The People's Vanguard of Davis

2009-03-03T13:48:00.003-08:00

The Vanguard has moved.

NEW ADDRESS: DAVISVANGUARD.ORG

2009-03-03T13:48:00.001-08:00

The Vanguard has moved.

NEW ADDRESS: DAVISVANGUARD.ORG

The Vanguard has moved.

2009-03-02T00:00:00.000-08:00

The Vanguard has moved.

NEW ADDRESS: DAVISVANGUARD.ORG

Judge Orders Defendants to Cease Delay Tactics in Buzayan Case

2009-03-01T05:13:00.000-08:00

It was summer of 2005 when then 16 year-old Halema Buzayan was arrested by Davis Police Officer Pheng Ly. Much has happened since that time both within the city and the police department. But one thing that has not happened is that the Federal Lawsuit filed by Ms. Buzayan's family has not gone to trial. That may finally change shortly as a Federal Judge last week ordered the defense to quit stalling and allow the case to move forward.

Halema Buzayan and her family allege 16 causes of action against the Davis Police Department, individual police officers, the Yolo County District Attorney and several individual's from the DA's Office, and the City of Davis. Specifically the list of defendants include: City of Davis, former Davis Police Chief James Hyde, Assistant Police Chief Steven Pierce, Officer Pheng Ly and Ben Hartz, Former DA David Henderson, Deputy DA Patricia Fong, and Counsel for Yolo County and the City of Davis Douglas Thorn who is himself a defendant in this case.

The defendants have submitted a series of motions to dismiss, but to this point the only original defendant whose case was dismissed was the Davis Enterprise, dismissed in July of 2007.

US District Judge Morrison England describes the current motion to dismiss as being submitted "in an unusual manner."

He writes:

"Although the Court concludes that the majority of the Second Motion to Dismiss is duplicative and unnecessary, and while Plaintiffs have strong arguments that the Motion to Dismiss is untimely in the first place, the Court will nonetheless exercise its discretion to hear Defendants’ pleading challenge one final time because resolution of Defendants most recent contentions may help clarify the remaining issues in the present action."

Judge England proceeds to deny all but a very small portion of the defendant's motion to dismiss.

"Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 156) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 138) is also DENIED, except that the Court clarifies, with respect to Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Cause of Action that any reliance on false light invasion of privacy is precluded. Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss is accordingly GRANTED in that regard. Pursuant to Rule 12(f)(1), the Court orders the second sentence of paragraph 190, and the first sentence in paragraph 192, in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint stricken. All other causes of action shall proceed in a manner consistent with this Order."

While the judge struck those two paragraphs, he left the bulk of the fourteenth cause of action in place.

"However, the Fourteenth Cause of Action remains viable to the extent Plaintiffs rely on alleged disclosure and broadcast of private information."

The Fourteenth cause of action is a complaint regarding a violation of the California Constitutional Right to Privacy. The bulk of that complaint claims a deliberate disclosure and broadcast of private information.

"Defendants' conduct has resulted in Halema Buzayan and her family being placed in a false light in the public and within the community. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' right to privacy as secured under the California Constitution. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of their right to privacy as secured under the California Constitution against all involved Defendants."

Judge England then concludes his opinion with the following:

"Additionally, while the Court concludes that entertaining Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss had some limited utility in narrowing the arguments, many of the other arguments raised were either cumulative, premature, inadequately developed, and/or unsubstantiated. Defendants are directed to refrain from any further efforts to frustrate the timely resolution of this litigation."

In other words, Judge England is telling the defendants to quit trying to stall this case. It is time to move forward.

He roundly criticizes their arguments as being premature, inadequately developed, and/ or unsubstantiated. He questioned the need for this second motion to strike. And although he limited the 14th complaint somewhat, for the most part virtually summarily dismissed it.

At this point in time, it is time to move forward with the case, and let the Buzayan Family after three and a half years finally have their day in court. Then the court can determine if they were wronged and what the damages were.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: What Does Seven Million in Budget Cuts Look Like?

2009-02-28T05:32:00.000-08:00

DJUSD knows what it is like to try to reduce a $4.5 million deficit because they attempted to do so last year. $4.5 million would have meant at least 114 teacher layoffs, possibly a closed school, definitely some ended programs like music, art, maybe da Vinci High as well--at least as they knew it. But while Davis experienced threats, they never had to go through with it. The May revise came in better than the midyear budget estimates. The Democratic legislature restored funding cuts. Davis used one-time monies from its reserves and got a $1.7 million gift and was able to escape last year largely unfazed.

I say all of that because at its core, $4.5 million in budget cuts would have been devastating. Now imagine $7 million in cuts. That is what Woodland is facing right now. That is what the Woodland School Board did on Thursday night, they voted to reduce expenses by $7 million. That is more than twice the deficit Davis is facing right now.

How does one cut $7 million? The Woodland Daily Democrat hardly gives a vivid description of this. Although apparently the public outcry got them to restore a number of programs including the elementary music program.

"Trustees also allotted $793,773 in funds to restore several programs and positions -- two high school vice principals, zero and seventh period, the Elementary Music Program, a high school librarian, an elementary school counselor and an extra teacher for Pioneer High School's Block Scheduling -- that were set to be cut."

It continues:

"While the elementary music program was restored, the board made several reductions to other programs, school budgets and at the district level.

School sites throughout the district froze open positions and cut 10 percent of discretionary funds, the enrollment center was restructured, elementary vice principal positions were cut, and teachers were reduced along with many other cuts. After much discussion, the board agreed to close both Grafton and Willow Spring Elementary schools."

That's right Woodland voted to close two elementary schools.

"Willow Spring and Grafton elementary schools were hotly debated reductions with many parents speaking in favor of leaving the schools open, to no success.

While Trustees Carol Souza Cole and Rosario Ruiz-Dark said they were not in favor of making these decisions without more information or more community input, other trustees said the schools were already set to be closed and students would get a good education no matter where they went. The board voted 5-2, with Trustees Souza Cole and Ruiz-Dark opposing the recommended cuts."

I will leave it to our friends at the Woodland Journal to work out the rest of the details. I have heard enough. This is not about picking on Woodland. Woodland is not alone. School districts all across the state are having to make veritable Sophie's choices between closing down programs and closing down schools. Many will have to do both.

Davis is quite fortunate in a lot of different ways. Some people have suggested in light of certain decisions that they regret voting for Measure W. Well let's do the math. Without Measure W just add another $2.5 million to the deficit that Davis has. That would put Davis' deficit for next year up over $5 million. Take out the generosity of the Davis residents and their $1.7 million in donations last year. We would be looking at the kind of cuts that Woodland is right now.

In other words, Davis is fortunate. A wealthy school district, in a wealthy community that is generous and supports its schools. That is a great thing.

The horrible thing is that across the state many students are not nearly so lucky. They do not live in communities that can dip into their bank accounts like Davis did last year. Heck, Davis probably could not do it so easily this year as they did last year. The economic crisis has hit home in this state. The unemployment rate is over 10%. Tax receipts are way down. The state is slashing billions from schools. That means millions slashed from local school districts, most of whom do not get parcel tax money to make up the difference.

The result of this is that the relatively wealthy and well off students in places like Davis will get by just fine. Their community will give just enough to avoid the kind of wholesale draconian cuts that Woodland is facing. We will tighten our belts. Our teachers may have to take pay cuts or face a small number of layoffs. But at the core our programs will survive and our students will thrive.

There are people on this blog who seem to take these things for granted. They seem to believe that schools have failed us. They seem to believe that there will be no consequences from cutting billions across the state from schools. I disagree with that assessment. I don't think schools have failed us. I think we've failed our schools. Not in Davis, but across the state of California.

California ranks in the middle of the country in per pupil spending, and that was data from a few years ago before the latest round of cuts. California was below the national average. And those are in absolute dollars, it does not account for the higher cost of living in California compared to many of the states below California in per pupil spending.

There was good breakdown last year in my other publication, the California Progress Report.

“The Census Bureau numbers show that California still spends $652 less per student than the national average, even though their figures on "student spending" include funds from outside the state that never make it into the classroom, which arguably inflate the figures. The Census Bureau estimates lump in payments made into the state retirement system, as well as federal funding beyond what the state spends. But even including those calculations, California's significantly below-average spending on students is abysmal. By comparison, the non-partisan national publication Education Week issued a report showing that California spends $1,900 less than the national average, because it only includes the actual funds spent by each state on each student.”

Also:

"even though we have extremely high costs, housing in particular, our teachers are still paid below the national average on a per pupil basis: $3,479 in California - compared to the national average of $3,811."

The bottom line is that we get what we pay for. If California were near the top of the barrel in terms of students scores, then maybe, just maybe we could justify our lack of spending. But it is not. It is towards the bottom.

For years we are told that the problem is just that we pay too much on administrators. Sorry folks, the district has laid the budget numbers bare. Only a tiny percentage of DJUSD's general fund budget goes to administrators. And that percentage has gone down. Davis has cut out it's Associate Superintendent of Education Position, it has cut to the bone its fiscal office. There is nowhere else to cut. The raised salaries that people are moaning about do not amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things--and even they are probably coming off the books and then some.

Davis is not alone. Across the state, districts have done the same. This is not pork. Many of these are essential positions and their absence requires other people to do more work for no additional pay. A lot of additional work. For years, teachers have had to purchase educational supplies out of their own pockets. The same teachers who are paid below national average per pupil--which means that we are teaching to more kids than the national average. California teachers teach to about 22 kids whereas their counterparts teach to 15 kids. Think that might make a difference in the service they receive in return?

The sad thing is that all of the numbers I have just shared with you are numbers that existed before we cuts roughly $7 billion from the state's educational budget this year on top of whatever cuts were accrued last year and the lack of COLA for increased costs of living.

We indeed balanced our budget temporarily through huge real cuts (not simply slowing down the increases to programs, but actual cuts) and tax increases, but we did at a huge cost. Go to Woodland and you can see the very human cost it is going to take.

Remember that this is the childhood of those kids. This is their education. This is their future.

One final note: Somebody had the audacity of accusing me of being a Republican yesterday because I favor fiscal responsibility in the city of Davis and will not support new taxes without an assurance of accountability and responsible new contracts for upper level city employees. What these individual apparently do not get is that we do not have the money and resources anymore to be living the way we did in the 1990s or even the 2000s. We have to pick and choose what programs to support. For me, education has to be THE priority. Everything else has to come second.

The priorities in the city of Davis are out of whack. We are sitting on a $13 million deficit of unmet needs. That's road repairs and infrastructure upgrades. If we do not get our public employee compensation and pension system under control, we cannot keep up with the things that we really need to put money into.

Sorry but there is really not one pot of money for schools and one pot for the city. It is but one pot of money and we have to make tough choices.

A liberal in these times has to be fiscally responsible because there is no money to just throw around anymore.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Heystek Joins Vanguard's Call Against New Taxes without Reform

2009-02-27T05:13:00.000-08:00

Back on February 3, the Vanguard made a bit of splash by invoking the spirit of Bush I circa 1988, saying "Read My Lips... No New Taxes."

In truth, despite how it sounded, it was not a declaration against taxes, or even new taxes. It was suggestion that Davis gets its fiscal house in order.

The city of Davis faces both a rare crisis and a rare opportunity. Right now, the city faces in the short term an economic downturn which has led to a loss of tax revenue. This situation calls for short-term budget cuts. However, the city has longer term structural deficit problems, it's facing a crisis of unmet needs, it's facing a problem of runaway top employee salaries, a pension problem, and an unfunded liability problem.

Those problems existed before the current economic crisis, but ironically the current economic crisis gives us a glimmer of an opportunity to get our fiscal house in order.

This economic crisis has already caused the city of Davis to scale back on its original plans to fix the longer term problem with new taxation. Instead, they are looking to manage the economic situation by renewing the current taxes.

As the Vanguard wrote on February 3, it has become

"clear that neither the council nor city staff wanted to raise or impose any new taxes in the near future to solve the city's growing problem of unmet needs. While I agree with that approach, it does not solve the city's problems either in the short term or the long term.

Instead they have suggested that they will simply place the current taxes back on the ballot. That would include an extension of the Parks Tax, which is a parcel tax requiring two-thirds vote and an extension of the half-cent sales tax."

The Vanguard took the position that even this renewal of taxes would be opposed unless the city gets their fiscal house in order in part through restructuring employee contracts and pensions.

At Tuesday night's Davis City Council Townhall Meeting, the Vanguard's call was heeded by Councilmember Lamar Heystek. In January, a similar townhall meeting drew 30 members of the public, at least. This time the meeting was poorly attended. Just three members of the public attended as opposed to huge amounts of city staff including all of the department heads.

Councilmember Heystek told the council and city staff that he would oppose the renewal of the new taxes unless the city dealt with the fiscal problem and new employee contracts in a responsible manner.

His announcement seemed to stun city staff who immediately took notice. The City Council is not directly involved in employee negotiations, although they do approve the final contracts. However, Mr. Heystek believed it was the only leverage he had.

Two of his concerns are asking city employees to take more responsibility for their post-employment benefits. In addition, the city should re-examine the method by which we deliver services such as fire.

The Vanguard earlier this week demonstrated that the city's costs for fire are disproportionate to our service calls. A situation the begs for a restructuring of fire staffing. The Vanguard is fully committed to insure that there is no loss of service or response time, but believes alternative and less costly models can and should be applied to improve our fiscal responsibility.

Right now that appears to be several changes the city can make to the structure of contracts that would contain city costs:

Hold the line on top employee salaries
Short term hold the line on all employee salaries during the economic crisis, in the future bring them up only as far as inflation takes us.
Restructure the pension system by increasing employee contributions especially at the top end and moving it from "pay as you go" to full funding.
Look into cost containment for health coverage

All of these would need to be done with collective bargaining agreement. The alternative to restructuring the pension system would be to create a two-tiered system. The bargaining units could make the decision as to which is more beneficial.

Now that Councilmember Heystek has pressed for the city to engage in strong negotiations, hopefully other members of council will follow. Councilmember Sue Greenwald has long been outspoken in terms of wanting to reign in the contracts and pensions of the highest paid employees and upper-management.

Once again it is important to emphasize that this is not an effort to put down either the average city employee or employee unions. The job of an employee union is to get the best possible contract for their respective bargaining unit. It is the job of the city however to be an effective counter to that weight. They represent the interests of the voters and the taxpayers. When one particular unit uses their political muscle and resources to elect favorable councilmembers while the other units do not engage in overt politicking the system begins to breakdown.

As we saw with the Grand Jury report in January, the impact of throwing $30,000 or more into a political race can be decisive in the actions a council is willing to take. Even the Mayor who has been outspoken in favor of fiscal responsibility wilted under the pressure of her backers back in January.

This will thus be a long and difficult fight, but Councilmember Heystek's actions on Tuesday put the city staff on notice that business as usual will result in a less than unanimous endorsement of their current policies.

The Vanguard urges other members of the council particularly Mayor Asmundson to quickly follow suit.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Focusing the Debate on Davis High School's Stadium Renovation

2009-02-26T05:46:00.000-08:00

Back in December, the DJUSD school board made the decision to prioritize the modernization of the football stadium over that of Emerson Junior High. This has generated a lot of criticism for the school district from a number of different quarters. In general this criticism has been ill-founded and based on misconceptions of funding and other factors.

The purpose of this article is to clarify some of the issues. While there seems to be a good deal of criticism to go around, it should be criticism that is fact-based rather than based on misinformation.

I largely decided to do this article because the school board and district's perspective is, we had a full public discussion about this at least twice in open meetings. People can view the tapes of those meetings if they are confused.

That is of course not how it works. The district needs to do a better job of communicating with the public. People do not watch the meetings and they will not watch the tapes of the meeting. At least most people will not. They may not even read the newspaper on the issue. But that will not stop them from forming opinions and even expressing those opinions.

Likely then that means the issue of communication falls to entities such as the Vanguard which can breakdown complex issues and discuss them at length rather than being confined to 500 words, 800 words, even 1200 words.

For that reason I have decided to go ahead with this explanation, even though I'm not sure what decision I would have made had I been a board member in December or February. Criticisms as I said should be fact-based and then people can make up their own minds.

A letter appears February 20, 2009 in the Davis Enterprise from 24 teachers at Cesar Chavez Elementary School.

They wrote:

"Fourth, we oppose the plan to build a $10 million high school stadium while there are schools such as Emerson Junior High which, last year, was under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities. Additionally, the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated, and a clear payment plan has not been developed."

For this we need to back up several steps. Last spring, the district was facing a $4.5 million deficit. To that into perspective, what we face now which is roughly $3.1 million is a two year deficit. The scale of that deficit dwarfed this one in a lot of ways. So one thing the district was looking at was they knew off the bat they could save over $600,000 by closing a school.

The next part of this was the condition of Emerson Junior High. The district knew that it needed upgrades and repairs. However, what they did not know at that time was whether those needed upgrades and repairs were safety violations. This all happened so quickly that the district was in danger of making decisions based on less than complete information. This is very important to understand, to a good degree, the condition of the facilities in Spring of 2008 was unknown and all discussions were speculation.

Based on this and the problems of logistics that arose, the district made the decision not to close Emerson Junior High at that time and evaluate the facilities at a later point.

In June 2008, the district completed its evaluation. The evaluations indicate that the district will need to spend between $10 and $15 million on upgrades to Emerson. However, what they were told was that this was not an imminent safety problem. Much of the needed upgrades and repairs were to get it up to date with current code requirements. According to the consultants at the December meeting, that can happen at any time. Basically those requirements only kick in if the school were to do a major construction project.

School board Tim Taylor made it a point to talk about this back in December. He acknowledged rumors of deteriorating conditions in the buildings at Emerson but again added that there rumors were not borne out by the actual surveys by architects.

So when the teachers say there were school such as Emerson that were under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities, that is both misleading and really out of date information. The correct statement would have been that the district was looking to cut costs last spring and the conditions of the buildings while not known at the time, were cited as a possible reason for closure of the school.

I have said before and I will say again, I do not believe that any board members or any administrator wants to close Emerson. That is based on personal discussions with just about all of them. Moreover, looking at the three year finances, I do not see a reason that the district would need to close Emerson. They may play with the configurations, but I believe with strong certainty that Emerson is in no danger at this point of closing.

I spent more space than anticipated addressing the Emerson rumor, but that was important to put to bed. At a future point, there will be an article that fully explains the financing of the football stadium at Davis High School.

At this point, here is what we know. The district believes it can get redevelopment money for a portion of this project. That redevelopment money can only be used for school facilities, not for teacher salaries or other instructional expenses.

Second, the district is planning on borrowing about $4 million against future revenues from the school district's community facilities districts. Again those funds can be used for school facilities only, not for teacher salaries.

See a pattern here. I am uncertain what the teachers meant when they stated: "the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated." To my knowledge there will be no impact on the general fund since these monies do not and CANNOT come from general fund monies.

There has been considerable public outcry to this point about the project. In part the money issue is driving this. Part of that stems from the perception that the district is starving for money on one hand but taking up a $10 million project on the other. Again, that perception is wrong and misplaced because of the differential in types of funding.

The other issue with funding is that the district chose DHS over Emerson. They did this in December. There is no getting around the fact that they consciously prioritized DHS Stadium over Emerson. As I have already explained that does not mean they are closing Emerson. They simply believe that DHS Stadium is more pressing.

Again, I turn to a letter to the editor, this one from New Year's eve:

"Unquestionably, the appalling condition of the Blue Devils' stadium calls for its replacement. But in these desperate economic times is a costly restoration the best option? Especially when it likely means stalling desperately needed restoration at Emerson."

One of the questions is of course whether the restoration at Emerson is really desperately needed.

However, what is clear is that this is not merely an issue of the football program at the high school. This is not merely a matter of putting academics ahead of athletics or the appearance of vice-versa.

What this comes down to is a health and safety issue. The district was told by consultants and by students that there are safety issues not just with the football field, but with the track and with the stands. The district believes they face liability if this issue is not corrected and that liability would come out of the general fund whereas the repair comes from facilities money.

Again, that is the issue and the basis on which they made their decision. Are there alternatives to renovating the field? That is subject to debate and discussion. The district seemed to consider alternatives such as using Toomey Field, that seemed to be cost-prohibitive as well. Moreover it was impractical for everyday usage. Remember it is not merely the athletics programs that use the facilities but there is everyday usage.

Regardless, I think the question about alternatives is a fair discussion point. I also think the question about prioritization is a fair discussion point as long as understand the facts at this time suggest that Emerson is not going to be shutdown due to health and safety issues and the district's consultants believe that DHS Stadium faces more imminent and significant health and safety concerns than Emerson.

So to quickly summarize here: Emerson is not closing due to health and safety concerns. DHS Stadium will not use monies that could go to the classroom. The district believes the situation is more critical at DHS Staidum where Emerson mainly faces code upgrades that are not needed until construction occurs in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Westlake Grocery Deal in Doubt As Owner Allegedly Reneges on Handshake Deal

2009-02-25T04:38:00.000-08:00

In an interview with the Vanguard, the Davis Advocates for Neighborhood Groceries (DANG) say they thought they had a deal. Consultants for Farrokh Hosseinyoun, the majority owner of the Westlake Plaza Shopping Center on Lake Boulevard in West Davis had found a suitor for the Westlake Plaza's empty grocery store spot.

Enter the Delano Family, owners of eight Bay Area Grocery stores bearing the same name. They operate Delano's Markets in San Francisco, Mill Valley, Tiburon, Fairfax and Novato, many of them very upscale in appearance. Adding to the intrigue is the versatility of their product and the vast experience of the Delanos in the grocery business and their genuine interest in coming to Davis and Westlake Plaza.

The principle owner of the Delano's Markets, an independent family owned chain, is Harley Delano, 72, who has been in the grocery business for 55 years. He previously was the president of several food store chains such as Cala & Bell Food Stores in San Francisco as well as a divisional president to Kroger's and Lucky's store chains and he has sat on the board of directors of a number of other grocery stores. His son and co-owner, Dennis Delano has been in the grocery business for more than 30 years. Harley is the CEO and Dennis is the President/COO of their family run business with other family members actively involved in the day to day operations.

They possess the rare ability to create custom grocery stores that are neatly tailored to the clientele in the specific neighborhoods and communities in which they operate. In Davis, the Delano's were looking at opening a specialty store with an upscale appearance and emphasis on organic and other natural foods. In other markets, their stores have as many as 198 organic items.

Dang Board Member Carolyn Hinshaw was quoted on the DANG website as being impressed with what she saw during a January 7, 2009 tour of the Delano's Bay Area stores.

"My impressions were immediately favorable. I feel that Delano's would be a very good fit for West Davis and that it is a business that the community and the City should get behind and support."

The Westlake Plaza store site is zoned for a minimum of 15,000 square feet of grocery store space. However, the Delanos wanted less space and DANG believed that they could have a good store at 11,000 square feet. The remaining space would have presumably gone to other retail.

DANG was willing and excited to accept a temporary zoning change to allow a grocer such as Delano's Markets to operate an 11,000 square foot store, hoping that the remainder of the 23,000 square foot footprint would be filled with coffee shops, and other businesses whose core activities centered around food.

It was at this point, that the Delanos and DANG began to run into obstacles, many of these of the owner's own doing.

Previously, when Food Faire left Westlake Plaza, now nearly three years ago, Mr. Hosseinyoun and and his minority partner, Jim Barcewski, had gutted and stripped the entire grocery store building leaving it essentially a shell of its former self. They filled in the cargo bay rendering the receiving door to the rear of the store useless. They tore out the insides of the store such as the interior walls, the rest rooms, the floors, air conditioning ducts, insulation, and other grocery store infrastructure. As a result, there is a huge cost of tenant improvements that the landlord must do to repair and restore the building back to a usable state prior to leasing the property to a new grocery store tenant. DANG estimates that it may take up to well over $1 million or more to return the gutted former store back into an operational grocery store.

There have been serious questions raised by the neighbors about whether the property owners even wanted to rent this space as a food market in keeping with the City's Ordinance which requires a minimum 15,000 square foot grocery store at the shopping center. Apparently, Mr. Hosseinyoun and Mr. Barcewski made the location as unappetizing as possible and then lobbied City Staff and the Planning Commission to reduce the zoning requirements down to 3,000 square feet. This is basically the size of the Circle K store which is little more than two blocks down the street from Westlake Plaza. DANG and other neighbors want a full service and fully operational grocery store and the 3,000 square feet proposal does not cut it. Fortunately for them, the Planning Commission agreed and denied the application.

However, since then Mr. Hosseinyoun has pledged to bring a grocery store to Westlake. He has put money into the property, finally making long overdue repairs and upgrading the site's exterior appearance.

It was back in September 2008 that the Delanos first expressed an interest in bringing their store to Davis. They estimated they needed financing of between $750,000 and $800,000 to make the deal work. This funding would be used to purchase the needed equipment, fixtures, coolers, software and electronics, cash registers which is usually borne by the grocery store operator who becomes the tenant.

Mr. Hosseinyoun even offered to loan them $250,000 to help close the gap. At that point they needed another $500,000 to $600,000 in additional funding and they began their search for a lender.

DANG worked with the Delanos and had them talk to First Northern Bank, but according to the members of DANG, they are not sure what happened. First Northern Bank backed out, DANG suspects because Mr. Hosseinyoun decided he either could not or would not continue with his commitment to provide $250,000 in capital to the Delanos. Once that offer came off the table, First Northern took a different view at the ability to finance the Delanos.

This was extremely frustrating, needless to say, to DANG. In addition to opening up a market, the Delanos were ready to move their cooperate office to Davis leasing additional space at Westlake Plaza to do so. The Delanos would have hired 30 to 40 people to work in the Davis store.

This has driven a wedge between DANG and the owners of Westlake. DANG suspected that perhaps Mr. Hosseinyoun got cold feet because the project was becoming too close to reality. Mr. Hosseinyoun claims, according to DANG, that the downturn of the economy was causing his funds to dry up or that he feared they would dry up. DANG seems skeptical of the claim.

DANG has let Mr. Hosseinyoun know that he needs to step up to the plate or he needs to find another lender. At this point Mr. Hosseinyoun is claiming that it is DANG's responsibility to find financing.

These events have caused DANG to step back from their willingness to partner with Mr. Hosseinyoun. They no longer feel they can trust him.

On February 6, 2009, they fired off a letter to the Mr. Hosseinyoun, copying members of the Davis City Council as well as the Vanguard.

"DANG is aware of the discussions that have taken place at your meeting last Thursday with both First Northern Bank and the Delanos. We were surprised to hear about this new "residential" component scenario, and are currently taking no position on the issue other than to acknowledge the fact that this distracts from our number one priority of securing a good grocer/anchor tenant for Westlake Plaza, in a timely manner.

We were disappointed to hear that you and or FNB did not offer any realistic financing solution for the Delanos. And in fact your having withdrawn your $250K loan offer to the Delanos, had cooled FNB's interest in financing the balance necessary to bring the Delano’s Market to Westlake. We are also aware that financing the entire $750-800K needed by the Delanos, is well within your means.

DANG has been in recent contact with the Delanos to ascertain as to whether or not they are still interested in pursuing their "Westlake Project". At this point they still are . . . and so is DANG! They have their caveats . . . and so does DANG!"

Among the Delanos caveats is that they will not encumber their personal residences or property in order to secure a loan or a line of credit.

DANG's Caveats include the following:

"1)- That the Delanos total financing needs of up to $800K are met by you, either through a direct loan (or line of credit) from your resources for the full sum, or your guarantees in conjunction with a lender of your choice.
2)- That the Delano grocery project is given your first priority, with the goal of having the store open by September 1, 2009 to take advantage of UCD student arrivals and the 4th Quarter Holiday sales.
3)- That the current retailers and restaurants continue to be given rent reductions so they can try to survive while the anchor tenant is being restored to the property.
4)- That any plan to subdivide, residential rezone, and redevelop the property be delayed until after the Delano's grocery is open, as this process will be too lengthy for the Delanos or your current retail tenants.
5)- That the current total square footage of retailers and restaurants is secured in any future redevelopment so as to maintain critical visitor traffic."

They conclude:

"DANG wants to be assured that the above caveats are met, and that a grocery store opens soon. At the opening of a new neighborhood grocery store, DANG will fully support reducing the zoning grocery requirement of 15,000 sq ft down to the 11,000 sq ft requested by Delanos. We will not support reduction of the 15,000 sq ft requirement prior to the store opening, unless we can agree to create a legal mechanism that ensures complete and acceptable performance."

In response, Mr. Hosseinyoun asked the members of DANG and the community to come up with the difference.

"I urge you, the community, to come up with the difference in order to make this deal happen."

DANG responded:

When your $250,000 commitment was hastily withdrawn from the deal it did 'SHOCK' everyone and appears to have undermined the confidence of the DeLano's, DANG Board, First Northern Bank and probably the City of Davis. As a result, DANG's good faith efforts to help you recruit a grocer, approach the city, other financial institutions and the West Davis community on your behalf are now suspended.

Based on your recent action and on your history with us and the community, DANG is not willing to accept your suggestion for us to take on the additional responsibility of finding financing for your project, only to have you torpedo it again! When you find a solution for the financing we really hope the DeLanos are still interested! Until then DANG will keep the community activated, and will keep pressure on the City to maintain the current zoning restrictions and to enforce City code compliance on the property.

DANG board members also expressed frustration at the city of Davis. The impact of this vacancy is taking a terrible toll on the other businesses in the shopping center. A large number of the retailers are barely hanging on, and holding out in hopes that a deal can be reached.

But thus far the city is doing little to nothing. They simply have not taken an active role in trying to bring a grocer to this location.

Apparently the property owners still have a pending appeal of the Planning Commission's decision which is still listed on the City Council's long range calendar. Moreover, as DANG pointed out, the City has never enforced a number of code violations. They put a notice for instance to repair the loading dock. It was a two week notice given more than two years ago. It has not been repaired. The broken window in the front of the building which has been there for years is also a code violation that has never been enforced by the City.

Asked what is going to happen next Eric Nelson, one of the members of DANG declared, "we're going to wait, keep our powder dry and our guns loaded."

Russ Snyder, another DANG member was more optimistic. He believes that they have exploded the myth that a market cannot do well in this location. Here is a very experienced grocer who is confident that a store can be run there. There is no question in their minds. The Delanos are willing to put money and their reputation on the line.

Moreover, Russ Snyder suggested that the center's landlord's decision to gut the location has created a financial liability that will make it difficult and expensive to get the location back in shape to house a grocer.

But most of all he feels like they are close. In a meeting with DANG, Mr. Hosseinyoun said that he is committed to having a grocer at this location. But if he's indeed committed, he needs to make the investment. Everyone agrees the Delano's Markets would be a great fit and successful. So from that standpoint it would seem logical to make this deal.

Eric Nelson also pointed out that the Delanos are just one of several grocers who had the same feeling.

DANG member David Thompson suggested that there is not much they can do at this point. They tried to put as much pressure as they could during the last month to encourage everyone (the property owner, the Delanos and the bank) to close the deal. They can't really do anymore than they have done. Mr. Hosseinyoun seems willing to sit with an empty food market and an empty shopping center.

Eric Nelson speculated that perhaps they will sell the property to someone who would actually care enough to get a grocer because he feels it is obvious that Mr. Hosseinyoun does not.

David Thompson added that DANG was willing to accept an 11,000 square foot store as long as there was an actual grocer who had the qualities they were looking for and the services people needed.

It is DANG's position that they are not going to agree to zoning changes generically, the only leverage they have to get their West Davis neighborhood a real grocery store is the current zoning.

David Thompson also expressed concern about what will happen to West Davis if it does not have a grocery store. Right now he is concerned also about the future of Emerson Jr. High School. If people have no grocery store or school it will be a tremendous hit to West Davis.

As Russ Snyder put it, it is about a community where people come together and can interact rather than a place where a bunch of people come and sleep.

Right now it is a community that has been missing a grocery store for nearly three years, it is a large number of businesses in the shopping center in deep fiscal jeopardy, and it is a community group that has grown tired of being given false promises and broken handshake deals.

If there is to be a grocery store that moves into Westlake, it needs to happen soon for the sake of this community, this neighborhood, and the fiscal and financial health of the city. It is high time that city staff start taking as much of an interest in this shopping center as they have taken in trying to insure that Trader Joe's and Target come to Davis.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Analysis: Davis Fire Has High Cost Per Service Call

2009-02-24T05:58:00.000-08:00

One of the big questions facing the Davis Fire Department is the issue of staffing and the issue of whether or not the fire department needs a fourth fire station. Data presented by the Davis Fire Department has often shown that Davis has a relatively low number of fire fighters per thousand people, a high population per station, and a low cost per capita.

The Vanguard's analysis largely confirms those findings that would seem to suggest that davis is in need of more fire staffing, an additional fire station, and that it is run relatively cost effective.

However, the Vanguard moves beyond that statistical analysis and analyzes these measures looking number of service calls as the key variable rather than population. Using the metric of service calls, we find Davis consistently inefficient. Davis ranks at the bottom in total service calls per year over the four year period, at the bottom in calls per 1000, in the middle of calls per fire station, and fourth to last in the staffing ratio for service calls.

The key finding here is that when you look the cost per call for the city of Davis is it the fourth most expensive of the 12 sample cities at just under $2100 per service call. It ranks below Palo Alto, Folsom and Roseville. And just above the city of Berkeley and the city of San Luis Obispo. However, even that is not the complete picture.

Davis provides Basic Life Support (BLS) and requires firefighters to be EMT's. However, the highlighted cities provide Advanced Life Support (ALS). That means that in addition to fire and EMT services, they also provide ambulance transport which requires Paramedics. In other words, they are providing far more service with their expenditures than Davis does. Whereas Davis has to outsource ambulance services for an additional expenditure.

Looking at it that way, Davis provides the highest cost per service call of any city only providing fire and BLS.

The key for these data is the low volume of service calls overall and the low volume of service calls per 1000 residents. Davis is at the very bottom in terms of number of service calls and far on the bottom in terms of number of service calls per 1000 residents.

On the other hand in terms of calls per station, Davis ranks in the middle at seventh which probably suggests that its current number of stations is about right. Adding to that fact is the fact Davis is the smallest of these cities in terms of square miles (not shown) at 9.9 square miles. It is also second in population density to Berkeley which has 101,000 residents for its 10.5 square miles as opposed to Davis' 63,000 residents for its 9.9 square miles. Thus the physical area of Davis is the smallest and its population heavily concentrated.

This is important to understand because in terms of population per fire station Davis ranks only behind Vacaville and just ahead of Fairfield in terms of the number of people each fire station has to serve on average. Davis also has the second fewest fire fighters per thousand residents, this time just ahead of Fairfield and just behind Napa and Vacaville.

As was mentioned earlier, Davis also ranks second to last in terms of cost per capital. Davis spends just under $144 per person on fire services, that ranks well ahead of Fairfield's $112.50 which was the lowest cost per resident. Davis ranks just behind Napa which was at $147.66.

These statistics are generally used to support additional fire personnel and a fourth fire station. However, they appear to be mitigated by actual need in terms of number of service of calls.

So while Davis ranked 9th in actual overall spending on fire services, again accounting for the fact that five of the municipalities use their fire budget to provide ambulance and paramedic services as well, Davis ranks fourth in that cost per service call.

Davis needs to evaluate its staffing needs based on a full array of statistical measures. As the city moves into a cost saving mode, there are a number of issues it needs to weigh in terms of staffing of the fire department.

The first question is the one that the Vanguard has touched on the most and that is salary of the individual fire fighter in addition to their their overtime, total compensation, and perhaps most importantly their pension plan that will pay them 3% at 50 for every year of service they have provide pro rated to their ending salary.

The second issue is it needs to evaluate its staffing needs. Davis unlike a lot of other cities uses a four person unit. If the city were getting a high number of fire calls, a four person unit might be preferrable, but the call volume and the ratio of fire calls to other emergency calls suggest that this is not the case. Therefore the city might want to look into other staffing configurations that will allow the department to continue to serve the public at the highest possible level while conserving the costs.

Along the same lines, the city might evaluate whether every fire station needs to send out all of its equipment for every call. This is done in case of multiple calls but the result is a loss of efficiency and cost effectiveness. Again, we do not pretend to know the answers here, only pose the questions of things the city can explore to reduce cost.

Finally the issue of the fourth fire station arises. The fire department has long maintained that response time dictates a fourth fire station. The fourth fire station would add construction and maintenance costs, but also staffing costs.

Our analysis calls the need for the fourth fire station, or at least a full fourth fire station into question. The number of calls, the overall staffing, and the population density all point to the need to maintain current levels of staffing at best. A full fourth fire station with equivalent staffing looks like a great waste of resources according to this model.

That is not to completely rule out a fourth fire station. However, the city will need to develop an alternative model for it. A fully staffed fourth fire station, would greatly add to the cost per call. Resident surveys already indicate a high satisfaction rate. So the question is really what is the safety bang for the buck by adding another four person team on call at all times, which would raise the cost by another third.

The city might be better off developing some sort of alternative staffing model or a hybrid model if it believes there needs to be a greater spread throughout the city geographically. However given the compactness of the city, that is not altogether clear. Moreover, given the relatively low call volume Davis receives, the need for additional resources do not seem pressing or justified.

Davis needs to get its fiscal house in order overall. Right now, the city's fiscal situation is not in crisis mode but there are problems on the horizon if the city fails to contain costs. Fire staffing and salaries would seem to be one area that the city needs to look into in order to do so.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Teachers Face Agonizing Choices

2009-02-23T05:24:00.000-08:00

Under ordinary conditions, it seems unlikely that one would find a person more supportive of teachers than myself. I come from a family of teachers, I have myself been a teacher at times, and I believe in general teachers are unpaid for the importance of the job that they perform. Most people who suggest that teachers have an easy job and work only nine months, have either never taught themselves or never put a full effort into teaching. I am constantly amazed that teachers have the stamina to teach for eight hours and then go home to grade papers (no easy task) and prepare lesson plans.

I say this because after reading the full comments from the teachers from Casar Chavez Elementary School who also spoke up during public comment on Thursday evening at the school board meeting, I'm not sure I could really disagree with them more.

They write:

"First, we do not accept being placed in a position of choosing between salary reductions or seeing colleagues lose their jobs. It is the responsibility of the budget officer, the superintendent and the board to make informed, honest, transparent and responsible decisions.

At the all-district staff meeting held by Superintendent James Hammond on Feb. 11, we were given an ultimatum: Either we agree to a 4 percent permanent salary reduction, before a state budget is even approved, or there will be layoffs this year. We believe there are many more options than just salary reductions or layoffs, and it is incumbent upon the board to ensure that all options are thoroughly investigated."

I am unsure of where these individuals have been for the past few months, but if they read the newspaper at all during that time they might realize that across the state government employees (of which they are one) are having to make this painful decision across the board.

Yolo county employees have taken voluntary furloughs as the county faces a $22 million deficit for next year, in hopes that their colleagues will not be laid off. State employees represented by SEIU have reached agreement with the Governor to take what amounts to a 5% paycut, which is an improvement over the 10% paycut imposed by the Governor. These furloughs and paycuts are happening across a state that has recently had to cut $15 billion in spending due to the worst economic recession in 70 years.

The same thing is happening in the private sector--employees are being laid off in scores. There has been at least 500,000 and sometimes approaching 600,000 job losses per month. So the fact that the district is giving them a choice as to a paycut or pink slips, is hardly unique or surprising.

The teachers have a choice to make because right now the district is running deficits for the foreseeable future in the $3 million range.

The school board takes no joy in this. In fact, I have spoken recently to just about every member of the board and the reactions I have gotten borders on heartbreak for having to make these decisions. They did not run for school board to lay off teachers. But that is the choice that they now face.

I don't see many options other than salary reductions or layoffs and I have been over the budget as much as anyone this side of Bruce Colby. But I suspect if you have a counter-proposal the district would be glad to hear it.

"Second, the top four district administrators made an offer to reduce their salaries. This offer is contingent on the Davis Teachers Association's agreement to teacher salary reductions. It is wrong to pressure the teachers with a misleading public gesture. These administrators have recently negotiated with the board a raise for the 2009-10 school year as well as ongoing yearly increases. These increases add up to as much as 15 percent since October 2006."

I agree with the teachers that it was a mistake for there to have been any kind of raise for administrators. I think one of the worst decisions made was the decision to give Bruce Colby a 5% raise in December. It set a bad precedence and it looks bad to the public. Unlike last year, I think we had a pretty good idea as to what coming down the pike.

"Third, when asked about the magnitude of the administrators' raises, Superintendent Hammond expressed that removing these raises 'would not solve the budget problem.' The teacher whose position is erased by these raises certainly will have a budget problem to solve. "

On the other hand, they have offset these raises by cutting back on their own support staff, not through layoffs but through attrition. In essence, each of these individuals are having to go without support staff or performing the work of multiple individuals. Again I understand the point the teachers make, I agree with them to some degree, but they are focusing on literally pennies on the dollar here. There could have been no raises, and we would still be focusing on this plan which would require either layoffs or salary cuts. This is largely a distraction from the main issue.

"Fourth, we oppose the plan to build a $10 million high school stadium while there are schools such as Emerson Junior High which, last year, was under consideration for closure due to dilapidated facilities. Additionally, the long-term effects of the stadium financing on the general fund are not clearly delineated, and a clear payment plan has not been developed."

My understanding is that there are no impact of stadium financing on the general fund. That money comes strictly from facilities money. There was redevelopment money used to finance a portion of this. There was a strong safety issue and liability issue that exists with the stadium in its current conditions. My understanding of the issues with Emerson is that much of the repair and upgrades have to do with being out of date with various codes and can be addressed at a later point. No one believes that there are either safety or liability issues with Emerson.

While I would tend to agree in part that the district has done an exceedingly poor job of explaining this to the public. That it looks bad to be crying poor at the same time you undergo a $10 million renovation of a football field. Nevertheless, much of that public outcry is based on poor understanding of how school financing works and the fact that facilities money and general fund money that would go to instruction are completely separate, money available for facilities upgrades is not available for use in the classroom.

"We believe that salary reductions should be negotiated fairly and honestly, and only after the state budget is approved and allocations to the Davis school district are clear. Additionally, the offer of the top four district administrators should not be contingent on teachers' agreement to salary reductions."

To me this represents a lack of understanding of the collective bargaining process. The district cannot unilaterally impose changes to a contract. The changes to the contract such as reduction of salary must be approved by the Davis Teachers' Association. Therefore to a large degree the ball is in their court on this one.

As DTA President Ingrid Salim said on Thursday, it was her perspective and possibly that of the DTA membership that they would take their chance with 20 layoff notices (by her count, although the district is approving 36.6 FTE position cuts) than taking a salary cut. That is within their right to determine.

The second part of that is that they are demanding the administrators take a cut regardless. That cut is largely symbolic anyway. We are talking about maybe $30,000 or $40,000 in savings against a deficit of over $3 million over the next two years.

I am all for them taking it, but let us not make this out to be bigger than it is.

Unfortunately the district and board are taking a fiscally responsible step of identifying all of the necessary cuts up front and proposing a balanced budget for the three year period.

The really bad news is that this may not be rock bottom. There is increasing belief that the May revised budget from the state will have another deficit in the 11-figure range that will result in more cuts to education funding.

In short, while I sympathize with the position of teachers and all district employees as well as all state employees, I think that there is going to be little choice but to make the tough decision between salary cuts and pay cuts. I also think that the teachers are setting themselves up for deep layoffs in May, deeper than projected right now by not taking a further look at pay cuts.

By all means identify alternative budget cuts. All entities should do that. But if you look at the district budget, you quickly see where the majority of money goes, and it is to teachers.

It is my hope that the teachers work together with the district and board to make this as painless and cooperative a process as possible given the horrible circumstances that we face in this district, in this county, and in this state at this time.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Dunning Misunderstands the Need for Local Agencies to Maintain Reserves

2009-02-22T05:45:00.000-08:00

The Vanguard has all but stopped responding to Bob Dunning columns from the Enterprise, but his column from Friday is so outrageous, irresponsible, and most importantly just plain ignorant it would be irresponsible not to respond.

The title of the column is "It's Time We Let Go of Our Reservations."

He writes:

"SURPLUS SPENDING - as the economy - locally, nationally, globally (take your pick) - continues to fall off the cliff, it was encouraging to me to intercept an e-mail from Councilman Steve Souza to a local resident bragging about how fat and sassy we are in the City of All Things Right and Relevant - noted Souza: 'Almost all of the cities around us would love to have our financial woes instead of their own. We have a 15.2 percent or $5.35 million reserve.' - wow, 5 million here and 5 million there and pretty soon you have a billion -

But, as nice as a reserve is - and I don't care if we're talking about the city of Davis or the local school district - when you start talking about laying people off instead of dipping into the reserve, your priorities are backward - if we're saving our reserve for a rainy day, I'd like to point out that today is that rainy day - it has arrived - anything we can do to preserve the jobs of city and district employees should be priority one - laying anyone off for fiscal reasons when we have a healthy reserve is contrary to what this town should stand for..."

The first question that comes to mind is whether Mr. Dunning ever does research on his columns, would he like talk to the finance directors from either the school district or the city and ask them about their reserves? Would he talk to Souza himself to ask him about his email?

Here's the best explanation of the city's reserve:

"The City maintains a “reserve” much like an individual or household would keep a savings account accessible for an emergency. The City Council has adopted a policy to have a General Fund reserve equal to 15% of the City’s General Fund revenues. This is a contingency reserve for general operations to help mitigate the effects of unanticipated situations such as recession, man-made or natural disasters, variances in financial forecasting, or costs imposed by other governmental agencies. The City does not use the reserve to fund ongoing services..."

Basically the way you maintain a reserve is you pretend like the money does not exist unless such an emergency situation arises. One reason for that is that city's in general cannot take on debt like the federal government can. So if an actual emergency came up, and the city spend its reserve on say employee salaries, then the city would be in deep trouble.

The city developed this reserve policy back in 2006. According to policy, the reserve acts as a "risk management" tool, it provides a buffer against revenue fluctuations inherent in economic cycles, and most importantly the policy prohibits the use of reserve funds for ongoing operating expenditures.

The key to remember is that the reserve is one-time money. Once you use it, the money is gone.

Dunning's column mentions the school district as well. School districts are required by Ed Code to maintain a fund balance reserve every year. That money cannot be touched at all without severe consequences. The district generally maintains its own reserve above and beyond that much the same way as the City does as a risk management tool and a protection against fluctuations and emergency situations.

In the late 1980s, an increasing number of school districts were facing fiscal insolvency. Laws were enacted that created budget standards and increased fiscal oversight for all local education agencies. One of these standards was that local school districts set aside a certain percentage of their budget as a reserve for economic uncertainties. This reserve provides a cushion against unanticipated fiscal needs that may arise and thus reduces the risk of fiscal insolvency and the associated need to borrow and increase district debt.

Failing to meet the reserve requirement does not have a mandated consequence, however, as we know from other discussions, the County Office of Education oversees the finances of all local school districts. If DJUSD were to eat into its required reserve it would increase the likelihood the county superintendent of education intervening into local school district affairs.

DJUSD carried the state-required 3 percent financial reserve, which is just over $2.1 million. However, they cannot touch that reserve. The district also carries its own one percent contingency reserve which comes to about $650,000.

Interestingly enough, the district discussed this very issue on Thursday and the Davis Enterprise covered it in this morning's paper.

Given the fiscal situation in the state, districts are being given greater flexibility with some of these reserves.

But a key point with these reserves is that they are one-time monies. They will get depleted rather quickly given the nature of the economic crisis. As Bruce Colby put it, last year was a crisis, this year is a crisis, 2010-11 will be a crisis, 2011-12 could be a crisis.

Moreover, in general one has to balance the three-year budget using ongoing revenues, not one-time monies.

As Tim Taylor put it:

"From my perspective, you would spend it in a situation where you have an emergency need, something that would not commit you to ongoing year-after-year obligations."

Bottom line here is that using reserves is not going to solve our fiscal problems, and it could make them worse as time goes on. Bob Dunning needs a better understanding of the fiscal policies, rules, regulations, and economic crisis before he makes such irresponsible statements.

Getting back to his column, there is another key point that needs to be addressed.

Here he quotes Councilmember Stephen Souza:

"Almost all of the cities around us would love to have our financial woes instead of their own. We have a 15.2 percent or $5.35 million reserve."

Davis is in better condition that a lot of other cities but it has very little to do with the reserve. I would and have argued that our fiscal policies are just as bad as many other cities--if not worse. And we are going to have to deal with that. Having that reserve just means we can weather an immediate crisis better than other cities. We still have an ongoing structural deficit. We still have an ongoing problem of unmet needs. We still need to fix our unfunded mandates. We still have to fix the pension system. We still have to reign in employee salaries at the top end of the scale.

However, the bottom line is the city of Davis has been hit less hard than other cities with the foreclosure crisis. It has been hit less hard than other cities because its property values have not plummeted as others have. We rely less on sales tax revenues than other cities as well, so while the declining economy is producing a tax revenue fall off, it is not to the point where cities like Roseville who are facing eight figure budget deficits.

The bottom line is that while we have a deficit for the next few years of at least 3 million and as much as five million (and notice if we used the reserves to fix that, they'd be gone after next year), we can probably survive short term by adjusting our spending and tightening our belts.

That is not to suggest that we do not have bigger issues. It is just to suggest at this point the economic crisis is not devastating us like it is many other cities or even Yolo County.

So yes, Councilmember Souza has good reason to express optimism, but it is not because of our reserves. Our reserves would be depleted very quickly in this crisis, if that was their intent.

Dunning has a large amount of influence in this community and his column is undoubtedly the most widely read feature in the Davis Enterprise. With that influence requires a degree of responsibility to research and understand the issues on which he has opined. In this regard, he has failed in his duties by suggesting the city or the school district are being irresponsible by maintaining fund reserves. In both cases, maintaining reserves is either required by law, required by city policy, and necessary and prudent for these entities to whether the uncertainty of such a downturn. It would be the height of irresponsibility for them to use these reserves in an effort to avoid making tough decisions in the coming year.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

It is Time To End the Two-Thirds Rule

2009-02-21T05:36:00.000-08:00

In theory the requirement in California to obtain the consent of two-thirds of the legislature to vote for a budget sounds like an idea that would promote consensus building and bipartisanship. I wish I could say that was in the intent, but it was more mundane. The intent was to prevent tax increases from being enacted. For many years it has accomplished exactly that; however as time has gone on, it has exacted a higher and higher price. It has prevented the type of wholesale structural changes that we need for reform to take place.

It has led to gridlock, forcing budget after budget to be adopted late. It has led to unnecessary delay, wasted time, and worse yet, in a crisis outright paralysis.

An early February Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that for the first time, a majority of Californians supported altering the two-thirds vote requirement to require a 55% vote. That was before our latest drama with the budget.

For years Democrats have wanted to take it on. Now for the first time they are serious about doing so. The only question is how soon they do it and whether or not there is finally the political will for it to succeed.

At the core, were Republicans who seemingly were willing to plunge California into fiscal crisis rather than vote for a tax increase that their own leadership said they had no choice but to support because it was the only way to balance the budget. At which point, at least in the Senate, they got rid of their leadership and elected a more intractable leader.

It was a process that saw one Senator exact a high price in order to finally secure his, the 27th vote in the Senate, and secure the passage of the budget. The price is a constitutional amendment to have an open primary.

Without the two-thirds vote requirement it is clear that the open primary issue would have never come forward. Speaker Karen Bass at the post-budget vote press conference early Thursday morning expressed regret that it came forward in the manner that it did without the kind of public process she would have preferred.

“I will tell you that none of us felt very comfortable with putting a bill forward like the open primary because it was never heard by a committee, there was no public process, that's not the way we like to do business. But the fact of the matter is that just represents one of the many many many difficult choices that we made over these last few weeks.”

She continued:

“If we didn't have the two-thirds requirement to pass the budget tonight's open primary issue would not have even been a concern. We would have passed a budget a long time ago. But you very well know that we needed one more Republican vote in order to pass this budget. And the requirement for that vote was to pass this bill.”

Indeed both Speaker Bass as well as Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg seem ready to lead the effort to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement.

As Pro Tem Steinberg said:

“The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1.”

Speaker Karen Bass was also ready for the two-thirds requirement to go.

“One of the things I want to be voting on, if not in 09, then 2010, and that's the removal of the 2/3rds vote requirement so that California can be like 47 other states in the union. So the next time when we have a deficit like this we won't go months and months for negotiations.”

The big problem is that two-thirds vote requirement does not produce consensus building, but rather political blackmail, horse trading, quid pro quo, and it often requires the passage of pork in order to secure votes.

To the hold outs get the spoils. Senator Lou Correa is getting an extra $140 million in property tax revenue for Orange County over the next two years and $50 million after that. You see, Orange County happens to have the second lowest per capita property tax revenue in the state. You know who has the lowest? YOLO COUNTY.

However Yolo County is not getting that help, despite a $22 million deficit for 2009-10 in a budget of $66 million. Why is Yolo County not getting that help? Because Senator Lois Wolk and Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada did not blackmail the Democratic leadership and holdout for pork or other promises.

Senator Correa was not alone. Senator Ashburn, one of three Republican votes got a $10,000 tax credit to people who buy new homes.

And of course it is well known about all the things that Senator Maldonado got in exchange for his vote. There is nothing new about this though.

There is concern that the deal cut with Senator Maldonado to enable the budget to be passed sets a bad precedent. That was downplayed to a large degree. Speaker Bass argued that these types of things always happen, although it is more likely to be a specific project or even policy.

“Every year the budget is debated and frankly at the end of every session there's last minute horse trading. Until we get rid of the two-thirds vote requirement we will be doing the same thing.”

Senator Steinberg:

“I don't like it and it was an unpleasant part of the process, but I'll tell you what the answer is. The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement.”

That movement is already underfoot.

The Courage Campaign has already launched a campaign to end the two-thids vote.

"The rule requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature to pass a budget allowed a small cabal of extremist Republicans led by Senator Abel Maldonado to hold the state hostage to their demands, as they have done year after year. As Rachel Maddow explained on her show, this is part of a pattern of Republican obstruction across America."

They are not alone. Word is the Democrats in the legislature have already hired consultants to spearhead the initiative drive.

The League of California Cities recently put out a publication where the focus was on the two-thirds vote requirements. The side in favor of retaining the two-thirds requirement is represented by Assemblyman Roger Niello. At least give him credit, he was one of the three in the Assembly to vote for the bill.

John Laird, an Assemblymember and former League of California Cities board member writes for the opposing side.

One of the problems hanging over the process is the fact that Republicans who vote for these budgets put themselves in electoral jeopardy:

"After a 2001 budget in which four Assembly Republicans joined all Democrats in approving a budget, for various reasons not one of those Republican legislators returned after the next election. That experience hangs over every budget."

Indeed this time we saw a conservative blogger put Republicans heads on the pike, threats from Rush Limbaugh, and the very real possibility of recall for Assemblyman Anthony Adams.

The Redlands Daily Facts reports:

Sen. Robert Dutton on Friday asked state Assemblyman Anthony Adams to resign as chairman of the San Bernardino County Republican Party after Adams voted in favor of nearly $13 million in temporary tax hikes.

...

"Anthony Adams has called Senate Republicans `recalcitrant' because they won't support a budget proposal that raises taxes on hard-working California families by more than $13 billion," Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, said in a prepared statement Friday. "It's clear that Assemblyman Adams doesn't represent the core values of the Republican Party and I am calling on him to immediately resign as chair of the San Bernardino Republican Party."

As the Sacramento Bee reported in the Capitol Alerts, he knows this is probably the end of his political career :

Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "this will probably be the end of a political career for me."

...

"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus."

The Bee article continues:

A recall effort against him is already afoot.

The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.

"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."

The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site.

Truth be told, Anthony Adams is much closer to a hero in the budget battle than Abel Maldonado ever was. He never tried to hijack the process or hold the state for ransom. Instead, he did what he believed he needed to do to protect the state of California and exercise his constitutional duties as an elected official. For that he is probably looking at the end of his political career.

This weekend it is reported that at the Republican's state convention that the six Republican lawmakers will face the possibility of censure by their own political party.

Who would want to subject themselves to that? Who will do so in the future the next time a budget fight comes down and the legislators have to grapple with unpleasant choices? This is not done. There is a possibility that the May revise will be bring even worse news.

The movement is already afoot to repeal the two-thirds vote requirement. On February 18k, 2009, a ballot initiative was already circulating with the California Secretary of State's webpage to do exactly that.

In fact there are two of them.

The language of the first:

"STATE BUDGET. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, and spending bills related to the budget, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty five percent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the annual state budget. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0022.)"

The second one would retain the two-thirds vote requirement for raising property taxes but remove it for the budget.

STATE BUDGET. TAXES. REPEAL OF TWO-THIRDS LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Lowers the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget, spending bills related to the budget, and budget-related tax increases, from sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) to fifty-five percent. Retains sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) vote requirement for property tax increases. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown state fiscal impacts from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases related to the budget. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and/or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. (08-0023.)

As this process shows us quite clearly, we need to change the system for so many ways. First, in an emergency we get a watered down budget that often does not fix the problems.

Second, it leads to delay. Had we passed this back in September of last year, the tax measures could have gone on the November ballot rather than this year's May ballot, and the state could have saved the multimillion dollar cost of a special election. Moreover, the delay cost the state billions of dollars, it costs people jobs, it delayed infrastructure projects that will cost money as well.

Third, it leads to political blackmail. It encouraged holdouts to extort prices for their votes. It gave them perks and rewards for holdout and but the people in districts where the legislators did not hold out often need the help just as badly. The process is inherently unfair.

Fourth, it leads to death threats to politicians, usually Republicans, whose career are now threatened for doing the responsible thing.

And just for good measure, Assemblyman Laird mentions another drawback to the two-thirds process.

"As I write this, the budget is almost two months late. The Democratic legislative committees and the governor have long since proposed balanced budgets with some new taxes, none of which include borrowing.

If by the time you read this, there is borrowing in the budget, it is not what the governor or a majority of the Legislature wanted. It will be the two-thirds requirement that will have leveraged it in so the budget process can conclude. To add insult to injury, often the very interests that leverage borrowing into the budget won’t actually vote for the budget — leaving it to the rest of us to approve a budget that includes things we find distasteful.

It’s said the two-thirds requirement protects fiscal responsibility. I think the opposite is true. We got where we are now with the two-thirds requirement. This is no way to run the government of the eighth largest economy in the world. This needs to be changed. There’s a reason 47 other states do not do this — and that their budgets are adopted on time."

Laird is exactly correct. We do not have fiscal responsibility. We did not pass a responsible budget in September of 2008 and we did not pass one now. We have more borrowing, added pork, we have not fixed the state's structural problems, we have special measures on the ballot, etc. Nothing even resembling fiscal responsibility occurred due to this process.

There is always talk of ending the two-thirds requirement, this time, it appears that there just might be the political will to do it.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

DJUSD Looks at State Budget Impact

2009-02-20T06:47:00.000-08:00

DTA Stakes Out Position Against Salary Cuts

For the first time, DJUSD last night began working with real budget numbers rather than rough approximations. The bottom line is that California education took a pretty hard hit and unfortunately, they did not get the kind of full categorical flexibility that they were hoping for. In the coming days and weeks, we will examine some of these numbers more thoroughly.

Right now, we will just offer a brief summary of the district's budget picture and focus on some interesting responses from DTA and the community regarding the issue of the Davis High School Football Field and Track Renovation as well DTA's believed preference to take the 20 RFK's rather than a salary reduction.

But first a brief look at the budget climate at least right now. The state decided not to cut the number of school days. So the 180 day school remains in effect. The school district could have saved $250,000 for each day that was cut from the schedule, but that did not make it to the final budget.

Nor for all effective purposes was flexibility in the text books categorical funding. That would have been a way to save over $800,000 by forgoing updated English and Math text books. But again, that is not to be.

Finally, the speculation is that the state is going to soak up all of the federal stimulus money in order to balance their own budget. There was at one point speculation that DJUSD could get one to two million from that pot, but that is believed to be off the table as well.

There is some categorical flexibility, but that flexibility is off-set by nearly one million in categorical fund reductions. Moreover, there are decreased penalties for going over the 20:1 ratio for class size, but it is not a full flexibility either.

In short, the district is going to have to find a way to reduce its deficit and the most likely to occur either through salary cuts to employees or through pink slips.

STADIUM ISSUE

What is becoming interesting at this point is where the teachers and DTA stand in terms of what the district ought to be doing. Several came up and spoke during public comment expressing displeasure at the district's decision to fund the construction of the new DHS football stadium.

This has become a source of great criticism within the community. Indeed in the Davis Enterprise yesterday appeared two letters criticizing the building of the new stadium.

The most pointed read:

"'Teachers asked to take 2.5% pay cut' along with a higher headline citing the school board's decision to proceed with a $4 million plan to upgrade the football stadium. What a travesty!

Obviously, a stadium is more important than classrooms and teachers and student learning."

Coupled with the criticism during public comment, Superintendent James Hammond responded in perhaps his most heated manner yet attempting to explain once again the funding issue.

What the district needs to understand on this point is that they are not only losing this public relations battle, they are getting killed by it. In terms of the facts, the district is right, the funding sources are different, funds that are available for construction cannot be used for instruction.

Guess what? The public is not going to understand that. They see multimillion dollar upgrades to a football stadium and at the same time the district is contemplating about cutting teacher positions or asking them to take salary cuts, and the public is going to be suspicious of the school district.

The district now puts itself into a bad position. They either have to try to explain this to the public, which will be difficult and perhaps not fruitful. Or they can allow these beliefs to fester. There is no election at this point in time, but people do not forget these kinds of things.

From the teachers standpoint, DTA President Ingrim Salim laid it on the line last night.

"I want to address the stadium question because it is out there. I think what you should all be aware of is that certainly there is different pots of money and many of us can grasp that, but not all of us does. That’s just confusing. It’s going to be really hard to mitigate the effects of the confusion.

The second piece from the DTA standpoint is that while probably from the community standpoint they supported the stadium, certainly within the teaching community, they really wanted to see Emerson renovated. There’s not a way to fix that perception either."

The teacher issue thus is somewhat different. They understand the funding differences, at least in theory, but they believe that the priority should have been Emerson rather than the high school.

The district has a difficult position here because they are correct on two essential points. As mentioned before the funding. And the second problem is that the current situation is untenable. You have a serious safety risk, and that is a liability to the district.

However, the timing of this could not have been worse.

DTA WOULD RATHER TAKE PINK SLIPS THAN A SALARY CUT

Ingrid Salim's follow up comments were just as interesting. As she laid out for the district the likely but not official DTA position on salary cuts. Basically they would rather take the 20 position cuts rather than a reduction of salary.

Here is her lengthy statement from last night:

"Last year we did have reserves and yet we RFK’d 114 people. So people are just suspicious even though I can look at the budget numbers and see what happened as a result of last year and now we’re not being quite so conservative. But last year there was money in reserves that weren’t applied immediate to personnel. So we RFK’d people, we didn’t end up laying off, and we backfilled. We filled back in with DSF money… But we didn’t use those reserves right away. So that might give some understand about why people keep questioning about are there reserves and are suspicious that there might be. I personally don’t question that, I think we’re using them differently than we did before. That’s just the background of where that suspicion comes from.

The last piece of that is that it’s just real hard to correct misinformation that gets out. Whenever people are defensive and afraid for jobs and for money or whatever they certainly spin things. We can do our best job to try to correct misinformation but it’s just a battle. So just to know that. We can civilly disagree but the battle of misinformation will still be there. And perceptions are very hard to fight.

The other dicey piece is that you asked both unions to consider salary cuts and where w are is a combination of all of these perceptions. The reality is that we would have to have all of our membership voting or over half of them… Our union will be doing a survey to see where people are in terms of what they want to do.

But the undercurrent that we’re getting if we’re really talking about 20 jobs, and last year it was 114 and we weren’t talking about a salary cut, that probably the majority of the people say that’s okay. It’s okay to cut 20 jobs. Basically that’s programs that probably need to be tightened anyway if we’re going to have sustainable education with a smaller budget. The bulk of people that we’re hearing and getting information from, and like I said we don’t have a formal hearing to say that for sure, but that’s sort of the sense we’re getting…

We’re certainly going to ask, we’re certainly going to push forward with this concept, and there are people who say no, let’s take a cut for everyone. But that’s kind of what’s out there right now.

The final part is that there are places where we’d say it would be okay to increase class size, for instance at the 9/ 10. I’m not speaking for DTA, I’m just saying things that we might say. The 9/10 English and Math to [a class size of] 24 instead of 22. That’s not a huge impact on class size reduction. That would be preferable to something like considering a salary cut.

We do worry about the logistics of putting into place something like a salary cut or anything like that, because of the exit strategy—when do you change it? What happens to retirees? And all those little tiny things that just seem huge and overwhelming.

We will start that process next Tuesday [petitioning our members]. We’re pretty comfortable about where things are right now in terms of going forward. We’re going to be going over the budget pretty closely ourselves, finetooth combing, trying to find other ways to meet this deficit."

From my standpoint, the position laid out by Ms. Salim makes a good deal of sense from the teacher's standpoint. Salary cuts are problematic for a number of reasons including the difficulty of making ends meet during tough economic times.

Furthermore two other essential points were raise. First, the sheer number, if it is indeed 20, one would think the likelihood of anyone losing their job was pretty small. For one thing you have attrition through retirements and through people moving.

Second, she makes the point, a point that was made on this blog at times, that if we want to have a sustainable education on a smaller budget, and a smaller budget is the reality right now, then tightening up the programs is probably a way to do it.

The part that somewhat surprised me is that the teachers support a slight increase of class size at the 9/ 10 level, a level given full flexibility by the state, from 22 to 24. She argued that was not a huge impact on class size reduction but was preferable to taking a salary cut.

The bottom line here is that a salary cut would have to be negotiated with the DTA through the collective bargaining process. This was a strong and public signal that DTA is not there right now.

The school district has an ongoing perception problem in dealing with the DHS stadium repair. They had better get on top of that issue or it could backfire on them in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Word To The Wise: The Foreclosure Nightmare Part 2

2009-02-20T04:49:00.000-08:00

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee!--PART 2

By E.A. Roberts

Part 1 was published Thursday February 19, 2009

Where Do We Go From Here?

1. Stop encouraging the policy of lending money to folks who do not have the wherewithal to repay.

• Disallow subprime loans, in which borrowers clearly do not have the resources to make payments.

• Use government subsidized “affordable housing” strategies to place low income consumers in homes, rather than pawning off the responsibility to the private sector, which is largely unregulated.

• Encourage people to live within their means.

• Disallow gimmicks by private enterprise that addict consumers to spending.

• Government should set a good example to consumers by balancing its own budget.

• Government cannot keep bailing out private enterprise, which is becoming all too common an occurrence.

2. There must be more government oversight and regulation from the beginning, rather than after the fact, of the following:

• Lending standards

o Proof of employment should be obligatory;
o Sufficient income required;
o Adequate down payment necessary

• Bank/lending institution practices

o Exorbitant executive compensations/perks should be disallowed;
o Compensation should be tied to economic health of company;
o Expensive retreats for non-business purposes should be disallowed.

• Sale of securities

o What type of things can be sold as securities and how can they be sold?
- Ban subprime loans for sale as securities;
- Ban bundling of different types of securities.
o Insist on and enforce an objective credit rating of securities.

3. Make originator of loan accountable for any default - institute tracing system if mortgage is sold as security.

4. Crack down on predatory lending practices.

• Ban Adjustable Rate Mortgages altogether;

• Make sure customer is fully informed as to each and every term of a loan;

• Have strict guidelines for loan refinancing;

• Limit what lending institutions can charge in fees and interest;

• Punish lending institutions that do no conform their behavior to the law

5. End the political and ideological rigidity and polarization that has taken hold in this country. We need to get back to pragmatic policies instituted for the good of the country. Blaming one party or the other is fruitless. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle, in private enterprise, and in regard to consumers.

• Push to obtain minority votes is polarizing this nation;

• Protecting business at all costs is destroying this country;

• Campaign contribution methods are corrupting our political process.

6. Encourage lending institutions to do the right thing, by not giving them any bailout money unless they agree to all of the following:

• Recapitalization of the banking system;

• Restructure mortgages by -

o Eliminating Adjustable Rate Mortgages;

o To avoid foreclosures, restructure existing mortgages -
- From ARMs to fixed rate mortgages;
- Extending time due;
- Decreasing interest rates.

• Limit executive compensation/perks.

• No lavish parties at the company’s expense.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

It is predicted that this nation should be done with subprime loan foreclosures in the first quarter of 2009. I am not sure I agree with that statement. There is no doubt the housing market will be flooded with bank owned homes - from one quarter to one third of all homes for sale will be bank owned. This occurrence could push down housing prices even more, perpetuating a vicious cycle, but it could also attract bargain hunters (and speculators).

Borrowers can escape negative equity by dropping their house keys in the bank mailbox and walking away - except they still may be held responsible for any loss the bank takes on the eventual sale of the house at auction. But abandoned homes are a plague on the neighborhood. They often fall into disrepair, and offer an attraction to looters and squatters, dragging down property values of the entire street. Housing market deflation can produce overshooting on the economy’s downside.

Lenders could forgive part of the mortgage or renegotiate the terms of the loan a) from an adjustable rate mortgage to a fixed rate one, b) keep the teaser rate for an extended period, c) increase the length of the loan and/or decrease the interest rate. But because subprime loans have been bundled in a pool with other mortgages sold to a diversified group of investors, the packaging process puts the borrower and lender a labyrinth of a distance away from each other. So the ability to renegotiate has become nearly impossible. Subprime loans packaged into securities skyrocketed from 32% in 1994 to 81% in 2006.

The solution to the “distance” dilemma might be to give the legal right to change the terms of mortgage loans, or forgive part of them, to servicers who collect payments on behalf of creditors. Another idea floating out there is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored enterprises whose loose lending policies (prompted by Congress) helped get us into this mess, could buy/guarantee any existing home mortgage at a fixed discount from current principal, e.g. 15%, with the understanding the new mortgage would be supported by federal credit guarantees, with interest rates reduced to perhaps 5% with the payment schedule lengthened. Once these mortgages become liquid/tradable, it would improve the liquidity of the entire financial system, or so the hope goes.

Lesson to be learned: Don’t borrow more than you can afford. Save, save, save. Diversify your investments. Don’t trust everything you read or hear. Bring a good healthy bit of skepticism to the table. Know that not a single person is immune from financial ruin no matter how careful one is. Make sure to keep up with the news, and keep involved in the political system, especially the local scene. Locally is where you can exert the most control on what goes on with your tax dollars.

Part 1 was published Thursday February 19, 2009

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 in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

Breaking News: Budget Passes - Maldonado Casts Deciding Vote

2009-02-19T06:52:00.000-08:00

After an all night session - 45 hours for the entire session - the State Senate voted early this morning 27 to 12 to approve a massive state budget that includes spending cuts, tax increases, and borrowing money to close to $40 billion deficit. California has been at a standstill for the last five days as legislators grappled over a state budget. Governor Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders struck a deal with Senator Maldonado in exchange for providing the third needed vote to pass the state budget. The three Republican votes for the state budget came from Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), and Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield).

Senator Maldonado agreed to give his much needed third vote by negotiating three major concessions. One concession in particular may benefit Maldonado if he runs for higher office. As part of Senator Maldonado’s negotiated deal legislators have agreed to place an open primary on the June 2010 ballot. The proposal would have an effect on congressional and state races in 2012 and beyond possibly helping Republicans win some seats that were lost during the last election cycle. Under the open primary plan proposed the top two candidates in an open primary election would face off in the general election. Candidates would not participate in partisan primaries, but would be able to maintain their party identity on the ballot.

Senator Maldonado will be termed out of the state Senate in 2012. It is rumored that he is strongly considering a run for the position of state controller in 2010 and used this opportunity to gain leverage that could benefit him in his bid for the position. Sources close to him say that he has not yet decided if he will in fact run for state controller.

Some legislators strongly objected to the open primary bill but voted for it anyway because they believe it is more important to avoid a cash crisis and ward off the planned shutdown today of hundreds of construction projects valued at over $5 billion.

The second concession that legislative Leaders agreed to eliminates the additional 12-cent gas tax, which was estimated to have brought in $2.1 billion through June 2010. As part of the changes, a five percent surtax on income taxes will be replaced by a 0.25 percent increase in each income-tax bracket. The new formula would raise approximately $400 million more in income taxes than the previous proposal. The remainder of the lost gas-tax revenues will be replaced by federal stimulus money and $600 to $700 million in line-item vetoes from the Governor.

The third concession by Senator Maldonado was a constitutional amendment to exclude legislative raises in deficit years. This constitutional amendment will appear on the May 19 special election ballot. Maldonado attempted to eliminate legislative pay altogether when the budget is late; however, legislators believed the idea to be unconstitutional.

Many Democrats and political observers fear that Maldonado strong-arming the legislature may set a bad precedent for future attempts at getting a budget on time.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Addressing Safety Concerns and Design Changes to Fifth St Corridor

2009-02-19T04:54:00.000-08:00

by Steve Tracy

image by Maren Walker, Landscape Architecture student, UC Davis

This past Tuesday evening the City Council considered changes to the design of the 5th/Russell corridor, between A and L Streets. Opportunities to put missing bike lanes on the street and deal with ongoing safety issues have been missed in the past. We hope this time the community can learn from the experience in other similar situations, set aside fear and emotion, and support a decision to create a safer street that will serve everyone better.

In February of 2005, the timing of the traffic signals was modified at the intersections where F and G Streets meet 5th Street. The new timing, called “split-phase” in traffic engineer vernacular, allows only one direction of traffic on 5th Street (eastbound or westbound) to flow at a time.

Now left turns off of 5th Street at those intersections are “protected” because oncoming traffic is stopped with a red light. This eliminated many dangerous broadside accidents at the F Street and G Street intersections. The Public Works Department should be applauded for addressing a serious problem created when drivers rushed into unsafe left turns against oncoming traffic.

However, the changes fixed only part of the safety problem on the 5th Street corridor. The new signal timing brought on an additional 30 seconds of delay for most drivers using the corridor, which has led to other hazards.

For example, in the average rush hour, only one car a minute turns left from eastbound 5th Street to northbound F Street. The new signal timing imposes a 30 second delay on drivers westbound on 5th, all for the safety of that one driver. Avoiding that delay has drivers making unsafe turns into the residential neighborhoods north and east of downtown to avoid the signals at F and G. These neighborhoods now see much more speeding by impatient drivers, and traffic volumes on alternative routes have increased.

In the four years since the split phase signals were installed, accidents have continued or worsened, especially at the unsignalized intersections in the corridor. This is the record from March of 2005 through the end of 2008 for the entire corridor, A Street to L Street:

109 accidents total
19 pedestrians or bicyclists hit by cars
63 personal injuries requiring treatment

With the current financial crisis threatening City services, we have a situation where 10% of all traffic related calls made by the Police and Fire Departments on streets in the entire City occur on 10 short blocks of a single street.

A recent AAA study reveals that the cost to individuals and society of a single injury in an automobile accident averages $70,000. So in less than 4 years we have run up a 4 million tab on 5th Street. Please, it’s past time to correct this situation.

The best solution also happens to be the cheapest:

It is shown in the graphic above. It’s commonly called a “road diet.” This sounds like a bad term, because we usually don’t like diets, but this one leads to a healthy street. This design technique has been used in literally hundreds of similar situations across the country. Yes, there was initial opposition in many cases, but the results speak for themselves. We are aware of only two cases where the design was completely or partially undone. In fact, many cities went on from their first trial road diet to redo other streets. It works.

This design merges the two center lanes into a single lane for left turns. In time, portions of this lane can be landscaped to beautify the street. We gain a lot of flexibility by merging the left turn lanes: It provides the room to paint in the missing bike lanes. It provides for faster through travel because demand activated left turn arrows can be installed. This all fits between the existing curbs on 5th Street. It requires only paint, and some new traffic lights at F and G. The existing lights can be reused elsewhere.

Between A and B Streets, the only change would be to restripe the vehicle lanes to remove excess width, and stripe in bike lanes. Again, this all fits between the curbs. Almost 50% of the traffic coming east from UCD in the evening rush hour turns off of Russell at B, so this is the logical place to drop the extra lane which isn’t needed beyond that point.

Other communities engaged in road diet projects to address safety issues, with great results. Accident reductions often have been at or over 50%. The severity of crashes and injuries has seen an even more dramatic reduction, because vehicle speeds are lower, set by the prudent drivers at the head of the lines. Aggressive speeding is virtually eliminated. More information and examples are available at the Old North Davis website.

(Click on the top right to expand and view the full PowerPoint presentation)

Fifth Street Project

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Business california davis

Arguments that have been made against fixing 5th Street:

We need 4 lanes to carry the car traffic—That is not what the model conducted in 2005 showed. In fact, it revealed that travel times in the corridor between A and L Streets will in fact go DOWN as through traffic flow is better organized in a single lane. That is why so many other cities that have removed lanes from 4 lane streets have seen traffic volumes go UP after the street was fixed. These reworked streets often carry 50% more traffic than 5th Street does. It seems counter to logic, but here is why it works: We do not really have a 4 lane street on 5th between B and L at this time—we have a 2 lane street with 2 left turn lanes. Many drivers make left turns at the frequent cross street intersections. While waiting for a gap in through traffic, they sit in the middle lane and block the cars behind them. Stopped buses (70 a day on this section of 5th), bicyclists, and cars slowing down for right turns also impede traffic flow in the lanes next to the curbs. Aggressive speeders slalom through these obstacles, threatening every user of 5th Street.

We need a 4 lane street for trucks to get in and out of downtown—This simply is not true. The only 4 lane truck access to downtown requires trucks from Sacramento to go completely around Davis on I-80 and Hwy 113, then come in from the west on Russell Blvd. No many do that. Even then, they must negotiate 2 lane streets all through downtown, as delivery truck drivers have successfully done for years. All other truck route access to downtown, from Richards Blvd., B Street, L Street, 1st Street, and 2nd Street is on two-lane streets.

Fire trucks will not be able to get down 5th Street—In fact, emergency responders will have it easier. The bike lane will be available for the single lane of cars to pull into, clearing the way. This is quicker and safer than two lanes of vehicles trying to merge into a single line.

There will be long lines backed up at the traffic signals—Again, this is simply not true. Restoring conventional signal operations at F and G Streets will eliminate 30 seconds of delay. Currently, a driver caught at a red light must wait out green lights for two other traffic streams. That wait will be cut in half, and so will the number of vehicles joining the line at the red light. The single line will be the same length as the current double line.

Bicyclists need to ride somewhere else—This is not consistent with federal, state, or City of Davis policy. As we struggle to reduce global warming, all levels of government must promote clean transportation technologies. A recent Complete Streets directive from Caltrans headquarters (DD-64-R1) states “Therefore, the Department and local agencies have the duty to provide for the safety and mobility needs of all who have legal access to the transportation system.” The Davis General Plan “Primary Bicycle Network” map shows bike lanes on 5th Street between A and L Streets. Let’s get them painted, to accommodate the hordes of cyclists now riding in the gutter, in the lanes, and both directions on the sidewalks.

Pedestrians need to go to the signals to cross—This is unfair, and also unsafe because of the heavy traffic volumes at those intersections and all the cars turning across the crosswalks. It takes over 5 minutes for a pedestrian who wishes to cross 5th Street at J Street or D Street to detour to the nearest traffic signal and then walk back to their route, gaining only 50 feet on their trip in the process. Why expect this of people on foot, when the redesign will reduce delay for the people sitting in air conditioned comfort in their cars?

Only the selfish people in Old North Davis want this—At the City Council hearings on this issue, 3 dozen people from all over Davis spoke up in support of the redesign. They talked about the chaotic street that makes them not want to drive downtown to shop, about the automobile accidents they had been in, and how hostile the street is for them on bicycles. Yes, we in Old North want 5th Street fixed. We are shocked that the business owners are so entrenched in their opposition, in spite of all the evidence that this design works. We are their best customers. Many of us are downtown every day spending money. We don’t clog up the streets, and we don’t take up parking spaces. We just want to get there safely.

It will never work in Davis—It already does. We don’t have to look any farther than B Street. Between 1st and 5th Streets, B Street carries almost exactly the same number of vehicles daily, and more bicyclists. These are the same drivers, in the same town, on a street that is the same width between the curbs. It has a single lane in each direction, a shared left turn lane, and bike lanes. Just like the design for 5th Street that is in the General Plan.

There were 30 accidents on the 4,000 feet of 5th/Russell between A and L Streets in 2008, 8 of them involving bicyclists or pedestrians. In contrast, the 2,000 feet of B Street between 1st and 5th Streets had only 6, one involving a bicyclist. This is the safety improvement we can expect on 5th Street with the proper design.

As we stated at the top of this essay, our Public Works Department has demonstrated in the past that safety is their priority. The solution to the safety issues on 5th Street is right before us. It’s time.

Additional document click here

For updates go to: http://www.oldnorthdavis.net/

Word To The Wise: The Foreclosure Nightmare

2009-02-19T04:49:00.000-08:00

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee!--PART 1

By E.A. Roberts

As more heartsick seniors come to me as a volunteer attorney for advice on foreclosure options, I feel compelled to comment on the following issues as I see them:

Reasons for the plight of our vulnerable older adults;
How we as a nation arrived at a “mortgage meltdown” scenario;
Possible solutions to resolve the mess, on a global and more local scale.

REASONS THE ELDERLY ARE SO VULNERABLE IN AN ECONOMIC CRISIS

Seniors as a group have been hit harder than most because of the housing bust that has plagued our economy recently.

More often than not the elderly are on fixed incomes, with no way of obtaining work to supplement their earnings to recoup financial losses.
As the retirement accounts and investments of seniors have tanked in the dismal economy, payouts are impractical and dividends nonexistent.
The frail are frequently beleaguered with huge medical expenses, as they are afflicted with serious and life-threatening ailments.
Various expenses are financed on credit cards, that are eventually maxed out.
Borrowing against equity in the house becomes difficult, as the value of homes declines in a stagnant housing market.
Because seniors are usually the ones with the wealth in this country, they are also the primary targets for predatory lending.
The elderly do not have the luxury of time to regain their financial status once lost.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

How did the federal government, Wall Street, lending institutions, and the individual consumer contribute to the deep economic recession our nation finds itself in? There is plenty of blame to go around, but the analysis is important, to give some idea of what can be done to correct flaws in the system, so this never happens again. Vain hope I know, but I am ever the optimist.

In 1977, President Carter signed into law something called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). It required banks to have an affirmative obligation to meet credit needs of the communities in which they were chartered. The directive was passed in response to perceived “red-lining”, a policy of banks denying loans for those living in high credit risk inner-city neighborhoods where ethnic minorities tend to live.

Efforts to enforce the law were sporadic until an error laden 1992 study was disseminated by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. It purported to prove racial bias in mortgage lending, despite the fact that actual statistics did not support the conclusions reached in the report. Entering the stage at this point was the Treasury Department. In 1995 it prompted the issuance of new CRA regulations: lending institutions had to demonstrate “investment” in poor, higher-risk neighborhoods if they wanted a satisfactory CRA rating.

Much of this money invested went to “counseling” groups such as ACORN, these people priding themselves on making loans to persons with poor credit and little or no savings. Then in the late 1990’s, Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, came under pressure - from the Clinton Administration; the banking industry; and mortgage companies - to make more loans to subprime borrowers. Subprime borrowers are those with high credit risk. A little history will be helpful here to explain what happened next.

Since World War II, thrifts/savings and loan companies profited by taking savings deposits, while paying customers interest, and lending that same money at slightly higher interest rates to homebuyers - as 30 year fixed rate mortgages. Home ownership increased from 45% in 1940 to 65% in 1965, assisted by GI loans made available to military veterans. In 1970, when demand for mortgage money outstripped supply, the government decided to purchase 30 year fixed rate mortgages from thrifts. The mortgages were guaranteed against defaults, pooling them to be sold as a bond to investors. Investors received a stream of payments from homeowners, while thrifts got a cash infusion to lend more money to homebuyers.

In the 1980’s, a new kind of financial product was being touted at Salomon Brothers Investment Bank, called Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs). A CMO is an investment based on bundles of residential mortgages sliced into sections called “tranches” to be sold separately to investors. Each “tranche” paid a different interest rate and had a different maturity date. The person that dreamed up this idea moved on to become employed by Prudential Securities.

Prudential began selling increasingly exotic securities based on mortgages, credit payments, and car loans. The math behind these investments became so complex and lucrative, a crew of quantitative researchers was required to price them. This industry became known as “structural finance”. Wall Street brokered the deals and collected hefty fees, seeing it as a new opportunity for profit. Loan officers charged fees as much as 5% of the loan, or received kickbacks for tacking on extra percentage points to the interest rate. Clients for these products were mutual funds, pension funds and other large investors.

Just before Bush took office, the technological investment bubble popped, some believing the timing was engineered by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan was conspicuously seen at a Democratic party fundraiser with Al Gore during the Bush-Gore Presidential Campaign. As a result of Greenspan’s tinkering with the federal interest rate at the right time for the Dems, Bush would be saddled with a huge domestic problem at the start of his presidency. By the end of Greenspan’s term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, inexplicably Bush refused to see the viper in his nest - failing to oust Greenspan when the opportunity rose. On top of that came the 2001 terrorist attacks, plunging the economy into a serious recession.

The Bush Administration, led by none other than Greenspan, slashed interest rates to encourage lending and spending. Lower interest rates spurred the housing market, creating a housing boom. The average 30 year fixed rate mortgage fell to 5.8%, the lowest rate since the 1960’s. I know at the time it occurred to me as a bizarre phenomenon. Greenspan had also encouraged the use of Adjustable Rate Mortgages to increase home ownership. I personally never liked these type of loans, and when house shopping myself, refused to take anything but a fixed rate mortgage.

Much of the housing boom was driven by loans made to customers with little savings, modest incomes, and checkered credit histories. They were talked into taking adjustable rate mortgages with low “teaser” interest rates, that ballooned to much higher interest rates after two or three years. Borrowers didn’t have to worry about balloon payments - they could sell at any time, often at a hefty profit, as long as the price of housing inflated steadily. And of course the investors who bought subprime loans enjoyed higher returns.

These subprime loans required no documentation of the borrower’s income; no proof of employment; no money down. For example, a McDonald’s employee earning $35,000 a year received a $500,000 loan, a person in jail was awarded a mortgage, illegal immigrants were being given loans. Worse yet, credit rating companies, which investors relied on to gauge risk of default, gave many of these securities high grades. So Wall Street had no shortage of customers for subprime products, including pension funds, foreign investors, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Warning signs of the disaster to come appeared in 2003, as homes with subprime loans started going into foreclosure. Subprime mortgages had mushroomed to 20% of all loans, triple the level of a few years earlier. Greenspan ignored the alarm bells, and “couldn’t remember” if he ever told his successor at the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, about the burgeoning subprime loan problem looming on the horizon.

In 2006, signs of weakness in the subprime industry were harder to ignore, as more homeowners defaulted on loans. Many homeowners defaulted in the first three months of purchase; others defaulted as the lower “teaser” rates ended and the higher balloon payments kicked in. Seventy percent more homeowners were forced to foreclose in 2005 than the year before, with thousands of new homes left unsold. Profits of banking institutions fell.

Panic set in. Yet if the subprime lender stopped taking brokers’ riskier loans, by increasing restrictions, brokers might take both riskier and higher quality loans elsewhere. The loan sales force at lending institutions worked on commission based on number of loans made. So fraudulent loans were a big part of the subprime debacle. Borrowers’ signatures were forged or incomes artificially pumped up. Borrowers themselves lied about how long they intended on living in the home, to qualify for a lower interest rate - then turned a quick profit by selling within a short period. Borrowers defaulted so quickly, subprime lenders did not have time to pool mortgages and sell them off as securities.

In 2007, Bear Sterns, a New York investment bank, had two hedge funds (funds that handle money for wealthy investors) invested heavily in securities backed by subprime mortgages. Both were on the brink of collapse. Investment banks that had purchased subprime mortgages to pool them were now demanding subprime lenders take back defaulted mortgage loans - arguing that misrepresentations had been made. Lenders were forced to accept the returns, not wanting to risk further damaging their relationship with the investment banks. The entire industry was choking on the sheer volume of loans sent back.

Subprime lending companies tried to sell off bad loans and could not get rid of them, so took a huge hit. Subsequently there was an attempt to tighten standards, but by then it was too late. Banks lending cash to subprime lenders cut them off, and many subprime lenders filed for bankruptcy. Bernanke and others at the Federal Reserve stubbornly still would not see how severely the troubles with the subprime loans would cascade through the economy.

Credit raters downgraded subprime-backed securities that they had previously touted. Banks, anticipating their own losses, began hoarding cash, and refused to lend. The credit crunch sent the stock market into a tail spin. Finally, in July of 2007, Bernanke at last got the message. The Federal Reserve aggressively cut interest rates to encourage banks to lend. An alliance of counselors, lenders and other industry participants, called HOPE NOW, would attempt to help borrowers avoid foreclosure by renegotiating mortgage terms. (In my experience and that of many others, the track record of this alliance is poor at best.)

However, the nation’s biggest banks began reporting unexpectedly large losses. In 2008, Bernanke finally acknowledged that the problems begun in the subprime market would affect the prospects of the broader economy. Nevertheless, Bernanke would only admit a recession was possible! Now, some state-run funds will not invest in mortgage-backed investments. Some forecasters are predicting three million or more homes will go into foreclosure.

Part 2 will be published on Friday, February 20, 2009

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 in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

Vanguard Radio Tonight

2009-02-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

Join us at 6 pm on KDRT 95.7 FM as we continue to talk about the state's budget crisis with a representative from the largest employee union in the state, SEIU. You can listen to the livestream: kdrt.org

ALSO TONIGHT... College Democrats honor Lt. Governor John Garamendi

The Davis College Democrats are proud to honor Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi's leadership in protecting higher education, confronting the global climate changes, and plans to revitalize our economy. We are also honoring Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza, who formerly served on the school board for the Davis Joint Unified District and emphasized excellence in education for all students while addressing the achievement gap affecting minority, low income and Spanish speaking students. He also fought for improvements in the special education program. In addition, during his tenure as President of the School Board he was instrumental in winning back 4.5 million dollars in funds for the school district. In addition to these progressive leaders Congressman Mike Thompson will also be attending as a special guest.

Through student and community activism, the Davis College Democrats have demonstrated dedication to promoting the values and goals of the Democratic Party. In the past six months, the Davis College Democrats registered over 4,000 voters at UC Davis, made 3,000 calls for GOTV, hosted rallies for Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi and Mayor Gavin Newsom, and campaigned for Charlie Brown's 4th Congressional District race and for Jim Martin's Senate run-off in Georgia. We passionately fought against Propositions 4 and 8 and plan to lobby for same-sex marriage at the United States House of Representatives.

The Indigo Awards will be held at the Best Western Palm Court Hotel in Davis at 234 D st. from 6 to 8pm Wednesday February 18th. Tickets will be $25 and $10 for students.

Is this When the Planes Start Landing on the Lawn?

2009-02-18T06:27:00.000-08:00

It is ironic that Sacramento chose yesterday to honor Captain Chesley Sullenberger who heroically managed to land his imperiled aircraft into the Hudson River and averted disaster by saving his crew. It is ironic because the plane analogy is a metaphor for what is happening right now in Sacramento. In this case the state is out of fuel and needs emergency money in order to land and avert a crisis.

As Senator Cox spoke yesterday on the floor of the Senate, he made reference to a number of metaphors including a correction of Senator Calderon’s botched reference to “Chicken Little.” Senator Cox spoke about the straw that broke the camel’s back, implying that the state taxpayers could no longer bear the load of the tax burden (a tax burden that by most measures ranks somewhere in the middle of the country).

Yesterday was a day of rumors. A day where it was rumored that there was a deal in place and that Senator Cox was ready to flip. It was for that reason that all ears were on the oldest member of the Senate as he rose to speak yesterday afternoon. Instead, those listening, left more confused than they began.

The big news happened in the middle of the night, when the Senate, long rumored unhappy with Senator Cogdill who had cut this deal, finally dumped him and replaced him with the more strident Senator Dennis Holligsworth—a strong opponent of the budget deal that Cogdill negotiated for his caucus.

This is progress? Perhaps only in the sense that Cogdill was incapable of delivering the two other votes besides himself needed to end the stalemate. Where this leaves any deal is now gravely in doubt.

The situation only gets worse from here as Speaker Bass told reporters during her media availability.

“If we don’t pass the budget you know that the situation will get so much worse.”

She went on to lay out the consequences—20,000 layoffs by Governor Schwarzenegger for starters as soon as today. The next step is to stop the remaining infrastructure projects, a process that will lead to the loss of 90,000 jobs and a tremendous ripple effect.

“This is just one more reminder that just one more Republican Senator needs to do the right thing and vote for the bipartisan compromise.”

That appears no closer to happening than it did yesterday.

There are many that suggest that what is actually needed is for some of these dire consequences to occur. There is an air of disbelief. In a sense Senator Cox’s metaphor of “Chicken Little” is apt. There is a sense that some of the voters, residents, citizens of California believe that these things are never going to come to pass. That we will not shut down jobs, close down state agencies, and cease bridge construction mid-span.

They do not believe that the state will run out of cash. They do not believe that tens of thousands will be laid off. They do not believe that the state will default on loans. They do not believe that money for schools and prisons will cease. They do not believe.

The question that is unclear is whether the Republicans do not believe that the sky is falling, or if they know all too well and they do not care.

They should take heed. The lessons of history abound. The year was 1995, the Republicans had just taken over Congress. They believed they had a mandate to shrink the size of government, to end government as we knew. These revolutionaries stormed the barricades and believed they could do whatever they wanted.

They went toe-to-toe with President Clinton, they shut down the government, and they lost. They overreached. Their movement has died.

The people did not like big government, but they did not want their government shut down and its leaders bickering over who was to blame. They blamed the Republicans for this shutdown, their ideological fervor got the better of it. The people simply wanted a better government, not an ideological crusade.

The Republicans are making the same mistake again. No one wants more taxes. But few want to see California's government to cease to function.

In a way these are the last vestiges of this movement. The people of California do want their government to live within its means. But they also do not want vital services stopped and government to cease to function.

We are not talking about just a little bit of less government. Anyone who read Skelton the other day has to recognize how deep you have to cut to get to $42 billion. It’s not just a little snip here and there. You do not use a scalpel to perform this operation. You use a sledgehammer. A sledgehammer to put it mildly is a blunt instrument. Cut off $10 billion to education. Cut off billions to roads and bridges. Cut off billions to law enforcement. Cut tens of thousands of jobs to state workers who do things such as enforce the law, keep the inmates in prisons, hand out unemployment checks, process forms at the DMV, and the other vital functions that government performs on an everyday basis. Guess what—killing all of that, does not solve the problem.

The Republicans created their own budget in December using only spending cuts, they barely got halfway there and the cuts were deep and devastating.

Our plane is out of fuel. The passengers on that plane only has a small sense of what is to come. Unfortunately unlike the heroic Sullenberger, the pilots of this state, are arguing and bickering. Some of them appear to actually want the plane to crash. Only then will people realize the danger.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Inside the Numbers: A Further Examination of the DPD Turnover Rate

2009-02-18T05:17:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Sacramento Bee ran an article that found that Citrus Highets and the Davis police departments have the highest staff turnover rates among other law enforcement agencies in the region.

To add fuel to the fire, the Bee recessitates old charges that the climate in Davis involving complaints of racial profiling and the Halema Buzayan case were the prominent if not primary culprits for this turnover rate.

"High-ranking officials from the two departments blame a variety of factors ranging from a new department's normal break-in period to the way a racially charged incident was handled."

The Bee quotes Assistant Chief Steve Pierce discussing issues involving the arrest of Halema Buzayan, then 16 in 2005, along with accusations of racial profiling.

"Davis Assistant Chief Steve Pierce said his department changed its retirement calculation, making retirement more attractive for some officers. In addition, several officers left to work in newly formed departments in Citrus Heights and Elk Grove.

Pierce also said some employees felt uncomfortable working in the city following a 2005 incident involving a 16-year-old Davis High School student arrested for a misdemeanor hit-and-run. Her parents alleged racial bias because the girl is Muslim.

During exit interviews, some departing officers remarked that they "don't want a car stop done on a person of color blowing up in (their) face," Pierce said."

However, that paints at best an incomplete picture. The Vanguard spoke to Davis Police Chief Landy Black who provided context to both the initial interview as well as the data.

First he provided the actual breakdown of those who left from 2006 to the present.

Retirement: 5 (3 sworn)

Attained promotion not available with DPD: 4 (2 sworn)

Failed to complete academy/field training/probationary period (dismissed by DPD): 2 (both sworn)

Non-sworn personnel became sworn officers elsewhere: 3

Resigned to take comparable position elsewhere: 5 (4 sworn)

By his count that allows for at most four sworn officers who left the department under the conditions that were describe prominently in the Sacramento Bee article.

These data suggest a much more mundane explanation for a high turnover rate. Some simply retired, others were able to get promoted to positions unavailable to them in this department, a few failed their probation, and a few became sworn officers elsewhere.

Under those conditions, the turnover rate is neither alarming nor unusual.

Chief Black also suggested that the comments attributed to Assistant Chief Steve Pierce, while accurate were taken somewhat out of context. His comment regarding exit interviews was not unsolicited but rather reflected a direct question from the Bee reporter who asked him point blank what effect the Buzayan incident had on people leaving the department. There was no emphasis made by Assistant Chief Pierce, according to Chief Black, on the Buzayan factor.

"It is unfortunate that the Sacramento Bee article makes it look like he/we put an emphasis on it. He didn't and we don't."

Chief Black continues:

"I was hired after a period of some internal and external turmoil. There was an expectation placed on me to take steps to mend internal and community relations. While I will take credit for what I've done to meet that expectation, the officers and leaders of this department have taken great individual and professional initiative to rehabilitate an image that they and I believe was unnecessarily tarnished. There is always room for improvement, but the vitriol was over the top in many folks' estimation.

I cannot speak to the character of the officers who left in 2006 or early 2007, but the officers who remained and continue to work here have done so, in large part, due to their commitment to this department, their peers, the law enforcement profession, and the citizens & community of Davis."

Chief Black also took on the issue of racial profiling.

"Racial profiling continues to be a publicly debated issue. We are aware of that and the fact that the perception of racial profiling still exists. We continue to develop our department and train our personnel to conduct themselves in ways that minimize the perception of racial bias. Our recruitment and training focuses on finding and developing professionals who have the capacity and inclination to understand the dynamics of a multi-cultural society and are able to be resilient and welcome transparency as a means to improve trust."

Brief Commentary:

From my perspective, it is unfortunate if the Sacramento Bee believed it was important to stir the pot on this issue. I received a number of emails on this article and felt it was important to find out the rest of the story from the Davis Police Department.

This issue rekindled an issue that had arose back in 2006, when many accused community activists including my wife, the chair of the Human Relations Commission at the time of creating an atmosphere that had led a large number of police officers to leave the department culminating with the Police Chief at that time, Chief Jim Hyde who took a job in Antioch.

The truth is that while it appears there may have been some police officers who left for those reasons, it was not the huge number that was being represented in the media or at city council meetings by members of the community.

While the issue of racial profiling remains a sensitive issue in parts of this community, the overall tone of discussions have change drastically. The departure of the previous chief along with the arrival of Chief Black and Ombudsman Bob Aaronson have helped change some of this.

While many undoubtedly still blame my wife for fanning the flames, many of these incidents were taken to her from people within the community and to the best of her ability she followed the charge of the Human Relations Commission as the only place where people could go to air grievances of this nature at that time.

It is my hope that we have all learned from that incident and should an incident of this sort arise in the future, we can all handle it better and avoid a repeat of what occurred in the winter and spring of 2006.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Vote No to Green Initiative Slush Fund

2009-02-18T04:48:00.000-08:00

By Derick Lennox

Don't be duped into raising your own student fees.

The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) is a campus ballot measure that attempts to mislead students into funding a $269,000 special interest slush fund. A history of unfulfilled promises at other UC campuses has proven that for TGIF, "greed" has become the new "green."

UC Davis would not be the first campus to be let down by TGIF's big promises. The same program has been implemented at other UC schools, such as Berkeley, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. In each case, voters were lured by the chance to "develop, propose, and enact sustainable projects" using the collected student fees. In the past two years, TGIF has racked up over a half-million dollars in unused grant money at these three UC campuses. In hindsight, that money should have stayed in students' pockets to pay for the increasing price of education.

We should learn from others' mistakes.

Less than half of the proposed Davis fees will go to student grants. The rest will be spent on a $40,000 staff position, while an estimated $30,000 would be needed for office and accounting services, according estimates from a Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee meeting. Thankfully, the most useful misdirection of "green" funds would be the 25 percent spent on university-required return-to-aid, assisting PELL-grant eligible students. And with the average public university student graduating with over $10,000 in debt, why not spend all the money on financial assistance instead?

In tough economic times, only greedy special interests would want to tax us doubly. Thank goodness, this is one fee hike to which we can say "no." After all, James Quinn, professor and co-director of the information center for the environment, reminds us that UC Davis receives more environmental research funding than almost any other school in the country.

Since 2002, statewide UC fees have more than doubled. And already, UC Davis has the highest campus-based fees in the system—three-times greater than at campuses like UCLA. Budget shortfalls almost forced us to say farewell to many needed services last spring at the Learning Skills Center, financial aid office, and campus recreation (just to name a few). Despite expecting another fee hike next year, TGIF makes no effort to respect our financial burden.

The possibility of financial abuse is ripe as this seven-member committee decides how to spend your money. The current language of the initiative should offend any person in favor of responsible governance. Appointments from the university administration—not students—will fill three positions on this student fees committee. Meanwhile, half the student members will have a mandated connection with the same environmental advocacy communities that will be receiving the grants.

If your intuition shouts "conflict of interest!" then you're not alone. Opponents to this boongoggle include the president of Davis College Democrats, the chair of Davis College Republicans, and the ASUCD president, controller, and University Affairs director.

Numbers aside, you may think that this is just a quarterly $4 fee—the price of a fancy latte or trip to the Coffee House. But remember, this fee will not help the environment or create sustainability. If history rings true, TGIF will misuse hundreds of thousands of dollars at the cost of many UC Davis generations to come.

With these facts in mind, students should take pride in not being cajoled into fronting the cash for a special interest slush fund. Let's vote together to defeat this ill-conceived initiative on February 18 and 19 at elections.ucdavis.edu.

Derick Lennox is a fourth-year undergraduate and member of the "No on TGIF" campaign.

Maldonado Holds California Hostage to his Flights of Fancy

2009-02-17T05:27:00.000-08:00

About the last person I expected to be talking about on the Vanguard was Senator Abel Maldonado. Maldonado represents among other places my former hometown of San Luis Obispo. I remember him as the Mayor of Santa Maria, the moderate Republican who defeated the right wing racist Mayor of that town. He rose to prominence as a moderate, often casting the decisive vote on budgets.

He's about the last person I expected to be holding up the budget, but here he is doing just that. And it appears to be all personal from where I sit. It has nothing to do with policy. Nothing to do with what's good for this state. It is all about what's good for Abel.

I watched yesterday, while outside of his office, as he laid out his asking price in order to release California from its hostage crisis.

He listed off four things--and they were are all about him. You see in 2006 he wanted to run for Controller of the State of California, but he was not supported by the Governor. And he was unable to win in the primary. Now he wants to run again. This time, he wants to create a primary system where a moderate Republican can win; therefore, he wants an open primary system which would allow the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, to run in the general election. This of course would have to be approved by the voters and presumably placed on the May special election ballot with a number of other items that would be passed in this budget.

Next, he wants to pass a law that would prevent legislators from being paid if there is no budget on time. He also wants to ban pay raises for legislators and per diem increases during years of budget deficit. Finally, he wants to remove pork spending from the budget package, most notably, his little feud with the Controller where he wants to block the Controller's office from $1 million to complete its office upgrade to make it ADA (Americans with Disabilities) compliant for access to those with disabilities and and make it compliant for workplace safety rules. The upgrades were approved and money set aside before CA was in a fiscal turmoil.

The four demands have little chance of receiving two-thirds support in the Legislature, so the Senator would accept perhaps one or two. "I think government reform is a priority. It could be one, it could be two, at the end of the day, I want government to be reformed."

Senator Steinberg said it was not possible to place an open primary election on the May ballot, that is certainly not something you would want to create in a day or two. The middle two might be more reasonable. We will have to see this morning at 10 am to see if the Senate agrees to them.

Meanwhile there is a cost for inaction and it is very high.

The Governor's Finance Director Mike Genest told a Senate Committee yesterday that there would be a huge cost for continuing to delay the budget. It would result in halting the remaining 276 public works projects which are roughly $3.7 billion in expenditure.

Moreover, the cost to stop these projects and then restart these projects would be roughly $400 million according to Will Kempton who is the director of Caltrans.

In December, state finance officials halted financing for 5,600 construction projects across the state. However they agreed last month to continue 276 projects that were either too far along in construction or would cost the state too much to halt and restart later.

These shutdowns would affect around 90,000 jobs across California. In addition, the Governor has threatened to send out layoff notices to 20,000 state workers today. That means that if there is no budget, there will be 100,000 people laid off this week.

Worse yet as Senator Cedillo said on the floor of the Senate last night, there is a ripple effect. On the low end 2.5 times, on the high end 5 times the ripple effect. What does that mean? It means that on the low end you could see 250,000 jobs impacted by this inaction, on the high end, 500,000 jobs impacted.

That does not even get into the issue of the state defaulting on loans. It does not get into what happens for counties that rely on state monies. It does not get into what happens for school districts that rely on state monies.

The response of Republicans like Senator Dennis Hollingsworth is how many jobs would the sales tax increase cost? He suggested 50,000 jobs. His colleagues asked him to site his data. I find it difficult to believe that paying one additional cent on the dollar in sales tax, which means one dollar for every $100 and $10 for every $1,000 is going to have that kind of effect.

The Republicans argue that their constituency doesn't want to pay anymore for the fiscal problems of California. No one does, but it is interesting that Republicans do not want to pay any more taxes, but have no problem if others pay by losing their jobs.

That is what we face right now. Moreover, no one has proposed a budget that is balanced with only spending cuts. Not the Republicans. Their only proposal was $20 billion shy of being balanced and that included $10 billion in cuts to education.

We ran through the math yesterday. If you want to fire all state workers including prison guards, release 160,000 inmates, close down the college system, fire teachers, close down all of the state parks, and stop all public assistance including unemployment insurance, you get close to that $41 billion mark. But is that really what we want to do? Is that the state we want to live in? What would that end up costing CA?

More immediately we face a fiscal crisis because there are not 27 votes for that scenario either. Republicans have to understand that there needs to be compromise. The Democrats believe me do not want this budget, they do not want these cuts, but what's the alternative? It is far worse. I spent most of my day talking to legislators and staffers who are sick about some of these cuts, but what's the alternative? They are doing what they have to do. They have come a long way in compromise to get to this point. The Republicans have on the other hand done almost nothing in compromise, only two have come off the no new taxes stance. None have proposed an alternative.

This is what Abel Maldonado apparently does not mind having happen this week if he doesn't get legislation that would make it easier for him to run for State Controller.

We're out of time, the consequences for inaction start this week and they are severe. If you think the economy is bad now, just wait until there is several billion less pumped into the economy.

---David M. Greenwald

Republicans Hold Budget Process Hostage--Their Math Does Not Add Up

2009-02-16T07:00:00.000-08:00

Valentine’s Day came and went, and still there was no budget. On deep into the night it continued, desperately trying to find one more Republican Senator brave enough to end this nightmare, to cast the yes vote, and to save the state of California from fiscal turmoil the likes of which it has not seen before in this lifetime or many others. And yet on Sunday, there were no heroes.

First, the word came that Dave Cox, the Senator from the Sacramento Area could be the third vote. But late on Saturday night or Sunday morning, he said no.

The Sacramento Bee took the highly unusual step of issuing an email alert with an online editorial:

“Call Senator Cox and urge him to be a hero.”

The story read:

“As implausible as it may sound, a single vote by state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, could determine if the Legislature saves California from going over a financial cliff.”

But it was not to be. The next word came that perhaps it could be Sen. Abel Maldonado who had shunned the budget largely over his riff with Controller Chiang on office furniture. The Capitol Weekly suggested on Facebook that he might be convinced over the creation of an open primary. But that too was fleeting.

And so here we are, Monday morning, waiting still for a miracle.

The logic here makes no sense. California needs a budget. Someone has to step up and say yes.

No one likes this budget. It cuts deeply into education and other spending. It raises taxes.

The LA Times on Saturday reported that firms would get over one billion dollars in tax breaks while the average person would pay higher taxes.

“The average Californian's taxes would shoot up five different ways in the state budget blueprint that lawmakers hope to vote on this weekend. But the bipartisan plan for wiping out the state's giant deficit isn't so bad for large corporations, many of which would receive a permanent windfall.”

Bottom line it is a bad budget, but it is one that must be passed. But the Republicans continue to hold out. Despite all indications that they have to raise taxes. It has to be done.

George Skelton in his column this morning, does the math. His conclusion:

“To avoid raising taxes and still balance the books in Sacramento, you'd have to virtually shut down state government.”

Is that the goal of the Repulbicans? Shut down Sacramento?

“The basics: The state has a projected $41-billion deficit through June 30, 2010. It's almost out of cash. Bills are not getting paid. Tax refunds aren't being mailed. Construction work is stopped. Bonds can't be sold.”

Back in December the Republicans issued forth their one and only plan, it continued zero tax increases and all spending. But guess what, that plan came up with only half of what was needed to balance the budget. Skelton continues:

“The problem for GOP politicians, however, is that 52% of Republicans favor eradicating the red ink "mostly through spending cuts."

But the numbers don't add up. The Legislature's two Republican leaders -- Assemblyman Mike Villines of Clovis and Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto -- came to that realization in December as they dug through the budget books. They also knew that even if it were possible to avoid tax hikes, their GOP colleagues didn't have the stomach for the kinds of slashing that would be needed in school, healthcare and prison programs.

"The only alternative now," Villines said Saturday, "is to literally go insolvent and over the cliff. And many of us believe that is irresponsible and giving up our constitutional responsibilities."”

Skelton lays out the math in dizzying terms. If you layoff all the state workers under the control of the governor, that would only be $24.4 billion. But to do that you would have to dump 160,000 convicted felons onto the streets with the prisons being closed and the guards and warden fired. There would also be no Highway Patrol. No state parks. And as Skelton points out that wouldn’t even give you $24.4 billion because some of the employees are paid from special funds that are self-sustaining.

The legislature could be eliminated for another $400 million over 16 months which is a drop in the bucket.

“What many people don't realize is that around three-fourths of the state's general fund flows out to schools and local governments, much of it because of voter-passed laws.

But there is another place to look for savings: You could cut off all state money to higher education -- the two university systems and the community colleges. That would save the remaining $16 billion.”

He continues.

“Don't like any of the above -- all those firings and slamming college doors on kids?

Instead, you could eliminate virtually all state money for healthcare and social services -- grants for the aged, blind and disabled, assistance for the homebound, medical care for the poor, mental health treatment, welfare. . . . No exceptions.

Of course, you'd then be turning away tons of money from Washington, which shares the costs. And you would be violating some federal laws. But there, it's done. You've avoided a tax increase. What a state!”

The math is there. George Skelton does the math. You have to raise taxes. No one wants to do that. No one. But what choice do we have? Shutdown our government? $41 billion is just a very large number. There are many things in this budget Democrats hate with a fiery passion. This is not a budget they want to pass. They had to compromise with the Governor to get it as far as they did. They have shown themselves willing to work with the legislative Republicans, but beyond the leadership there seems to be zero responsible Republicans in the legislature. How can that be? How can a group that represents 37% of the elected legislature bring this government to its knees?

How is it that Californians have allowed this to happen? Hopefully today, Republican lawmakers after a good night sleep bite the bullet and do the right thing. Otherwise, come Tuesday, things start falling out of the trees and the picture gets more ugly than it already is.

---David M. Greenwald report

Davis Finds Itself in Growing Fiscal Hole

2009-02-16T06:02:00.001-08:00

The city of Davis now faces a large and growing budget deficit. Due to the continued decline of the economic conditions in Davis, the current year's budget deficit is projected to grow from the November estimate of $1.54 million to $2.37 million. Next year the budget deficit will range from between $3 million to $3.6 million depending on the city's negotiations with the employee bargaining units.

From the city staff report for Tuesday's City Council meeting:

"Despite the potential to manage the FY2008/09 budget through aggressive cost containment measures, the budget outlook for FY2009/10 and the out-years of the five-year forecast pose significant and growing challenges. The baseline General Fund forecast for FY2009/10 now reflects a $3.6 million deficit under our original expenditure forecast assumptions, and a $3.0 million deficit assuming no changes in personnel costs beyond those provided for in current labor contracts."

Part of the cost containment strategy calls for most departments to develop a 7 to 10 percent budget reduction scenario with pulbic safety developing 3 to 5 percent reduction scenarios. The city hopes that this would provide up to $3.1 million in budget reductions.

Here are some further notes from the city staff report:

"As of February 1, the City has documented a current vacancy list of 21 regular full time and 1 (75%) regular part time positions. These vacancies represent a 4.7% shortfall in our current work force, in relation to our 464.25 budgeted Full Time Equivalent permanent positions."

Revenues are project to end the year at $2.37 million below the adjusted revenue budget.

"Property Tax revenues now reflect approximately 2% growth in assessed real property valuations and reflect reassessments by the Yolo County Assessor’s Office, as well as a slowdown in the rate of turnover of property in general."

Sales tax has taken a big hit.

"Sales Tax receipts through the first half of FY 2008/2009 indicate a decrease from FY2008/2009 results. While we had originally predicted 2.5% growth in this revenue, we are now estimating a decrease of 7.8%."

The news gets worse when you look at Automotive and Restaurant figures.

"Our core categories of Automotive and Restaurant, which together account for approximately 60% of direct Sales Tax collections, reflect decline of 14.6% compared to the same period last year."

Transient Occupancy tax has also declined.

"Transient Occupancy Tax receipts for the first two quarters of the fiscal year indicate a 10% decline from FY2007-08 results due to a 3.5% decline in tax receipts from hotel operators, and the closure of one business. This results in a reduction of $133,000 from our original budget estimate."

Department revenue is also down.

"Departmental revenue estimates are being reduced due to declining Public Works inspection activity and declining participation in recreation programs. Community Development revenue is increased due to billable planning activity for private developments. Combined departmental revenue estimates have been decreased by roughly $150,000 for the current year."

The Vanguard has made much of the overtime expenditures by the city. The staff report notes that the total overtime budget for the current fiscal year is $1.38 million which represents 2.6% of the human resources budget.

The staff report also looks at the excess fund balance over the 15% reserve target.

The good news is that the excess fund balance for last year was $723,325, however, the current budget situation will deplete most of that even with the budget cuts. By they are now projecting an $86,705 fund balance at the end of this year.

Commentary

We have discussed the issue of unmet needs multiple times here. The bottom line, the city has to take steps to make the city budget sustainable in the short term by cutting costs and in the long term by negotiating fiscally responsible deals with the city's bargaining units. All of the key bargaining units have the contracts up. The city cannot simply rollover the existing contracts in hopes that they can buy time until the next cycle when the economic outlook could be more favorable. There are structural issues that must be addressed.

The city has to hold the line on the top salaries. It needs to allow inflation to bring them back toward a more manageable level. It also needs to deal with the runaway train of retirement pensions. The current CalPERS situation is going to force some of this because CalPERS is going to forced increased contributions from cities that need to be taken up by employees.

The bottom line is that the city of Davis like the other cities in California has increased its employee salaries at an unsustainable rate during this decade. We are now about to pay the price for this rate of increase. We have the opportunity to fix that if we are proactive and act now. We are not in the calamitous situation that other cities find themselves in. But we could get there if we do not fix things now.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Budget Passes the Assembly but Remains One Vote Shy in the Senate

2009-02-15T05:59:00.000-08:00

After being up all night, the Republicans had one vote for the key piece of the budget picture, that is by Senate GOP leader Dave Cogdill. Sen. Roy Ashburn has abstained but would cast the deciding vote once there is a third GOP vote. The most likely third vote is Sen. Dave Cox, but he voted no despite being courted all night long by Gov. Schwarzenegger and Senate leader Darrell Steinberg.

So stay turned, they are still meeting at this hour (5 am). Updates will follow passage.

Prospective Budget Includes Deep Cuts to Education

2009-02-15T05:55:00.000-08:00

No CSR Flexibility*, Categorical Flexibility

At the outset, I should qualify this analysis as saying that it could change in a final budget bill or could get thrown out the window if there is no budget deal.

For this year, the budget has a $2.4 billion reduction for what was budgeted in the 2008-09 Budget Act. It has a $5 billion reduction in Prop 98 Funding from 2008-09 to 2009-10.

Cuts to Categorical Programs and Categorical Flexibility

The Governor proposes $1.9 billion in K-12 program reductions split evenly between revenue limits ($945 million) and categorical programs ($945 million) in the current year. These reductions continue in the budget year, growing to $2.4 billion, an increase of approximately $535 million. More than 50 categorical programs will be subject to across-the-board reductions that will be allocated proportionally and are estimated at roughly 15 percent. Deficit factors are established for revenue limit reductions in both years.

The budget provides comprehensive categorical funding flexibility over the next five years to mitigate program reductions. Specifically, the budget allows local educational agencies to transfer unlimited funds from more than 40 categorical programs to their general purpose accounts commencing in the current year. Another 11 programs are subject to reductions, but are not subject to categorical flexibility programs. [Eight major Proposition 98 programs are excluded from any categorical reductions or flexibility, including Child Development, Child Nutrition, Economic Impact Aid, Special Education, Home-to-School Transportation, After School Education & Safety, K-3 Class Size Reduction, and Quality Education Investment Act.]

This is the big one because it allows the district to have flexibility with left over categorical funds. However, it does not include flexibility with regards to Class Size Reduction (CSR).

*That said it does reduce the penalty for exceeding the maximum class sizes allowable under the k-3 CSR program for a four year period.

There will be no COLAs, which will save the state an approximate $2.5 assuming a COLA of 5.02%.

The bill allows prior-year categorical fund balance to be used in the general plan for the current year and the budget year. However it excludes access to fund balances from seven programs [Economic Impact Aid, Special Education, Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grant, Instructional Materials, Home-to-School Transportation, CAHSEE Supplemental Services, and Quality Education Intervention and Achievement.]

The bill suspends the statutory requirement to purchase newly adopted textbooks and other instructional material.

It reduces Routine Maintenance Reserve requirement from three percent to one percent for five years.

It suspends reserve and reporting requirements for deferred maintenance for five years.

What Do This Mean For DJUSD?

One of the key questions here is what it mean not to have the CSR Flexibility but a reduction of the penalty for exceeding maximum class sizes for a four year period. I suppose this is a compromise to keep the provision on the books but to give districts a greater degree of flexibility. It will be interesting to see if this sticks in the budget and how DJUSD interprets it.

That point aside, I think this puts us back to the earlier budget assumptions.

Does this put us back to the budget assumptions from January 28, 2009?

That would add $1.1 million or so for the Categorical Allocation Transfer in 2009-10 and $400,000 in reduced restricted maintenance transfer.

The question then is what the district will do. Recall that without CSR, that is one million that the district does not have for 2009-10 and two million for 2010-11.

That gives the district probably four options for balancing the budget through 2010-11. Option one is to use the categorical flexibility and keep CSR as it is, and keep salaries where they are. According to the budget model from January, that would force the district to eat up the remainder of its fund balance.

Option two is to bring the CSR adjustment to 22:1 or 23:1 as some of the board members favor. That would free up $1 million at 22:1 or $1.5 million at 23:1. How many teaching positions would that mean would be lost? Does that require pink slips or can simply attrition achieve the changes? Part of this will depend on what the penalties are for being out of compliance? The other part will depend on the interpretation of Measure Q's bringing down the ratio to 20:1 when the state's requirement is 22:1.

Option three would be to keep CSR as it is and reduce teacher and classified employee salaries by 2.5%. The advantage of this would be that there would be guaranteed zero layoffs. The disadvantage of this is that with categorical flexibility, there is likely no way that DTA would submit to pay cuts.

Option four would be a combination of reduction in CSR with some pay cuts.

It is clear that DTA will push very hard for Option One. It will be interesting to see if these indeed are the options at this point and what the district recommends.

All of this assumes the budget eventually passes with these provisions. That is in doubt at the moment. If the budget remains unresolved, then all bets are off and the future looks far more bleak than it currently does.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

This is the Worst Possible Budget Deal But It Needs to Pass

2009-02-14T06:37:00.000-08:00

Given the fact that this is the bicycle capital of the world, I risk a lot by saying this, but the priorities of people are a bit off in this country. Originally the state legislature was going to meet at 9 am this morning to vote on the budget agreement.

However there is one problem. Tomorrow in Davis there will be the Amgen Bike Tour. In Sacramento that will be today from 1 pm to 4 pm. There will be 100,000 people in downtown Sacramento today. Not of course to watch the budget vote, but to watch Lance Armstrong.

As a result, the State Legislature will be pushing off their vote on the budget to 5 pm on Valentine's Day Evening. If you're keeping score at home bike racing > Budget > Love and Marriage.

Now that we're clear on our priorities, let us lay out the stakes as if you do not know it. The most immediate stake is that there will be 20,000 state workers laid off their jobs if the budget does not pass. I am certain that some people reading this thinks this is a good thing, I would strongly suggest they put themselves in the shoes of those who make a modest income to begin with and will suddenly not know where their next paycheck is coming from.

That is just the immediate impact. The state is literally out of money. So right now, as we learned from Yolo County's Assistant Administrator Pat Leary on Wednesday, the County is not receiving its normally $5 million in monthly payments from the state in order to carry out its state mandated functions. Those are all of the social service functions the county provides. The county is still performing them, but they are taking the money from an emergency joint fund that is shared money from the cities and other jurisdictions in this county. They have to pay the money back with interest. They will get the money back probably but again, they will lose the interest. This is on top of the $22.5 million deficit the county is facing next fiscal year.

At some point, the state will not only be issuing IOUs to state employees, but to jurisdictions themselves. That means that at some point schools, counties, and municipal governments will have to operate without any state money. That will be an interesting challenge.

The bottom line, and I have spoken to a lot of people about this. There will come a point when the state starts defaulting on its obligations and those entities will basically have to shut down. If that happens, the entire state could come crashing down and then the state's economy will go from on the brink of disaster as it stands now to over the cliff. This is not an exaggeration.

Let's be honest up front--nobody is going to like this deal. No one. It's a bad deal. It's a horrible deal. And it is one that we have to sign because if we do not, things get so much worse. I cannot tell you how many different people have said this same thing in their own words.

On Wednesday, Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill called this deal the best they were going to get.

"My deal, one more time, has always been that I would try my best to get it to a position where I felt it was as good as I could get and I was willing to release my members. That's where I am. So I'm not guaranteeing any votes; it's up to them (his members) to make that decision… But I've negotiated it to the point where I think it doesn't get any better…"

He did say he was turning them loose to allow them to vote if that’s their decision.

In fact, the Senate leader himself would not commit to supporting the package saying:

"We're waiting to see all the language and all of that so I'm not ready to commit who the votes will be at this point."

The question is whether or not they have the votes and one-by-one Republicans announced that they were not voting for it. Until there were just three Republicans who had not announced that they were not voting for it, but they also hadn't announced that they were not voting for it.

This is what Shane Goldmacher from the Sacramento Bee said:

"The field of potential Republican votes for the budget compromise in the Senate -- widely viewed as the most challenging caucus to corral support -- has narrowed so significantly that only three members have yet to throw cold water on the tentative deal.

That happens to be the bare minimum of Republican votes needed to pass the $40 billion-plus budget plan.

Those three are Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, Sen. Dave Cox of Fair Oaks and Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield."

Here's the Senate Republican Caucus' Morning release:

"What They Are Saying About the Bipartisan Budget Solution...

"...what lawmakers and voters must understand is that the choice is not between this budget and some theoretical better deal; it is between this budget and fiscal meltdown."

-- Los Angeles Times editorial, February 13, 2009

"... there is one overpowering, compelling reason that legislators should approve it: It is the best possible deal that we can imagine out of a dismal reality - economic and political - that has left California government at the brink of insolvency."

-- San Francisco Chronicle editorial, February 13, 2009

"...the tentative budget deal being worked out by the governor and legislative leaders is probably the best we can get. Perhaps the only positive thing about the proposed deal is that its spreads the pain fairly evenly."

-- Fresno Bee editorial, February, 13, 2009

"Given the scope of the state deficit, any budget compromise will contain ugly and unpopular components. But further delays are an even worse option."

-- Modesto Bee editorial, February 13, 2009)

"When Republicans unveiled their budget draft back in December, they put forward their wish list of government changes they wanted as part of any budget agreement. And though details are still coming into focus on the tentative budget deal, it looks as if Republicans made progress in nearly all of the areas they wanted changed."

-- Capitol Weekly article, "Republicans win concessions in budget plan," February 12, 2009)

"While this budget contains a painful mix of cuts and tax increases that nobody loves, the cost of inaction is much, much greater. Every day we wait to pass a budget means further economic devastation, the loss of thousands more jobs, and the shuttering of small businesses up and down the state."

-- Jim Earp, Executive Director of the California Alliance for Jobs, press release, February 12, 2009

"If we don't pass this budget now the pain will only get worse and the budget hole will only get deeper. It took courage for the Governor and our legislative leaders to make these hard decisions but they stepped up to the plate and addressed their responsibilities."

-- Danny Curtin, Director of the California Conference of Carpenters, press release, February 12, 2009"

So do we have the votes? Find out tonight.

What's in the bill?

A mix of spending cuts, tax increases, and borrowing. $15.8 billion in spending cuts, $14.3 billion in tax increases, and borrowing of $10.9 billion some of which will require voter approval.

How bad are the cuts? $5.646 billion from education this year. Another $2.955 billion next year. Higher education will get a 10% cut across the board. In other words, it's really bad. We do not know to what extent this includes budget flexibility. It looks like Class Size Reduction remains however.

The Los Angeles Times declared business the big winner in the budget plan. While we are having to pay more taxes, there is $1 billion in corporate tax breaks.

"About $1 billion in corporate tax breaks -- directed mostly at multi-state and multinational companies -- is tucked into the proposal. Opponents say the breaks will do nothing to create jobs, and the Legislature has rejected such moves repeatedly in the past. But now, to secure enough Republican votes to pass a budget that would raise taxes on everyone else, the Legislature is poised to write them into law with no public hearings at a time when the state treasury is almost out of cash."

Some of this was contingent upon the federal stimulus giving at least some money to California. Some of that borrowing is coming from stimulus money. We will have to see how that plays out.

The bottom line, this is again an awful budget. Horrible things will happen as the result of it. But if it does not pass, it is going to affect everyone's life in profound ways that you cannot imagine.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Family of Woodland Taser Victim Files Suit Against Woodland, Police, and Taser International

2009-02-13T06:29:00.001-08:00

The family of Ricardo Abrahams has filed suit against the City of Woodland, the Police Officers involved in the incident, and Taser International. Mr. Abrahams died in May of 2008 following an incident where he was shot multiple times with "Taser" electrical guns, hit with metal batons, and the police eventually tackled him to the ground.

The Yolo County Coroner's office ruled Abrahams did not die from the Tasers, but but rather from positional asphyxiation, which happened when police held him down on the ground. The Attorney General's Office cleared the officers of criminal wrongdoing.

Lawyers representing Rosemary and Cecil Abrahams of Davis allege:

"On the morning of May 28, 2008, police officers from the Woodland Police Department killed Ricardo during an altercation in which the officers beat him with metal batons, shot him multiple times with "Taser" electrical guns, and tackled him to the ground. The brutalization by the officers, combined with a dangerous defect in the Taser guns used, caused Ricardo's death."

According to their account, on May 18, 2008, Ricardo Abrahams left the Safe Harbor facility. Staff had become concerned about his condition and called the police to ask them to check on Ricardo.

"One or more officers at the scene decided to take Ricardo into custody, even though he had done nothing illegal and was not a danger to himself or others. Ricardo was not intoxicated and was not under the influence of any illegal substances. Police officers simply did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize Ricardo.

Police officers began to beat Ricardo's arms and legs with their batons. Police officers also fired at Ricardo using Taser electrical guns that were manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold by TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Ricardo ran away from the officers to avoid their unlawful use of force against him. The officers chased Ricardo and shot him again with Taser guns. Ricardo fell to the ground and police officers swarmed on top of him. The weight of all the officers on Ricardo made it difficult for him to breathe. Shortly thereafter, the officers realized that Ricardo was not breathing. One or more officers called for an ambulance to transport Ricardo to the hospital. Ricardo was taken to Woodland Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead at approximately 10: 15 a.m. Ricardo's death occurred after unlawful, illegal, and unconstitutional force was used against him by the officers."

The lawyers allege that the police officers "needlessly escalated their encounter with decedent into a confrontation, and intentionally and recklessly commenced the use of force and violence without justification."

The plaintiffs also criticize policies, customs, and practices of the Woodland Police Department.

(a) directing or encouraging police officers to inflict unreasonable and excessive force on persons and to seize persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

(b) hiring, retaining, and assigning officers with a known propensity for using unreasonable and excessive force and for seizing persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause,

(c) failing to adequately train, supervise, warn, and discipline officers against the use of unreasonable and excessive force and against the seizure of persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, particularly with respect to persons who have committed no crime, but suffer from a health/medical condition, mental stress, mental deficiency, or mental illness,

(d) failing to investigate and impose discipline upon officers who use unreasonable and excessive force, or seize persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or for other misconduct, thereby condoning and encouraging officers to believe that they can violate the constitutional and statutory rights of persons with impunity and that such misconduct will not affect their eligibility for continued employment, compensation, promotion, and other employment benefits,

(e) failing to adequately train, supervise, warn, and discipline officers regarding the dangers of Taser guns, particularly the risks to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems of persons who may have pre-existing health and/or medical and/or mental conditions, and who are shocked repeatedly, within a short period of time, and are then subjected to impaired breathing by the weight of an officer or officers.

The complaint alleges eleven causes of action.

The first is wrongful death in that the "decedent's death was directly and proximately caused by the illegal, wrongful, and neglectful conduct of the Defendants."

The second is violation of substantive due process.

"Defendants' misconduct and policies, customs, and practices alleged herein amounted to deliberate indifference to, and/or reckless disregard for, Plaintiffs' fundamental liberty interest in, and substantive due process right to, the companionship and society of their child, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The third is excessive force.

"Defendants' misconduct alleged herein violated decedent' right to be free from the unreasonable and excessive use of force as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The fourth is false arrest.

"Defendants' misconduct alleged herein violated Plaintiffs' right to be free from unreasonable seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution."

The fifth is municipal liability that hits on the city of Woodland's polices, customs and practices. Recall one of the defenses is that they were following procedure as laid forth by the Woodland Police Department. This cause of action would get at that defense claim.

The sixth cause of action is battery stemming from the physical confrontation that the plaintiffs allege was improper.

"The police officers beat, shot, and tackled decedent, without his consent, with the intent to cause harmful and offensive contact. Decedent was harmed and/or was offended by such contact. This conduct occurred prior to decedent's death."

The seventh cause of action is interference with civil rights, this is related to the second cause of action.

"Defendants, by intimidation, violence, threat of violence, and/or coercion, intentionally interfered with or attempted to interfere with the right of decedent to be secure against unreasonable seizures, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, and the right to due process, pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This conduct occurred prior to decedent's death."

The eight cause of action is negligent hiring and supervision. The ninth cause of action is negligence.

Only the tenth and eleventh causes of action is directed against Taser International--strict products liability and products liability--negligence.

According to the allegations:

"TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. knew that its Taser guns had manufacturing and/or design defects that presented the risk of causing personal injury and death, particularly against persons experiencing mental stress, mental illness, health issues, and/or medical conditions.

Furthermore, TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC. knew that its Taser guns were defective in that they were not accompanied by adequate instructions and/or warnings regarding the correct use of the guns, and/or the known and/or scientifically knowable potential risks or side-effects involved in using the guns in a foreseeable manner, including, but not limited to, the risks to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems of persons who may have pre-existing health and/or medical and/or mental conditions, and who are shocked repeatedly, within a short period of time, and are then subjected to impaired breathing by the weight of an officer or officers."

There have been no official responses to this point from the defendants.

One point that needs clarification because it arose in the Woodland Daily Democrat's initial story and also was mentioned on Matt Rexroad's blog.

The Daily Democrat wrote:

"The officers -- John Perez, Omar Flores, Anthony Cucchi and Amanda Waldeck -- were cleared of any wrongdoing by the state Attorney General's Office."

Mr. Rexroad who argued that the family should not receive one cent of taxpayer money said:

"The Woodland Police officers were cleared."

The more accurate statement is that the officers were cleared by the Attorney General's Office of CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

Deputy Attorney General Davis Lowe wrote:

"We find no criminal conduct on the part of any of the involved officers..."

The Vanguard reported on this back in October:

"This is not a surprising finding and based on what little we know of the case, an accurate finding. The fact of the matter is, a criminal finding would have had to have shown that the police officers intended to do harm to this individual. That is a very high standard to meet and one that is not in agreement with the known facts of the incident.

In other words, there is no reason to have suspected that the officers acted in a malicious fashion. That would be the difference between an incident like Rodney King where the police officers were clearly using excessive force in an intentional and malicious matter. However, even in the King case there was no criminal conviction--rightly or wrongly. The King case in that regard represents the norm.

But that is not the end of the story. Criminal conduct is only a small amount of this case. The next question will be whether the police are civilly liable for Mr. Abraham's death. That is a much lower standard and one that it does not appear from media accounts that the AG's office looked into."

At that time, Attorney Johnny L. Griffin from Sacramento claimed that the state's ruling was based on inaccurate information submitted by the Woodland Police Department to the Attorney General's office.

"If the material submitted by the Police Department is incomplete and/or inaccurate, the attorney general's findings will likewise be flawed... Bottom line, the attorney general's finding can only be as trustworthy as the information provided by the Police Department."

Bottom line here is that no judgment should be passed yet either way. The AG's office found no criminal conduct but that is not the end of the story. This civil trial will determine civil liability. The officers have not been cleared in this venue yet. We shall let the process play out and see what comes out in the trial.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About the DJUSD Budget Situation

2009-02-13T04:49:00.000-08:00

The school district in order to answer questions from district personnel about the budget and budget process has put together a Frequency Asked Question (FAQ) sheet. They put one together prior to Wednesday's meeting and now will put one together based on the questions received at Wednesday's meeting.

Here's the original FAQ that was emailed to all district personnel.

1. What is required of the district in terms of a budget process?

The district is required to submit a multi-year budget that shows fiscal projections over a three year period. The Second Interim Budget due by March 15th must include projections in the current 2008-09 year and the next two years 2009-10 and 2010-11. By June 30th the district must submit an “Adopted Budget” for 2009-10 that includes a multi-year projection for 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. These budgets must show fiscal solvency over these time periods.

2. What does a "qualified" budget mean?

A “qualified” budget means that the district cannot provide a fiscally solvent budget plan in the second or third year of the budget. The district is required to develop a fiscal plan of action to address the budget shortfalls. Depending upon the size of the shortfall and the district’s ability to address the issue, the County Office of Education can require outside interventions to move the district toward fiscal solvency. This means persons outside the district can become involved or even direct budget decisions and timelines.

3. What would a "negative qualification" mean to the district?

A “negative” budget means that the district cannot show a fiscally solvent budget plan in the current year of the budget or is at risk of running out of cash due to the budget shortfalls. This “negative” status occurs at any time including the current year if/when reserves no longer meet contractual commitments. The district is required to develop a fiscal plan of action to address the budget shortfalls. The County Office of Education would require outside interventions immediately to move the district toward fiscal solvency.

4. Why are cuts to school districts budgets so difficult compared to private sector?

1. Districts’ have little or no control over funding levels. For example, right now we are being required to meet statutory deadlines even thought the legislature has not me theirs.

2. A portion of the district’s dollars (15%) are “categorically” attached to specific programs and services. Right now, it is unclear what state categorical dollars are “flexible” and can be used to address the budget deficit.

3. Employee compensation accounts for over 85% of the operating budget and the majority of the employees work under employee collective bargaining associations. Compensation accounts for 90% of the unrestricted budget.

4. Over 10% of our funds are programs protected by parcel tax measures. This means these programs or services will not be eliminated.

5. Approximately how many jobs would be saved with a rollback?

A 2.5% rollback would save approximately 20 jobs. A 4% rollback (i.e. back 18 months) would prevent layoff notices from being administered this year.

6. How does our situation compare with the state and the nation?

Our situation is in line with a deep economic downturn affecting the country. The California unemployment rate is at an all time high and could climb above 10% in the coming months. There have been thousands of corporate layoffs over the last few weeks. Some major corporations are trimming up to 10% of their employees. The State of California is currently putting workers on furlough with potential layoff for state employees that could reach 10,000 workers.

7. How would a more favorable than expected state budget affect our decisions?

If the approved State budget gives the district flexibility, fewer reductions would be needed and any layoff notices administered could begin to be rescinded.

8. How would a rollback affect retirement?

This question would have to answered on a case by case basis. A STRS employee with fewer than 25 years of service, absent any negotiated agreement to mitigate the reduction, would be adversely affected.

9. What impact would categorical "flexibility" have on the budget shortfall?

A large portion of State education funding is allocated to districts for specific programs (Categoricals). DJUSD receives state funding of $7m for these programs. Categorical flexibility means that instead of using the money in specific categories (e.g. CSR, textbooks) we would be able to use the money as part of the general fund. This would allow our district to make local decisions how to use these funds to cover our state revenue reductions. Even if we were allowed the most flexibility that anyone has suggested it would only cover $2 million of the total $5 million deficit over the next three years.

11. Are we using the reserve?

At this point we are using all the reserves we are allowed to use.

12. What relationship does the stadium have to the general fund or the budget shortfall?

It has no relationship. This is an example of how complex school funding came be. In the middle of devastating general fund losses, we have redevelopment funds that cannot be used to help us with our educational funding. There are monetary advantages and safety consideration that make moving forward with a project at this time a reasonable thing to do. Even so, the direction of the Board was simply to move forward with planning. No money has been expended, borrowed, or promised beyond the redevelopment funds that could only have been used on such a project. In the event a facility load is used to finance the project, the funding stream to pay the debt would come from secured property taxes earmarked for facilities only.

District Lays It All Out for the Teachers and All District Employees

2009-02-12T05:33:00.000-08:00

There was a surreal feeling sitting in the partially filled auditorium on the Davis High School Campus. The all-employee meeting was perhaps closer to half employees, but still a robust showing. Superintendent James Hammond, about to lay it on the line for the teachers and other employees, did not recognize the uniqueness of the moment. This wouldn't have happened under his predecessor.

Perhaps it sunk home at the end, after the bad news had been laid forth, all reasonable options had been exhausted, he thanked those in attendance for coming, and they responded by clapping. It is not often news of this sort is delivered and you hear clapping, but that is what happened on this day.

There will be many tough days ahead for the Davis School District. They and the DTA still do not see eye-to-eye on specifics, though they all agree on the basics.

The purpose of this meetings, as Superintendent Hammond put it at the start was to lay out the budget status and assumptions for all to see. Discuss the possibility of salary reductions. And reiterate again that unlike the state, this school district is not going to go outside of the negotiation process.

The meeting was preceded by emailed FAQs to all employees and it will be proceeded by yet another round.

At the end of the day, the district has just one month from this coming Sunday, four weeks really, to come up with their second interim budget.

The struggle as the district has made cleared each time they have gone through this, is that we only have the governor's plan to work off of. Yesterday morning it was announced that there was a budget agreement, and the budget will go forward for a vote. One of the key questions that Superintendent Hammond laid forth was to what degree the district will be afforded flexibility in the area of categorical funds and fund balance reserves. For now they have anticipated the worst-case scenario with no flexibility.

And yet do not hold your breath on the budget agreement. As much as an agreement was announced, there is still a strong possibility that the votes are not there to pass it. Even the Republican's negotiator was noncommittal on the prospect of voting for the bill, even as he said this was the best possible deal.

After a long and apologetic speech about the difficulty of the process and a number of other comments that conveyed his general discomfort with having to deliver such bad news--sincerely delivered, Superintendent Hammond turned the discussion over to Associate Superintendent and CBO Bruce Colby.

They spent the balance of the meeting briefly walking through the budget assumptions and challenges and then addressing questions submitted by card from the employees.

As Bruce Colby explained, the district closed the fiscal year 2008 with a fund balance of around 10 million. Due to ongoing structural deficits, the fact that expenditures exceed revenues, the current fund balance is now down to $8.8 million. This year we have a $2.5 million deficit due to midyear adjustments in the budget by the state. That $2.5 million will come from the fund balance.

The goal of the district remains not to notice any employees.

Right now, our budget challenge is such that we have a $2.5 million deficit for 08-09 (that will be paid for with the fund balance). That grows to $3.3 million for 09-10 and $4.9 million for 10-11.

With the budget flexibility carryover we can we reduce our deficits. The carryover brings up to $0.1 million in surplus for this year, but $2.1 million in deficit for 09-10 and increases the deficit to $4.1 million for 10-11 since we've spent our carryover in the first two years.

If we spend down our reserves as well, we reduce 09-10 to a $1.2 million deficit but increase 10-11 to a $4.5 million deficit.

Staff layoffs or a 2.5% salary rollback will take care of the deficit for 09-10 but we will still have a $3.3 million deficit for 2010-11.

They then threw out these two numbers. A one-day reduction in the work calendar for all employees is $250,000. A one percent rollback in salary for all employees is $500,000.

If all employees take a four percent paycut, the district does not need to lay off one single employee.

Bruce Colby, Superintendent Hammond, and Kevin French then answered a series of written questions.

The first question was why DTA and the Administration were so far apart on how to balance the budget. From the district's perspective part of the governor's plan says that you can go below fund balance. However, his plan does not change ed code and the district believes you have to operate according to ed code. That means you must operate using ongoing revenue or make ongoing cuts. Fund balance reduction is one-time money, not ongoing.

The next question is why aren't all administrators offering to take a five percent pay cut like the "big four." They did not address this directly but suggested that this was a choice. It had to be a mutually agreed upon decision and all have to buy into it or it is not going to make a difference. If only a small number of employees buy into it is, it is just a symbolic offer.

Temporary teachers are hired for a single year. Late in the spring they are notified and let go. Then depending on the fiscal situation, budget, and retirements they could be rehired. Because of how late this process is being pushed this might not occur until very late in the spring if it happens at all.

A question was asked whether the pay cut comes from this year's salary level or next year if one is getting a step and column increase. It was explained that there is a matrix to determine the steps and columns and each cell in that matrix would have a 2.5% decrease. So it would be based on next year's rate.

Next question was whether the salary reductions would be one-time or ongoing. Answer is that they will be ongoing until the district has the ability to restore them.

Next question asked about the impact of salary decreases on retirement. The answer is that while it would be different based on which retirement system the employee is on, they are trying hard to not let it impact retirement.

Then next question asked about self-qualification. A qualified budget is when one does not have the ability to balance the budget over three years. You can qualify in two ways. First you can say it is balance and the County Office of Education can qualify it. Second, if the district know it cannot balance the budget for the third year, they still have to put a budget together, it would kick in another reporting period requirement, and the county could bring in a fiscal advisor. Regardless the district would still have to have a plan and make salary reductions.

There were concerns about cuts in positions to the classified employee bargaining unit. At this time there are no plans to fill positions at this time given the budget. That means that existing employees have multiple responsibilities and job titles.

There was a question about changes in class size reduction requirements. If the district were to change the K-3, and the 9th and 10th single subject class size reduction requirements from the current 20 to 1 and decrease it to 22 to 1, that would be the equivalent of 14 full time positions or FTE.

There was a question as to the salary reduction DTA would have to take in order for there to be no layoffs. As mentioned earlier, the number is 4 percent.

There was a question about the DHS Stadium. The funding for the stadium does not come from general fund money. So it has absolutely no impact on the status of the budget or employee salaries. The district cannot transfer that money to pay for employee salaries. The district considers this a very serious problem and believe that the liability from an injury is strong enough that it could have to pay a settlement from the general fund in the millions.

As such, the district is set to receive county redevelopment money as a starting lone and then looking into a debt instrument for the remaining money. That debt instrument cannot be used for general fund purposes. Just like Grande and the Nugget Fields, the money from these purposes can only be used for facilities not general fund.

Finally they clarified that the four percent reduction would mean no notices and also no class size reduction modifications.

At this time of course, DTA is arguing that the district does not need to make these kinds of cuts and is arguing for a self-qualification. However, at the end of the meeting, the response was appreciative.

The other thing I think that needs to be mentioned is the anguish that the administration and school board are going through with regards to these cuts. No one wants to make these cuts. But they believe that cutting salary will prevent layoffs and given the economic times, losing one's job could be disastrous.

Unfortunately DTA does not appear poised to agree to these cuts prior to March 15 when the second interim budget report is due and therefore, you will likely see a repeat of last year with a number of teachers notified with pink slips. It is unfortunate and it could be avoided.

The district has been clear that if flexibility enables it, the salary cuts would be the first thing off the table. Also I reiterate, do not count on the budget being passed tomorrow. Right now the votes aren't there for it, and even if it does pass, the numbers are bleak.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Radio Tonight

2009-02-11T11:04:00.000-08:00

Guest will be Pat Leary, Assistant County Administrator for Yolo County. We have not talked as much about the county's budget crunch. But it's worse than the city and school district combined.

Catch the show tonight at 6 pm on KDRT 95.7 FM. Or log onto: kdrt.org for live streaming. Show will be taped, so no calls.

Why Do We Need a New General Plan?

2009-02-11T06:51:00.000-08:00

The Davis City Council last night began to embark upon their discussion of how the General Plan update process should proceed. There was considerable discussion as to whether it should even go forward at this point given the current economic situation, given the costs of proceeding, and given the uncertainty of our times.

The consistent question that arises and is never really answered by those councilmembers who support going forward with an update is why we need to do so now, rather than take the Housing Element that has already been adopted and perhaps modifying the plan with more modern and general principles of sustainability.

There is considerable difference as to how the council should proceed. Some such as Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek want to hold off on any major changes right now. Others such as Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor believe that this current General Plan no longer can guide us and we now need a new one. Others such Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza seem to want some sort of middle ground where there is some update, but on the cheap and perhaps not full blown.

Sue Greenwald cited the strength of the current General Plan and the budget situation as reasons not to go forward with a full-scale General Plan update process at this time.

“Personally I think there’s no reason to spent 1-2 million dollars that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel when the wheel that we already have is a Michelin. Yes it would cost 1-3 million dollars to do a comprehensive General Plan. Sometimes discretion is the better form of valor.”

Councilmember Greenwald expressed concern about the livability of this region in the future. She also demonstrated support for the work that has already been done and the fact that this General Plan is a model for other communities.

“We have an extremely high quality advance General Plan, we don’t need a new General Plan right now. Our General Plan is what other cities are trying to do. When you hear other cities are doing a General Plan, they are trying to do one similar to the one that we have now.”

The bottom line is costs:

“We can save 1 to 3 million dollars by re-adopting our current plan in essentially similar form. The Housing Element Update which is our legal requirement is good until 2013.”

As a result, she is looking at a more basic General Plan process—one that keeps what we have and is good, and updates where it is needed.

“We might want to add some sustainability items, but we might want to wait on that because the state is talking about how they want to incorporate sustainability into our General Plan.

We can amend our General Plan, four times a year with as many amendments as we want. We can work on a sustainability section now. We already have a housing element which is good through 2013.”

The uncertainty is also part of what drives the more cautious approach:

“It’s very important for us to scale this back. I was always against doing a full scale General Plan, but when the council majority decided to go forward with it, it was before the economic collapse. Many economists are debating whether we are going to have a recession that takes three or four years to really work our way out of or whether it’s going to be a Japan style twenty year recession where housing prices fell fifty percent and never got back to where they had been before…”

Given the current fiscal situation, we need to save whatever money we can.

“We’ve already set aside $257,000 just this year for this type of visioning process. We don’t have this type of money. Look at the budget deficits you’re going to see next week. I implore you, do not go forward with a comprehensive General Plan that we cannot afford to do and we do not need.”

Councilmember Stephen Souza spoke of several of the past General Plans and the process involved in developing them. He said that for him he didn’t want the extremely short, ten month process, but he also didn’t want the 215-member, 14 committee, six year process.

“As for the question raised by several in the community and the one councilmember that has spoken so far, why should we do this? Is there something broke that we need to fix here? I would say I have seen planning over the term that I have been on the council in a haphazard fashion. It’s not coordinate, there’s no vision of where it’s coming from, it’s project-by-project. I think that cuts into a vision I want to see in my community, inevitably.”

Councilmember Souza is looking for a vision that would describe what and where we will be within the parameters of the city of Davis. Is our “urban form” what we see now and will we simply redevelop it or is it something different?

“To should we. I concur, I really don’t want to spend any money right now. I want to save that money because I don’t know what’s going to hit us in the next two years. But I don’t want to stop what we’ve begun. If there’s some way we can move forward without moving forward as fast, on a plan. If there’s something we can do in the interim that gives us some guidance as to where we may eventually go.

Maybe it’s just describing that vision of what we will become in 2035 and 2050. Maybe we go that step, we don’t do a full-blown analysis, revision, and update. And I do agree that I don’t think… I think after looking at all these plans, I like this one [current General Plan].

I like it, but it’s confusing and there’s areas that need better understanding for not the folks who read this all the time who can go through it all the time… but for the basic citizen of the community to be able to understand this document a little more.”

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor began by describing his involvement in the previous process. He suggested that contrary to popular belief, most of the people involvement played a small role. His own was played on committee that completed its work seven years prior to the final adoptions of the General Plan in 2001. From that standpoint our General Plan is not merely eight years old, but entire sections are actually closer to 15-years-old and thus badly in need of update.

He continued arguing that the current plan is in effect, obsolete:

“I submit in many respects our current General Plan is not guiding our actions. Any action that we need decision that we take, does in fact require a General Plan amendment. In fact, we do bundle them up and package them in one of these four General Plan amendments that happen each year. Virtually any project that comes forward, we’re looking at changing the General Plan.”

He then disparages the current General Plan:

“I think the General Plan is as our staff has said, long and unfocused. It is not clear in its guidance. It does not provide for reliable projects for financial and infrastructure planning. It requires us to have constitutional crisis over any project that comes before us. It has a lack of coordination with UC Davis plans and is not in sync with the state requirements, some of them are still shaping on climate change, water supply, environmental justice and other issues.”

From this perspective, he suggests we have a need to take a look at it.

“My interest in terms of what should it contain and achieve, I would dearly love for us to have a process… that allows our community members to be able to coalesce around some sort of shared vision on what we want our community to be on about 2035. The reason to take a date like that is that it’s far enough out that we are not necessarily talking about what we do with some intersection or some empty lot, we’re talking about a vision. That vision should guide what actions follow and flow from it.

I would like for the plan that we have to constitute a framework for us so that when we have decisions on individual projects or proposals that we can compare them against something rather than the individual opinions of the people who happen to be in the room at the time.”

He went on to point out the current General Plan does not address issues like climate change, sustainability, economic development, infrastructure needs, and other issues of finance. He spoke of the need to update our transportation circulation system.

“Our street system is sort of designed for something that doesn’t exist anymore. In a lot of ways our streets are designed for a town that existed in 1965 and we’ve already outgrown it and we should take a look. ”

Later the Mayor Pro Tem would take issue with the suggestion that this comment refers to the need for widening the roadways in Davis.

“In terms of the financing, nobody can argue that we’re in a good time to do this. But we’re not planning for this year or the year after, we really are thinking about visioning for a longer term.”

He wants the city to look for sources of funding and is willing to consider some sort of phased approach.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek was very cautious about the need to do this and urge us to be careful in proceeding.

“I think we need to be careful about our process that leads us to throw the baby out with the bath water. We’ve heard a number of comments made about our General Plan—some good and some not entirely positive. But, if this current General Plan is the road map of our community I ask anyone to tell us how this roadmap for our community, how has this road map let us astray. What is it about Davis now that we think this General Plan has led us to that we need to change?”

He agrees that there needs to be actualization of this plan. However, he challenged people to find what they disagreed with with regards to the current General Plan.

“If you find something objectionable please tell us and tell us how we should change it.”

For him therefore, it is unclear why we need to spend money for something that does not appear to be broken.

“It is unclear to me why we should be spending millions of dollar on a[n updated] document or taking this document and possibly creating an entirely different one if we can’t make the case that this document has led us astray.”

Councilmember Heystek argued that if there are weaknesses and omissions within the current General Plan, perhaps we needed staff to find ways to address those needs for less than one million dollars.

“Unless someone points out to me what’s wrong with this plan, I’m not inclined to start a new process… If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

He also wants to look at other aspects of our General Plan aside from land use. He wants to think about where this falls within our priorities. His major concern is with the price tag and the need to change this project.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson did not want the finances of this plan to prevent the process from going forward.

“We talk about maybe this is not the right time to start this process because it’s expensive. But I think what we need to recognize is that we’re not planning for the today, but we’re planning for the future. We should be responding for future plans for what we have right now. It has to be a process that spans so many years.

We don’t really know what that future will bring, but what we need to look at is what do we want to see Davis in 2035.”

The Mayor wants to have a vision, we all have different ideas of what is best for Davis, and wants to start with a positive process where we look at what we want rather than what we don’t want. We need to have strong public engagement.

She is concerned a bit with the three million dollar cost and questioned how much input we need and how long a process this should.

“I think most of the three million (dollar) cost is because of the long process, long public engagement that is going to happen. I think we need to find a hybrid—I don’t want it too short that we are shortchanging our process, I don’t want to have that. If we’re going to have a new General Plan or an updated General Plan it has to be realistic and pragmatic that we can really use rather than just having a nice product that will go on the shelf.”

She thinks that two years is too short. She’s looking at two to five years with five years being too long. In terms of the cost, she wants to do it for less than a million but recognizes the costs of the EIR. She wants to possibly have a “cheaper” environmental impact report. She also wants to explore alternative funding options like SACOG.

“If the cost is what’s prohibiting us, then I know that we can get the funding grant from somewhere else. But that shouldn’t be the limiting factor for us in this study. I think we need to look at what we want and then look at the cost. My personal preference is I don’t want to start with the cost. ”

Finally, she feels that since the issue of growth is a divisive issue, we should not look at growth but rather what we want in Davis. According to the Mayor, growth has to happen, but how do we get to that.

“It shouldn’t be the growth that leads us to where we want to go. So I want growth to be used secondarily not what’s leading us.”

Commentary

The question I came in with is why we need to do this now. What I heard at the meeting, even from those who argued that we did need this now, was really no rationale for urgent and immediate action. I heard reasoning of why things need to be updated on a variety of fronts. I heard reasoning of why we need at some point to come up with a shared vision for the future of Davis. What I did not hear is a reason why this needs to begin today or next year, rather than in 2013 when the Housing Element expires. What I did not hear is a reason we cannot revise the current General Plan to include elements of sustainability and climate change that we seem concerned about to go along with the Housing Element Process.

The bottom line is I simply do not see the need to go forward with this today when we are facing down a budget deficit that will run in the millions, when we have adequate housing to fill our needs frankly for the next ten years let alone five, when the market is crunched, the state and country is in crisis, and we have no idea what tomorrow let alone next year will look like. There was nothing said last night that changes that viewpoint.

As Councilmember Sue Greenwald wrote on the Vanguard last week:

"This is a total waste of money, which I have been opposing from the start. Our current general plan is very good, and way ahead of its times. The housing element update can be done independently. The plan can be amended quarterly.

There is no way we have the money for this exercise. I can only imagine that growth agendas are driving it."

Councilmember Greenwald is exactly right. The city's current budget appears to have a deficit of upwards of $5 million for the fiscal year 2010-11. And yet the re-drafting of the general plan will cost into the millions.

According to the city staff report:

"Total costs for updating the City's General Plan could range from approximately $1 million to $3 million over two to four years, depending on the work program selected."

We might be able to justify the cost if there was a pressing need to update the general plan. During the course of the meeting, again, I saw rationale for us to update portions of the General Plan. What I did not see was either rationale for the scope that Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor suggested or to do it today.

As Councilmember Greenwald has put it, the current General Plan is a sound plan which was way ahead of its time. There is no need for wholesale changes.

"We can just take the existing plan with the new housing element, make a couple of changes (we do that regularly anyway), and adopt it as our new plan."

Councilmember Lamar Heystek concured. He told the Vanguard prior to the meeting:

"It is not clear to me, especially in light of the millions of dollars in budget cuts we'll have to make over the next few years, why we should be spending millions in taxpayer dollars redoing what the taxpayers themselves spent years doing just a short time ago. My priority is to implement what we have, not reinvent the wheel."

What is clear is that our citizen-based General Plan is now under attack by the forces that are demanding more growth. Our current citizen-based 2001 General Plan is a core document which speaks to a long term vision of the future of Davis. Many spent years working on this document, why throw it out now?

Moreover, they are pressing for a twenty-five year general plan that looks out to 2035 or even 2050. 2050? That is forty years. But by developing a plan that far out, what will happen is that sites that would never be considered in the next ten years, will be given life and consideration when we look forty years out. Such a document is growth inducing.

This is not the time to spend money on this sort of project. We do not need to do it right now. We have serious problems facing us including a budget deficit, a structural deficit, and a pension and compensation system that is out of whack and in need of restructuring.

There are serious questions about our water supply and even more questions about the cost of developing alternative sources for water which will threaten to drive the average person for their homes.

It is ironic that so many talk about Davis' lack of growth policies as leading to the increase of cost of housing, the pricing out of the middle class, and yet if we continue to grow as we have, we will be forced to develop a water project that will do exactly that--force out existing residents who cannot afford the $200 per month additional cost for water.

In short, there is no justification for updating the General Plan right now. The housing market has sapped the demand for new housing. The council has already approved enough housing over the next five years to meet our RHNA requirements. And most of all, there is no fiscal justification for a project that runs in the millions and gives us so little in return.

And yet as we stand here today, that is exactly what this council is poised to do. There appears to be a majority in favor of some sort of process. They may not necessarily agree on what that process should be, with Councilmember Souza seeming to want a much more modest process than the seeming complete revision that Mayor Pro Tem Saylor wants.

The question I think is what do the citizens of Davis want. It is your city. What do you want to see?

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Administration Opposes Self-Qualifying Option for Budget

2009-02-10T05:08:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Vanguard published excerpts from the Vanguard Radio interview with DTA President Cathy Haskell and incoming President Ingrid Salim. One of the recommendations the teachers made during this interview, was support for self-qualifying.

Ingrid Salim:

"one of the ways that we would advocate that we would make the budget balanced now is what is called a self-qualification. On paper we acknowledge that that third year out we don’t make ends meet. We will deal with that over time. If we self-qualify that way and make a couple of other cuts, there are no cuts necessary right now in order to balance the budget right now. We say that we haven’t balanced it, we acknowledge that…"

"We’re looking at something like 70 percent of districts in the state of California who might be doing that. That’s just a reflection of not having a budget now, not having assumptions, and seeing that there’s no way to make it balance in three years unless you cut your staff."

As Cathy Haskell put it, the problem this year is the state's revenue stream to local districts, not our fiscal management.

"Last year we chose to show that we had a positive certification. And to be positive it means you have to show that all three years you will be in a positive cash flow.

This year the trouble isn’t how we’re organized as a school district, it’s the funding from the state. With the Governor’s projection of what the budget for the state will be, I don’t know a district in the state that won’t be in trouble the second year out. Most of them will be trouble next year. We now have some of that cushion of Q and W, but nobody has a cushion for a 16% cut."

Today in the second part of our series, we have the response from the district Chief Budget Officer, Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby, who opposes self-qualification.

Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby's response

It is the responsibility of the DJUSD Board and district administration to ensure a healthy district protecting kids, programs, and teaching. Maintaining fiscal solvency is part of maintaining a healthy district. It is the statutory responsibility of the Board to submit a multi-year projection to the County Office of Education at interim reporting periods. This report is used to assess the fiscal health of the district. If the district is unable to show fiscal solvency over the three year reporting period, the County Office of Education is required by law to put together a fiscal intervention plan to get the district back on a healthy fiscal track. A district can voluntarily go into this intervention status or it can be assessed by the County Office of Education.

This obviously becomes a challenge during tough economic times when the State funding levels are being reduced. In order to maintain our fiscal solvency, the district must develop and approve actions to reduce expenditures if needed to close our budget gap created by the State budget. Our district is responding to this challenge and our Board and Administration are developing plans to maintain a "positive" status, thus showing ability to maintain fiscal solvency without outside intervention. This is being fiscally responsible.

Unfortunately, the budget assumptions by the State are not clear and the district must review and discuss multiple scenarios based upon different levels of assumptions. The impacts of these scenarios have been discussed including the use of operating savings, "categorical flexibility", staff reductions and employee salary reductions. In the end, balancing the budget will most likely require the use of all these options.

The DTA leadership has opined on their preference, which is to maintain current staffing levels, spend down cash reserves and "self-qualify". The Board and the Administration does not believe this is in the best interest to the long term health of the district. It does nothing to solve our fiscal challenges and puts the district at greater risk in the future. DTA leadership is only looking at the problem from a high level. Fiscal solvency means adequate cash to pay the bills. Due to the drop in State funding, use of district reserves, and slowdown of State apportionments, cash levels for the district will be much lower than in the past, requiring higher levels of short term borrowing (TRANS). This borrowing will be a at risk if the district does not respond with a realistic reduction plan. The financial markets are very much aware of the State budget and the impact on school districts. The debt rating agencies will be asking very detailed questions regarding our financials. If we have no answers, we risk getting a loan. Without a loan, we are out of cash. The district can not take this risk.

The Board and Administration are in agreement with DTA in developing solutions to maintain staff in these challenging times. The district is trying to use staff attrition when possible to develop savings, reduce operating expenses and use "categorical flexibility". This however is not enough to close the gap, and the Board is asking all employees to agree to a possible 2.5% salary reduction to save staff cuts. In order to save staff cuts prior to the March 15th notice period, employee associations must agree to a salary reduction by the end of this month.

These options will be discussed an all employee meeting schedule for this week. I have attached a report from School Services of California that describes the process for fiscal status and interventions.

{Click on the top right to enlarge and read the full document}

SSC Fiscal Report Budget Reports

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Research davis school distric selfqualification

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Davis Teachers Respond To DJUSD Budget Crisis

2009-02-09T05:32:00.000-08:00

The Davis School District is facing a multiyear, multimillion dollar shortfall due to the state's economic and budget crisis. Complicating the already problematic nature of the state's economy is the political impasse that has gripped the state's budget process. That has meant not only are local districts facing budget cuts, they are dealing with large unknowns. The word leaking out of Sacramento is that the big five have reached a tentative agreement that could be announced today. Many are expected the results of that to be devastating to local governments and schools.

As a result of the uncertainty, the district is planning for the worst--budget cuts with zero flexibility. That means pink slips and pay cuts are on the table. Right now the proposal is for a 2.5% cut for teacher salaries.

On Wednesday of last week, the Vanguard interviewed DTA President Cathy Haskell and incoming DTA President Ingrid Salim. You can catch the entire interview here.

This is the first of a two part series. Tomorrow, we will have the district's response from Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby.

From the teacher's perspective one of the biggest concerns is to avoid a repeat of last year when there were 114 pink slip notices sent out to teachers.

Ingrid Salim:

"You may recall that despite all of the pink slips that did go out, those are the RIF notices or reduction in work force, that say that teachers might get laid off. They sent out 114 of them. They rescinded I think all of them. They ended up hiring teachers this year because some of them had already found other jobs. So we knew that they were taking a very conservative path last year."

The teachers hope that we learned something from last year however.

"We think they had learned something about the impact that had had on morale in this district this year, and at least these expectations now, even in the worst case scenario... the expectations are that RIF notices will be much much smaller. Superintendent Hammond was mentioning [Wednesday] twenty-something perhaps and that's anticipated to even go down or be rescinded after the March 15 date when they have to get out."

One of the questions that arises is if the district has and is using carryover or reserve money this year to plug some of the gaps, why didn't they use that money last year.

Igrid Salim likened it to a leaky roof situation and whether you use your savings account to fix the leaky roof or you hold onto in case there is a worse problem down the line.

"You have a savings account, do you fix the leaky roof now or do you keep the savings account because something worse might happen later and just live with the leaky roof? That's not a fair analogy here, but in the end it is the board who makes the decisions about how to use the money."

In the end she said, the board felt more comfortable in terms of the overall status of the budget, by sending out pink slip notices to quite a lot of teachers rather than eat into the reserves.

However both teachers felt that this had a hugely detrimental effect on the morale of teachers, the students, the parents, the community and even the board and administration.

"We did learn last year that if you lay people off, even if they’re rehired that it has an enormous price on morale, which in the end has a consequence in the classroom and for education overall. I certainly know that our chief financial officer Bruce Colby and our Superintendent Dr. James Hammond have been incredibly earnest about wanting to not lay off people. They have certainly learned that that was a horrible process to go through."

One of the key questions facing the district is how much flexibility the district will in dealing with the decreased amount of money.

Ingrid Salim:

"Things are going to be dire in terms the budget coming from the state which we don't have yet. We have a couple of proposals, the Democrats have one proposal, the Governor has a different one slightly. Each of them have a lot of different factors which will impact how much money we are not getting from the state, not how much we get, but how much they will take back."

However, regardless of the proposal, we could get something in the way of flexibility.

Cathy Haskell:

"We have looked at flexibility offered in the Governor's proposal and there's some in the Democrats' proposal, but where pretty sure we're going to get some flexibility."

The two biggest areas would be an ability to use more of the carryovers from the previous year than we normally would. That would be a chunk of money according to Ms. Haskell. The other chunk would come from class size reduction money, something that the teacher's would like to avoid even in Davis where that would simply mean going from 20 to 22 students per classroom.

Ingrid Salim explained how the categorical process works.

"Unlike our paycheck that we get every month that we can use however we want, budgets for school districts have little categories that you can only use for specific things, for example, buildings are called facilities money. You can't use those monies to pay teachers."

One item that might be cut would be money for new textbooks.

Ms. Salim explained that while the could use new Math and English textbooks, teachers are a much higher priority:

"We do have books, we could use new ones but we don't *need* them, we need teachers."

One of the big questions, and one of the things that the board and administration are asking teachers to do is to give up salary and possibly instructional days in order to balance the budget.

For both this seems to be the area of last resort, cutting salaries.

Ingrid Salim:

"We’ve talked long and hard about what we’d be willing to do. The short answer is this: there has been a suggestion that we give up a couple of days of salary, and the other union has been asked the same, and the administrators have been told that they will be expected to do that."

Cathy Haskell said that cutting two days from the instructional calendar would be approximately one percent pay cut. So a 2.5% pay cut would be the equivalent to five days of instructional time.

Ms. Haskell:

"There are some very interesting discussions about what does it mean to have one less day of school. Or does it mean that we still have that day of school, we just don’t get paid for it."

Ingrid Salim quickly followed up on that thought:

"So what she’s referring to is a voluntary cut in salary without a reduction in days. That’s another option on the table."

However, the teachers seem opposed to this option.

"We believe that there are measures that we can still take that on paper will of course balance the budget without us having to give up."

However, the district seems to feel otherwise and are now moving ahead with a plan to cut 2.5% from salaries. A plan that may not come to fruition depending on what the budget looks like as it announced today (if it announced today).

"Our reasoning is that it’s not just us giving up salaries, which absolutely we are affected by, but it certainly takes away from the educational process in this district. So if take away two days from instructional time, that’s two days students are not in class. If we take two work days from our time, that’s two days that we’re not preparing. We don’t feel that this serves education and we’re not willing to take the hit when there are other things that can be done."

She continued:

"Unfortunately it would impact real people who already make less than half of what our top administrators make. We don’t really want to point that out all the time, they do a tremendous job. But most of us are parents that have children that live and work in this city. We make the normal salary that teachers make, it’s not off the charts, it’s livable, but it would hurt us, we would feel that particular amount [of cuts]."

However, she said that as a last resort, and there is nothing else that can be done, they would be willing to enter into discussions on this. They simply believe that other options exist at this time.

Ms. Salim continued:

"If we felt we had to do that in order to put the district in a state where it had a balanced budget, I think we’d be willing to talk about that. We really do believe there are ways to begin addressing the budget deficit."

One of the biggest differences that is emerging between the board and the teachers is the issue of self-qualification. The district is required to show a balanced budget for a full three years. Under normal conditions that is a reasonable requirement. But when you do not actually have a budget, it gets tricky to try to budget for the third year.

As Ingrid Salim put it:

"It’s the absurdity of trying to balance the budget three years out without even a current to really work on. We’re talking about assumptions, putting numbers into a spreadsheet, plugging in equations, to figure out numbers for a budget that we don’t even have."

The district is moving toward more draconian cuts right now primarily because it is trying to have a positive assessment for 2010-11. The alternative is to balance the budget for this year and next year, and then address the problems with 2010-11 in the future when there is more certainty.

That is the approach the teachers favor.

Ingrid Salim:

"one of the ways that we would advocate that we would make the budget balanced now is what is called a self-qualification. On paper we acknowledge that that third year out we don’t make ends meet. We will deal with that over time. If we self-qualify that way and make a couple of other cuts, there are no cuts necessary right now in order to balance the budget right now. We say that we haven’t balanced it, we acknowledge that…"

She continued:

"We don’t want to cut salaries; we don’t to want to cut people. Let’s allow ourselves to be self-qualified. Let’s allow us to take our reserves down to the legal limit—it’s been hinted that we’d be allowed to drop them further than they are. That’s a little bit nerve wracking because it means you have less in your savings account. We advocate let’s do that first—yes, it’s less conservative, but we believe it’s a better policy to keep people and keep their salaries where they are and allow them to live, than it would be to do anything else."

The teachers feel respected in this process by administration.

"We’re feeling valued from them [the administrators]. We’re not completely sure that the board understands all of that. But then we acknowledge that none of them are fiscal experts. They are all people donating their time mostly to serve in this capacity. We really appreciate the amount of time and energy that they put in trying to wrap their minds around pretty big issues. It’s quite a lot for them to take in in small amounts."

Last year, the district tried like the plague to avoid self-qualifying. The fear was that the county would take over the school district and that would be a horrific outcome, we would lose out autonomy.

"Last year, don’t self-qualify… the county will come in… They heard this over and over. So they took action that was very conservative to prevent that. This year, they’re hearing the sky won’t fall in, it will be okay."

It is difficult to understand why that has changed now. However, according to the teachers, what has changed is the fiscal circumstance of the state.

Cathy Haskell was actually willing to take more of a chance last year rather than face the wrath of 114 layoff notices.

"I think it has to do with your level of risk that you have to take… 30% of the school districts last year ended up doing not a positive certifications. This year with the numbers the way they look it is for me not a surprise to hear that self-qualifying keeps you from doing some things that maybe you don’t want to do. I was actually ready last year to take more risk, but as a collection of people we couldn’t get there. I think we’re in a much different place this year, knowing that it’s not about this year, it’s not about next year, it’s about the second year out. Last year we were actually talking about the current year."

One of the things that has changed is that the process was horrible that no one wants a repeat of that scenario this year.

As Ingrid Salim explained, the entire point of self-qualifications is to prevent districts from mismanaging their money. During an economic crisis when the state is drastically cutting back its funding for local districts, counties are not going to immediately assume that districts are in the red in year three because of fiscal mismanagement. This is particularly true for districts that have a good track record.

"We’re looking at something like 70 percent of districts in the state of California who might be doing that. That’s just a reflection of not having a budget now, not having assumptions, and seeing that there’s no way to make it balance in three years unless you cut your staff."

As Cathy Haskell put it, the problem this year is the state's revenue stream to local districts, not our fiscal management.

"Last year we chose to show that we had a positive certification. And to be positive it means you have to show that all three years you will be in a positive cash flow.

This year the trouble isn’t how we’re organized as a school district, it’s the funding from the state. With the Governor’s projection of what the budget for the state will be, I don’t know a district in the state that won’t be in trouble the second year out. Most of them will be trouble next year. We now have some of that cushion of Q and W, but nobody has a cushion for a 16% cut."

Igrid Salim continued:

"Both from Bruce Colby’s understanding of what this means and the circumstances and the landscape changing, a self-qualification today isn’t going to mean the same thing that it meant a year ago."

Moreover, the hope is that seeing actual numbers will produce less drastic results.

"We want to wait and see how the budgets are going to really come in over the next year, and then we’ll accommodate that. We know that counties now are going to look at that and say okay, they’re thinking about that, they’re on top of it, they’re not losing it, they’re not going to be going bankrupt… So the reigns are a little bit more lax."

Ms. Salim also believes that because so many districts are facing these fiscal problems, that counties will be more reluctant to intervene, having not the resources to do so. In the worst case scenario, the county could hire an accountant to oversee the district's books. But she played down even this possibility.

“We don’t expect that to happen because there will be so many in this situation and because it’s a reasonable situation now. If we were flush with money, it wouldn’t be reasonable to be self-qualifying.”

One thing both agreed upon is that there is no way to cut our budget without deep cuts. The bad news is that we do not have a lot of pork and extra programs that can simply be cut. So any cut that the district makes will be painful.

Tomorrow we will see that the district does not agree with some of these assessments by the teachers, particularly with regards to self-qualification and also cuts to teacher salaries.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

And Still We Have No Budget

2009-02-08T06:46:00.000-08:00

I rarely comment in this space about comments to other posts, but given that I am trying to bring together multiple threads into a single article, it actually works quite well.

The anonymous commenter said:

"I agree the State Legislature is bad and has been that way for more than a few years. The self serving Nunez and Perata are gone and that helps. I think Arnold has been trying to get everyone to see the light for a couple of years now. But they all have their special agenda's to follow."

Having covered the state government for over two months now as my "day job," I have to strongly disagree with the Mr. Anonymous here. The Governor is the problem--he does not lead, he issues fiats and then goes on extravagant trips.

Let us for a few moments throw out politics altogether and forget about whose side we agree with and whose side we disagree with. Let us also throw out the fact that California's two-thirds requirements are unworkable. On a side note, the Public Policy Institute of California's poll shows for the first time ever a majority (bare as it is) support for reducing the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget to 55%.

But back to the problem. Everyone talks about how they do not like politicians. Let's face it, they are unsavory. They are often cold, calculating, and bent on scoring political points over sound public policy. But there comes a time when you just need to get things done. And let's face it, we are long past that in California.

When there is a budget deal, and there will be at some point, no one is going to like it. The Republicans are going to have to accept the fact that taxes have to go up because you simply cannot make enough cuts to balance the budget without causing more problems than you solve. Democrats are going to have to accept the fact that we are spending too much money and have to cut and that unfortunately they are not going to be able to just cut programs that they don't like, they are going to have to cut into programs that they do like and from their perspective, do work.

Everyone is going to hate something about this budget.

So back to the Governor. The Governor cannot do this by fiat. The Governor cannot try to do this from afar. If he wants to portray the severity of the problem, then he needs to be traveling around explaining the problem to constituents. He needs to park himself in Sacramento and he needs to roll up his sleeves and work. Until he is willing to do that, this budget problem is not going to be solved.

Moreover, the Governor has one primary responsibility in this process, he must get enough of his own party on board with him to strike a deal. This is a complete and total failure on his part. If Arnold were merely having to work with the Democrats, there would have been a deal a long time ago. The Democrats for the most part have been willing to compromise far more than the Legislative Republicans. I am sorry, but in my book that is Arnold's failure. All he needs is three votes from the Republican party. He should be able to offer enough inducements to get three members of his party to sign on, but he has not been able to do this so far.

There is a ripple down effect here that is going to be tremendously devastating. First, the governor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of state workers right now. Folks, most of these guys aren't like the Davis Firefighters making $150K per year in total compensation. These are people who make maybe $30 to $40K. A ten percent cut in their salary means somewhere between $300 to $400 per month in cuts for people who are largely living paycheck to paycheck.

Budget cuts are preferred by many over tax increases. Sales tax may be regressive, but think about it this way, a 1% sales tax increase means, one additional cent per dollar, it means one dollar additional tax per $100, it means ten dollars additional tax per $1000. You are telling me that people who make a $1000 purchase are going to notice $10 additional in sales tax?

On the other hand, budget cuts mean people will get laid off. One proposal for example had Republicans suggesting $10 billion in education cuts. Let us not forget what that would actually do to education, probably the most important thing we spend our money on, that's probably 20,000 teachers laid off. What would that do to the economy. We've had to suspend construction projects to the tune of $660 million per month. For crying out loud, the stimulus plan that Obama is looking at is trying to create construction projects to stimulate the economy. And we are cutting those jobs?

A lot has been made about furloughing state workers. People seem anti-state worker until of course they can't get their unemployment check or go to the DMV, because it's closed on a Friday when they should be open to collected revenue for the state. Then suddenly they realize that they need state employees to run our state. They provide a service. They are "public servants." We actually need them. Of course you say, private sector is laying off their workers, local government is also furloughing their workers. But wait, there is one big difference, let's start at Yolo County by way of example.

Remember as I said earlier, Arnold likes to govern by fiat. There is a process by which furloughs should be considered. It is the collective bargaining process. If the County cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the school district cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the city of Davis cuts employee work days and salaries it will occur by negotiation. That is how the rights of workers are protected. Almost every agency has been willing to sacrifice so that employees are not laid off. For all the perception out there, that is an amazing thing.

However, Arnold wouldn't and won't do that. This despite public employees groups publicly suggesting that they would be willing to work with the state to make things work to avoid layoffs. This despite what Speaker Bass said on New Year's Eve that the Democrats would be fine with holidays and furloughs as long as it was part of the collective bargaining process.

Yolo County is in many ways in deep trouble. They will be $18 million in deficit. That is one-third of their operating budget. There was a good story Friday in the Sacramento Bee on the relative success of Yolo County in instituting voluntary furloughs since May. That's right, voluntary furloughs. That is how job losses have been avoided. But this occurred with the help and consent of the bargaining units as opposed to forcing furloughs upon them.

That, at least, has been the experience of Yolo County government workers – for whom unpaid time off has become the norm over the last seven months.

Beginning last spring, when county officials realized they had to cut costs, Yolo County employees either volunteered to take time off or eventually faced mandatory furloughs.

Many say their experience has been surprisingly positive, despite the pay cut.

The Governor does not operate that way. He issues demands and fiats and expects people to comply. What he discovered is that that type of approach produces resistance rather than cooperation.

Let us not kid ourselves, the situation would be dire no matter what given the nature of the economic crisis before us, but had Arnold agreed to a budget in December, California would be in far better shape.

For one thing, we would be working with real budget numbers rather than assumptions. People's lives have been torn apart based on these assumptions.

Look no further than the school district. They are going to have to put people on pink slip notice once again because they cannot assume budget flexibility. If we had a budget, they might not have to do this. They are going to have to ask teachers to take a 2.5% pay cut. This will be negotiated. It is not preferred, but it will be done if need be in order to prevent job losses right now.

I actually think Sheila Allen summed it up the best:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

I agree. I'm sorry anonymous, but from my standpoint, Arnold doesn't know how to negotiate. He doesn't know how to lead. The departed President found himself in a similar situation. Oh he had conviction to the point of stubbornness, but like George Bush, Arnold never learned the most valuable lesson of all, you aren't a leader if no one is following you. Until Arnold learns that lesson, these budgets will only get more difficult and more and more people's lives will be torn apart.

Come on Mr. Governor, it's time to step up and solve the budget crisis not by will, not by fiat, but by cooperation and in true spirit of negotiation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Drastic Measures and Grandiose Gestures by the School District

2009-02-07T05:46:00.000-08:00

The headlines that came out of Thursday's school board meeting were dramatic with the Superintendent suggesting that the top four administrators would take double the pay cut that they were asking teachers to take in order to send the message that they were serious about the school budget crisis. Beneath those sensational headlines is a truth that is every bit as bleak but perhaps not quite as sexy.

The truth is somewhere in between here. The first factor that people need to understand is that in some ways what was discussed on Thursday night was the choice of the school board. They were presented options the previous week and could have chosen to self-qualify.

Self-qualification is a complicated process that was explained on the Vanguard radio show fairly well on Wednesday night. But in short, given the budget crisis, the district could have taken the latest assumptions from the governor's budget, said that they would deal with 2010-11 in due time, and cal it a budget.

The problem as Cathy Haskell current DTA President and Ingrid Salim, incoming DTA President explained on the radio show is that the board was told last year that self-qualification would be a red flag to the county that there were fiscal problems. That is because a large extent of the district's fiscal problems last year were in-house and local. That is not the case this year. There are estimates that 70% of the state will self-qualify. The reason for self-qualification is that the first two years of the budget would be balanced but the third year, 2010-11, would have an on-paper deficit that would need to be addressed. In a state budget crisis year, this is not the alarm bell that it would have been last year.

Nevertheless the board was not comfortable with self-qualification and instead are looking for the three year balanced budget. The result is additional pain of trying to anticipate three years out without even hard numbers for this year's budget. And they must do it by March 15.

As Sheila Allen put it on Thursday:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

In addition to the school board making the situation harder, Thursday's budget also assumed no flexibility. This is probably a wise decision at some level. The CTA has launched a veritable battle against any flexibility in CSR (Class Size Reduction) requirements. Moreover, they have opposed categorical flexibility as well. Still, it appears likely there would be some flexibility.

As we walk quickly through the numbers, all of this suggests that the grand gesture (largely symbolic) made by the top four might actually be a worst case scenario rather than the operating assumption that was suggested in the headlines on Friday.

The budget challenge as laid out by Bruce Colby is how we reduce the cost of delivering our programs without reduce the level of the programs we provide. Moreover, the district has a structural deficit, it is basically eating at least $1 million in reserve each year by these budget assumptions. It is doing that in order to both maintain our programs and avoid the painful layoffs that were proposed last year.

In short, what the district needs to do is to reduce on-going expenditures by $4.9 million or more over the next two years to maintain fiscal solvency. That is $3.3 million in 2009-10 and an additional $1.6 million in 2010-11. And 2010-11 is probably on the low side unless the economy and budget forecast improves. Even with that, the district will continue to have a structural deficit of $1 million which will need to be addressed by 2011-12.

As Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby said:

"At some point we will run out of reserves and we will have to close the gap for the last million dollars."

The district examined the salary breakdown for 2009-10 by bargaining unit. Their proposed cuts are roughly proportional cuts across the three classifications ranging from 3.68% among classified (support staff), 3.88% among certificated (teachers) and 4.15% among unrepresented (management and administrators).

Under this scenario they are taking out three counselors, they think they can find 200,000 by shifting around unused parcel tax money, but $910,000 is coming from increasing the student to teacher ratio for grades 4-12 which are not governed by CSR requirements. That means losing teachings, perhaps as many as 14. Some of that could be obtained through attrition--retirements and transfers.

However, and here is where the real painful decisions come in. Those cuts still leave the district one million dollars short.

So the bottom column on the grid shows the possibilities for accomplishing that savings. One is what was talked about last week, would be federal stimulus package dollars. It is possible the district will get $2.7 million, but we would have to look more closely at the Senate's version. There is also a possibility that the Davis Schools Foundation will be able to raise some of that money, but these days are a bit tougher for raising money than a year ago.

On the other side of the ledger are flexibilities that could be granted by the legislature. The adult education program has a $200,000 that is categorical money, which means that the district could be allowed to use it for general fund if they get flexibility on that. There is an additional $1.1 million in categorical money that could be used if granted by the legislature. And then there is about $1 million in CSR that could be used if they raise the ratio of students to teachers from 20 to 22. However, as mentioned that is going to be a political fight and the DTA seems to believe that there are other ways to get that money.

Now here is finally where we get to the sexy headlines which are not so sexy. If all else fails, one possibility is that the teachers and in fact all employees take a 2.5% pay reduction. That would free up $1.26 million that would cover that million hole.

It is here that we see the offer from the top four administrators coming into play.

Superintendent James Hammond:

"If there were to be any type of salary reduction for employees, that we would double whatever that salary reduction would be. So if we are looking at a 2.5% reduction to every employee in the district, then we the four of us would incur a 5% reduction for the 09-10 school year in order to contribute to our ability to prevent layoffs."

And let us not take away from this gesture. Because it is important to know that the administration is willing to share the pain, particularly after we have been so critical of Bruce Colby taking a pay increase of roughly 5% in these budget times. He is willing to give that back should it be needed.

As Board President told the Enterprise:

"They've being leaders."

But clearly this is the worst case scenario and the last resort. However, it does appear that the administration got the message from the community that has complained about administrative raises during a year when the district was contemplating layoffs and teachers were not getting raises.

The bottom line here is that while that gesture is appreciated a lot has to go wrong for it to be implemented.

However, we are not done. The cuts in 2010-11 under current assumptions amount to $1.65 million. Remember however those are on top of the cuts that would be implemented for 09-10.

At this point we are really getting into pure personnel unless the district gets stimulus money, gifts, or categorical flexibility. Because the district is looking for a three-year balanced budget, they are looking at 8 teacher layoffs for $520,000 in savings, 12 secretarial layoffs for another half million, and the loss of nearly three site administrators for $295,000. The latter represents a 6.26% cut in funding for the unrepresented bargaining unit, compared to 4.59% for classified, and 1.59% for certificated.

Those cuts however still leave the district nearly $300,000 short of balance.

In short, the district is making a lot of tough decisions right now that they really might not have to make depending on how the budget pans out. Much of this is due to the board's apprehension to do a self-qualification and work toward a balance for 2010-11 with more realistic assumptions.

There are going to be teacher's noticed. That is now unavoidable. It will not be the 100 or so that were noticed last year. But as the DTA representatives said on Wednesday, that took a huge emotional and psychological toll.

As Superintendent Hammond put it:

"There could be overnoticing going on but we do not know what the rules of flexibility are going to be."

As Board President Gina Daleiden put it:

"No one would do this unless we were at the very last resort."

I understand some of the rationale for doing it this way, but I'm not fully convinced it is the last resort. Given the state budget picture, a self-qualification does not seem to put the district in the kind of risk they would have been in last year, they need to trust their Superintendent and Chief Budget Officer who just last week recommended the self-qualification route to avoid these kinds of drastic cuts that may not have to be implemented. I understand the frustration that Board Member Sheila Allen expressed at the state budget process, the school districts are one of many victims of that inaction. But I am not convinced this was the only way to do this based on the other alternatives out there.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

General Plan Updating Process Begins

2009-02-06T04:43:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council will start take steps towards developing a plan of attack for the next General Plan Update. According to the staff report:

A General Plan update would potentially address all of the Council goal categories of: Infrastructure; Fiscal stability; Downtown Davis; Housing; Sustainability; Safety and Health; Organizational Strength; Civic Engagement; and Long-Term Visioning.

In particular, a General Plan update would address the Long-Term Visioning goal: “Prepare for the lasting success and well-being of the Davis community by engaging in long-term visioning.”

The city is looking at a process that would initiate an update through 2035 but could include a long range vision for Davis perhaps up until 2050. The recent housing element process has focused on housing strategies in isolation from other long range community issues.

Other issues that city staff wants to address include:

• Sustainability and AB 32 requirements.
• Economic and business related sustainability.
• Community and resident health.
• A general study of senior needs including housing, transportation, recreation and
social services.
• Ultimate urban growth and ag preservation boundaries.
• Open space / greenways system.
• Growth and balance of housing, employment, retail and services.
• Vision for the downtown and its development intensity.
• Multi-property planning on the edges of the City where coordinated planning would better address issues that may cross parcel boundaries.
• Fiscal impacts of alternatives.
• Planning for the January 2012 – June 2019 Housing Element planning period and
RHNA.
• Explore possible new locations for city and DJUSD corporation yards and the PG&E service center.

One of the challenges the city faces right now is the cost to the project including EIR costs. According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million. With a time frame ranging from two years to upwards of five years.

"Staff recommends that the Council determine what kind of a General Plan update is wanted / needed while being sensitive to the difficult budget conditions the City faces, as well as other priorities. After a “first cut” at deciding what kind of General Plan update, staff can return with more information and options for funding the update.

Concerns with City fiscal and budget conditions have evolved since the original Steering Committee recommendation and the Council direction to initiate a “truly comprehensive General Plan update…to address a long range community vision to year 2040 or 2050…with a broad community engagement program”."

The report also accesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current general plan.

The strengths include the fact that it is comprehensive, addresses and contains "smart growth principles," and was citizen based.

However, it also criticizes the previous report as long and unfocused.

"The lengthy document of almost 400 pages and 1,000 goals, policies and standards is difficult to use and focus on overall themes, key issues and trade-offs. The connections between the plan’s general visions and principles and more specific implementing actions are not always clear. Policies related to sustainability are not well coordinated."

Moreover,

"Not clear in its guidance of how the community should evolve in the long term, particularly in terms of residential and non-residential growth."

In particular,

"The 1% growth cap resolution is a helpful tool through January 2010, but does not a provide a quantitative basis for 20 to 25 years because the resolution was based on a housing needs analysis through year 2015 only. The plan provides the framework for promoting infill but does not address appropriate sites and the land use map..."

Furthermore:

"Does not provide for reliable projections for financial and infrastructure planning."

There are three other criticisms. First:

"Individual development proposals and policy. Preferably, individual projects would not drive policy.

Second:

"Coordination with UC Davis plans. The City and UC Davis continue to be challenged to proactively address short and long term mutual interests and needs."

Third:

"New State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary."

The staff report then elicits a number of comments from council in terms of goals, what the updated plan should contain, what the process should look like.

On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?

Finally there is the issue with Measure J. The council had deferred discussion of Measure J until after the election. However, it still really has not addressed it. Are there three votes to keep the measure as it is currently written when it goes before the voters? When will that be addressed?

The staff report contains some other thoughts on Measure J. For instance, whether the General Plan update to go to a Measure J vote if it involves Measure J sites. Whether the entire General Plan package should go to a Measure J vote.

"One option for the Measure J renewal is to do a limited extension until the update is ready for a Measure J vote, and amend Measure J so that if an urban land use is approved by the voters then a second Measure J vote is not necessary."

That would seem to be a rather dangerous proposition for both sides. On the one hand, it might make it difficult to pass the general plan if there are controversial projects contained within it. On the other hand, it might make it easier to pass controversial projects. And once the Measure J vote is passed for the general plan, what safeguards the project to ensure that it does not get altered significantly from passage as part of the general plan. I certain do not believe I would support such a provision.

What other issues need to be addressed here? This is the beginning of the general plan process, the citizens need to take a very proactive role in insuring that their needs, values, and goals are addressed within the framework of the general plan updating process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: The limits of Open Government and the Council's Right to Know

2009-02-05T05:11:00.000-08:00

A few weeks the Davis City Council was trying to decide to what extent they had the right to demand to read the Ombudsman's Investigation into the Yolo County Grand Jury report. In a lot of ways it was a strange discussion. Let us forget for a moment about the content of that report and focus only on the process at hand.

City Attorney Harriet Steiner ruled two things. First, that the city manager had the right to determine whether or not the council could see something. Second, that if the council did view these personnel matters or a report deemed to cover a personnel matter, it could subject the city to liability. In essence, the city attorney deemed that in a city manager model, the council has no more right to view personnel records than members of the public.

Basically the city council hires the city manager. They are responsible for evaluating his performance. It was that evaluative process that led to the city manager's new contract that was approved last week in open session. However, as councilmember Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked, how is the council supposed to evaluate the city manager, if they cannot review his work product. If they are in the dark about certain reports deemed "personnel matters," how can they determine how well the city manager has done his job?

And there is more. Implicit in the assumption by the city attorney was that viewing these documents somehow exposed the council to liability. However, there appear to be no precedents to back that up. One pervasive belief is that if the city council were able to see the full report, the firefighters union would sue the city. This is only speculation, but it has been suggested from multiple sources.

This whole discussion leads to two interesting things to ponder. First, what would have happened had a majority of the council determined they had to see the full report? And second, can and should the council change the system?

It is the second point we briefly ponder today. City Attorney Harriet Steiner upon questioning from Councilmember Greenwald did concede that the city could alter its model. It does not appear that the majority of council is interested in doing so. As I mentioned previously, right now the city manager model suggests that the council hires only the city manager and the city manager hires, evaluates, fires, promotes the rest of city staff.

However, apparently that is not the only alternative. Indeed if we look at the school district, we see a much greater role for the school board than for the city council. The school board is privvy to personnel matters and makes some of those decisions.

Implicit under those assumptions is that the elected members are not merely agents of the public, with the same rights as the public, but actually governing agents. From the standpoint of public policy, it seems problematic that the elected and publicly accountable city council members would have to take a backseat in such discussions to unelected city managers.

As we have discussed previously, the city council has the power to hire and fire the city manager, that is all. What we do not know is the extent to which the city council could use its ability to fire as leverage in this situation. The reason for that is that a majority of the council did not wish to force the issue.

This too is somewhat problematic. For it suggests a few things. First, that the power of a councilmember is extremely limited. Indeed, it has often been suggested that as a member of the public, I have much greater rights than a member of the council does. The majority has almost complete power to thwart the will of the minority in council when it comes to these kinds of issues. To an extent that we do not see in other forms of government.

A member of the council therefore cannot make demands to see documents with the power to enforce that decision.

The question is whether this needs to be changed. Should the elected members of the Davis City Council have the right to by themselves demand to see documents in order to make better decisions? Do they have any recourse when denied other than to politic to pressure the majority of the council or sue for access?

These are all questions that were brought up two weeks ago. It is our hope for the sake of transparency and accountability that this issue is not allowed to die.

---David M. Greenwald

Vanguard Radio Tonight

2009-02-04T06:49:00.000-08:00

Tonight at 6 pm Vanguard Radio on KDRT 95.7 FM will have two representatives from the Davis Teachers Association talking about education, the district, and the budget. Joining us will be current President Cathy Haskell and President-elect Ingrid Salim.

Call in at 530.792.1648

Log on for live stream: kdrt.org

Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement

2009-02-04T05:58:00.000-08:00

Documentary Evidence Suggests University Failed to Adhere to Their Terms of Agreement

On Monday the Vanguard ran a story on the lawsuit filed by former UC Davis police Officer Calvin Chang. The story has since been covered in detail in the California Aggie and mentioned briefly on the Davis Enterprise website. At this point, one of the hang ups has been that the university has not been served and thus not officially notified with the complaint. So at this point they cannot respond.

The Vanguard spoke briefly to UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and Julia Ann Easley, Senior Public Information Representative at UC Davis News Service.

The Vanguard has now received a copy of the settlement agreement between Officer Chang and the university since in February of 2008. In that agreement, Officer Chang was to be paid by the Regents a sum of $240,000 of which $66,000 would go to his attorney.

"In exchange for the promises and warranties of CHANG as set forth below the REGENTS shall pay the total sum of $240,000 (two hundred forty thousand dollars). The $240,000 will be paid in two separate checks - one payable to Calvin Chang in the amount of $174,000 and the other check payable to James McGlamery in the amount of $66,000."

In addition to the monetary terms there were several key non-monetary provisions including the removal of identified negative documents from Calvin Chang's personnel file.

“To remove certain identified negative documents from CHANG's official personnel file and place them in a separate confidential file (''unsanitized file”) that will be maintained in the office of Campus Counsel, Steve Drown. CHANG, his attorney, and the attorney for the REGENTS will meet to cull through the official personnel file to determine which documents constitute such “negative” documents. A list of the documents that are removed from his personnel file and placed in the separate '''unsanitized file'' will be compile and attached hereto as Exhibit A.”

Moreover, for future employers, information would be limited to dates of his employment, title, and the fact that he has voluntarily resigned.

Specifically it authorizes that the regents will keep the "currently pending laundry-room Internal Affairs investigation open as "not completed." The University will expunge from Officer Chang's personnel file all letters or reprimand older than six months.

Here is the full listing of the items specifically agreed upon by both parties to be removed:

The complaint alleges a breach of contract stemming from the university not adhering to the terms of this agreement.

According to the complaint:

“A fundamental obligation of the settlement was to also preserve Plaintiff's peace officer career and coveted public safety retirement. As such, the settlement imposed a fundamental and material obligation on Regents as established by paragraph 2 of the settlement, that certain negative documents, that were the product of discrimination, be expunged or removed from his personnel file, and otherwise to comply with his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Govt. Code § 3300 et seq., hereinafter "POBR").”

It continues:

Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Spicuzza met with Plaintiff and counsel in open session, to review and agree on the removal of documents according to the obligations stated above as outlined in paragraph 2 and "Exhibit A" of the settlement. As a result of this obligation, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties generated "Exhibit A," that delineated the documents to be placed in or removed from Plaintiff's personnel files.

This allegedly did not happen.

“However, defendant Regents unlawfully placed into Plaintiff's personnel file, adverse documents that negated the purpose and effect of the terms of the agreement. These documents have irreparably harmed Plaintiff's ability to successfully obtain other employment as a peace officer and have effectively denied him the ability to continue in his career.”

Instead the complaint alleges that a number of items were placed into Mr. Chang’s personnel file.

“Regents placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file, a letter dated January 18, 2008, authored by Spicuzza that placed Plaintiff on "administrative leave."

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file two additional letters referring to and revealing the "Settlement" and to his "resignation."

Regents also placed over one hundred pages of negative documents into Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file located at the Office of Campus Counsel. Said documents consist of the most inflammatory and derogatory material, false allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaints against other peace officers, as contained in the full bound unredacted Seyfarth Shaw workplace investigation report.

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file, two versions of a Kilday & Kilduff report adverse to Plaintiff's interests - regarding internal affairs investigations that Regents launched against Plaintiff immediately after Plaintiff was reinstated in 2004. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said documents include, a yet to be fully disclosed, unwarranted internal affairs investigation against him by Regents in 2003 for alleged "insubordination" that consisted of "talking about his discrimination complaint."

According to the complaint, Officer Chang only became aware of these breaches after he was denied an employment position by several law enforcement agencies including the city of Davis. Recall that according to the settlement agreement, the university had very specific provisions about how requests for information were to be treated and what information they were to give out.

Instead according to the complaint:

“On July 22,2008, Campus Counsel Steve Drown told Plaintiff that REGENTS showed to the background investigator the above breaching documents, including the Seyfarth Shaw report as well as two versions of the Kilday Kilduff reports. Drown declined Plaintiff's request to read the documents, and declined to show Plaintiff the documents that were contained in his peace officer personnel file.

Plaintiff informed Drown that the documents were not to be in his personnel file, were in violation of the settlement, and that he requested to read them, that REGENTS must remove them, and allow him to provide a response to them after he has read them.”

According to the settlement agreement, the “laundry-room” investigation would be classified as open and “not completed.”

In fact, the complaint alleges that agreement was entered in based on fraudulent information and even then the defendants did not adhere to those provisions.

“As a direct and material obligation of the Settlement, Regents represented that the Laundry Room IA was still pending, had not been concluded, and would be maintained indefinitely as an "open investigation."

On or about February 4, 2008, in the presence of counsel for Regents, Spicuzza, a peace officer, verbally stated to Plaintiff that the Laundry Room IA had no finding, and further represented to Plaintiff that Regents would never disclose the existence or any information regarding the investigation to any party, including to any prospective employer - because it was an "open investigation." This obligation was material and conclusive in that the disclosure of the existence and the "open status" of an IA would substantially foreclose on the ability of a peace officer to obtain other police employment with a prospective employer.

In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the IA had no finding, and would remain open as pending, when in fact this was untrue, Regents and Spicuzza concealed this fact from Plaintiff, in order to further its fraud, duress, and misrepresentation to support constructively discharging Plaintiff's employment through a fraudulent settlement agreement.

Among other things, Plaintiff was induced by Defendants' misrepresentations to enter into the settlement agreement and release certain claims and his pending discrimination lawsuit, and would not have done so if the Defendants had not made false representations, or concealed and failed to disclose the material information alleged above. This further denied Plaintiff his statutory rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3300 et. seq.).”

Finally:

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Regents have disclosed to the news media that the IA was in fact closed as "sustained" against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff "resigned" as a result of the IA. Plaintiff discovered this fraud when he was contacted and questioned by the news media about what misconduct he had engaged in to be terminated from his position as a police officer.”

Brief Commentary:

Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settlement agreement. This is particularly damaging if true because the university would have interfered with his ability to receive new employment.

As originally mentioned, the university has not received a copy of the complaint and we have not heard their side of the story. The Vanguard will continue to follow this case as more developments occur.

UPDATE AT 4:30 PM WEDNESDAY

Julia Ann Easley, spokesperson for UC Davis emailed the Vanguard Wednesday afternoon with an official statement from the University:

Although the university has not been served, a lawyer representing the University has reviewed the complaint filed by Calvin Chang.

The university believes the case has no merit.

The university entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Chang in 2008 to resolve all of his employment-related claims and secure his resignation from the police department.

As a term of the settlement agreement, Mr. Chang agreed that anytime he signed a waiver authorizing a prospective employer to review his personnel file, the potential employer or its agent would be given access to Mr. Chang¹s entire personnel file. The university believes that it has complied with these and all other terms of the agreement.

Once the lawsuit is served on the university, the university will have 30 days to file a response with the court.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Read My Lips... No New Taxes?

2009-02-03T05:16:00.000-08:00

City Needs To Solve Its Fiscal Problems First Before Going to the Taxpayers for a Renewal of Existing Taxes

At the risk of sounding somewhat well... Republican, there is something to this at least from the standpoint of local government. It is really not that I am opposed to new taxes, it is that there needs to be some incentive for the city to negotiate hard this with the various bargaining units. Let us back up a few steps first here.

The city is facing an interesting dilemma. There is a long term structural problem facing the city with the scope of city contracts and the nature of pensions. There is a shorter term problem with the city's budget that has less to do with the long term structural problem than it does a short-term revenue problem resulting primarily from the recession and the loss of tax revenue.

If done correctly, the city can use the short term problem to give them the leverage to fix the longer term problem. However, that remains one gigantic "if." The temptation is going to be for the bargaining units to attempt simply to hold off on the tough decisions until the economy improves. So many of them will likely push to simply extend the current contract. The city must fight hard against that urge.

At last week's city council meeting, it became clear that neither the council nor city staff wanted to raise or impose any new taxes in the near future to solve the city's growing problem of unmet needs. While I agree with that approach, it does not solve the city's problems either in the short term or the long term.

Instead they have suggested that they will simply place the current taxes back on the ballot. That would include an extension of the Parks Tax, which is a parcel tax requiring two-thirds vote and an extension of the half-cent sales tax.

In order to get the sales tax on the ballot for a vote in June of 2010, they would need to have it ready by January 2010. To me that gives the city nearly one year to get their house in order. Because if they do not get their house in order, for the first time in my life I will not only oppose a new tax (which I did previously with the Parks tax), but I will actively work against the tax. I will get a group of citizens together, we will walk precincts, we will raise money, and we will run a campaign opposing a new sales tax.

In other words, the city will have to run a tax against organized and financed opposition.

Honestly, I do not want to do this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, despite rumors to the contrary, I simply have better things to do with my time. Moreover, I actually believe there are vital services that the city offers and will not be able to do if they do not have that tax revenue. Frankly the services I would least like to see cut will be the ones that go if the tax revenue disappears.

On the other hand, we need changes and we need to give the city leverage to make those changes. Right now the residents of the city of Davis, many of them do not realize the peril that their city is in. Although as I talk to more and more people at Farmer's Market, it becomes clear that many are aware of these problems.

The city needs to negotiate hard on behalf on the citizens to fix these structural problems that loom.

First, it needs to be made clear, city employees are not the targets of this. The real concern is the rise of top-end salaries. If you look at the list of 100K jobs for the city of Davis, most of them are public safety employees and most of those are in exactly one department--fire.

The city needs to hold the line on the top end salaries. City Manager Bill Emlen showed good faith by not taking a raise, we need a wage freeze across the board for top end employees.

Second, we need to change the way we finance our pensions. We get another opportunity here with the problems that PERS is facing and the fact that city's are going to need to cover a higher percentage of the yearly contributions because the fund is running a deficit due to drops in the Stock Market and some bad investments.

The city needs employees, especially those on the top end, particularly those getting 2.5% at 55 and 3% at 50 to contribute to their retirement pensions. If we do that, we do not need a two-tier system that most public employees and their unions deem unfair. And if we do that, the city will face much less risk in the future from the rising costs of these pensions.

Third, and this falls mainly on the fire department, we need to change the way we deliver these services. We are one of the few municipalities that uses four-men teams to fight fires. And we don't often fight fires. The vast majority of the calls are for medical emergencies. Why are we sending in four-men fire fighting teams for medical emergencies? If you ask the fire department, in part, it's because if they get another call, they need all of their equipment and manpower. But the result of this practice is inefficiencies and a waste of money.

I'm not going to try to come up with the answer. That is for the fire department and city staff to do. However, that is a lot of money for not as much service as we are led to believe.

In addition, there has long been a push for a fourth fire station. That is something that we can look into when we fix the staffing situation. I think an innovative approach here can save the city money and also enable the fire department to get the tools they think they need to be effective.

But in order to be effective these other things have to be solved first. We have a window of opportunity. Everyone is going to have to give this year. We have a chance to fix some of these problems because of the unfortunate situation with the economy.

If the city knows that the public will not support a tax measure without fixing our fiscal health, the city will have the leverage it needs to get a more favorable agreement from the various bargaining groups.

Once again, I want to reiterate this. People have used this opportunity to attack all city employees. The majority of city employees are making $60K or less--which is not a whole lot given the cost of living in this city. The problems are really on the top end. In better times, I would be absolutely supportive of the average city employee getting a pay raise. Unfortunately these are not good times. However, these employees are not part of the larger structural problem. They do not deserve to be attacked or disparaged in this process.

The bottom line again is that the city has the opportunity to hold the line and fix some of its longer term fiscal problems as it tries to deal with its shorter term budget deficit. Hopefully they will use this time wisely.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Officer Files Suit Against UC Davis Charging Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

2009-02-02T04:53:00.000-08:00

Former UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang has filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza alleging complaints of racial and sexual orientation discrimination, housing discrimination, and retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department.

Officer Chang was at the time of his hire the only Asian-American officer on the campus and the first openly gay officer. According to the complaint:

“During the relevant times, Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of harassment and discrimination because of his race and sexual orientation, including but not limited to the following: a racial slur broadcasted to Plaintiff over the police radio by his supervisor, superiors referred to Plaintiff as "Mr. Chang" instead of by his earned title of "Officer Chang," repeatedly referred to by the name of the agency's previous Asian-American officer, denied timely backup, subjected to a derogatory slur ("fag") by a probationary police officer (whom Regents passed on probation) in the presence of his supervisor, offensive homosexual innuendos from a supervisor, referred to as a "****ing fag" by his supervisor (whom Spicuzza promoted and assigned to the "professional standards unit" in command of internal affairs), subjected to numerous false internal affairs investigations.”

In July of 2003, Officer Chang was terminated from the UC Davis Police Department. By September 2003, he filed complaints of discrimination and harassment in connection with his termination.

“After Plaintiff's mistreatment and termination was reported in the news media beginning on or about October 29, 2003, Regents ordered Plaintiff summarily reinstated on October 31, 2003 and agreed with the DFEH [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] to provide all sworn staff with discrimination prevention training. As of Plaintiff's last termination in 2008, despite repeated reassurances, Regents have failed to provide agreed upon training.”

The suit alleges that the

“Defendants initiated, directed, encouraged, and subjecting Plaintiff to a malicious, severe, and unrelenting pattern of retaliation.”

These complaints included an alleged death threat. However according to a press release:

“UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza concluded she ‘could not identify’ which officer wrote the threat, even though the threat was written in the officer’s own handwriting.”

Moreover, Officer Chang alleges that in response to a complaint about discrimination, Chief Spicuzza stated to Officer Chang, “Why don’t you leave?”

The suit alleges a long list of various incidents of harassment and retaliations including a punitive transfer, failure to properly protect Officer Chang, and soliciting complaints against Officer Chang. Officer Chang claims that the Police Chief initiated several “malicious and false” internal affairs investigations against the Officer.

According to the press release by attorney Anthony Luti representing Officer Calvin Chang:

“These actions culminated in a lawsuit filed [today]… Chang alleges that in 2008, he was unlawfully terminated for the second time, after the UC Davis Police Department fabricated an internal affairs alleging that he “failed to have a backup officer” when he searched a laundry room at the Segundo Residence Hall. Chang’s lawsuit alleges that Spicuzza intentionally misrepresented that the internal affairs investigation had “no finding.” However, UC Davis concealed and intentionally misrepresented that it had sustained the allegation and then falsely and maliciously reported that he had resigned as a result of the internal affairs complaint.”

UC Davis has also attempted retaliation, according to the plaintiff, by

“unlawfully threatening [to] take his home of ten years—located in Aggie Village on the UC Davis campus. As a result of a complaint Chang filed with the CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the University agreed that it would cease any further actions, again choosing to explain its actions as based on “miscommunication.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff reports:

“In a letter responding to Chang’s complaint, [UC Davis Chancellor Larry] Vanderhoef described the University’s action as “a result of administrative error” and that there was no “evidence that these actions were intended to be retaliatory.”

Officer Calvin Chang is seeking a reinstatement of his position and general damages for the loss of his career and public safety pension valued at over $3 million. Moreover he is also seeking damages for emotional distress and punitive damages against Chief Spicuzza for failure to prevent harassment, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Vanguard at time of publication has not had an opportunity to speak to UC Davis, however, will follow up if when there is an official response.

In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management. As a result, the Vanguard has discovered reason to believe that Officer Chang’s complaint is not an isolated incident but rather part of a long and sustained pattern of alleged discrimination, retaliation, and abuse. The Vanguard will be following up on these allegations and will have a full report in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Analysis: Enterprise Obscures Where It Should Shine A Light

2009-02-01T06:25:00.000-08:00

The vote on Tuesday night on the B Street project was admittedly a bit confusing in its conception. However, the Davis Enterprise article made it more so, not less so.

The title of the article was "Project will get another chance."

In a technical sense, that may be true. Council by a 3-1 vote passed a motion that would allow the applicant Marie Ogrydziak to bring her project back without having to pay additional fees. However, the motion directed her to work with the neighbors (who were overwhelmingly against the current project) and change her plans. Under those conditions, she would have to bring the project back through the HMRC (Historic Resources Management Commission) and Planning Commission. If they approved the design changes, the project would actually never come before council. The only reason the project came before council to begin with was that the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote rejected the project as not meeting project guidelines.

The Enterprise continues:

"On Tuesday night, the City Council decided that Ogrydziak could resubmit her proposal and the council will consider it again, without Greenwald's participation."

Here again, it is more than a bit misleading. First, technically speaking, the project does not have to go back to council. But let us suppose it does, is Councilmember Greenwald conflicted out?

That is far from clear. She did not participate on Tuesday night. That much we know. But there are two possibilities for her participating. First, council at somepoint is going to revisit the issue of conflict of interest. Staff will look at the current rules. Second, Sue Greenwald could be ruled not to have a conflict by virtue of the fact that her property value would not be impacted by the project.

The applicant tried to argue that everyone in that neighborhood would be impacted one way or another by the project. But realistically speaking, given the distance which is 470 from property line to property line and an excess of 500 from house to house, given the fact that there is no direct sight line, given the fact that they are not on the street, or as Councilmember Greenwald put it, it's a design review rather than a project review, it is difficult to sustain the applicants point.

Nonetheless, none of this has been determined at this point.

The Enterprise's synopsis of the motion comes about halfway through the article:

"The council could have upheld its November decision if it so chose, but instead it said it would consider a resubmittal of the project if Ogrydziak worked with the neighbors and changed her plans."

The council basically did uphold their November decision. However, in the spirit of Former Mayor Maynard Skinner's olive branch, they worked it a bit more positively, rather than outright rejecting the project, they asked that it come back again. But functionally it is really the same effect. Under the November ruling it would be delayed a year and she would have to come back with a new proposal. Under this ruling, she has to come back with a new proposal. It may not exactly take a year, but realistically she is not going to redesign the project and get community buy-in all that much faster than she would have. So the only real victory she wins is a fee waiver.

All of this is of course clear as mud. What is interesting as well is that Councilmember Souza's motion "directs" the applicant to work with the neighborhood for changes within the design. However, as we know from City Attorney Harriet Steiner's legal interpretation, direct doesn't mean required by law.

As Ms. Steiner told Mayor Pro Tem Saylor in response to a question about giving direction, Ms. Steiner informed the council they cannot give "enforceable direction, but you can state your thought on the matter."

On that point the council was clear as was Councilmember Souza:

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

And that is really the final complaint with the Enterprise article, it did not capture adequately the tone of the decision by the council. The suggestion in the headline and parts of the article is that the applicant was successful. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the applicant did not leave Council Chambers with the belief that she had prevailed. If she believed she was going to be able to put forward the project as currently designed she was sorely mistaken.

However, that is not the impression that the article gives.

Part of the problem is that the Enterprise only gives the matter 415 words--which is itself a problem. A breakdown of word usage shows us why the tone is misleading however.

The first 121 words deals with background and Councilmember Greenwald's participation which was suggested to be inappropriate but not definitively determined as such during this meeting.

The next 57 words suggests that the council will reconsider it without Greenwald's participation and then that they could have upheld November's decision but chose not to.

It's only the next 105 words with actually deal with what Councilmember Souza, the drafter of the motion, said. This is the only portion that casts a negative light on the decision from the applicant's perspective.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor's procedural manuevering, which was rejected, gets almost as many words, 100, as Souza's motion which was adopted.

14 words go to:

"Ogrydziak's project is expected to be before the council again after she resubmits plans."

Which is actually not true as we've discussed.

And finally 18 words to:

"The council also agreed to discuss at a future meeting how other cities and organizations handle conflict-of-interest matters. "

Which is actually an important aspect of this in its own right because that's in part how Councilmember Greenwald's participation will be determines, IF the matter even comes back to council.

There are really two problems here. One is that this story is only assigned 415 words. You just cannot do an adequate job with that short a story on this complex an issue. That is certainly not the reporter's fault. One of the big advantages the Vanguard has is that there is no word limitation.

The second problem is that you need to adequately reflect the tone and functional outcome of the decision. In that sense this article fails. First with the headline which is technically accurate but completely misleading in tone. Second, with the construction of the article that buries in the middle and underrepresents the outcome. Basically 105 of the 415 words reflect the tone and tenor of the decision and it is placed in the middle and off the front page of the newspaper. That needs to go up front and needs to also be longer.

The bottom line is that a person reading only that article on this issue would not come away with an accurate sense of what actually happened on Tuesday night.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Good News Bad News For Davis Schools

2009-01-31T05:26:00.000-08:00

CTA Launches Campaign Against Class Size Reduction Flexibility

If you read through the numbers reported on Thursday, Davis Schools will likely given some measure of flexibility survive without major teacher layoffs at least through 2010-11. The district got some more good news perhaps when the House passed the stimulus plan that will contain for schools.

Davis will get roughly $2.7 million over the next two years. That includes money for construction and modernization, some for programs for low-income students, and nearly $1.8 million for special education programs. Woodland stands to get far more based on a higher percentage of lower-income students than Davis, but Woodland is also far worse off than Davis.

However, the Senate still needs to approve its own version of the stimulus in the coming week. When it does, there is expected to be considerably less money for the district in it and the reconciliation will mean that Davis will get something, but not what the House version would give it.

Meanwhile, if we go back and look at the budget projections for the district, one of the big caveats was whether or not the district would get Class Size Reduction Flexibility. Allowing the district to raise class size from 20 to 22 would allow it a saving of nearly $1 million per year, which means $2 million by 2010-11.

During his presentation on Tuesday, Bruce Colby suggested that of all the proposals in the Governor's budget, a change in class size reduction or CSR, was most problematic.

Based on a teleconference with CTA President David Sanchez on Friday, I would suggest that actually overstates the possibility of CSR changes being implemented. The CTA is going to war against flexibility in the use of CSR.

Mr. Sanchez said:

"What's most offensive is that eliminating class-size reduction won't save the state one dime. Districts will continue to receive that funding from the state, but won't have to spend that money on class-size reduction, or frankly, even in the classroom."

Let me make two caveats to what I am about to say. First, I am very familiar with the data from Davis' perspective but less so around the state. Everything I know about Davis is that the flexibility is what Davis needs to survive the next two years without cutting teachers or programs.

Second, in general I am supportive of the teachers unions, but I think in this case they are misguided.

Right now, district need flexibility in the money that they receive and we need to trust local districts to know how best to spend it rather than Sacramento.

Also at the press conference was Alicia Gaddis who is chairwoman of the Sacramento branch of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (you might be more familiar with their acronym, ACORN, they do more than just register voters however).

"I can assure you that the districts in poorer neighborhoods will be the first to increase classroom sizes, [which] means the achievement gap will widen."

I would like to see the analysis of how CSR funds would impact that. For Davis, 80% of the money the district spends goes directly to the classroom. The question is where in the classroom it needs to go.

One of the concerns expressed by the CTA and others is that CSR was a process that took years to create and build up. However, relaxing the requirements for a few years until this budget situation is not going to destroy the program.

The bottom line here is that if CSR is left in place, school district like Davis are going to have to eat into their reserves more and eventually they will have to cut their teachers. Across the state schools are cutting their teachers. The only question is whether they can have the flexibility to simply use attrition and retirement to balance their books or whether they will have to deeply cut into HS and other secondary programs to survive.

It's a tough call right now, but if given the choice, most school districts would prefer greater flexibility during challenging times and then they can prioritize their spending needs.

The CTA is unfortunately showing a general distrust for school districts to make these choices.

In the meantime, CSR flexibility is probably now DOA. The CTA this weekend is launching a major ad campaign urging Californians to call the Governor and their legislators to oppose the proposal. Legislators already were expected to remove the proposal from the budget, this is just the coup de grace on that.

For Davis, that means a couple of million in flexibility for the next few years that is gone. The federal stimulus if Davis ends up seeing any of it when the Senate finishes their work will mitigate some but not all of that.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City's Budget Hole Grows--Unmet Needs Will Go Unaddressed

2009-01-30T05:34:00.000-08:00

A year ago the city basically identified around $13 million in what it called unmet needs. These were needed projects in a variety of departments that the city needed to undertake but lacked the available money to pay for them. As the Vanguard has mentioned previously, some of these are quite basic road repairs and other vital services.

Right now the city is projecting a growing budget deficit for the foreseeable future. It begins at close to $1.5 million for the current fiscal year and doubles to $3 million next year.

As Finance Director Paul Navazio stated on Tuesday night, the city is going to have to first address the structural and immediate budget problems. That means that these unmet needs will continue to be unmet needs into the foreseeable future.

From the staff report:

"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."

Right now the city is focusing on addressing existing revenues. They do not believe they will be able to in this climate get the voters to approve tax increases. Therefore the priority at this point is on renewing the existing tax measures--namely the parks tax and the half cent sales tax. One alternative would instead of the renewal of the parcel tax for the parks, combine the the parks measure with an additional quarter cent sales tax to produce the $1.5 million the parks tax is currently generating.

From the staff report:

"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."

What is driving this is the basic reality of the situation for the city. The taxpayers in Davis have already been asked to pass two parcel taxes for the school district and one for the library. They will be asked to pass another parcel tax by the school district in either late 2011 or early 2012.

The city does not want to be competing against the school district for tax funds. Right now they are simply looking to renew what they have. That would mean a June 2010 ballot measure to renew the sales tax or possibly fold Measure G into the sales tax.

The problem here is obvious but unavoidable given the city's lack of addressing the unmet need problem previously. The assessment of Navazio and the city is exactly right--the public is not going to approve the slew of tax measures that it proposed a year ago.

In December of 2007, the city was considering a public safety tax placed on the ballot sometime in 2009. At that time, Councilmember Souza even pushed for it by November 2008.

Second, they suggested a new sales tax on the ballot in 2010 with a quarter-cent increase. At that time it would not have subsumed the park tax but rather would have paid for street and road maintenance.

Finally in he called for a replacement of the park tax with an increase in the municipal services taxes.

Now the dilemma. Many will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that these taxes are essentially off the table. However, the downside is twofold.

First, the city is going to have to find a way to cut millions from the budget over the next several years.

Second, the city while cutting millions from the budget over the next several years, needs to find a way to chew into what is now $8.74 million of one-time unmet needs (including nearly $6 million for the fire department which I assume still includes possibly a fourth fire station and a new engine) and $7.35 million in recurring unmet needs, that one is more spread across the board.

In December of 2007 Councilmember Don Saylor said:

"Today we really can look at the structural deficit as we refer to so often as something within our grasp. The numbers are so small that they will be taken care of by small increases in the economic development plans that are already underway."

Councilmember Saylor was wrong. He did not foresee the magnitude of course of the economic crisis bearing down upon us. But he did not recognize that our failure to appropriately deal with the unmet needs would become a crisis just over a year later. The problem was that everyone assumed or at least three councilmembers at time assumed that we could simply tax ourselves out of our hole. Now that is no longer a possibility.

In the meantime, no one dealt with the longer term structural problem namely unchecked employee salaries, and this is not a general statement about employees. There are specific areas that are particularly problematic.

It turns out in December of 2007, that then-Mayor Sue Greenwald was the one who was correct.

"We have a structural deficit, we haven't really done anything to improve it, we've just changed our accounting principals, made them less conservative. But that also means it's going to be more sensitive to downturns in the real estate market and other potentially recessionary phenomena."

She continued:

"We have not only not reduced it [structural deficit] but we've also made ourselves more vulnerable to our PERS contributions."

Mayor Greenwald turned out to be exactly correct and the current Mayor Pro Tem was overly optimistic.

The system has imploded. We have seen our vulnerability to the real estate market downturns and for the first time really to a major recession. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. The unmet needs are still unmet and now there is no immediate plans to meet them.

It will be interesting to watch the impact on this community when the city has to cutback on vital city services. We have already seen push back on the issue of parks and recreation--and frankly that was mere pennies compared to what awaits us.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District's Budget Workshop Shows Huge Deficits for Next Two Years

2009-01-29T05:22:00.000-08:00

The Davis School Board met last night for a budget workshop. Given the fiscal situation and uncertainties in some ways the district stands in a much more challenging landscape than they did last year at this time. The chief reason for that is that while they are working off the governor's budget assumptions, we do not really know what the budget is going to look like if and when it is passed by the legislature.

As a result, the key objectives for the district are to look for ways to build capacity. There is an additional challenge of finding where the district can build in cuts outside of the categorical funds.

The district's priority is to find ways to reduce spending and get by through 2010-11 without taking money from educational programs. That is a tricky endeavor.

If there is good news, it is that despite the uncertainty, despite how bad the economic times are, right now it looks like the district if given flexibility by the governor and the legislature, a big if at the time this is written, the district can escape through 2010-11 without massive layoffs.

In part that is due to the district putting itself in viable fiscal position the last few years, in part that is due to a stabilized enrollment, and in part that is due to the generosity of the people of this district who came through with one-time money through the Davis School Foundation last year and through the passage of Measure Q in 2007 and Measure W in 2008.

Again, because there is no state budget, the district due to laws and regulations still has to adhere to a March 15 deadline for having an interim budget for 2009-10. Right now they are working off the Governor's budget assumptions until and unless there are changes and a more certain path.

The Governor's budget builds in cuts in the range of $2.5 million this year (as in 2008-09), another $3.3 million reduction next year with no funding for COLA, and right now no cuts for 2010 but minimal funding for inflation (COLA) and no funding restoration.

The Governor's budget does provide flexibility. Some of the key flexibility is that it allows districts to transfer money from their fund balance for categorical programs. This means that money that is normally restricted in use can be used for the general fund. For a district like Davis, this is a huge advantage. There is however considerable question as to whether this will hold. Democrats are opposed in general to this kind of flexibility for a variety of reasons.

In addition the Governor's budget also allows the district to reduce its reserve requirement. In essence this is one-time money that will quickly get depleted, but it will allow some districts to survive for a couple of years.

Finally, the Governor's budget, and again, this is subject to legislative approval, calls for the reduction of the school year by up to 5 days. More on this shortly.

The good news for the school district is that ADA is up, meaning there is no the problem we faced last year with declining enrollment. The bad news however is that our cash investments are earning less. In fact, we expect negative interests for the rest of the year. In a normal year these interests would yield around $750,000. Right now, Bruce Colby has this budgeted as zero income, it could in fact end up in the negative somewhat by up to $200,000.

Bruce Colby then showed where we currently stand. We are pretty much operating in the red, living off our fund balance and our reserves with no changes this year. And then we would end up in the hole $2.5 million for next year and $7.7 million for 2010-11.

In order for that not to happen, we are going to have to make cuts. The first set of assumptions are based on the ability to alter the student to teacher ratio from 20-1 to 22-1. That would save us $700,000 just for the K-3 and another $300,000 for the 9th and 10th grades. However, as Mr. Colby stated during his presentation, this is not likely to hold. The legislature of all the cuts and changes is most likely to keep the ratio. As you will see shortly, that will alter these assumption by quite a bit as the district will have to find another million.

How is the district going to make cuts with minimum impacts on education programs?

Well they are going to cut from the district office and not fill vacancies for risk manager, fiscal services, account tech, and board secretary. In essence, Bruce Colby will serve as risk manager and the fiscal services director ends up requiring additional work for him as well. That cuts about $200,000 from 2009-10 and 10-11.

Other cuts will include to counseling services and classified staff reduction. Both of those are simply through attrition. They will simply not fill vacancies. It will not require layoffs.

They will have some spending reductions, we're talking about $100,000 there. They think there is some flexibility in unused parcel tax funds where they can shift around for $200,000.
Finally the issue of the reduction of the work calendar. Right now they are discussing two days which would be $500,000. Every day they do not work, it is $250,000. One of the questions is how much of that has to come from instructional days. The board seems willing to double that to four days given the amount of money this would save. Part of this depends on the legislature approving the reduction of school days.

Those cuts still only save about $2.3 million for 2009-10 and $1.8 million for 10-11. The remainder of the money will come this year from the transfer of categorical fund balance. The next two years they will transfer $1.1 million from categorical allocations. They think reductions in restricted funds can give them $400,000 and for this year there was a $200,000 Adult Education Fund Balance that the adult school director volunteered to give back to the district.

With those cuts, you can see that we remain in deficit spending but we remain in the black across this period in terms of ending fund balance. Notice that the reserve is gone though by 2010-11 which means we could be facing problems for 11-12 if the state budget situation does not improve and it is not expected to.

So if the district gets class size reduction flexibility, we are in decent shape.

Without that flexibility, we are still okay but we have $1 million less next year and $2 million less in 2010-11. That means that our fund balance will be almost gone by then and we will really face potential problems in 2010-11.

The bottom line is that we are most likely going to be okay through 2010-11 given current assumptions and hoping that the state budget picture does not get much worse.

From my perspective it is not clear that we will have that categorical flexibility that the governor has built into the budget. But we'll have to see what the legislature and governor eventually decide when they finally agree on a budget.

Of course all bets are off if the state actually starts running out of money has to default on payments to local schools.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

UC Service Workers Come To Contract Agreement

2009-01-29T05:07:00.000-08:00

Take First Step Out of Poverty with Historic Contract

After more than seven months since a week of strikes press for new negotiations, over 8500 UC Services workers reached agreement with the University of California that union officials lauded as the first step to lift thousands of families out of poverty. The agreement includes significant wage increases, a pay system that rewards seniority and a first time ever statewide minimum wage for their job classifications.

According to a release from AFSCME 3299, here is a statement from Kathryn Lybarger, who is a Gardner at UC Berkeley:

“This has been a truly historic fight for all of us. For years, we have been struggling to make ends meet each month on UC’s low wages. Finally UC executives have recognized their moral responsibility to provide a wage increase that will start to lift us and our families out of poverty, and provide better jobs in our communities.”

Lakesha Harrison, President, AFSCME Local 3299:

“After a year and half of negotiations, this is truly a historic day. We have gone on strike, held informational pickets, lobbied, ran television commercials and many other things that were key to get UC executives to do the right thing and readjust their priorities from executives to the lowest paid workers at UC.”

“We appreciate the strong support of many of California’s leading elected officials and community organizations. Lt. Governor Garamendi, State Senator Leland Yee, Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, State Senator Gloria Romero, State Senator Gil Cedillo, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, CLUE and other religious leaders, and many others helped convey the importance to the leadership of the University to get a fair and just contract for service workers. We appreciate their support for starting to end poverty wages at UC.”

This new agreement includes wages increases over five years of 4%, 3%, 3%, 3%, and 3%. For the first time, UC service workers will have a state wide minimum wage that reaches $14.00/hour by the end of the contract. In addition the contract includes the adoption of a fair pay system that gives employees credit for their service and dedication to the University. The agreement also includes stronger benefits protections.

Lt. Governor John Garamendi and a UC Regent released a statement:

“This is a good settlement. It will give some of the lowest paid workers at the greatest university system in the world enough of a salary to meet the minimum needs of their families. It should also be noted that only a small portion of the worker’s contract comes from the state budget.”

This is one of the key points. For those wondering why the lowest paid workers would get a raise during these budget times, the majority of funds do not come from the state budget as we have mentioned in the past. Instead they come from the proceeds from the quasi-private hospital profits.

Just a week and a half ago, about 60 workers went to the San Francisco office of UC Regent Richard Blum. The purpose of their visit was to try and talk to him directly regarding their contract. During their visit, the workers asked to meet and/or talk with Regent Blum in person or by telephone. When Regent Blum denied their request, 20 of these low wage service workers sat down and refused to leave.

At the time, President Yudof's response to the worker demands was to ask that these actions stop despite independent analysis that shows something like 96% of the 8500 UC Service workers receive low enough wages to qualify for some form of public assistance.

Despite the rhetoric from the President, the action seemed to push the process forward and resulted in an eventual contract for the workers.

State Senator Leland Yee has been a strong advocate for the workers from the start.

“I am pleased that the University finally reached an agreement with the service workers. These are tough economic times for everyone, but even more so for these low-wage workers and their families. This new contract is well-deserved and much-needed. While this contract brings the University one step closer to ending poverty wages for all workers, it is imperative that the UC also provides shared governance of the employee pension plan – a role every other public pension plan in the state provides workers.”

This contract seems to be a good start toward moving these workers toward more competitive living wages in the future. It has been a hard fought and long battle, but the workers and their representatives seem excited about the outcome.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Souza and the Council Put a Stop to a Rehearing on 233 B

2009-01-28T07:24:00.001-08:00

As we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.

The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already.

Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would--that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.

Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald's house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.

"Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote."

She then snarkly suggested:

"Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald's property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property."

She then accused the city of engaging in a "creative approach" to "attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest."

She continued:

"We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope."

Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald's property value, but suggests that would be contrived.

Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:

"For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer... We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter."

She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:

"In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy."

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:

"I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper."

Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.

"To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item."

Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we "respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design."

This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because "it prejudges the outcome of that conversation."

As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.

Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.

Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the

"applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn't allow a resubmittal with no fees."

City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:

"I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue's participation at the last meeting."

The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

Councilmember Souza's plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.

Commentary

I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.

I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.

But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here--and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn't think this project was appropriate for that site.

More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.

To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak's neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor's concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.

Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek's persistence and Councilmember Souza's forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council's time.

Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak's project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council's time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.

At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing--why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.

In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Facing Budget Crisis, Cutback on Youth Programs and Award Honoring Slain Teen

2009-01-27T05:06:00.000-08:00

In a letter from Mayor Ruth Asmundson pasted on the city's page for the Golden Heart Awards this year, it reads:

"As a result of the death of Andrew Mockus in April 1992, the City of Davis Recreation and Park Commission expanded its commitment to the youth of our community. Forums were held throughout the community to discuss the problems of youth and to brainstorm on how the community could do more to meet the needs of youth.

After careful consideration, the Commission suggested the City Council adopt several recommendations. One of the Commission recommendations was to develop the Golden Heart Award. The purpose of the Award is to recognize outstanding youth in the community. There are two different categories within the Award: the service award and the personal challenge award. The service award recognizes individuals who have given significant service to the community, their peers, and/or their school. The personal challenge award recognizes individuals who have overcome a significant challenge in their life."

However, due to budgetary problems this year, City Staff is recommending that the Golden Heart Award and our "commitment to the youth of our community" be canceled.

In February of last year, the Davis City Council honored nine students with Golden Heart Awards.

"The Golden Heart Awards, which began in 1994, represent the best of the community in honor of Andrew Mockus , a 14-year-old Davis student who was killed by a group of youths in 1992 — an act that represented the worst of the community.

Following his death, forums were held to discuss issues facing the community's youths and ways the city could do more to meet their needs. The city adopted seven recommendations, including the Golden Heart Awards to honor courageous and kind students in grades 7-12."

Recipients last year included:

"Brandon Kitchen, a 15-year-old student at Holmes Junior High School, received a Golden Heart Award for his ability to overcome serious challenges after a biking accident that resulted in eight major surgeries, many months in bed and almost a year in a wheelchair."

The award was created in 1994 following the brutal beating death of 14 year-old Andrew Mockus in 1992.

From a Davis Enterprise retrospective published April 24, 2002:

"Ten years ago today, Davis residents discovered that an unthinkable act of violence -- one they thought occurred only in other towns -- had, in fact, taken place in their own back yard.

On the night of April 24, 1992, 14-year-old Andrew Mockus was brutally beaten and robbed of $2 by three other teens, then pushed into the side of a moving freight train and killed. The incident occurred in a gully near UC Davis, a popular gathering place for youths at the time.

Two days after Andrew's death, Solano County authorities arrested Michael Johnson, 17, and Andrew Childs, 16, both Davis residents and students at King High School. A third boy, 14-year-old Joshua Bettencourt, also took part in the beating but was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony."

At the time of the article, not much was known of the fate of the culprits upon their release.

"Today, little is known about the whereabouts of Andrew's assailants. Childs would have been released from the CYA at age 20, and his public defender, Harvey Bender, said he has not heard from his former client. CYA officials declined to release either Johnson's or Child's release dates."

However one of the youths, would kill again.

"What is known is that Bettencourt's involvement in violence and death did not end on that night in 1992. In December 1995, Bettencourt was involved in a road-rage incident at a Carmichael intersection in which he shot another man four times and killed him. Claiming he shot in self-defense, Bettencourt pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and served five years in state prison before being paroled last October."

The story also quotes UC Davis Professor Larry Berman:

"That is to me the greatest injustice and the greatest miscarriage of our system, that they're walking on the streets and Andrew is dead," said Larry Berman, who was Andrew's baseball coach. He organized the planting of a memorial grove of redwood trees near the baseball field at Holmes Junior High, where Andrew was a student...

He remembers Andrew as a boy with great potential and a "wicked curve ball..."

"I walk by Holmes Junior High and look at the memorial grove," Berman said. "I remember the generosity of the community as they contributed funds to the grove and the bench that's there. The senselessness has been replaced by the great memories of Andrew."

Now however the community led by the city staff is on the verge of forgetting about not only Andrew Mockus but their commitment to youths.

In addition to staff proposals to eliminated the Golden Heart awards tomorrow evening, they are also talking about initiating "a $2.00 per drop-in rate for the High School Open Gym program."

In other words, they are going to charge youths $2 to play basketball. This is how the city is dealing with their budget problems.

The Recreation and Park Commission reviewed and discussed the various proposed fees for Recreation Activities in November 2008.

According to the staff report they agree with all of the proposed fee recommendations with one exception:

"the exception of the $2.00 High School Open Gym fee. The Commission also expressed their overall concern for the rate of fee increases associated with programs that are primarily targeted to the teen population. The Commission expressed their desire to have a more comprehensive discussion with the Council related to appropriate subsidy of these types of activities."

One councilmember is very concerned about these fee hikes and the loss of the Golden Heart Awards. Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard, we should be looking elsewhere for balancing our budget.

"I find it disturbing that we are considering balancing our budget in all the wrong places. I cannot in good conscience vote to charge kids to play "open-gym" basketball. I cannot in good conscience cut the recreational scholarship fund for low-income families by $5,000. And I cannot in good conscience vote to eliminate the Golden Heart Awards, a program that was created in response to the brutal death of 14-year-old Andrew Mockus."

Of all of these, the Golden Heart Awards which honors the life of a fallen youth seem the most outrageous to cut.

It is not even clear there is a cost to the city associated with the awards. Regardless, this seems to be the wrong area to cutback funding. If the city is concerned about youth activities and youth getting into trouble with drugs and alcohol, cutbacks in these areas are the wrong way to go. As are cutbacks in the area of encouraging youth to give back their community. Given the enormous budget deficit, these programs amount to literally pennies. We need to start with the bigger cuts and hold off on these kind of cuts until we have a better sense for what is needed.

I would hope the city of Davis finds a way to continue to honor the memory of Andrew Mockus with the annual awards that encourage youth to give back to their community.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: City Manager Bill Emlen's New Contract

2009-01-26T05:37:00.000-08:00

For those that like to criticize the Vanguard for picking favorites, something that indeed occurs, here is a deviant case. In general, the Vanguard has been supportive of the efforts of DJUSD Associate Superintendent and Chief Budget Officer Bruce Colby. He has helped cleaned up to a substantial degree the mess left behind by his corrupt predecessor Tahir Ahad.

The Vanguard to a large degree credits the efforts of Bruce Colby for keeping the district afloat last year financially and putting the district in position to be able to possibly ride out the next year and a half without a slew of pink slips. In fact, if you look at the article below, without the efforts of Mr. Colby, we would likely be telling a very different story.

On the other hand, the Vanguard has been in general, particularly critical of Davis City Manager Bill Emlen. We can look at his recent handling of the Grand Jury report investigation into the fire department as an example of clear mismanagement. The list can go on and on from there.

However, the Vanguard does indeed need to give Mr. Emlen relative praise compared to Mr. Colby in terms of the handling of their own contract extensions.

Bruce Colby has already drawn criticism from this blog for his taking what amounts to a 5% COLA increase on an ongoing basis during a time when his teachers will once again get zero cola, and during a time when the district will once again have to tighten its budget.

Moreover it seems that district felt that if they did not raise his salary, Mr. Colby would be looking elsewhere and the district may find itself doing a CBO search during these economic times. The district is already without a full budget office staff, to have to find a replacement CBO at this stage would be devastating.

So it seems we can support the job effort but not the approach of Mr. Colby. I write that as one who genuinely likes the guy and thinks he does a very good job.

The bottom line here is principle not the money itself. A 5% pay increase is not going to make or break the district's budget. But the principle of the matter is important as is the loss of flexibility. Essentially, Mr. Colby's raise requires his own office to operate unstaffed in order to accommodate increases in his salary. In short, he's doing more work for the additional pay, the question is whether the district will regret the loss of flexibility in the future.

On Tuesday night, by contrast, we have City Manager Bill Emlen taking the opposite approach. Mr. Emlen is basically saying what we believe Bruce Colby should have said, in light of the current fiscal crisis, Mr. Emlen is forgoing a cost of living adjustment and a merit increase. Mr. Emlen will receive the same base salary as he did last year.

Not that he is going to the poor house with his $158,000 salary. However, on a comparative level, Mr. Emlen is making considerably less than many of his counterparts and certainly than his counterpart with the school district, Dr. James Hammond (let alone Mr. Colby).

We do take some issue with the city council however. Mr. Emlen once again has had the time frame extended by which he would have to relocate to Davis from Vacaville. He now has until June 30, 2012 unless the city modifies the city code requirement for the city manager to reside within the City.

Mr. Emlen has now been city manager for two and a half years. The current claim is the drop in the price of the housing market and therefore the loss of money. However, that is of course a recent excuse. Frankly, this is not the people of Davis' problem.

It was suggested in the Davis Enterprise article that Davis has not suffered from a loss of service based on the fact that Mr. Emlen does not reside in the city. First of all, how was that study performed and quantified? Second and most importantly, this is a matter of principle and following the current laws on the book.

Nevertheless, this is largely a side issue. The city manager has set the tone at least for now, that he is not going to be asking for more money during tough economic times.

The larger question though goes well beyond the tens of thousands in dollars in the midst of a budget deficit that will extend into the millions that the city manager saved the city. The larger question is whether Mr. Emlen can deliver for the city good strong employee contracts that will lead to a sustainable budget into the future. The larger question is whether Mr. Emlen can do a better job of handling crises that arise such as the Fire Department Grand Jury investigation.

The bottom line here is that while we applaud one single aspect of Mr. Emlen's conduct, namely his professionalism with regards to his own contract, we have to question and somewhat harshly the overall job he has done.

At the same time we applaud the job that Mr. Colby has done, we question his priorities when it comes to his own contract situation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting