But in the end, it was Dan Wolk on a strange 3-1 vote. Stephen Souza had voted for Dan Wolk as his candidate in every vote until the last vote and only voted for Paul Boylan on the last vote, but it was not enough to continue the process.
Dan Wolk certainly did not take the vote for granted.
“This was such a strong group of applicants I was very impressed and I really didn’t know how this was going to go,” Mr. Wolk told reporters after the vote. “I just tried to give it my best shot, to make my pitch so to speak, and hope that they would pick me and they did.”
“I did not think by any means I was going to get this, I really thought that there were some good applicants out there,” he continued.
Despite some conclusion about voting process, the night went largely according to plan with few hiccups.
The first round of questions were long and tedious with each council applicant getting 90 seconds to make an impression for each of four first-round questions.
The Vanguard caught up with some of the candidates who did not make it, to ask them about the experience and process.
Steve Williams said, “I thought it was great. I was able to learn a lot.”
“However, I do wish there was more one-on-one time between candidates and council members, to allow us to better explain ourselves,” he added.
Sherelene Harrison added, “I loved the process, it allowed me to get back involved with the community. It allowed me to learn a lot from the council members; however, the downside of the process is it does not allow for the council members to really get to know the candidates.”
For Dan Wolk, perhaps the toughest question he had to face was how he would include the time-consuming council commitment with a busy life that includes a challenging job as an attorney for Solano County and a young family with a two-year-old daughter and another child due in May.
In response to the question, he said that, to be frank, he did struggle with the decision for personal reasons. However, he said, “My sense from talking to them is that I can find that balance. I have time when the children go to bed.”
This is not a small issue, as it was for these reasons that Councilmember Lamar Heystek ended up not seeking re-election.
Council applicants were quizzed on the burning questions of the day, everything from unfunded liabilities to redevelopment to the one-percent growth target and even Richards Underpass.
Asked afterwards if he was surprised that certain issues did not come up, Dan Wolk listed ConAgra and Senior Housing.
Mr. Wolk mentioned that there was an email from Choices for Healthy Aging that said they had submitted a question, but it was never asked.
“I don’t know if that the community maybe doesn’t think those are as important as the budget or redevelopment or unfunded liabilities – I don’t know,” he said.
He was also was surprised that the issue of running in 2012 did not come up. He said he has not made any decision as of yet, he has been so focused on this process.
However, his focus is definitely on the next fifteen months and tackling the problem of unfunded liabilities.
“I think a lot of the issues that I brought up during the application process are things that I’m going to try to work with the council in the next fifteen months to address,” he told the Vanguard.
“Unfunded liabilities I think is one of biggest issues,” he added. “Our budget, environmental sustainability, affordable housing, there are a number of issues, but I would say unfunded liabilities and the budget are the two biggest issues – and redevelopment.”
In the first round of votes, each coucilmember listed their top four. That eliminated the three most likely candidates to depart – Robert Smith, Vincent Wyatt and Walt Bunter.
However, the charge was to get down to five or less. So each member voted for three and that narrowed the field to Paul Boylan, Kerry Loux, Linda Parfitt and Dan Wolk.
Even at this time, Dan Wolk looked like the eventual favorite, as he secured votes from all four of the candidates in the first and second rounds.
If there was a question that would prove pivotal, it was a question from Rochelle Swanson about what to do with Richards, Olive Drive, and the Richards Underpass that was followed up by Sue Greenwald as to whether people support widening the underpass.
Dan Wolk tried to split the baby, arguing that while he supports the idea, there are complicating factors that include political issues, financial issues, and also the fact that if you look at the traffic flow, it is not clear if you open one bottleneck it will not just bottleneck the downtown even if widened.
This was a key statement because it was that reason that many eventually voted against widening the underpass. However, Paul Boylan largely supported it, arguing that if we have the money we should do it since it is a bottleneck.
The next round of votes eliminated Linda Parfitt and left Kerry Loux as the third candidate with Mr. Boylan and Mr. Wolk.
It was here that we had one of the more unusual questions, from Sue Greenwald, about which local eateries they would pick during council meetings.
Kerry Loux at one point suggested a potluck, to which Sue Greenwald responded, “You don’t have any idea how hard we work on Tuesdays.”
While Ms. Loux was eliminated in that round, it seems unlikely it was related to her choice of food.
And, of course, the night would not be complete without the latest Stephen Souza moment. Councilmember Souza had not voted for Paul Boylan until the final round. He voted for Dan Wolk in every round. However, in the final round he voted for Boylan.
Was this strategic, hoping to tie it up and force a runoff to Kerry Loux? Or was it just Souza being Souza. The rest of the council voted for Dan Wolk and he will be formally seated next week.
The Vanguard took steps not to play favorites during the process. We felt that the final four were very strong.
We were a bit concerned with Kerry Loux on some of the issues, however. She had the backing of the Chamber of Commerce, going on. However, we were concerned on growth issues. She talked about the one-percent growth target in terms that developers might see as friendly. She was clearly trying to split the baby, however.
At one point she suggested that we need to set internal needs, and respond to those needs. At the same time, she talked about looking to infill growth, that we do not need more development right now, and we should be proactive rather than waiting for the developers to come.
Paul Boylan was a bit of mystery. At times he appeared to not take the process seriously, however, despite showing off his trademark humor, he had a very strong showing.
One of the councilmembers said he made it a very tough decision, but in the end they felt that he was strong on the fiscal issue but weaker on other important issues, whereas Dan Wolk was more rounded and more familiar with a variety of Davis issues.
Dan Wolk was very strong throughout, as well, and in the end council likely felt that he was the one least likely to upset the apple cart. He has painted himself as more moderate than his mother. He also has a good and pleasant disposition that will blend well with the emerging council majority.
“Even though I sit at the same dais when I’m on the social services commission, it definitely had a different feel. When I sat down it had this profound effect on me that said, okay I’m on the city council (or will be formally next week).”
As one of our late commenters put it last night, “I think it is pretty remarkable if one remembers the council we had one year ago.”
At the end of the day, that is likely what the council had in mind. We will see how this all works out, but it looks like Dan Wolk will be a solid addition to the council and that is really all we can ask for. Next week begins the real challenge, and Dan Wolk appears ready to jump in and contribute.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I was only able to watch part of the proceedings but Wolk did strike me as knowledgeable and composed and he would likely get up to speed quickly. Having an attorney on the CC is also an advantage, especially given some of the poor legal advice our Council has received lately. I am sure he has other political ambitions, but if his ambition translates into hard work on the Council, we all benefit.
The mood of the country is changing fast on the defined benefit issue so Mr. Wolk and our Council now have the wind at their backs–maybe they can do something.
Remarkable field of candidates, good choice, good meeting management, perhaps a sign of things to come?
Congratulations to all who took the courage to run the gauntlet, and a high-five to Dan Wolk for coming out the other end of the gauntlet the winner!!!
[quote]… one of the more unusual questions, from Sue Greenwald, about which local eateries they would pick during council meetings.[/quote]That moment, that question, begs the question of how relevant certain council people are… in my opinion, the correct answer would have been along the lines of “How does that possibly relate to my fitness to serve on the City Council?” And it may also go to the motivation (dinners, medical/dental benefits, ‘retiree’ benefits “earned” by Council members after 5 years, earned by new city hires after 20 years) of some folks who seek election. Is Don Saylor “triple-dipping”?
I think it was mainly a moment of levity mixed with some pragmatism that council has to decide where to order from when they have closed session followed by a five hour meeting.
BTW thanks, David, for your innovative coverage.
Well, though anyone with my Facebook knows how I felt about the first couple rounds and need for choice voting… I was really impressed with the questioning and selection process for the final four candidates. They were all sharp, and would all make excellent candidates for council should they decide to run.
Though I personally was biased towards my friend Dan Wolk, who I felt was the strongest choice, I don’t think I would have been disappointed had Boylan been picked. He clearly adept at handling and understanding the issues, and had a bluntness combined with a snarky attitude that I really enjoyed and think would be good for the council. I genuinely hope he reconsiders and runs in the next election.
Loux was also very impressive. I didn’t really know her before the meeting, but her answers were solid, and she clearly had a good grasp of the issues.
Congratulations to Mr. Wolk.
Oh, and nice Kenneth the Page picture of Dan, David =p
I think Dan will be a great addition to the City Council. Does anyone know what part of town he lives in?
[i]Is Don Saylor “triple-dipping”? [/i]
No. His time of service on the Davis City Council and his new service on the Yolo County Board of Supervisors do not affect in any way his CalPERS pension or other retirement benefits with the State of California*. He does, however, get a full cash-out (roughly $20,000 per year) for the medical benefits he is not getting from Yolo County. That does not make Saylor unique. I think the majority of members of the Board of Supervisors have cashed-out this medical benefit. Doing so increases their cash pay by 33%.
*Source ([url]https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xA63uLb6tRgDj_PUB-33-2011 1 1.pdf[/url]): [i][b]Elective Position[/b]: You can serve in an elective office without effect on your retirement allowance unless all or a portion of your retirement allowance is based on previous service in the same elected office.[/i]
One thing to note about public employees taking a second pension: it is (according to Daniel Borenstein of the Contra Costa Times) quite common among “retired” public safety workers. For those on 3% at 50, the average non-disability retirement from CalPERS is roughly age 54. Someone who retires that young can take a job with a public agency in California which is not in the CalPERS system. Most of the more populous counties are not in CalPERS. San Francisco County, for example, has its own system. Same thing with Sacramento County ([url]http://www.scers.org/default.htm[/url]), LA County, Orange County, etc. So in order to “double dip,” a police captain in Davis, for example, could retire with his full pension at age 50 or 51 and take a new job with Sacramento County as, say, an investigator. He could work 15 years in that job. During those 15 years he would make his $110,000 a year pension from his former job in Davis and another $120,000 a year for his work in Sacramento County. Then when he is 66, he can retire from Sac County, and for the rest of his life he will receive two pensions and full medical benefits for himself and his spouse (and if he happens to have a son under 22 for him, too). There are fewer opportunities for firefighters to earn a second pension as firefighters. However, according to Borenstein, a good percentage of people working for non-CalPERS agencies in fire department management positions (like fire chiefs and fire investigators) in the Bay Area are double dippers.
[i]”I think Dan will be a great addition to the City Council. Does anyone know what part of town he lives in?”[/i]
West Davis in the Evergreen subdivision, just west of Shasta Drive and east of Highway 113.
Stalker.
East Davis skunked again!
Great job, David, on your reporting of the entire process. Your experiment last night was an especially impressive conclusion of what certainly was the best media coverage of the whole deal!
[quote]But in the end, it was Dan Wolk on a strange 3-1 vote. Stephen Souza had voted for Dan Wolk as his candidate in every vote until the last vote and only voted for Paul Boylan on the last vote, but it was not enough to continue the process.[/quote]
What Steve did is called a mitzvah – a good deed. Steve did me a mitzvah by voting for me in that last round. From the very first vote, it was clear that Dan was going to be selected. Don’t argue with me about that. It is utterly untrue, after the first vote results, that “anything could happen.” When all of the council members split on 9 applicants but consistently agree on one, that one is going to win, and did win. The rest is political theatre.
So it was absolutely certain that, in that last vote, Dan would win. Steve chose to sooth the rough edges of a 4-0 sweep by giving me one vote. It was an exceedingly kind thing to do. I honestly appreciate the gesture, and speaks well for Steve. To paraphrase Jewel, in the end, kindness matters.
With that said, I am extremely happy with the selection result. Like most Davisites, I like having confidence in my City Council – confidence that has been shaken recently due to the financial crisis we now find ourselves in and the seeming inability of the Council to do anything meaningful about it. Of all the applicants – me included – Dan stands the best chance of helping the City Council break through the procedural, conceptual and political deadlock that is presently dooming us.
[quote]Boylan… had a bluntness combined with a snarky attitude that I really enjoyed and think would be good for the council.[/quote]
I am sure you will forgive me for being a bit blunt and snarky, but, although you wold have enjoyed it, the City Council wanted very much to avoid that, and did. I’m not being critical or cynical in observing this: I am being realistic. In a choice between, on the one hand, an amicable, capable, incredibly well-informed young man with powerful political connections and, on the other hand, a snarky old man with none, the City Council’s choice was a clear one. And the right one.
I disagree Paul.
First of all, you did make it to the final round. Obviously they must have liked you enough.
Second, Dan could have been everyone’s third or fourth choice but not their first or second choice. You did a good job last night, so did Dan. I would suggest we leave it at that.
Paul,
I genuinely meant what I said about thinking your attitude would be good for the council. Beyond your grasp of the issues and solutions to them (not all of which I necessarily agreed with, but found to be well-reasoned), your candor is something very much needed. Davis gets too caught up often in people playing politics, and people taking themselves or issues too dramatically.
It was really refreshing having someone come up and say “Yeah, might not be popular, but this is how it is.” Someone with some light-hearted, snarky, almost Daily Show esque humor about the absurdity of things and how we need to lighten up (for example, your own comments here about your “commute” and choice of automobile). We need that more around here.
I genuinely meant what I said, I hope you do choose to run for Council in the next election, and you’d have my support.
Dr. Wu notes: “Having an attorney on the CC is also an advantage…” He may not know it but Mayor Krovoza is a King Hall graduate who practiced water law for several years before returning to his previous profession with the Institute of Transportation Studies.
Also, although some might have been happy with Boylan, his comments about the need for more parking in downtown Davis and widening Richards, made him less desirable to me than Kerry Loux, who I was very happy seeing in the final three.
Justin – Don’t get me wrong: I agree that I would have been an excellent addition to the City Council for all of the reasons you articulate. My argument is, in the end, those qualities were not what the Council was looking for. I’m not upset. If I were in their shoes, confronted with choosing either me or Dan, I would have chosen Dan. The fact they did reinforces my good opinion of them all.
[quote] genuinely meant what I said, I hope you do choose to run for Council in the next election, and you’d have my support.[/quote]
I accept and am grateful for your sentiment – and your support – but I am not going to run for Council. Nor will I participate in any of the fine committees Davis offers. I am going to go back to doing what I’ve always done.
With the exception of participating here. I like it here. I like the people I’ve met here. I’m going to keep doing this (even though I was told many, many times that my participation here hurt my chances of being selected; I kind of like that, too).
I told my wife this morning I want to host a BBQ at my home for the Vanguardians. She said “Okay, but only if you use your own separate property funds to pay for it and only if I don’t have to clean up afterwards.”
Everything is a f***ing negotiation. Everything. But the deal is done. David, Don, Justin, Rich, Dr. Wu, Mr. Toad, Biddlin, Elaine, JustSaying, Medwoman, Observer, wdf1, Avatar, Davisite2 – all of you (even hpierce) – party at my East Davis estate in the near future.
With a guest of your choice, of course.
I’d love to take you up on that, Paul. Allow me to add my appreciation for your candor and good humor.
Maybe they should use this process for selecting commission members.
Not sure why the focus on Souza’s vote. It was more interesting to me that Krovoza voted for Boylan and Loux to make it to the final round without Wolk. Then, in the final round, voted for Wolk.
[quote]Also, although some might have been happy with Boylan, his comments about the need for more parking in downtown Davis and widening Richards, made him less desirable to me[/quote]
And not just you. It was apparently a serious political error to openly express a desire for better parking and a yearning to fix the abomination that is the Richards Underpass. But I couldn’t help it. I simply adore smoothly flowing traffic, and my passion for automobiles overcame my nascent political sensibilities.
I’ll know better next time.
Paul, it’s comments like that which make me pray you’ll change your mind and run in the next election after all.
Paul. The best part was you saying ir at least looked like you were thinking, huh ?? for the question of dinner food!!
hpierce: RE the dinner food question: You’ve got to know I was joking. I felt the questioning had gone on long enough, and it was time for a vote.
Sue – I knew you were joking. And I thought it was pretty funny. Perhaps hpierce’s serious take on the question is because it was the kind of joke where you had to be there for it to be funny. That sort of thing happens to me constantly.
[quote]it’s comments like that which make me pray you’ll change your mind and run in the next election after all.[/quote]
I am not one to judge (seriously, I tried to be a judge once: it was hard work and I never got past the “innocent until proven guilty” thing) but that sounds like a frivolous thing to pray for, dude.
And, besides, it is comments like that which render me unelectable here in Davis, yet make me wildly popular in in Coalinga and Gridley.
My favored solution* to the excess demand problem at Richards: during the rush hours and at lunchtime, charge anyone in a car which is designed to seat four or more people $10 to pass through the Subway alone in such cars. For motorcycles, 2-seaters and cars with a driver and at least one passenger, the passage is free.
That will encourage people to ride their bikes or ride the bus or to ride-share. (Supposedly, all lefties love those options as a matter of heartfelt conviction.) A $10 toll will end the traffic jams forever at Richards. And ending the jams will make it easier for fire trucks which race through there regularly to do so.
To collect the $10 from the low-occupancy vehicles which pass through the Subway during the times of excess demand, we simply need to set up a camera on each side (such as those we employ to catch red light scofflaws) and send a collection notice to the car owners in the mail. At $20 for a round-trip, a ride on the W bus will seem a lot more attractive.
All the money made from those tolls can pay for road repairs on Richards and elsewhere in town.
*While I remain opposed to widening Richards Blvd for reasons of 1) cost; 2) widening Richards just moves the problem to downtown; 3) it’s unnecessary most of the day; and 4) its historic importance to our city–the Davis Subway is on the U.S. Register of Historic Places–I would not oppose deepening it. I have been told by Public Works employees that one of the real problems with Richards is that large trucks without experience in Davis will try to pass through the Subway, but get stuck doing so when the top of their cab gets pinned up against the tunnel’s ceiling. So if we generate some millions of dollars with $10 tolls from those who choose to pass through solo in their cars, I would not oppose using some of that money to pay for deepening the Subway.
P.S. I am fully aware that my notion of a toll charge will be far more unpopular than most any other change in policy.
I have no idea why you would be aware of that, Rich. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Voters have had the opportunity to widen Richards more than once. In the last instance, the proposal was supported strongly by nearly every local officeholder. It failed by a wide margin.
As I said, it was a big mistake to push up against that wide margin. I should have equivocated.
[i]”I have no idea why you would be aware of that, Rich. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.”[/i]
I think the reason charging solo drivers a toll is unpopular is because it is tangible. You can feel that $10 snatched from your fingers.
By contrast, the “price” of waiting in traffic is harder to touch. You know it stinks, but it feels like nothing can be done.
Moreover, people who are stuck in traffic all the time also fundamentally understand that there is a capacity issue, and the jam could be solved or at least improved with greater capacity. But if such public infrastructure is agreed upon, everyone will end up paying the bill–the tangible part–but the winners will largely be those regular commuters.
And one more thing: in Davis (and in many other communities) there is a widespread fear or perhaps hatred of new market solutions. People (both left and right) tend to be conspiratorial, thinking that a toll charge designed to depress demand won’t depress demand, but will rather put their money in the pockets of elites.
I think if everyone had a fundamental understanding of microeconomics, the conspiracy thinking would not be a problem. But in reality, it is. Too many people just don’t have a grasp for how a market solution can work. As such, they would rather stick with the known (traffic jam) than the unknown (a steep toll).
To my mind (given my education in economics), a traffic jam is usually the same thing as a bread line in Russia used to be–the result of bad public policy.
Speaking of which … I recall a few conversations in the late 1980s with a Russian linguistics professor (at UCSD, where I did my graduate work) about bread lines. I had told the old Ruskie that bread lines in Russia would end overnight, if Moscow would only allow prices to rise and fall freely. I explained we had gas lines in California when the prices were fixed, and they ended in one day when Jimmy Carter liberalized gas prices.
He said, “You no understand the Russia. Peoples line up days in advance for bread. They have shortage for everything there.”
After the USSR fell apart, he returned to Russia for the first time in decades. He saw me on campus when he came back, and before I could even say hi he said, “You understand Russia. No more lines. They have prices. System good.”
Da. System ochun horosho.
Perhaps if Paul were to charge a significant admission fee to the party he has graciously invited us to, the proceeds could be put towards his desired widening of the Richards entrance. what say you Paul ?
[quote]Perhaps if Paul were to charge a significant admission fee to the party he has graciously invited us to, the proceeds could be put towards his desired widening of the Richards entrance. what say you Paul ?[/quote]
Everyone’s a comedian…