As you know, Agenda Item 06-B on the Dec. 3, 2024 City Council agenda presents the latest proposal by Mayor Chapman and Councilmember Vaitla to control how items are placed on city commission agendas. It is, in our view, an improvement over prior versions of their proposal, in that it creates fewer opportunities for violations of the state’s landmark open meeting law, the Brown Act. However, it does not completely take care of that problem, and it contains other crucial flaws. In particular, this proposed change would improperly and unwisely attempt to micromanage deliberations of the corps of volunteer experts on our city commissions. They have long provided invaluable expertise and perspective free of charge for the benefit of our citizens.
Accordingly, we again urge the full City Council to reject this proposal and adopt an alternative approach we outline at the end of this letter. An approach that we believe would foster a sense of community and collaboration between the Council and its commissions, rather than one that will come across as controlling and condescending.
Unfortunately, this continually-evolving and still-vague proposal was publicly released by Mayor Chapman and Councilmember Vaitla on the city’s website just before the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend was beginning. It is likely that many affected commissioners are unaware of this new proposal.
But we note that prior versions of this plan were roundly rejected by most of the commissioners who were asked to review it during a series of public hearings held in September, and with good reason. As detailed in a prior message we shared with you, one commissioner after another voiced their concern the proposal would result in delays that would stifle their ability to conduct the public’s business and render them unable to provide the very advice the council assigned them to provide. Commissions that meet less frequently could have their ideas sidetracked for months. They would be less likely to bring their ideas forward. Proposals that were time-sensitive in nature, such as consideration of city budget issues, would die by default.
Instead of heeding these justifiable concerns, this latest proposal would mandate that any agenda item that involved a so-called “commission-initiated task” – defined as any item that would “utilize staff resources” or involve a “recommendation” or “action” of any kind whatsoever – would be subject to review and approval in advance by the City Council before it could be placed on the commission agenda. The proposal, as written, does not require that the use of staff resources be substantial or establish any standards to determine which commission recommendations or actions would be allowed to proceed.
This sweeping decree is a prescription for all but strangling city commission operations. The proposal directly contradicts current city policy, spelled out in the official city commission handbook. It says any commission may send its recommendations forward to the council for its consideration, without any kind of prior screening process like the one that is now contemplated. That current city policy properly gives you, our local elected officials, the complete freedom and authority to act in the public interest to do whatever you think best for any particular commission proposal that comes your way, including doing nothing at all. This current approach creates an opportunity for free-flowing communication between commissions and council. On a number of occasions this resulted in important policy actions that have bettered the lives of Davis residents.
In contrast, the type of excessive supervision now being proposed here leaves little room for advice contrary to what a City Council may want to hear. Some commissions were deliberately created to represent a particular constituency, whether it be the elderly, the disabled, ethnic minorities, low-income folks, utility rate payers, and taxpayers. To truly do their job, these commissions must act independently from the City Council and speak truth to power. Under this new proposed “Mother-may-I” procedure to screen new ideas in advance, the commissions would instead be reduced to acting as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the City Council.
The report sent to you for your consideration of this matter is vague in many respects. It does not specify the specific changes to city ordinances, council resolutions, or the city commission handbook that the councilmembers are asking to be made in implementing this new system. Until their vague concepts are spelled out in black and white it is hard to fully evaluate how this proposal would actually work. Among the major questions that stand out for us:
- How would this process start? Could a commission, on its own authority, place an item on its agenda to determine whether there was commission consensus to seek City Council permission to move forward with action on that subject? Or would such a commission agenda item itself be subject to prior council approval? If so, how could any policy idea of importance or any recommendation for city action ever move forward? How could a “consensus” of a commission be determined if that body were not allowed to meet and talk about things first? Absent such a prior discussion, how could they properly define what it was they actually wanted to do and how they wanted to do it?
- What procedures would govern the process of review by the full City Council? Would commissions be advised in advance when their proposals for agenda items would be heard by the full City Council? Would commissioners be given a chance to testify before the Council about the matter or would only city staff and councilmembers be permitted to weigh in? Would the staff reports drafted to describe each proposed commission agenda item be released in advance of the Council meeting as part of the Council agenda packet?
- What problem is this new system trying to solve? The stated purpose of “standardizing” the process for placing items on an commission agenda may result in a procedure that is not appropriate for a particular commission.
- The claim that this change is needed to ensure the City Council is better informed about what commissions are working on makes no sense. Under the current system, the minutes of each commission meeting, which spell out precisely what commissions are working on, are supposed to be placed in the council’s agenda packets. If the preparation of those minutes by city staff are being unduly delayed or if the minutes being prepared by staff contain insufficient detail, the council should direct city staff members to take better minutes and produce them more quickly for council.
- We do not understand the claim that some commissioners are “forcing items on a full commission.” Commissioners are adults, each of whom has one vote. A commission majority is free to vote to keep an item off an agenda they don’t like.
- Earlier proposals would have allowed a Council liaison – just a single councilmember — to sidetrack a commission’s request to put an item on the commission agenda. This posed grave concerns that the Brown Act, the state open-meeting law that applies to cities, would be violated. Commendably, this new version drops that illegal proposal. However, this new version asserts (on page 06B-4) that “nothing changes” for two-person council subcommittees. We believe any action by a Council subcommittee to sidetrack commission proposals they don’t like, in secret without public discussion or public notice, is likewise illegal under the Brown Act. This is because only a quorum of council (three members) may act on official city business. Councilmember Vaitla suggested in a hearing that is already happening, but if that is truly the case, it doesn’t make it legal!
If the goal of this proposal is to “standardize” the way items are placed on commission agendas, why not bring back regular monthly Council-commission workshops to go over commission workplans, and work to integrate commission input into the official city goals adopted by the Council every two years? It would be a better way to get the commissions and the council more in sync on mutual goals. These procedures worked just fine in the past and no-one has explained why the current City Council ended them. This latest troubling proposal continues to ignore those suggestions and again violates the Brown Act. With this change, city staff and the Council could assign commissions to take up the agenda items they wanted, but the commissioners themselves in many cases would not be allowed to make such decisions. So much for valuing the input of commissioners!
The imminent start of a new council legislative cycle is the perfect time for you to explore alternatives to this deeply problematic proposal. It is time to get rid of this leftover Thanksgiving turkey.
All the best,
Dan Carson
Former City Councilmember
Former Chair, Finance & Budget Commission
Elaine Roberts Musser
Attorney-at-Law
Former Chair, Senior Citizens Commission and Utilities Commission
