Mayor Flips on Measure N--Comes Out Against

In what may end up being the deathblow for the already beleaguered proposal to create a Charter City in Davis, Mayor Ruth Asmundson who was part of the 4-1 vote to place Measure N on the ballot and one of three Councilmembers to sign the statement in favor of Measure N on the sample ballot, has written a brief but pointed letter coming out against the initiative.

She simply writes without explanation:

"On further consideration, I now believe that Measure N is not in the best interest of Davis voters. Please vote no."

This is the coup de grace for a perilous strategy employed by chief Sponsors Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, who made what looked even last week to be a fateful decision to separate the issue of the charter from the issue of choice voting in order to gain Mayor Ruth Asmundson's support in both the 4-1 vote to place the measure on the ballot and her signature on the statement supporting Measure N.

That decision seems questionable when much of the energy behind choice voting from two years ago seemed dissipated by placing a cosmetic and technical measure on the ballot that no one quite seems to understand the implications of nor do they seem enthusiastic about some abstract notion that this measure needs to get approved in order for choice voting to be enacted.

As I felt a few weeks ago, this measure would be much stronger if it had remained attached to the choice voting initiative. However, in order to gain the Mayor's vote they chose to separate the charter from choice voting. This was a mistake two weeks ago. It is a disaster for the measure now.

There has been no stronger proponent of local control than Nancy Price. She is a strong proponent of a charter city, just not this one. Hence she has co-authored editorials against the measure on the Vanguard and also in the California Aggie.

This week in a letter to the Davis Enterprise, she laid out her objections.

"My objection to Measure N is that there has been virtually no communitywide presentation and discussion of what is allowed under a general law city or a charter city. Yet, we are asked to vote on a fundamental change in governance that will have far-reaching consequences."

She continues:

"The point is that now in many communities across the country, people are amending their charters, taking into account fundamental principles of good govern- ance and community.

Those who favor Measure N say they 'anticipate that the charter will evolve to continue reflecting the community's specific interests.' This puts the cart before the horse. I urge a no vote on Measure N to allow a thorough examination of the differences between the two types of city governance that is communicated to the entire community. And, if a charter is thought beneficial, then to create an inclusive, democratic, communitywide process to write a charter that reflects principles of good government we all would endorse. We should expect nothing less in Davis."

There has been an interesting range of people who have come out against this measure ranging from people like Don Saylor to Don Shor to Nancy Price and Pam Nieberg.

Let's face it, when was the last time, the Davis Enterprise, California Aggie, the Vanguard, Bob Dunning, and Don Saylor have agreed on anything? (If you answered Measure W, you get bonus points). In this case, they have all come out against Measure N.

Mayor Asmundson's letter that reverses her previous decision just adds to the growing chorus.

But I think it is more than just that. Her switch symbolizes the problem with the initial strategy of the proponents of the charter. They limited the charter to get broader support and what it actually did was eliminate the support of people who would have supported a choice voting initiative.

It is possible that the measure could still pass, but that seems highly unlikely at this point.

As I said on Monday, In theory, I would be supportive of a city charter that is properly written and narrow, but I think this charter is too broad. It would allow too much power to future city councils. I would like to see this charter get voted down and a committee formed to draft a new one that is much more specific.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Measure N Opponents Speak Out Against City Charter

by Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor, Rick Entrikin

The City Council has placed on the November ballot a Charter, Measure N, for the City of Davis. We are being asked to make a fundamental change in how we are governed. Under a Charter, we are no longer subject to state laws and regulations that have served us and other California cities well for many years. Rather, we would be governed at the will of the council majority in all aspects that deal with municipal affairs.

Davis is a “General Law” city, governed by the general laws of the state. More than 75% of California’s cities are General Law cities. Fewer than 25 % are Charter Cities. Individual Charters vary in length, detail and scope of issues addressed. Most are detailed documents and were adopted to address specific problems or issues in the specific jurisdiction. The proposed City Charter, drafted by two members of the City Council, is one page, does not address any specific issue, contains vague language, and gives broad powers to only five elected officials.

The proponents claim a Charter would give more power to the people, but this is not borne out in the Charter language. The Charter specifically states in part:

“The City shall have all powers possible for a city to have under the Constitution and laws of the State of California as fully and completely as though they were specifically enumerated in this Charter. The City shall have the power to make and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided for in this Charter, and with respect to other matters subject to applicable general laws. Concerning municipal affairs, this Charter shall supercede all inconsistent laws.” And “The legislative power of the City shall be vested in the City Council, and in the people through the power of initiative and referendum, as provided for in the California Constitution.”

Clearly, this language gives power to the City Council to adopt or abolish ordinances and regulations with no restrictions, as none are included in the Charter. Future amendments to the Charter itself would require a vote of the people. However, the Charter gives future councils the power to adopt ordinances without a vote of the people in certain instances where it is not currently allowed. The “power” given to the people, to resort to referenda and initiatives, is already our right. Moreover, this Charter contains no specific recommendations relevant to municipal affairs.

Because the Charter is non-specific, we cannot determine what its impacts might be. Many arguments for the Charter have been proposed including that it could allow us to adopt Choice Voting, establish an assessment district to finance solar infrastructure, levy certain types of taxes not permitted by State law, and protect current city land use provisions.

ORIGINAL GOAL: CHOICE VOTING. In 2006, the people of Davis approved an advisory vote to allow us to “consider” Choice Voting. There has been no substantive public discussion of Choice Voting since. Our city attorney has confirmed that if this Charter is adopted, the Council would have the power to implement Choice Voting without a further vote of the people. Such a fundamental change in how we elect our representatives requires a thorough discussion and should be a decision left to the people. This discussion should occur prior to adopting a Charter that would permit implementation of Choice Voting. The Charter should also contain language that clearly states that Choice Voting would be permitted and should provide enough information for the electorate to make an informed decision.

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND TAXES: Charter City status is not necessary for establishing a solar installation assessment district. Prior to 2008, the use of Assessment Districts for this purpose was permitted only to Charter Cities. However, in 2008, the state enacted legislation that permits General Law cities to implement assessment districts to fund solar power infrastructure.

There also has been talk regarding assessing a new tax in the form of a property transfer tax. This type of tax is not permitted under state law, but has been adopted by some Charter Cities (though this has been challenged). A property transfer tax is a tax on the seller, and sometimes the buyer, upon the sale of real property. This tax would unfairly harm seniors, who want to sell and downsize or move to be near their children, as well as young families, who want to sell to move up in the market to a larger home. This tax and others not currently permitted under state law could be adopted if this Charter passes.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING: Proponents have argued that the Charter could be used to protect our progressive growth policies in Davis. They have threatened that the State might decide at some point to overturn these policies, and that including them in the Charter would protect them. However, the State has the power in any case to pass laws that are “issues of statewide concern” that would govern all cities, whether Charter or General Law. Some proponents argue that we can use the Charter to protect Measure J (the right to vote on changes in land use from agricultural to urban uses) by amending the Charter to include it without a sunset clause, thereby protecting it permanently. We don’t need a Charter to do this. We can place Measure J, without a sunset, on the ballot right now, if we wish to permanently protect it.

CONCLUSION: The Council acted hastily in placing this on the ballot. Such a fundamental change in how we are governed requires a thorough public discussion on whether or not we want a Charter and what we want it to address. The proponents argue that once the Charter passes we could then have this public discussion. Shouldn’t we have this discussion first?

There is no compelling reason to change how we are governed in Davis. There has been no public movement to become a Charter City. The proponents of the Charter should start over and create an open, inclusive community-wide process to determine whether we want a Charter and then, if we agree, work with the people to produce a document that addresses specific public policy issues or community problems, not a vague, non-specific document that could result in serious consequences for our City.

Please join us in voting NO on Measure N.

Heystek, Souza, and Adler's Statements in Support of Measure N

On August 24, 2008, Davis Councilmember Lamar Heystek wrote a Guest Commentary for the Vanguard: "The Case For Home Rule for Davis."

Yesterday, Councilmember Heystek was joined by Councilmember Stephen Souza in the Davis Enterprise for their column on Measure N.

I have been critical of both their measure and the efforts to educate the public on this issue. However, I believe the public should gain all of the facts so that they can make an informed decision. For that reason I will give a full presentation of the points that the two current councilmembers make as well as the letter to the editor by former Mayor Jerry Adler.

Councilmembers Heystek and Souza argue that home rule allows for more local control and more efficient self-government.

They write:

"General law cities are bound by the state's general law, even with respect to municipal affairs. Charter cities are not. This means that a charter city has more home rule authority than a general law city because the charter city has more authority over municipal affairs."

This is the fundamental point that proponents of home rule, proponents of charter cities make--who should make the laws that govern a city--the city or the state legislature?

They argue that cities should make the laws that govern a city, stating:

"Now, as members of the Davis City Council, we believe the people of Davis should exercise their power and assert their municipal rights more fully under Measure N, the proposed city charter, which provides home rule for Davis."

Now in principal that sounds good, but what about in practice? In other words, what do we gain by having home rule?

The obvious one is choice voting. We cannot enact choice voting without being a charter city.

"Unfortunately, the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has vetoed Davis-friendly legislation such as Assembly Bill 1294, a bill unanimously endorsed by the City Council, that would have allowed general law cities like ours to decide for themselves whether to adopt choice voting for council elections. Gov. Schwarzenegger's ability to veto legislation that permits general law cities to govern themselves more fully stifles the city of Davis' progressiveness and ability to be on the cutting edge."

They move beyond choice voting as well. The next one is public electrical utilities.

"Several charter cities across the state provide for public electrical utilities, which Davis residents supported when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measures H and I in 2006. The prospect of providing electricity through a community facilities district for solar infrastructure financing makes public power an exciting possibility under charter city status."

They argue that choice voting would allow us the ability to be innovative without interference from the state legislature.

"Examples of our innovation to date include our agricultural mitigation, inclusionary housing and green building ordinances. However, the state may decide to legislate that general law cities like Davis cannot establish such high standards, rendering our own benchmarks meaningless. Measure N would allow Davis to codify and protect these laws in the charter if necessary."

But then they come back to general:

"The issue really isn't whether you support public electrical power (or choice voting or other ideas), but whether you support the notion that Davis shouldn't have to ask the legislators in Sacramento for permission to adopt such ideas. The latter issue, not the former, is the question that Measure N poses."

Actually, isn't the issue exactly about whether we support choice voting? This charter would not be before the voters without the issue of choice voting? Jerry Adler below even argues that's why this issue needs to come forth. So isn't that exactly the point?

At this point, if you are like me, you are saying, I don't mind the positive aspects of this program, but is there not a downside? Does not the City Council amass tremendous amount of power under this proposal--and does the charter as written provide the public in Davis with safeguards against such seizures of power by the city council?

Here is their response to this criticism:

"Some argue that the true beneficiary of power under a broadly drafted Measure N is the City Council, not the people at large. After all, on a weekly basis, the City Council makes most of the decisions on behalf of the people. We understand people's skepticism about what they consider the prospect of handing more powers to a City Council they may or may not agree with. However, just as the people of Davis have shown they possess the strength to override the council, they certainly have the strength to change the balance of power on the City Council at the ballot box every two years."

This is where I am not sure they have hit the point home. Here is an example for me. We have Measure J that allows us to vote on land use changes for proposed development outside our current boundaries. That does not mean I want a city council that puts 10 measure J votes on the ballot every two years. It takes time, energy, and resources to fight that battle. So just as I want checks and balances in congress so that every time we change party control in government we don't throw out our complete law books, the same applies for the city council. I want city council to have limited power to make major changes without voter approval and this seems to weaken those current protections by enabling the council to enact things by ordinance rather than by charter amendment. Now that is correctable in the charter proposal.

Their response to that is as follows:

"In fact, nothing prevents the people of Davis, either through their elected representatives or through the power of initiative, from actually downsizing and restricting municipal powers that otherwise could be granted through a charter. An example of this is Measure N's explicit ban on binding arbitration, a labor negotiation practice that has financially crippled city agencies such as that in San Luis Obispo."

Now they are putting the onus on the voters to limit power of the council rather than putting the burden elsewhere to expand the power of council. Write the law in such a way that the people can choose what innovations we want and I am likely going to be all for it, but as written now, it is too much power to give any council, not just one that I disagree with.

They address the issue of taxation:

"Speaking of finances, don't forget that any new tax measure under the charter would still be subject to the people, per Proposition 218. Our support for the charter does not come from a desire to impose taxes that we cannot levy now, considering the existence of current untapped mechanisms. Under general law, the city of Davis already has the power to levy a utility user's tax and increase its business license tax, but it hasn't."

I do not know if that is reassuring or not to the public. I will let some of the readers

The other sponsor of Measure N is former Davis Mayor Jerry Adler.

Here are a few key excerpts from his letter to the editor:

As a former City Council member signer of the ballot argument in favor of Measure N, the charter city proposal, I am especially interested in opposing opinions. Two such opinions recently appeared on this page.

One writer proclaimed that 'Measure N was prematurely and hastily placed on the ballot,' ignoring the facts that first in 1996 and again in 2005 two governance bodies strongly recommended in favor of a broad general language charter such as now proposed 'which allows the greatest flexibility for full exercise over the municipal affairs of the city. This means the minimum amount of detail in the charter.' Both reports have been discussed extensively by the council, the press and the community since 2005.

Both writers referenced choice voting, a matter not in the charter. The second writer opined that 'it appears to be a solution in search of a problem ....' Whether 'it' referenced choice voting, Measure N, or both is not clear.

He then cites the 2006 advisory vote on Measure L which without opposition polled about 55% and the fact that choice voting cannot be enacted without a charter.

"Ignored under any interpretation was the November 2006 majority advisory vote in favor of further consideration of a choice voting system. Any such system cannot be implemented or even seriously considered unless a broad general language charter is in place that allows enactment and any necessary amendments by ordinance."

And while he is correct on this point, the question that continues to emerge for me is why not enact both the charter and choice voting with one vote. More and more I just do not see there being a strong reason not to do so. If the rationale for putting Measure N on the battle is still Measure L, then let's keep them together.

Mr. Adler continues:

"Contrary to the first writer's dark hint 'about the wide implications of becoming a charter city,' there is no down side to adoption of the proposed charter."

That is a pretty sweeping statement by the former Mayor that ignores much of the discussion that has occurred on this blog laying out large concerns.

He lays out much like Councilmembers Souza and Heystek do, the upside, but his failure to consider even the possibility that there might be a downside, I think is a bit disingenuous. Reasonable people can disagree on these proposals, but there is always a downside to making changes, and that is true whether I agree or disagree with the proposals.

Later in the week, we will have some more guest commentary on this issue, for now this should be some good fodder for discussion.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Enterprise Opposes Measure N Due to Lack of Information

I was originally going to write about the Enterprise Endorsement and then cover the Op-Ed by Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek and a letter to the editor by former Councilmember Jerry Adler all in Support of Measure N. However, I will hold off on the latter until later in the week as it deserves its own story.

This morning's Davis Enterprise has come out against Measure N. And for a very simple reason:

"Davis doesn't have enough information to decide in favor of Measure N."

Furthermore, they suggest:

"Could there be any worse time for Measure N than the Nov. 4 ballot?

Our attention is being pulled in myriad - and important - different ways, by a riveting presidential campaign, a plethora of statewide ballot measures, a handful of key local races and a critical school parcel tax."

This has been one of my concerns about both Measure N and Measure W. The voters have been swamped on the ballot. The main focus of most voters has been the Presidential Election. However, at least with Measure W, the public has seen a slew of articles and op-eds over the last few months. Moreover, last spring, everyone was aware of the condition of our schools.

While I agree with both points, and I certainly agree that the public has had its attention pulled in a number of different and important directions. And yet, if the Davis Enterprise wants to argue that the public does not have enough information about Measure N, are they not themselves partly to blame here?

How many articles has the Davis Enterprise run on Measure N? One on the measure itself on October 14--that was this week if you are keeping score at home.

Prior to that there was a single letter on October 8 to the Editor on Measure entitled: "We need more info; vote no on N." Peggy Epstein writes:

"The Davis voting public ought to be better informed about the wide implications of becoming a charter city before we vote to become one. In the meantime, I recommend a no vote on Measure N."

Prior to the October 14, 2008 article in the Enterprise, the last article on the charter was July 16, when the councilmembers voted to put it on the ballot. There was also an article on June 25, 2008.

So in the last almost six months, the Davis Enterprise has had exactly three articles on the issue. So maybe if the public is uninformed about the charter, they ought to put at least some of the blame on their themselves for failing to inform the public.

Why did the Enterprise spend so little time on this issue? Back in July, I was concerned with some of the possible consequences of the charter city proposal and implored a reporter for the Enterprise to cover it a bit more. The thought back then was that there was a lack of interest in the issue itself.

However, our story on the ballot language in mid-August drew 45 comments and some heated debates. Even more so in late August with Councilmember Lamar Heystek's op-ed. Still the Enterprise did not cover the issue despite clear interest at least by those who read this blog.

All of this said, one cannot put all of the criticism for the lack of information on the Davis Enterprise, though clearly there was not nearly enough coverage on an issue that has the potential to fundamentally change this city.

I also put the onus on the sponsors.

I mentioned this issue earlier this week, and I repeat it now. The decision to divorce the charter city proposal from the choice voting proposal was an error in my view. Why? In 2006, there was Measure L, an advisory vote about choice voting on the ballot. It drew a groundswell of support and had a large grassroots organization behind it.

Now as one of the sponsors of Measure N recently told me, many of those people were UC Davis students who have since moved on. And I appreciate that. Nevertheless the energy came from that issue and when the charter city issue was separated it seemed to sap the young energy for this change. Subsequently, I do not see the movement afoot.

This decision was made in part to gain the support of Mayor Ruth Asmundson who was willing to support a charter on the ballot but not choice voting. That gained council a 4-1 vote, but one has to wonder at least whether the measure would be stronger and have more energy with choice voting attached to it.

Second problem, this measure seems like a rushed job to get it on the ballot. Now let me explain because as the sponsors will rightly counter this measure is two years in the making. However, I would have liked to have seen a bunch of higher profile outreach meetings back in the spring with the likely ballot initiative that could have been explained fully to the public. There did not seem to be enough community discussion on this measure.

Furthermore, where is the Measure N campaign itself. I have received to this point in time no literature on Measure N. No phone calls. No door-to-door people. I even have the luxury of having both a permanent absentee voter and a vote on election day voter in my household so we get the early literature and the late literature. Nothing.

The bottom line here is that the public is not informed on this issue, the Davis Enterprise is correct about that and they are correct that that is a reason why this measure should not pass. Not the only reason as we have discussed earlier this week. However, if that is the indictment, I would like to see the Davis Enterprise take responsibility for failing to do their part to educate the public on this issue. One article since July 16 (over three months ago) is not acceptable.

And yes they have a lot to cover, but they never seem to have a problem printing their fluff pieces, err human interest stories.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: The case for home rule for Davis

by Lamar Heystek

In Davis, the power of the people is real, and anyone who seeks to tamper with it is playing with fire. The campaign to defeat Measure X, the 2005 Covell Village proposal, is the perfect example of that. In the face of a six-figure developer-driven effort, a grassroots campaign of dedicated Davisites managed to beat the odds and garner a resounding rejection of the largest development proposal in the history of Davis. I am proud to have been part of that campaign.

Now, as a member of the Davis City Council, I believe the people of Davis will be able to exercise their power and assert their municipal rights more fully under Measure N, the proposed city charter which provides home rule for Davis.

When the City Council unanimously passed a resolution last year supporting Assembly Bill 1294, which would have allowed general law cities like ours to decide for themselves whether to adopt choice voting for Council elections, I wrote to Governor Schwarzenegger on City letterhead asking for 10 minutes of his time to explain why the City of Davis deserved this right. Through an official letter of his own, my offer to meet with the Governor was curtly turned down.

As others, including Councilmember Greenwald, have pointed out, all other University of California host cities are charter cities. This reinforces the fact that home rule encourage cities to pursue innovation, not promote the status quo. For example, several charter cities across the state provide for public electrical utilities, which Davis citizens supported when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measures H and I in 2006. The prospect of providing electricity through the financing of solar infrastructure makes public power an especially attractive possibility under charter city status.

Examples of our innovation to date include our agricultural mitigation, inclusionary housing and green building ordinances. However, as a general law city, the state may decide to legislate that general law cities like Davis cannot establish such high standards, rendering the benchmarks we have set for ourselves meaningless. Measure N would allow Davis, under the power to govern its own municipal affairs, to codify and protect these laws in the charter if necessary. This protection would also be afforded to Measure J, which establishes the right for the people to vote on the development of peripheral ag land. In fact, Measure N by design alludes to Measure J, stating that:

“[M]anaging and limiting growth… are essential elements of local control and therefore are municipal affairs. The intent of this Charter is to allow the City Council and the voters to exercise the maximum degree of control over land use matters within the city of Davis.”

However, the issue really isn’t whether you support public electrical power (or choice voting or other ideas), but whether you support the notion that the city of Davis shouldn’t have to ask a bunch of people in Sacramento (including Governor Schwarzenegger) permission to adopt such ideas. The latter issue, not the former, should be the primary focus of Measure N as much as possible.

Some argue that the true beneficiary of power under a broadly drafted Measure N is the City Council, not the people at large. After all, on a weekly basis, the City Council makes most of the decisions on behalf of the people. I certainly appreciate that argument because my election to the City Council, to some degree, resulted of people’s disenchantment with the decisions of a majority of the Council. Thus, I understand people’s skepticism about what they consider the prospect of handing more powers to a City Council they (or I, for that matter!) don’t agree with most of the time. However, just as the people of Davis have shown they possess the strength to override the Council and defeat a billion-dollar development, they definitely have the strength to change the balance of power on the City Council every two years (or more frequently, through the power of recall, which, along with the power of referendum, remains intact under a charter). Let’s not pretend that this is beyond the people’s reach.

In fact, nothing prevents the people of Davis, either through their elected representatives or through the power of initiative, from actually downsizing and restricting municipal powers that would otherwise be granted through a charter. Take the proposed charter, for instance: as a municipal agency, the City of Davis would still negotiate with its employees under meet-and-confer. Upon the suggestion of Councilmember Greenwald, Measure N bars the Council from adopting binding arbitration, which has financially crippled city agencies such as San Luis Obispo. This is a fine example of how the city can limit its own powers.

Speaking of finances, don’t forget that any new tax measure under the charter would still be subject to the people, per Proposition 218. Personally, my support for the charter does not come from a desire to impose taxes that we do not levy now. In fact, I am skeptical about renewing the taxes we currently levy in the absence of a more responsible fiscal policy. I have strongly questioned, and will continue to question, the presentation of new tax measures (including the extension of existing ones) unless we truly begin to exercise control of our skyrocketing personnel costs, for example. Under general law, the City of Davis already has the power to levy a utility user’s tax and increase its business license tax (but hasn’t), so for me, potential new revenue streams don’t play into my support for Measure N.

I am proud to join councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza and Mayor Ruth Asmundson in supporting a charter because the people of Davis clearly deserve home rule. Davisites have proven that they are willing and capable of governing their affairs. My hope is that the people will keep an open mind about Measure N in the coming weeks and months. I will do my part to gain more information and share it with as many Davisites as possible before Election Day. I hope the people of Davis continue the discussion by providing their insights, whether those insights support or oppose the charter. Ultimately, the power is in their hands.

Lamar Heystek is a Davis City Councilmember. He is Co-Chair of the Yes on Measure N Committee and a longtime supporter of Choice Voting.

City Moves Forward with Charter Proposal

It was a 4-1 vote on Tuesday night in favor of the charter. The chief proponents of the charter really wanted a unanimous vote, frankly they were fortunate that they got even four votes.

A charter city is the first step towards allowing the city to enact choice voting. There is a whole lot more they can do with a charter city--both good and bad--but for now it is a very simple charter.

Getting four votes was a chore as it was. Mayor Ruth Asmundson for instance did not want a charter that specified choice voting. So the two main proponents of the measure--Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, changed the wording to make the proposed charter very broad and which does not specifically mention choice voting. The council now has to place a separate measure either on the November ballot or a later election to amend the charter and allow choice voting.

Given those changes, Mayor Ruth Asmundson was on board.

Next you had Councilmember Sue Greenwald. She was not that concerned either about the city charter or choice voting. However, she would not support a charter that allowed for binding arbitration.

Just last month, the city of San Luis Obispo, the town where I grew up, was placed in huge bind due to binding arbitration. An Oakland-based arbitrator awarded substantial raises to San Luis Obispo police officers, dispatchers, an evidence and field technicians through binding arbitration.

The San Luis Obispo City Council has no power to change the decision, and instead will have to come up with a long list of expected cuts in order to balance their budget.

According to the July 13, 2008 San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune:

"Under the arbitrator’s decision, San Luis Obispo police officers at the highest step on the salary schedule will make $102,600 by January, before overtime pay. That will make them the highest paid public safety officers in the county and most of the Central Coast. Top dispatchers will make $76,780 before overtime.

The raises amount to 27 percent for officers and 33 percent for non-sworn staff over four years. Finance Director Bill Statler said the raises will actually be 30 percent and 37 percent after compounding one salary increase upon another over the length of the contract.

All five council members have decried the arbitration process, saying San Luis Obispo’s budget health should not be left to an unelected outsider with no stake in city affairs."

San Luis Obispo is a charter city but it is one of only 25 cities in the state with binding arbitration. The voters in the year 2000 approved binding arbitration with a 57% vote after a long campaign by police and firefighters to include it in the city's charter. The sitting city council in 2000, strongly opposed binding arbitration and put an opposing measure on the ballot that same year which was rejected with a 61 percent vote.

Davis City Councilmember Sue Greenwald noted San Luis Obispo during her comments on Tuesday. It will be interesting to note if something similar could happen in Davis by initiative despite the efforts of the Davis City Council.

The lone dissenter was Don Saylor. Don Saylor has been consistent on this issue, questioning whether there was a reason that we need to do this right now and calling it a solution in search of a problem.

Councilmember Heystek responded that the fact that the state was looking to encroach on local control was reason enough to do it.

In my own opinion, I remain somewhat stuck in the middle. In principle, I like the ideal of home rule. I am a believer in local control. There are a number of things that we can do with a charter city that we could without. On the other hand, what happened in San Luis Obispo is a warning that we need to take seriously. We can build protections into the charter, but at the same time, those protections can be undone by a vote of the people.

Toward the bigger issue, I remain circumspect about the idea of choice voting. I respect a lot of people who are strongly in support of it, but I really do not see the added advantage that they do. Frankly, I think a lot of the points that Don Saylor makes on this issue are worth considering. The biggest electoral reform that we need may not be choice voting, but a combination of district elections and campaign finance changes. I don't see a lot of election outcomes likely to be changed by choice voting nor do I necessarily think they should be changed. Don Saylor made the point during a previous discussion, that the moment that choice voting changes the outcome of an election, we may have a huge problem on our hands.

None of these are reasons why I oppose either the city charter or choice voting at this time. Only to say that I remain skeptical of the added value of choice voting and cautious about the possibility of unintended consequences for the charter city.

If the election were held tomorrow, I would probably support the charter city. But these concerns are real.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Candidates on Choice Voting and Home Rule

In November of 2006, the voters of Davis passed an advisory vote to ask the city to look into creating choice voting. Choice voting, otherwise known as instant runoff asks voters to rank their preferences of candidates and office holders in order to determine the winner.

However, in order for a city in California to enact a choice voting system, the city must go from a general law city to a charter city. A charter gives the city more flexibility to enact any number of laws--depending on what is contained within the charter.

In late February, the Davis City Council by a 4-1 vote directed city staff and the City Attorney Harriet Steiner to complete an analysis of a draft charter and to return to the City Council.

A charter city does not automatically create the choice voting. In fact, the charter committee intentionally chose not to write the choice voting system into directly into the charter.

Moreover, the particular charter is brief and broad. It kept all other laws the same except for the possibility of creating a future choice voting system by vote of the city council.

The purpose of this article is largely to examine the views of the city council candidates with regards to this issue. But in order to do so, I am going to expand subject slightly and talk not only about choice voting, but also about the very concept of home rule itself. The choice voting system is but a very small component of what could be a very progressive and very innovative system of home rule. The charter city gives the city more local authority over municipal affairs in areas that are not considered to be purely statewide matters.

It is on this point of home rule and what it should mean that we begin to see some differentiation of viewpoint from what is a system that really transcends lines. For example, Ruth Asmundson was the only dissenting vote in February on the Charter City. That comes from her opposition to choice voting. In fact, she stated that she would not vote for a charter that specifically allowed choice voting.

"I've never really been a fan of choice voting, and I've never really understood what it's all about. I have some issues about including it."

Don Saylor both in February and at the recent candidates forum is a clear skeptic of the system. Two candidates were asked about Choice Voting by the Chamber of Commerce, Rob Roy came out in favor of choice voting as a means to enhance democracy. But Don Saylor had a very nuanced view.

At the February meeting, Don Saylor was skeptical:

"Why aren't more cities considering charters; are there some drawbacks that we should know about?"

Saylor said that he supported advisory measure on the ballot. He felt like the city hadn't really explored the idea and ramifications very much. Then in a very revealing moment he stated it was a "solution looking for a problem." Most people don’t understand what it is and there will be problems the first time there is change of outcome due to choice voting. Places where Choice Voting has been in place, the process is actually being challenged.

To me that suggests that Don Saylor has not quite come out against Choice Voting, but he is close to doing so and it would not surprise me if he opposed it in future votes once the system itself is enumerated during discussion.

Stephen Souza has been among the leading proponents along with Lamar Heystek for choice voting. Despite this support, the question that many proponents of home rule raise is why have we narrowed the charter merely to choice voting.

Proponents of home rule such as Nancy Price want a broader discussion on what should be in the charter.

Ms. Price writes in a December 17, 2007 Davis Enterprise Op-ed:

"Writing a city charter is a way to implement home rule. It provides a city with a level of greatly enhanced local authority and control over municipal affairs that is not available to general law cities that must operate under more restrictive state control and statutory law.

So, in writing a charter, the City Council's goal could be more than just implementing Measure L. Shouldn't we hold a communitywide discussion about what home rule might entail?"

However, it seems that the council led by Stephen Souza want to limit the charter to a very broader charter--believing that additional details within the charter are limiting.

Stephen Souza at the most reason meeting explained their decision:

"We decided on a very simple, broad charter. We did not want it overburdened in a way that created, right from the get-go, opposition. We tried to get it down to one page, but our city attorney didn't quite let us get there."

Nancy Price on the other hand suggests:

"So, in writing a charter, the City Council's goal could be more than just implementing Measure L. Shouldn't we hold a communitywide discussion about what home rule might entail? For a start, let's remember that the Declaration of Independence declares that people are born with certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted among people to secure those rights as elaborated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We might discuss how as a bitter irony after the Civil War, the Supreme Court in 1886 recognized corporations to be persons under the terms of the 14th Amendment. As a result, corporations have protections and powers under the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments that were intended by the founders to apply only to living people.

We might discuss whether we should rely on government to regulate how much pollution we breathe, how many jobs we lose to free trade, how large the big-box store should be, or how often our elected representatives sell their votes to big time, deep-pocket special interests protected by claims of free speech and First Amendment rights.

Our challenge is how to assert our community's right to define its future and to end both the grip that corporate money has over our elected officials and the corporate harms that result."

Nancy Price goes on to suggest the following:

"As Souza is quoted, a short charter could be put right on the ballot with little problem. Nothing could be simpler, he said.

But, to the contrary, good governance would entail a more robust charter that would provide for choice voting and also grapple with the role of corporations in Davis. A simple charter now will mean real change may evade us, as later amendments would take time and money.

Yet, other communities are having these discussions. Some have passed ordinances that assert the rights of people and communities over the rights of corporations and abolish the illegitimate rights and legal privileges of corporations. This work is highlighted in Communities Take Power, the cover story of Yes! magazine (fall 2007), which may be read online at http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1828.

Local communities have passed ordinances addressing the storage, use and disposal of toxic materials; public health and environmental pollution; big-box and corporate development that prevents a community from realizing a vision of sustainable land use and local economic development; protection of ground water; factory farming; genetically modified organisms; application of wastewater treatment sludge to land; protection of ecosystems; and a limit on outside corporate money in local elections.

Other communities are writing more inclusive and detailed home rule charters that go beyond the single issue. As Thomas Linzey of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund states, home rule has not been fully tested as a tool to revolutionize local democratic decision-making, but it has the potential to open up a path to real community democracy.

This is the path that residents of Spokane, Wash., a city many times the population of Davis, are following. Starting at the neighborhood level and including many different interest groups, they are embarking on a process to amend the city charter to assert people's rights over corporate rights and create a truly sustainable community and thriving local economy.

What if, here in Davis, we took the opportunity to have this kind of communitywide discussion before the decision is made by a few on the City Council that a short, narrow charter is best for us?"

This is an overall problem--we had a choice voting advisory vote that had no opposition--which means there was limited discussion. We had no public workshops on the possibilities of home rule or what the charter could actually do.

I present this as a possible counterpoint to the viewpoint expressed by Mr. Souza which is in support of choice voting but also in support of very limited change in terms of a charter city.

Sue Greenwald at the meeting in February examined whether having a charter city would enable the city to better control its growth. She was told by the City Attorney that it would not. However, it appears that the City Attorney too was limited in her viewpoint. Home rule and the charter city may not enable the city to control growth better, but as Nancy Price points out there are other features that it would allow the city to do, if the council was so inclined. With better support staff, there is little doubt that the Mayor would be able to see the possibilities of such a document rather than merely the limitations.

I was unable to find a viewpoint for Sydney Vergis on this issue.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald spoke up at the February meeting to ensure that any charter proposal would enable workers to be to engage in collective bargaining and not enable the city to impose contracts on city workers outside of the normal state laws. Overall however she supports both the charter city concept and choice voting. And would likely be willing to expand the concept of home rule to more innovative and progressive means.

The possibilities for home rule and a charter city are indeed exciting and worth exploring. From the literature I have seen, we have really limited the possibilities. I have always considered myself somewhat of a skeptic of choice voting, but I think the possibilities for both choice voting and a charter city are well worth exploring. I think we have too narrowed the inquiry at this point. This is an historic chance--why not take it? Stephen Souza fears opposition, but really unless we explore possibilities, we are closing doors.

In addition, I am always concerned about lack of community discussion. Major changes are concerning and sometimes frightening to people. We need to have a full debate. There is some myth that we have to operate without dissent--we may all agree on one aspect of this but why not risk looking at the possibilities and how far we can go? Why do we so fear disagreement on the margins of issues? By doing so, we have too limited the focus of this debate and have failed to bring the community in to really see the possibilities that could add to our already great community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sunday Notes: Day of Peace and Choice Voting

International Day of Peace Comes to Davis

In 1981 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution declaring an International Day of Peace. In 2001, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a new resolution declaring 21 September of each year as the International Day of Peace.

The resolution:

"Declares that the International Day of Peace shall henceforth be observed as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence, an invitation to all nations and people to honour a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the Day...

“Invites all Member States, organizations of the United Nations system, and non-governmental organizations and individuals to commemorate, in an appropriate manner, the International Day of Peace, including through education and public awareness, and to cooperate with the United Nations in the establishment of the global ceasefire.”

Around the world, many different communities and nations gathered for a celebration of peace. Unfortunately, the day was marred by continued violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other locations across the world further illustrating the need for peace and reconciliation.

Friday evening in Davis, a small but dedicated group of Davisites gathered at Central Park in support of peace. Around 30 to 40 people from a diverse cross-section of the Davis citizenry attended the event which was marked by careful reflection and information.

A number of local peace groups attended the event which was co-sponsored by Code Pink. Also attending was Dave Dionsi from Teach Peace, several Davis High School students from the high school chapter, Hamza Al-Nakhal was representing the Davis Muslim Community, there was also a student from the Muslim Student Association on the Davis High School Campus.

The event was organized by UC Davis students Katie Davalos and Lauren Frederic.

Choice Voting Bill Passes the Legislature and Moves to Governor's Desk

As many may know, I still have reservations about Choice Voting. However, since it would appear that the voters in Davis are in support of it, to some degree at least given the advisory last year, and the city of Davis will be looking to implement it, AB 1294 could be very useful.

Under existing laws, General Law cities such as Davis cannot implement choice voting. The city of Davis would have to become a charter city in order to do so. That is by itself a complicated procedure that concerns a number of people who otherwise have few objections to the Choice Voting. For progressives, the idea of allowing the current council majority to write the City's Charter, is laced with potholes and other problematic aspects.

That would be solved if the Governor signs AB 1294, a bill that was considered a long shot a few months ago. AB 1294 would allow all California cities and counties to use choice voting regardless of their charter status.

For more information including background about the bill and ways to urge the Governor to sign it, go to the Californians for Electoral Reform website.

Valley Oak Charter School Informational Meeting

This is going to be a key week for the Valley Oak Charter School.

• Tomorrow morning, we will have an interview with teacher Bill Storm about the process.
• Tomorrow evening there will be an important meeting where those who have been working on establishing a charter school will update us on the plan and provide time for questions and answers.

Below, is more information:

Valley Oak Charter School Informational Meeting

When: Monday, September 24, 2007

Location: Valley Oak Multi-purpose Room

Time: 7:00 to 8:30 PM

There will be a presentation about the charter and a question and answer period afterwards. Spanish translation provided. Light refreshments will be provided. And for those who need it, childcare will be provided on site too.

Again, this is a crucial step for Valley Oak, please if you are interested in learning more about the current process log in to the Vanguard tomorrow morning and then go to this meeting tomorrow night.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Spars Over Charter City and Choice Voting

In November of 2006, Davis voters passed Measure L by a 55.4 to 44.6 margin. Measure L was an advisory vote that asked citizens whether the city should choose choice voting.

Should the City of Davis consider adopting choice voting, also known as instant runoff or preference voting, as the system to elect City Council members?

The voters instead of voting for the same number of candidates as seats would rank order their preferences regardless of the number of candidates. The votes are then counted and transfered until a winner is declared.

In one method, the first place votes for all candidates would be be counted. The candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to voters' second choices. The process would continue until the number of remaining candidates is equal to the number of open seats. There are some other more complicated methods as well.

Since it was an advisory vote, and therefore non-binding, there was no organized opposition against it. There was no ballot statement against nor did anyone run a campaign against it. I was a bit concerned given those facts, that Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong proponent of the measure and choice voting, would cite public support as a reason to go forward. I do not think the public has really had the kind of informed debate needed to make a decision. Nor do I think that the council has had that kind of discussion or research. Nevertheless, they appear to be moving forward with this proposal with the goal of implementing it.

While I am not necessarily opposed to it in concept, I have a lot of concerns about how it would run and whether the average voter would be able to know understand what it was they were doing while in the ballot and casting their vote and how their votes would be tallied.

Some have suggested that this would aid smaller candidates, I would like to see some of the research about how many of the "smaller" candidates or "underdogs" have won under a choice voting system versus a more traditional system.

Moreover, I would like to see based on existing systems, a full discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of choice voting.

In short, I think despite of the election, I do not feel very well informed on the issue of choice voting and whether its professed strengths actually exist when we examine them empirically. Moreover, I have a number of concerns about both the application of and the effect of implementing this system.

Finally, I have a question as to why we should prefer a new system of voting over this one? Are we looking for different outcomes? More competitive elections? To advantage one type of candidate over others? Lots of questions, and in my mind, very few answers given the dynamics of an advisory vote.

The issue of choice voting aside, in order to even get to choice voting, the city of Davis has to become a charter city--although there is a longshot measure in the Assembly that would enable cities to enact choice voting without becoming charter cities.

The process of just selecting the mechanism to become a charter city became very heated last night at the city council meeting. The Mayor first tried to remove the issue from a subcommittee and place it in the body as a whole. The proposed subcommittee for a charter city was going to be Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Lamar Heystek, both of whom were the strongest proponents for choice voting.

Mayor Greenwald however tried to switch Councilmember Heystek with herself on the committee with the logic being that while Heystek was an expert on choice voting, she was more familiar with how to draw up a city charter. Given the course of the debate, the council majority rejected this move.

The meeting as a whole was marred by a large amount of petty bickering between councilmembers over small procedural items. Mayor Greenwald also had very strong objection to a proposed meeting over the operations of the city council. She refused to participate without some sort of professional facilitator.

Overall the tone of the meeting was bitter and contentious--largely unnecessarily so. There are legitimate concerns over this council majority redrawing the city's charter. The fear being that the council would help institutionalize and further its own majority. One of the items that has drawn that fear would be having a direct election of the mayor every two years. One city of Davis' size that I am very familiar has just such a system, San Luis Obispo. It is not clear to me that this is an incredible disadvantage to slow growthers and progressives. In San Luis Obispo there seems to be a relatively even split between the more development friendly mayors and the more slow growth and environmentally friendly mayors.

Nevertheless this is a situation that progressives should be watching very carefully to see the progress of the charter. Mayor Greenwald has some legitimate concerns about this process, but I think any attempt to blatantly advantage the other side would be fairly transparent and if that is the case, could easily be noted and defeated one way or another. Becoming a charter city would also give some advantages to those of us who are interested in stronger police reform.

I remain skeptical on the issue of choice voting, though many people that I support are strong proponents of it. I would like to see an real open debate on the strengths and the weaknesses before we simply ratify what it is that we think the voters supported.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting