Agenda Overload Cancels Budget Discussion–Time Limitations on Questions Thwart Dissent
Agenda Overload Cancels Budget Discussion–Time Limitations on Questions Thwart Dissent The meeting this past Tuesday illustrates the point to its ultimate absurdity as Councilmember Stephen Souza had to resort to reading his questions really fast (almost sounding like the chipmunks) and Community Development Director Katherine Hess resorted to one word answers in order to get all of the questions that he had answered. The absurdity of the moment, punctuated by his steadfast and inexplicable refusal to vote to extent his own time.
There were at least four major items on the agenda:
Item 5: Public Hearing: Chiles Ranch Subdivision
Item 6: Review of Fire Department Operations
Item 7: East Area Water Tank
Item 8: The Budget
Add to that the half hour presentation and reception for the Thong Hy Huyhn Memorial Awards. In addition, dozens of people showed up to support Davis Media Access and advocate for their continued funding. They were cut off during public comment after four speakers in the interest of time. The council told them basically that they had nothing to worry about. Remarkably this turned out to not be true.
The council indicated in the wee hours of the morning that while it did not support a $27,000 reduction in funding for DMA, it left perhaps $10,000 still on the table–a total that Andrea Jones, president of the Board of Directors, said would cripple the station although $27,000 would render the station inoperable. It stands to reason that many of those who left would have remained had they realized a $10,000 cut would remain on the table. But that is now a fight for another day.
The Chiles Ranch discussion would bring out dozens of very angry neighbors who believed the developer and by extension the city had violated their legally binding MOU. The opinion of City Attorney Harriet Steiner however was that the city was not bound by that MOU.
A lengthy period of public comment by the neighbors, leads us to the following ten minute snippet whereby all of the issues of time come to a boil.
This ten minute video segment is extremely telling as it demonstrates many different problems with the way things have been set up.
For starters, as mentioned, there are simply too many complex issues on the council agenda to adequately discuss them without it going into the wee hours of the night. So why not break up the key items–as Mayor Ruth Asmundson told council:
“We only have three meetings left until our vacation.”
Amazingly Mayor Asmundson prioritizes vacation for the council over proper discussion of key issues such… the budget and fire staffing.
Thus for the second round of questions, she sets a four minute time limit for council questions with staff response included within that time frame. Councilmember Stephen Souza objects but acquiesces to the restriction. Instead he opts to read his questions very quickly and illicit one word answers from Katherine Hess.
Punctuating the absurdity is the fact that Councilmember Lamar Heystek was away on another one of his youth retreats and the audio link up was not very good. Thus he often could not hear what was going on in the meeting. Thus he fails to hear Councilmember Greenwald’s first motion to extend discussion time.
A further problem arises because Mayor Asmundson despite this being the end of her third non-consecutive year as Mayor, apparently still does not know parliamentary procedure. Thus, she fails to stop talking and make a ruling when a point of order is made and she even attempts to ignore motions.
Parliamentary procedure is supposed to stop all discussion once a point of order is made and the Mayor makes a ruling. They are also supposed to stop when there is a motion but no second.
For whatever reason, Councilmember Souza clearly becomes agitated and objects to the time limitations and yet in the end he fails to vote to extend his own time to answer questions in a proper manner.
This segment shows the impact of Council rules–the public does not get a fair hearing. And one might argue that some of these questions could be asked prior to the council meeting. There are two problems. First, two of the items on the agenda–the budget and the fire staffing report were not available until early Tuesday. That basically precludes most of the councilmembers, particularly Councilmembers Heystek and Souza who have to work, from reading fully and asking questions ahead of time.
That was not a problem for the Chiles Ranch item, but that staff report was 200 pages long–a lot to digest and the public had many comments and questions that needed to be addressed. As it was they ended up holding the item over and putting it on a special June 30 meeting. Why could they not have done that to begin with?
This is not a mere academic point either. It was well past midnight when the council decided to table the budget workshop until next week’s meeting. Hands down, the budget is the most important issue facing the council this year as we face a $3.5 million deficit with critical issues of city services and personnel compensation coming to a head.
There was supposed to be one more discussion of the budget prior to its adoption on the June 23, 2009 meeting. Because of the scheduling snafu however and the late hour, we have now cut one meeting from the thorough discussion of the budget. Even had it gone through, most of the public was long asleep by the time the issue would have been addressed. While the council did not make a repeat of the 1 am airing of the Grand Jury Fire Report Investigation where the council was too tired to even ask probing questions, nevertheless, the public is now deprived of vital time to discuss this huge issue.
To make matters more absurd, the very fact that Mayor Asmundson cut off discussion from Councilmember Souza at four minutes put forth a discussion and debate that took up another five minutes off the agenda. Had she merely allowed him to finish asking questions, perhaps the meeting would have run more quickly.
Nevertheless, the bottom line here is that while I agree the council meetings should not run past midnight, the way that needs to be done is by scheduling more frequent meetings and placing less on the agenda and NOT by cutting off public debate.
Finally, I would be remiss not to point out that Councilmember Heystek’s absence during a critical meeting was extremely problematic. We had critical issues to discuss and he could not hear what was going on in a sufficient way. We had a complex issue of the fire staffing report with charts and graphics that he would not have had time to sufficiently read because of the lateness of the entire council receiving the report (although he had received the material electronically a mere hours in advance). The fact that he was away exacerbated an already difficult situation.
I recommend council do the following to both speed up meetings but also allow full public discussion.
First, staff needs to get the full reports to council by the end of the workday on Friday.
Second, staff presentations should be limited to no more than ten minutes except for special circumstances for instance consultant reports like we have seen recently with fire and water. The school district has adopted this policy and to great effect, but only if they get the staff reports done in time.
Third, limit meetings to two major discussion items at most.
Fourth, space out meetings to avoid packing four long and complex issues on the same agenda.
Five, stop interrupting councilmembers when they are in the flow of speaking. Every time Mayor Asmundson does that Councilmember Greenwald it pushes her off track and it actually prolongs the process.
Six, stop limiting council questions.
Seven, the Mayor needs to have a course on Roberts Rules of Order and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and needs to understand parliamentary procedure. This video demonstrates quite clearly that this mayor does not. In the future, that should be part of the training procedures for the Mayor.
There are going to be times that council meetings go long, that is part of public service and is unavoidable. However, any reasonable person looking at this agenda knew this meeting was going to go long, we were not well served by the limitations placed on the meeting. As it was, the Budget issue was held over and the Chiles Ranch issue will be revisited.
The display on Tuesday night is not only a bit embarrassing but it is also alarming the degree to which minority dissent has been now cut off by the Mayor.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Agree completely. Tuesday was embarassing. Consultant reports should be limited and structured to begin with charge they were given then background then facts then recommendations germane to the charge. That would help. Also staff including a short summary of applicable commission discussion and decisions. That is not always done especially if staff disagrees
The School Board is more efficient but they are so taken with gutsy comments back and forth it is hard to watch. Someone should show them a video of themselves.
Since we can’t participate in City “public” meetings, is there any chance that the public could audit the Yolo County and the City of Davis monthly expenses to determine how much is being wasted? I understand that we can’t question the elected officials in public, just like the Iranians can’t, but couldn’t we at least have audits of ongoing expenses?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-county-waste19-2009jun19,0,5474108.story
That should be cutsy, not gutsy!
I believe it is wrong to allow a budget to be passed BEFORE the labor negotiations are completed. It will only allow business as usual with the negotiations.
The mayor is cutting off discussion because she has already decided what the decisions should be – whatever Saylor and Souza want. She knows that Souza and Saylor are merely asking questions and making comments for the sake of looking self-important – bc decisions have already been made in a back room somewhere. This is nothing more than the Council majority run amok. If you don’t like what you see, then for heaven’s sake vote these people OUT!
This city council majority of 3 is disgusting! There is no democracy whatsoever in this city.
Perhaps the mayor and her 2 co-horts on the council are accustomed to a dictatorship, but democracy is still the ideal.
I’m going to research this an would appreciate it if the Vangaurd (David) could do the same. There has got to be a state agency where we can file complaints about our mayor and city council and how they do not conduct business the way it ought to be conducted.
Please let us (your readers)know David. Thank you.
The problem is “mission creep” as more and more items are not resolved in a timely and efficient manner* and are subsequently added to city staff, committee, and council agendas (and workloads). Other ongoing tasks are not reduced or deleted to compensate. The old adage to “…do more with less”…wears a little thin at 0100 AM.
* The ever expanding workloads involved with the senior housing and Measure J issues come to mind
Didn’t the Davis City Council used to meet more frequently than they do now? Maybe they should meet more often again to help solve the problem of overloaded agendas.
What a novel idea! Vote her out! She spends more time telling people they can’t talk than they spend talking.
Unfortunately, Mayor Asmundson does not seem to understand she is simply a leader among equals. Every councilmember should be allowed the necessary time to question staff, consultants and applicants.
“The problem is “mission creep” as more and more items are not resolved in a timely and efficient manner* and are subsequently added to city staff, committee, and council agendas (and workloads).
* The ever expanding workloads involved with the senior housing and Measure J issues come to mind”
I always get the feeling that major issues – where there is a sense that the Council majority of three need to go in a back room somewhere and get on the same page – are tabled to facilitate further discussion privately. Measure J comes to mind, and the senior housing issue, just as the previous commenter said. The trick is to put a controversial item off, let public outrage/discussion die down, then bring the item back late at night, when the public is unprepared and not there. Then is when the quick decision is made – late at night when no one is watching. Which is exactly what is going to happen with the budget. The labor negotiations were already decided before they even started – w Bill Emlen at the helm, was there any doubt it would be business as usual? Bill Emlen is another one that needs to go!
Blog Boy Brazenly Shreds Notions of Journalistic Integrity With Alarmist Headline Unsubstantiated By Facts.
The Mayor should check out effectivemeetings.com
[quote]Blog Boy Brazenly Shreds Notions of Journalistic Integrity With Alarmist Headline Unsubstantiated By Facts.[/quote]
Thanks Mr. Weist. What facts do you not see substantiated–thanks. TO
Hey Blog Terminator – DPD just received a nice award from the Human Relations Commission/City Council, so he must be doing something right! If you don’t care to read what he has to say, then why don’t you go elsewhere with your childish comments?
When I was on the CC, I rarely if ever criticized Mayors Wagstaff or Boyd for the way they ran the meetings. I often protested agnedas that obviously were too long, producing 100% certainty that the meeting would last til the wee hours of the morning. Running those meetings is very very difficult. I have never walked in Ruth or Sue’s shoes, so I dont want to criticize the minute buy minute process.
However, I think that most of the worst CC decisions, and the worst fighting and bickering, occurs after about 11 pm at night. I used to attempt to vote the meetings to end, but usually got out-voted. Sue was just waking up at 10 pm! So she was ready for the long nights there.
If I were the Mayor, I would allow generous public comment, allowing people to be heard. I think that Julie’s 3 minutes per speaker is appropriate.
However, I would start the meetings earlier, say 5 pm, and put the technical and non-controversial items first. Then I would end at 10-11 pm, and notice the meetings so it is automatically reconvened first thing the next morning if not done the night before. So Thursday mornings are always set aside if needed.
[quote]I would start the meetings earlier, say 5 pm, and put the technical and non-controversial items first.[/quote]On most issues, most of the time is consumed by staff presentation (or a consultant’s presentation) and council’s Q&A with staff (or the consultant). On most issues, public comment takes less than 10 minutes. A lot of what staff (or the consultant) says in the presentation is just a very long regurgitation of the staff report which is already familiar to the council. (If any member of the public wants the details, he should read the staff report ahead of time, too.)
To speed things up, I would recommend these 7 policies:
1. Limit the staff/consultant presentations to 5 minutes, just giving a brief outline. All of the detail should be in the staff report. If something is unclear in the report, it can be addressed in the Q&A.
2. Allow members of the public up to 2 minutes to express their views on the topic or ask questions of the experts. Anyone who uses his 2 minutes and has more to say goes to the back of the line until the public is done.
3. Before the council asks questions, staff should answer any questions raised by members of the public. If the answer is in the staff report, the answer should be, “see the staff report.”
4. A day or more in advance of the council meeting, members of the council should submit questions in writing to staff which are not addressed in the staff report. At the council meeting these questions and answers should be made public. (Members of the public who have questions also ought to be allowed to submit them in writing in advance of the meeting, as long as the questions are on topic and not answered in the staff report.)
5. Give the mayor a maximum of 12 minutes and each of the other members of the council 10 minutes maximum on each item to ask staff questions and to give an opinion on the topic after the Q&A is over. Members who feel that is not enough time on an important issue can use less time on a different topic and request a carryover of up to 10 extra minutes.
6. The city clerk should keep an accurate accounting of how much time each council member has used on each topic. (That is how Congressional hearings work, with each member allotted X amount of time.)
7. No new agenda item should be started after 11 pm. Thus, if there are items on the agenda of a very timely nature and they are crucial to city business, those need to be heard first. Anything not begun by 11 pm goes on the next agenda.
Staff presentations cannot be 5 minutes unless they get the staff reports by Friday. Five minutes is probably too short.
I am opposed to limiting public discussions by either the public and council. Two minutes is not much time, three is more reasonable. Most of the time there is not enough public commenters to make a difference and when there are, the issue is of significant importance we should have a full hearing of the public’s views. We need a public discussion of critical issues and that has not happened especially on the budget and the fire report.
We can shorten meetings through better scheduling and shorter staff presentations, we should not shorten meeting by limiting discussion.
If the answer is in the staff report, the answer should be, “see the staff report.”
Other than the line above, I agree (surprisingly) with Mr. Rifkin… Whether due to the CC person being lazy, busy, whatever, the response quoted would not be a good career move… ~ 50% of management employees (who, primarily, staff the meeting) are “at will”… admittedly City Manager’s “will”, but, as the City Manager is at will on any given Tuesday nite, I hope you can see the point…
“This city council majority of 3 is disgusting! There is no democracy whatsoever in this city.”
Love the moron, er, I mean oxymoron.
Rifkin has some good ideas. My view of his list:
[i]1. Limit the staff/consultant presentations to 5 minutes, just giving a brief outline. All of the detail should be in the staff report. If something is unclear in the report, it can be addressed in the Q&A. [/i]
Whenever I read the staff reports, something I do when I’m interested in the topic, and then hear the 30 minute long presentation, I never get anything that I didn’t already know. I like the idea of a brief outline. Mabye 5 minutes is too short, but it seems like most staff presenters are just reading from the reports they wrote.
[i]5. Give the mayor a maximum of 12 minutes and each of the other members of the council 10 minutes maximum on each item to ask staff questions and to give an opinion on the topic after the Q&A is over. Members who feel that is not enough time on an important issue can use less time on a different topic and request a carryover of up to 10 extra minutes. [/i]
I can see a problem with this if a member runs out of time because staff took a lot of time answering the member’s questions. But then I like Rich’s suggestion that more time can be awarded by erasing the time from a different subject. I think what a timer system on the members of the council would do would cause them to be more efficient. Some members of the council mix in a speech with their questions. That’s fine, if they only are given a set amount of time for Q&A.
[i]7. No new agenda item should be started after 11 pm. Thus, if there are items on the agenda of a very timely nature and they are crucial to city business, those need to be heard first. Anything not begun by 11 pm goes on the next agenda.[/i]
I like this idea. If no item started after 11 pm and Rich’s other ideas were put in place, no meeting would go past midnight. As Mike Harrington said, people are tired when it gets late and that’s when mistakes happen. It’s also hard on the public which wants to stay informed, if we cannot stay up that late.
Another idea… on mostly “technical” issues, not policy/major financial issues, more could really be placed on consent calendar… ell written, terse staff reports could be used… saves time all-around.
Rich is missing the biggest issue. Staff reports are not available until right before the meeting, and I mean sometimes only minutes or hours before. There is no time for the public or Councilmembers to ask any questions ahead of time. Thus the full staff report must be given at the scheduled City Council meeting, because for everyone, it is often the first time they have been exposed to the information. The real problem here is that
1) The Mayor/City Council majority refuses to insist staff reports be submitted at least one week before the scheduled meeting, which is what is required for commissions;
2) Public comment is rarely an issue of too much time – unless it is on an issue totally irrelevant to City Council business, e.g. Gaza issue;
3) Too often Souza and Saylor are allowed to electioneer from the dais for a lengthy period of time – they are not asking questions of staff;
4) Sue Greenwald is repeatedly interrupted, so her flow of thought is lost and it takes time to get back on track;
5) The City Council should be meeting once a week, so there is not so much on any one agenda.
[quote]Rich is missing the biggest issue. Staff reports are not available until right before the meeting[/quote]They are normally up on the city’s website on Friday, four days before the Tuesday meeting. This week is no exception. The packet has been available for two days.
If you want to read any of the 17 reports, click on this page: http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/packet.cfm?agenda=FA8585A6-1143-EEBD-B02CFDC3AA4C0422
Once in a while, one or two of the staff reports will come in as late as Monday. I’ve been reading them as long as the city has had a website, and that has always been the case. I don’t know what 9:49 is saying. She is probably not familiar with the Internet, yet.
The longest of this week’s staff reports (for Tuesday night’s meeting) is the budget proposal. It is 89 pages.
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090623/04 Proposed FY09-10 Budget.pdf
I briefed through it yesterday. Most of it is just reprints of old stuff (page 35-89). A lot of trees died for no good reason. I think the staff presenter could summarize the key points from page 1-25 in under 10 minutes, assuming anybody who is interested has already read the report. For a topic like the budget I think most of the time should be spent debating the assumptions and the values in it. Taking 45 minutes to rehash what the council already has read is a waste of time.
Anon: The point in question is that last week the two most important issues: the fire staffing report and budget came out on Tuesday morning and Monday evening respectively.
I agree and proposed the council adopt the rule on staff presentations with the understanding that the staff reports in full must be available by Friday prior to the meeting. However, I do think more attention is needed for technical topics.
I wish we could simply recall Ruth Asmundson from her position as mayor. I never voted for her to begin with, because I did not see her as being knowledgable of the issues or being very bright for that matter.
If our economy was not in such bad shape I could see people supporting a recall. This dictator style of government is not good for our community.
[quote]I did not see her as being knowledgable of the issues or being very bright for that matter. [/quote]She has a PhD in chemistry from UCD. I don’t think her IQ is a problem.
“She has a PhD in chemistry from UCD. I don’t think her IQ is a problem.”
No, just her common sense, which she totally lacks.
“They are normally up on the city’s website on Friday, four days before the Tuesday meeting.”
I know this is not true, based on DPD’s article, and complaints from Councilmembers themselves!