All one has to do to realize that times have changed is look at the hire of Scott Kenley as the new interim fire chief. Mr. Kenley is immensely qualified with forty years in fire service, and many of those in the chief position.
But it is what Chief Kenley has done since retirement that sets him apart. He has worked extensively in labor negotiations, including doing contract work with Davis’ own hired negotiator, and all of that work has been on the side of management.
Why is that important? He is not a guy who is going to be co-opted by the firefighters union.
It certainly was not planned this way, but it is ironic that the hiring of Mr. Kenley coincides with the settlement agreement between the City of Davis and the Vanguard on obtaining a less-redacted version of the Davis Fire Department Investigation.
Both in and out of the report we have the problem that for too long the city’s management, leadership and focus was co-opted, and I would argue corrupted, by the Davis Fire Fighters Union.
We have a report that is still to a great extent secret from the public, with likely far more damaging information about the inner workings of the fire department still unknown to the public.
It was only in the summer of 2011, two and a half years after the January 13, 2009 council meeting, that Mayor Joe Krovoza became the first elected official in the city to read the full report.
In the fall of 2008, the council majority of Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor had voted for the council not to read the document that taxpayer dollars paid for. Think about that, the representatives of the people argued that they did not need to see the report. Stephen Souza, now up for reelection, was one of the most adamant.
Against that grain, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek found themselves on the short end of that 3-2 vote for transparency and accountability.
Why would Mayor Asmundson and Councilmember Souza and Saylor vote to not read the report? The fire union did not want it to see the light of day.
In 2004, 2006 and 2008, the firefighters union paid $36,000-plus in direct and indirect donations to support the candidacies of those three, along with Mike Levy and Sydney Vergis. In 2004 and 2008, Councilmember Souza received $8100 from the firefighters in bundled $100 donations and Councilmember Saylor received $7850.
As Rich Rifkin, the columnist for the Enterprise wrote on the Vanguard, “This, to my mind, was the lowest point of the City Council in the last 10 years. It demonstrated to me that Saylor, Souza and Asmundson, who were all backed by the firefighters and who were close with our inept fire chief, would take the side of the firefighters over the interests of the public even when the grand jury and the ombudsman had found that there were serious problems with the management of that department and that the firefighters were misbehaving.”
He added, “In 2008, I was told by a high-level staffer at the time that Weist and Conroy were pressuring Emlen and the Council majority to quash the report.”
Shortly after this report, the city continually attempted to cut the ombudsman position as though they were retaliating for the scope and breadth of the report and the fact that the ombudsman publicly indicated that he disagreed with the city manager’s position that there was nothing untoward going on with the fire department and union.
Mr. Rifkin is exactly correct. A comparison between the heavily-redacted report released in February 2009, a month after the public meeting, and the still heavily-redacted report we have now, shows that the City Manager Bill Emlen, in collusion with former Chief Rose Conroy and Union President Bobby Weist, suppressed large volumes of information that under the California Public Records Act had no basis for being suppressed.
What we see in the report itself is what happens when the union and the management become too close to each other.
Davis City Ombudsman Robert Aaronson probably writes the most poignant account of the tension between the necessary functions of the public employees union and its excesses.
He writes: “In my view, and as I would argue is borne out by the labor history in this country, unions have acted as a critical brake on the powers of management to unilaterally impose working conditions on employees. Before the rise of unions (and the intervention of State and Federal Governments), many workers faced workplace conditions unimaginable today. However, it is also the case, as we have seen demonstrated from time to time, that when the power of a union is unchecked, it can work terrible damage on the ability of the workplace to function successfully. A balance between unions and management is critical for the success of both.”
The problem here is that the union’s power in Davis became unchecked. The result was hostile work environment, favoritism, preferential treatment, retaliation and other excesses.
It is under these conditions that Chief Conroy could grant favor to those she liked and punish those against her.
In April of 2007, this environment allowed the Chief to promote her friend and supporter, the union president, to a place of power over people that were objectively more qualified.
It was an environment in which disgruntled employees professed “fear of retaliation for speaking out against organizational issues” and in particular “the role that favoritism seemed to play in punishing them.”
Their accounts to this day have been hidden from the public light.
And the city manager, the city attorney and the council majority all colluded with the union to keep these accounts from the glare of the public.
The good news is that much of that has changed. As the result of the Grand Jury’s report, the city was forced to implement a more and fair and transparent promotion and hiring process.
And as a result of the Vanguard‘s efforts, every member of the current council along with the new city manager was forced to read this entire report.
Even before this happened the city was moving in the right direction. The previous council had long resisted an outside negotiator, but now we have one in place.
The city council kept open leadership positions in the fire department and have been able to, in the absence of employees, impose their framework for reform.
The city pulled out the fire positions from the Individual Management Employees MOU and created a separate contract for these future employees.
What this allows the council to do is to basically set the boilerplate for new contracts across the board. In so doing, they ensured that city employees would cover their full share of employee contributions to their retirement. In this contract, a new agreement, employees will contribute an additional 3% to CalPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System).
Moreover, it sets up a “reduced second-tier retirement benefit for new employees, as early as July 1, 2012.”
On retiree medical benefits, the city opted not to limit themselves: “Staff does not want to limit the options available during the negotiation process regarding retiree medical benefits, so have chosen not to address that particular benefit in these work rules.”
They note: “Currently the Fire Management employees are tied to the Davis Firefighter Local 3494 regarding retiree medical benefits by statute through CalPERS. These work rules do not address the retiree medical benefit, other than acknowledge the connection between the two groups. The City is currently in negotiations with Local 3494 and any changes to the retiree medical benefit will be addressed in those negotiations and will also apply to the Fire Management employees.”
Finally they deal with the cafeteria cashout: “The current contract provides a cash payout to any employee not taking the full health insurance allowance. The new contract would cap the cash-out provision for current employees at $500 per month.”
They add: “Effective with this agreement, the City will contribute $1,485 to an employee’s cafeteria plan to purchase health insurance. Effective with the January 2012 premium increase, the City will contribute up to an additional 3% to health premiums to offset any health insurance increases and employees will contribute the balance, if any.”
In many ways this was a brilliant move for the city, as they get to establish what they want to do, and lay down the groundwork for the negotiations with labor groups.
Of course, the firefighters saw the threat there. Alan Fernandes and Norbie Kumagai came before the council in early May to complain about these tactics.
Norbie Kumagai described the firefighters, who make an average of $150,000 in total compensation, as “these selfless individuals” who “constantly place themselves in harm’s way.” He added, “What other profession do you know of where individuals leave for work not knowing if they will see their family at the end of their shift? Most people take this for granted.”
He spent some time talking about staffing issues and response time, and then he finally got to the point.
“I understand that the City of Davis is in the process of filling a position for Division Chief; several well-qualified internal candidates experienced professionals tested for the position. My understanding is midway through the process, the city re-wrote a new contract for this job description after the internal applicants completed the testing process,” he said.
“Changing the rules in the middle of the game strikes me as unethical and disingenuous,” he charged. “Not to mention, fostering or potentially fostering a negative and adversarial relationship. Please allow the selected candidates to accept the positions under the current contract and give them the opportunity [to accept the] upcoming contract fairly and in good faith.”
The times, therefore, have indeed changed. The council pushed for the settlement with the Vanguard.
“When the Vanguard filed its lawsuit, the Council asked the City staff and legal counsel to review the report to determine if additional information could be released at this time,” Mayor Krovoza told the Vanguard. “This review resulted in the release of additional sections of the report, while continuing to redact portions that should remain confidential, such as interviews provided in confidence and confidential personnel information.”
While we believe the city has gone a long way from the one that colluded with the fire union and chief to cover up this report, we agree with our attorney Paul Boylan.
“In my opinion, the public had and still has a legitimate interest in all of the information in the Aaronson Report because it shed light on how the public’s business is conducted. Releasing a copy of the report with huge parts blacked and then releasing bits and pieces over the years that should have been revealed in the first place is a de facto violation of the California Public Records Act,” Mr. Boylan said.
“However, a lot has changed: the City Council, the City Manager and the Fire Chief are all different. The City’s decision to release more information is a sign that the City is now much more interested in transparency than it once was,” Mr. Boylan concluded.
We now see changes coming together, whether it is the imposed MOU on those leadership positions, the professional negotiator or the fact that they hired a new interim chief that will not be in the pocket of the firefighters union.
Much needs to occur, but for the first time there is reason for hope and optimism.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Harriet again?
[quote]”(The summer of 2011) Mayor Joe Krovoza became the first elected official in the city to read the full report….And as a result of the Vanguard’s efforts, every member of the current council along with the new city manager was forced to read this entire report.”[/quote]What have the council members been doing about this report itself in the past year? Did they all become complicate in continuing the cover-up until the [i]Vanguard[/i] settlement?
By “forced to read,” do you mean council action was required to approve your settlement? Your original story quoted the mayor saying all the expected, nice things. I’d like to hear from the two current councilors originally involved. What did Sue and Stephen know about these findings and when did they know it?
Councilman Souza has the most to account for here. Why would any public body member vote to keep its own ombudsman’s report secret from the public and, most astonishingly, from itself? Explained or not, Stephen’s role in “the lowest point of the City Council in the last 10 years” could have much more impact on his reelection that the mailer that caused such uproar.
To SODA’s point, knowing what they know about Harriet’s legal advice history–in general and, now, this additional embarrassment–how could our council have agreed to continue relying on her firm’s advice? Even [i]pro bono[/i], it wouldn’t be worth the price.
[i]”What we see in the report itself is what happens when the union and the management become too close to each other.”[/i]
I was thinking about this statement substituting “labor” for the word “union” in relation to my 30 years of management experience and it does not really register. I have worked for people that have worked for me. I have ex bosses and ex-employees that are very good friends of mine. One ex-employee from a prior job, is now on my board of directors. I have had to fire employees that I have been close to, and I have promoted people with demonstrated abilities even though we were not compatible as friends.
Being close to my employees has been at least a non-issue; and at best has allowed me to do a better job as a manager.
The difference here is that word “union”.
That word needs to be relegated to historical discussions only.
Comparing the social benefits to the social liability of unions in this day and age, they are public enemy number one.
There is only one litmus test required to prove or disprove my statement. Here is how we would perform the test. Advertise for new hires to replace the existing fire department employees at 60% of the pay and half the benefits, and count the number of qualified candidates that apply for the jobs. My expectation is that the line of qualified candidates would snake for blocks if not miles. So then, what would be the social benefit delivered by the fire fighters union in consideration of this test? Frankly, I cannot think of a single one at this point in time.
We need to wake up and smell the union-tainted coffee. The solution to our problems is to support municipal and state bans on public employee unionization.
There are good people working in these unions jobs. They will still be good people after the unions are gone and those less-good people bent on enriching themselves at the expense of all other public service are also gone.
SODA: Yes, Harriet again.
David G, great work, and article.
However, all five CC members refused to even pull from consent the City Attorney Contract. Four of these CC members just awarded a $4 million contract to West Yost, to reward them for botching much of the sewer plant design, and the water rate and water plant debacle. Five CC members have failed to settle the DACHA mess, and the recent offer of around $250K was a joke under the circumstances. Five CC members have failed to discipline or fire the staff members who set up four CC members to vote for obviously and facially fraudulent water rate increases on Sept 6th. Five CC members have failed to enforce the mandate last year to staff to fund $2.5 million in cuts to balance the budget.
David, basically I do not believe that much, if anything, has really changed. There is no accountability to the CC by our city staff, and given the failure to even pull and discuss the City Attorney’s new contract, I do not believe that this CC has the guts to make the changes necessary after the CC majorities from 2005 until now are basically bankrupting the city.
Look at the “downtown parking garage to nowhere.” The CC rushed out to buy bonds at high rates, and now the money is sitting in accounts doing nothing, and we are bleeding interest payments on the bonds. The garage proposal was DOA from any reasonable analysis, yet the CC just simply rushed itself into making a terrible deal.
Nothing is changed, David, nothing.
[quote]”However, a lot has changed: the City Council, the City Manager and the Fire Chief are all different. The City’s decision to release more information is a sign that the City is now much more interested in transparency than it once was,” Mr. Boylan concluded.
We now see changes coming together, whether it is the imposed MOU on those leadership positions, the professional negotiator or the fact that they hired a new interim chief that will not be in the pocket of the firefighters union.
Much needs to occur, but for the first time there is reason for hope and optimism.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Against that grain, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek found themselves on the short end of that 3-2 vote for transparency and accountability.[/quote]
I found this from December 2008 Vanguard article:
[quote]However, both Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor and Councilmember Stephen Souza disagreed.
“I think that it’s reasonable to make another point of view known here. That is to the degree that materials and information comes to the City Manager that is personnel related, we don’t look at the personnel files of every employee in the city.”
The Mayor Pro Tem continued with a bit of his own John McCain, “that one moment”
“We actually employee those two [pointing at Harriet Steiner and Bill Emlen]. Those are the two we employ.”
He continued:
“In terms of policy issues, in terms of behavioral issues that are addressed in a grand jury report, we should hear from the city manager and hear his report. How he has gathered information to arrive at the conclusions and findings that he is going to be presenting to us is his responsibility. Just so that’s clear, I’m interested in hearing from the city manager what his conclusions are based on whatever he has done to arrive at them. I don’t need to know what exactly was stated by any person, at every point in time.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza agreed.
“I don’t need all fifty pages, I just don’t.”
He continued:
“I don’t need to have the “he said, she said” full story. I don’t. I am not in charge of personnel, except for as Councilman Saylor said, we are in charge of two personnel, that’s who we’re in charge of, we hire and fire them. That is our main task from a personnel standpoint. When it comes to this matter, I want to know from our ombudsman, through our city manager, how he arrived at his conclusions, and give me the pertinent information so I can come to my conclusions about it.”[/quote]
Link: here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1218:independent-investigation-of-grand-jury-report-on-the-fire-department-pushed-back-until-january&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
JS:
I posted the link and quotes above.
“What have the council members been doing about this report itself in the past year?”
I don’t know the answer to that question.
“Did they all become complicate in continuing the cover-up until the Vanguard settlement? “
I think this was a difficult question, particularly given the fact that Chief Conroy is now retired and the report is several years own.
“By “forced to read,” do you mean council action was required to approve your settlement?”
Sort of because they agreed on what to redact.
“I’d like to hear from the two current councilors originally involved. What did Sue and Stephen know about these findings and when did they know it? “
As far as I know, the council was allowed to read but not take out of the city manager’s office some version that was less redacted than what the public got back in February 2009. And as you know they voted 3-2 to not see the full report.
“Councilman Souza has the most to account for here. “
I agree.
“Why would any public body member vote to keep its own ombudsman’s report secret from the public and, most astonishingly, from itself? “
To be honest it’s the most puzzling thing I have ever seen in the nearly six years I have been doing this.
“Explained or not, Stephen’s role in “the lowest point of the City Council in the last 10 years” could have much more impact on his reelection that the mailer that caused such uproar. “
I agree. We’ll see.
Mr. Harrington: I just don’t agree that nothing has changed. Is it as rapidly as we might want it? No. But I see very real changes in how the city is run.
[quote]”I don’t need all fifty pages, I just don’t….I don’t need to have the ‘he said, she said’ full story. I don’t. I am not in charge of personnel, except for as Councilman Saylor said, we are in charge of two personnel, that’s who we’re in charge of, we hire and fire them. That is our main task from a personnel standpoint. When it comes to this matter, I want to know from our ombudsman,[u] through our city manager[/u]…”[/quote]What an odd (at the time) and humiliating (upon reflection after all these years) description of municipal oversight responsibility.
David, have you posted a link to the City Manager Bill Emlen’s official report to the council, the one that more than satisfied Don, Ruth and Stephen? I wonder if Councilman Souza would have voted to fire the “two personnel” if he’d chosen to read the ombudsman’s report. The city attorney should have the third one, in my opinion.
Weird that he even resisted hearing directly from the city ombudsman (because Aaronson might have slipped and exposed something the three?).
This looks like the perfect topic for your next interview with the five council candidates. I hope that Stephen and Sue show up this time.
“…might have slipped and exposed something the three [u]didn’t want to hear[/u]?”
JS: “Explained or not, Stephen’s role in “the lowest point of the City Council in the last 10 years” could have much more impact on his reelection that the mailer that caused such uproar.”
Funny I thought the lowest point in the last ten years was Sue lashing out at Ruth making Ruth call 911 with Sue and Emlen almost mano a mano after Sue used the derogatory and abusive term “Boy” in addressing her employee. As Don Saylor pointed out in the quote above the council only has two employees so I guess Sue was abusive to 50% of the employees at that time.
Great column, David.
I believe a lot has changed in the last few years. However, the real test will come later this year. Only then will we know the fortitude of the spine of the council (which itself will likely have one or two new members).
The labor contracts all expire on June 30, 2012. I would put the chances that all or most of the labor groups reach agreements on seriously reformed contracts before July 1 at 0.00031%. If the two sides do not agree on terms–I would put that likelihood at 99.99869%–then sooner or later the impasse procedures will have to start.
I think there are two open questions about our city council:
1. Will the best and last terms they request in negotiations be adequate? That is, will the long laundry list of needed reforms be included? Or will the terms continue to be unsustainable?
2. Once impasse begins, will the city and the city council have the kishkas ([url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kishke[/url]) to see the process through to the end, following the letter of the law?
If the process plays out like I expect it will, where new contract terms are imposed on all or most of the City’s employees, I would not be too surprised that there will be a very angry response from some city employees. I don’t expect violence, but it would not surprise me. I do expect some will go on strike or engage in sick-outs, etc. So again, the question remains whether the next city council will have the courage to do what needs to be done for the long-term health of the city and how they will respond to an angry workforce.
Rich, please list five current council members or candidates who you think have the кишка́ (or any of the body parts necessary) to stand up to the reactions you anticipate are possible. Please list in rank order.
JS: I know you will find my non-answer to your request pusillanimous, but I’m not willing to rank them. I think those who stay steadfast will be demonstrating a strong character. So if I rank someone lower in the list you request, it implies (to my way of thinking) that I am saying so-and-so has weak character. I don’t want to say that about any of them, especially since I feel unqualified (due to a lack of personal interactions) to judge some of them. Moreover, until we cross that bridge, no one really knows. Also, I would guess that some of the current five will not be a part of the next quintet.
All that said, I think the willingness to stand strong in the face of this sort of difficulty is probably seen in someone who is willing to challenge the accepted wisdom and to resist the temptation to curry favor with organized minorities whose interests do not coincide with the public interest.
One sign of good hope about the Council standing strong is that they did so with regard to the DCEA situation. However, because (in my opinion) Harriet Steiner screwed the pooch on the law in that case and because the terms were never imposed on DCEA, we don’t know what the reaction of the workers would have been and hence we don’t know what the Council’s response would have been.
Almost as troubling as the impasse screw up by Ms. Steiner–well, not almost, but still disappointing–was the “best and last” offer screw up in all of the contracts of 2010. The City cannot impose sustainable contract terms on its workers if the Council concedes in private to terms which themselves are not real reforms (assuming here that what I call real reforms are what needs to be done to sustain). In other words, I think the 2010 Council did not ask enough concessions from the labor groups. And by not asking enough in negotiations, it would have been illegal to impose terms which were more stringent.
Maybe Steiner messed up on purpose causing a lot of employees to make more money for another year.
There you go, adding another required condition. What a pusillanimous. The question is who has the guts and stamina–forget about character–to persevere very long in such an undesirable situation? Does anyone in this possible gang?
I just got a Brett Lee hit piece in the mail. Looks like Nixon’s Plumbers are at it again. Claims he is endorsed by the Davis Enterprise. Who in their right mind would put that on their mailer?
Note to Jeff, continuing from a prior thread: it is because of things like this that I find the ChamberPAC’s endorsement of Souza very perplexing.
“Funny I thought the lowest point in the last ten years was Sue lashing out at Ruth”
I think that’s pretty telling. The suppression of this material strikes of a cover up. The policy implications of the Sue-Ruth catfight pale in comparison.
Since you haven’t said anything of substance, what do you think of the report, that you have now read thoroughly undoubtedly and what do you think of the efforts to cover it up?
“
I just got a Brett Lee hit piece in the mail. Looks like Nixon’s Plumbers are at it again. Claims he is endorsed by the Davis Enterprise. Who in their right mind would put that on their mailer?”
remember when Vergis quoted the Enterprise endorsement back in 2010 only problem she didn’t get their endorsement in 2010, she got in 2008.
I think the Firemen like a lot of public sector employees had a good run. Remember the dot com bubble was when all this largess was supposed to translate into a growing pension fund surplus lasting forever. While the contracts you write about happened later, some of the elements like 3% at 50, were already in place. Now the chickens have come home to roost and the unsustainable expenses will be adjusted by making employees pick up more of the costs while receiving fewer benefits thus saving the city from the day of reckoning you have been predicting for years. As for a cover up of what? Some guy got a promotion he didn’t deserve and a environment of intimidation existed. The city council sat on it. What else is new. The same guy got those intimidated workers the best firefighter contract ever. Everyone who ever got passed over for promotion has claimed sour grapes.
As for Vergis touting the Enterprise endorsement how did that work out? Aren’t you going to investigate who put out that Brett Lee hit piece?
What hit piece?
My second most indelible memory of the two Sydney Vergis campaigns is the excellent retro Schwinn tandem bike she was on in a campaign photo.
The first? That almost every dollar she raised in 2008 came from Monsieur Weist, et al.
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JZch_WQRTHM/T77MfUv2XiI/AAAAAAAAAlc/zxAqYotfdN4/s1600/LOCAL+money.JPG[/img]
Remember when she wouldn’t identify her boyfriend because he had a secret job?
Hey guys Sydney Vergis isn’t running for anything.
That’ll learn you to bring up extraneous information
Toad said “Funny I thought the lowest point in the last ten years was Sue lashing out at Ruth”
David said “I think that’s pretty telling. The suppression of this material strikes of a cover up. The policy implications of the Sue-Ruth catfight pale in comparison. “
Hey different strokes. The Sue-Ruth dust up was Sue’s worst exhibition in her dodecahedral service but it was not her only one. Whoever wins this election is going to deal with the budget. If you disagree show me an election outcome that you claim would result in any other conclusion? In my mind how you get there then becomes important and i think the members of the council and the community at large will have a less contentious and more productive endeavor without the kind of outbursts that are certain to happen if Sue is re-elected.
Don: [i]”Note to Jeff, continuing from a prior thread: it is because of things like this that I find the ChamberPAC’s endorsement of Souza very perplexing.”[/i]
The way I see it, the Chamber PAC is focused on economic development and I think these two issues, although connected, are mutually exclusive from a political perspective. I think it is reasonable for a candidate to support the public employee unions AND economic development. In fact, if you think about it… a growing economy helps the firefighters as it potentially removes, or at least delays, the growing realization that their pay and benefit committments will bankrupt the city.
Conversely, resolving the unsustainable pay and benefits problems will relieve pressure for seeking to expand our revenue and hence make the push to increase economic development more difficult (i.e., the NIMBY, statists will have a stronger argument for not having to change a thing).
For me, I am standing on my principles which include both… greater economic development and an end to the public employee unions in support of sustainable government.
Jeff Boone comes out against austerity. Way to go Jeff.
Toad: Don’t follow. I think you are croaking up the wrong tree!
Toad: The fire report issue is not about the budget. It’s about corrupting the process. Whatever you want to say about Sue’s explosion, it happened in the open and it was duly reported at the time and in no way covered up.
Budget cutting begets more budget cutting that is the problem with austerity. Watch the number of businesses in Sacramento shrink by the same percentage that state workers lose in Jerry Brown’s latest budget. That is what happened under Arnold. Remember the private sector has been growing but the public sector has been shrinking. Since this region is heavily dependent on the public sector we get hit hardest. How to grow the economy that is the answer.
Yes the cover up is worse than the sin. The lesson of Watergate. So what do you want indictments? When is the statute of limitations up?
Although Sue wanted to cover it up even blaming you for reporting it.
I wonder how many similar outbursts by Sue are covered up because they happen in closed session? Remember Ruth said something like it was the third time she had gone to emergency because of Sue but we only saw one time. It seems logical the others happened in closed session.
[i]”… it was the third time she had gone to emergency [b]because of[/b] Sue …”[/i]
Of course, this makes no medical sense and even less common sense. Ruth had or has some kind of anxiety disorder. That is what caused her to have an anxiety attack that night. If Sue had this disorder and Ruth was otherwise perfectly healthy, then the same argument would have hospitalized Sue. Would that have been Ruth’s fault?
I’ve been in plenty of heated arguments. I’ve never been hospitalized over one or had the person I have argued loudly with go to the hospital. Yet under the Toad theory, if I had an anxiety attack, that would have been the fault of the person I was arguing with? Makes utterly no sense.
I was para phrasing Ruth. My point was to try to sketch out what Sue’s behavior is like when the microphone is off. A number of people in this community know what Sue is like I wish they would come forward.
I know its easy for me to say that cloistered in the cool wet darkness of Toad Hollow.
Rifkin wrote: ” I’ve been in plenty of heated arguments. I’ve never been hospitalized over one or had the person I have argued loudly with go to the hospital. Yet under the Toad theory, if I had an anxiety attack, that would have been the fault of the person I was arguing with? Makes utterly no sense.”
It made sense to Fred Sanford, among others…….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdi-1tIUhM
Mr. Toad: The public sector is falling apart. We cannot rely on it for this area or any area. The only choice we have is to develop our private-sector economy to pick up the slack, or we become more of a Podunk region. I am for austerity.
But to get back to the actual ISSUES……Sue warned of the unsustainable long-terms cost that would be incurred by signing off on the contracts she opposed, Sue predicted that there would be two tiers of retirement benefits to deal with the problem, and Sue predicted there would be morale problems because of the two tiers. Too bad the council majority was more interested in “going along to get along” than in content back then, because we could have been in a much better position now if folks had just taken a real look at what Sue had to say then. We need her voice on the council.
[i] I am for austerity.[/i]
Not if your contributions to the PAC that has endorsed Souza are any indication. His fiscal record is terrible. He received more funds from the union than any other candidate. So just because he says the right things about vague principles of economic development, you support him?
Don, I contributed, but I can’t say that I agree 100% with the endorsements yet. Frankly I am still on the fence for my CC picks. I was interested in the bigger picture economic development need. I can’t defend the PAC or Souza on your point. I haven’t been engaged enough on the historical performance. But, if what you write is true, I would need to follow up with the ChamberPAC leadereship to get their thinking.
I guess I understood Souza to have a somewhat stronger cozy relationship with past developers… you know, those people that want to develop commercial property to help our economy grow. Souza is also a supporting force for the surface water project which I certainly support, the Chamber supports (or supported)… and I think you too still support.
“it made sense to Fred Sanford:” [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdi-1tIUhM[/url]
LOL. I miss that show.
Though, I have to agree with Rich Rifkin on this. Why would anyone participate in Davis politics if they were prone to anxiety attacks? I think that would justify a question about their sense of judgement.
I still remember one trip to New York where two guys in suits on a street corner were wagging fingers and shouting in conflict about some political issue that included the words “Carter”, “Reagan”, “Bush” and “Clinton”. Then a moment of silence, and one guy says to the other: “So, how is your wife and kids dooun’? We need to get the families together again for dinner.” Then the light changed and they crossed the street together still talking like nothing happened.
At that time, I had the idea for a “New York Style Conflict Management” program to bring back to hyper-sensitive, thin-skinned California people I worked with.
Then I watched a TV program on legislative politics in Korea…
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHMrgwAuJ_U[/url]
Now… and this is just a thought… maybe this would have been a better way for Ruth and Sue to solve their conflicts??? Note that at the end the bill was passed!
One more point on Ruth having an anxiety attack that night. Apparently, she had previously had many more of these attacks not involving anyone else on the City Council. I am sure they are scary and I feel bad for her for feeling poorly and having to be taken to the hospital.
However, I was told (by someone else on that same City Council) that Ruth’s trip to the hospital that night was very brief and that she flew the very next morning to her native Philippines. I would imagine at that point Ruth knew how to adjust after having such an anxiety attack. Yet Toad and the unions make it seem as if Sue pushed Ruth off of a cliff and Sue caused Ruth’s head to blow open. Toad’s attack is not just wrong; it’s completely unfair to blame Sue for Ruth having a medical disorder.
How many of you just got a gang email from Kevin Wolf? Among his recommendations:[quote]X Lucas Frerichs for City Council. I worked with Lucas on the City’s Housing Steering Committee a few years ago. He is very smart and good at getting the group to focus on the core issues and objectives. I think he would be very good at helping the city council get more done with less time.
X Stephen Souza for City Council. Stephen works hard, and he is a consistently strong voice for the environment and good land use planning principles that reduce driving and pollution.
X Dan Wolk for City Council. I don’t know Dan as well as Lucas and Stephen but from everyone I talk to and from my own experience, Dan is very good at getting things done and helping people on the ground in town. He is also quite good at getting the council to move forward on issues.
X Senate: A new Democratic or Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Our incumbent, Senator Dianne Feinstein, will get my vote in November but not in the primary. She is more beholden to the large corporate agribusiness of the San Joaquin Valley and the businesses that buy and sell water than I want her to be. My decision to not vote for her now will hopefully help send her a message to not look out for the 1% as much as she seemingly does. [/quote]
Don: I suspect the PAC endorsements were, unfortunately, more about a process of elimination than anything else. Sue and Brett are both expected to be anti-economic development, so I don’t see that the PAC had any other rational option.
“Toad’s attack is not just wrong; it’s completely unfair to blame Sue for Ruth having a medical disorder.”
Two things. First my point was to speculate what Sue must be like in closed session based on what we saw in open session.
Second, its one thing to have an argument. Its another to follow someone out who claims to be sick and is seeking medical attention to continue an argument. That behavior by Sue raises real and serious concerns about her emotional intelligence and fitness to serve.
Jeff: [i]I guess I understood Souza to have a somewhat stronger cozy relationship with past developers… you know, those people that want to develop commercial property to help our economy grow. Souza is also a supporting force for the surface water project which I certainly support, the Chamber supports (or supported)… and I think you too still support.[/i]
His relationship is with housing developers. But I can’t think of any development project that Stephen has opposed.
I support the water project, but it appears to have the votes it needs (in one form or another) without him.
The problem is, as David put it on April 30:
“It was Stephen Souza who, during his first term, took $3 million that the city would annually collect as the result of their half cent sales tax measure, and virtually gave it directly to the firefighters in the form a 36% salary increase.
The voters had passed the measure back in 2004, ostensibly to avoid service cuts, but instead it helped push total compensation for firefighters to nearly $150,000 a year.
It was Stephen Souza who, on the brink of the economic collapse, insisted that the city had a balanced budget and a 15% reserve, despite at that time what was $13 million in deferred maintenance.
It was Stephen Souza who helped pushed through not only the budget in 2009 by a 3-2 vote, but the series of MOUs in 2009 and 2010 that did little to change the status quo. He was the swing vote on all of those and went against the side of fiscal sustainability.”
“I guess I understood Souza to have a somewhat stronger cozy relationship with past developers… you know, those people that want to develop commercial property to help our economy grow. Souza is also a supporting force for the surface water project which I certainly support, the Chamber supports (or supported)… and I think you too still support.”
My friend Steve Souza is an old style Democrat. He is for economic development, middle class jobs that pay living wages, public works projects and housing development. He runs a small business in a relatively small town. He understands what it takes to make ends meet in these uncertain economic times. The fact that he supported public sector employees when times were good should be seen as a plus. So did Arnold, by the way, spending every penny in the state treasury on raises before the 06 election. Now that these employee contracts have been shown to be budget busters adjustments will be made. There is no shame in supporting cops, firefighters and other city employees to the fullest extent possible. You anti-union guys want to make some big conspiracy out of it but it is much simpler. Steve is a classic small town booster as revealed by the support he gets from both pro-union and pro-business interests in Davis. There is no mystery; Steve wants the business and working people of Davis to prosper.
David G: The CC personalities are better, but they keep making horrible votes on fiscal issues Sorry
[quote]if I had an anxiety attack, that would have been the fault of the person I was arguing with? [/quote]Cause, NO… “trigger”, maybe/likely yes… “fault”? No.
“It was Stephen Souza who …”
This is meaningless anti-Souza rhetoric. Steve is just one vote.
I personally don’t agree with the way the majority voted in some of these cases. But the fact of the matter is that if the council hadn’t been polarized with a dysfunctional obstructionist on one side, who knows how the votes would have played out.
Polarization or collaboration. IMO decisions made by a collaborative group are generally better (and more moderate) than decisions made by a polarized group.
It’s easier to move to the middle when you’re not being harangued by someone that insists that its their way or the highway, and accuses you of being corrupt and/or stupid if you disagree.
If I’m following your logic, Sue is responsible for Stephen having voted irresponsibly. She has amazing powers, I’d say.
[quote]Why would anyone participate in Davis politics [b]if they were prone to anxiety attacks[/b]? I think that would [b]justify a question about their sense of judgement[/b]. [/quote]God (or karma, or however one want to categorize it) forbid that you, any member of your family, or close friends ever suffer from ‘anxiety disorder with panic’, some degree of bi-polar (and there are many) disorder, etc. These can be ‘latent’, not observable until a situation perceived by the individual as particularly stressful comes up. One could say the same for someone who stutters & or stammers. [Although, we know of NO CC member who EVER exhibits those behaviors]
Sue may have triggered the reaction… I would say that was not her fault, unless she wanted to trigger it. Have seen no reason to believe that was true… HOWEVER, there are several credible accounts that once Ruth’s reaction was triggered, Ms Greenwald suggested that Ruth was being a “drama queen”, ‘faking it’, or otherwise being insensitive to the situation.
hpierce: I have a hard time blaming one politician for causing another to have an anxiety attack. I have complete sympathy for these health issues you mention, but some health issues make people incompatible for particular jobs. For example, if a person had asthma, I would think they wouldn’t become a painter or a stone mason because of fumes and dust. If a person was diagnosed as being bi-polar or with an anxiety or panic disorder, I would expect them to forgo running for any stressful political position. Did Ruth know she had these issues, and make it known to Sue? If not, how would a person know?
Conversely, I do think I would attend to a person showing signs of distress regardless of my lack of prior knowledge of a condition. I would tend to their safety first. Then after I was convinced of their safety, I might roll my eyes or even make a snarky comment if I thought they had been acting.
“If I’m following your logic, Sue is responsible for Stephen having voted irresponsibly. She has amazing powers, I’d say.”
Don, you know perfectly well what I’m saying. Sue makes it hard for people to come to the middle and build consensus around a compromise.
And yes, Sue does have amazing powers – amazing powers of destruction.
[quote]”Why would any public body member vote to keep its own ombudsman’s report secret from the public and, most astonishingly, from itself? ”
To be honest it’s the most puzzling thing I have ever seen in the nearly six years I have been doing this. [/quote]
Because the Gang of Three implicitly trusted Bill Emlen – they did what they were told…
“Ms Greenwald suggested that Ruth was being a “drama queen”, ‘faking it’, or otherwise being insensitive to the situation.”
I have a lot of empathy for anyone who suffers from anxiety disorders. Much has been made of Sue’s insensitivity to Ruth’s discomfort during an exacerbation. Very little attention has been paid to Ruth’s exploitation of her own illness for her own gain by placing the blame for her medical condition on Sue. Keeping her illness under control is the responsibility of Ruth and her physician. This is in no way Sue’s responsibility.
However, because (in my opinion) Harriet Steiner screwed the pooch on the law in that case and because the terms were never imposed on DCEA, we don’t know what the reaction of the workers would have been and hence we don’t know what the Council’s response would have been.
The terms of the contract were imposed, and the employees of DCEA are currently working under those terms.
“The terms of the contract were imposed, and the employees of DCEA are currently working under those terms.”
The first part is true. I don’t think the second part is at this point.
You don’t think, or you know? Please find out for sure and let us know.
I’ll check. But the city was ordered to restore the previous contract with back pay compensation. I have not heard otherwise.
Yes, but they appealed that decision.
You are right, they are under the contract that the city imposed pending appeal.
Thanks David. Hopefully Rifkin reads this. I’d like to see him state the facts next time.