I understand everyone’s desire to wait to see the ballots counted before declaring winners, but the reality is that there is actually more science than art in projecting elections at this point. Unless you have a hugely disproportionate sampling of ballots from a specific location, the results of the late ballots are, generally speaking, not going to diverge widely from the results of the ballots that came in on Election Day.
Thus our conclusion the morning after the election was that the results from the city council were unlikely to change much from the 3AM announced vote count. We did think it was possible that Dan Carson and Gloria Partida could change places at the top – after all, it was a relatively narrow 244 votes that separated the two. However, even there, the trend on Election Day was Gloria Partida pulling ahead of Dan Carson, and so I actually expected the lead to widen rather than narrow.
That is precisely what happened. The lead for Gloria Partida grew from 244 to 383. More importantly, from the standpoint of predicting the next council, the gap between Dan Carson and Linda Deos is now 1500 votes.
My estimate is that there are another 3000 to 4000 out there for Davis – that’s assuming the last sampling continues, which saw 10,000 more counted overall with 4000 for Davis, which mirrored the 40 percent or so of the vote 
that Davis represented on Election Day.
Fifteen hundred is too big a gap to overcome, probably even in a one on one race. In a nine-person race with two votes, it is close to impossible, not just improbable. Just to get 1500 votes in the last batch seems improbable itself. Linda Deos got 3580 votes total out of 15,000 votes. That means just around 23 percent of the voters voted for her. To get 1500 even from 4000 (which is on the upper end of the remaining votes), she would have to get 37.5 percent of the vote.
That’s not impossible by itself, but that’s just to get her 1500, which doesn’t close a 1500-vote gap on Dan Carson, who will undoubtedly gain more votes also.
Bottom line is that I think it is safe to say that the next two council people will be Gloria Partida and Dan Carson. Most likely Gloria Partida will be the next mayor pro tem, which means in 2020 she will become mayor.
My real purpose in writing this column was not the projections of who will win, but rather what this means.
I have been doing this since 2006. In fact, July 30 is the 12th anniversary of the founding of the Vanguard. The first five years that I observed the Davis City Council, from January 2006 until June 2010, the council majority of three really dominated policy discussion. Once that cartel was broken in 2010, things began to change.
What has surprised me is that the biggest factor since 2012 has been who is mayor. In 2014, we saw Joe Krovoza exit the council and Robb Davis arrive. On paper, you would not expect a huge difference between the two and therefore you would argue that the council from 2014 to 2016 would be similar to how it was from 2012 to 2014. In fact, that turned out not to be true.
The biggest change was the mayor switched from Joe Krovoza to Dan Wolk and that completely changed how the agenda was set, how the meetings were run, and even the priorities of council.
The same thing happened in 2016. Dan Wolk left the council and was replaced by Will Arnold. Again, you wouldn’t expect a huge change. Will Arnold was Dan Wolk’s campaign manager, for crying out loud. But the council from 2016 to the present has been very different, and the key change was Dan Wolk to Robb Davis as mayor.
That is really a surprising observation because you would think that Davis would have an extremely weak mayoral system. After all, the mayor is not separately elected. The mayor does not have individual staff. The mayor has no special powers.
The big change is therefore ceremonial. And, in fact, we know that a lot of the change is probably simply council deference. We did not see a huge change from when Sue Greenwald was mayor from 2006 to 2008 than when Ruth Asmundson was mayor for a second time from 2008 to 2010. Why? Because the same three members of council dominated the council and had the votes to win every major contested issue.
But since then we have had a less adversarial and more collegial council, and deference matters. Style matters. Agenda setting matters.
So I will argue that the big difference from the current council to the next council will be in the mayor. Robb Davis and Brett Lee are very different. This is not meant as a critique on either, but I think we will see very different styles at the dais. Robb Davis has been a very strong leader, he has a strong passion for justice, he has led with a kind of moral authority that we have really not seen before, and he goes out of his way to attempt to be fair to all involved.
That is not to say that Brett Lee lacks those things, but I see him as much more laid back. He is analytical and intellectual. Sometimes I will criticize him for overthinking things, but he also has the ability to think outside of the box and attempt new approaches to issues.
How that will play out as his role shifts after six years on the council to being mayor is really anyone’s guess. What I am saying here is I expect that to be a huge change.
There are clear differences between Robb Davis and Brett Lee on many issues, although the council has largely operated more on a consensus basis, attempting to avoid conducting business on 3-2 votes.
I expect that approach to at least attempt to continue.
I would point out that we should not downplay the impact of two new councilmembers. This is only the third time since I have covered the council that we will have two new members coming in. What actually happened was that, from 2010 to 2012, the entire council turned over. So Lamar Heystek and Ruth Asmundson in 2010 were replaced by Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson. Don Saylor then stepped down to be county supervisor and Dan Wolk replaced him. Then Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee defeated Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza in 2012 to complete the transition.
This will then be the first time in six years we have had two councilmember changes.
Dan Carson and Gloria Partida figure to be very different in both emphasis and style from Rochelle Swanson and Robb Davis. We will see how the new mix works.
One thing I have learned is, until we can see the council in action, how they interact and the issues that come forward, it is hard to predict what the council will look like. I don’t think that Dan Carson is radically different from Rochelle Swanson in substance, but he might be in style. The same goes for Robb Davis and Gloria Partida.
And a big difference will be Mayor Robb Davis being replaced by Mayor Brett Lee.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
OK, so now I am going to reveal my ignorance. The two Greenwalds mentioned in the article. What is the relationship between them?
Sue Greenwald is of no relation.
Thank you
Perhaps someone needs to carry the family tree back a few more generations.
What I “expect” from the new CC… that they will discharge their duties to the community, that they elected (and were elected) to serve… even if it means losing popularity, even if it means not forwarding their personal objectives…
Listening to community, applicants, staff voices… being ‘informed’ then, making decisions, based not only on those voices, but listening to their “informed gut”, aka “conscience”. It should be not “be about them”… it should not be about “their supporters”… it should be about service to the community, as a “whole”… am a tad skeptical, realizing that is a tough standard, but maybe, just maybe, they can do that… am waxing Quixotic, to be sure… probably an ‘impossible dream’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow
Howard
“ it should be about service to the community, as a “whole”
The problem I have with your statement is that on truly controversial issues, there often is not a consensus of the “community as a whole”. It is therefore up to the judgement of the individual council member to honor their perception of what is best for the majority, not the whole. An ancillary problem is that there is a tendency amongst “true believers” to believe that their personal preference is obviously best for the whole disregarding and sometimes denigrating the equally strongly felt preferences of those that do not agree with them.
HP . . . I’m really sorry to hear you fell off your unicorn this morning.
The elephant in the room for the Davis city council is employee compensation practices and the related pay-for-play history of past (and some present) city council members and the unions and labor associations.
Adding to the list of Trump accomplishments that should begin to take hold in the states (beginning with the red states and ending in California when it finally runs out of other people’s money) are his three executive orders to eliminate some of the absurdity of employment practice for the employees of the federal government.
While these three orders don’t necessarily provide a roadmap for fixing Davis’s fiscal maladies, they are the beginning of what we should start to see sweeping the nation… incremental reduction of public sector union power over employment and pay practices of government employees.
Of course the unions, associations and the politicians they play with are keen on using tax increases for filling growing deficits. Unfortunately for them the public is now on to their game and rejecting the continued looting.
Probably one of the most unfortunate and inconvenient political advertisements for these pay-for-play gamers is the growing population of 50-sometime government retirees multiplying throughout all the Davis neighborhoods. When so many 60-something private sector workers get up in the morning to go to work and say hi to their much younger neighbor who is leaving for another long bike ride or another extended vacation, it makes it very unlikely that the 60-something voter will agree to the next tax increase.
“other people’s money”
AKA the taxes that we impose on ourselves in order to pay for the amenities that we as a community have decided through elections that we value. I thought that paying for what you want was a conservative value.
Everything Jeff posts is rooted in his ideological lens. For me the bigger problem than employee compensation is that Davis just doesn’t generate any real revenue and any compensate is going to be a problem if you don’t generate enough revenue. We’ve let UCD go to Sacramento with what we should be doing here. We fight tooth and nail on housing and let money generation escape.
Craig – the root of too-high government employee compensation problem is 100% related to politics and ideology.
I do agree with your point about Davis not generating enough revenue. I have been on that soapbox for nearly a decade of posting on the Vanguard. And although I also see this as being ideologically rooted, I do agree that even a portion of the 14 or so registered Republicans in this town also have a solid no-growth position while many that identify as being liberal in their political view are supportive of more business and housing growth.
However, we cannot win the fiscal sustainability battle on just the revenue side… costs have to be trimmed. More importantly, costs need to stop growing faster than the rate of inflation.
The problem ignoring the political and ideological connection with government employee compensation are two fold:
1. If fails to acknowledge and identify the political and ideological forces defending government compensation practices (see Jim Frame’s post below).
2. It denies the fact that the problem requires a political solution.
The legacy political left hero that started this mess, FDR, even originally rejected the right of government workers to organize and collectively bargain. He and many others recognized that it would create a mess. Only after some states allowed it and politicians noted the easy money and free campaign labor from union benefactors did it start to spread.
There is absolutely no reason at all that government employees should continue to be allowed to unionize and collectively bargain. 80%+ of conservatives/Republicans would agree with this. 80%+ of liberals/Democrats would disagree. So yes, it is political and ideological.
Which of our municipal employee groups are actually unions?
What is the status of the contracts of the different groups of employees?
Then, given the political makeup of a community that voted 82% for Hilary Clinton, I suggest we seek another approach to dealing with municipal costs. So unless you just wanted to rant, perhaps you could make some suggestion that you think might actually have a chance of getting implemented in this town by the next council.
Keep explaining that the problems are owned by the electorate because the electorate fails to accept responsibility for what they caused and what they continue to defend.
I have posted a list of actions that should be taken before.
The obvious first thing we need to do is to eliminate defined benefit retirement and switch to a defined contribution system like the other 98% of the working world relies on.
We need to outsource as many city services as we can to the private sector and/or in joint powers agreements like for the new waterworks.
Then we need city employees to contribute a lot more to their healthcare benefits given that they continue after retirement.
We need to increase the retirement age.
We need to freeze pay increases for 3-4 years, and then implement policy to prevent any subsequent increases over the amount of inflation.
Any examples of cities that have implemented these actions?
“The obvious first thing we need to do is to eliminate defined benefit retirement and switch to a defined contribution system like the other 98% of the working world relies on.”
We can’t.
“We need to outsource as many city services as we can to the private sector and/or in joint powers agreements like for the new waterworks.”
We’ve done some of that. Not sure how much more we can do or the cost-savings that would provide.
“Then we need city employees to contribute a lot more to their healthcare benefits given that they continue after retirement.”
We’ve done that.
“We need to increase the retirement age.”
We’ve done that, but we can only do it for new employees.
“We need to freeze pay increases for 3-4 years, and then implement policy to prevent any subsequent increases over the amount of inflation.”
We’ve done that as well. I would be interested in seeing in real dollars what the salaries are now compared to 2009.
You just moved the goal posts.
Pretend you’re talking to Brett Lee. Is there a municipal model he can look at where any of the action items you’ve listed have been implemented, so he can figure out how to go about it pragmatically, politically, and with help from city staff?
Davis Firefighters are the only true “union” with affiliations at a State-wide level… pretty sure they are the only ones to have solicited contributions from their membership, and the public, with proceeds going to CC candidates they “endorse”… DPOA may have done an endorsement once or twice over the years… not sure… never heard of them making financial contributions, particularly not as an organization… Department Heads each have their own agreements/MOU’s… DCEA and PASEA have had dues, but nominal… heard DCEA may have recently affiliated with a ‘true’ union… PASEA has not… neither have endorsed candidates, as a group…
As to the status of “contracts” (actually, MOU’s, there are important differences), the current ones, with ‘end dates’, are on the City’s website, last I checked… appears DPOA (and individual Police Managers) have current ones, due to expire June 30, next year… Davis Firefighters had an interim agreement thru Aug 31 last year… General City management have agreement thru end of June, 2017… same with PASEA… DCEA’s agreement technically lapsed 9 years ago, but an “imposed” one, dated 2013, appears to remain in effect…
DPOA gave a lot in 2006 to council candidates. They also gave a ton to the DA this time.
I’ll go one step further…
Be careful what you ask for, as to “privatization”… in the Bay Area… Cal Water services most of the Peninsula… their rates are significantly higher, historically, than municipal water systems, with same/less quality of product and/or service… but that doesn’t “fit” some folk’s world view…
Same applies to many other City services (but, not all, to be sure)… would be very interested in knowing what City services that a certain poster would have “out-sourced” to the “private sector” profit oriented entities… and what that would actually “save”… someone should (the main poster on that theme) lay that out, or…
Perhaps Building Inspection should be out-sourced to the private sector, with call-centers overseas… might save some dollars, but at what “cost”?
We can, it just takes work. The change to the pension cannot be imposed on the workers, but it can be negotiated. The critical step is convincing the employee groups to agree to the change. If they are unwilling to agree, then the obvious next step is to work with our neighboring jurisdictions (Woodland or UCD for instance) and set up a JPA to provide the service (say fire protection) and have the JPA hire the employees providing a defined contribution retirement system. This is exactly what was done for the surface water project where those employees now work for the JPA rather than the City and have defined contribution pensions. If we prove the willingness to take this step, the remaining employee groups may be more willing to negotiate the change.
Would have been nice to see you model this plan when you ran for council and put it forward in some charts so that we could assess feasibility.
Jeff’s suggestion … “The obvious first thing we need to do is to eliminate defined benefit retirement and switch to a defined contribution system like the other 98% of the working world relies on.”
David’s reply … “We can’t.”
David is taking a fatalist position when he says “We can’t.” The reality is that we actually can do what Jeff has suggested, we simply see the pain of getting there as too great, and as a result don’t choose to do so.
Don’s reply … “Is there a municipal model he can look at where any of the action items you’ve listed have been implemented, so he can figure out how to go about it pragmatically, politically, and with help from city staff?”
Don is similarly fatalistic. He hides behind the convenient “We don’t want to be the first ones to do it” argument.
But let’s accept David’s and Don’s position that changing the per-employee cost of each employee is a bridge that is politically too far. What is our alternative? Change the number of employees (and in the process reduce the level of services our City government provides).
Changing the per-employee cost has to happen through collective bargaining with the employees and their representatives, which is governed by law.
Changing the level of services our City government provides happens through collective bargaining of a different sort … through dialogue with the citizens. Wow do we do that?
A good place to start is with the current Budget shortfall. In the Measure H and I materials prepared for Council by staff in February (see 2/6/18 Staff Report ) the shortfall/gap is $8.3 million per year. The Proposed 2018/2019 Budget approved by Council on Tuesday shows a “net” budget amount for operations of $54.8 million ($60.7 million total less $5.9 million for Capital Improvement projects). $8.3 is 15% of $54.8.
So a community dialogue that resulted in a decision to cut the annual General Fund operations budget by 15% would close the gap. David’s “We can’t” wouldn’t apply, and the answer to Don’s question, “Is there a municipal model he can look at where any of the action items you’ve listed have been implemented?” is a very clear “Yes, there are quite a few.”
The question that each Davis citizen would need to answer in such a community dialogue would be, “Will Davis still be Davis if we cut the budget by 15%?”
I view our best alternative as growing our local economy to generate more sales tax revenue while containing current costs.
“The question that each Davis citizen would need to answer in such a community dialogue would be, “Will Davis still be Davis if we cut the budget by 15%?””
I’m worried that Davis is not going to be Davis at current levels of spending, let alone a 15 percent cut.
No, Matt. I asked a question and hoped for an answer. But I didn’t get one from Jeff. Examples that he can point to would be very useful to those making policy in this city.
I made no such assertion. As usual, you are attributing positions to me that I have not stated. This has been your pattern on the Vanguard for years. This is why I do not generally engage with you here. I am only pointing it out to make it very clear to other readers that I have never asserted what you are imputing to me.
Don, you asked a rhetorical question, for which you knew there was only one answer. No inference was needed.
Why take the bait, Howard?
Yeah, took me a minute or so, but as you can see, I spit it out…
Some of us Medicare-eligible private-sector workers enjoy what we do for a living and don’t envy retired 50-something public-sector folks. And we still support tax increases when necessary to maintain quality of life. But that *doesn’t* mean that we don’t want the CC to focus on rational cost control, including staff costs.
From an outside perspective it seems we spend way too much money on the fire department and not nearly enough on the police department. How many qualified applicants to we have for every open FD position? Statewide I think there are 500+ qualified applicants for each slot. Given the high expectations of the Davis public for police officers we may need to really boost that comp.
So, which is it David… a sales tax, or a UUT?… or both? What are you advocating?
A 50% tax, I’m indifferent on the form.
50%?
I assume he meant 50% (+1) to pass. Not a 50% tax.
Makes sense…
Truth be told, most commenters do this (including you and me). (Especially when debating some point.)
Another way to look at it is that it can be viewed as a logical “extension” or “result” of someone else’s argument. Annoying? Yeah. But hopefully, no one is taking such statements literally. Probably better to just word things more carefully, in the first place.
On that, we definitely agree…
I did talk about the need for outsourcing during the campaign and generally how we might do it, but I don’t see the specifics as being an appropriate part of a campaign because that is something that the City Manager should be responsible for. What should have been a part of the campaign was the desirable characteristics for the new City Manager and how we might structure their employment contract in order to incentivize efforts at cost containment. Unfortunately, the current Council majority decided to take the easy route of a ‘status quo’ hire (and contract) instead of having that community dialog and broader search. Consequently, I think the three returning Council members should be held responsible for that decision. If the CM and CC majority are able to hold City costs in check they should be given all the credit for doing so, but if not, they should face the consequences during the next election cycle.