The new council has been barely been inaugurated and sworn in, and I have already been asked by about everyone I have run into in the last day and a half, how the new council looked, how they cooperated Some asked if 10 pm was going to be the new closing time.
It was a huge mistake and it led to huge errors down the line. It also was not how the council would operate. In fact, for the first six months of that council, with Don Saylor as the Mayor, it looked like business as usual. Then a funny thing happened, Don Saylor resigned to become county supervisor and suddenly everything changed.
The moral of the story, you cannot tell the tale of the council until they have to make their first tough vote, late at night, in a hot room, with an angry mob staring them down. The last council did that in June of 2011, and the three new councilmembers did not blink.
Did they make mistakes? Sure. The 4-1 vote on the water on September 6, 2011 was a huge one that they have since rectified.
This council has two main challenges, both of which were handed down to it – water and the budget. But it is entirely possible that they can put those two issues to rest by the end of the first half of this term and the next question will be what becomes their legacy.
Should Joe Krovoza Be Mayor Still
This issue actually has come up, though it has never and will never be discussed at a public council meeting. There was a letter to the editor from Jon Li to this effect, it is rather obvious that for whatever reason Mr. Li has a bone to pick against Joe Krovoza. He has spent the last six months trying to drum stuff up.
Here is my take. We have a process that is in place to select the mayor. Is it the best system in the world? Probably not. It is not the worst system in the world either. Some cities have a strong Mayor system with the Mayor separately and independently elected. Others simply rotate the Mayor around much as the School Board does with its President and the Board of Supervisors with its Chair.
Our system at least rewards the person who finished first and therefore has some merit. Back in 2011 when the debate came up about how to replace the Mayor, Stephen Souza, self-servingly suggested a rotational basis and argued that he wanted to share the bounty with his colleagues – he used that word as though the mayorship was some sort of personal benefit.
It was appalling at that time. Back in 2006, Ted Puntillo was allowed to be Mayor for the month. Whatever you think about Mr. Puntillo, it struck me as abhorrent. The Mayorship is not a reward or a bounty. It should not be something that is passed around.
Fact is we set the rules for how this unusual situation would be handled back in January 2011. It decided at that time that Joe Krovoza would be Mayor for 3 ½ years. That Rochelle Swanson would serve as Mayor Pro Tem until the end of the term and then revert back to councilmember.
Doing something different should have been brought up at that point in time. Anything else strikes of the kind of politics that I think this system intends to avoid.
Rochelle Swanson would make an excellent Mayor and perhaps next election cycle she will get her chance.
If we want to change the way we select the Mayor, then we should discuss it in those terms and outside of the current situation.
Council Reform
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk raised the issue of council scheduling. Currently the council is set to meet twice a month, with holiday’s and days near holidays designated as “off” and other weeks as “on-call.”
At the same time, people want to talk about ending meetings earlier. Some believe that it was council member specific. I do not agree. Every time I have actually taken a calculator and added up time, the time was relatively evenly distributed and from issue-to-issue and week-to-week it varied in terms of that.
There are three critical time consumers – staff report, council questions and comments and public comment. The council could limit time for staff reports – that might save some time. The council would be ill-advised to touch public comment and to me it is wrong to limit what an elected official says – even if they ramble on and on at the end of a meeting for no purpose served.
The solution is rather simple – you want shorter meetings – have fewer items on the agenda. Maybe have a once-a-month or once-a-quarter meeting for presentations with a nice sponsored reception.
But the only way to limit the number of items is to have more meetings. Two a month is not going to cut it. The better idea would be three a month with an option for a four.
Moreover, they should attempt to limit the number of major and time consuming items on a single agenda. Next week is going to be a problem. There are clearly time sensitive matters so some of it is unavoidable. Then again, they will not be having a lot of meetings this summer.
That is there choice to some extent, but at the same time, we question how well decisions are being scrutinized and made at late hours of the night.
Farewell to Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza
Councilmember Stephen Souza attended the swearing in portion of the council meeting on Tuesday. Sue Greenwald did not.
However, Sue Greenwald did leave a little parting gift that thanked her campaign supporters.
In addition to thanking her supporters, she made a few substantive remarks.
Ms. Greenwald writes, “I want to apologize to everyone who placed so much support and faith in this campaign that, due to some unavoidable personal and time-consuming tasks that I had to deal with that coincided with the campaign period, I was not able to start this campaign in a timely fashion.”
She adds, “In retrospect, I would have needed a strong organization and a good head start to build up a lead large enough to overcome the special interest money and negative campaigning with which we had to contend.”
She concludes: “I have promised many of you that I will remain highly involved and that we will continue to work for the excellent city planning and for fiscally sensible solutions to our needs. If you want to help with this effort, stay informed or just show support, please email me at suegreen@dcn.org. I am turning over a new leaf and I promise to actually do a little organizing and keep lists of interested folks.”
While it is understandable though unfortunate that she did not make an appearance on Tuesday, she has remained active particularly on the issue of water. She deserves a lot of credit both for her tireless years of service to the community in general and her efforts on the water issue in particular.
The water project that is being shaped and molded by the council and the WAC bears little resemblance to original proposals, particularly on cost.
I must admit it was a little weird not to see either Sue Greenwald or Stephen Souza on the dais as they have been such prominent fixtures during the tenure of the Vanguard.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Talk is talk. When we see some budget repair, 3 members riding on on fire calls, DACHA settled and the involved affordable housing staff fired, City Attorney fired, and a sane, reasonable, and affordable water project, then we can all breath a sigh of relief and move into the post-Saylor era of fiscal sanity.
I remember after the 06 Democratic sweep of congress somebody musing that the Dems hadn’t yet figured out that they had won and the Reps hadn’t yet figured out that they had lost. Not to kick her while she is down but I had the same reaction when I read Sue’s statement above. Sorry Sue, your three minutes are up, welcome back to the mob.
I voted for Sue. why? Because she was the one I agree with most on the issues.
For years I have swallowed my concerns about her personality, the fact that has and continues to attack like-minded people, because I agree with her on the issues.
So with that having been said, I’m appalled at her post-election behavior. People were ready for a change. That’s why she lost. More people were ready for a change than wanted to stay the course. Very simple.
Talk is Talk Mike! Why didn’t you do all this when you were on the council? Many of the issues you raise could have been addressed by Sue, Ken and you. Am I missing something?
You’re asking him what he did eight years ago – mostly about issues that had not emerged at that time? That’s pointless, no?
Some of these issues were the same. A modest increase in water rates to bank for future needs and a sewage upgrade was already obvious. I think the affordable housing debacle at Wildhorse was known. The City Attorney was the same person and I think the staffing on the fire trucks was the same but I’m not sure. The health care cash out was on the books and Sue was complaining about exorbitant pay packages as far back as I can remember.
Still maybe you are right, it was long ago, but I have this thing about those who had the power and didn’t use it later complaining about those who now are in authority demanding that the new people show more courage than exemplified by those who came before.
[quote]There are three critical time consumers – staff report, council questions and comments and public comment. The council could limit time for staff reports – that might save some time. The council would be ill-advised to touch public comment and to me it is wrong to limit what an elected official says – even if they ramble on and on at the end of a meeting for no purpose served.
The solution is rather simple – you want shorter meetings – have fewer items on the agenda. Maybe have a once-a-month or once-a-quarter meeting for presentations with a nice sponsored reception.
But the only way to limit the number of items is to have more meetings. Two a month is not going to cut it. The better idea would be three a month with an option for a four.[/quote]
I agree that public comment should not be limited. I do think filibustering on the dais by Council members needs to be curtailed, but I doubt that is going to be a problem moving forward. Staff reports are important for the public, who often do not read the City Council packets ahead of time. I do not think staff reports should be curtailed. I tend to agree with the Vanguard’s position that perhaps three City Council meetings a month is necessary.
However I talked with several City Council members, and my take is this issue is going to be thoroughly discussed at their retreat. It will be interesting to see what they come up with; and if what they come up with results in any real change. If City Council members get a bit creative and efficient, perhaps they will be able to make some inroads into this problem.
That said, I do think something needs to be done about meetings running into the wee hours of the morning. I can remember one time waiting until 12 midnight, and my issue still had not come up on the agenda, and I was forced to leave without saying what I had wanted to say during public comment. Also, City Council members by that time are pretty crabby and impatient, not at their best. And I can’t blame them. There ought to be some way to ensure meetings do not run past 11 pm – for all concerned.
[quote]Councilmember Stephen Souza attended the swearing in portion of the council meeting on Tuesday. [/quote]
I was glad to be able to wish Stephen well. He has lots of ideas for his future, and has a very positive outlook. I have no doubt he will be successful in whatever he sets out to do…
Elaine, there was a most odd–and, come to think of it, time-consuming–exchange about your committee. It seemed the council members wanted to assure you that they didn’t agree with the staff’s apparent efforts to minimize the committee’s potential influence on the council.
And, there’s Harriet assuring the council that it’s [u]their decision[/u] to make, not the committee’s, etc., so they really didn’t have to worry about the committee. What was that all about?
The best humor of the evening was the repeated ruling about “process not substance,” or whatever, that Michael attempted to bend in spite of repeated cautions from the mayor and city attorney. But, he did get it in!
I also was fascinated by the staff’s proposal for the green public process. It wasn’t until more than half-way through the discussion that the question came up about what the full process could cost (“$200,000 to $300,000,” staff had estimated).
Again, it seemed the council gets pushed into making a quick decision based on an incomplete staff report that shows up at the last minute. It was obvious that the council members, even those who liked the idea, didn’t know what the impact (intended by the staff or otherwise) from their advanced reading.
It appears we’re not getting much more out of this expenditure than we could have gotten free by issuing a “Request for Proposals.” On the other hand, what are the odds we’ll look favorably upon a $200,000-$300,000 project when the $15,000 proposal is finished?
Why don’t proposals like this get offered with a decision point at, say, the next meeting? Then, the council members and the public could spend a little time looking into the ideas.
[quote]Elaine, there was a most odd–and, come to think of it, time-consuming–exchange about your committee. It seemed the council members wanted to assure you that they didn’t agree with the staff’s apparent efforts to minimize the committee’s potential influence on the council.
And, there’s Harriet assuring the council that it’s their decision to make, not the committee’s, etc., so they really didn’t have to worry about the committee. What was that all about?
[/quote]
This had to do with whether the WAC should take a look at the issue of a November ballot again, since new information has since come to light. The problem is that the WAC plate is very full, and to back track on a procedural issue that some deem as more the purview of the City Council was seen as counter-productive. Others on the City Council felt it was imperative the WAC weigh in on this issue again in light of the new information, the WAC’s full agenda notwithstanding. I offered no opinion, bc I was speaking for the WAC. The result was that a special meeting will be called, and the issue of the ballot timing will be on tonight’s WAC agenda – an agenda which is already extremely heavy w weighty items. Should be an interesting evening…
[quote]I also was fascinated by the staff’s proposal for the green public process. It wasn’t until more than half-way through the discussion that the question came up about what the full process could cost (“$200,000 to $300,000,” staff had estimated). [/quote]
This was my concern. Is the $5000 to McDonough + Partners just a teaser/sales job for promoting the expenditure of $200,000 later on? It is not clear to me, but I’m willing to keep an open mind…
[quote]Some of these issues were the same. A modest increase in water rates to bank for future needs and a sewage upgrade was already obvious. I think the affordable housing debacle at Wildhorse was known. The City Attorney was the same person and I think the staffing on the fire trucks was the same but I’m not sure. The health care cash out was on the books and Sue was complaining about exorbitant pay packages as far back as I can remember. [/quote]
Your correct, Mr. Toad. In fact, fire staffing increasing to 4 fire fighters per truck was approved by the Council on Mike H.’s watch. (Those who were around can probably remember Mike inadvertently insulting the fire fighters during the discussions over this.) Mike worked against raising money for an improved water system and would only vote to repair/maintain the existing system, lest an improved system could lead to housing growth. The Wildhorse debacle was discovered when he was on the Council, multiple employee contracts were voted on and approved when Mike was on the Council. These are not new or recent issues.
Ryan: I believe the 4 member crew policy was already adopted by April 2000. I tried to reduce the number back to the usual standard, 3 members, which resulted in the FF getting pissed off, and coming down to CC a couple of times. That attack on me was not because of an insult (I did not), but because Bobby was looking for a way to attack me for criticizing the 4 member crews as being wasteful. I wrote a short memo asking why we needed to continue the 4 member crews, and they seized on a couple of words and made it into this big attack. They also were after me because I was calling into question the need for a 4th fire station (remember that ancient discredited idea?), which also led to more attacks. It’s no big deal; I’m a big boy. But you mentioned these things, so I dredged them up from forgotten memories.
Give me a call sometime; you obviously follow things closely. You could be Jesse Jackson or Atila the Hun; any conversation would be great. I’ll keep mum on who you are.
Elaine
What is the”new info” which keeps coming up?
It is my perspective that the present five members constitute a much more effective Council than the previous Council.
I sense more constructive dialogue will occur. I believe that civility will be at a much higher level and differences will be handled rationally. I consider that the five members will be respectful of each other and the public.
There is a lot this Council must handle, a lot that has built up over time and therefore quite a pile of work that needs to caught up on.
For my research on a revised edition of my book I have coming out I am reading a book about the municipal politics of Victorian England in three cotton towns in my county of Lancashire. One of them being Rochdale where the co-ops first began. What struck me was the extensive coverage the author gave to “institutional paralysis” to describe how difficult it was for municipal government to achieve progress. Believe it or not infrastructure (water, gas and sewer) was the main area where government could not get much done.
Well if (institutional paralysis) it can happen in 1844 in Rochdale no reason why it cannot happen in Davis in 2012.
On the other hand, the new Council has the capacity to get some things moved forward. I for one hope they do but they must have the wsill to overcome some built in lethargy among senior staff.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
I was also impressed with Brett’s questions and felt it somewhat disingenuous of staff to not reveal the 5 level projected cost of the consultant without being asked, tho may be in staff report. I would hope they would examine the next 4 levels very carefully and see if there is interest in financial partnership going forward.
Regretfully, as shown again on Tuesday night, Staff Analysis for the Council is too frequently not just incomplete but hides from the Council critical factors.
All too frequently on major issues City staff do not tell the City Council what they should be told.
For example the City Staff report recommended that the City Council lend $4 million to DACHA.
The Staff Report to the Council did not reveal that;
The DACHA board which voted in 2007 to borrow $4 million of public funds from the City of Davis lacked a legal quorum as almost all of the board members were delinquent (if a board member is 30 days delinquent you must be automatically removed from the board).
The DACHA membership which also voted to approve the loan lacked a legal quorum as almost all of the DACHA members were delinquent (if a member was 30 days delinquent the member was ineligible to vote).
In reply to a question by Council member Lamar Heystek in 2010, City Attorney basically said it did not matter that the board was ineligible because she’d had the membership vote on taking the loan. What the City Attorney did not tell Lamar is that the membership could not acheive a quorum as almost all of the members were ineligible to vote.
The City staff attended three DACHA meetings in fall of 2007 where DACHA discused suspending the bylaws so that ineligible members could vote.
The DACHA members were delinquent $68,000 (public document) at the time DACHA took $4 million in public funds. Yet City staff did not reveal that to the City Council in their report.
City staff did not perform the due diligence required to protect the public funds from being lent to an improper board and ineligible membership and therefore an ineligible entity. City staff knew that to be the case and did not tell the Council or the public.
No other financial entity would lend $4 million to a borrower composed of an ineligible board and ineligible membership. So why did City staff what no other financial institution would do?
Any why has nothing been done about these staff actions?
Was this a fraudulent application for public funds by DACHA?
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
SODA said . . .
[i]”What is the”new info” which keeps coming up?”[/i]
SODA, what it really boils down to is that the first consultant’s report on the West Sac alternative came in based on an apples-to-apples comparison at the original WDCWA project sizing. None of the “downsizing” work that the WAC has done to date was included, so in effect we lost at least 2 weeks of “traction” toward getting the decision done in time to ensure an informed electorate in November.
The WAC vote last night was 10-0 to scrap the November date and move it to Spring 2013, no later than June 30th.
Thx Matt
With the election push back will we continue to incur JPA costs until then?
[quote]Elaine: What is the”new info” which keeps coming up?[/quote]
According to City Manager Steve Pinkerton –
The new information the WAC did not know at the time is as follows:
1. There is concern that the arguments pro and con cannot be formulated for a November ballot without the specifics of the project;
2. There is concern the water rate increase on a November ballot would be competing with the school parcel tax in November;
3. The information on all the possible alternatives is still in the process of being gathered together; it is a great deal of information to go through and analyize; it represents a moving target as details are continually refined.
[quote]I was also impressed with Brett’s questions and felt it somewhat disingenuous of staff to not reveal the 5 level projected cost of the consultant without being asked, tho may be in staff report. I would hope they would examine the next 4 levels very carefully and see if there is interest in financial partnership going forward.[/quote]
I cannot remember how I know this information, but my sense is that if the process is moved beyond the initial phase, any monies would be coming from the private sector. But because I can’t remember where I got this informaiton from, I’m just not sure if it accurate. That is why I am trying to keep an open mind on this idea, but still have a healthy degree of sketicism.
[quote]For example the City Staff report recommended that the City Council lend $4 million to DACHA.
The Staff Report to the Council did not reveal that;
The DACHA board which voted in 2007 to borrow $4 million of public funds from the City of Davis lacked a legal quorum as almost all of the board members were delinquent (if a board member is 30 days delinquent you must be automatically removed from the board). [/quote]
It is my understanding you will have your day in court in April 2013. Let’s see what the judge has to say about all this…
Elaine can you answer my question about JPA costs and what they to date and going forward? Thx!
Elaine:
When the City staff do not tell the City Council material facts about a borrower then that gives me pause. Look at the City staff Report there is no due diligence used by City staff in their report to the Council. Go to http://www.community.coop/davis click on DACHA and look at the information on member delinqencies. Look at the DACHA minutes to see the discussion of suspending the bylaws. It is clear, staff did not inform the Council of the ineligible board and membership actions.
The history of DACHA is one of the City staff misleading the Council. We’re all paying a high price for the continued coverup.
With what has gone on with DACHA I now have limited faith that we will get the truth about water options. There is pattern here.
I’m glad the WAC is doing work to oversee the situation. However, Harriet Steiner’s dismissive comments about the importance of the WAC raised my concerns.
A cleaner City Hall is needed for my faith to be returned.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]Elaine can you answer my question about JPA costs and what they to date and going forward? Thx![/quote]
I am not certain of the answer, and I want to make sure you get accurate information, so I would direct you to ask staff to respond to this question. Just email Dianna Jensen at: DJensen@cityofdavis.org Dianna is wonderful about responding to questions such as yours…
I hope the WAC requests an audit of the wate ratepayers money spent to date since 2000
The JPA was facially a terrible idea. Who thought if that ?
SODA asked . . .
[i]”With the election push back will we continue to incur JPA costs until then?”[/i]
In absolute terms the answer to your question is almost surely “yes” but I have to assume that the dollar expenditures will be significantly reduced. However, that assumption is based on feelings rather than facts. I should probably have a more specific answer, but I’ve concentrated on other issues.
SODA asked . . .
[i]”Elaine can you answer my question about JPA costs and what they to date and going forward? Thx!”[/i]
If you look at the Bartle Wells presentation for April 12th, the 2011 JPA budget costs in Fund 512 were $4,275,000.
Matt… have you disclosed that whatever the City decides to do on the water rate structure, that the El Macero CSA might reject as they have on sewer rates?
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Matt… have you disclosed that whatever the City decides to do on the water rate structure, that the El Macero CSA might reject as they have on sewer rates?”[/i]
Disclosed to whom? To my fellow WAC members? Yes. To my fellow El Macero residents? Yes and no. By that I mean yes there have been discussions with the CSA and with HOA Board and with individual El Macero residents about what is in process, but as yet there hasn’t been a town hall meeting with the El Macero residents at large because the consensus amongst those leaders of the El Macero community currently is that there simply isn’t enough concrete information to share that isn’t already being shared via the televised WAC meetings, articles in the Enterprise, and/or articles and comments here in the Vanguard.
The Willowbank CSA has reached out to me and had me make a presentation to them on March 24th, and at the last WAC meeting three of their members were in the audience, and at the two prior WAC meetings on of their members was in attendance.
Bottom-line, the level of transparency that the WAC has shown over the past six months has kept both El Macero and Willowbank well informed.