not have gotten this far without the strength of the majority on council and the strategic thinking of Steve Pinkerton.
But it can all be undone very quickly if we do not commit to staying the course. This is a city that strives to become a factor regionally with economic development – how does it look to the region if we lose a well-respected city manager due in part to infighting and undue influence of city employees?
Are respective companies likely to take a risk in that environment? We have made great strides in the last year pushing forward the possibility of a new business park, new revenue, and a bright new future. Why sacrifice it now?
We have heard through the grapevine that at a time when employees are having their compensation cut and a time when the taxpayers are being asked to approve tax hikes, Mr. Pinkerton is not looking for more money from the city.
What he probably wants is some additional job security. That means it is incumbent upon all five of the city councilmembers to step up and make public statements that they want Mr. Pinkerton to stay and lead this city.
We will have to wait and see if even that is enough.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Has anyone thought about how we are going to deal with his OPEB package should he elect to retire early from his current position with the city? By my conservative estimates it must be worth at least $600,000 – particularly since Incline Village doesn’t offer anything remotely comparable.
Comeon realchanz, $600,000 is nothing for this city to blow, after all we’re going to drop $1 million just studying whether we should buy P.G.E.’s assets or not. If the city needs more money they’ll just hit us up with another tax. Nothing to worry about.
Well, growth issues, at least we can say the city was up-front with the MUD gambit – it’s the stuff we don’t see that is so costly in the long run.
I didn’t know about the PGE gambit until recently and I try and keep up with city news. Here’s something to ponder, we’re trying to gap a $5 million shortfall by adding new taxes and between Pinkerton’s possible termination package and the PGE fees that would account for a big chunk of the new revenue.
Idle speculation on the timing of its strategy, but I would observe that recent, major cost reductions in solar power production might be a reason to push PG&E towards the 21st century with its power production assets. Could be a win-win for both parties.
I disagree. First of all the first $400,000 has already been spent and it came from a source of funding separate from the General Fund. Second the structure of the $600,000 is going be paid incrementally over a period of time. None of that is going to represent a big chunk of the ongoing $5 million deficit.
David,
Are you saying that the potential for saving perhaps 20-25% on our cost of electric power is something we should categorically ignore – just because we have a spending problem that goes back decades? The idea that PG&E, of its own accord, is going to proactively migrate to low-carbon resources and simultaneously lower our costs seems unrealistic.
I’m not quite following you, the city commissioned study suggests we can save 20% per year, why do you believe them in error?
David –
Sorry, I misinterpreted your comments, I had thought you were critical of their move.
David,
In fact, I say Bravo! to the city staff and our city council when they acknowledge that even a “city” can see the merits and need to negotiate with a monopoly service provider. It’s Econ 101. I think PG&E does a tremendous job as our electrical, but business is business.
“The money came from a non general source of funding?
That one always gets me, so instead of taking money out of the left pocket it got taken out of the right pocket but it all came from the same pair of pants.
“Second the structure of the $600,000 is going be paid incrementally over a period of time. None of that is going to represent a big chunk of the ongoing $5 million deficit.”
$600,000 is $600,000, I don’t care when it gets wasted.
It always gets me that people don’t understand that there are different funding sources and that the enterprise fund is for utilities and cannot be used for salaries and compensation, and we have a deficit in the general fund that does.
You suggest that it’s being wasted, but the fact is if we can save 20% per year on our electric bill, we’ll more than make up for that relatively small expenditure.
The idea that we can save 20% without years of cripplingly expensive legal fights and “unexpected” costs is naive. The driver for this PGE study is ideology, not cost saving.
J.R., I personally have no ideology that is driving my interest in exploring this alternative to PG&E. The numbers speak for themselves.
Because the government provides PG&E a sanctioned, exclusive monopoly through the actions of the CPUC, the government has also set up a well structured process that municipalities and electrical utilities can follow in order to finalize a “no fault divorce.” That process has a very similar end game to the “last best and final” process that the City and DCEA went through (the City and the firefighters too).
The Court has very clear guidelines for the valuation of PG&E’s assets, if it gets that far. Its a process, not a fight.
GI, in your personal life have you ever replaced an electrical appliance because you knew that appliance you were using was an energy hog and that appliance was taking money out of your left pocket (or right pocket) that wouldn’t be taken out any more if you replaced the appliance with a more efficient one?
How did you decide which appliance to buy? You did research about the efficiency of the alternatives.
We as rate payers are paying the stock dividends of PG&E’s stockholders. The minimum amount of those dividends is guaranteed in the rate setting process. They are provided a guaranteed rate of return. They are shielded against being fiscally hurt by any worst case scenario, but if the best case scenario happens the increased profits extracted from the ratepayers don’t get rebated back to the ratepayers, but rather retained by the stockholders as a “bonus.”
The reported savings of 20%-25% will come from largely from the fact that that “bleeding” the ratepayers dry will stop, because the blood will be returned to the ratepayers themselves.
In addition, we in Davis will not be responsible for paying our “share” of the fiscal cost of PG&E catastrophes that happen in other communities. Do you really believe you should be paying PG&E’s insurance premiums? Which pocket do you pay those premiums from? Your left pocket or your right pocket?
Matt, going by what you say what happens if we take over the system and have a catastrophe here? We’ll be on our own without other communities helping to pay our utility insurance premiums. So if that happens, we’ll all be paying out of both pockets and the nose. That’s okay though, nothing another tax wouldn’t solve, right Matt?
Good question GI. What kind of electrical catastrophe would you expect to happen in Davis?
If there is risk of an electrical catastrophe, then the actuarial process of rate setting will factor that risk into the rates each year, and if a year ends with no catastrophe, the “risk premium” already paid by the rate payers will “roll over” into the next year’s rate calculation as a prepayment.
With that said, the real issues are 1) is there real catastrophic risk associated with the delivery of electricity, and 2) why should electricity customers be paying insurance premiums for PG&E’s catastrphic risk in the delivery of natural gas?
You act like there’s no such thing as risk management and insurance.
Well if that’s the case don’t you think PGE would already be doing risk management and insurance too. Why would Matt use that as a one of the reasons we should go private then?
They are GI. PG&E’s risk management approach assigns natural gas delivery risk to electrical customers, which appears to make no sense from a ratepayer perspective, but PG&E’s decision to do it that way is done to protect the interests of their stockholders rather than the interests of their customers. They can do that because they have been granted a monopoly and are at no risk of losing any customers.
From the Enterprise today:
“Fast-forward again to last week, when the City Council borrowed money from a wastewater fund to continue future incremental payments that could push the tab spent on exploring public power to the $1 million authorized so far.
This is no small chunk of change in a city with a $5.1 million structural budget deficit. Voters likely will be asked to pass a combination of sales and parcel taxes on ballots this year.”
Sweet, now we’re taking money from the wastewater fund. Keep paying those taxes, the ones already on the books and all the new tax schemes coming in the future.
Who wrote that in the Enterprise? They are making the same mistake as you conflating enterprise money with general fund money.
“Has anyone thought about how we are going to deal with his OPEB package should he elect to retire early from his current position with the city? By my conservative estimates it must be worth at least $600,000 – particularly since Incline Village doesn’t offer anything remotely comparable.”
Pinkerton is not yet vested with the city of Davis. Therefore, he gets no OPEB from us, unless there is a provision in his contract that qualifies him in a way no other city employees would be qualified without vesting.
Too late, David. Two things are locked in: unreasonable and unsustainable contracts for Davis firefighters and Steve Pinkerton’s impending departure. Bobby Weist already has won.
—
“That means it is incumbent upon all five of the city council members to step up and make public statements that they want Mr. Pinkerton to stay and lead this city.”
There’s an unholy reason Dan Wolk carried on publicly the way he did, even though the transparency of his motives and the obvious misstatements must have been embarrassing for him.
How can you even hope he’ll throw away all of his ill-gotten gains by reversing the stand he’s taken both behind the scenes and, now, by making the shameful, ridiculous rant you’ve just quoted? You’re always such an optimist.
I will not admit it is too late until I hear from Steve himself that he is leaving. I have yet to hear that.
Hi David,
As people are aware, I do not to wish to lose Steve as our City Manager.
I have asked Steve if he is open to a counter offer to whatever Incline Village offers him. He has said it is not about compensation but about a lifestyle choice, which he is in the process of making.
While I do believe that is true to some extent, I also believe that the uncertainty over the June election is also a factor.
As you have reported, currently there are three votes that support retaining Steve. The three of us are not able to promise what will happen after June since we do not know what will happen in that election. So regardless of what we do today, there remains the June election which could undo whatever we promise today.
Rightly or wrongly, 3 votes is all it takes to remove the City Manager. Steve is well aware of that.
-Brett
Yes, Brett, but removing him after June will yield him a pretty severance pkg. Not ideal but not shabby either.
The severance package is in place regardless.
So now we get a severance package for deciding to take a new job?
I don’t think he gets a severance package for leaving.
I did not mean to suggest that.
yes, I just meant it gave him some salary security….regardless of June.
David: Am I incorrect that you have essayed in recent years that the city manager should not be paid so much, sort of like when you essayed against the pay of UC officials? I think of you as sort of an austerity guy when it comes to pay of high public officials. Straighten me out, perhaps I have got this wrong. Thanks, Don
It’s a tough call. Pinkerton is basically stating that he won’t take an increase to stay. On the other hand, watching Pinkerton work I think he would more than make up for any additional salary.
Don, at the core of your question is the concept of “pay for performance.” In the case of Steve Pinkerton’s two and a half year tenure, it is very easy to measure his performance. it is equally easy to measure that performance against the goals that the Council gave him when they hired him. His performance against those goals is totally transparent. That is the reason why Bobby Wiest is working so hard to get Pinkerton fired.
It is also why Wiest and the firefighters will be working hard and spending lots of money in the June election. The goals that Pinkerton has directed his performance come from the Council. Getting firefighter friendly faces on that Council gives the firefighters leverage to change the goals as well as get rid of the City Manager.
“Steve Pinkerton responded, ‘Point taken.'”
So there must have been merit to Dan’s criticism. As much as I would like Pinkerton to remain its hard to understand you criticizing Dan for something Pinkerton admitted was in error.
There is also much more to be revealed in this exchange than you recognize. There is always a tension between boards and their executives and through your one dimensional vision of city government you think its all about the fire department wanting Pinkerton out but that is only one part of the controversy. You have done no reporting that i know of on the broader dissatisfaction that exists between Steve and his detractors so you really seem unable to recognize the honesty and validity of Dan’s statement “I found it very disconcerting again with regards to getting unbiased information to us, that that was in there.”
I have heard this criticism in private and started to understand it during the staff report on scavenging cans where things like identity theft and criminal records were included in a way that foreclosed the opportunity for the council to say no to the proposal without looking like they were endangering public safety. Perhaps its because I didn’t like picking on the poor that allowed me to look at the report for its weaknesses and biases that allowed me to see it. When you agree with the proposal I think its harder to pick these things out and perhaps that is why you are unable to see the honesty, frustration and integrity of Dan’s restrained criticism. Criticism that Steve accepted with the grace and dignity of a just another day at the office attitude that all public servants must suffer.
Somebody asked me the other day who I would like to have replace Pinkerton. My answer was nobody and that I would like to see the council make a last ditch effort to keep him here. Brett seems to be saying that this council can’t do it. Perhaps we are looking in the wrong place and should be asking the candidates for the next council for assurances that they would retain Pinkerton. If all four candidates announced publicly that they would honor a new contract the current council majority would be empowered to act. I would like to see this come to pass.
“Point taken,” acknowledges no such thing.” It’s a courteous, professional way to say, “I heard you, but you’re full of crap you grandstanding insinuator.”
““Steve Pinkerton responded, ‘Point taken.’””
Why did you cut out the rest of his response where he said he didn’t agree?
Because it weakened my argument of course. Have you never taken anything out of context?
So you admit you took it out of context
More like a truncated quote than out of context but here is the real deal, if Pinkerton goes it will have nothing to do with anything or anybody outside of his personal life. All this nonsense about who is responsible is misplaced.
Pinkerton is going because he chooses to go. He has had a long career in managing cities. There have always been supporters and detractors at each stop along the way. You are blowing what happened between Dan and Pinkerton at the last meeting way out of proportion.
Perhaps you should have asked Pinkerton about it before writing about it as if it mattered. If you had he probably would have told you it was nothing and stuck to his story that he is leaving for personal reasons. I wonder how many times he has to say it before people start taking him at his word.
How do you know what I asked and of whom?
Did you ask him?
David, I don’t believe Toad wants to know, even if you are willing to tell him.
Toad, the tenacity with which you have pursued this line of argument has a historical overtone to it. I feel like I’m in a time machine on a trip back to the ’50’s.
What I heard Pinkerton say wasn’t an admission of error; what I heard translates to “Whatever.” It was an appropriate response to a trumped-up charge of politicking, a way of saying “Okay, Dan, you’ve put on your show, now let’s move forward.” I interpreted the report’s comment about the increased overtime “coincidence” to mean that the inflation may have been intentional, but there’s no way to prove it, or even any point in proving it — an offer of plausible explanation rather than an attempt to sell anything.
“(Dan Wolk) said that this ‘is an insinuation that the firefighters are taking more sick leave and vacation time on purpose… because of this new policy….'”
Now than Dan brought the interpretation, I’m starting to think he may be correct that there’s some odd reason that firefighters have started using more sick and vacation time. I presume this puts a bigger burden on their comrades, requiring them to work overtime.
On the other hand, there may be some logical, honorable reasons for staying home. A wave of flu, recovery from the PSD or some other malady brought about be the many Strike Force demands of which firefighters complained, etc.
Dan didn’t seem to be at all interested in finding out what the statistics might mean. Maybe he could have asked the CM and chief what they thought brought about the obvious anomaly instead of jumping to a conclusion likely put in his script by Bobby.
Actually the numbers from the OT report presented to Council say otherwise. Here are those numbers in the graphic that was part of Chief Nathan Trauernicht’s presentation.
When I listened to the presentation, the calculator in my brain started working overtime because I felt that the fiscal benefit of the staffing change was understated. From 1/7/2013 through 7/7/2013 the total OT was 10,251.57 hours, of which 514.5 was for State Forest Fire Strike Team OT, leaving a net attributable to local fire operations of 9,737 hours. During the same period there was a total of 8,494.7 hours of combined sick and vacation time that needed to be covered. Netting the 9,737 by the 8,494.7 (since the primary driver of OT is covering for missing employees) we get a net OT amount of 1,243.3 hours due to non-vaction/sick reasons.
Looking at the 7/8/2013 through 1/5/2014 period the total OT was 9,295.3 hours, of which 1,403.23 was for State Forest Fire Strike Team OT, leaving a net attributable to local fire operations of 7,892.07 hours. During the same period there was a total of 9,915 hours of combined sick and vacation time that needed to be covered. Netting the 7,892.07 by the 9,915 (since the primary driver of OT is covering for missing employees) we get a net OT amount of minus 2,022.93 hours due to non-vaction/sick reasons.
Despite the fact that Vacation and Sick increased the net attributable OT due to local fire operations decreased. Said another way, the non-vacation/sick operations of the fire department was able to be more efficient under the new configuration by over 3,266 hours for the six moth period (6,532 hours if annualized). That is an overtime efficiency improvement of 3.14 FTEs over and above the 1 FTE per 8 hour shift saved by the staffing change. If a firefighter FTE costs $150,000 thne the 3 FTES saved on engine staffing equates to $450,000 saved in salary and benefits, and the 3.14 FTEs of overtime (at a time and a half pay rate) represents another $700,000 saved. $1.15 million saved in total.
What we all need to be questioning (Dan included) is the risk benefit ratio that applies to the Marina Circle discussion from Tuesday night, specifically, “Were the two minutes betwen the arrival of the first fire engine and the arrival of the second fire engine worth $1.15 million?”
Maybe without the strike force they are home more so they have more time to do other things.
Thanks for running through the chart again. I see that the higher sick and vacation leave use doesn’t play out in increased overtime. Although it seems as though it would, there must be better management, including the revised scheduling you note.
Has there been any explanation offered for the increase in leave use, other than Dan’s weirdly proposed theory of firefighter purposeful undermining of the new configuration policy?
I have heard no explanation.
Thx Toad, nice comment. But to me, “point taken” does NOT admit guilt or wrongdoing, just acknowledges the comment.
Agree, “Point taken,” is not an admission but simply a stated understanding of the “point” being made.
Disagreements between a council member and a city manager do occur. The mutual understanding and expectation is that such disagreements are always discussed privately.
This instance saw a deliberate dressing down of the city manager in the most public of environments. The issue that prompted this breach of protocol was trivial in the larger scope of the report content, and based on just an interpretation of an suspected inference. This was certainly neither the time, the place, or the topic to pointedly discredit the chief administrator of a city.
Pinkerton and the Fire Chief came off looking composed, statesmanlike, and professional. The video of the exchange is very revealing in several aspects and worth a look.
As for people withholding support for new taxes because of Pinkerton’s departure i strongly disagree. Punishing the citizens of Davis because our City Manager got hired away to Incline Village is pure folly. It won’t fix the roads or stop the layoffs. As one CC member told me “There are more cuts coming no matter who is City Manager.” Voting no will only make those cuts worse and undermine the quality of life here deteriorate.
You see it as a punishment, I see it as a trust issue and losing Pinkerton would severely undermine my trust in city government.
I agree. That is the issue.
But I also agree that the focus needs to be the four council candidates.
If the VG wants to retain Mr. Pinkerton, I think it should seek a statement from each candidate on their position on his retention.
I have.
Did I miss it, or can we expect it soon?
Waiting for a response from a few of them.
I thought it was about providing services and getting the roads fixed.
The magnitude of the issues our council has taken on with Steve and senior staff since Steve’s arrival in the fall of 2011 is simply staggering to me. He arrived with direction to immediately begin finding $2.5M per year in savings to address the structural deficit we could foresee then. Then the legislature stripped RDA from us in one set of quick moves. Then council continued calling for the most realistic accounting of coming/mounting costs, from our health care promises to our employees, to expected pension contribution increases, to the roads maintenance backlog. Steve didn’t sugar coat anything. He gave us the honest accounting we wanted, and today that honestly from both the council and senior staff points to a deficit still larger — and we aren’t shying from that whether it might take more belt-tightening or revenue, or both. Through this, Steve has learned all of the moves we might still make to get this right and keep services high. We have ideas for fixing our pools, saving water in our parks, extending the creative management of our surface and wastewater systems. We are methodically investigating whether a POU for electricity could save our residents millions and give us a true pathway to our goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. Often lost is that Steve and this council have built bridges with UC Davis on planning and economic development that are truly unprecedented and critical to our future as a great college town and economic engine for our citizens and the region.
It would be an enormous loss if Steve were to go now.
Steve knows I want him to stay and he and I are in constant contact on this matter. I don’t know what it will take to keep him, and I don’t know whether the Incline Village opportunity will ultimately be attractive to Steve and his family. Mr. Toad’s suggestion of having candidates for council weight in makes perfect sense to address part of the stability issue.
I will share one story. When Sue Greenwald and I were the council sub-committee managing our CM search in late 2010 and early 2011, I called all over the state to identify good candidates for our position and to encourage them to apply. My goal for the search was to have the greatest possible pool of candidates for council consideration — and we most certainly achieved that. One of the people I reached out to was Rick Cole. He was then the current CM of Ventura, former CM of Azusa, and former Mayor of Pasadena. He’s considered one of the most creative thinkers for progressive city management in the country. (Eric Garcetti has brought him on as Deputy Mayor of LA for budget and innovation). In any event, when I spoke to Rick, he couldn’t think of anyone he could recommend for Davis. I don’t know why, but he just couldn’t think of anyone. I was bummed as I had hoped for a few great suggestions from him. The process played out. We hired Steve. Rick called me to say Steve was perfect, he was very impressed that our council had attracted him, and as a college town with great challenges, we were on a clear path forward.
We’ll see how this goes.
Joe: Losing you will be a setback of equal, if not greater, magnitude as losing Pinkerton. Wish we could use a pay increase to get you to stay; sorry that we can’t.
Ditto.
Happy Birthday Joe!
I should be clear that I am NOT privy to the City Council’s evaluation of Mr Pinkerton’s work. However, based on what I have observed of his actions, I believe Steve Pinkerton has done what the City Council hired him to do. He came in at a very difficult time in the history of this City. He has worked with the Council to name the challenges and proceed with solutions. He is helping us achieve critical ends that we must work towards in this time.
My preference is that Steve continue his work here. I hope he will decide to stay and I hope I will have the opportunity to work with him.
I also take at face value Mr Pinkerton’s statements that his decision is a family and lifestyle choice. Having had to make such decisions in my own life (one of which brought me back to Davis), I think we should all give him the space he needs to do what is best for his family.
And IF Steve leaves, this CC must act quickly to appoint an interim who will continue his good work on dealing with the difficult fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In the long run we must find a replacement who will work with the CC to select a City Manager with strong leadership skills who will work with us to advance the social, environmental and economic health of the city. Like Steve, a future CM must be willing to tell the CC the truth and not shy away from difficult decisions.
I wish Steve much wisdom going forward.
I appreciate Brett, Joe, and Robb’s public statements in support of Steve Pinkerton. All have expressed appreciation for the solid work he has done for the city at a difficult time. I also fully support Robb’s comment about “giving him space he needs to do what is best for his family”.
While I think it is very valid to ask the question of whether they favor the retention of Steve of each council candidate, I am less enamored of continuing theorizing about hidden ( or not so hidden ) conspiracies to remove him. I will be very interested in hearing the candidates positions on this important issue. I am much less interested in hearing speculation about which current council members may or may not be interested in his removal and what factors he may or may not be considering as he makes a very private decision with public
ramifications.
Now that we know which council members have actively engaged in what you call the “conspiracy” to dump Steve Pinkerton (and which three votes there are at this time to keep him), it’s obvious that he has to weigh the the unwelcome atmosphere epitomized by Councilman Wolk’s insulting public interrogation.
So, you’re probably correct that there’s no need for any more speculation about what we already know and what’s already past.
However, it’s important that voters know and understand what happened and why–and that it helps inform our future choices.
While it would be great to have Pinkerton stay even in the face of what’s happened (and, more importantly, how the future might play out the same way), it’s too late to ask council candidates whether they support keeping him.
You’re on the right track about looking to the candidates. But, how can we assure ourselves that a given candidate who seems to say the right thing won’t end up getting co-opted quickly and thoroughly as two have now? Is it enough to check the lists of supporters for enlightenment?
I would like to add my voice to Brett’s and Joe’s and Robb’s and Toad’s
Steve Pinkerton, I want you to stay in Davis. You are a huge asset to our community. You are a good man. You do your job with courage and vigor. I admire and honor that. Thank you for being a member of the Davis community.
Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs, Rochelle Swanson, Joe Krovoza and Brett Lee,
Please do everything you can proactively to maximize the chances that Steve and Audrey Pinkerton remain in Davis. Our community will suffer a great loss if they relocate to Incline Village. We need your collective five-person leadership now, more than ever.
Amen to that.
Steve is caught in the crosshairs of virtually every competing interest in Davis and I believe he has kept a level head and done good things for our city. It would be a shame to lose him.
I will go on the record saying I will vote to keep him as our city manager.
I have been speaking to alot of voters in Davis and I am currently under the impression that the days of taxing the residents of Davis are over. I am concerned the parcel tax we are proposing will fail and our roads will continue to degrade. I know Steve cant magically make the tax pass but if it does fail I want him at the helm making the tough decisions if it does.
Unfortunately for us the job in Incline seems pretty cushy with a lot less drama than he would face continuing as our City Manager. I dont know what direction he will choose but if does leave finding a suitable replacement will be challenging. Best of luck Steve.
FROM ROCHELLE SWANSON:
Seems Rochelle is taking Steve at his word that this is about the needs and desires of himself and his family and has nothing to do with the internal machinations of the council and the employee unions.
You usually don’t have such difficulties in interpreting what people’s words mean as you are in deciding what Steve meant and what Rochelle means. She mentions not one whit about what factors are or are not involved in his decision.
I would have appreciated her take on the matter, but she isn’t forthcoming. I also would’ve like to see her make the same kind of unequivocal appeal to Steve to stay. My own guess is that she figures he’s gone and it serves her no purpose to do more than express her appreciation for his work and to wish him well in his decision.
I think Steve keeps saying the same thing that by saying its about a special opportunity it isn’t about the internal politics of Davis. Have you heard him say anything else?
While the Vanguard wants to make this article about what Dan did at the last meeting as other commenters have reasoned it was no big deal as to whether Steve would stay or go. I’m just trying to make that case that David is blowing that all out of proportion and using Pinkerton’s new job offer as an excuse to advance his anti-union agenda.
Only 36 of the city’s employees belong to a union.
Semantics. CTA isn’t a union by that standard.
It absolutely is a union, you don’t know the difference between a union and association.
Most city employees are part of bargaining units with no incorporation structure.
Unions are incorporated under 501c5 statutes, Associations under 501c6, and most of Davis’ bargaining units are not incorporated at all. For instance, DCEA is not an association despite their name, they are just a bargaining unit.
Finally you admit this.
You’re correct that Pinkerton’s public comments have focused on the special appeal that drew him to apply for the Incline Village job.
However, I’ve never seen a word attributed to him about “the internal politics of Davis” driving him out. I wouldn’t expect him to explain his act of applying (or justify his upcoming departure) to the atmosphere he faces here.
David’s reporting on the firefighter union’s antics behind the scene didn’t just start with this article. And, everything that has played out since his first story about Bobby Weist’s claim that he controlled votes re. Pinkerton has added credence to his original secret-sourced article.
Today’s report of Wolk’s Tuesday show just summarizes the culmination of the scheme. It would great if he’s again unsuccessful, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
Except that Pinkerton survived the attempted purge so it calls into question other parts of your scenario.
Toad, I understand the first seven words of your comment. The last ten words elude me though. What are these “other parts” you refer to?
David reported that Weist was announcing he had three council votes ready to dump Pinkerton. That it turned out he only had two doesn’t discredit David’s reporting, only Weist’s vote-counting abilities.
The “attempted purge” exposed Lucas and Dan and wasn’t immediately successful. But, executive session didn’t end the effort, just revealed the tossing of the gauntlet.
I think it’s important to clarify, for those who are unfamiliar with the council race (I imagine it’s not on a lot of the general public’s radar yet), that Robb Davis, Rochelle Swanson, and Daniel Parrella, who have all expressed opinions on this matter in this post, are 3 of the 4 candidates running for office.
That leaves Sheila Allen.
Emailed and texted her, along with Dan and Lucas, heard nothing.
At a time when it is difficult to find funding essential city services, spending one million dollars to study moving from PG&E seems strange to me. Even if one believes it could be beneficial, the timing is terrible. It provides one more reason for people to believe that the city is not serious about saving money and cutting unnecessary expenditures. In fact, it is so irresponsible that I am inclined to suspect that some type of cronyism is involved. Who is receiving these funds and what are they providing for one million dollars? What connections do they have to whoever ordered this study? Anybody know?
Telling that you have not heard from those 3.
Yeah it tells you that they don’t want to talk to the Vanguard. I wonder why?
Actually, they don’t need to talk to The Vanguard. They could go through David, like Rochelle, or post their own statement, like Daniel, Robb, Brett and Joe have.
Their refusal to urge City Manager Pinkerton to stay on is very telling in the face of all the other’s expressions–it says they’re off the grid, ashamed of their actions, afraid to fess up or, for some other reason, they want to express a lack of support for Pinkerton staying.
iPadguy
“it says they’re off the grid, ashamed of their actions, afraid to fess up or, for some other reason, they want to express a lack of support for Pinkerton staying.”
Or it could mean that they don’t favor the Vanguard as a means of communication, or they are out of town, or working overtime, or busy with family, or any number of other reasons.
I don’t see speculation about their motivations as any more productive than speculation about Steve Pinkerton’s.
Right, that’s what I meant by “off the grid.” And, they wouldn’t have to choose The Vanguard for their communication (the way the five others have) when they return.
How long should we give them to express their heartfelt appreciation for Pinkerton’s service, beg him publicly to stay and confirm offers of increased salary and benefits before we resume “speculation” about what we already know?
Well said Tia. I agree completely.
As most others have said, losing Pinkerton would be a real set-back for the community. Partially because Steve has done great things here, but also partially because the transition would be a huge headache. Can we handle a City Manager search concurrent with pushes for (perhaps) two tax measures AND turnover of 1-3 councilmembers? That’s a pretty volatile year.
Can’t say I blame Pinkerton though. To be a city manager with two unsupportive councilmembers would be scary – at any time, ticking off one of the others could mean the end of your job.
He will run into the same at Incline. Politics is politics. I understand that the five trustees are not all that friendly with each other and there are scores and friends to settle with.
He will find similar challenges I am sure.
Exactly it goes with the territory.
You can say the same thing about the scrutiny (dare I say speculation) that Dan and Lucas are currently experiencing. It goes with the territory of being an elected official.
I guess you’re right – there’s never much job security when you have five bosses that like to disagree with each other.
FYI- Frankly got a big kick out of the link you shared to a the video of trustee meeting in Incline. I didn’t get to watch it all, but the guy with the gavel threatening to have a public commenter removed for speaking on something that he wasn’t supposed to yet was awesome. I loved the fact that when the commenter then demanded his 3 minutes back so he could speak on an appropriate topic, they gave it to him, and continued on like nothing out of the ordinary happened. Much more entertaining the Davis City Council meetings.
I did find myself thinking, they need a women on that board, a couple of times.
Michelle – I think you are correct. I have nine board members and two of them are women, and then one of the women resigned. The other is busy and misses some meetings. I noted that the tone of the meetings, when lacking any female board members, was changing… I can’t really explain it succinctly other than to say there was more testosterone in the room. I worked hard to replace the outgoing board member with another woman. It wasn’t easy though… there are far fewer qualified women willing to give up their time for these things… at least in my experience. That is too bad because I think the gender diversity makes for better governance.
It is also too bad that I cannot support Sheila Allen for Davis council. I think it would be great to get another woman on the council… just not one so connected to the public labor side and in the same mold of the politicians that got us into this fiscal mess.
Our city council does a pretty good job keeping their “testosterone” in check, not sure I can say the same about those guys in Incline, although it makes for entertaining viewing. If Mr. Pinkerton takes the job he won’t be bored…at least at trustee meetings.
As an environmentalist I’m happy she is choosing to reuse her school board election signs.
sheila has made her bed. too bad, i always liked her. the only thing more damning would have been her standing proudly next to a picture of bobby weist himself.
Hadn’t realized the link between testosterone and conflict… not quite understanding the frequent, toxic interchanges between Asmundson & Greenwald, using that theory, though.
Incline may win on paper, but would you want to live in Seattle? Is Pete Carroll a great coach? Is Russell Wilson a fabulous QB? Yes. But where else are you going to have a team like you have in Davis? And as for the fans – what can I say? Steve we love you!
From LUCAS FRERICHS:
David, please post the question that you sent to our council members.
It appears that Lucas Frerichs might have seen it as some kind of trick question or trap that offended him and/or to which he feels his constituents don’t deserve to know his actions or opinions.
It’s posted at the very top of the article – the exact wording.
Yes, I’d forgotten, thanks.
Do you get the impression that Lucas Frerichs ever again will give The Vanguard and its readers the benefit of his participation?
It’s difficult to determine whether he’s claiming he’s innocent of working with Dan to dump the city manager (as even Bobby Weist appeared to claim). Or whether he’s upset that The Vanguard exposed the plot as it was being carried out.
Did Dan or Lucas ever protest your reports on this subject or even attempt to “clarify” things?
I was a little surprised by the text from Lucas. We’ve always been able to disagree on some issues and yet remain on good terms, so I would prefer to not speculate at this point.
A non-response speaks volumes.
to lucas frerichs: i voted for you in 2012. i had my qualms in doing so because of your past support for covell village and your reluctance to distance yourself from the firefighters. i decided it was more important to get a clean council without sue or stephen. i post anonymously because of my job and my desire to be able to speak my mind, but make no mistake, i am your constituent and you owe me an honest answer on this question. otherwise, next time you are up for election, i will vote for someone else. your decision.