As we noted in yesterday’s column, the 2012 Davis City Council campaign will go down as one being largely about personalities rather than issues. Despite this, and to the credit of the candidates, at least on a personal level, the campaign was marked by remarkable civility.
Nevertheless, it is to the detriment of the community that were was not more robust on several very critical issues, moving forward.
The most important issue facing the city is the budget – every candidate acknowledges this. It is our view that over the next three budgets, the city will have to find a way to trim roughly $7 million or 20% of the general fund.
The toughest votes on the budget were cast nearly a year ago. Mayor Joe Krovoza moved and Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson seconded a motion that would shift $2.5 million from personnel to cover unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance on roads.
In a room that was over 90 degrees, staring down at 150 angry employees, Dan Wolk cast that deciding vote to pass it 3-2.
On the short end of the vote, Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald argued that this was not the right time, that we would end up having to lay off a number of employees to cut $2.5 million and we should wait for the labor negotiations.
Councilmember Souza argued “We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we are going to achieve $2.5 million without people losing their jobs.”
Councilmember Greenwald said the question is how to do it in a way that minimizes layoffs. She argued that we have a very heavy-handed layoff approach and that we cannot even choose who we layoff, by law.
Though the council would pass this with a 3-2 vote, in essence the cuts were never implemented for a variety of reasons. So here we are again. And, yes, we have MOUs coming up, but MOUs are not going to get us to $7 million over three years.
One thing that has happened is that the council has gotten their ducks in a row. They utilized vacant fire management positions to produce their blueprint for the labor talks, laying out their ideals for how to deal with the unfunded liabilities.
Before the previous round of MOUs, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek pushed for an outside labor negotiator to take the lead in negotiations. They were voted down 3-2, with Stephen Souza joining Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson.
The result was that an internal team of negotiators, led by then City Manager Bill Emlen, then Finance Director Paul Navazio, and still HR Director Melissa Chaney.
The result of those negotiations was a mostly unequivocal “fail.” The city failed to get critical concessions for employee shares of retirement, cafeteria cash outs and, ultimately, bottom line savings. That has set up a scenario of do-or-die in this year’s rounds, where if the city does not gain enough concessions they face the very real possibility of bankruptcy.
Worse yet, the inherent conflictual nature of the internal negotiation team blew up when Ms. Chaney, the HR Director, negotiated on the management side of not only her own bargaining unit, but her husband’s bargaining unit.
Things have changed, and the new council unanimously approved the hiring of an outside labor negotiator and they unanimously agreed to expand the contract when the first allocation of money was about to run out.
While the budget is a hugely important issue, it is not the only issue. Water is tremendously important as well.
On September 6, the council voted 4-1, with Sue Greenwald dissenting, to implement the new surface water project with what turned out to be poorly-designed rate structures.
What ensued from there was a citizen campaign to put the entire project and rate structure on the ballot. The referendum would gain enough signatures to qualify.
However, what many forget is that, the night of September 6, there was a motion on the table for a one-year rate hike to pay for existing infrastructure upgrades while the larger project was further explored.
That motion, supported by Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson, failed to get a third vote. In essence, that 4-1 vote reflected the inability of the council to coalesce around an alternative, a fact borne out exactly three months later as Mr. Wolk and Ms. Swanson brought the proposal back and this time it gained majority support.
The two main impacts of that three-month period are the creation of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to address issues of ideal surface water design, cost, rates and scope. There are alternatives that might be on the table to save the city and its ratepayers tremendous amounts of money.
At some point, the council will have to make a decision and a new measure will likely be put on the ballot for November.
The issue of DACHA (Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association) remains a heated issue, despite the strong 5-0 support in favor of each step of the process the city has taken to date. However, where there are cracks are some members of the current council, such as Dan Wolk, have asked for the council to look into an independent investigation as to the city’s role and the use of public money.
As the DACHA matter goes into dissolution and the units are put into a new affordable housing program, this issue remains live.
The issue of Davis Diamonds mixes the issue of recreation with economic development. A council majority made up entirely of councilmembers facing reelection – Dan Wolk, Stephen Souza, and Sue Greenwald – voted 3-2 to support a conditional use permit to allow Davis Diamonds to relocate into the automall in South Davis.
While proponents of the move argue that the location was vacant for several years, the city acknowledged that one company had interest in locating at that facility – however, they were scared off by the potential bad publicity that preventing a move by the popular gymnastics program may have generated.
Interestingly enough, the city’s conditional use permit may prove successful in preventing the move into the automall, as MarkeTech has since backed out of the deal and without the partner, Davis Diamonds has been unsuccessful at gaining a loan needed for the move.
The Davis City Council members receive a small amount of compensation for their lengthy hours on behalf of the residents. Perhaps changing the rules right before the council elections was not a wise move politically.
Originally the council supported the increased compensation by a vote of 3-2, with Sue Greenwald joining Mayor Krovoza and Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, and Dan Wolk and Stephen Souza dissenting.
Sue Greenwald, the strongest supporter of the move, argued voraciously for it in April, stating, “”Some councilmembers are wealthier than others.”
“There are councilmember that do not [make a lot of money],” Councilmember Greenwald continued. “There are councilmembers for whom a small raise would not just be a token. I think we have to be mindful of that. Right now we tend to have more people who make a lot of money on the council, because of this problem that it doesn’t pay at all.”
“I think we might be more inclined to get people who don’t make as much money and keep them there, people like Lamar Heystek for example, if there were some compensation,” she continued.
However, a few weeks later and after considerable public fallout, the councilmember who has campaigned on making the tough choices that might not be popular flipped, and the measure died.
The city of Davis faces not one but two historic issues in the next six months – budget and water. In fact, the city has not even rolled out its budget discussion for what is normally due by the end of the month, the same date that the current MOUs expire.
And the issue of water is a decision that will impact this community for the next fifty years, at least.
That is what we face in the coming months. That is what the voters’ job will be tomorrow – decide which three of the five on the ballot will be most up to these tasks. The arguments have been made, we now await the decision of the voters.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Sue Greenwald, the strongest supporter of the move, who argued voraciously for in April stating, “”Some councilmembers are wealthier than others.’ “
I hadn’t thought about this before but what appears to be a cry of hardship by Sue is really support for her less well off colleagues. How could it be otherwise with Sue, I believe, owning at least two houses in Davis and one in the Bay area. Or at least she did when we used to hang out. I remember her bragging in Bernardo’s bar about how wealthy she was while I was trying to watch the NBA Playoffs and I only refrain from telling how much she claimed to be worth out of a sense of privacy. Of course, this was before the housing market collapsed, so maybe her equity has declined. Still I remember the bartender complaining later, after Sue had left, that she was a lousy tipper.
My sense is the candidates are very aware of the issues facing our city and would like to have that in depth discussion you say is missing. it’s the voters (at least many of them) that have their heads in the sand.
And I am tired of going to forum after forum where the candidates are asked about these very issues and get THREE MINUTES to explain their views (or one or two paragraphs in a newspaper article).
There must be a better way to get across to the voters the seriousness of the problems we face.
I had not heard of the news of Davis Diamonds. I always though it unfair that their partner MarkeTech should be able to ride on te sympathy for DD and be able to get into an area so much more cheaply than other office wonders can. Are DD now going to leave Davis as they indicated?
David, you wrote:
“However, a few weeks later and after considerable public fallout, the councilmember who has campaigned on making the tough choices that might not be popular flipped, and the measure died.”
Why did you choose not to directly identify who the councilmember who flipped was? I assume that because Sue is the only councilmember who supported this measure that is running in the current election, that it must be her. Is this fact so widely known that you felt the need not to identify her by name on it? Just seemed really odd.
David: If you concern was a discussion of the issues, why did you write most of your articles about mailers, endorsements, and how one group or another ‘doesn’t get it?” You direct the discussion here by the articles that you post and you chose to post about the sideshow.
[quote]Before the previous round of MOUs, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek pushed for an outside labor negotiator to take the lead in negotiations. They were voted down 3-2, with Stephen Souza joining Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson.[/quote]This particular vote of Stephen’s was very important and unfortunate. One can only wonder what those negotiations might have achieved with professional handling by an outsider without conflicts of interest. Instead, we literally had a manager negotiating with a bargaining unit to which her own spouse belongs. Perhaps more counterproductively, we had managers negotiating with bargaining units representing many people with whom they work daily and upon whose cooperation and support they depend. An outside negotiator would not have suffered those conflicts.
Mark:
(A) I don’t make the news, I cover what has happened and those things were news
(B) I disagree that I wrote most of my articles about other than issues?
I did quite a few articles on the candidates positions and quite a few on issues like the budget.
[i]”One thing that has happened is that the council has gotten their ducks in a row. They utilized vacant fire management positions to produce their blueprint for the labor talks, laying out their ideals for how to deal with the unfunded liabilities.”[/i]
I wonder who told them to do that?
David: “[i]I did quite a few articles on the candidates positions and quite a few on issues like the budget.[/i]”
And a number attacking the credibility of the Chamber PAC.
My point David, is you have control over what you talk about here. Had you spent the majority of your efforts talking about the issues (regardless of what the Enterprise or Bob Dunning wanted to talk about) you could correctly make this complaint. I don’t think you can today as you were a significant part of the problem.
[i]”Worse yet, the inherent conflictual nature of the internal negotiation team blew up when Ms. Chaney, the HR Director, negotiated on the management side of not only her own bargaining unit, but her husband’s bargaining unit.”[/i]
I am not sure if Melissa Chaney, who has always struck me as a very competent person, has ever made any public comments on the issue of whether the City would be better served by an outside negotiator or the structure we had with her, Emlen and Navazio as our bargainers, but I can testify that in private conversations–the first time 7 or 8 years ago–she told me that she thought Davis should have an outside negotiator meeting with the labor groups. She said that would work better for everyone involved. So, insofar as blame needs to be laid for what was done, I don’t think it is fair to shoulder it on her. And while I agree with you that she was clearly in a conflicted position negotiating against the labor group which includes her husband, Rick Guidara, I would mostly blame her superiors, Navazio and Emlen, for not taking Melissa off of that contract.
What most disturbs me currently about how the negotiating is done is the closed sessions where the City Council meets with top staff and the outside negotiator(s) to tell them what the Council wants. I have no problem having these discussions in secret. That allows a better flow of ideas and lets each member of the Council, without playing to any crowd, fully vent his or her views. But I think the public would be very well served if, after each of these meetings, our City Clerk would post a summary of the conclusions that the Council reached. In other words, if the idea on the table was to have a lower second-tier pension for new hires–say 2.5% at 60 for police and fire–and the Council majority agreed that should be the stance of the City, then the City Clerk should have to report that conclusion (later that day). The report does not have to say how the majority reached that point or who among the five on the Council voted which way. But by letting the public know what the Council’s advice or stance is prior to the negotiations with the labor groups, then when the MOU is published some time later, we can know “the City got this, but didn’t get that, and they gave in a little here or there.”
A real flaw of the current process has to do with the impasse procedures. If the two sides cannot reach agreement and the Council decides they are at an impasse, the Council can (as long as they follow state law and our local ordinance) impose their “best and final offer” on any labor group, and that will serve as the new contract for a year or until agreement is reached. But if the public is kept entirely out of the loop until the MOU is published (after the process is over), we have no idea what terms the Council offered in the first place. And if the Council offered terms which are insufficient to sustain the City’s budget*, then when they come to impose a “best and final offer,” that offer still may not be one that is good for the taxpayers of Davis, and we would never have known that our negotiators failed us until it was too late.
*This, in effect, was at the heart of the infamous squabble between Ruth Asmundson and Sue Greenwald–that is, what was said in closed session and what the terms were that Ruth favored or did not favor. It appeared to be the case that a majority of Ruth, Don and Stephen, in closed session, voted to tell their negotiating team that, when it came to cafeteria cash-outs, employees could keep 90% of the unused amount they were allotted for healthcare coverage. So if the allotted amount was $20,000, and a worker used none of that, the employee could pocket $18,000. If he used $6,000 out of the $20,000, he could pocket 90% of the $14,000 left over (or $12,600). The total cost of these cash outs was around $4 million per year–and still is–and that represents a huge percentage of the General Fund revenues. So if this year a new majority does not take a harder stance on this issue in closed session, we will never know about that until it is too late.
For many, many years I argued for an outside negotiator without success.
Whether or not to hire an independent negotiator was strictly a council decision.
Mark: You might have a point if I hadn’t don’e dozens of articles on the issues.
David:
You should rightfully take credit where deserved, and I agree you did do a number of fine, issues based articles. You should also however take responsibility where that is deserved, and in this case you are complaining about something that you contributed to in a significant way.
Fair enough. I guess I feel that I covered things that deserved coverage (even a lot of the chamber stuff was based on economic development issues and where candidates stood) and that I amply and adequately covered the issues. I think 2 cowherd is probably pretty close to spot on.
I think when it comes to the “issues” the candidates mostly resemble each other. Sue can point to her track record, Steven can reframe his track record, and the newbies (Wolk mostly included) can all agree. To the Vanguard’s credit, it seems the entire discussion of the Chamber PAC was simply a way to tease out any differences between the candidates. By discussing why the Chamber supported Steven, it was a find a difference. It mostly failed as politician recast themselves all the time.
All in all, the issues are not really the loser, because they all mostly agree on them. The bloggers and newspapers are the losers, because all they had to talk about was the Chamber PAC and the mailer.
[i]”All in all, the issues are not really the loser, because they all mostly agree on them.”[/i]
But keep in mind that not all of the stakeholders* in Davis politics are united on the issues. The city’s workers, including those who make modest livings and some who are doing very well by the system, largely don’t buy into the “consensus” view that we need to reduce how much we are paying them in total compensation or that we need to reduce the future growth of total comp to match the City’s revenue stream or that we need to reduce fire staffing by 1/4th, etc., etc. And I do not expect these stakeholders to accept these changes without a fight.
In a way, the same thing is true with the water project. Most people in Davis believe we should at some point tap into the Sacramento River for our household water needs. I think all five candidates hold that view. The debate is over the best way to do this most cost effectively, over what we ratepayers can afford and when we should take on this new expense. But even if a Council consensus develops and even if a Davis resident consensus forms, there are still outside stakeholders–namely the plumbers & pipefitters and operating engineers and other workers–who will fight for a project which suits their needs. That is why they went so hard on Sue Greenwald–they see her opinion as a threat to their money.
*I use that PC word, stakeholders, because many of those who have a stake in policy outcomes in Davis are not voters in Davis or residents in Davis, but rather live elsewhere but have a personal, financial interest in what decisions the Council makes. I recall, for example, that 80% of the Davis firefighters live in other towns, some 100 miles or more from here.
[quote]My point David, is you have control over what you talk about here. Had you spent the majority of your efforts talking about the issues (regardless of what the Enterprise or Bob Dunning wanted to talk about) you could correctly make this complaint. I don’t think you can today as you were a significant part of the problem.[/quote]
Mark
That was my reaction as well. I was trying to be nice to Davis, but we did seem to waste a lot of time on side issues. The key issues are the budget and peripheral growth. That is why I voted for Sue.
Rich: I’m not sure that posting the City’s position in advance of a negotiating session makes a lot of sense. There are often tradeoffs during negotiations where something that by itself is unacceptable is included as part of a package. Announcing it in advance will bring out the boo birds who may be able to scuttle the whole idea before any negotiations take place. I think a more useful requirement may be that a transcript of the closed session discussion be published at the completion of negotiations. That way if the Council gave away the house (as it were) we would know who was responsible and why.
Your critique of what I suggested may well be correct. I don’t know if anyone elsewhere does what I offered. But if not, we wouldn’t really know until we tried.
I recall that in 2009, Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald wanted to conduct these negotiation meetings in open session. So if what you think would go wrong with my idea is correct, it likely would go even worse in that respect if the Council’s negotiating positions were argued in front of the TV cameras.
What I do know is that when the public is completely removed from the process and we are essentially told the MOUs are a [i]fait accompli[/i] at the end of the process, the historical pattern in Davis (going back at least 25 years) has been an excessive generosity with the public’s money.
[i]”Announcing (the City’s bargaining positions) in advance will bring out the boo birds who may be able to scuttle the whole idea before any negotiations take place.”[/i]
I would hope that the announcements would instead force the Council (or a majority on it) to rationally justify their positions. My idea is not that these announcements should be end points and there should be no room to give. Rather, I would hope that the announced positions would be starting points.
But again, I concede I don’t really know if my idea would produce a better outcome. It might cause more problems than it solves.
Dr. Wu
[i]”That was my reaction as well. I was trying to be nice to Davis, but we did seem to waste a lot of time on side issues. The key issues are the budget and peripheral growth. That is why I voted for Sue.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, why do you feel peripheral growth is an issue? What is there about our current situation regarding peripheral growth that is broken and needs to be fixed?
I ask those questions because 1) I simply don’t see any evidence that it is a currently active, imminent or even pending issue, 2) the recent history of Measure R/J votes shows a clear pattern of voter control of this issue, and 3) the current housing/banking economy is a major barrier to entry for any developer who has even a glimmer of hope for pursuing peripheral development any time soon.
I respect your passion for this issue, so I’m interested in hearing your perspective on these questions and thoughts.
civil discourse said . . .
[i]”I think when it comes to the “issues” the candidates mostly resemble each other. Sue can point to her track record, Steven can reframe his track record, and the newbies (Wolk mostly included) can all agree. To the Vanguard’s credit, it seems the entire discussion of the Chamber PAC was simply a way to tease out any differences between the candidates. By discussing why the Chamber supported Steven, it was a find a difference. It mostly failed as politician recast themselves all the time.
All in all, the issues are not really the loser, because they all mostly agree on them. The bloggers and newspapers are the losers, because all they had to talk about was the Chamber PAC and the mailer.”[/i]
Well said. I pretty much subscribe to this line of thought.