It was a pretty good crowd for a Saturday, and the regular crowd shuffled into the Davis Community Church library at 11 am to hear a discussion on MOUs – only in Davis, right?
For those who missed the discussion, Bob Fung from Civenergy videoed the two-hour discussion and should have it ready to be posted both on the Civenergy site as well as on the Vanguard by Monday or Tuesday.
As I have stated a number of times on this subject, at the end of the day we may all hold very strong feelings on whether the council made the right decision in agreeing to a 3 percent COLA (Cost-of-Living Adjustment). However, the biggest concern we had was the lack of public discussion and transparency of the process.
Some have suggested that this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot – while I respect that view, I see it very differently. Davis is an active and engaged community. There are people who deeply care about the future of our community and wish to have a voice in those decisions. We can argue, debate and, in the end, we can agree to disagree if we believe the process was fair and open. And the problem that I saw was that the process was not open and therefore not fair.
Davis politics at times is a contact sport and so my first comment is to thank Councilmembers Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs, along with Finance and Budget Commission Chair Jeff Miller, for taking two hours out of their Saturday to participate in the act of civic engagement.
Second, I want to thank Councilmember Rochelle Swanson for agreeing last week to go on the record and be interviewed about this process.
Third, I want to thank Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis, who showed up as an audience member for part of the forum, for having the courage to stand up for what he believed in on this issue in the face of four opposing views. His views on this substance of the vote very closely align with mine.
While the specifics of the discussion will wait for another day, I wanted to lay out a few general thoughts.
First, both Councilmembers Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs acknowledged in hindsight that they should have pulled the item off consent. Both appear to support the notion that MOUs (Memorandums of Understanding) in the future should be put on the agenda as open items that would be discussed.
I think it is commendable of two public officials to acknowledge mistakes and vow to do better in the future.
Second, as Brett Lee put it, he expected the item to be pulled. When it wasn’t, it caught him off guard but if he had had a few extra minutes at the time to have processed this fact, he said he would have pulled it. Councilmember Frerichs likewise said that he had expected Robb Davis – who he knew opposed the item and ultimately registered a no vote – to pull the item off consent, and he too was caught off guard.
Both Councilmembers Lee and Frerichs also made it a point not to place the blame on Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis, who was standing in the back of the room at the time. They stated that it was on them to have pulled it.
In my opening remarks, I noted, as I have in several columns, the unfortunate timing of this as a consent item coming right after Thanksgiving. Councilmember Lucas Frerichs stated unequivocally that there was no conspiracy here. Councilmember Lee noted that had the item been a full discussion item, the issue of timing would have been less important.
It is important to reiterate here that I do not believe that the timing of the item was intentionally done to hide the issue from the public. I think what happened was a number of unfortunate confluences of timing and decisions to place the item on consent (as it has been placed in the past), along with the decision not to pull the item off consent, that led to the appearance of lack of transparency.
The specifics of the vote decision will be best left to the video release later this week. I would note generally that both councilmembers seemed to acknowledge that, while the fiscal situation has improved in Davis, perhaps greatly so, there remain challenges ahead with infrastructure, including roads as well as health care and pensions. However, they believed that the COLA was a small increase, that the contracts were short-term (18 months) and that as such it was reasonable to give the employees a small raise.
One issue that has come up is the idea that perhaps the COLAs should not have been across the board, where low-wage employees and high-wage supervisors got the same compensation increase.
In the end, the councilmembers seemed to believe that, because the increases were small and the challenges were large, the increased compensation in the big picture would have only a marginal impact on the city’s fiscal state.
I disagree with this conclusion, as I think Robb Davis would as well.
However, the great thing about democracy is that, at the end of the day, we can agree to disagree on policy decisions. The key is that we have transparency so that the public who wishes to know what happened can do so, and then they can make an informed decision about whom they wish to see making those tough decisions in the future.
Again, I would like to thank Rochelle Swanson, Brett Lee, Lucas Frerichs and Robb Davis. I think we have placed all of their thoughts on the record (Robb Davis has participated in the comments and discussion on the Vanguard and certainly been very forthcoming with his views and beliefs).
So I am now satisfied that transparency has been achieved – perhaps delayed, and certainly it would have been better to have had it at the time of the decision on the public record – but nevertheless, anyone who wishes to understand what took place, and why, can now do so.
We now move on to other issues and challenges. The council this week has critical decisions to start to make on revenue measures, as well as the innovation center.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
They may find themselves wrong on this if voters give a thumbs down on any new tax measures because of the employee raises.
I thought he was going to do it, I thought it would get pulled, nope he was supposed to, why didn’t he do it, before I knew it I ran out of time?
It reminds me of an Abbott and Costello routine. Who’s on first, What’s on second and I Don’t Know is on third.
BP, as I have noted below a possible answer to “Who’s on first?” is the Councilmember who makes the Motion For Reconsideration, and the answer to “Who’s on second?” will then be the Councilmember who seconds that Motion For Reconsideration.
We clearly know the answer to “Who’s on Third?” That would be Councilmember Davis who will join Lee and Frerichs in voting “Yes” on the Motion For Consideration.
BP and Matt
With regard to a motion for reconsideration, neither of you have mentioned another consideration that was brought up by Brett Lee at the forum. That is a respect for the time of all involved. If a City Council meeting were the only venue for the dissemination of information, and if the reasoning of the four City Council members had not already been made clear in alternative formats readily available to the public, I would agree with a motion for reconsideration. However, such a motion is extremely unlikely to result in a change in the outcome.
The council members have made it clear that there has been pressure from the community to shorten the length of council meetings so as not to be making major decisions in late night or early morning hours which also discourages public participation.
I can see only two reasons for a motion for reconsideration.
1. The belief that there has not been transparency and discussion of the rationale of the members for their vote. I believe that this goal has now been achieved albeit belatedly.
2. The hope that the outcome would be changed. I believe that we have enough evidence from Swanson, Lee and Frerichs that their vote would not change and no reason to believe that Mayor Wolk’s vote would change. Therefore the I see no reasonable chance that this would occur.
Given these factors, I see a motion for reconsideration at this point in time as a waste of time and public resources and would not be supportive of this move.
If someone has other reasons that I have not considered for further review and discussion, I would certainly remain open minded on the issue.
Tia said . . . “… another consideration that was brought up by Brett Lee at the forum. That is a respect for the time of all involved.”
When Brett brought that up yesterday I was flabergasted. Time is the least of the concerns with this Council … or at least the time the Council meeting ends. For this current Council meetings typically end well over one hour earlier than the meetings of prior Councils.
Tia said . . . “The council members have made it clear that there has been pressure from the community to shorten the length of council meetings so as not to be making major decisions in late night or early morning hours which also discourages public participation.“
There is a huge difference between (A) wise scheduling, which by itself would/does address the bolded part of your comment, and (B) fast tracking the evening’s items. The many complaints I have heard have been about the Council meetings has been about scheduling important issues as the first item of the meeting, and moving the time-consuming ceremonial items to a once-a-month meeting that consolidates all those ceremonies into one focused celebratory meeting.
With that said, I do agree with you and Brett that time is a consideration for this Council, and to that end Dan has cut down the time allotted for individual public comment from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.
Tia said . . . “I can see only two reasons for a motion for reconsideration.”
BP is a text book example of why there is a third reason in my opinion. By being non-responsive and/or non-transparent, I believe the City feeds the general level of distrust of government. Given the national satisfaction level (see quote below from last week’s most recent polling), both The City and DJUSD need to do better on the local level. Otherwise “distrust” will be the best word to describe Davis … and that will be sad.
for those of us who didn’t make it – what’s the time issue?
DP asked . . . “for those of us who didn’t make it – what’s the time issue?”
See Tia’s comment above.
Tia, one need go no further than Tuesday’s Council agenda to see ineffective/unrealistic time management is action. 10 minutes (from 6:30 to 6:40) to complete both the Poetry Reading and the Recognition? Item 2 will almost surely not start before 7:00. If the Council is really interested in the issue of Council meeting time, then they will address the problem rather than treating the symptoms.
Both Councilmember Lee and Councilmember Frerichs have an opportunity at Tuesday’s Council meeting to demonstrate to the citizens that they truly believe what they said yesterday in the forum. One of them can make a Motion For Reconsideration, and the other can second that Motion. With Robb Davis as the third vote to pass the Motion, the item will be put on the Council Calendar as a regular agenda item, and the same kind of open discussion that happened yesterday can happen in Council Chambers, with opportunity for public comment. That would be the right thing to do in my personal opinion.
Based on their comments yesterday, I do not expect that either Councilmember Lee or Councilmember Frerichs will change their vote during the rehearing, so if/when the item is reheard, the outcome of the final vote isn’t likely to change. However, open and transparent government, responsive to the citizens it represents, will be the winner.
I urge Councilmember Lee and Councilmember Frerichs to do the right thing and on Tuesday publicly state that they support open and transparent government.
“the regular crowd shuffled into the Davis Community Church library”
I was heartened by the fact that, in addition to the “regular crowed” there was a small smattering of new and younger faces in the group ( not counting the videographer !). I had not expected this on this particular issue and was pleasantly surprised.
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on reasonable things. The problem in this case is that city employee compensation is unreasonably high.
Ironically, progressive taxation is somewhat to blame.
Most city employees are paying CA state income tax of 9.3% on any raise.
And most are paying 28% federal income tax on any raise.
And then add another 2.5% in various wage-related taxes the employee has to cover.
So, for every additional dollar that city residents must come up with the pay city employee raises, about $.40 of that goes to other government entities.
So that $3,000 a year raise for that $100,000 a year employee only nets $1800… or $150 per month.
However, taxpayers are paying the full $250 per month.
This is good math, Frankly, and does not mention the abuse the good people of the Vanguard has heaped on city employees, with their disdain and comments saying “we pay them too much”. HOW MUCH does anyone deserve to be paid? Well, you all propose $15 an hour for a burger flipper, but want skilled labor to be what?
With over 100 less employees to do the work for the City, you want people with skills and perspective as well as an ability to deal with the public. Vanguard Readers think this is an easy task with many candidates. I prefer to think it is only a matter of time before the Vanguard article is written on the “Brain Drain”.
Do the Math of all the years those people had no raise, or no benefits, and average it over this 3%? > 0.3% may be more like ti? If PERS has raised their rates, then isn’t this a net loss to the employees?
But if you over-pay employees over a number of years, it is conceivable that there should be no raises for a number of years until their pay “catches” up to the market norms.
I had this exact problem when I took over management of the company I work for. The previous boss was overly generous in the pre-compeition era. I had a group of employees that were not only over-paid, but were also change-averse having developed work patterns and expectations for performance and pay that were out of sync with the business reality. I immediately stopped the practice of COLA increases. There were no raises for a couple of years, and then I started increasing the annual performance bonus pool until base pay rates better matched the market rates.
The annual bonus for my business is connected to company performance. If the company makes money at the end of the year, the employees share in it. If the company does not make money at the end of the year, the bonuses are small to non-existent.
In a private sector business you cannot give raises if the financial performance of the business does not support it… regardless if you can make a case that employees are under-paid.
In our situation with Davis city employees, not only is there copious evidence that we are over-paying many if not most employees, but we don’t have the money for raises.
Yet the CC still give the employees a raise.
Shame on the CC and shame on all the residents of Davis that supported their decision.
Well, if the public sector “makes money” at the end of the year, it means they were over-charging/”over-taxing” for services. By your own logic, public sector employees should have a substantial cut in benefits/compensation each and every year, and each year the taxes should decrease until they are zero. Then, if services are needed, they should be provided by the private sector, or be 100% direct cost based. There is no “profit” in the public sector.
Unless, of course, you expect public employees to pay for the ‘privilege’ to serve you, so that you may not only get the service, but also receive a ‘dividend’.
VG’ers who have problems with process on this issue, have two choices as I see it… either push for a reconsideration of the MOU’s (time be damned) or STFU. We’re a “pro-choice” city. Choose.
That’s the problem hpierce. We have two opinions (options) but no way to accommodate both. Then we get a rude personal comment like this.
You are a “Pro-Choice” city, by vote, but many people still have the other opinion. I know you would like to drive them out with a whip, banish them to West Sacramento or worse, but the problem you have is you have to have respect for others, regardless of how you vote at the ballot.
That is sorely lacking, and it affects who gets hired and fired, a clear violation of Law and unfairly affects people with lots more integrity than you show with the comment above.
I wish you well, and in this season, TRY to see the world through the eyes of a child. Simple, without hostile posts..
ok… bad referent on my part… My intended point, was if folk want a public discussion at a CC meeting on the MOU’s, they should demand it… nothing more, nothing less.
Well I think folks wanted one, but were caught off guard that there wasn’t want and may have been confused about the process.
Hell, reading the CC comments above they even admit they were caught off guard too.
So , David, do you support either a reconsideration and/or a full discussion w/public comment @ a CC meeting?
I’m not sure reconsideration is possible. If the union groups have ratified the contract, and my guess is they have by now, then you can’t un-ring the bell without violating the contract.
If not then they should hurry up and vote, huh Misanthrop?
it’s not a ‘contract’, as has been pointed out earlier. A re-consideration doesn’t mean it won’t be re-approved.
Also we can put it on a pallet as a referendum and the voters could go to undo the ordinance.
You sound like a kid who says “I’m going to sue you.” Go ahead try to put it “on a pallet.” Its been two weeks what does that give you, another two weeks during Christmas to get how many signatures? Good luck with that.
I’m not planning anything.
Actually, I believe that the MOU’s were adopted by Resolution, not Ordinance. The MOU’s themselves are not “laws”. Just be sure to re-use or recycle the pallet.
“facts” are getting “squishy” here.
This entire discussion is so dumb. As has been pointed out its only about 10 people on the Vanguard who are all so outraged. You beat this drum for two weeks, you have a public forum and 20 people show up. Matt Williams, who is running for council, challenges the council to revisit something that is a done deal as if its a test of the other candidates integrity. Well Matt, if you want them to revisit it you are welcome to get up at public comment and ask. Both Brett and Lucas already went to the Vanguard’s stupid little forum, that was advertised for days both here and at the Enterprise, and explained their actions but for the Vanguard scene that isn’t enough. Why not? Probably because nobody other than the usual Vanguard scene cared enough to show up so now you want to beat this dead horse some more until you make them squeal or cry or lose an election or something.
Meanwhile the Sacbee reported yesterday about how five Davis firefighters made money in the $250,000 dollar range last year and not a word on the Vanguard about it. Instead you want to pillory the council for giving the cops and some others a 3% raise. It makes me wonder whether you want to be taken seriously or not.
“As has been pointed out its only about 10 people on the Vanguard who are all so outraged. ”
this notion has been disputed to the point of mockery.
“You beat this drum for two weeks, you have a public forum and 20 people show up. ”
i thought someone said thirty.
“Both Brett and Lucas already went to the Vanguard’s stupid little forum, that was advertised for days both here and at the Enterprise, and explained their actions but for the Vanguard scene that isn’t enough.”
didn’t the vanguard’s article seem satisfied with the outcome?
Newsflash: The Vanguard is satisfied with itself.
Rest assured M, I will.