The Davis City Council continues to seek the merger of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission. The Senior Citizens Commission, as we have reported now several times, from the start, has opposed such a merger for a variety of reasons including the diminishing of their influence among the commissions and also the distinct duties between what those two commissions currently work on.
In an article last night in the Davis Enterprise, Souza is being fundamentally dishonest about his goals and motivations behind this move.
In an article last night in the Davis Enterprise, Souza is being fundamentally dishonest about his goals and motivations behind this move.
Councilman Souza has said the merger recommendation was meant to generate conversation, and the final decision will not be made until the council takes its vote.
This is simply untrue. The merger recommendation occurred in conjunction with a number of other proposed changes that were implemented. Back in September, Souza went to both commissions in order to gauge their desire to merge. The Social Services Commission, which was at the time filled with a number of strong allies of the current council majority including Kevin Kline, Michelle Reardon, and Donna Lott, consented to support the merger by a 6-1 vote.
However, the Senior Citizen Commission led by Elaine Roberts Musser, was very strongly opposed to such a meeting. As we reported back on September 26, 2006, when Souza did not immediately get his way, he spent over an hour attempted to browbeat the chair of the commission into agreement becoming at times belligerent and abusive (to a senior!).
When this merger idea was brought up in September, it was clearly not done merely to generate discussion, rather it was intended to make changes. Souza and Asmundson never anticipated such resistance to their plan. It was only after strong opposition from the seniors on the commission, and the seniors in the community (I am told they now have several hundred signatures), that Souza’s stated goals changed to generating discussion about the new roles of the commissions.
However, it was not until the October 24, 2006 (click here to see a video clip from that meeting) meeting that the notion of generating discussion even came up. There was absolutely no mention of this at the September meeting. The original idea was that they would approach both commissions to see what they thought about the idea. And this occurred after both Greenwald and Heystek were adamant about gauging the level of support for the merger by the two commissions.
Once again this week, the Senior Citizen commissioners clearly stated that they oppose any merger with the Social Services Commission. Musser argues that we have a council that has commissions to do things like bikes, trees, art. Given that, it makes little sense not to allow the seniors to have their own separate commission.
To this date, Souza has not articulated a strong reason to go ahead with this merger. The idea that the combination of the two commissions will make for a stronger voice is spurious at best and ad hoc in its origins.
However, the Senior Citizen Commission led by Elaine Roberts Musser, was very strongly opposed to such a meeting. As we reported back on September 26, 2006, when Souza did not immediately get his way, he spent over an hour attempted to browbeat the chair of the commission into agreement becoming at times belligerent and abusive (to a senior!).
When this merger idea was brought up in September, it was clearly not done merely to generate discussion, rather it was intended to make changes. Souza and Asmundson never anticipated such resistance to their plan. It was only after strong opposition from the seniors on the commission, and the seniors in the community (I am told they now have several hundred signatures), that Souza’s stated goals changed to generating discussion about the new roles of the commissions.
However, it was not until the October 24, 2006 (click here to see a video clip from that meeting) meeting that the notion of generating discussion even came up. There was absolutely no mention of this at the September meeting. The original idea was that they would approach both commissions to see what they thought about the idea. And this occurred after both Greenwald and Heystek were adamant about gauging the level of support for the merger by the two commissions.
Once again this week, the Senior Citizen commissioners clearly stated that they oppose any merger with the Social Services Commission. Musser argues that we have a council that has commissions to do things like bikes, trees, art. Given that, it makes little sense not to allow the seniors to have their own separate commission.
To this date, Souza has not articulated a strong reason to go ahead with this merger. The idea that the combination of the two commissions will make for a stronger voice is spurious at best and ad hoc in its origins.
Asmundson and Souza said the merger of the Senior Citizens and Social Services commissions would eliminate overlap and bring a greater voice to both concerns. The new commission would be called the Commission on Aging and Social Services, and would include a subcommittee of seniors to work on issues that affect the elderly only.
The degree of overlap between the duties of the commission is heavily disputed by members of the Senior Citizen commission who suggest, very credibly and convincingly, that they deal with very different issues. They believe that they have a full agenda and that they should take up those issues pertinent to seniors rather than work on the broader agenda that the Social Services Commission works on.
At this point, this seems like a power game pure and simple. The Council would be well advised to at their December 12, 2006 meeting let this matter drop. An alternative approach may be to create a special joint commission to deal with issues that both commission share while allowing them to function separately on those issues that are not in common. That would seem to accomplish the best of both worlds—enabling the Council to get part of what it wants while allowing the Senior Citizen Commission to remain independent and able to pursue issues of paramount importance to the Senior Citizen community.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
At this point, this seems like a power game pure and simple. The Council would be well advised to at their December 12, 2006 meeting let this matter drop. An alternative approach may be to create a special joint commission to deal with issues that both commission share while allowing them to function separately on those issues that are not in common. That would seem to accomplish the best of both worlds—enabling the Council to get part of what it wants while allowing the Senior Citizen Commission to remain independent and able to pursue issues of paramount importance to the Senior Citizen community.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
