On Wednesday, the Vanguard piece on employee morale generated some good discussion. The Vanguard is concerned that we may be about to lose some good employees.
The Vanguard in its discussion noted two key factors – one is salary and the other is the need for a cultural change. The Vanguard, during the economic downtown, has led the way on pushing back against exploding employee compensation. At the same time, we know from the city manager search that Davis is on the low end of city manager compensation. It turns out the same is true across the board – the city of Davis pays less for a variety of management positions than comparable neighboring cities.
As stated on Wednesday, I believe we can get away with less salary if we can deal with the issue of the culture where citizens, and at times councilmembers, have mistreated city staff. Davis can be a fun place to live and work. We have an engaged citizenry. A community that cares. A community that has been willing to increase taxes to make sure that city services and school education continues at a high level.
At the same time, however, as I mentioned a few weeks ago, we are in need of a cultural change. No one wants to receive less pay to work twice as hard to get good initiatives passed. No one wants to take abuse in the form of emails, text messages and voicemails on a daily basis over their jobs.
This was not intended as our call to raise salaries, but rather a call to change our culture. I will get to that point in a minute. But I want to address several considerations raised by our readers.
First, I want to reiterate this is not a call by the Vanguard for raising salaries. There are some who believe that the discussion about employee morale is simply a ruse for talking about increased compensation. I can see where people might believe that.
My discussions recently have suggested we might see a push for slightly higher compensation but on the order of 1 to 2 percent per year, which would be more of a cost of living adjustment than a salary increase. I don’t see any one – at least on council – pushing for more than that – at least at this point in time.
I think we do need to have a full analysis of where the city sits with regard to other communities. I understand that many people believe that the entire state is overcompensating municipal employees, but we are competing against other communities in terms of salary and benefits.
On the other hand, perhaps Davis can be satisfied with having its top positions turning over every few years, as its more ambitious up and coming employees take other positions where they can earn more money. Those who stay, however, may end up being those who have progressed beyond their point of efficiency.
That is certainly a viable strategy and something the community can have discussions on.
The bottom line is that this was not a call on the part of the Vanguard to raise salaries, it was a call to discuss the other factor – the culture of this community. I think there is a reasonable complaint there and we should begin addressing it.
A second point is I do have concern that we could lose some people I would consider to be good employees. One counter to that would be, “You have no way of knowing that we won’t end up with better employees.” They add, “New, fresh, happy employees and not the whiners who are unhappy with their jobs and pay.”
I would state that I don’t think it’s good to characterize any employees as “whiners” – and to risk losing good employees because we might get better employees seems like a highly risky strategy.
[callout bg=”#000000″ color=”#ffffff” font=”0″ fontsize=”14″ bt_content=”Donate Now” bt_pos=”right” bt_style=”undefined” bt_color=”red” bt_link=”https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/dpd/friends_of_the_vanguard/donate.aspx” bt_target=”_blank” bt_font=”0″]If you haven’t already signed up to become a subscriber – Please donate today by clicking on the link. You can also make a one-time payment starting at $120 to become a subscriber. You can do so either by credit card at the previous link or by mailing a check to Davis Vanguard, PO Box 4715, Davis, CA 95617[/callout]
Matt Williams asks a critical question of another poster when he writes, “What I sense from the examples that you cite is that you feel that the right and proper thing for citizens to do is to hold their tongues and let the staff and electeds make decisions for them. Am I reading that right?”
I would argue that this is not about asking people to hold back on their beliefs or opinions, rather it is about creating a climate where differences of opinion are handled in a more constructive manner.
One person noted, “Much of the abusive behavior takes place in commission/committee/task force meetings and behind closed doors.”
What I have seen (but do not possess) are examples of emails that are abusive to staff. I have also heard about phone calls and meetings where members of the public in various capacities, as well as councilmembers at times, have been abusive to staff.
Unfortunately, unless those emails get disclosed in a public records request or someone turns them over for publication, we cannot provide examples.
But I think if we get into a debate over whether this is happening, we are missing the forest through the trees. What we should be doing is hoping to make small changes that will make people’s work experience more pleasant.
We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. We can agree to not question each other’s motivations without tangible proof. We can agree to be professional and courteous in our interactions. None of those things should be controversial.
It may be that good staffers will always leave places like Davis because they have better opportunities elsewhere. We need to at least have the discussion as to whether we want the ability to try to keep people we consider invaluable or simply adopt the approach that attrition will happen.
At the end of the day, we may not solve this problem – it may just be the cost of doing business in a city with 65,000 people and with limited financial resources.
But, still, there are things in our control that we should be able to change.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I would argue that this is not about asking people to hold back on their beliefs or opinions, rather it is about creating a climate where differences of opinion are handled in a more constructive manner.”
Amen!
People who work there give their opinion because they want this City to be better. When they are denigrated, second guessed, and constantly derided for their incompetence, there is low morale. People learn to be silent as a defense mechanism, because the management has relatives and friends who want those jobs. Corruption and nepotism make for low morale.
No- you cannot “get away” with less salary. They are already working for less, and Mr Greenwald and others propose working for less when costs of living goes up every day. Treat people with respect and support them raising their families here and they might work for less, because they work in an interesting job.
Just as an aside, how would anyone one of you reading this post like to be told how to do your job by complete outsiders with no particular expertise, who think they know more than you do? Yet part of your job is to be polite to these condescending individuals, and act as if you are taking their suggestions seriously, or you may have to actually take the suggestions seriously against your better judgment because of politics rather than for the good of the city. How would anyone of you reading this post like being called a liar to your face in a public meeting? Yet part of your job is to take such abuse without comment. How would anyone of you reading this post like being accused of malfeasance in performing your job in a public meeting, either overtly or by snide innuendo, even though there is no basis for such accusations? Yet part of your job is to quietly listen to such unfounded accusations, and take it under advisement, without specifically responding to such baseless accusations. How would anyone of you reading this post like to spend an inordinate part of your day fielding complaints from citizens who demand city services for nothing? Yet part of your job is to respond to such repeated complaints, even though it takes away from your ability to do substantive work that will actually make a difference. Just saying’…
Anon – Your points are well taken, but then there is another consideration that some of this stuff just comes with the job. There are a lot of jobs dealing with the public-customer that require accepting that a percentage of the customers will just behave like aholes. If you can’t tolerate that type of thing, then it might not be a job that is a good fit. You better love what you do for a living despite the abuse you will suffer from the public. You really cannot change others, you can only change yourself.
Now abusive management is another issue. That CAN be changed.
I think the real question becomes is dealing with “aholes” part of city staff’s primary job description in Davis? At what juncture does it become harassment; beyond the point of no return; counterproductive? The point is, if I am an employee of the city, and spend an inordinate amount of my time dealing with completely unreasonable citizens to the point that I cannot effectively carry out my job, I am very likely to look for employment elsewhere, even for lesser pay. Is this abusive behavior, on the part of citizens toward city staff, contributing to the high turnover rate of city employees? Based on my conversations with some exiting employees, I believe the answer is “yes”.
My wife and I have a few shows recorded on the DVR. One of them we like is Parks and Recreation. It is a comedy. But interestingly enough the public is generally hostile to the characters that work for the city. But the characters all take it with a grain of salt. Of course this is a show and not real life; however, except for the excess required for entertainment, I think it is a fairly accurate representation of what goes on. I don’t think Davis is any different than any other city in the number of aholes.
I have also had the pleasure of directing IT for large companies. And talk about customer aholes! But I have fired employees that respond to their customers with any hostility. And I injected best-practice customer-service behavior into my beloved IT nerds and support engineers, and over time it rubbed off on the customer.
The main lessons were “don’t get hooked”. That is don’t let the aholes drag you down and amp you up. And demonstrate empathy and compassion for the feelings of the customer. When you do these things, some of the aholes calm down and become reasonable.
I think the city staff can benefit from some customer service best-practice training.
I agree with you, Frankly (oops), about Customers, since I am in that consulting world. But questions have to be answered about services, and when that answer is not readily available, we spent lots of time anticipating answers to questions, so everyone gives the same answer to the same questions.
I know from experience Aholes can be deflected and even become fans, because you talk to them as much as needed to help them understand the question they ask. You follow up. I do it now, and learn other peoples’ jobs, so I can fill in when needed for them.
Abusive management, I have had my share, but corrupt management, another story. They are usually the least forthcoming, and we all bear the brunt of that.
OK Frankly, have it your way. Professionals, including engineers, technicians, accountants, should not only be chosen for employment based on their knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm, but we should add filters to include “tolerance for public excoriation when presenting your reasoned, professional assessment”, “acceptance of ill-informed citizens, commissioners, and City council members diatribes attacking your motivations, integrity and professional competence”, and “willing to accept internal politics where your internal professional future will be subject to the whims of those at department head and/or CM/HR who will promote/protect from layoff their personal friends and/or allies, without regard to competence, performance record, or seniority” [the latter hasn’t been really discussed much here, but it is real].
Fine, Frankly, but the City should just add those filters to the job descriptions, disclose them in recruitment brochures, and use those filters throughout the employment selection process. The folks who would answer those recruitments, and succeed through such a selection process, are either truly exceptional individual, or those who are possessed with a don’t give a damn attitude who will do or say anything to protect/enchance their employment. If that’s what you want (along with much lower total compensation), fine. Just be careful for what you wish for.
hpierce – As I said, interactions with other city employees and even with city politicians can be targeted for improvement. However, what are you going to do to change the public? You cannot force-change it, you can only develop the tools to deal with it… and maybe influence it in your behavior.
Have you ever been frustrated or angry over some product that malfunctions and then made more frustrated and/or angry by the treatment you received from the customer service personnel? And, have you ever had the experience of being frustrated or angry over some product malfunction and made more calmed and satisfied by the treatment you received from the customer service personnel? And if the latter, wouldn’t your standard approach dealing with those people be tweaked to more positive? And if the former more negative?
I can take my car in for service and get the problem fixed and be livid at the “service” because of the way it was handled. I can take my car in for service and have it take three days to figure out what the problem is and get it fixed and be completely happy and satisfied with the “service” because of the way it was handled.
It requires a customer-service mentality that is part of the work culture.
Go to Nugget Markets and go to Safeway or Albertsons and note the difference in the orientation of the employees. The orientation of the employees influence the orientation of the customers. For example, people are less stressed waiting in line at Nugget than they are Safeway. If you think that is 100% because more aholes shop at Safeway, you would be mostly wrong IMO.
Anon, the difference between being a public servant and doing a job is that the former is a collaboration of the public and the public servant. There are lots of jobs in the private sector that are similar collaborations around service, but also plenty of jobs that have, by definition, a wall between the employee and the outside world.
Anon, other than Herb Niederberger and Jacques DeBra (both of numerous separate incidents), what other City Employees have been subjected to what you have described by citizens not sitting behind the dais? I can only think of one such situation.
DACHA needs to be added to your list of contentious issues. Anything that rises to the level of law suit deserves mention.
Anon posts like not an hour goes by without hostile Davisites bashing the underpaid city workers who can’t work with all the bashing — but we don’t have many actual examples…
You are absolutely right David, we need a change of culture in the City. Last time I checked, the City of Davis was $100 million in arrears, give or take a few 10’s of millions. We need to change the culture that looks upon that level of performance as being acceptable. Instead of wringing our hands over losing senior staff and satisfying the complainers and whiners in our employ, we should be looking to cut 20-50% of our payroll costs through pay cuts, benefit cuts and outsourcing. Other than the police force, the vast majority of a much smaller City staff should be contract managers overseeing outsourced contracted services, and a few customer service representatives who are responsible for ‘managing’ the City’s professional complainers. We need an entirely new approach, and a new culture, not just a rearrangement of the deck chairs.
“we should be looking to cut 20-50% of our payroll costs through pay cuts, benefit cuts and outsourcing.”
Sorry, I don’t agree. I don’t see any data that supports that drastic a cut.
“We can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. We can agree to not question each other’s motivations without tangible proof. We can agree to be professional and courteous in our interactions. None of those things should be controversial.”
Thanks for the smile David. I agree that none of those things should be controversial…..and yet they seem to be. We cannot even as a group of posters here on the Vanguard seem to agree on what is and is not disagreeable.
Another aspect of disagreeable behavior that has not been discussed here is that of the city employees. For the most part, my interactions with city employees has been very good and I have come out of the interactions with the favorable impression that the employee was genuinely trying to help, even if the problem was not resolved quickly and smoothly.
However, two interactions with a front desk individual at the police station demonstrate that civility is not a one way street. Several years ago when I downsized, I went into the police department to buy zoned parking permits. It was late in the year ( October or November). The police clerk sold me the needed permits, collected my payment and only then told me that they were only good until the end of the year when they would have to be replaced. When I stated that had I known I would have waited to purchase them, she smirked, responded “well now you know” and walked out of the room. I had essentially forgotten the episode until my son recently went to the police department to ask advice with regard to a worrisome roommate situation. The clerk told him to sit and wait and someone would be with him shortly. After a 1/2 hour, my son went up to the window to inquire how much longer it would be and only then did she tell him that there was no one available to talk with him and that he would have to come back another time. Interactions such as these, while at a low level, and not done in a public venue, may have the tendency to leave some citizens a little cranky and not so favorably inclined towards out city employees.
I would call for civility and treating each other with patience, compassion and kindness regardless of which side of the “window” we happen to be on.
Yup. These are the type of “low service” encounters that would tend to create a more hostile customer base over time.
Tia, your experience there I am sure is one many people have had. However, it is not just at the police department or other offices of the city or government. I’ve had bad customer service many more times at certain businesses in Davis. You might think they would fix such problems, because they need to compete. But that is not always the case.
I am sure I am not alone in relating my experience at Peet’s coffee. I will go there because the coffee is very good and the one on Sycamore is conveniently located near my house. However, almost every time I am in Peet’s, the service is very, very slow. The workers are nice. I don’t think they are lazy. I think it is the management system which results in a very slow moving line or has too few employees serving too many customers. I’ve even had the experience at the downtown store, when I was in the back of a very long line, and I notice that 3 of the 4 employees who were working the counter are suddenly needed in the back for the next 15 minutes, and the line moves even more slowly.
By contrast, Mishka’s, which also has very good coffee, has very good customer service. The line always moves fast. I doubt there is a difference between their employees and those at Peet’s. But at Mishka’s the management system works. I am a person who only buys a plain cup of black coffee. It is about as easy an order to fill as possible. And at Mishka’s, they seem to quickly take all orders and then fill each one as fast as possible. So if mine is quick, they get the cup of coffee to me quickly.
Most other coffee places are somewhere in between these two. I am sure every Davis bicyclist who rides to Winters can relate to waiting in long lines at Steady Eddy’s. But they are inconsistent. Sometimes they move fast, and sometimes slow. They could improve by copying the system in place at Mishka’s.
And so Tia, instead of talking to the employee’s supervisor, or filing a formal complaint, you instead lump a significant number of municipal employees as being the same? If you didn’t raise the issue at the time, I have zero sympathy for you.
“These are the type of “low service” encounters that would tend to create a more hostile customer base over time.”
Hey Frank Lee, if you don’t like the service at this police station, don’t use their services and try another one!
Yes. Sigh… the plight of the captive customer. With poor customer service, lacking choice, we just become grumpy and snappish.
But for me, the service with the police department has been pretty consistently good. In fact, for most of the city service, my experience has been on average moderately good. But I have heard from neighbors of experiences like Tia’s.
It has nothing to do with data, David. It’s might be mainly a desire/passion to make sure no one “on the public dole” is compensated higher than the author feels they should be. Resentment. Perhaps a victim mentality born of how they have been treated by their employers in the past. Don’t pretend to know, but am pretty damn sure that it is more visceral than “data”.
My point is that there is no data that I’ve seen that leads me to believe that we need to do something that drastic at this point.
MY point is whether you had data or not, it would not matter to many of these posters. They want to see something drastic. they want to see blood spilled, pain inflicted. They are angry.
hpierce wrote:
That people should file formal complaints and that some people are angry.
Some of the most “angry” people I know are the ones who were foolish enough to file a complaint and were “punished” for filing the complaint.
I had one friend in SF who was asked to pay a bribe to get a bathroom remodel OK’d he complained and over a year later he still didn’t have his bathroom remodeled because the city did what they could to punish him for complaining.
A friend’s wife south of SF had a cop make some inappropriate comments and filed a formal complaint and two years later when a cop came out to look at a car break in he winked at my friend and said “you’re the guy with the hot wife that likes to complain”…
Install a layer of private-sector managers to manage the private-sector managers who are managing the private-sector people who do the actual work? That doesn’t sound like a cost-cutting technique to me.
Might as well just disincorporate and have the county run everything.
Contracting out services by cities has been tried over and over with poor results. Generally, cities find it costs them more and they get less service than when the services are provided in-house.
If I had one wish for the city it would be to make the benefits and retirement components of city employee salaries sustainable and to forbid all future city council members from giving employees benefits in lieu of salary increases. We like to point fingers but the problems with employees benefits didn’t start at the local level. We got sucked into it like most other cities but it is not the employees fault that private sector benefits have eroded along with salaries for non-corporate executives. Does anyone else remember the 80’s when middle management jobs were an endangered species followed by pension looting and re-hiring people at lower salaries and no benefits in subsequent decades. We have endured the erosion of salaries and benefits for middle income workers for most of our working lives and the results are municipal employers, prevented by law from looting pensions and ending benefits, who appear to be overpaying When compared to the private sector because we have allowed the private sector to steal from the middle class and give to the upper class.
we ignore history when we look at this problem as if it started with the economic downturn in 2008. I agree we cannot continue to provide medical and retirement benefits when the costs CONTINE to spiral and when we allow safety workers to retire at 55. Effective solutions to these problems require legislation at the state level. Safety workers should not have access to retirement funds Untill they are at the social security retirement age–they should be linked. They need to work until retirement age just like the rest of us. We need a one payer universal health insurance and we need laws to allow governments to eliminate their employee medical insurance. The problem is those are not changes we can make at a local level–but that should stop us from looking at the big picture. We still have to make the changes we are able to make at the local level but an understanding of the systemic problem would curtail blaming city employees for being overcompensated.
Most “safety workers” (aka cops & firefighters) in CA can still retire at 50. Fortunately we don’t have as many retiring with full pensions in their 40’s like we used to since “air time” was banned last year (Google air time california pensions to read more about a huge union bonus that was in place for years)…
“But, still, there are things in our control that we should be able to change.”
And here is the rub. The Vanguard believes you can control other people, and that the culture, rather than a few jerks, is the problem.
Reality check:
(1) You can’t control other people.
(2) The majority of people reading this are not the as-defined-by-some abusers.
(3) The as-defined-by-some abusers, are probably not reading this.
(4) If the as-defined-by-some abusers are reading this, they probably do not recognize themselves as such.
(5) Those reading this have no control over the as-defined-by-some abusers, if we even see them as such.
This reminds me of the idea that “we” need to change the culture of racism in Davis. Parallel thinking.
“The Vanguard believes you can control other people, and that the culture, rather than a few jerks, is the problem.”
I personally believe no such thing.
That is how I interpreted your articles.
How then, is telling people that “we” need to change going to cause any sort of change, when those that are causing the problem, as defined-by-some:
1) Are a few people.
2) Are probably not reading this.
3) May not recognize themselves.
4) Would be unlikely to change if they did.
5) Wouldn’t give a damn.
I just don’t see calling for a “cultural change” to have any effect whatsoever. This is not the work of “culture”, it is (if it even is true in the eyes of the beholder) the work of individuals. I am not saying I wouldn’t agree that some are being “abusive” if I had any examples to go by, but I remain skeptical this is real, and quite skeptical that this is a “crisis”.
Usually being verbally snarked by a jerk is a “bad day at work”, whether the jerk be the boss or a member of the public, in any job.
Still unconvinced, I see this double-article-with-no-examples call as an exercise in howling at the moon.
Alan
“I just don’t see calling for a “cultural change” to have any effect whatsoever”
I am not speaking at all for the Vanguard, but rather only for myself when I attempt to provide a different perspective. “Culture change” is how societies are modeled. Smoking used to be the norm in this country, now it is not. This change was driven by the actions of many individuals changing their own and their family, friends’, neighbors ‘and local business’s views of what was normal and desirable. I fundamentally disagree with you that we are not able to enact “culture change”. We are the basis for our culture and when we use our voices to persuade enough others that we have a better idea ( such as not smoking in enclosed spaces) then we have effected a “culture change”. This change may be of large or small magnitude, but if we do not speak up about the changes that we would like to see ( whether one embraces the libertarian language of “being told what to do”, or simply sees someone else’s suggestion as a valid point of view to consider) we are accepting passively that the status quo is the best we can do. This is a position that I simply do not believe is true.
Tia,
And again I ask HOW?
Smoking was done with a LAW. You can be CITED for smoking. Culture may have changed, but those not wishing to go along were told not to at the end of a gun. Well, a ticket anyway. Without the enforcement threat, some smokers would still be smoking inside.
With free speech, who would determine what was abusive, and how, and with what timing?
An email is sent to a city employee. Is it screened by the police department? By the mayor? . . . . before an employee sees it?
If someone starts using banned words or tone at a meeting, would a police officer now be present at council meeting and stop persons when they crossed some line? And how would you ensure the line is crossed enforcement is “fairly” enforced? If the person in charge doesn’t like what the person is saying, would they not be much more likely to call for police to shut them down? I’ve even seen this with the three minute rule: the mayor (whomever is in office) is far more likely to shut down the person right at three minutes if they don’t like what they are saying, and far more likely to allow them “extra time” if they like what they are saying. It’s human nature.
My overall point is, this whole discussion is leading dangerously close to riding off the cliff of the limits of free speech.
These are my company “Guiding Principles”. I provide training and performance assessment around them. Does the city do something similar with staff?
If you need an anagram for that, try LIFE CREST:
Long-Term Financial Success; Integrity; Fulfillment; Entrepreneurship.
Customer Focus; Respectfulness; Ethics; Service Excellence; Team Orientation
Nice!
If you changed the name of “Team Orientation” to “Embrace Responsibility Sharing” you could get to IRS FLEECERS.
Just spitballing here…
“Does the city do something similar with staff?”
Surely you jest.
hpierce
“If you didn’t raise the issue at the time, I have zero sympathy for you.”
Nor was I asking for any. Nor was I making any statement about any other employee as I am sure you were able to see from my post. My point was exactly what I said it was, that I believe that civility should be equally well applied regardless if we are providing or receiving a service. Do you have an objection to that very simple point ?
Alan
“And again I ask HOW?”
“Culture may have changed, but those not wishing to go along were told not to at the end of a gun. Well, a ticket anyway.”
One person at a time. Again, you seem to be demonstrating that basic libertarian fear that “oh my God, someone is going to tell me what to do”. The ban on smoking did not start with a law. It started with people, some in medicine, some the survivors of deaths in the family from smoking related illnesses, some just caring about the unhealthful environment that smokers were forcing upon others, standing up for what they knew to be a better practice. We spoke about it publicly, we wrote letters, we counseled patients, we warned parents of the risks to their children. This is how change is effected by individuals. Not by telling people that they as individuals could not smoke, but making it progressively more difficult and expensive for them to pollute the environment that we all share.
So what I would propose in the case of those who are abusive to others in public, regardless of the position of that individual is to call them out on it at the time. If the individual has called someone a liar, then the person chairing the meeting could call out the name calling publicly. If someone at City Council has spoken abusively towards or about a staff member during public comment, another speaker could take 30 seconds of their time to make a plea for civility. If we feel that public workers are being unfairly targeted, let us step up with disapproval, there and then, publicly. If enough of us were to do it, the behavior would change, not immediately, but gradually overtime. There is little like public condemnation and disapproval to change public behavior.
Tia,
You can tell someone is smoking because they are smoking a cigarette.
“call them out on it at the time.”
Fine.
“If the individual has called someone a liar, then the person chairing the meeting could call out the name calling publicly.”
What if the person is lying, and the person pointing that out is correct? What if the definition of “lying” is not as clear cut and obvious as someone smoking a cigarette, but is somewhat subjective depending on your point of view?
“If someone at City Council has spoken abusively towards or about a staff member”
Who will define “abuse”, and who will enforce the definition?
“during public comment, another speaker could take 30 seconds of their time to make a plea for civility.”
Fine.
“If we feel that public workers are being unfairly targeted,”
Define “we”.
“let us step up with disapproval, there and then, publicly.”
Fine.
“If enough of us were to do it, the behavior would change, not immediately, but gradually overtime.”
Maybe. It would last at least until the next time someone was passionate and someone else disagrees with how they express it, possibly colored by their also not liking their opinion on a subject.
“There is little like public condemnation and disapproval to change public behavior.”
Or allowing the quashing of free speech.
Alan
“What if the person is lying, and the person pointing that out is correct? What if the definition of “lying” is not as clear cut and obvious as someone smoking a cigarette, but is somewhat subjective depending on your point of view?
I don’t believe either of your questions matter. Even if the individual is not telling the truth, the inaccuracy can be pointed out without name calling. If someone can prove that the statements made by the staff are either inadvertently or deliberately not true, let them make their case by presenting their evidence and let the chips fall where they may.
“Who will define “abuse”, and who will enforce the definition?”
Abuse is in the ear of the beholder. Who said anything about enforcement ? I am talking about changing behavior by demonstrating disapproval of bad behavior and modeling better behavior.
“Define “we”.
Those hearing and interpreting the comment as abusive.
“Or allowing the quashing of free speech.”
And who do you see as doing the “quashing” in my suggested scenario ? What is it you fear about countering speech that is found offensive with an objection. Does not the objector also has the right to free speech ?
“Those hearing and interpreting the comment as abusive.”
This goes to the culture of “it’s wrong if anyone is offended”, a concept I reject.
And who do you see as doing the “quashing” in my suggested scenario ? What is it you fear about countering speech that is found offensive with an objection. Does not the objector also has the right to free speech ?
I have no problem with anyone objecting to what anyone else says, it’s all part of free speech. It’s stopping people at the point someone “perceives” them as crossing a line that is of concern. All of that can be done today, so go right ahead.
Now, how does the city handle the “crisis” of abusive emails?
To Tia: I don’t disagree with your point, and think it could be helpful if some of us would start speaking up against abusive behavior. And I honestly think most will recognize the behavior as abusive. However, some of this abuse goes on behind closed doors, or via telephone. I don’t have the definitive answer to any of this (sometimes there is no good answer), but I do think you make a fair point. For instance, commissions/committees/task forces should be able to come up with guiding principles, that figure out ahead of time what to do in the case of disruptive members of the public, and then enforce those guiding principles. However, I don’t know how you address the issue of citizens without subject matter expertise who feel entitled to tell city staffers how to do their jobs, and then these same citizens without subject matter expertise politically maneuver behind the scenes to get their way using various napalm tactics.
To Alan: “What if the person is lying, and the person pointing that out is correct?”
What would your reaction be to someone who, without warning, called you a liar or accused you of professional malfeasance at a public meeting, knowing you had to take it on the chin without being able to respond?
Anon wrote:
> What would your reaction be to someone who, without warning, called you a liar
> or accused you of professional malfeasance at a public meeting, knowing you had
> to take it on the chin without being able to respond?
If I were to call a city employee a “liar” in a meeting are they “required” to “take it on the chin without being able to respond”?
As Alan points out sometimes people are “liars”. I’m not a “liar” but just in the last month I quoted some data that was close to 30 years old (about the race of meth users) and Rich pointed out (without actually calling me a “liar”) that my post was no longer correct (and even posted a link). After a little research I posted an apology and said that the numbers Rich posted were far more accurate than my information that was a combination of very old (time really does fly by) information from California sources and recent information from Wyoming (one of the whitest states in the union).
P.S. (Serious question) has the city ever thought about getting an e-mail filter (like the comment sections of most major newspapers have) that kicks back any e-mails with “abusive” language?
Okay, I’ll pose the question to you: What would your reaction be to someone who, without warning, called you a liar or accused you of professional malfeasance at a public meeting, knowing you had to take it on the chin without being able to respond?
If my employer had given me a specific task (as Brett Lee twice did in the Public Power item discussions), and I had failed to either complete the requested task or proactively report before the meeting that the task was not able to be completed in the time allotted, then I would feel it was totally appropriate to “take it on the chin” for my deficient performance.
Based on my tenure on both the Natural Resources Commission and the Water Advisory Committee, as well as extensive discussions that I have had with the current chair of the Finance and budget Commission, as well as my in person observations of the Senior Citizens Commission, the Open Space Commission, the Bicycle Advisory Commission, the Utility Rate Advisory Committee, the Innovation Park Task Force, The Housing Element Steering Committee, the Business and Economic Development Commission, and the Planning Commission, I believe that most of the City’s Commissions and Committees have the kind of guiding principles you describe. The one area where the guidelines are purposely left flexible is in the amount of time allotted for each public comment, with the Chair of each Commission/Committee granted some discretion based on the length of the meeting agenda and the number of public commenters on a particular item. Mayor Wolk enforced 2 minutes on each speaker at the last meeting for the Innovation Park agenda item, in part because of the large number of people who raised their hands when he asked how many people wanted to speak. 2 minutes was less than the “normal” 3 minutes of Council meeting comments, but because he dealt with expectation setting proactively, no one objected to the truncation. Contrast that to the embarrassing set-to between Chair Elaine Roberts Musser and former mayor Sue Greenwald at the early 2014 URAC meeting. the agenda that night was really only the one item … very light. Somewhat surprisingly the number of public commenters was very small. When Sue Greenwald stepped up to make her comment she asked Chair Roberts Musser for more than three minutes because of the importance of the issue for all davis citizens, and despite the absence of either long agenda or significant number of commenters, Chair Musser said, “No.” At least one URAC member voiced support for Sue Greenwald’s request, but Chair Roberts Musser stuck by her guns, and when the three minute time limit arrived and Sue Greenwald continued talking and Chair Roberts Musser began banging her gavel, the combined noise was deafening for a solid two minute period. The challenge of a situation like that is that if you set the guidelines up to allow a mayor Wolk reduction of time, there comes with it the ability to grant an occasional “important issue” increase in time. In fact we currently see such increases in time granted on a regular basis in Council meetings and in Planning Commission meetings. So guidelnes will only take Commissions/Committees just so far. Good common sense judgement will occasionally come into play.
Regarding subject matter expertise, there are plenty of situations where subject matter expertise can be a detriment rather than an asset. i just finished reading Siddhartha Mukherjee’s “Cancer: the Emperor of All Maladies” in which he reports over and over situations where the subject matter experts at a particular point in time blocked very real scientific and/or healthcare progress because of the firmly held beliefs that were central to the subject matter expertise of that time. Further he reported head on clashes between different subject matter expert groups … most notably the scientific research community seeking cancer’s cause(s) vs. the cancer care giving community. In such situations the determination of what is expertise and what is myopia is a highly subjective determination. The water rate wars in Davis clearly fit Mukherjee’s multiple communities situation. The challenge for staff was to bed able to simultaneously and objectively and dispassionately wear all the communities’ respective hats. Dianna Jensen was outstanding in her ability to do that. Others within the water staffing cohort were not able to live up to the high standard she set.
When you posed the question to Alan, “What would your reaction be to someone who, without warning, called you a liar or accused you of professional malfeasance at a public meeting” you describe a hypothetical situation that I have never observed at a Davis meeting. There have been a few situations where people have been called liars publicly, but in each case there was plenty of warning that such an accusation was either imminent or likely to come. The public discussions of the audio taping of the URAC meetings probably rose to the level of accusations of public malfeasance, but again there was plenty of warning that such an accusation was either imminent or possible.
All the above gets us to your question to me, “So employers can be abusive, and its okay?” Ideally, there would never be a situation that rises to that level; however, if an employer gives an employee a specific task (as Brett Lee twice did in the Public Power item discussions, and the employee fails to provide the requested information, then the first question is whether the employee is abusing the employer by failing to either complete the requested task or proactively report before the meeting that the task was not able to be completed in the time allotted. In a situation where the employee is abusing the employer, then I absolutely believe the employer is appropriate if he/she calls out the employees deficient performance.
Matt wrote:
> Contrast that to the embarrassing set-to between Chair Elaine
> Roberts Musser and former mayor Sue Greenwald at the early
> 2014 URAC meeting
Most of the people I know agree with Sue on most issues and it was her “embarrassing” outbursts and “mean” behavior that made many people decide that they didn’t want her as their rep on the city council.
Exactly! People grew sick to death of uncivil behavior that crossed the line into downright abusive. Interestingly, when behavior becomes consistently uncivil, it loses its effectiveness and the speaker loses credibility. So overt abuse is not a particularly effective modality.
I think your comment hits the nail squarely on the head if it is read in reverse order to the way you wrote it. What caused the political migration away from Sue was the perception that she had reached the point where the increasing levels of her “overt abuse” (some would use other terminology for her actions) were no longer an effective modality for achieving constructive end results. They saw the pattern you have described in your next to last sentence, “when behavior becomes consistently uncivil, it loses its effectiveness and the speaker loses credibility.”
Understood, and agreed, SoD.
“All the above gets us to your question to me, “So employers can be abusive, and its okay?” Ideally, there would never be a situation that rises to that level;”
Ideally yes, in reality no.
Anon, the key to the practical reality of the hypothetical situation that you have laid out is the “without warning” portion. In real life such without warning situations almost never exist. If an City of Davis staff member actually believes they have been attacked by a Council member without warning, then they probably have not been paying attention. I personally can not think of a single such warningless situation in Council history. Can you think of any? Please share just one such “reality.”
“The challenge for staff was to bed able to simultaneously and objectively and dispassionately wear all the communities’ respective hats. Dianna Jensen was outstanding in her ability to do that. Others within the water staffing cohort were not able to live up to the high standard she set.”
LOL
Anon
“I don’t know how you address the issue of citizens without subject matter expertise who feel entitled to tell city staffers how to do their jobs, and then these same citizens without subject matter expertise politically maneuver behind the scenes to get their way using various napalm tactics.”
I don’t see the issue of citizens without subject matter expertise trying to tell city staffers how to do their jobs as being very important. If the staffer knows that the citizen does not know what they are talking about, they have good options. They can choose to acknowledge but politely disagree, they can ignore the advice, they can make a comment about appreciating the point, or “looking into it” and then go about their business. Occasionally, a good point that has not yet been considered may be brought up, even by the non expert, so maybe one good tactic would be to simply listen respectfully to see if there may not be a grain of value amongst the chaff.
I am in complete agreement with you about those who use behind the scenes political maneuvering and intimidation and manipulation of the legal system to get their way, and I have no better idea than you of how to address this except to try to call it out when it does become apparent and to keep advocating for transparency in city decision making.
I agree that a city staffer can just ignore the unsolicited “advice” of a non expert citizen. But in this town that same citizen is very likely to go behind staff’s back and politically maneuver to get their way. It undermines the entire system of governance, it undermines city staff’s professionalism, and wastes inordinate amounts of money and city staff time.
In this City with its never-ending series of open, transparent public meetings, how often is it necessary for a citizen to “go behind staff’s back and politically maneuver to get their way”? There are myriad avenues for “coming in the front door.” I doubt 87/13 would ever have been adopted by Council as the water rate structure if it hadn’t “come in the front door.” I doubt that the supporters of Measure P would have ever been willing to consider it as a pallitable middle ground if it hadn’t openly and transparently “come in the front door.” I doubt Bob Dunning would have given it his blessing if it hadn’t “come in the front door.” Herb Niederberger and Doug Dove wouldn’t have been able to proactively organize and present with plenty of preparation time their expert differences with 87/13 if it hadn’t “come in the front door.” For the most part “coming in the front door” is how this City operates. It creates some cacophony at times, but it is the music of our community. The objections to MRAP came in the front door. The support of the Mace 391 easement came in the front door. The objections to the Mace 391 easement came in the front door. The objections to the Paso Fino development plans came in the front door. The list goes on and on and on.
“What would your reaction be to someone who, without warning, called you a liar or accused you of professional malfeasance at a public meeting, knowing you had to take it on the chin without being able to respond?”
I have done so (accused) many times at Sacramento City Council meetings, and the reaction is always the same: no response. That is, I’m sure, what they are told to do.
And how do you feel about being accused of professional malfeasance, knowing you cannot defend yourself?
Anon wrote:
> knowing you cannot defend yourself?
Anon may have missed my question?
Is there a rule that city staff “cannot defend themselves”?
I cannot say what staff has been specifically told to do or not to do when being abused by an obnoxious member of the public. There seems to be a city staff culture that believes it is best to not rock the boat by defending oneself in an emotionally charged situation. I have seen city staff sandbagged at a public meeting, without warning, accused of professional malfeasance. City staff did attempt to respond in a fashion, but because they were caught by surprise, and because they did not want to escalate an already tense confrontation, city staff wisely gave a fairly benign “defense” of a sort (how do you respond to someone who accuses you of violating your professional license, without any evidence to back up such a bald contention?). It only caused the abuser to attack again at the next public meeting.
Alan
“Now, how does the city handle the “crisis” of abusive emails?”
I do not share the belief that this is a legitimate “crisis”. There are two very simple ways of handling emails that depend on the creation and publication of a policy.
First the city or department needs to decide what form of speech they will sanction. Let’s suppose that one criteria is that there are to be no threats ( either personal or professional) and that the only action taken on any such email will be a form email specifying the language used that resulted in the rejection of the original communication.
This would likely result in one of two responses. Either the author of the objectionable communication really has a problem that needs addressing or they are merely attempting to stir up trouble. In the first case, they will likely realize that their approach was ineffective and rephrase their issue within guidelines. If they are just stirring up trouble, they may escalate electronically with the same result, or they may choose another form of acting out, in which case that can be dealt with as appropriate.
A recent case from my practice to illustrate. A patient was over utilizing the system making appointment after appointment, and call after call for the same already thoroughly investigated issue. A treatment team and protocol was devised and agreed to by the patient. When this individual would try to circumvent, the agreement was brought up and adhered to. When she made unprofessional and/ or threatening comments by email, they were saved as documentation but otherwise ignored. When she managed to get around the agreement with a “new” complaint, and escalated her behavior to the point of physical intimidation of staff and myself, security and ultimately our legal counsel was involved which will result in a cease and desist letter and a restraining order if necessary.
I believe that the city probably already has systems in place to deal with the most egregious of these forms of behavior, but that those who serve on commissions and and staff probably are loath to escalate the response even in accordance with those systems in order not to “make things worse” when perhaps nipping clearly disruptive behavior in the bud might be preferable.
I would cite one case that I thought was well handled by then Mayor Krovoza. During the debate over fluoride, shortly after I had spoken for the pro side, a speaker got up and made a completely unsubstantiated claim about doctors taking bribes to promote fluoridation. Clearly this is a demeaning statement, and yet just as clearly within the bounds of “free speech”. What Mayor Krovoza did was to allow the speaker to finish and following public comment made the clear statement that he did not believe that anyone was receiving any kick backs and that everyone was presenting their true beliefs on the issue. His tone made it clear exactly what he felt about the comment without himself demeaning the speaker. This is the direction that I think we should be taking in calmly and clearly calling out bad behavior for what it is while redirecting the discussion back to the real issue at hand.
Good example Tia! Calling out bad behavior right at the time could be helpful to nip some of the nonsense in the bud. It certainly couldn’t hurt.
That says more about the character of our former mayor than about a specific protocol.
Others here (though said obtusely so I am connecting dots perhaps not intended) cite an incident that I believe was considered by some to be the same council member “abusing” city staff.
So again, it’s who’s ox is being gored, and the character of those handling it.
Threats of violence of course are a criminal matter and should be handled as such.
Anon
“City staff did attempt to respond in a fashion, but because they were caught by surprise, and because they did not want to escalate an already tense confrontation, city staff wisely gave a fairly benign “defense” of a sort”
This is precisely why I believe it is incumbent on someone other than the individual who has been attacked to make the defense ( or at least insist that accusations be substantiated and moved to a more appropriate venue) . It is only when a third ( and seemingly more neutral party) becomes engaged that the “tit for tat” kind of escalation can be broken up. While I do not believe that a single episode of being called out would be a deterrent, if this were to become a consistent practice, I think it would over time have the effect of decreasing this kind of behavior.
Well said Tia, and I think Council did a very good job of following that method when the issue of audio recording the URAC meetings was discussed and Herb Niederberger was challenged by council members on the approach he was arguing for and wanted to implement. They turned to the City Attorney as that third party.
This is a map of the highest paid public employees in the United States.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6Bx9WpkGjBA/UqecSCww55I/AAAAAAABcfU/uiBbV7SoZ38/s1600/maps_change_world_photos17.jpg
;>)/
Except the public is not paying those salaries. That is TV money. It mostly should go to the star players, the vast majority of whom will never earn much money after they finish their college “educations.” But because college football and men’s basketball, which draw in tens of billions of dollars from TV, are farcically deemed to be “amateur” sports, the young, often poor kids get no pay, and mostly get a worthless education. Meanwhile, the best coaches get to pocket all of the money that their players earn. And if the coach gives the kid $20 for a cheap dinner out with his date, the kid will be banned from playing and some other kid a year later will not get a scholarship. The entire big-money college sports racket is designed to enrich the few and damn the deserving.
Biddlin
Thanks for the map. Speaks eloquently to our current values in my opinion. And yes, Anon, one could see my response as negative in nature.