Elaine Roberts Musser

If the reader will remember, the Board of the non-profit corporation Senior Citizens of Davis (SCD) was proposing radical changes in its bylaws.  The new proposed bylaws would have: a) given much more power to the President and the Board, taking it away from SCD members; b) removed independent oversight of SCD assets, investments, and financial transactions; and c) omitted all mention of the Davis Senior Center from its mission and as the beneficiary upon SCD dissolution.  Currently SCD should have approximately $560,000 in assets sitting in its accounts.

In my capacity as an attorney and as a consumer advocate, I was asked by SCD members to review the new proposed bylaws.  I gave my honest legal opinion the proposed changes were not in the best interests of SCD, nor its membership.  Some concerned SCD members took their complaints to the Davis Senior Citizens Commission.  It was there that SCD Board President John Gerlich was encouraged by Commissioners to slow down the process and obtain more member input before putting the matter to a vote.

The group Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) was scheduled on the agenda for the March 10, 2011 Davis Senior Citizens Commission meeting, at the suggestion of Commissioner Mary Jo Bryant. This occurred in advance of a presentation by city staff on senior housing in general and the Cannery project in particular. The hallmark of what CHA envisions, as presented by CHA member Don Villarejo, is encapsulated in the list that follows:

Some years ago, acting in my capacity as a volunteer attorney for seniors in legal trouble, I came across an interesting case. An elderly widow, whose husband had died some years previously, had for the first time decided to begin the unfamiliar process of dating again. Unfortunately her very first prospect caused her to fall head over heels in love. I wish I could remember how she met this man, but unfortunately with so many cases rolling around in my head from years gone by, the circumstances of their meeting completely escapes me at the moment.

Nevertheless, this widow revealed to me that she never had “sex” with this man, per se. But the poor soul admitted they had been intimate enough for her to contract genital herpes from him. Perplexed, I fearlessly waded in and asked for more specifics on how this could happen. But she was too embarrassed to give me the gory details. What she did say is that she confronted her lover about him having infected her knowing he already had the sexually transmitted disease. His response was nonchalant and dismissive. He didn’t care, especially because their relationship had already ceased to exist.

Normally I stick to local issues, but I spotted an interesting article entitled “The pension time bomb” in the Nov. 19, 2010 issue of “The Week”. It discussed the pension issue from a national perspective, and of course the state of CA was mentioned. The insightful piece was very instructive and chilling.

First, it discussed why pensions are a problem. It gives two basic reasons:

The night of Oct. 5, 2010, the City Council surprisingly decided to go ahead and appoint candidates to the various existing city commissions. Yet in a previous “Subcommittee Report” it was stated “With new appointments pending in the next few weeks, this is the best window of opportunity to restructure commissions”. This specific comment referred to the Sept. 21, 2010 City Council agenda item to consolidate city commissions in Davis from 20 commissions to 13. It would have ultimately eliminated more than a third of all commissioners. The targeted commissions that would have been effected were:

Financial predators are becoming highly sophisticated, and their ranks are swelling as legitimate businesses join in the scamming free-for-all. Some sordid examples will illustrate this premise. A case in point is one gentleman who was in his eighties, and becoming very forgetful. In consequence, his wife had to take over the financial duties of the household. With elderly couples, this is not an unusual pattern. Often one becomes the caretaker of the other, if there is a severe decline in mental or physical health of either partner.

Requests for subscription renewal would come in the mail for the husband on a steady basis, to magazines he had already paid for ten times over. Because of his failing memory, he would completely forget he had already paid for the subscription on numerous occasions prior in a matter of a few months. The more frequently he would pay, the more often the subscription renewal forms would come in. Eventually the deluged old fellow was getting one notice a month for each of numerous magazines and newsletters.

The City Council approved without change the Davis Police Officers Association MOU, as described thoroughly in the August 2, 2010 Davis Vanguard article on the subject. The vote was 4-1, with Councilmember Sue Greenwald in opposition. She expressed her concern that the structural changes were not substantive enough to address the city’s unfunded health and pension liabilities. For informational purposes, City Staff noted the total compensation currently budgeted for an average five-year fire fighter is $139,792 (or $143,569, whichever figure is correct since Staff was very unclear why they gave two different numbers); for an average five-year police officer it will be $131,992. The average five-year fire fighter’s yearly salary is $94,783; for an average five-year police officer it will be $86,479.

Councilmember Greenwald stated she could not support any contract “that doesn’t make the necessary reforms in the cafeteria cash-out and allow us to put it towards paying off our unfunded health liabilities”. Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio clarified that the total compensation figures do count the value of the cafeteria cash-out. When Council member Greenwald tried to respond to Mr. Navazio’s statement, Mayor Saylor forbid further commentary. He would not recognize her, despite her having raised a point of order. Instead Mayor Saylor emphatically stated “as presiding officer” he would “take a vote”. Council member Greenwald was helpless to do anything without running the risk of censure or being stripped of a committee/commission assignment.

On Tuesday July 27, 2010, the Senior Housing Guidelines were unanimously approved by the City Council. Go figure! I attended the Council meeting “loaded for bear”, ready to do battle for the Guidelines. Why such a pugnacious stance on my part? The Senior Citizens Commission together with City Staff, the Social Services Commission and ADA Subcommittee worked on these Guidelines for a very long time – nearly three years. The Guidelines did not initially make it onto any City Council agenda, because the events of the Senior Housing Strategy overtook them. Ultimately the Senior Housing Strategy was enveloped into the city’s bureaucratic vortex as a lost cause.

It seemed like it would be an historic occasion on Tuesday night, June 15, 2010. The Senior Housing Guidelines were placed on the Consent Calendar by City Staff for final approval. It was a long time in coming – nearly three years ago from inception in the Davis Senior Citizens Commission to the finished product being officially offered for endorsement to the City Council. Along the way, invaluable input was incorporated from City Staff, the Social Services Commission and their ADA Subcommittee, developers and the public.

In essence, the Senior Housing Guidelines encompass the following principles to direct the senior housing development process:

The Davis Chamber of Commerce hosted a candidates forum, where the following question was asked of participants: “Aside from the required planning commission, the City of Davis currently staffs 15 optional commissions… if you were to retain only five, which ones would they be and why?”. Embedded in the question is the tacit assumption that the removal of commissions is under consideration as a cost saving measure, coupled with a presumption there will actually be a cost reduction if commissions were eliminated.

An article appeared in the Davis Vanguard Feb. 8, 2010, in regard to a suggestion by City Staff that the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) have fewer meetings to save staff time. Apparently the Safety Advisory and Bicycle Commissions have already agreed to reduce their meeting frequency. However, Commissioners of the NRC felt fewer meetings would merely result in longer meetings, but wouldn’t result in decreasing staff time. It should also be noted about three years ago, there was an unsuccessful push to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission by the City Council Subcommittee on Commissions (Mayor Ruth Asmundson, Councilmember Steve Souza), presumably to trim staff time.

The upcoming Davis City Council race is shaping up to be an interesting one. Lamar Heystek has elected not to run again, as has current Mayor Ruth Asmundson. Don Saylor may give up his seat and position as Mayor Pro-Tem on the City Council if he becomes a County Supervisor. Even Sue Greenwald was toying with the idea of running against Don Saylor for County Supervisor. It is almost as if the incumbents are deserting a sinking ship!

There has been much talk about the crushing workload of City Council members, for virtually no pay; and the partisan bickering with colleagues that makes sitting on the City Council particularly unpleasant. Essentially it has been posited that being on the City Council is a thankless job, with little in the way of rewards. That is unless a Council member has higher political aspirations, and is using his/her seat on the City Council as a launching pad to bigger and better things.

Lately, I have heard the following criticisms from various sources:

Last night, at the City Council meeting, the proposed Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility was approved on a 5-0 vote in favor. Proponents were tickled pink, and I started a round of applause upon hearing the decision. It was a happy outcome for seniors in Davis, and good for all citizens. Why? Here are the positives of this project, as stated in a staff report:

1. “the few existing facilities …[that] offer… similar services… [have] waiting lists”;
2. “there are limited undeveloped parcels of the size desired” but they are not suitable

It was with great interest that I read the Op-Ed article “Aging residents want choices” in the Davis Enterprise, written by Don and Merna Villarejo. The editorial claims the Senior Housing Strategy being proposed to the City Council will “severely limit future housing choices for older city residents”. The editorial then goes on to say “What makes financial sense is to sell our present home and move to a fee-simple-owned dwelling that is designed to accommodate our present and future needs.”

To set the framework for this discussion, the essential elements of the Senior Housing Strategy are as follows:

Up for final consideration before the Planning Commission on the night of January 13, 2010 was the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility, to be located next to the Konditerei and the Davis Police Department. The project was approved as is by a 4 to 1 vote, despite opposition by City Staff on behalf of Davis Waste Removal and the Davis Police Department.

The proposed building itself is designed in such a way that the social center and support functions are located on the first floor. Residences are located on the second and third floors. Strategically located elevators and building design minimize walking distances for the frail elderly. Even though the facility is an institutional use, building colors, window styles and architectural features give it a residential feel. And of course the project is energy efficient in various ways to meet the city’s new sustainable standards.