The current city council is a marked improvement over the previous city council in a number of ways – both from a policy and a non-policy perspective. However, one of the most glaring errors that they continue to make is regarding scheduling.
Council was expecting to take up the issue of the water rates at 8:15, and that would have still have run late into the night as the item itself took about six hours. Instead, the item before it took over an hour, and by the time the council was done with their break, they were looking at beginning the item nearly at 9:30.
I have often complained about the fact that the council will schedule more than one major item in an evening. For example, back in June, the council took up ConAgra on the same night that 150 city employees showed up, and that forced the budget discussion in a very hot room until late into the night.
Previous councils made this mistake quite often, and so the discussion on Wildhorse Ranch took place late at night after several less urgent items were considered, the Fire Grand Jury Report by Bob Aaronson took place after midnight following a lengthy discussion on a resolution involving Israel and the Palestinian issue, the council shut down the Human Relations Commission after 3 am after several other lengthy items, and there are too many other examples to mention.
One common error is that the council needs to recognize in advance what items are likely to take a lot of time, determine which items people are turning out to see, and be willing to readjust their agenda to fit these schedules. The council has indeed done this somewhat, but not nearly enough.
What made the September 6 meeting all the worse is that council knew that the water issue had brought out 50 to 75 people, they knew that people would make public comments, and they knew that process alone would take two to three hours.
And yet they scheduled three items before the water item. That included two appeals of Planning Commission rulings. The lengthy one was a home on Oceano Way in which the owner was attempting to expand from five to six bedrooms. It was an issue obviously important to the owner and some of their neighbors, but in the scheme of things, if it impacted the lives of 100 people that would be a high figure.
Nevertheless, the council spent over an hour on that item, as many neighbors came forward to offer their opinions. So while 50 to 75 people waited and many more waited at home, the owners who did not even make the meeting got a hearing on their issue.
This whole thing could have been avoided had the planning commission ruled correctly on this matter from the start, but they rejected the family’s application for a Conditional Use Permit.
They relied on a city ordinance that protected neighbors against owners trying to create a rental unit with many students. However, it was clear that this home was not intended for such use.
“A five-bedroom house is currently under construction on the property and the CUP would allow interior changes to close off two open rooms in order to create two additional bedrooms. Staff’s recommendation would limit the CUP approval to six bedrooms and would require one of the proposed rooms to remain open. The owner has agreed to the restriction and conditions as expressed in the project justification.”
I just have a problem with that use of council time and I hope that council learned a lesson here. You need to really put major items like water rates, that figure to have lengthy public comments and council discussion, on their own agenda. The council will argue this other item should not have taken a lot of time, and I agree, but you never know.
The council compounded the error by attempting to do the entire water item in one sitting. Had they merely taken public comment this past week, and then this week, an open date, they could have discussed and deliberated with no other items on the agenda and they could have taken the four hours it took to debate, and still be finished before midnight.
The fact that there is an open date this week illustrates the absurdity of that meeting running until 3:30 am.
There are a few reforms that council has kept promising to make, upon which they have just not followed through. The schedule and structure of the meetings is huge.
I would recommend the following changes:
First, do not have presentations in regular council meetings. I think they can be on a Thursday night, picking a date with no school board meeting. Once a month, they could have their presentations and awards, and have Davis businesses come in and sponsor the meeting and provide refreshments afterwards. That would prevent the use of 30 to 60 minutes of prime time for presentations.
Second, anticipate items that will bring in large groups of people. You cannot always do that. I understand. But you knew that the water issue was going to bring a lot of members of the public out, you knew ConAgra would. You probably did not know 150 city employees were coming out about the budget, however.
That leads us to three, adjust. You see a large number of people at a meeting, start talking to them before the meeting to find out what they are there to see and whether they plan to talk. Move those items up early. Then put urgent matters. And save the other matters until the end where they can always be postponed. Does that end up inconveniencing city staff? Yeah, but they are getting paid, the members of the public are not. When in doubt, postpone.
Another rule I would say is never start a new item, unless it is certain to be very quick, after 11 pm. That would not have helped here, but we could perhaps add in the following addendum of not being afraid to take public comment one week, and have council discussion the next. The school board has done this on some budget items and it has worked reasonably well.
I just do not believe that great decisions are made after midnight and I have seen a number of times when people became noticeably slower later in the evening and missed key points that should have been made.
Finally, stop having open dates. The council should plan to meet every Tuesday. A lot of the late meetings could be avoided simply by meeting every week and separating big items from each other.
Occasionally, late meetings cannot be helped – but they should be few, and more mitigations should be encouraged to avoid them.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Once again, the council puts a major issue – this time water – behind other issues on the calendar.”
Maybe that was the plan, you have a hot issue with much dissent so put it late in the evening and wear down the protesters. How many were left at 3:20am?
I wasn’t there, but I heard while a lot left, a good number of people remained. I don’t think it was an intentional act by the council to exclude people, certainly during public comment, most remained to speak their piece, after that, the public is not directly participating.
[quote]Does that end up inconveniencing city staff? Yeah, but they are getting paid, the members of the public are not. [/quote]Arrogant, and for the larger part, false. Many of the senior &/or professional staff who are “inconvenienced” are salaried, not hourly, can’t do their primary duties (which they are still expected to complete) at the meeting, and therefore are effectively unpaid. And, if your wishes rule the day, they will sit longer and be paid less.
Please don’t blame “the council”. You show a lot of bias, David. When Don and Ruth were mayor, you placed the blame on the mayor, because the mayor does the scheduling.
[quote]One common error is that the council needs to recognize in advance what items are likely to take a lot of time, determine which items people are turning out to see, and be willing to readjust their agenda to fit these schedules. The council has indeed done this somewhat, but not nearly enough.[/quote]
It isn’t always easy to get things “perfect” or “right”. Perhaps City Council members don’t want to meet every week, bc it would take up too much of their time for what is essentially a nonpaid position.
The bottom line is that the current City Council, and you even concede this, is not trying to game the system and strategically schedule controversial items late at night. I am willing to give the mayor the benefit of the doubt he thought the two items prior to the water issue would take less time than they did. Every person that wanted to speak on the water issue was granted that privilege.
There is no question it was a grueling meeting for City Council members. But had there been only the water issue on the agenda, it still would have gone to 1:30 am in the morning. Let’s face it, this was a mammoth issue like no other…
I don’t demand “perfection” from elected officials, just that they make an honest effort to “get it right” and not “game the system”.
[quote]Does that end up inconveniencing city staff? Yeah, but they are getting paid, the members of the public are not.[/quote]
Staff had to get up the next day and try and function after such a late night. This surface water issue was tough on everyone. It happens… life’s not perfect…
I appreciate the mayor’s honesty and integrity in attempting to schedule items so that each gets a fair hearing and willingness to hear all comments in a respectful manner.
I also appreciate David’s thoughtful suggestions about how things might be scheduled to work more smoothly.
Hopefully those ideas which are not too onerous to council members and staff could be considered and implemented. I especially, having not made it passed 12:30 on the night in question, appreciate the suggestion of splitting public commentary from council deliberation into separate sessions. I had to go to work the next day.
I can only imagine how it must have felt for the council members and staff who had to do the same on three hours less sleep.
I had a sinking feeling when I saw that the mayor had scheduled the water rate hearing after two other substantial items. It was clear to me that the hearing would be running too late for most of the public. Even at around 2:30 in the morning, when I begged the mayor to wrap up the meeting and continue the item, I got nowhere.
It still concerns me that I was now allowed to make my case when people were awake. I am still having to correct misconceptions about what transpired at the meeting because the Enterprise coverage was so sketchy and even the Vanguard coverage was uncharacteristically incomplete.
Democracy does suffer when important items are discussed in the wee hours of the morning.
There was no reason not to schedule the water item first, take public comment and some questions and discussion, and to pause at a reasonable hour, such as 11 p.m., and to continue the discussion at the next meeting.
This issue is monumental. It is by far the biggest expenditure that the city has ever undertaken, and in combination with the cost of the new wastewater plant, has the potential to cause fairly catastrophic consequences.
There was absolutely no gain in rushing through an item like this after 3 A.M.
None.
It’s difficult to be too critical of any of the parties here. The entire operation seems to be significantly improved over the last council’s ways. Still, David’s suggestions make a lot of sense.
New city manager, new mayor, new council dynamics–these bode well. If the staff and council are better prepared, better decisions should result. But, there’s no way to squeeze in as much as the council (the mayor) tried to do this week without the process (and the participants) suffering.
I still don’t understand why we feel obligated to pile any given topic’s last-minute staff reports, council evaluation, public comment and decision-making into a single evening’s entertainment. Let’s try some of David’s suggestions to split up these items for better consideration and decision-making.
Sue: “[i]…pause at a reasonable hour, such as 11 p.m., and to continue the discussion at the next meeting.”[/i]
This is the simplest suggestion and it is actionable. Just stop at 11 p.m. no matter what. Everything unfinished is first on the next agenda.
I know that everyone was more interested in the water issue than the homeowner’s appeal — except that homeowner and the neighbors. No reason they should have to wait until 3 a.m., either. The other suggestions have merit, but a firm 11 p.m. adjournment makes sense.
[quote]It still concerns me that I was now allowed to make my case when people were awake. I am still having to correct misconceptions about what transpired at the meeting because the Enterprise coverage was so sketchy and even the Vanguard coverage was uncharacteristically incomplete. [/quote]
People can watch the streaming video replayed on the gov’t channel.
[quote]No reason they should have to wait until 3 a.m., either. The other suggestions have merit, but a firm 11 p.m. adjournment makes sense.[/quote]
The City Council takes a vote whether to go past 11 pm (or 11:30 pm, not sure which). So the City Council must have kept electing to complete the decision on the surface water project that night, all the way until 3:30 am. I suspect this was because of the perceived need to implement the water rate increases as soon as possible, and get on with the project. Obviously four Council members saw no reason to delay this project any longer.
If the topic had been stopped after public comment and continued could they NOT have public comment the next week on the topic?
Sue, I agree with you: the surface water item should have been first, or the only, item on the agenda. But Joe seems like a real pro at running the meetings, hour after hour. I’ve never done it, and I know the Mayor is working every second when in session. I think that the only way to reliably control the length of the meetings is to control the agenda items before they are published as the final agenda. Some Mayors want to be involved, some prefer to not buck what staff want to put into the agenda. Sue, I thought you did a good job with limiting the items, and keeping public comment flowing with enought time for all to speak.
[quote]If the topic had been stopped after public comment and continued could they NOT have public comment the next week on the topic?[/quote]
LOL Sure, they would HAVE TO HAVE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT, which would have meant never getting on with the decision!
No LOL intended. My question was a rule question.
“Arrogant, and for the larger part, false. Many of the senior &/or professional staff who are “inconvenienced” are salaried, not hourly, can’t do their primary duties (which they are still expected to complete) at the meeting, and therefore are effectively unpaid.”
HPierce: I did not mean to imply that city staff gets paid extra for going to meetings, however, that is part of their paid duties. Some city staff hang out and wait for the item to come on, others sit in their offices and work. I think the public’s convenience outweighs that of the staff. I don’t understand how that’s an arrogant, but if you perceive it that way that’s fine.
“Please don’t blame “the council”. You show a lot of bias, David. When Don and Ruth were mayor, you placed the blame on the mayor, because the mayor does the scheduling.”
I used to blame the council majority a lot previously because they had a lock on council proceedings, I still think it is the majority of the council that is to blame. The Mayor as you say, does the scheduling, but the failure of the council to object to scheduling issues at appropriate times does not help either.
“Staff had to get up the next day and try and function after such a late night. “
That’s precisely why I suggested we avoid these late night meetings.
[quote]That’s precisely why I suggested we avoid these late night meetings.[/quote]
But the only way to do that, that I can see, is have CC meetings every week. Perhaps the CC members/city staff don’t want to meet every week, and I cannot blame them…