Strong Corporate Influence in Energy-Efficiency Research at UC Davis

This week UC Davis announced that the Chevron Corporation has given UC Davis $2.5 million to create a permanent leadership position for the campus's Energy Efficiency Center.

According to a January 13, 2009 release from the University:

"The person appointed to the Chevron Chair in Energy Efficiency will direct the center, which was established in 2006. The world's first university center of excellence in energy efficiency, its primary objective is to speed the transfer of energy-saving products and services into the homes, businesses and lives of Californians.

The new Chevron gift brings the center's funding total to more than $7.5 million. The center's start-up funding of $1 million came from the California Clean Energy Fund, a public benefit corporation dedicated to making equity investments in clean energy companies. UC Davis matched the CalCEF grant with $1.3 million in operating and research funds, faculty time, and office and laboratory space. Other key funders include Pacific Gas and Electric Corp., Edison International, Sempra Energy, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Goldman Sachs."

Speaking today at an event announcing the new Chevron gift, UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef said: "Chevron's endowment will ensure long-term strategic leadership for the Energy Efficiency Center. By bridging long-term research with real-world applications, the director will guide the center in its goal of commercializing groundbreaking technologies, powering economic progress and helping to conserve resources."

The campus will conduct a national search for the person to hold the Chevron Chair, who will expand the impact of the center's research programs through interdisciplinary collaboration, education, outreach and commercialization of technologies. He or she also will continue developing strong links with state and federal government, as well as with international programs.

"Advancing energy efficiency, which is the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant form of new energy, is critical to the challenge of meeting the world's growing energy needs," said John McDonald, Chevron vice president and chief technology officer.

"California has been a pacesetter in energy efficiency, so it's fitting that one of the state's leading universities and California's largest company should partner on the next generation of energy efficiency."

The endowment for the Chevron Chair complements Chevron's ongoing support for UC Davis, which includes a $500,000 gift in 2008 for the Energy Efficiency Center and a $25 million biofuels research collaboration begun in 2006 to develop technology to convert nonfood agricultural waste into next-generation transportation fuels.

Sounds good right? The university getting millions of money from a large variety of huge corporations to fund research on energy-efficiency. One question that immediately arose was a seeming contradiction in a company like Chevron, that makes the bulk of its money selling oil, funding research for energy efficiency, a rising new field that would eventually imperil oil sales.

Indeed, as the background on the press stated:

"Chevron explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels and other renewables."

The Vanguard spoke with Ben Finkelor of the Energy Efficiency Center. He strongly defended the contribution. First he explained that Chevron has created a separate endowment specifically to support energy efficiency. He believes that Chevron and other large companies have as much to gain by energy efficiency as any one else.

He also suggested that such donations have never come with any strings attached. They have never been told what to do by Chevron or any other company. This is simply a new market for the future.

While Ben Finkelor certainly gave an impassioned defense of the reliance on corporate funding for academic research, there still seems to be glaring contradictions in such policies. After all the development of fuel efficient technologies would seem to inherently need to focus on the reduction of the use of oil companies. Is this simply a way for Chevron to earn positive process? Is there a hope that they can somehow make these research centers beholden to their interests among many corporate interests? Or is it as Ben Finkelor suggests, a matter that Chevron has a separate wing devoted to the development of new fuels and fuel efficiency?

It is hard to know for certain. It will be interesting to see who is eventually hired as Chair as the result of this gift. However, one does have to question companies particularly like PG&E and Edison pumping money into fuel efficiency programs.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Mayor Kevin Johnson Surprise Keynote Address Highlights MLK Scholarship Dinner

Last night the sixth annual MLK Scholarship Fund and Recognition Dinner at Freeborn Hall on the campus of UC Davis gave out scholarships to two UC Davis Students and six high school students that will enable them to either go to graduate school or go to college. The fund was co-founded by the late Mel Trujillo and the Reverend Timothy Malone.

Bob Dunning had the honor of introducing the night's surprise key note addresser, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Mr. Dunning said:

"Mayor Johnson is the first Sacramento Mayor to lead the NBA in assists. The former Mayor wasn't very good at the assists."

Mayor Kevin Johnson spoke at first about the importance of the election of Barack Obama and like many, that he never thought he would live to see an African-American elected President.

"What I appreciate most about Barack Obama is that he does not believe that he just represents the African-American community. He believes that his Presidency transcends color. That's the best of America. Forty years ago Martin Luther King in his 'I have a Dream' speech he said that we should not judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. In a generation's time, his dream is being realized. We all have a chance to witness it."

Mayor Kevin Johnson said that while we have accomplished much, there is still much to be done. One thing specifically he mentioned was the importance of education and the failure of our education system.

"There's still a lot more to do. Let me give you one statistic that I think ties into the theme today. That is, public education is failing our kids around this country. If Martin Luther King was around today, I could assure you that he would say that public education is the Civil Rights issue of the 21st Century."

He continued:

"You have situation now where a third of our kids are not graduating high school. Half our kids are not graduating high school that are black or Latino. That's just not acceptable. We're talking about America being one of the most powerful leading countries in the world, and it's no longer the case. When it comes to math and science we're 18th and 25th. Our schools are not preparing our young people for the 21st century. What makes matters worse is that if you're graduating high school and you are black and Latino, you are at the same academic level as white eighth graders. If your in third grade, and you're not reading at grade level, 80% of those kids, never catch up... That means your future is determined by the time your in third grade. To make matters worse, that we are building prison facilities based on third grade reading scores. That we are taking reading scores and projecting it forward to know how many people we have that are going to be filling up our prisons.

That's why none of us can sit on our hands or say we want to sit on the sidelines. We all have to get involved.

Among the awardees, first was UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef who announced that he is retiring in June after 25 years year. Chancellor Vanderhoef received the lifetime achievement award.

Chancellor Vanderhoef related a story from the mid-1990s during a time when the board of regents had repealed many of the state's affirmative action programs in advance of Proposition 2009.

"UC Davis Gospel choir helped me make that point quite a while ago about 11 years ago. I was at the board of regents at the University of California. It was in the mid-1990s, it was shortly after the board approved policies that prohibited consideration of race and gender in UC admission and hiring.

The campus at that time had a rare opportunity, it had an opportunity to make a presentation before the regents--a presentation about what we thought UC Davis was and what we thought was important to UC Davis...

I could still picture the major event of that presentation. We were just about to begin and we had this group of students come into the hall. They marched in. Now the regents had been having a very difficult time with students marching into the meeting because of Prop 209 and things that the regents did prior to that. So they fretted about that group of students marching in and seated themselves altogether.

Then they all rose as one body and in fact it was the Gospel Choir. The diversity of faces, the diversity just in general was obvious, it just filled the room before they even mouths. And then they began to sing. It was wonderful. For one thing, the regents relaxed. They relaxed enough so that by the end of the presentation by the Gospel Choir, they gave them a standing ovation.

Afterwards I talked to one of those regents... I said that moving that the regents felt so good about that group of students. He said, I don't think that we've ever seen any university group that showed the diversity that that group showed and at the same time they showed us how wonderful diversity can be. And what it can bring to the stage that other groups cannot."

Dave Dionisi from Teach Peace received a well-deserved award as an Outstanding International Peace Leader. He shared early in the evening a rather moving story about some of the things they accomplished in Liberia in attempting to transform it from a war torn country to now a place where they provide hope in the form of education to young children for just $50 per year.

Mr. Dionisi talked about Martin Luther King and importance of action:

"In the packet tonight, there's a quote from Martin Luther King that I just love about cowardice. 'Cowards ask the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question: Is it politic? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right?' There are many people out there tonight that have the courage folks that are standing up, that ask some hard questions about the Federal Reserve, what it's doing to our country, to ask difficult questions about the massacre in Gaza and what that means for justice everywhere, to ask difficult questions about what really happened on 9/11 and what that means for our democracy as we go forward. I want to say thank you to all of you who have made such a big impact on my life..."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald received an award for Outstanding Community Service, she told the students:

"One person can make a change and we can all come together to make a better change. So when Dr. King says that we must sometimes take positions because they are the right positions to take, I want to challenge everyone in the community and students as you go through your studies, as you run into challenging opportunities, some of you have said 'I don't know if I'm going to get into that school,' you know what, knock on that door. And if that door slams on your face, then you go through the window. If the window slams on your face, you go back and kick the door open. I came from a family where we... were in a one-bedroom home, where we shared mattresses, we were very poor. But we never knew it because there was so much love and hope in the family. So don't let lack of finances and lack of opportunities... you keep asking questions and do not take no for an answer."

Professor Bruce Haynes of UC Davis was named outstanding educator:

"We've heard this a few times on the stage here tonight, that sometimes we have to take a position because it's right. That's something that I try to do... I wanted to take this opportunity to say that thing that is uncomfortable but what must be heard. I'm one of the few black professors at UC Davis that is actually tenured. There are few Latino faculty, few Native American faculty, and we're at historical times in the university's history. Never before has there been so many faculty up for retirement, so it is a unique time for personnel change. We have a deep pipeline problem in the state of California. At times I found myself battling with Chancellor Vanderhoef because he had challenging times trying to find diverse faculty. Part of that crisis in education in California really goes back to something that happened in the 1970s, something that no politician seems willing to talk about. That's Prop 13 which is pretty much the reason that education in the state of California left us in the dark ages. It prevents us from keeping up with other states in terms of expenditures, teacher qualifications, training our teachers. I guess I'm putting it on all us to do something about that..."

The Reverend Malone closed the night with a very moving tribute to Martin Luther King as the nation's first African-American President is about to be sworn into office.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Examination of the Use of the Union Hours Bank by the Davis Fire Department

One item issued forth in the investigation by Bob Aaronson that was not contained in the Grand Jury report was the issue of the Union Bank Hours.

The Vanguard had received an anonymous tip about the fire department usage of the union bank hours that alleged that they were using the hours for political activities. As we shall see, the use of union bank hours for political activities would be completely inappropriate.

The anonymous tip read:

"Check out Union Hour Bank and ask what Firemen are doing while on this time. The answer is Union stuff. Campaigning for Angelides, Against Prop 75, Serving and consuming alcohol for politicians, Electing R.Weist to CPF District President (The City sent 6 Firefighters to serve as Bartenders for this event) R.Conroy there as well."

Union Bank Hours and their usage is laid out in the city's MOU with the firefighters. From the city's MOU, here is how the union hour bank works:

"CITY agrees to deposit 24 hours per year ( on July 1, or first business day thereafter) for each participating Firefighter and Fire Captain for deposit in the Union Hour Bank. 70% of time use of Union Hour Bank time shall not incur overtime except with the approval of the Fire Chief. The CITY will provide to the UNION 30 day advanced notice on special training needs and UNION members agree not to schedule Union Hour Bank business during the identified special training. The CITY concurs that course selection and location is at the prerogative of the UNION and they shall provide 24-hour notice to the department for any Union Hour Bank absences. Absences will be charged at straight time. UNION agrees that total Union Hour Bank accrual and carry over shall not exceed two years worth of Union Hour Bank contributions."

The usage of the hours are also laid out in the MOU:

"The purpose of this Union Hour Bank is solely to provide educational training and development opportunities to UNION members and should not involve conducting or participating in other agencies' unions activities."

The Vanguard asked HR Director Melissa Chaney the purpose of these hours. She told the Vanguard that it was basically for the purposes of training and other union specific activities. She was further asked whether it would be appropriate for the union hour bank to be used for political activities. She told the Vanguard "absolutely not" and elaborated that all political activities must be performed off-duty and without the use of city money.

The Vanguard filed a public records request for the union hour bank time sheet. The Vanguard received a general list of how union hour were alotted and how much was alotted overall. However, as the response below explains, the city does not track the usage of these hours.



Here is the alottment of union hours that were used since 2004:



The Vanguard then turned over this information to the independent investigator for follow up.

In the report released by Bill Emlen, it is unclear whether there was annecdotal evidence to support the anonymous tip. We suspect much as the case in the issue of favoritism and retaliation that the investigator simply lacked the time and money to follow up on leads. However, the report is suggestive of a basic problem of lack of accountability.

Two findings in particular draw our attention.

This is from Bob Aaronson's report:

"Union members asserted that, for the most part, the union had complete discretion on how it chose to use/allocate these hours."

As Aaronson points out this runs against the city's MOU which very narrowly prescribes the intended usage for these activities as being "SOLELY to provide education training and development opportunities..." {emphasis added}.

Moreover, as our public records request indicates, the city does not have records on how these hours are used.

"As I understand it, the union does not maintain records of how these hours are utilized and the City has never requested an accounting from it."

The latter being a very consistent pattern within this city as to the lack of accountability and records keeping.

City Manager Bill Emlen writes:

"Because the current Fire MOU stipulates specific acceptable use of this time, the lack of a written record is problematic. Currently, all requests do go through the Chief but the process is strictly verbal. While there is no indication in the investigation that there has been improper use, the lack of a written record is problematic. Effective immediately and for audit purposes, the Chief will be required to keep written records of requests adequate to address the MOU limitations on Union Bank Hours. This information will be forwarded to the Human Resources Division to monitor purpose and hours usage. The City may also discuss union bank hours further during upcoming negotiations with the fire union."

Let us focus in on this sentence again:

"While there is no indication in the investigation that there has been improper use, the lack of a written record is problematic."

Again, this appears to be a case where the investigation simply was not able to look into potential allegations rather than a case where allegations were explored and refuted. This suggests that we really do not know if the union is improperly using city resources for political activity.

An indignant Chief Rose Conroy spoke at council to suggest that these hours are tracked--she said that she has to sign off on their usage and that they are tracked, she simply needs to now add the additional step of recording their usage.

With all due respect to the Chief, she has a very different definition of what it means to track the usage of hours than I do.

Even if the usage of union bank hours was completely appropriate--and frankly there is no indication that that is the case--this practice is problematic both on the part of the Chief for not meticulously tracking how city money is being spent and by the city's HR department for failing to account for the use of city money. This is a pervasive problem within the city that needs to change. There needs to be much greater accountability than we currently have.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Local Activists Urge Congressman Thompson to Support Green Jobs and Obama Stimulus

In an event sponsored by Moveon.org and organized in every Congressional District, a group of 25 local residents met with Ellie Fairclough from Congressman Mike Thompson's office to urge him to vote for the Obama stimulus.

The local event was organized by Mary Zhu. She called on Congressman Thompson to support and help pass President-elect Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. The group said it hops it will help to create new and green jobs for the country.

They also presented Ms. Fairclough as Representative to Mike Thompson with a 365-signature petition that was gathered online in support of Obama's plan.



There were two other speakers. One of UC Davis alum Joseph Stewart, who some may remember from the Choice Voting campaign. Now an alum with a degree in environmental science, he's now looking for work.

"I'm looking for work right now and I can't find work; there's no jobs to be had. I don't know what to do, I don't have a place to live, I'm not sure what's going to happen to my health insurance. It's a really hard situation."

Ellie Fairclough then read a statement from Congressman Mike Thompson:

"It will take help from all Americans to get our country back on track, and the active involvement of every member of our community will be a crucial component of any economic recovery.

Our country is facing some of the biggest challenges I've seen in my lifetime, and it's important that Congress moves quickly to pass legislation to change the direction of our economy. Congress is working with President-elect Obama's team to create legislation that will create or save over 3 million jobs in the next 2 years and invest in infrastructure projects to lay the foundation for future economic growth."

Joseph Stewart said after the statement was read that it sounded great, he only hoped that the Congressman and others would follow through.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Council Hears City Manager Report on Grand Jury's Findings into the DFD

City Manager Strongly Differs with Aaronson on Substance and Tone of Findings

The Davis City Council very late on Tuesday night and early on Wednesday morning finally got to ask key questions of investigator Bob Aaronson who was charged with the duty of conducting an independent investigation into a series of findings by the Yolo County Grand Jury that was released in June.

The city led by City Manager Bill Emlen and City Attorney Harriet Steiner came to the basic conclusion that they would potentially face liability if they allowed the elected Davis City Council to read the full report. This was borne out by implications from the Union President Bobby Wiest that the employees had an expectation of confidentiality (apparently even from the city council) and that efforts to release the full report even in closed session to the City Council would be met with a lawsuit.

That decision, which Bob Aaronson disagreed with in a nuanced way upon questioning, meant that the city council was left reading a redacted report and the public was left to read only the City Manager's summary of the issue. As we learned, the City Manager and the investigator had somewhat different interpretations of the facts.

As Mr. Aaronson put it at the onset:

"Bill is sort of a glass half full sort of guy when it comes to city operations, it’s my impression, and I tend to a glass half empty sort of guy."

It was City Attorney Harriet Steiner's view that the city council was not entitled to see the full report as it was a personnel document. The city council's job is to review the performance of the city manager and the city manager has the primary responsibility of hiring and firing personnel.

Emlen told the council that he did not see any further formal role for the council to play in this matter after they received this report. He also would not, upon questioning from Councilmember Heystek, rule out taking further personnel action.

“At this point, I would defer from answering that question.”

The question of confidentiality has long been a key, despite the general recognition it seems that the Fire Department is well aware of who spoke to Emlen and what they told him.

Mr. Aaronson was asked the degree to which employees were promised confidentiality. His response was that he laid out the process for them exactly how he saw this playing out. About 30 percent of the people who were interviewed by Mr. Aaronson had a concern about confidentiality—they were primarily concerned with retaliation.

“I tried to assure them that their identities and the specific things that they said connected with their identities would not go in a final report.”

He said further,

“I explained to them that I could not guarantee whether or not the interviews would be confidential. But that I would make every effort from my perspective to make sure that no one’s identity connected with negative information was going to be revealed.”

Union President Bobby Wiest disagreed stating that the employees believed that this was a confidential process and he strongly suggested that any effort to release the full report even to the council would be viewed with an invocation of the Firefighters Bill of Rights (which he characterized as similar to the counterpart document with the police officers) and hinted strongly that the city would face a lawsuit.

Bill Emlen suggested that the only names and identities revealed in the report were the same ones revealed in the original grand jury report.

The matter of confidentiality however only matters if there is a need for the council to see the full report. A three to two majority on the council in December voted not to see the full report. And that view held on Wednesday morning despite evidence that became clear there was a strong difference of opinion between Mr. Emlen and Mr. Aaronson on the tone of the findings.

Councilmember asked when Aaronson viewed the redacted the report—it was after the council reviewed the redacted report. Aaronson said that he had no involvement in the preparation of the redacted report.

So the question really boiled down to what the differences in the report were. Councilmember Stephen Souza got at this point with his opening question asking for Mr. Aaronson to characterize the differences in the "essence" of his report from the city manager's summary.

“I think there are three bases for what I perceive as the differences between my report and the city manager’s summary of my report. The first one is a simple difference, if you reduce a library’s volume by 70 to 80 books it contains, it’s still a library but it’s a different library. When you take information out, it’s hard for there not to be a loss. So there are nuances there are statements and contexts that to me were important that were taken out for the sake of brevity.

The second issue which is also unavoidable—from my perspective the components of my report that touch on personnel matters were essential. Some of them I think go directly to the heart of the more consequential issues. So to eliminate them by its nature changes what the report is.

And then the third thing is, and it’s my impression, Bill is sort of a glass half full sort of guy when it comes to city operations, it’s my impression, and I tend to a glass half empty sort of guy. Those are the ways that I try to articulate how I see there are some differences.”

Bill Emlen and Bob Aaronson upon a question from Don Saylor described very different “most consequential” issues identified in this report. Mr. Emlen said he was very concerned about the public perception of the sleeping at the first station issue, off duty activities, and promotional process issues. Each one he couched in terms that mitigated the severity of the findings—suggesting that he was relieved.

“Overall I’d have to say that the fact that we were able to get more information and get clarity on what the grand jury had indicated on some of these factual areas was also useful. I think it was important for the public to know those things.”

Mr. Aaronson identified three significant issues: favoritism/ retaliation, promotional process, and leadership style.

Mr. Saylor quotes from page four of the report:

“There’s no proof or incidence of retaliation or a hostile work environment.”

Mr. Aaronson responds:

“What my report states is that other than the promotional process which I investigated, and members of the department felt there was favoritism reflected in that, other than that, I did not go and investigate the incidents that were presented to me by employees claiming that it was retaliation or favoritism.”

Why did he not investigate these claims? Primarily time considerations and money dictated the decision here.

“My report might have been more accurate if I intimated that I might have heard a dozen or a dozen and a half individual incidents where people described to me a circumstance that they ascribed favoritism or retaliation.”

Mr. Saylor continues:

“City Manager, your report says there is no proof or incidence of retaliation or hostile work environment is that an accurate assessment?”

Mr. Emlen:

“We have no specific proof, obviously there are folks who have perspectives that were related to Bob, describing potential situations but there’s no hard evidence and to get there would take a long time and we may be no farther in the end.”

This is a key and illuminating exchange. In essence, what the City Manager asserts in his report is deceptive. He suggests there is no proof, but that is really because he does not seek out proof rather than him seeking out proof but not finding any.

Indeed this is not the only instance where this comes up, with regard to political activities:

"The Grand Jury Report suggested potentially inappropriate political activities and donations made by firefighters and the union. Firefighters, as members of a union, have an absolute constitutional right to participate in activities and provide donations, provided they do not do so on City time or as official representatives of the City. The report finds no instances of wrongdoing..."

Apparently Mr. Emlen's words: "no instances of wrongdoing" does not mean exoneration, only that Mr. Aaronson lacked the time and resources to investigate these claims further.

This is extremely misleading to the public.

At another point, Mr. Emlen suggested that the number of employees with various grievances about the department was very small. A side discussion erupted on the meaning of the term grievance, but that missed the bigger point that the small number aggrieved was actually about 20% according to Mr. Emlen which is not a small number, in fact it is quite high.

Furthermore, the issue of frequency of the drinking issue came up. Mr. Emlen suggested it was infrequent and coincided around parties and celebrations. Chief Rose Conroy and Bobby Wiest also suggested it was very few, that the practice has been stopped, and it was done for a safety concern.

However, Mr. Aaronson suggested that the number was something like half a dozen to a dozen times per year often occurring with multiple members of the department.

Frankly this issue was never as concerning to me as the issue of work environment, promotions, and political activities. While it is inappropriate to use city facilities for this purpose, it is preferable to some alternatives such as firefighters driving while drunk endangering themselves and the public.

Both Mr. Wiest and Chief Conroy spoke at length. Chief Conroy flatly denied the allegations except for a single incident of "badging."

The council majority--all of whom were endorsed by the fire fighters and received large amounts of money for their most recent campaigns--took the view that Mr. Emlen did. The most important finding was that the operations of the department are exemplary.

As the report reads:

"Perhaps the single largest unaddressed area is the quality of service DFD provides to the city of Davis and its residents and visitors. The Davis Fire Department receives very, very high customer satisfaction results from community surveys. Our firefighters are skilled, experienced and welltrained. Their equipment and facilities are meticulously maintained. As well, Chief Conroy and the firefighters’ union have been increasingly successful in building a partnership unusual in the fire service, to the extent that the Davis Fire Department has become a model for fire service organizations regionally and nationally."

To their credit, both Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek took opposing viewpoints on the report, although they did concur with their colleagues about the high quality of service.

From my perspective the problems I had with the process have if anything been confirmed by the report and presentation. It is clear that Mr. Emlen did have a "glass half full" perspective that led him to downplay major findings and even distort the extent to which the process may have exonerated the department.

Moreover there is a larger unanswered question and it Sue Greenwald brought it up a bit when she asked if the council's only recourse was to fire Bill Emlen.

At one point, Councilmember Heystek asked the City Manager if this problem was a known flashpoint, why it wasn't dealt with sooner. His answer was that they had just become aware of this through the process. But Chief Conroy hadn't. She knew all along and did nothing to alleviate a problem that was a flashpoint.

With the union hours bank, she claimed the usage was tracked but not recorded. However, that is generally what it means to track them--record them so that others may oversee their usage.

There are countless examples of processes and practices where good accountability practices are simply not followed by the Fire Chief and they appear to have directly led to the problems that have arisen here.

At some point, however, this responsiblity falls onto Bill Emlen's shoulders as the City Manager. For me the remaining question is what did Bill Emlen know about these problems and when did he know them? Neither answer is good actually. If he knew about them in advance, then it is a problem because he did not act. If he did know about them until this report and the Grand Jury report, the question should focus on why not?

What is clear is that this issue is over with from the public's perspective. No one on the council seemed interested in pushing the matter past this week and no one seems that interested in further pursuing it--either because they do not support doing so or there are not the votes to do so.

In the end, the people of Davis can be assured that the fire department does its job well, but also yields tremendous influence on city policies as it consumes a larger and larger portion of the city's payroll and general fund.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Both Sides Passionately Express Their Views on Middle Peace at Council Meeting

In a microcosm of the divide that exists in Israel and Palestine, hundreds of Davis residents turned out to Davis City Hall on Tuesday night to express their opinion and take a side on a resolution that was designed by Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek to bring people together, to take no sides, and quite simply to call for a cease fire, a cessation of violence, to condemn the attacks on both sides, and to allow for the humanitarian aid.

However, this would not be a night for compromise or peace. Instead, a large number of Muslim and Middle Eastern UC Davis students called on the council to support a resolution while a smaller but vocally just as a passionate number of Jewish residents of Davis called on the council not to pass the resolution.

The Jews, largely a collection of more conservative and pro-Israeli Jews, condemned the city council for what they called moral equivalency. They argued passionately that there can be no peace so long as Hamas, a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, is in control of Gaza. They were passionate about their views.

The incident even inspired Political Science Professor Emeritus, Alex Groth, a holocaust survivor and 47 year resident of Davis to make his very first visit to the Davis City Council.

There were a small handful of more liberal Jews led by people like Jonathan London and also represented by Councilmember Sue Greenwald who called for peace. Councilmember Greenwald gave an impassioned statement for peace. For that, she earned the score of the more militant and conservative members of the Jewish community, who at one point cornered her outside the chambers and suggested she was a "self-hater."

Many criticized the board for responding to the large number of Muslims who attended the council meeting last week calling on a resolution. They suggested that the subcommittee had listened to only one side.

However, from what I understand, Councilmembers Souza and Heystek talked to a large number of people and attempted to craft what was a very difficult document.

It became increasingly clear that there was a sharp divide in the room. And that cooler heads could have brought people who live in this community and shared very diverse viewpoints together.

The council ultimately pulled back the resolution, realizing that what they believed could unite the community had actually divided the community.

The council then unanimously moved to have the Human Relations Commission take up the issue and work toward a community forum where people from all sides can come forward and express their views.

On the one hand, it was clear that this proposal was doomed from the start given the sharp viewpoints in the room, on the other hand, it was a great exercise in democracy. Both sides at times heatedly and passionately aired their viewpoints, but for the most part the debate was civil, it was marred by very few lost tempers and other than a brief but alrming incident outside, remained relatively peaceful on both sides.

The students learned a great lesson in civics about the democratic process. This evening on Vanguard Radio, KDRT 95.7, join us as the Vanguard talks to several of the students involved in these events. You can call in at 792.1648 and listen on the net at KDRT.org.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Now Facing Crisis of "Unmet Needs"

The Davis Enterprise on Monday ran a story entitled, "When to tax?" The general thrust of the story is two-fold. First, the city has a growing deficit of $1.2 million followed by as much as $3 million the next year.

On the other hand, the city has a long list of "unmet needs."

The city staff report for tonight's budget workshop says:

"While the growing list of unmet needs – both one-time and recurring – remains a significant concern, current economic and budgetary realities suggest that emphasis should be placed on securing existing revenues over seeking new revenue sources that could, potentially, jeopardize revenues relied upon to provide existing City services."

The general idea at this point, and it was shared by Finance Director and Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio, is that the city recognizes at this time that hey cannot ask for additional revenues. Last year they were proposing and exploring a number of new taxes to deal with some of the growing list of unmet needs. However, that is largely off the table now.

The staff report reads:

"At this time, staff is suggesting that the highest priority related to future ballot measures should be the renewal of the ½ Sales Tax (Measure P), approved by the voters in June 2004, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure currently provides roughly $3 million in General Fund revenues to the City.

Secondly, priority should be given to options for renewing or replacing the Parks
Maintenance Tax (Measure G), which was re-authorized by the voters in June 2006, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure provides roughly $1.3 million in dedicated funding in support of park maintenance activities. In the past, some concerns have been expressed over the appropriateness of assessing this tax on the basis of a flat $49 tax on parcels within the City. Staff has previously been directed to explore alternative funding mechanisms, to the point where the text of Measure G provides that the measure would be repealed in the event that the City secures an alternative means of funding parks maintenance activities."

In other words, right now the city will be focusing on renewing rather than expanding the existing revenue base. That puts a tremendous strain on city resources and city services. One of the keys will be the round of negotiations that the city has to engage in this year with most of the city employees' bargaining units.

There will be a tremendous pressure on the city and the bargaining units to simply punt on these negotiations. Meaning that they would simply negotiate the same agreement as before and extend the current contract. The hope by the employees would be that in a year or two the economy will have improved and then they can negotiate a better contract.

However, many recognize that the current trajectory is not sustainable. At some point we will have fuller discussion of the retirement system, but the strain on PERS may necessitate changes in who funds the retirement pensions and the breakdown of employee payments to employer payments into PERS.

The city at this time would be better holding fast to the negotiations and go to the mat for changes even if that process takes two years and requires a de facto rather than a de jure extension of the current contract.

From our standpoint the biggest problem right now are the growing list of unmet needs. The growing list was concerning last year. The fact at that point was that the city separated this list of needs from the budget, meaning that it appeared we had a fund balance with a reserve. But that fund balance was an illusion. It belied the fact that the city lacked the resources to meet these needs.

These needs include infrastructure upgrade and repair, basic road maintenance, and a whole host of other short and long term needs. Allowing these to go unaddressed means more cost down the line.

Now the city finds itself in an operating budget deficit that will grow to large proportions in the next two fiscal years. The city cannot rely on the taxpayers to pay more during these very difficult economic times. So the city is in a real jam.

The city has really put itself into a tight place by being overly generous with salary increases and retirement pensions that occurred during better economic times. The city lacks the revenue now to be able to address serious needs and they also recognize that the taxpayers lack the resources and probably the inclination to vote for tax increases during these challenging fiscal times.

Where does that leave the city? We will have to watch as the council tries to grapple with these kinds of issues. It would have helped if a year ago, the council had been more upfront about the tenuous nature of the city's fiscal situation it was touting during the council elections of 2008.

The Vanguard has been warning about this impending problem for some time. The council is just now considering looking into it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Response to Davis Enterprise on Senior Housing

Special to The People’s Vanguard of Davis

By Elaine Roberts Musser

____________

It was with some disquiet that I read Claire St. John’s Jan. 2, 2009 article in the Davis Enterprise, entitled “Senior Living”. I immediately fired off a clarification of my position to the Enterprise that same day. I wanted to make clear the reader understood 1) I was speaking as an individual and not in my capacity as the Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission; 2) the issue of how much senior housing is considered necessary in the future was left completely out of the article.

Because I have no 350 word limit as is required in the Enterprise, it would be my privilege to take this opportunity to more fully express my individual opinion. I was asked by Claire St. John what I thought were the most pressing senior needs in Davis. The list I gave included four items: 1) senior housing; 2) transportation; 3) elder abuse prevention; 4) greater fiscal responsibility with respect to city finances.

A lengthy discussion ensued about each item on the list, and what was being done on a city and county level to address these four issues - since I wear both a city and county hat. (I am Chair of the Triad Task Force, the action arm of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services.) I mentioned transit mobility training and roving legal clinics at the county level, and talked of my concerns about the city budgeting process. I offered to Claire contact information for various people, to facilitate follow-up discussions - in an effort to assist the research process about her proposed article on senior needs.

However, Ms. St. John’s article only dealt with senior housing, and in my opinion left out the critical element the two of us had thoroughly discussed. How much senior housing is necessary? I doubt anyone would disagree that between now and the year 2013 that some more senior housing options would be nice, as was suggested in the article. Especially to give some desired competition to already existing and very expensive assisted living or continuum of care facilities in Davis. But what specific number of senior housing units would be essential is the million dollar question, the big fat elephant in the room!

In the article, only one number was discussed. The plan under contemplation at the old Covell Village site would have about 800 units of senior housing over ten years. This is an all or nothing approach. Are we only left with two possible options: 800 units or zero growth? In fact a city staff report put the internal need for more senior housing at an estimated maximum of 150 units between now and the year 2013, which from my perspective seems considerably more realistic than 800.

Claire St. John’s article relies heavily on the notion of “downsizing”, i.e. moving to a smaller home to cut down on maintenance needs. Ironically, statistics show that people prefer to remain in their home until the day they die. Often there is an emotional attachment to one’s residence. It is where children are raised and grow up. I doubt very many seniors would want to sell their home for the good of the community just to free up housing for younger families, as was put forward in the article as a reason for development of more senior housing. Nor do many seniors want to live in an age-restricted complex, preferring to live among younger folks.

Some months ago, I strongly advocated for the Davis Senior Citizens Commission to create a set of housing guidelines. The idea was to give developers and the City Council some guidance as to what seniors were interested in, and delineate their concerns. I felt it was time to reverse the trend of new housing in Davis being developer-driven. Such principles that involve sensible planning might also cut down on the divisiveness that seems to come with every discussion in Davis about growth. These guidelines are very close to being finished, but still require a bit of tweaking.

The gist of the guidelines, without getting into specifics, is as follows: 1) provide housing options for seniors of all income levels, with an eye toward meeting “internal” rather than “external” demand; 2) taking into account the fiscal impact of an increase in cost of city services that will entail. Too often residential growth has been initiated under the policy “ build it and they shall come”. Ultimately the developers reap a handsome profit. However, the inherent costs of such a careless strategy have not been fully borne by developers, but rather city taxpayers are forced to make up the difference, which has been substantial.

We are now facing a city budget crisis of epic proportions. Much of that cost is for road repair, and city employee benefits. Costs intrinsic to residential development. To put it bluntly, a massive influx of seniors would further strain the county social welfare system, city fire and ambulance services, city and county medical facilities, etc., above and beyond normal city and county services. Shouldn’t we be trying to further commercial development first, to bring in more tax revenue to pay for existing city services, let alone pay for any new ones created by more development?

Another issue raised in the article is of deep personal concern. “Part of their concept is a community…managed by residents. Maintenance would be paid for out of a homeowners association fund.” As a Board member of the Center for CA Homeowners Association Law (CCHAL), I can tell you from personal experience as an attorney, homeowners associations are rife with opportunities for elder abuse. A homeowners association is not the panacea many assume it is. In fact homeowners associations, and the management companies and debt collection agencies they hire, can perpetrate some of the worst cases of abuse on record. It can include taking away a person’s home and selling it for as little as $1.20; and can result in the death of the homeowner from the stress of any foreclosure proceedings.

I would strongly advise the City Council to tread very carefully, when planning future housing in general, and senior housing in particular. My hope is our commission’s guidelines will serve as a set of talking points, to begin appropriate discussion on projected residential development of senior housing. If the City Council finds these guidelines useful, I would encourage the planning commission to come up with a similar set of guidelines for overall residential development. It serves for better long range planning, should cut down on incivility in community discussion, and will better provide for actual community needs.

Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

City Manager’s Handling of Fire Report Undermines Investigatory Process

Davis City Council Never Sees Unredacted Report from City Ombudsman Bob Aaronson

The City of Davis spent $35,000 on an independent investigation of the fire department, conducted by Bob Aaronson, who mostly serves the city as a part-time police ombudsman. However, given the decisions made by City Manager Bill Emlen and City Attorney Harriet Steiner, who may be the only people aside from Mr. Aaronson to see the full unredacted report, one might question what the purpose of this was.

The logic behind the independent investigation was to have a neutral third party investigate the allegation that arose from the Yolo County Grand Jury Report. Bill Emlen, as city manager, is the individual responsible for the conduct of those who serve under him, such as Fire Chief Rose Conroy and those under her supervision.

The Vanguard spoke with Mr. Emlen on Friday. He indicated that the City Council was only allowed to see a redacted version of the report. However, the Council was not allowed to take the report home with them and only allowed to read it in his presence.

The public has not even been allowed to view the redacted report. All the public has at its deposal is a Staff Report written by the City Manager himself that supposedly cites Mr. Aaronson’s conclusions and excerpts from the Ombudsman’s report itself. However it is framed and written by the City Manager.

The important question is why the elected representatives of Davis voters have been denied by two appointed city officials the ability to read the full report. Not one person with any direct accountability to the voters has been allowed to review the report.

Bill Emlen told the Vanguard that allowing the City Council to see the report would involve them in personnel matters and would expose the city to potential lawsuits by employees. However, several people with city attorney experience that the Vanguard has spoken with have questioned whether this is a realistic fear. For one thing, elected school board members are allowed to view personnel files without such risk. Moreover, it is unclear whether or not the city has ever been sued for this kind of matter.

Furthermore this brings up the question as to whether the City Councilmembers should be treated in the same manner as members of the public in terms of their ability to review personnel files. That is the position that the City Attorney takes in this regard.

It seems somewhat obvious that a City Councilmember is not simply another member of the public. And moreover, that if the only true power that they possess in matters such as these is the power to hire and fire the City Manager, then how can they properly evaluate the City Manager unless they have some mechanism of oversight? Specifically whether the City Council can judge if the City Manager can properly evaluate and manage employees under his direct and indirect supervision.

This might all be a moot point if the City Manager’s report faithfully communicated the findings, tone, and spirit of the independent investigation conducted by the Ombudsman and only removed from it references to personnel matters. However, there appears to be only three people capable of making such an assessment and only one of them does not have a vested interest in non-disclosure and that would be the independent investigator himself.

Bill Emlen told the Vanguard on Friday that while he had sent Mr. Aaronson a copy of the redacted report, he had not spoken to the Ombudsman in at least two weeks. Mr. Emlen did not seek Mr. Aaronson’s approval or input on this Staff Report written solely by Mr. Emlen and reviewed by Ms. Steiner nor did he seek the approval or input on the redacted copy of Mr. Aaronson’s original report and findings which were shown to the Councilmembers. Mr. Aaronson has not been asked to sign off on either document.

In other words, we have no idea at this time if this Staff Report is consistent with the findings and report that Mr. Aaronson submitted to the City Manager, Bill Emlen.

The good news for Davis residents is that Mr. Aaronson will attend Tuesday night’s meeting where the findings of this report are presented to the Davis City Council and the public. The City Councilmembers will have a chance to ask Mr. Aaronson directly to describe whether or not this Staff Report is an accurate depiction of the one he submitted nearly two months ago to the city manager.

Unfortunately, the Vanguard has no confidence that this has occurred. There is absolutely no transparency, no accountability, and no oversight of this process by anyone without a direct stake in the outcome of the findings. The elected City Councilmembers and the public are forced to take the City Manager and City Attorney at their word that this is an adequate representation of Mr. Aaronson’s report.

To be sure, there may be valuable insight gained from an internal review of the Fire Department, however, from the standpoint of the City Council and the public, the $35,000 could have been better spent elsewhere if all Mr. Emlen was intending to do was act as the “gatekeeper of information.” From that perspective, he may as well have conducted the investigation himself and saved the city the added costs.

However, that perspective may change on Tuesday night depending on what Mr. Aaronson says at a public meeting and what questions are asked by the Council and the public regarding this matter.

Mr. Emlen expressed the hope that the public would have confidence in how this matter has been handled and satisfied that the City conducted a thorough and rigorous review, that they have found a number of problems, and that the City has moved quickly and swiftly toward resolving these problems.

I say to my readers today that I share no such thought and I give Mr. Emlen and his handling of the process no vote of confidence.

The issues that the Grand Jury report was able to bring forward appear to have been known for some time by those in the fire department and perhaps the city manager’s office itself. Many of these things either occurred on Mr. Emlen's watch or continued on his watch. The pattern of the City not having proper oversight and accountability procedures has been continuous through the Vanguard’s various investigations. The fact that the City does not properly oversee the fire department probably means that the fire department is not alone in the type of problems that the Grand Jury uncovered.

Nothing short of full disclosure of this report to the City Council is an acceptable outcome at this point.Regarding oversight and accountability concerning this investigation, there is no longer any trust extended to this City Manager in his handling of his oversight duties and accountability directly to the City Council and by extension the people of Davis. The people of Davis deserve oversight and accountability. They have been provided with neither in this case. All we have are a couple of unelected officials who have constructed flimsy excuses in order to deny the Council the ability to fully read and evaluate what the Ombudsman uncovered during his lengthy and costly $35,000 investigation and whether City management has taken these allegations seriously and made effective corrections..

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Independent Investigation into Yolo County Grand Jury Report

In June of 2008, the Yolo County Grand Jury issued forth a report, concluding a nearly two-year investigation in the conduct and management of the Davis Fire Department (DFD). Among these included questions about promotional practice, a hostile work environment, the misuse of DFD facilities by inebriated off-duty firefighters, strain in the relationship between the DFD and the Davis Police Department, and finally improper influence of the Davis firefighters' union.

After considerable prodding, the Davis City Manager Bill Emlen asked Bob Aaronson, the City's Ombudsman to conduct an independent investigation into the complaints. Mr. Aaronson turned in this report shortly after Election Day, however it has taken nearly two months for the City to process it.

The City is not providing the public with the full report, instead we have the Staff Report written by City Manager Bill Emlen which excerpts from Mr. Aaronson's report and interjects Mr. Emlen's own analysis and interpretation.

At the outset the most important finding, and one never in question, is that nothing in this report and indeed the Grand Jury allegations is the work product performed by the department in question. Any issues regarding the fire department revolve around somewhat peripheral matters and in the larger scheme are a byproduct of the ongoing policy debate over spending at the city level and maximizing service at a cost-effective manner.

"Perhaps the single largest unaddressed area is the quality of service DFD provides to the city of Davis and its residents and visitors. The Davis Fire Department receives very, very high customer satisfaction results from community surveys. Our firefighters are skilled, experienced and welltrained. Their equipment and facilities are meticulously maintained. As well, Chief Conroy and the firefighters’ union have been increasingly successful in building a partnership unusual in the fire service, to the extent that the Davis Fire Department has become a model for fire service organizations regionally and nationally."

According to Bill Emlen's accounting of the investigation:

"The investigation identifies several areas that deserve attention. Those are described below, along with actions being taken in response. There are certain personnel related issues identified in the investigation that we will follow-up on and monitor as appropriate."

Here are some of the key findings:

• Management issues related to Shunning and Favoritism.

Mr. Emlen's words:

"The report suggests that this is plausible, but there is no direct evidence to prove that this has happened."

Mr Aaronson's words:

"There are still a group of employees who could reasonably be described as disgruntled… I found no evidence that either the Chief or the union explicitly directs anyone to be shunned or ostracized. Based on the interviews, any shunning is more a reflection of those employees that have become so polarized that they have become ‘unpleasant’ to deal with, and not as a punishment for being outspoken. To the extent that there is any shunning based strictly on opinions held, there is no evidence that any sort of formally organized conspiracy exists; if people aren’t talking to each other, it’s based on personal preference and not because someone told them not to."

We have no idea from Mr. Emlen's version what Mr. Aaronson said after the word, "disgruntled." It is important to recognize that even Mr. Emlen suggests the finding is "plausible" as in not disproved.

• Retaliation/Hostile Work Environment.

Mr. Emlen's words:

"Some employees claim they feel that retaliation is possible, but there is no proof or specific incidents uncovered by the investigation. There are no pending complaints or grievances from the Fire Department lodged with the city of Davis regarding retaliation.

Although the investigation is not conclusive in these areas, and we have no indication there will be any negative ramifications to individual employees in the future, the fact that the investigation has taken place warrants additional precautionary measures for all who participated in the process. All major disciplinary actions, including written reprimands, already involve the Human Resource Division. Effective immediately and for the next 12 months, the Fire Department will prepare monthly incident reports to include all disciplinary action beyond verbal comments for review by the Human Resource Division. We will also make it clear to all Fire Department employees that they are free to bring these issues to the attention of the City Managers Office if they wanted to elaborate on any issues raised. It is important to note that this has always been an option, but it is clear that some employees may have been hesitant to do so, given the relative independence that the Fire Department has had from city administrative functions. The fact that they operate in physically separate facilities also contributes this factor. In light of the investigation and the many Fire Department employees who participated, we just feel it is important to reiterate that they are free to bring forward issues without negative ramifications."

We never do get to see any of Mr. Aaronson's report. However, clearly Mr. Emlen felt this was a serious enough possibility to take precautions.

Grievances

Mr. Aaronson's words:

The Forum for Workplace Disputes Between Captains and Firefighters In the course (of) our discussions about the use of the grievance process, I learned…that the most recent grievances (“several years ago”) brought to the union for resolution with management weren’t even forwarded to management at all. Apparently, only grievances against chief officers are forwarded to management; grievances against a captain by (a) firefighter would be resolved by the union on its own.

In my view, a grievable dispute between a firefighter and her/his supervisor that arises out of their supervisor/subordinate relationship …should be subject to resolution by management. Regardless of his/her status as a union member, a captain supervising a crew member is employing a manager’s powers delegated to her/him by the department head; if the captain has overstepped, erred or otherwise offended a subordinate in so doing, it is managerial prerogatives that are being grieved against. Management, through the formal grievance process, should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in.

Mr. Emlen words:

"Effective immediately, such grievances will be required to be forwarded to Fire Department management and copied to the Human Resources office and follow City personnel rules, rather than be handled solely by the union. Employees will be reminded that they have several avenues through which they can lodge a complaint or file a grievance, including pathways that do not involve going to anyone within the Fire Department. We further understand the unique situation and dynamic created when the union leaders are also in leadership and/or supervisory positions within the Fire Department. Weighing the rights of the union and its members with the public obligations of the management of the Department will continue to be a balancing act."

• Union Bank Hours

This was not contained in the original complaint, we will have a separate story on this at some point backgrounding it. The bottom line here is that there were some allegations that arose about the misuse of these hours and the city does not keep track of how these hours are spent, which is problematic at best.'

Mr. Aaronson's words:

"The City, pursuant to its MOU with the Union, deposits 24 hours per year per firefighter and captain in the ‘Union Hour Bank’. This amounts to a considerable 1,080 hours each July 1st. Union members asserted that, for the most part, the union had complete discretion on how it chose to use/allocate these hours. Yet, according to the MOU,

“The purpose of this Union Hour Bank is solely to provide educational training and development opportunities to Union members and should not involve conducting or participating in other agencies’ unions activities.”

I gather this is to facilitate, in part, the attendance of union members at State and National union conferences, where training is typically part of the scheduled activities.

As I understand it, the union does not maintain records of how these hours are utilized and the City has never requested an accounting from it."

Mr. Emlen's words:

"Because the current Fire MOU stipulates specific acceptable use of this time, the lack of a written record is problematic. Currently, all requests do go through the Chief but the process is strictly verbal. While there is no indication in the investigation that there has been improper use, the lack of a written record is problematic. Effective immediately and for audit purposes, the Chief will be required to keep written records of requests adequate to address the MOU limitations on Union Bank Hours. This information will be forwarded to the Human Resources Division to monitor purpose and hours usage. The City may also discuss union bank hours further during upcoming negotiations with the fire union."

• Political Activities and Donations.

Mr. Emlen's conclusion:

"The Grand Jury Report suggested potentially inappropriate political activities and donations made by firefighters and the union. Firefighters, as members of a union, have an absolute constitutional right to participate in activities and provide donations, provided they do not do so on City time or as official representatives of the City. The report finds no instances of wrongdoing and any changes or policies put into place are those for the union, not the City, to consider."

• Promotion Process.

One of the key findings here is that while the fire department apparently followed the prescribed protocol, that protocol is inherently problematic.

Mr. Aaronson's words:

"Based on my interviews, the promotional process has been a flash point within the organization for over a decade…In fact, the single most common starting place where employees become ‘disgruntled’ is in connection with the promotional process. To the extent that certain circles believe that favoritism is a cornerstone in Chief Conroy’s department, their key proof is based upon their perception of how the promotional process has worked…Apparently, Chief Conroy has been aware of this perception for some period of time. This is part of the reason why she is at such pains, during each process, to meet with the candidates and go over, in great detail, how the process works…"

He continues:

"The Rule of Three vs. ‘The Rule of the List’

Most of the public entities with which I have previously worked operated under either the rule of three or the rule of five…In essence, after a formal assessment process, a final list of the candidates is compiled by someone other than the final decision-make/department head, wherein the candidates who meet the minimum qualifications are ranked in the order that they finished. The department head then interviews the top three or five candidates (hence the rule of three or five) and picks one of them. The department head is limited to either the top three or the top five. As well, the department head is excluded from the process whereby the list is compiled in order to ensure against manipulations."

Mr. Emlen's synopsis:

Mr. Aaronson’s findings included:

• Current process not adequately transparent to the stakeholders
  
  
• Multi-faceted assessment center should do more than to determine minimum qualifications. Otherwise, abbreviated assessment center should be utilized.
  
  
• Final rating portion of process was arbitrary.

His recommendations include:

• The determination of the candidates’ ranking based on training, education, and performance ought to be completed by some manager other than the ultimate decision-maker, in order to minimize the potential perception that the process, despite rigid assessment rankings is ultimately overly subjective.
  
  
• Only the top three to five candidates ought to be forwarded to the decision maker for a final decision.
  
  
• Records generated in the course of the promotional process should not be destroyed by the department or its managers.

Mr. Emlen:

"On this issue, it is important to note the process followed under the recruitment highlighted by the Grand Jury was in accordance with established procedures. It is also important to note that candidates selected were well qualified for the position. That said, the report does a good job of identifying why the current process could be improved for future recruitments with respect to clarity and minimizing questions of subjectivity in the final determination.

I concur with the investigation that improvements to that process can and should be made to refine and strengthen it. The Human Resources Division will work with the Fire Department to consider the above recommendations or other changes to the current promotional process to address the concerns and finding outlined in the report."

One point of question is that if this was such a flash point and Chief Conroy knew it was a flash point, why has this issue not been addressed far sooner?

• Off-duty Sleeping in the Station by Inebriated Firefighters

Aaronson's words:

"A subcategory of this practice has been permitting intoxicated off duty firefighters to return to the station to sleep instead of driving under the influence.

Having asked everyone I interviewed, I could find no instance of any off-duty intoxicated firefighters interfering with on-duty crews. The closest I came was a single instance, reported by three separate sources, where a drunken firefighter vomited on an on-duty member’s blankets.
In my view, this issue represents a real dilemma. Certainly, I would be inclined to allow sober off-duty firefighters to use their otherwise empty beds on the basis that it saves gas and time as well as making available an additional trained person in the event of a major emergency, so long as off-duty employees in no fashion interfered with on-duty crews.

The problem is introduced when the rule permits off-duty intoxicated firefighters to return to the station rather than be forced to navigate their own way home. While no one wants anyone to drive under the influence, the City is not providing beds to other intoxicated people, only off-duty firefighters."

Mr. Emlen:

"This practice, while understandable from a personal and public safety perspective, is still an unacceptable use of public facilities. It does not appear to have occurred very often, but any occurrence is problematic. The City’s personnel rules, which provide that no employee shall be inebriated at the work site, will be enforced and off-duty firefighters will not be permitted to be at the station while inebriated. The Fire Chief is aware of this and is in agreement. Like any other city employee, firefighters will be expected to utilize other options, such as local hotel accommodations, taxis or designated drivers. Off-duty firefighters will still be permitted to sleep at the station before or after shifts when they have additional department-related activities to pursue."

• Badging

Lengthy excerpt from Aaronson's report:

"Two years ago, there was a clear perception amongst Davis police officers that drunken off-duty firefighters were a small, but visible presence downtown some evenings. On occasion, they presented enforcement issues to the officers. This problem has substantially diminished as a result of all of the following: the closing of the firefighters’ favorite bar; the union president’s having spoken to his membership about the problem; the attention that an incident received in the department after two firefighters were disciplined for an off-duty, intoxicated incident downtown; and the attention focused on the department as a result of the GJR.

There are three known incidents involving off-duty firefighters downtown. In one, the firefighters were blameless and only attempting to protect a third party from injury. The second, where two firefighters were disciplined, was addressed by the Chief satisfactorily. The third is an instance where what the police department learned was never conveyed to the fire department for their own resolution.

This third instance, based on the contemporaneous statements of witnesses, may have encompassed (an) assault committed by an off-duty intoxicated firefighter at the end of a barroom disturbance. The matter was not forwarded to the district attorney for criminal prosecution due to the lack of cooperation by the victim…I have not attempted to investigate this incident other than to read the police reports and I therefore cannot ascertain whether or not the firefighter committed a…crime. But, on the face of the report, the matter should have been followed up on more vigorously by the police department and the report should have been forwarded to the Fire Chief for an internal personnel investigation.

At my request, a rather thorough search of the dispatch records was conducted to determine whether there were other incidents in the last 18 months. There were none. On the other hand, anecdotal communications between the police officers and with dispatchers surfaced, which tended to confirm that there were periodic incidents downtown where off-duty intoxicated firefighters were causing or becoming involved in minor public nuisances. …Both police officers and firefighters report that intoxicated firefighters regularly identify themselves as firefighters to police officers contacting them in connection with taking enforcement actions.

In the law enforcement world, when an off-duty officers so identifies himself, it is called ‘badging’. ‘Badging’, which used to be somewhat common, is now very much frowned upon and frequently subject to disciplinary action. A peace officer is prohibited from trying to use his official capacity in order to gain personal benefit, including special consideration from on duty officers…I suggest it would not be unreasonable to enforce this rule in the fire service as well."

Mr. Aaronson's report apparently also made note that the fire department, like other city departments was behind on timely evaluations of its employees.

Furthermore the city, failed to record what materials had been turned over to the Grand Jury.

Mr. Aaronson:

"City’s Failure to Record Materials Turned Over to the Grand Jury Inexplicably, when, in response to the Grand Jury’s request, the City turned over records to the Grand Jury, the City failed to either make a record of what it turned over or even a second set of copies of the documents. This meant I was unable to ascertain what the Grand Jury had actually looked at."

There were also a number of factually disproven Grand Jury allegations. Chief Conroy's husband was not the former Union Vice President, though he was and is a member of the union. Staff has never provided child care for Chief Conroy. The issue of the retirement party had to do with the fact that the individual wanted certain employees excluded from the party. There were no employees who reported problems with their personnel files. 19% rather than 80% of DFD firefighters live in Davis.

There are a number of concerns and questions that this report addresses. Instead of joining the commentary and analysis to the summary of this report, I will have my initial commentary in a separate article published concurrently.

---David M. Greenwald reporting