Earlier this week, the entire region, in fact, a good chunk of the state got to see the less than stellar side of Councilmember Sue Greenwald as she accused her colleague of being a liar, and continued to carry on off-stage when the Mayor was down for the count.
The Sacramento Bee called this the rude side of small town democracy. They wrote this morning that Davis, in comparison to the civil discussion in Winters over a fast-food restaurant:
“By disappointing contrast, two days later, bickering at a City Council meeting down the road in Davis sent that city’s mayor to the emergency room.”
They continued:
“Local politics are often contentious. But Davis has had a long history of particularly toxic relationships on its City Council. Frankly, it’s getting tiresome. Council members, and Greenwald in particular, need to take a hard look at themselves and ask what kind of example they are setting – particularly for young people in their community who might be considering public service.
Leaders and many activists in the university town of Davis could learn about civility from Winters, and about how to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Indeed, but this is the same Sacramento Bee that endorsed Sue Greenwald in part because she got it on employee contracts and we see the same Sue Greenwald on display in this morning’s Davis Enterprise.
Long before Rich Rifkin or myself wrote about city finances and employee compensation, there was Councilmember Sue Greenwald fighting the fight and walking the walk.
In her writing, one can see how one can shoot for the hip, fight strongly for one’s position, but be clear, articulate, and yet not cross the lines that were crossed earlier this week.
The Councilmember writes:
“Reading The Davis Enterprise, one would get the impression that the city has made great strides in reining in our employee costs and that the financial future of the city is sound. Nothing could be further from the truth.
City staff has spun the results of our closed-door labor negotiations, giving a false impression of both city savings and ‘structural reforms.’ In actuality, we ended up with insignificant savings and few benefit reforms, and we still face a large structural deficit and looming unfunded retirement liabilities.
A disservice has been done to Davis citizens who deserve an accurate accounting, and who will experience a decline in city services and higher taxes and fees in the years to come.”
She then accuses city staff of performing a sleight of hand, much as the Vanguard has been arguing since the battalion chief model was thrust down our throats using bait and switch tactics.
“Where did the headlines concerning huge savings originate? The answer is that staff has performed a fiscal sleight of hand. Staff has extrapolated past, unsustainable increases in employee total compensation into the future, and has then triumphantly announced phantom savings from these heady hypothetical levels. This approach makes for soothing headlines, but it leaves a large structural deficit and larger unfunded liabilities.
The rationale given by staff for using this method to calculate ‘savings’ has been that if we don’t come to agreement with employees, our current unsustainable contracts will remain in force. But we do not have binding arbitration, and current contracts do not have to be extended. If negotiations fail, a mediation process would follow impasse. If the mediation fails, we may set compensation at our last, best offer. The mediation process takes a few weeks.”
She focuses on the management group contract, a contract that purports to bring the city huge savings, but as the Councilmember correctly demonstrates, the savings quickly evaporates during the course of the MOU.
“The bottom line is that a year and a half from now, our management labor costs are projected to be higher than they are in the baseline fiscal year 2008-09. These labor cost increases will be occurring in the face of projected structural deficits; large ‘unmet needs’; huge, looming unfunded liabilities; and highly uncertain revenues.
Staff and the council majority have suggested that the cost-of-living increases and small number of furlough days come July were trade-offs for major structural changes. However, with the exception of moving toward a standard PERS vesting period for retiree health, few significant changes have been made. While city base salaries seem roughly equivalent to those in other California public sector agencies such as the university or the state, our benefits are much more costly.
City management group benefits are costing 53 percent over base salaries. In other words, our benefits are very expensive relative to those of the university, state and state university systems.”
She then argues that we have made few reforms:
“”While the council promised major structural reforms, there are, in fact, few significant new structural reforms in the management MOU, except for bringing the vesting period for retiree health in line with the PERS and university vesting period. The city still pays all of the employer and the employee share of standard PERS contributions, which run over 20 percent of salary.
The most expensive and extraordinarily unusual benefit remains largely unchanged. Management employees, like most city employees, are still allowed to take home an extra $17,800 year if they happen to have a spouse who has medical insurance. This benefit, which is not even fair among employees, costs the city about $4 million a year on a citywide basis.
By reducing this ‘cash-out’ by about 75 percent for all employees, the city probably would save approximately $3 million a year. These savings could have gone into a dedicated fund to help pay off the unfunded retiree health liability, which starts to come due in about eight years.
Instead of taking this urgently needed step of reducing the cash-out to 25 percent of the current amount, the council majority ‘capped’ the cash-out at the current amount of $17, 800, and lowered it only for new employees.”
Finally she concludes:
“We are a town of public employees, and none of us is happy about the compensation cuts we have taken. But our city budget was ‘balanced’ by calling our deficit ‘unmet needs,’ and we require more service reductions. We have enormous pension and health unfunded liabilities on the horizon, and the city has failed at this crucial point in history to make the changes necessary to ensure long-run fiscal sustainability. Instead, we have kicked the can down the road.
We simply cannot afford to keep offering benefits that are far more expensive than those of the university systems, state and school districts, and we have to control the costs of our firefighting services.”
This is what makes the Councilmember conduct earlier in the week so frustrating. When she is calm and collected, she is brilliant, insightful, and effective. However, on Tuesday her conduct and not her views became the story. We spent a week talking about her. The last four writings on the Vanguard have been on substantive issues, but people were still absorbed with what happened on Tuesday and the conflict.
That’s what needs to stop, because Sue Greenwald, the calm and collected is right, we have not made the great strides that staff claims. We have no achieved the structural reforms we so desperately need. Much has been accomplished through smoke and mirrors. We need a clear and collected Sue Greenwald along with Councilmember Lamar Heystek to point this out to us.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Too bad Sue can’t elaborate her points verbally as well as she can put it down on paper. What she wrote here is brilliant and I feel most Davisites agree with her views concerning the budget. Sue has a hard time articulating and it doesn’t help that other council members routinely interupt her while she’s speaking. WE HAVE TO REIGN IN THE COSTS NOW and not just “kick the can down the road” as Sue said. Comeon people, as David showed yesterday we’re paying tree trimmers $75,000/year and firemen $142,000/year which is unsustainable. Sue and Lamar are willing to stand up against this foolishness but we need to put pressure on the “gang of three” so we at least have a chance of being solvent. How convenient that Ruth will be phoning in her vote this week from the Phillipines?
David:
You will get no argument from me that our City Council is among the most dysfunctional in the State. I have testified in front of many across the State and we are at the bottom. Its a disgrace in one of the most educated towns in the State.
But please, how about examining the behavior of some other Council members — or do they get a free pass? The whole tone is awful; the leadership and process are awful. Many opposed P purely on the process issue which ultimatetly hurt your cause.
How about some analysis of how our City Council is bought and paid for by developers, firefighters and other interests?–I know you have done some of this, but this is the message that needs to get out until people get it. I notice that even Sue’s harshest critics concede that she is her own woman and will not cow-tow to folks who give generous campaign contributions. Can the same be said of our other Council members? No.
It is looking more and more likley that Lamar will be replaced by a Saylor/Asmundson clone and if Asmundson does not run, the same.
The biggest obstacle appears to be money. You and many others have told me a campaign can cost up to $50k. And CC people make hundreds per month while they oversee a $130 million dollar budget and staff making 10-15 times their salary. Its a recipe for corruption and that is what we have here.
Blaming Sue for this mess serves no purpose unless you want to see Sue removed from office. Who else with her talent is willing to run under such circumstances? Don’t shoot the messenger.
$75,000/year for a park maintenance II worker?
I guarantee you if you put those jobs out for hire at say $40,000/year you’d have applicants lined up around the block.
Same goes for firemen at $142,000/year, I’d bet you’d have many applicants for $100,000/year.
Phil:
I would politely suggest to you that in fact, you are relatively new here. If anything, this blog/ site has made a reputation on attacking people like Saylor.
I did a quick search and found a number of cases here where I called Saylor and Asmundson out on their conduct. I think generally I have called Souza out on his crazy Souza-isms for instance a few weeks ago when he gave us a math lesson and his math was way off.
Commentary: Abuse of Public Process ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3144:commentary-abuse-of-public-process&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Mayor and Council Cut Off Debate on Fire Contract ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3142:mayor-and-council-cut-off-debate-on-fire-contract&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Commentary: Maybe Saylor Ought To Worry About His Own Fiscal Mess ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2918:commentary-maybe-saylor-ought-to-worry-about-his-own-fiscal-mess&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Mayor Asmundson Brazenly Shreds Notions of Open Meetings and Public Discourse ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2858:mayor-asmundson-brazenly-shreds-notions-of-open-meetings-and-public-discourse&catid=57:city-council&Itemid=80[/url])
[url=https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2781:records-show-cozy-relationship-between-city-manager-mayor-pro-tem-enterprise-dfd&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79]Records Show Cozy Relationship Between City Manager-Mayor Pro Tem-Enterprise-DFD ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2786:soothing-the-public-with-his-words-on-water&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url])
Soothing the Public with His Words on Water[/url]
Commentary: Mayor’s Proposals Threaten Principles of Open Government ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2733:commentary-mayors-proposal-threaten-principles-of-open-government&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89[/url])
Citizens Beware: Emails Sent to Public Officials Are Public Documents ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2915:citizen-beware-emails-sent-to-public-officials-are-public-documents&catid=61:open-government&Itemid=89[/url])
Mr. Civility At It Again ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2880:mr-civility-at-it-again&catid=57:city-council&Itemid=80[/url])
Saylor Announcement: The Rest of the Story ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=463:saylor-announcement-the-rest-of-the-story&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url])
Commentary: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse? ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=383:commentary-who-is-saylor-to-lecture-us-on-civility-in-public-discourse&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url])
Analysis: Asmundson’s Attack on the Mayor Unfounded ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=409:analysis-asmundsons-attack-on-the-mayor-unfounded&catid=57:city-council&Itemid=80[/url])
How about some analysis of how our City Council is bought and paid for by developers, firefighters and other interests?
You mean like this article:
Analysis: City Hall Bought and Paid For by Firefighters Local 3494 ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2870:analysis-city-hall-bought-and-paid-for-by-firefighters-local-3494&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
rusty49: those numbers are *total compensation*, not base wage/salary. Real numbers for all occupations in California are available @ DIR.ca.gov.
David: While I can appreciate your efforts to be clear, I think you could just as easily link to your source material as use extensive blockquotes. I come here to read your analysis, and see those things as ‘interference’.
Neutral: Are you referring to my use of Sue’s quotes from her op-ed? The problem there is that the Enterprise has everything behind a firewall, a good chunk of my audience are people who do not have a subscription to the Enterprise, hence the quotes. Probably should have linked the Bee Article, will do that now.
Neutral
Yes I realise that’s total compensation, that being said don’t you think a fair “total compensation” package for a park maintenace worker of $40,000/year is fair? Don’t you think we could easily find many qualified applicants for that amount? Do you think their current package of $75,000 is fiscally responsible?
Same goes for many of the overpaid public jobs for the City of Davis
David: Your list of previous articles gave me a chuckle. I too am fairly new to reading this blog, but I’d be remiss to lay the charge that you haven’t written about x, y, or z in the going on of Davis. And those that you may have personally missed, like those about ground squirrels, you give the rest of us the opportunity to fill those little burrows with the open invitation to author our own articles.
There is one person on the council I have never actually had an occasion to attack. However, if Syd Vicious gets on the council, I will unload on Mr. Heystek like there is no tomorrow (because there won’t be).
So to help conclude the article above, it sounds a clever negotiator is needed. Presenting facts and the perception of need based on those facts only gets the issue three quarters of the way to a satisfactory conclusion. The remainder requires negotiation, because not everybody sees the world the same way in light of those facts. Who does the issue have to negotiate the final distance to conclusion? If Sue’s “honor” and “dignity” are on the line, she best exit the room. If this is to be a 2 against 3 thing, it only requires one of those three to cross over for the issue to move beyond a presentation of just facts.
David
I don’t know much about “Syd Vicious” but can you clue me in on Syd’s views on growth, fiscal policy, etc….
To make it easy is Syd a Saylor or a Greenwald?
From last time, Syd talked about needing a more diversified housing stock in Davis, supported peripheral growth, believes that our employees need more respect (or something to that effect, I’d have to look up the exact quote), got endorsed by the firefighters. In short, she is a Saylor.
Phil, I don’t see David [u]blaming[/u] Sue. What I see him do is [u]challenging[/u] her to be as insightful in her actions as she is in her analysis and her words. If she did that she would be Mayor of Davis for life.
Thanks David,
Not my kind of candidate. I hope we can get more people interested in running or it sounds like our council is only going to get worse.
By the way, I got a good chuckle out of “Syd Vicious”.
[quote]rusty49 . . .
I don’t know much about “Syd Vicious” but can you clue me in on Syd’s views on growth, fiscal policy, etc….
To make it easy is Syd a Saylor or a Greenwald? [/quote]
rusty, Syd it would be appropriate if Syd was a “Talking Head” but alas he was a “Sex Pistol”
[quote]David M. Greenwald said . . .
From last time, Syd talked about needing a more diversified housing stock in Davis, supported peripheral growth, believes that our employees need more respect (or something to that effect, I’d have to look up the exact quote), got endorsed by the firefighters. In short, she is a Saylor. [/quote]
On a related subject what do we know about Joe Krovoza?
David:
Thanks for the extensive list of articles and the hard work that went into all of them. I have read many of these and did not see the level of criticism you have leveled against Sue–perhaps some of your 2007 articles on Saylor.
Many of these articles focus on process but in the last year you have clearly taken your strongest personal shots against Sue, which is unfortunate since you are generally on the same side of the issues. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for.
Matt, actually it sounds like Syd is a member of the YMCA.
She’s the “Saylor”.
Neutral: Are you referring to my use of Sue’s quotes from her op-ed? The problem there is that the Enterprise has everything behind a firewall, a good chunk of my audience are people who do not have a subscription to the Enterprise, hence the quotes.
David, try this:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/archive_pdfs/2010/20100131/pdfs/C5.pdf[/url]
Matt:
I met with him, he seems like a good enough guy, a university guy, a bicycle person, did work on Putah Creek restoration, supported Covell but opposed Measure P. We’ll see how it develops.
Phil:
I don’t view what I wrote as a personal shot against Sue, but be that as it may, 90 to 95% of my articles about Sue have been positive.
Allright, allright, I meant Village People, they sang the YMCA.
Krovoza has a lot more depth than people realize. I only hope this comes out in his campaign. Here is an article about him from 2001:
http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/062901/DL_krovoza.html
I don’t think the issue is the depth he has. Rather the depth we know about.
Joe Krovoza used to live up the street from us. I have also been seeing him lately because of a shared interested in bicycling issues in Davis. He is also a deputy director at the Institute for Transportation Studies at UC Davis.
What I know about Joe is that he is just a great guy. Intelligent, friendly, remembers important facts, likes to get things done, doesn’t put on airs, even temperament, doesn’t like confrontations. To me, it seems impossible not to get along with him.
If people are wondering why he’s running for city council and what his objectives would be, it’s a big question and I can’t speak for him. You should look at his campaign web page for that. But I can venture that bicycling whet his appetite. I personally care about bicycling issues in Davis, and my interactions with Joe on that already convince me that he’d be a good choice for city council.
The key issues for the upcoming city council race are:
— long term city budget crisis, labor contracts, and city staffing levels.
— peripheral growth development proposals.
Anyone who is running needs to give specific answers to questions about those issues (would you have voted for the current contracts; how would you vote on a development proposal outside of city limits, etc.).
There are other practical issues (pushing forward with downtown parking, for example). But anyone who tries to run a campaign based on buoyant optimism and focuses excessively on imagery (bicycles and electric cars) will seem to be avoiding the real issues. The city needs some flint-eyed accountants, not civic boosters.
Well said Don. I like bicycling, there were times in my life I did it a lot more than now. But that’s an issue I think everyone in this town agrees on (although I do wish people wouldn’t be able to throw green waste in the bike lanes). The tough issues will be the budget and peripheral growth and that’s where Joe as nice a guy as he seems to be is an unknown to me.
If people are wondering about this, Joe certainly is well-schooled in financial questions. He has had significant financial responsibilities at UC Davis and he certainly seems like someone who can be trusted with money.
The thing that bothers me about the question is that I don’t know that everyone is on the same page as to who exactly is a “flint-eyed accountant”. That is NOT the way that Lamar and Sue come across. Sue, in particular, comes across as someone who is unable to accept financial bad news. For instance, in this supposedly deep editorial today, her real position is that she wants to give the city unions an ultimatum and risk a strike. If this is what it means to be a “flint-eyed accountant”, then Donald Rumsfeld was a flint-eyed accountant.
Don, you run a business. I think you can appreciate what happens to a business when its managers would rather bang their heads against a wall than read the writing on it.
Sue, in particular, comes across as someone who is unable to accept financial bad news.
That is an interesting observation, because I read the opposite: Sue appears to be the only council member who IS accepting the financial bad news.
I think you can appreciate what happens to a business when its managers would rather bang their heads against a wall than read the writing on it.
Again, an interesting observation since Sue proposes doing something about the problem, while the City seems content in pushing the problems down the road. Who exactly is failing to read the writing on the wall?
Trust me; a well-run business would have dealt with these funding shortfalls many moons ago because their leaders know sticking their fiscally-accountable head in the sand would result in a failed business.
Despite all the whining about her bad behavior in chamber, Sue is demonstrating fiscal leadership completely lacking in other officials.
No, Jeff, it is blatantly tendentious to promise the voters that all we have to do to save money is go to mediation and watch it fail. That’s not all that we have to do, because that is exactly when the unions can go on strike. (It’s also amazing that a rallying call to crush the unions would be called “progressive”.)
I also didn’t just have in mind the union contracts. I watched the video clip where Sue badgered that water expert over the question of building surface water supply. It was the same thing. She wasn’t asking “tough questions”, actually they were really easy questions. The only hard part was that she couldn’t accept his answers. She wanted him to admit that Davis can fight to the bitter end instead of accepting an expensive bill. This is not the conduct of a “flint-eyed accountant”. Flint-headed, maybe, but not flint-eyed.
Thanks for the link, civil discourse. This is particularly noteworthy:
“In May 2000 Krovoza, along with representatives from the city of Davis and UC Davis, helped negotiate the settlement of a long-running water rights dispute between the council and several Solano County water agencies which distribute water from the creek.”
Having followed the Putah Creek conflicts going on for several years, I was surprised and impressed by the agreement that was put together. That suggests a disposition and skill that could be useful on the council.
Greg: “Don, you run a business. I think you can appreciate what happens to a business when its managers would rather bang their heads against a wall than read the writing on it.”
Yes. They need to cut their short-term and long-term payroll costs.
Greg: “No, Jeff, it is blatantly tendentious to promise the voters that all we have to do to save money is go to mediation and watch it fail. That’s not all that we have to do, because that is exactly when the unions can go on strike.”
In her op-ed today, Sue simply describes that process. I don’t see her advocating it. Unless the union agrees to substantial cuts, there is no other course of action the city can take — other than what the city council majority took, which was a very slight trim in costs that doesn’t solve the short- or long-term problems.
She hasn’t said “that’s all we have to do to save money.” Sue has repeatedly made the specific proposal of reducing the cash-out. That proposal is, in fact, what the whole argument at the council meeting erupted about: whether or not she had made such a motion in closed session.
If the union chooses to go on strike, that is their call; not hers, not the city council’s, not ours. I can’t imagine there would be much public support for a strike, and have no idea if they would go that route. But it is a fact, as far as I know, that the only recourse the city has when negotiations and mediation fail is to implement the last offer.
rusty49: No, I definitely *wouldn’t* want to lower those salaries. Negotiate down the benefits, not the salaries.
Don, that’s nonsense on stilts. Sue is clearly putting forward “last best offer” as a favorable alternative to the proposed MOU from the city management. Sure, it looks like a much sweeter deal — when wouldn’t it — except for the little detail that the unions could then go on strike. A real “flint-eyed accountant” would never assess the cost of a contract proposal without accounting for the risk of a strike.
So what if it would be “their call”. If someone punches me in the face, it hurts just as much if it’s “their call” as if I asked them to do it. And of course there wouldn’t be public support for a strike. When police and firefighters went on strike in Vallejo in 1969, do you think that they did it to be popular? No, they did it to gain leverage, and they succeeded in spades.
A real “flint-eyed accountant” understands that the safe way to get tough with unions is to make them choose between cuts and layoffs, not to arm them with the power to strike. And Sue’s position here is all the more extreme because she doesn’t even express faith in mediation.
Greg: “make them choose between cuts and layoffs”
How exactly would the council do that?
Everyone knows that both the school district and the university are making their unions choose between wage concessions and layoffs. So these are obvious examples to learn from.
Obviously I am also simplifying a bit because there is nothing unsafe about mediation either, if management accepts the outcome. But before there has been any impasse or mediation, Sue is already talking last best offer. She’s really spoiling for a fight with the unions. This is not the same as a Measure J vote, where the developers just go away after you “stand up” to them.
The council majority’s bargaining agents didn’t make the unions choose between wage concessions and layoffs. Quite the opposite. According to Sue’s op-ed, the MOU decreases the number of furlough days and grants small COLA’s. She asserts that the MOU makes only minor changes in the benefits. Her proposal to reduce the cash-out seems to be a relatively painless way for the city to reduce its costs. I have yet to hear why the council majority chose not to pursue that. Nor has anybody contradicted her statement that she moved for that reduction in closed session.
I’m not sure why you’re so concerned about how the union would respond. It’s not a matter of spoiling for a fight. It’s just dealing with the fiscal realities, which I’m sure are apparent to them as well.
Come on David. Enough with your witch hunting campaigns. I had calls from 4 times the number of reporters than on any other issue in my ten years on the council.
The reporters were called in by you or by other political operatives. All the reporters called me for my comments, and most of them asked ME why this was a big story. One volunteered the words “tempest in a teapot”. A couple of others said they watched the video tape and didn’t think it was particularly unusual. One volunteered that he had seen much worse at other council meetings; another volunteered that he had actually sat on a board and the tempers flared for more than what he saw on the video clip.
David, you are going over-board trying to politically damage me because I led the opposition to Wildhorse Ranch Measure P, and because I don’t always go along with your agenda.
This is reminiscent of your other witch hunting campaigns, such as you relentless with hunt against Chancellor Katehi a few months ago.
It’s time to give it a rest.
I hope Vanguard readers take a look my op-ed in the Davis Enterprise today. It concerns the substantive issue of our labor negotiations in relation to our city budget.
I really wonder if Sue actually read this article I wrote. First of all, it contains most of your op-ed.
Second, I actually praised you in it.
I wrote:
“Long before Rich Rifkin or myself wrote about city finances and employee compensation, there was Councilmember Sue Greenwald fighting the fight and walking the walk.
In her writing, one can see how one can shoot for the hip, fight strongly for one’s position, but be clear, articulate, and yet not cross the lines that were crossed earlier this week.”
Later:
“This is what makes the Councilmember conduct earlier in the week so frustrating. When she is calm and collected, she is brilliant, insightful, and effective.”
Obviously there must be a witch hunt when I call you, “brilliant, insightful, and effective.”
Seriously, if you are going to post this, read the article first.
“The reporters were called in by you or by other political operatives.”
I never called any reporter, I was called by several however. They saw the youtube clip and the Vanguard story on Wednesday morning and it’s the type of story that hits home.
“David, you are going over-board trying to politically damage me because I led the opposition to Wildhorse Ranch Measure P, and because I don’t always go along with your agenda.”
As I’ve said a number of times, Measure P was low on my radar. I don’t know what my agenda is, but you’ve voted to support issues that I support almost every time. Measure P is the only time I can recall us disagreeing on a big issue and I consider the fiscal issue which I agree with on 100% far more important. I ran today’s story to highlihgt your views.
“It’s time to give it a rest.
I hope Vanguard readers take a look my op-ed in the Davis Enterprise today. It concerns the substantive issue of our labor negotiations in relation to our city budget.”
I’m convinced you didn’t read this article before posting. I quote verbatim from your op-ed.
[i]The council majority’s bargaining agents didn’t make the unions choose between wage concessions and layoffs.[/i]
That may be true, but I don’t see that anyone on the city council gave them that mandate. Just in general, if you want to play hardball with unions, it’s much safer to weigh service cuts against wage concessions. Of course, the drawback is that you may have to live with service cuts.
[i]I’m not sure why you’re so concerned about how the union would respond.[/i]
Look, even taking the route of last, best offer, it is possible to win a game of brinkmanship and not see a strike. I admit that I don’t know a whole about that, although I also don’t see that Sue is expert in it either.
But speaking generally, “just dealing with fiscal realities” doesn’t have a lot of credibility in context. We have our interests and the unions have theirs. If I were on the city staff and I had to face five so-called “progressives” on the city council, then I might well expect new demands for concessions every year, in the form of wailing lectures about train wrecks and fiscal realities, until I was ready to go on strike.
On that note, I wonder what Bill Emlen would make of today’s posting in the Vanguard. The “bad” Sue Greenwald is the one who calls him “boy”. The “good” Sue Greenwald is the one who tells him that he makes too much money.
When I say “give it a rest”, David, I am referring to the fact that only a few hours ago, the following blurb showed up on your facebook update:
“Earlier this week, the entire region, in fact, a good chunk of the state got to see the less than stellar side of Councilmember Sue Greenwald as she accused her colleague of being a liar, and continued to carry on off-stage when the Mayor was down for the count.The Sacramento Bee called this the…”.
This is what is visible to the reader. Relentless. “The the entire region, in fact, a good chunk of the state got to see the less than stellar side of Councilmember Sue Greenwald” because you, David Greenwald, chose to make sure that out of 10 years of public service, the most covered story was short tiff with Ruth Asmundson, the importance of which even the reporters questioned.
This was your choice, David.
Greg:
Just when I think you’re starting to get it, you post this:
“The “bad” Sue Greenwald is the one who calls him “boy”. The “good” Sue Greenwald is the one who tells him that he makes too much money.”
You’re now making the same mistake Sue did, failing to separate personal from policy. The first part is personal, the second is policy.
Sue:
Did you read past the first paragraph? That was the introduction, I then go on to talk about where you have done a good job.
Greg: “Look, even taking the route of last, best offer, it is possible to win a game of brinkmanship and not see a strike. I admit that I don’t know a whole about that, although I also don’t see that Sue is expert in it either.”
Hence the calls for professional negotiators. Which council members have supported bringing in outside negotiators, and which have opposed it?
David:
You are a clever fellow. You are aware how the media works. Posting a youtube of Sue that goes viral has consequences. Even if 90-95% of your articles are pro-Sue, the damage done by this whole discussion is significant and you must be aware of that. (I have not done a count so I’ll take your word on the 90-95%.)
I honestly cannot say having read your blog almost daily for the past 6 months that you have been supportive of Sue even though you agree on many issues. Contructive criticism can be helpful and none of us is perfect, but this whole event seems destructive.
Are you to blame for what happened? No. But despite you alleged support for Sue she has come under harsh scrutiny while others that you are opposed to have not gotten the negative publicity they deserve.
Lets move on.
David, I agree with Sue. It seems to be your MO that when you write some of your blogs you act like your just reporting and you’re middle of the road but in my opinion you definately have an agenda. I’ve seen you do that many times here, the Dunning story comes to mind. It’s OK to have an agenda, after all this is an editorial page, but at least be up front about it.
Phil:
Here’s another example, Souza’s math problem ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3183:council-majority-in-need-of-a-math-lesson-on-mou&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]).
First, I quote him and then correct his math.
Then I point out his poor analogies and metaphors.
I call another one of his arguments a strawman argument.
Then I turn to Saylor.
The clear villains in this piece are Souza and Saylor while Heystek and Greenwald are the clear heroes. If we want to devolve down to heroes and villains. It’s very critical of Souza, yes it’s on a substantive issue, but it does poke fun of his math for sure.
I thought it was a devastating piece that drew all of 11 comments including Sue who seemed to agree with the article and pointed out an additional problem with the contract. I’ll note that you did not comment on that one, you might have been gone at the time, but that was a biting article that you seem to be advocating for.
I guess when it comes to Sue Greenwald, the Davis Vanguard is “Fair and Balanced” just like Fox News.
I have not heard any comments on this blog about our other City Council members anywhere near as nasty as those towards Sue.
With friends like these…
[i]Just when I think you’re starting to get it[/i]
I have no idea what it is that I’m supposed to “get”. The shift in my thinking that I thought was taking place was a collapse of trust.
[i]You’re now making the same mistake Sue did, failing to separate personal from policy. The first part is personal, the second is policy.[/i]
No, David, I see no reason to defend such a separation unless the people involved maintain it themselves. For that matter, if someone wants to grab my benefits with a smile, the smile doesn’t fool me.
It seems to me that Emlen, Navazio, and Steiner are in a special position that can make it particularly damaging when a city council member flies off the handle. These people are paid to put up with the temper tantrums. So how can you say that they should set that aside, and pretend that they were asked nicely to give up compensation. It turns such an effort to save money into a travesty.
David:
But none of your other criticisms have the same impact.
I’ll never forget when Dan Noyes from KGO in San Francisco was doing a segment on Halema Buzayan back in 2006 and he commented that Davis was like Alice in Wonderland. I feel like that sometimes when I read comments like Slow Growther. I’m not going to defend myself from people who have only really read this blog since Measure P came up by pointing out the hundreds of times of I viciously attacked the councilmajority or Souza or Saylor by name.
“It seems to me that Emlen, Navazio, and Steiner are in a special position that can make it particularly damaging when a city council member flies off the handle. These people are paid to put up with the temper tantrums. So how can you say that they should set that aside, and pretend that they were asked nicely to give up compensation. It turns such an effort to save money into a travesty.”
I’m not completely following you. I don’t think staffers should have to incur the personal wrath of anyone, however, their compensation is as much a policy issue as anything else and one of the prices that you pay as a public employee is that you are employed by the public. Now as a Professor it is unlikely you will personally be in the position to face scrutiny, but people of Emlen or the Chancellor may.
Phil: For better or worse, this was a story that captured people’s imaginations a bit more. My hope is that Councilmember Greenwald will write out her comments as eloquently for council as she did her op-ed today and we can move on.
[i]I don’t think staffers should have to incur the personal wrath of anyone, however, their compensation is as much a policy issue as anything else and one of the prices that you pay as a public employee is that you are employed by the public. Now as a Professor it is unlikely you will personally be in the position to face scrutiny, but people of Emlen or the Chancellor may.[/i]
Of course my salary “faces scrutiny”, in the sense that it has been posted to the web for years. That is really not the point. My salary isn’t a favor with a fig leaf in front, and neither is that of anyone on the city staff. You speak entirely in denial of the idea of paying for labor what it actually costs. Instead, it’s all “scrutiny” and “policy”. The reality is more like when you buy gas. You can apply as much scrutiny and policy as you want to the price of gas in Davis, but it will still cost $2.90 a gallon.
My previous point is that every time someone on the city council flies off the handle about compensation, they make a qualified city staff more expensive, not less, because it’s insult on top of injury.
Anyone who has observed the City Council meetings has seen the many, many times Ruth has “shut down” relevant comments coming from the public, and Sue, especially on these critically important fiscal issues. It was just a matter of time for a melt-down like this to happen.
Ruth could not run the Council meetings fairly and democratically before this event, and her inability will continue to cause strife and dysfunction on the Council. The unfortunate outcome of Ruth making herself ill out of frustration and anxiety makes it evident that she needs to step down from the role as mayor, for her sake and the city’s.
Ruth’s bad behavior as mayor has consistently been to selectively shut down Sue so the public does not get to hear Sue’s analysis of staff report’s that the public wants to hear. The “cover-up” of the city trying to offer token changes in the budget, while actually bankrupting us into the future is a good example. However, Ruth’s behavior was inexcusable as it has been over and over again in the past.
Sue continues to try to keep the relevant facts front and center and tries to offer other remedies, rather than allowing the the city to crash financially. Her Op-ed today is a good example of the relevant information that Sue was denied the opportunity to present at the last Council meeting. Meanwhile, Ruth clearly is not interested in the facts or analysis, but simply wants to have fast and ineffective Council meetings.
The real issue at hand is that we need to focus on the City issues rather than this side-show. It seems to be an opportunistic attempt to distract the public from the real issues and problems we face. We need to get focused on the real problems folks, and that would be: the City’s ongoing fiscal meltdown, its mismanagement problems, and its terrible planning “process”.
I agree that we need to stop dramatizing this incident, Ruth needs to step down as mayor, and get fair-play rules in place that all must follow to allow the City Council meetings to become more democratic and productive.
[i]Hence the calls for professional negotiators.[/i]
The main job of any labor negotiator, professional or in-house, is to reach an agreement. Even that kind of professional negotiator isn’t cheap, and the common wisdom is that they don’t save much money over their fees.
If you want an outsider to advise the city of Davis on the best game of chicken in the face of a worker strike, I’m not even sure if that’s a reputable profession. If it is, hiring someone to handle that would probably be really expensive.
Either way, advice is only as good as its audience. Look at the way that Sue treated the outside advisor from NWRI on the water supply question. She refused to accept his answers. So if Davis did hire a professional negotiator, I wouldn’t be surprised if the “progressives” were sorely disappointed in the results and blamed the negotiator.
Again, though, I could almost believe that the city should push harder for wage concessions, if not for this pronouncement that we “need” a “flint-eyed accountant”. Paul Navazio is an accountant. Don Saylor has been an accountant. Stephen Souza is a business owner, which is in the direction of an accountant. What they get for their credentials, in certain quarters, is accusations that they are soft and blind and maybe disloyal. If so, what you’re really saying is that accounting is too important to leave to the accountants, that we actually need radicals who fight for spreadsheet justice.
I’m not going to defend myself from people who have only really read this blog since Measure P came up by pointing out the hundreds of times of I viciously attacked the councilmajority or Souza or Saylor by name.
For those of us newcomers to City politics and the Vanguard blogs, yes Measure P was the issue that introduced us to the true ugly side of the Council politics, not to mention the following:
1. The way Ruth would autocratically and ineptly run the meetings, including allowing the WHR vote came late into the night, after spending way too much wasted time on Chancellor Vanderhof’s retirement party followed by a last minute agenda item on affordable housing that pushed the Measure P item discussion and final vote past midnight…
2. We also got to see Ruth personally ask Parlin Development their “first choice” for an election date….
3. We also saw Lamar decide to vote for WHR??? Why, Lamar, when you ran your campaign (along with Stan Forbes) as “slow growth” choices; in fact the No on X website endorsed Lamar; why the vote; we’ll probably never get his vote (but I bet he “owed” Bill Ritter one)
4. Lastly, when Ritter publicly chastised Sue for her “unethical” behavior at the Finance & Budget Committee, and the Vanguard that week ran the story….
Through all this, we were introduced to the fact that Sue was the only true slow-growth advocate for Davis residents left on our Council, with no developer ties (or ties to political operatives like Bill Ritter and Maynard Skinner), so keep hammering away at her David, whether it be on the Vanguard or your Facebook page, it will only do two things:
1. Embolden Saylor-Asmundson and their supporters
2. Make the Sue supporters who still believe there are true “independent” Council members stronger in their support of her
At this point, Greg K, I have no idea what you support or oppose with regard to city employee contracts.
We seem to be just going the way of Vallejo with this. After minimal concessions from the firefighter and police in early 2008, what happened? The city still filed bankruptcy and then Vallejo city and firefighters employee unions amazingly agreed to tear up their existing labor contract and start over… this because bankruptcy would invalidate the contracts anyway.
I don’t know the status or outcome, but Vallejo establishes the new model for dealing with public employee unions. It matches the same lessons learned from dealing with the US autoworker union. Let them naturally destroy the business that employees them, then invite them to the table to re-negotiate over the carcass.
[i]At this point, Greg K, I have no idea what you support or oppose with regard to city employee contracts.[/i]
That’s a fair question, so let me explain carefully. First, I don’t take any side of the city budget as a grand cause. Other people are plenty enough concerned about city taxes and services; I don’t need to march in any of these parades. So what I “support” is really more what I advise.
I support as much cost savings as possible with the city employee contracts, for a given level of service. I don’t think that we owe them any favors as a matter of social justice. I endorse workplace morale, and I think Davis is better off hiring quality over quantity for desk jobs. These objectives may require a higher salary, but they aren’t the same as paying people more because you feel sorry for them.
But I also only support sane, proven methods to achieve cost savings. I just don’t believe all of this talk about “train wrecks”, “meltdowns”, and “unsustainability”. My philosophy is to beware the auto mechanic who spends too much time talking about exploding gas tanks; he might be liable to cause what he warns against.
I don’t really know whether the budget negotiators and the “city council majority” saved as much money as they could have. In rough terms, their argument is clear: They wanted an agreement with the unions and not a showdown. If they could have won more concessions, then sure, they should have. But I am more inclined to trust them than to trust radicals who think that accounting is too important to leave to accountants, especially radicals who can’t take no for an answer and can’t apologize after a tantrum.
Whew, after catching my breath from catching up, all I can say is, thanks Greg Kuperberg. Just a mathematician, eh?
While Sue’s chasing down various conspiracies aimed to dethrone her, I’d just like to add that it looks like the previous article on the happenings of last Tuesday off camera will have comments exceeding 200. Just imagine, that will most likely make David’s top 10 for 2010, where upon we can relive the many varied pleasures of the past few days while sipping New Years bubbly.
Phil wrote:
“David: You are a clever fellow. You are aware how the media works. Posting a youtube of Sue that goes viral has consequences”
This is an absurd assertion. The video wasn’t edited. It is what it is. If video from C-SPAN goes viral is this C-SPAN’s fault? Shooting the messenger on this one won’t help.
In my opinion, Sue Greenwald is straight up being a bully trying to silence David Greenwald any further on the issue, or asserting that there was no story until he made it one or, heaven sakes, dared to follow-up on it.
Seems like the easiest, most politically expedient way Sue Greenwald could make the issue go away is by apologizing. Why is that so hard for people to do nowadays? Swallow your pride, apologize for what others have deemed bad behavior (regardless of whether you decide it is), and move on.
Greg K: So bottom line, do you think the current MOU is better for the city than what Sue has been proposing for several weeks, or not? Or, you just trust the council majority more than the council minority on this issue, because of Sue’s outburst?
[i]Do you think the current MOU is better for the city than what Sue has been proposing for several weeks, or not?[/i]
My hunch is that Sue’s proposal would be reckless driving and that therefore the MOU is better.
[i]Or, you just trust the council majority more than the council minority on this issue, because of Sue’s outburst?[/i]
Yes, definitely, but it’s not just because of that one outburst. I looked at people’s credentials. I looked at other transcripts and videos. I thought about policy and not just tone. In restrospect, that one outburst was only the last brick that broke the camel’s back.
When calculating total comp remember some entities also get social security which Davis employee do not.
Hasn’t the city used professional negotiaters in the past?
[i]Whew, after catching my breath from catching up, all I can say is, thanks Greg Kuperberg. Just a mathematician, eh?[/i]
Thanks for your kudos! But you know, we’re just chewing the fat here, and in real life, yes I’m “just” a mathematician.
To: Civil Discourse.
Geeez… after seeing the mean-spirited and very antagonistic delivery by Ruth Asmundson, I would say that it is Ruth who needs to apologize to the entire City Council and the public due to her inappropriate, dominating, and clearly undemocratic behavior. Ruth clearly does not know how to manage a meeting in a fair and diplomatic way. This became very evident, when she demanded that no further comments were to be allowed by Sue Greenwald to debate the staff report which proposed unreasonably generous contracts for staff that we can not afford (especially for the upper management making the big bucks.)
Ruth unfortunately, does not have the ability to understand the issues that financially will devastate city fiscally and the costs will fall on Davis taxpayers (BIG-TIME).
This entire incident “smells” of a political distraction “event” to try to get the public distracted from fiscal issues and other issues that will cost them dearly into the future, if here is not a reasonable plan to resolve these problems NOW.
I can not help but feel that Ruth Asmundson is feeling better as she vacations in the Philippines. I heard that she left the day after this melt down at Council, so her health must have been good for her to fly so far to vacation. It is interesting how so many media entities found out about this Council incident in such a short time. It is interesting how this incident seems to have been disseminated to the media. Almost like a “Anti-Sue” campaign. Jeepers….now who would……?
Greg K: “My hunch is that Sue’s proposal would be reckless driving and that therefore the MOU is better.”
Ok, I won’t use any apocalyptic terminology. At various times I’ve looked at the city budget. I agree with the council minority that the cost of city staffing can’t be sustained. Some of that is an immediate problem, which they’ve partially dealt with by furloughs. But as Rich Rifkin, Sue, and others have shown, there is a long-term structural problem.
The local sales tax has been used primarily to fund pay and benefit increases. As far as I can tell, it will be necessary to renew the local sales tax simply in order to continue current staffing levels and pay for the increased salary and benefits in the current MOU’s. Within a couple of years, it will probably be necessary to increase that tax.
Lamar has stated that he would oppose renewal of the sales tax. I agree. If the city council doesn’t make some fundamental fiscal changes, I would oppose renewing the current tax. We have two council members who have addressed the issue. Sue has made specific proposals that would start to change that trajectory.
Many, probably most, municipal governments in California are facing this same problem. I expect council members to provide fiscal guidance to negotiators. So I expect council candidates to address the short-term and long-term fiscal shortfalls and state how they would guide the negotiators. If they propose any new spending or special projects, I think they are being unrealistic.
Rusty 49 has it spot on! Sue is magnificant when she writes, but abysmal when she speaks. Of all the councilmembers, I believe she is the one who is most truly committed to the well being and success of the city. She is also not afraid of digging into the details and doing the calculations. She does her homework. As stated earlier in this blog, the “Gang of Three” has been purchased by the developers and the employee unions, and it appears to me, care only about the next round of donations. Lamar is also great, but, wisely in my view, has decided to seek his share of happiness in this world. His gain, our loss. I don’t see Sue being elected again. I fear the developers and firemen have won. Too bad; for all of us.
[i]I agree with the council minority that the cost of city staffing can’t be sustained.[/i]
As I said, I don’t particularly trust them and I don’t know that they have “shown” anything. But I don’t know that they are wrong either, so let’s suppose that the budget really does need structural changes.
Then how do you know that the right way to do this is to go to the brink with bargaining groups, rather than to lay people off and shrink from attrition? You said that the public wouldn’t support a strike. But unions don’t strike to be popular, they strike for leverage.
Let them strike, the city can replace them for half the cost and our fiscal problems are solved.
Observer: ” I don’t see Sue being elected again. I fear the developers and firemen have won. Too bad; for all of us….
I have heard this refrain as long as Councilperson Greenwald has been up for reelection. As the saying goes: the announcement of her (political) death has proved premature. When the heat of this current brou-ha-ha dissipates soon, she will be left standing stronger than any of the current Council Majority whose past agenda( Measure X, Measure P) as well as their current fiscal mismanagement in our budget crisis are overwhelmingly rejected by the Davis voters.
“Let them strike, the city can replace them for half the cost and our fiscal problems are solved.”
No that would not solve our fiscal problems.
Also, Don, you make the following statement that I already don’t trust:
[i]The local sales tax has been used primarily to fund pay and benefit increases.[/i]
That’s what David argued. Specifically, he said that general fund spending increased by 33% from 2003-04 to 2007-08. However, this claim has two major errors: (1) It is based on requested and not actual general fund spending for 2007-08, and (2) it is not adjusted for inflation. In this four-year comparison, general fund spending actually only increased 15% in constant dollars.
Did this 15% “primarily fund” pay and benefit increases? Again, David claimed that it did, but I don’t see it. Staff increased by 6%, leaving only an 8.5% increase in the [b]cost[/b] of pay and benefits. But just because of the cost of benefits goes up, that does not mean that benefits were increased. In this same period, the cost of CalPERS contributions rose sharply across the state for a fixed level of benefits.
I did not break down that 8.5% by how much went to CalPERS. But I suspect that your statement is not true. Using correct, inflation-adjusted accounting, I suspect that much of the 8.5% per-employee increase was paid to CalPERS, and that the city made only small increases to actual promised salary and benefits. I suspect that in a reasonable interpretation of the effects of the sales tax, it did indeed lead to the staff increase that the city council promised.
It is true that the staff FTE number slid back down after 2007-08, but that could be due to a deteriorating economic situation and further demands from CalPERS.
“Lamar has stated that he would oppose renewal of the sales tax. I agree.”
Don: Do you know Sue’s position of the sales tax renewal?
[quote]Phil said . . .
But none of your other criticisms have the same impact. [/quote]
Phil, what evidence do you have that none of David’s other criticisms have the same impact?
I find David’s criticisms of Saylor, Asmundsen and Souza to be extremely powerful. There were long, intense discussions on this Blog about whether a vote for Souza in the last election was good for Measure J or not. When I argued that a vote for Rob Roy was a wasted vote and that the best strategy in support of the renewal of Measure J “as is” was to get Souza to make a statement/commitment to that effect and then hold him to it. David was a strident voice against that strategy because Souza couldn’t be trusted. That was 100% criticism of Souza. Any criticism by David of Sue over the past week has been no more than 50%, more often than not, significantly less than 50%.
[quote]Greg Sokolov said . . .
3. We also saw Lamar decide to vote for WHR??? Why, Lamar, when you ran your campaign (along with Stan Forbes) as “slow growth” choices; in fact the No on X website endorsed Lamar; why the vote; we’ll probably never get his vote (but I bet he “owed” Bill Ritter one) [/quote]
Lamar did not vote for WHR. Lamar voted for putting the question of WHR to a vote of the citizens of Davis. What exactly is wrong with allowing the citizens to have their say?
[i]Don: Do you know Sue’s position of the sales tax renewal?[/i]
She’s for it. At least in this aspect, she has a consistent position. She has said that the city budget is heading for a train wreck. If you’re upset that the train is going to wreck, it makes no sense to spike the tracks in protest.
My position is that I would suggest renewing the sales tax, but I don’t care so super much. As I see it, Davis could easily afford higher city taxes, or some service cuts. I think that one thing that could really hurt the city government is an extended strike.
[quote] Observer said . . .
I don’t see Sue being elected again. I fear the developers and firemen have won. Too bad; for all of us. [/quote]
Observer, I couldn’t disagree more. There is a core of people who will vote for Sue purely based on her positions on the issues. As much as some of those voters may dislike Sue’s behavior (at times), they dislike the behavior of the developers even more . . . 10 times more. In addition, the firemen are a minor sidebar compared to the developers in the eyes of those same voters.
The only way I can see Sue losing an election will be if a candidate steps forward who is spot on on the same key issues as Sue. However, since no such candidate has thrown their hat in the ring, and so far doesn’t appear to be likely to, I think you can safely say Sue will continue to be on the Council as long as she stands for election.
Greg: I gather from reading DG that (1) the last sales tax increase went almost entirely to offset excessive increases in head count and overall employee compensation, and (2) the new sales tax is needed just to keep the city at par. Are these conclusions accurate in your opinion? If so, how can one rationally support another increase in the absence of legitimate reform? Delaying the train wreck seems like a pretty weak argument.
[i](1) the last sales tax increase went almost entirely to offset excessive increases in head count and overall employee compensation[/i]
As phrased, this part of your question can’t make sense. The city has a labor-based budget, so the only possible uses of higher revenue are either more employees, or higher compensation per employee. Read this aloud and see what’s wrong with it: “The increase in the cookie budget went entirely to an EXCESSIVE increase in the number of cookies AND the cost of each cookie.”
The real question is whether the more noble use of more revenue is more employees or higher compensation. Presumably you think that it’s more employees. My answer is that the increase in compensation costs was necessarily “excessive”, if it was forced by CalPERS.
If instead you think that revenue doesn’t have a noble use, then I suppose that you should always oppose all taxes.
[i](2) the new sales tax is needed just to keep the city at par.[/i]
Again, the question doesn’t make sense. It’s not an entirely new sales tax, it’s a sales tax renewal. A renewal is something that keeps revenue sources at par, so of course the city might want it to keep their operations at par.
[i]If so, how can one rationally support another increase in the absence of legitimate reform?[/i]
Again, a tax renewal isn’t an increase, and David did not really show that the most of the sales tax was new sugar for city employees. I assume that you’re someone’s employee. Suppose that dental care is one of your benefits, and suppose that it triples in price because the state revokes a subsidy. Does that mean that your employer is spoiling you, even if the trips to the dentist don’t change in any way?
[i]Delaying the train wreck seems like a pretty weak argument.[/i]
Look, if you want fewer city services and lower taxes, you should revoke the sales tax. If you want to continue services and current taxes, you should renew the sales tax. If you want a train wreck, you should demand services without taxes to pay for them.
[i]There is a core of people who will vote for Sue purely based on her positions on the issues. As much as some of those voters may dislike Sue’s behavior (at times), they dislike the behavior of the developers even more . . . 10 times more.[/i]
Do you know the old quote from Barry Goldwater that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice? The truism in Davis is that extremism in opposition to growth is no vice. I’m wondering right now whether this core group would elect Ward Churchill ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill[/url]) to the Davis City Council, if he said that developers are “little Eichmanns”.
Even so, there are two mechanisms that tend to reduce the number of radicals who can be elected to the city council. One is Measure J itself, which lets voters defeat growth regardless of who is on the city council. The other is that even most radicals eventually get their fill of radicalism. The scene of a radical council member berating a despicable moderate, while the latter is laid flat with chest pains, could possibly tip the balance on the city council from 2 out of 5 to 1 out of 5. But I’m not really predicting that; it’s just a speculation.
“Look, if you want fewer city services and lower taxes, you should revoke the sales tax. If you want to continue services and current taxes, you should renew the sales tax. If you want a train wreck, you should demand services without taxes to pay for them.”
How about we demand that our city council must be more fiscally responsible?
Don Saylor’s political strength in the Supervisor district that he will be running in is, based upon his performance in past Davis elections, relatively weak and a candidate that campaigns on a populist platform will have an excellent chance of defeating him. Don Saylor as Supervisor will not remove his influence on our City Council. With the prohibitions of the Brown Act removed concerning our Council members privately consulting with each other, he will still be, practically speaking, sitting at Ruth’s side on the dais, “counseling” her every move.
[i]How about we demand that our city council must be more fiscally responsible?[/i]
So far, Sue, Lamar, and the Vanguard have stirred up an anti-spending crusade with two main arguments. One argument is based on fear, that the city is heading for a colossal fiscal crisis. The other argument is based on resentment, that city residents are getting bled dry by overpaid city workers. The Vanguard has expressed these arguments with various exciting but tendentious charts and figures, and intimations that the city council majority isn’t very loyal to the public. Sue and Lamar have taken a similar approach in city council meetings.
Fear and resentment are fine emotions that are often very effective with voters. But they also tend to undermine rational thinking.
If you really want to know whether the city is heading for a fiscal crisis or wasting money on its employees, the city could pay for an outside review to study that question objectively. In particular, the outside review could go beyond a simple yes they’re overpaid or no they’re not overpaid, to estimating how much the city could realistically save with tougher wage negotiations.
One thing that worries me is that city “progressives” might respond to such an outside review with hostile questions and tendentious interpretations, if they don’t like what the review has to say.
The Don Saylor Supervisor campaign could be an excellent test model of the democratic(small d) possibilities for Davis Council district elections, i.e.,a candidate with the right message but limited resources being able to effectively campaign to a relatively small block of voters and defeat a candidate with almost unlimited resources.
If you really want to know whether the city is heading for a fiscal crisis or wasting money on its employees, the city could pay for an outside review to study that question objectively.
Greg: you are a math professor. Just do the math and it is clear that the levels of compensation for city employees are unsustainable. We don’t need a study. I think Vallejo paid for a study.
I have a friend who is an air traffic controller. He started when Reagan broke the previous union. He makes executive-level pay and will be forced to retire at 56 with a very healthy 70% pension and all health benefits covered for he and his wife. The Federal government reworked all the labor contracts a few years ago, and new controllers will make about 60% of what my friend has been paid, they will retire later and their benefits will be reduced too. Qualified people are still lining up out the door to get these jobs. Apparently the Federal government realized that union compensation and benefit levels had grown to irrational levels and they started again from a clean slate. Why not do this with all city employees? So we screwed up paying these employees too much… let’s at least make sure we fix it for the new replacement hires.
“The city has a labor-based budget, so the only possible uses of higher revenue are either more employees, or higher compensation per employee.”
Greg: This makes no sense. Are you saying that all money from the sales tax goes into a general fund that is 100% devoted to staff compensation.
Davis Resident: No but 71% of the general fund is devoted to staff compensation.
[quote]Greg Kuperberg said . . .
The other is that even most radicals eventually get their fill of radicalism. The scene of a radical council member berating a despicable moderate, while the latter is laid flat with chest pains, could possibly tip the balance on the city council from 2 out of 5 to 1 out of 5. But I’m not really predicting that; it’s just a speculation. [/quote]
Greg, looking at the current situation, I think the 2 out of 5 shift to 1 out of 5 was already well on its way prior to Tuesday night’s events. In simple terms people (of all political persuasions) don’t want to run for Council because the time commitment is humongous and the pay is virtually non-existant. Neither Sydney Vergis nor Joe Krovoza can be called radicals, and there aren’t even any rumors of additional candidates.
Boone: I have a friend who is an air traffic controller.
Your recollection of your friend’s recounting of the salary and benefit status in the post-Reagan labor environment does not comport with the [url]BLS[/url]. Reagan made big publicity points, but in the end the union was reconstituted with wages and benefits close to pre-fired days. Not the best analogy here.
Neutral: You are confused about my point. I wasn’t comparing pre-Reagan and post-Reagan, I was comparing post-Reagan with today. Reagan did a reset because it had grown to irrational levels, and subsequent administrations let it grow to irrational levels again. Apparently the Federal government under Bush did another reset. However, this time they did it working with the unions… probably because the unions learned something from Reagan. For the city, I think we need a similar reset and labor union lesson.
A labor strike in this City is not a very appealing alternative to me. In her op-ed piece of Sunday, Sue Greenwald seems to have her mind made up that mediation is the means to fix the City’s finances, quite possibly at the City’s last best offer. Using Reagan and Bush as examples of how this can work (maybe not specifically, but as an example) seems oddly unprogressive.
“Chewing the fat” aside, I thanked Greg Kuperberg earlier for helping, through eloquence, frame the trust issue. I’ve read in this comment session Sue accuse David Greenwald of some conspiracy against her. This is a completely irrational accusation, and one that David did a fine job defending against. But as an observer, I beg for everyone’s pardon if I just can’t trust Sue on this, especially, and perhaps principally, because I fail to see the overriding “progressive” ideal in taking the City through a process of mediation.
It’s almost been a week since the inappropriate behavior of some council members. I have no desire to attack any of them to be honest. But I do find myself concerned about the impact their behavior will have upon our young adults’ recent involvement in the political process. Remember… it was only a few weeks ago that the city saw (maybe for the first time?) an ENORMOUS turnout of young adults (some in high school!) at City Council to speak about homelessness. I’ve NEVER seen anything like it! There was energy and passion and conviction by a demographic LONG absent from public debate. Will they continue to be involved in the political process after such disgusting behavior? Time will tell. But with the example put before them last Tuesday, I wouldn’t be surprised if they slowly recede into the woodwork once again.
[i]Using Reagan and Bush as examples of how this can work (maybe not specifically, but as an example) seems oddly unprogressive.[/i]
Well, to understand the context, some of the commenters here who want the city council to crush collective bargaining would never call themselves progressives; they are conservative/libertarian types.
If you imagine the political spectrum as a line, you might think that the far right and far left are as far away as possible. But the political spectrum arguably closes to make a circle, so that the far left and far right are actually the same point at infinity. Political analysts sometimes call this “both ends against the middle”, but that phrase does not do justice to what in mathematics is called “the one-point compactification”. (This is as opposed to the two-point compactification of a line, where positive and negative infinity are opposite endpoints.)
The proposal to crush collective bargaining in Davis started with the progressive slogans that city compensation isn’t “sustainable” and isn’t “equitable”. But it fits at least as well with the Republican ideology that taxation is theft and unions are too powerful. So you could argue that this stance is politically at the point at infinity.
The proposal to crush collective bargaining in Davis started with progressive… But it fits at least as well with the Republican ideology…
]A federal judge made a groundbreaking ruling earlier this month that the labor contracts of the bankrupt City of Vallejo can be overturned, but he is pushing for a settlement that would avoid nullifying the contracts.
A lawyer for the city’s labor unions said yesterday that one of the sticking points in the talks is a city demand that new hires and retirees begin paying 25 percent of the cost of their health care.
Some think the ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Michael McManus in Sacramento on March 13 may prompt other cash-strapped cities to consider bankruptcy as a way to break costly labor contracts.
Jeff
As I am sure you kno9w private companies have used bankruptcy as a mechanism to break labor contracts.
In my opinion both sides (labor and management) have acted irresponsibly. Its inevitable that some of these contracts are not sustainable. I am not referring to Davis in particular here. I hope we have not reached that stage, but the situation for many other central valley cities is far more dire than ours.
We need a CC who understands these issues.
[quote]Well, to understand the context, some of the commenters here who want the city council to crush collective bargaining would never call themselves progressives; they are conservative/libertarian types.[/quote]
Jeff isn’t the one that calls me to question. I don’t believe I misunderstand Jeff’s role on this blog (and Jeff, if you are still reading, understand that I appreciate that role), but based on a regular theme of comment from a number of the regular self identified progressives on this blog, I often question my own progressive identity. I suppose that the recent events of last week are what primarily brought me to actually start contributing comments. A little doubt can be a good thing at times and can translate into a healthy sense of humility.
As for unsustainable and inequitable…..in this context I’ll have to give those words a little more consideration. Infinity is, and always will be, something intriguing to me.
[i]A little doubt can be a good thing at times and can translate into a healthy sense of humility.[/i]
Sure, I totally agree.
Anyway, if Vallejo is the big cautionary tale, Vallejo’s severe labor contract problems began with a 1969 strike that led to binding arbitration. Their city council wasn’t pals with the unions when Vallejo began to unravel.
On the subject of self-doubt: When Reagan actually was president, I was a brash, strongly anti-Communist libertarian. I didn’t trust unions one iota at that time either, and I still don’t really like them. But, decades later, I understand them a little better.
If there is an odd-ball, I’m the pro-unionist, who has worked for unions, who is arguing for reform in the pension structure especially at the top where it has become unsustainable in my view. On the city side, I really draw a line at fire-management-and department heads. The other key point, is that while I’m very pro-union, I think the union system works well in a collective bargaining setting where there is actual push-back from management and it is through that give and take that we end up with the best possible outcome for both sides.
To take another view, I’m very in favor of the rights of the accused, but I would hate to have the system set up so that the defense dominates anymore than I would like the prosecution to dominate in the criminal justice system. It works best when there is true representation for both sides.
Final point, liberals need to understand that government is not a bottomless pit of money, there are finite resources, as such, we need to determine where our priorities lie. I have always said my priorities are with education and social services in government. That doesn’t mean other things aren’t important, but it does mean I’m going to be looking for ways to save money. Without doing that you end up with huge debts and taxpayer revolts and that kills liberalism as much as anything else.
Phil: It is very difficult to “use” bankruptcy since a judge has to rule on its validity. Either the company or city is bankrupt, or it is not.
You are correct that Davis is not alone in this problem, and yes there are many communities in worse shape. I truly believe that real solutions will require the significant abolishment of most of our public employee unions. When you read about Vallejo you can understand why… the Vallejo firefighters union insists that the city is hiding money somewhere. There is no trust, so there is no reasonable compromise. That situation has not changed since unions gained so much legal and political power. However, what has changed is the economy. We are fully leveraged and in a big financial hole. We rode two artificial economic expansions (tech stocks and housing), and both private and public labor benefited. Private labor has already shed most of these artificial gains, but public unions are holding on tooth and nail. The inevitable outcome will be bankrupt public institutions and broken unions. CA public employee unions are holding out until they see daylight for throwing millions of dollars toward an Oregon-style tax increase coup. Unless you see this happening, you have to see more CA cities following in Vallejo’s path filing chapter 9.
but based on a regular theme of comment from a number of the regular self identified progressives on this blog, I often question my own progressive identity
I know I make the mistake of using too many ideological labels. Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, Conservatives. We are all individuals with ideas born from life experiences that have shaped our worldviews. Some idiot savant grouped all these ideas into categories and labeled them. We now cling to the labels as part of our identity. I think the truth is that we are much more individually complex and interesting than that. However, with the political polarization happening in this country, it makes we wonder if humans all have a biological need for tribalism… political tribalism now.
Recently, I read a list of pop culture myths. One was the myth that professional hockey players are violent. The truth is that professional hockey players fight on the ice because they are passionate and competitive, but then go have a friendly drink together. Out of all professional athletes, hockey players are the least likely to break the law or cause trouble off the ice. With respect to this Ruth-Sue spat, as long as they keep it on the ice, I don’t have too much of a problem. I have an idea though… I suggest they don sumo wrestler suits and foam bats and sell tickets to their combat. The proceeds can be donated to our schools less any Band Aids required.
But, decades later, I understand them a little better.
Greg: you must be older than me!
[i]Greg: you must be older than me![/i]
Not sure what to make of that comment. LinkedIn says that you started college in 1986, while someone wrote a Wikipedia page for me that spills the beans on my age.
This is a ridiculous issue. It’s a non-issue actually. If you watch the entire video, not just the carefully-chosen snippet David decided to post, you’d see why Sue was contending that Ruth lied about what transpired in closed session. And all the hysteria on this blog about what followed (also not shown) was a very slanted picture of what actually happened.
Of course Sue could have used a different word or phrase to express her feelings, and obviously should have. Saying that Ruth was “lying” about THAT issue([u]not[/u] “a liar”), was an angry, frustrated, non-PC way of defending her record and her position. But Ruth’s anxiety attack was NOT Sue’s fault, and any suggestion that it was serves some other purpose.
All this bruhaha about “Sue’s message is the right one, but the messenger is not” is complete nonsense and I question the motives of those who keep harping on it. They are creating [u]exactly[/u] the divisiveness that many suggest is at the root of Davis’ “progressive problem”. They are helping create this divisiveness and towards what end?
The truth is, Sue is the ONLY one on the council who is fighting for fiscal responsibility. Any suggestion that Davis is in fine shape, or at worst, dealing effectively with modest financial problems, is (okay–what’s a politically correct way of saying this) prevaricating.
What kind of politician do you want representing you on the city council? One who continues to embrace sweetheart deals for their major contributors while calling them “concessions”? One who smiles and nods and shakes your hand while giving away the store for his or her own political or financial ends? Or one who calls a spade a space (oops–am I going to be accused of racism now???)
I’ll take a jerk over a crook any day, but the truth is, it’d take the patience of Job to fight against the council majority day after day after day, and take all the demeaning abuse that Sue does, without sometimes losing her temper. This town consists of a huge progressive majority that continues, time after time, to vote non-progressives into office. Sue’s got your backs–you should have hers too.
Crilly: This article wasn’t about that. Did you read the article?
[quote]If there is an odd-ball, I’m the pro-unionist, who has worked for unions, who is arguing for reform in the pension structure especially at the top where it has become unsustainable in my view. On the city side, I really draw a line at fire-management-and department heads.[/quote]
What’s the issue re: unions? Management is NOT a union… they have no bylaws, pay no dues, and are represented by their own members. Department heads represent themselves.
You like unions? In the 50’s, you couldn’t be employed by a certain airline if you didn’t belong to the union. You couldn’t join the union unless you were employed by the airline. The “fix”?… pay the shop steward ~ $75 (1953 dollars) and problem went away… are the SEIU members still going thru that?
“Management is NOT a union…”
Exactly my point.
“are the SEIU members still going thru that? “
State employees don’t have to be members of the union.
David–of course this article is about that! The title is “Sue Greenwald: the good and the bad on display this week.” The Bee editorial would never have been written if this blog hadn’t turned the molehill into a mountain! And though you continue to praise her for her positions, and her willingness to fight the council majority for true fiscal structural reform, you do so in a way that totally undermines her impact and credibility. I can’t believe that you don’t get that.
This is exactly the divisiveness among our “progressive” voices that I’m talking about. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth–you praise her out of one side and rip her to shreds out of the other. Did you make the call to the Bee to get the “dump on Sue” ball rolling? If not, who did? The Bee editorial staff sure as hell don’t watch the streaming video of our council meetings!
“Did you make the call to the Bee to get the “dump on Sue” ball rolling? If not, who did? The Bee editorial staff sure as hell don’t watch the streaming video of our council meetings!”
Hey Crlly, how about Channel 3, Channel 10, Local NPR station, etc? who contacted all these outlets…or suddenly did they all simultaneously decide that local Davis politics was “breaking news”; come on David, why don’t you finally “come out” and confess that you are the one who felt the need to spread this all to the local news outlets??? Were you hoping for some quotes as the “local Davis blogger” to help your readership and interest in the Vanguard???
Crilly:
“You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth–you praise her out of one side and rip her to shreds out of the other. “
No, I’m praising her on the issues and criticizing her conduct which was completely unacceptable and you were not there to see it and cannot judge it.
Did I call the BEE? No, I didn’t. Hudson Sangree who does the beat lives in Davis. He reads the Vanguard and he reads the Enterprise. Channel 10 called me at 8 pm and came over for a quick interview, I never spoke to Channel or NPR.
The job of the Press is to report. The issue isn’t who called what news outlet, the issue should be, if Sue doesn’t want the bad press, don’t act in a manner that attracts it.
“There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”
Brendan Behan
Irish author & dramatist (1923 – 1964)
David Greenwald writes that Sue Greenwald “crossed lines earlier this week” in reference to her objecting to the mayor lying about whether Sue made a motion in closed door session. Excuse me but, THIS IS THE ISSUE! Citizens are far more concerned with the integrity of our mayor [and city council members defending her] than Sue’s “behavior” as she fought not to be interrupted. What about the mayor’s “behavior”?!?!
Just for the record:
From CBS13 news: “Mayor Ruth Asmundson didn’t think the councilwoman had made a motion to lower the city cafeteria payment.
The mayor now admits, she may have been wrong.”
http://cbs13.com/local/Davis.Mayor.heated.2.1456370.html
Not sure what to make of that comment.
Just that, apparently, unlike you, I haven’t lived enough decades to understand unions better.
I understand the side of human nature that always wants more and cannot easily accept less. I also understand how lack of trust can corrupt any relationship. However, I still do not understand how the union organization can fail so drastically to cultivate and conserve the host that feeds it. There is something aberrant in unionized labor’s behavior. Even the coldest of CEOs has some natural inclination toward self-preservation. Yet unions will strike their failing company or city until it collapses around them. Historically, unions threatened strikes to better working conditions and wages that fell below the line of decency. Today unions threaten strikes for better wages and benefits that exceed common sense. Either they practice some irrational form of long-term, self-destructive, monopolistic extortion… or I am not yet old enough to truly understand.
This is why I expect bankruptcy to be the end game.
I thought Ruth’s comment about Sue causing her to go to the emergency room was low and very painful. I would rather be called a liar than have someone say to the city that I caused them to go to the ER. my heart goes out to you sue. However, I do think sue should deeply appologize for being rude to ruth and Tell her tHat she was innacurate and apologize for using the word liar. innacurate would have been a more appropriate word.
anyways, I am glad I am not on city council and I am very gratefull for all that sue has done because she has the heart to care so deep about this city. I know I could not be clear headed to be on the city council and Lamar and sue have sacraficed their health and well being as well as all the members on the coucil fighting for what they beleive.
Boone: or I am not yet old enough to truly understand.
You are presumably old enough to read any number of short histories of collective bargaining generally, and the differences between public and private unions. Try a little google-ing around. And age has nothing to do with it.
“David Greenwald writes that Sue Greenwald “crossed lines earlier this week” in reference to her objecting to the mayor lying about whether Sue made a motion in closed door session. Excuse me but, THIS IS THE ISSUE! Citizens are far more concerned with the integrity of our mayor [and city council members defending her] than Sue’s “behavior” as she fought not to be interrupted. What about the mayor’s “behavior”?!?!”
Exactly, nice post. Ruth interupted and started the whole mess and it was Sue with backup from Lamar showed that Ruth was wrong. For Ruth to say that Sue had caused her to go to the emergency room four times was a low blow, it was Ruth that caused Ruth to go to emergency. If Ruth could handle her emotions better, as any mayor should, one could thing she could keep her anxiety under control. If she can’t, Ruth needs to step down office.
rusty, you are approaching this as an “either-or” proposition rather than as a “both-and” proposition. I don’t think anyone has objected to Sue’s efforts to get the correct information on the record. Your points about Ruth’s reaction to Sue’s efforts in that regard are right on.
With that said, once Sue got the correct information on the record (as well as making Ruth look foolish), she could have stopped. Instead, Sue forged on with her attempts to get Ruth to apologize to her. What useful purpose would an apology have served? Even more to the point, what possible “public good” would an apology have yielded? Even the most ardent of Sue’s supporters has to know that the answers to those two questions are “None” and “None.”
No, Sue had been interupted one too many times and with Ruth’s assertion that Sue was lying I think Sue had “had it”. Good for Sue that she called Ruth on it and demanded an apology, it was about time.
rusty, you may be right, which brings us back to brendan behan’s advice that “There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.”
Oi, what’s all this talk about Syd Vicious?
“Juicy” visuals and “juicy” copy that are simple and sensational…. THAT’s what gets the attention of the MONEY-MAKING media. This is David Greenwald’s blog and he gets to promote it( along with himself) in any way he chooses. We readers get to come to our own conclusions about the importance, relevance and motivation involved in this sad spin-off on the Jerry Springer show.