Commentary: Subcomittee and Staff Look Ill-prepared in Anti-Discrimination Ordinance Deliberations

In many ways this was entirely of their own doing. In April, Councilmember Lamar Heystek pulled a consent agenda item off the consent calendar and moved to allow city staff rather than the city commissions subcommittee of Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson look into changes in the anti-discrimination ordinance. At the time, we reported that Councilmember Heystek respectfully but firmly pointed out to the subcommittee that they lacked legal training and moreover they had originally missed the provision. Councilmember Souza's defense was that they were not even aware of the provision in the anti-discrimination ordinance that authorized the HRC to "investigate" and "mediate" charges of discrimination. Heystek responded that proved his point--the council subcommittee had not done their homework and that he lacked confidence in their ability to handle such an important and complex task. Nevertheless, the council voted 3-2 with Heystek joined by Mayor Greenwald in dissent, to authorize the subcommittee to look at the anti-discrimination ordinance.

This criticism would come forth again on Tuesday as the Council subcommittee would come forward with their recommendation first to delete the provision and then to alter it. Without Councilmember Heystek's work, the council would have never been aware of this flaw to begin with as in October of last year, when the council was re-writing the authorizing ordinances and resolutions for all the commissions, neither Souza nor Asmundson had read through the anti-discrimination ordinance. As it turns out, they had not read it in June of 2006 when they shut down the HRC for doing what in retrospect was their job.

In addition to simply not knowing the provision within the anti-discrimination ordinance, there were several other appalling aspects of the subcommittee's work as presented on Tuesday evening. First, somehow between October when the issue first arose and June, and between April when the subcommittee was authorized to look at this question and June, no one asked the city attorney her opinion as to whether the city had to change to ordinance to make it consistent with the resolution. It was her opinion that they did not have to change the ordinance that led Councilmember Souza to withdraw his recommendation for making changes to the ordinance. How could that question not have arisen until there was a public recommendation?

Second, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson made the original recommendation in the council agenda:

“The subcommittee recommends that Section 7A-15(c) of the city’s Anti-discrimination Ordinance should be deleted.”

However, at the meeting it turns out they altered that recommendation without any sort of notice to the public or their colleagues. Instead of deleting that section, they altered it, substituting the HRC for the "city" and "city manager." This change was literally made at 5:30 on Tuesday evening.

Third, Councilmember Souza and Asmundson admitted that they had not read the minutes from the 1986 original deliberations until 6:00 Tuesday evening. In fact, the only reason they saw these minutes at all were that Councilmember Heystek requested of Kelly Stachowicz all the records from the 1986 proceedings and then all the councilmembers received copies of those proceedings. Asmundson claimed that there was no information in them that was useful, but this is simply not true. First, the council voted by a 4-1 margin to approve it. The one dissenting vote was Councilmember Jerry Adler. Mr. Adler at that time made a string of legalistic motions to alter various parts of the ordinance that he thought were problematic. He did not raise one objection however to the section in question. Second, the minutes also contained a list of citizens who at the time spoke in favor of the ordinance, citizens who are still in the community now and are in fact allies of the council majority. It is in fact a veritable "who's who" list of Davis residents.

Fourth, it was not clear from the deliberations that either council or staff understood the wording in the ordinance. It was only when Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the ordinance itself contained the key provision that precluded any findings of the commission's investigation and mediation from being admissible in a court of law, that Harriet Steiner acknowledged that there were in fact distinctions between the legal definition of "investigate" and "mediate" and a more general and common language usage.

The language reads:

"The findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action."

This section in fact indicates and clarifies that when the ordinance speaks of investigate, it does not mean a legal investigation that would have subpoena and more importantly, "adjudicatory" power. Rather, it was meant to be a more informal means of findings out facts and making recommendations to the actual body with legislative authority, the city council.

Fifth, following from this, it was clear that neither staff nor council really understood the history of the commission or its functions. This is especially appalling given that Councilmember Souza was a longtime member and in fact chaired this commission. Bill Ritter, a former chair, told the council that city had a times hired independent investigators to follow up more formally on HRC findings. In fact, as the three former chairs sitting in the audience pointed out, the HRC never had, used, or sought adjudicatory power. The council apparently had little understanding of what the HRC did or how it operated.

This is not surprising in light of the dispute last year, that in my opinion, was largely distorted and blown out of proportions. The council depicted an HRC out of control and bent on subverting the will of council. In fact, what happened was that as a series of complaints against the Davis police arose, the HRC had public meetings to determine the nature of the complaints against the police. They appointed a subcommittee to investigate those complaints led by Jann Murray-Garcia. That subcommittee released their report in February, but by that time the council had already gone another direction in terms how to approach the problem and opted for an Ombudsman rather than Civilian Oversight. The HRC, never took up the issue again formally, although some of their members were involved in pubic protests over the handling of the Buzayan and other cases. None of these actions overstepped the bounds of commission. The council had every right to do as they did and go a different direction, though the tone of the meetings and Councilmember Puntillo's denouncement of their work as "not worth the paper it was written on" was decidedly unprofessional and in poor taste.

Nevertheless, one must in the end question this particular subcommittee, which has seemed to not only fail to perform their duties in an adequate and timely manner with regards to the HRC, but it also badly blundered with another recommendation that in the end they had to withdraw--the recommendation to merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services commission. (For an overview of that process click here and also here.

The basic facts here are surprisingly similar, but play out over a longer time frame than the anti-discrimination ordinance. The subcommittee issued their initial recommendations for the merger in a consent agenda item and it was only because Councilmember Heystek asked for the item to be brought back later that we discovered that there was a full blown resolution for the merger of the two commissions. Souza would later claim this was brought forward for discussion, but it was not. It was a full blown resolution with a recommendation for merger and it was in a consent agenda item that would not be discussed unless someone pulled it.

When objections to the merger arose, Souza took it to each of the commissions, the Social Services Commission approved it, but the Senior Citizens Commission refused and in fact made a very public complaint about it. At one point, Mr. Souza in fact, berated and attempted to browbeat the chair of that commission, Elaine Roberts Musser, and the rest of the commission, but they would not back down. After a series of very public hearings, included a devastating speech by the chair before the council (see the you tube video of it here), the council not only backed off but attempted to make it appear as though they had not really intended to do anything more than "raise the issue" for the "purposes of discussion."

The historic record of this however does not bear it out and in the end like the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Senior Citizens Commission prevailed when Souza and Asmundson did a hasty reversal in the middle of the proceedings.

What is also interesting is that in both cases, the subcommittee of Souza and Asmundson did the primary work. Councilmember Don Saylor in neither controversy said a whole lot and in fact he did not make a public assertion of his view on either matter and allowed his colleagues and allies to essentially hang themselves.

There has been some controversy about the amount of work done by subcommittees as opposed to the entire body. I am of two-mindsets on the issue because on the one hand, I prefer public deliberations on staff prepared items. On the other hand, I think much of the preparation work can be done outside of formal meetings. What is clear however is that the council should think twice before assigning Stephen Souza and Ruth Asmundson to work together on a subcommittee. They have made two pretty large miscalculations that have in essence wasted both the council's time as well as the community's time. The amount of work that the Senior Citizens Commission and their chair had to do must have been tremendous. Instead of pushing forward with their duties they were forced to fight for their existence.

This process played out in a rather embarrassing way for both city and staff. Frankly both the subcommittee and the staff should be embarrassed at both their lack of knowledge but more importantly their lack of preparation on this item.

I am very grateful that the council did the right thing in the end on this issue, just as they did on the Senior Citizens Commission merger, but that should not excuse the steps that were taken in the interim and especially the lack of preparation and notification to the public.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Eleanor Roosevelt Project Draws Mostly Positive Reviews, but Concerns About Lack of Transportation Remain

While it was not the grand opening of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, yesterday was a day when the public could tour the facility. In many ways, the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle project is a remarkable one--with 60 units of affordable Senior housing, a cooperative main facility that can provide for a number of uses, and state of the art construction. A number of projects constructed by the Neighborhood Partners have drawn heavy scrutiny from many in the community, but most people seem hopeful that Eleanor Roosevelt Circle will succeed despite a few hiccups along the way.

At the ceremony yesterday, County Supervisor Mariko Yamada spoke at length about her commitment to services for seniors. Then Davis City Councilman Don Saylor spoke about his mother-in-law and her bonding in the Davis community. Both Yamada and Saylor praised the project and the facility.

However, the project has also drawn some heavy criticism in the community.

One strong critic is Mayor Sue Greenwald who complained that this project was supposed to be primarily a moderate-income project.

The Davis Enterprise quoted Greenwald as saying:

"I am very disturbed by the whole MO," Greenwald said, pointing out that the project was approved to provide moderate-income housing to seniors. "It's bait-and-switch, where we end up with a project that's all supportive housing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it was not planned."

David Thompson, one of the principal partners along with Luke Watkins, disputes that claim:

"Nowhere in any of the documents I have that were approved by the city is there either a mention of, description of or promise that: The project would be all “moderate income housing” or that it would be a “continuing care facility”."

Mr. Thompson sent me a number of documents used in 2002 when the City Council first approved this project and his claim appears to be accurate.

The original conception for this project however was a moderate income project as proposed by Margaret Milligan.

Mr. Thompson said that Ms. Milligan asked them for assistance beginning in 1998 however they "advised her it was not going to be economically possible to do anything without using city land in some way and if we did that we'd need to meet city standards for affordable housing." By 1999, they understood that they would have do at least half of the units as very low income.

Neighborhood Partners did make a mistake that they have acknowledged.

"We make mistakes, so I'm going to admit the mistake I think we have made," Mr. Thompson repeated to me as he told the council.

They are rectifying that mistake in part by taking Section 8 vouchers which was approved by City Council on March 21, 2007. Mr. Watkins also informed me yesterday during the tour that the 120% income housing would be lowered from $975 per month to $875. The cost of those units always seemed very high given that these are 600 square foot units.

"We definitely overlooked that someone at 120 percent income has many options in the market."

The issue of moderate income is not the only aspect of the project drawing controversy however.

As reported after my tour of the facility back in January, the issue of transportation is still of great concern.

Elaine Roberts Musser, who chairs the Senior Citizens commission, wrote a scathing letter to the Davis Enterprise yesterday.

She is not without praise of the project, remarking on the facility itself. She also said both in person and in writing that she thinks the Social Services Coordinator is an excellent position and that it is very important to have someone who can help the seniors, especially those who are frail or will become frail. The support of this individual can help many of the disabled seniors live more independently.

On the other hand, the transportation issue is of concern to both Ms. Musser and myself. Quite frankly, while the bus system does pick people up across the street on fifth and drop them off in front of the Police Station, the feasibility for seniors is less than desirable. That is a long walk for many of the seniors who are in poor health. Moreover, merely getting to places in Davis requires changing buses, never mind the difficulty of going to Sacramento or West Sacramento for some of the service needs.

The facility needs its own bus that the seniors can use. When I spoke to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins back in January they cited the difficulty with getting a bus as a tremendous expense and certainly one can appreciate that. To be honest, this is not merely a complaint with Neighborhood Partners, I think the County and City need to step up and help subsidize such a transportation. Then again, I think the city is a bit wary at this point of paying more expenses for the Neighborhood Partners who are unfortunately involved in a rather ugly law suit on another of their projects, DACHA (Davis Area Community Housing), where they are actually suing their tenants.

However, it is clear that this is a concern that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Ms. Musser and I both observed Stephen Souza nearly getting hit by a car that was not paying sufficient attention in the roundabout, and as Ms. Musser noted, Mr. Souza moves a great deal faster than a lot of the seniors. Frankly this is too nice a project to have an issue of transportation bring it down, but this clearly needs to be resolved.

Dr. Michael K. McCloud was the key note speaker and at one-point he joked that it was time for Eleanor Roosevelt II, David Thompson turned to me horrified at the notion and made sure that I would mention this by telling me that I should not quote him. I think problems and concerns aside, and they are legitimate ones, that most hope that this facility will succeed because this community needs more senior housing and more affordable housing. Hopefully some of the past problems that have beset the Neighborhood Partners projects have been at least mitigated.

It is worth noting that one of the goals for this project stated by David Thompson yesterday was that it would be able to house the parents of Davis Residents. There is of course little way to ensure that. But Davis certainly is in need of middle income and lower income Senior Affordable Housing. And it is noteworthy that Luke Watkins has not only put his mother-in-law in the facility but his mother as well--and they live next door to each other.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Senior Citizens Commission Moving On

The Senior Citizen's Commission met last Thursday for the first time since the Davis City Council dropped their proposal to merge the Senior Citizen's Commission with the Social Services commission.

(For a more lengthy discussion of the misleading tactics employed by City Councilmember Stephen Souza and Mayor Pro tem Ruth Asmundson please click here)

One of the frustrating aspects for the commission was that they were in many senses chasing a moving target in terms of both the actual proposals and the rhetoric used by City Councilmember Stephen Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson to justify their position.

Originally, the council proposed with a full resolution to immediately merge the two commissions. This was placed on a consent agenda item. The consent agenda is generally used for non-controversial matters that need council authorization but do not require great or lengthy discussion.

It was only because Councilmember Lamar Heystek requested the item be first pulled and then postponed, that some of the details of the proposal began to emerge. The subcommittee composed of Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, proposed a wide variety of changes simultaneously for a large number of commissions. However, when this proposal drew some apprehension and criticism from fellow members of the council, they agreed to meet with the respective commissions to gauge their support for such a move (why they did not do this prior to the proposal is an open question).

The Social Services Commission never had a problem with this merger and they agreed overwhelmingly to do so. However, the Senior Citizens Commission had a large number of concerns that ranged from the meeting time being changed from a daytime meeting to a nighttime meeting--at time that many seniors would have trouble making because they cannot drive after dark. (City Staff's response was carpooling or public transportation). Also there were questions about the watering down of the Senior Citizens agenda and influence. (Souza somehow believed this would make them more powerful--an argument the Seniors did not accept). Finally there were concerns about the compatibility of the two commissions. It was pointed out by Mayor Sue Greenwald among others that it is not clear that these two commissions have any more overlap that several other city commissions not being considered for merger have.

When the Senior Citizens commission balked at the merger, according to several witnesses, Councilmember Souza became hostile and aggressive, chasing the Mayor Sue Greenwald, who is the liaison to that commission, from the meeting, and then proceeding to browbeat a group of seniors, several of whom were not in the best of health. This served to further strengthen the resolve of the Senior Citizen Commission to fight the merger. Angry words were exchanged in the newspapers and at council meetings.

Eventually the political pressure mounted on the City Council and the proposal was dropped.

(Click here to view a speech by Chair Elaine Musser who lays out in great detail the greviences and concerns of the Seniors.)

Last Thursday, the Senior Citizens Commission met and discussed some of the fallout of this move by Souza and Asmundson. At one point, the Chair read from a statement from this blog that outlined some of the concerns about the process. City Staff also conceded that this merger was not handled as well as it could have been handled. Several witnesses remarked that the staffer was noticeably uncomfortable when the statement from the People's Vanguard of Davis was read by Ms. Musser.

The more immediate concern for the Senior Citizens Commission is that they are down to just four members right now. One of the members had to resign due to health reasons. Obviously this is not uncommon as many of the members are in their eighties and nineties with a number medical ailments.

This situation has been a problem for the commission especially given health concerns with regards to meeting quorum requirements. This was the only commission whose membership was not restocked in September when the commissions were re-organized and the new members were appointed.

The council this week has an item on the agenda to appoint four applicants to fill the large number of vacancies.

The chair also confirmed one of our suspicions that the City Council majority (particularly in this case Souza and Asmundson) and City Staff believed that they could get away with this sort of procedural subterfuge because the Seniors would be too weak to fight back. This is a tactic that has been employed at other times, with other bodies.

Hopefully the Senior Citizen Commission will have a strong and productive year and they can put this behind them to carry out their duties on behalf of their fellow citizens. All the while, they will be a little bit wiser about the policies and politics of the City Council majority.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We continue with our ninth installment, No.2 Davis Police Chief Hyde Resigns and HRC Disbanded.

On February 7, 2006 Davis Councilmember Don Saylor concluded the Davis City Council Meeting with a long statement about his concerns about the Davis Human Relations Commission (HRC) including contentiousness, Brown Act violation, intimidation of fellow commissioners, and other acts of misconduct by members of the HRC. He recommended a subcommittee look into these allegations and make a determination. Councilmember Saylor's allegations were never documented or proven, nor was he ever held accountable to explain himself. He and his colleagues were determined to reduce the power of the commission and its recommendations regarding civilian police oversight. The council did not like the HRC recommendations as well as the commission's responsibility and duty to investigate and advise the council. Instead the council wished to dictate and control the commission's work, direction, and recommendations. It was at this point, that the Davis Human Relations Commission was put on notice.

The bulk of these allegations and the ensuing long public campaign against the HRC resulted from a single issue--the issue of police misconduct and the HRC's support and push for a civilian police review board.

In our last segment, on police oversight, we will spend much greater time chronicling the debate over police oversight. In this we will focus on the dynamics between the Davis Human Relations Commission and the Police Chief Jim Hyde that led to Hyde leaving for Antioch and the HRC being put on Hiatus.

The key time frame was that in the summer of 2005, the police issue heated up once again over the controversial arrest of 16 year old Halema Buzayan. What ensued were a number of private and public meetings between the HRC and Chief Hyde. Hyde quickly went on the defensive, refusing to acknowledge problems with his police force and then eventually refusing to meet with or work with the Human Relations Commission. This followed a series of contentious public meetings where the issue was raised before the commission and the city council by members of the public as well as civil rights groups.

The tide in this fight was turned prior to the January 17, 2006 Davis City Council Meeting. It was at this point when then Davis City Manager Jim Antonen came forth with his proposal for an Ombudsman as a preferred alternative to the civilian police review board. The HRC was largely kept in the dark about the development of this alternative plan and only found out about the item on the agenda a few days before.

The police chief however was not caught flat-footed. He and his staff organized a number of members of the local pro-Iraq war military community to come forth during public comment and support the police department. Chief Hyde did this because he knew these pro-war people were upset with the commission for having recommended that the city council adopt a resolution requesting that the President of the Unitied States withdraw our military from Iraq. Hyde knew these folks would be motivated to strike out at the commission as payback for advocating for the resolution and he was right. It was only through a public records request, that it was discovered how much coordination this involved under the direction of Police Chief Jim Hyde and his senior officers.

Chief Hyde enlisted Davis Police Lt. Dorothy Pearson to recruit supporters for police department who would attack the HRC and its chairperson.

In early January 2006 in an e-mail exchange between Chief Hyde and Lt. Dorothy Pearson:

Chief Jim Hyde: "FYI, calling in my cards. Are any of the military supporters willing to speak at public comment time … on the 17th at city council in support of the police department? HRC is pushing for there (sic) own police review commission."

Lt. Dorothy Pearson: "I am already circling the wagons! I am trying to get as many people as possible to attend and possibly speak."

On Jan. 12, Lt. Dorothy Pearson thanks James Hechtl [Davis resident, retired air force officer and pro-Iraq war supporter]. "The Chief called me last night after the meeting. He was singing the Military Family's praises. … I can't thank you enough for your help. I also sent Bob Glynn [Davis resident and pro-Iraq war supporter] a thank you e-mail and told him that you would keep the group posted on upcoming strategies."

Hechtl responds, "What kind of availability do you and the Chief have this afternoon (Thur). I want to meet with both of you with (sic) and discuss some strategy."

Hechtl and Glynn proceed to write numerous letters attacking the Davis Human Relations Commission and its Chair Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.

This public attack on the HRC would continue in the newspapers with a series of very negative letters to the editor. This was all orchestrated by Lt. Dorothy Pearson, often on city time, using city resources to do it.

James Hechtl writes, "Ms. Greenwald and Ms. Garcia apply their racist views to every possible issue that confronts them. They look at the world through their prism of hate. ... The mere fact that they support numerous frivolous and hate-based lawsuits against the city should be enough to invite them and the rest of the Human Relations Commission to practice their trade in a more appropriate city. I recommend Johannesburg, South Africa."

(Dr. Jann Murray-Garcia is a Davis resident, parent, pediatrician and president of BECA (a Davis civil rights group) who worked with the commission on researching and drafting a report on racial profiling and recommending a proposed civilian police oversight review commission. )

Bob Glynn writes on May 5, "Davis must rid itself of this antiquated, racist commission and its bully chairperson, Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald."

This public campaign against the HRC and its chair Escamilla Greenwald was extremely effective. The city council, used this to their advantage, tightening the screws on the commission. Following the February 21, 2006 meeting where the council rejected the commission's recommendation for a civilian review board, the council would install several measures for additional training giving the directive that any public communication must be premised on the fact that the individual was speaking as an individual rather than as a member of the commission. Part of the problem here was that Escamilla Greenwald was a very visible and articulate spokesperson, who along with many of her colleagues were heavily involved in the movement for oversight even as a private citizens and identified as speaking only for themselves. Eventually the council would suggest that even this distinction of a citizen speaking for her/his self was not enough, that any public statement against the actions of the council was grounds for removal.

The spring of 2006 would eventually pave the way for two events. Chief Jim Hyde was a focal point of the problems in the police department. But it was the Buzayan case that really brought the issue to the public light. Chief Hyde made the calculated decision that he would back his officers regardless of the propriety of their conduct and support only the council actions for police reform. This made him a rallying point for those defending the Davis Police Department. However, he was clearly under tremendous pressure during this entire episode as was the department as a whole. There was a higher than average transfer rate out of the department, resulting in a lot of vacancies and now a number of new officers.

Following the June 2006 city council elections, Chief Hyde abruptly resigned and put a large amount of the blame for his departure on the Human Relations Commission as well as its chair Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald.

His resignation email was short and to the point:

"The destructive and divisive behaviors of the Human Relations Commission and in particular, their chairperson, have limited my effectiveness to work with this fine community. Despite the great work of the members of this police department, the HRC has divided the community along race and religious lines to fulfill a self serving political agenda. In my 27 years of government service, 10 years of clinical psychology, and 16 years of working with non-profit organizations, the HRC is the most dysfunctional and incestuous group I have ever witnessed. I hope that City Council will correct this community problem."

Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald would respond and point out to the public that in fact there had been a large breakdown in communications between the police department and the HRC. Much of that was due to the public campaign that Hyde had been running against the HRC.

"The police chief has resigned and thrown a large amount of blame in the direction of the Human Relations Commission and myself. After many months of hearing from members of the public, last summer we met with the police chief over concerns about the growing number of complaints about police misconduct. These meetings and interactions quickly turned adversarial as the police chief became defensive. Instead of engaging in public dialogue over these very serious issues, Chief Hyde retreated--he cut off communications with the HRC, he pulled his liaisons to the commission, and began a concerted public campaign to discredit the efforts of the HRC to reach common ground on reforms that could be done within the department.

"Sadly this did not have to be the case. But it serves as another reminder that many of the events that the public has witnessed in the last year have been unnecessary. The Buzayan family was more than willing to go through the process of review within the department until it became clear that no satisfactory result could be achieved. Recently, the young African-American students who marched on the Police Station made multiple efforts to meet with Chief Hyde and his staff. Assistant Chief Pearce went as far as to overtly discourage other police departments from participating in Statewide Campus events aimed at achieving dialogue and understanding on police-minority relations. Finally in frustration they marched on the police station, only to have Chief Hyde's staff stand behind protective glass windows, gawking and laughing at the protestors, many of whom had personal accounts of profiling.

"During the past year, the Human Relations Commission, after hearing repeated accounts from credible citizens in our community, recommended the formation of a Citizen's Review Board of the police department. The Police Chief reacted negatively and with attacks upon the HRC as well myself and members of the community for even suggesting such a body. Once again, Chief Hyde reacted defensively and inappropriately instead of working with the community to resolve these problems.

"Chief Hyde's departure does not solve the problems of the Davis Police Department. We need to hire a new chief that can work with community groups like the HRC and others to establish meaningful dialogue that can produce common ground results.

"Unfortunately, Hyde's parting words will serve to further polarize this community and breed contempt rather than understanding. I urge the City Council, no matter what steps they deem necessary, to seek to open a sustained and meaningful dialogue between segments of this community and the police department."

The Davis Human Relations Commission and its Chair Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald became the focal point for the police chief's departure and were blamed for creating animosity rather than a climate of tolerance and understanding. Chief Hyde would take a higher paying job at the larger city of Antioch Police Department as their police chief. But his public resignation and blame for it would push the Davis City Council into action once again, this time on June 27, 2006. Davis City Councilmember Ted Puntillo the prior week had requested be placed on the city council's next agenda a discussion on the future of the Davis Human Relations Commission.

As we have come to find out, Chief Hyde had a number of problems within the department that also led to his departure. However, the public scrutiny constructed by the chief, the city manager, and the city council fell solely on the Human Relations Commission and its chair Escamilla Greenwald.

The June 27, 2006 meeting would be loud and contentious. With the council chambers packed with citizens, over 40 community members, several of them past chairs of the HRC and a number of past and future elected officials spoke on behalf of the HRC. The police had their usual cadre of defenders at the meeting, but in the end, it did not matter.

Davis Councilmember Stephen Souza summed up his objections to the HRC's conduct with a parable of his own both read during the meeting on June 27 and in the paper.

From the July 16, 2006 Davis Enterprise: "Souza himself was a member of the Human Relations Commission from 1989 to 1996. An alleged rape and several other crimes against women spurred the then-Human Relations Commission to recommend a hate-crimes ordinance to the City Council."We pushed the issue three times," Souza said. "The council said 'no' two times. Two former mayors came to the commission and said 'We are the policy-making body. You are the advisers.' "Although Souza said he was miffed at the time, now that he's a councilman, he understands where the two former mayors were coming from."

But what the article failed to point out is that Souza was not kicked off the commission for his actions and the city council did not disband the commission for their actions. And that was the big difference, this council decided to disband the HRC because the commission advised on an issue and made recommendations against the wishes of the city council's majority.

The chief complaint by council was that the HRC overstepped its authority as an advisory board. But as we would find out in the fall, the HRC actually under the City of Davis anti-Discrimination Ordinance had much greater power than was generally acknowledged in the June 27 meeting.

Section 7A-15(C) of the Davis anti-Discrimination ordinance reads:

"Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may file a request to have the Human Relations Commission investigate and mediate his or her complaint. The Commission may adopt rules of procedure to accommodate the needs of such investigation mediation. A complaint to the Commission shall not be a prerequisite to filing a civil action under this section, and the findings and conclusions of the commission issued in response to such proceedings shall not be admissible in a civil action."

The HRC had acted within its authority by investigating these complaints and making a recommendation to the city council for changes.

In the end, Councilmembers Puntillo, Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson all voted to disband the commission, put it on hiatus and take new commissioner applications in the fall. Only one member of the commission, reapplied, John Pamperin. No one else chose to do so. The commission that was reconstituted in the fall was safely filled with new members who will do as they are told and the commission was neutered. The council has also stripped it of much of its investigative power.

As we saw with the contrary results of the Senior Citizens Commission, there was something else at work here. It was not merely the actions of Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald, for Davis Senior Citizens Commission Chair Elaine Roberts Musser was certainly no less assertive or brazen in her criticism of the council than Escamilla Greenwald. At the end of the day, the HRC represents the minorities in Davis, a small group of people who are somewhat isolated and politically weak.

The Police Chief and his supporters were able to prevail in the end by stirring up public sentiment against the HRC and creating a climate of fear that the police would be hamstrung by the process of civilian police oversight and unable to protect the residents of Davis. The irony is that the police chief ended up doing many of the same things that the HRC was accused of doing, but they got away with it.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We continue with our sixth installment, No.9 City Councilmember Stephen Souza’s failed attempt to merge the Senior Citizen’s Commission with the Social Services Commission.

As any experienced politician will tell you, the third rail in politics is taking on senior’s issues. It was an experience the Republican Party would learn to the hard way in 1995 when Bill Clinton was able to parlayed proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security into newfound traction against a Republican Congressional juggernaut fresh off impressive sweeps in the 1994 election. That rule applies no less in the city of Davis where now, Stephen Souza must grapple with an angry senior vote. What makes seniors a formidable force is not only their numbers but the fact that they all vote and they do not quickly forget who put their political power in jeopardy.

It is ironic that this issue comes out the outcrop of the last city commission battle with the HRC. There the council majority took advantage of the political weakness of the minority community to disband, put on hiatus, and finally severely curtail the power of the HRC. During the course of restructuring the HRC, the council subcommittee of two—Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson came up with the idea that they could merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission.

Let us be clear on this issue, no matter how much Souza and Asmundson tried to back track off of their earlier claims and actions—the intent from the start was to merge the commissions. The rationale and the defense would come later.

As we discussed on December 14, 2006, the intent of Souza and Asmundson was merger not “generating discussion of the merger” as Souza would later post-hoc claim. Instead they placed on the September 12, 2006 council agenda a recommendation to merge the two commission along with a resolution that would enact that merger. The only reason it was not passed at that very meeting was that Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald convinced the council majority to get more feedback.

Souza then took the item to both commission meetings. The Social Services Commission (stacked with a large number of council majority supporters) voted overwhelmingly to agree to the merger, but the Senior Citizens Commission strongly opposed such a merger. Led by Chair Elaine Musser Roberts, the Senior Citizens Commission fought back at the meeting, in the press, and in the community.

Armed with a petition of 140 Senior Citizens, Musser forced the council to backtrack. First staff recommended that they wait two years before reconsidering the merger and then finally the council put the idea to rest all together.

As we wrote at the time:

“The most striking part of this entire experience is the blatant dishonesty by the Councilmember Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson about their original intentions which were quite clear. They made serious errors about how they chose to approach this issue. It would have been a responsible thing to do to take a step back in September when these errors became apparent and put this process on a different trajectory. Instead, they tried to finesse around their mistakes and then deceive the public about their true intentions.”

For those who have not seen it, I highly recommend watching the video of Elaine Roberts Musser giving the council, specifically Souza and Asmundson a severe dressing down.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saturday Afternoon Briefs

Vanguard gets mention in letter to the editor

Featured in Friday's Davis Enterprise Letter's to the Editor:

Council's action was the right one

On Dec. 12, the Davis City Council decided unanimously to keep its Senior Citizens Commission just as it has always been. It will not be merged with any other commission, but will remain in place as it has ever been since 1973. The City Council's determination also makes clear the decision will not be tabled, as suggested by staff, but is final.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to all those seniors who gathered signatures for petitions to leave their commission alone and to those who had the courage to put pen to paper in signing those same petitions. The City Council finally heard your voices, loud and clear. Senior citizens are considered a vital part of the Davis community, deserving of full commission status.

The Davis Enterprise was instrumental in getting the word out about our struggle to keep this commission alive. The groundswell of support began from an initial letter to the editor, and grew in momentum. Eventually we caught the attention of reporter Claire St. John, who covered the story in several articles, two on the front page. Much to my surprise, I discovered we were also being written about on the Vanguard Internet blog.

The light of day being shone on our local political process should have been a result of following our commission guidelines. Those guidelines include the all-important Brown Act — often referred to as the "sunshine law." It requires that all business conducted by local government be given proper notice to afford opportunity for public comment.

That process is there for a very good reason, and should always be followed to the letter. Not only does adhering to sunshine laws encourage honest and open government, it is a statutory requirement. For any part of a local administration to circumvent the requisite notice and opportunity to be heard does nothing but invite censure, antagonism and cynicism of our government institutions.

I look forward to far brighter days ahead.

Elaine Roberts Musser

Davis

Survey finds apartment vacancy down, rental rates up

On Thursday, UC Davis released a survey on apartment vacancy. It found that "the apartment vacancy rate in the city of Davis declined to 1.8 percent this fall, and rental rates rose by an average of 2.6 percent."

Moreover, the average rent for a two-bedroom apparent (44 percent of the units in the survey) rose from $1,092 to $1,112.

This is a stunning increase in the ten years that I have lived in this community. In 1996, when I moved here, I paid half that rent for a two-bedroom apartment that I shared with a buddy.

This study coupled with the study we cited on Thursday about the amount of money per hour it takes to be able to afford to live in an apartment in Yolo County provides startling evidence that Davis is pricing the average college student out of this community.

It appears that the No.1 priority of the new general plan should be focused on providing affordable apartment rentals for UC Davis students seeking go to the university. And second, that in order to continue to attract world class scholars to this university, we need to provide housing that young assistant professors can afford.

The City of Davis needs to take this issue much more seriously. And the university needs to step in as well and either provide housing for new faculty, as other universities do, or partner with the City of Davis to do likewise. The vitality of this community depends on this.

It seems fairly obvious that any new development project needs a much higher proportion of their units to be affordable to lower and middle income households than are currently mandated. This needs to be a priority in Davis if we are to maintain the unique flavor of this community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

How the Senior Citizens Prevailed in their Fight Against Council

As Elaine Roberts Musser came before council to give them an earful on their tactics and rhetoric, I was eerily reminded of another recent situation where the council took on a citizen’s commission and that time with very different results for the commission.

Musser accused council and specifically Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Stephen Souza of duplicity, of strong-armed tactics, and made strong and pointed political threats. Council reacted defensively to these allegations, just as they have in the past. But at the end of the day instead of disbanding the Senior Citizens Commission and putting it on hiatus, they apologized for any misunderstandings and they dropped their move to merge the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Service Commission.

Why was the Senior Citizens Commission able to survive while the Human Relations Commission was not?

First, the HRC “chose” the wrong target. When the HRC took on the police issue, they took it on just as they had any of number issues in their previous few years under the leadership of Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald. However, the police were different from all other targets. Police, even in a “progressive” town like Davis hold a strong measure of support—at the end of the day people want a strong and effective police force and many are willing to trade the rights of others in order to keep their security.

The police were able to counter-mobilize against the HRC, with Chief Jim Hyde and Lt. Dorothy Pearson able to rally large numbers of individuals in defense of the police. Moreover, through the help of council and the Davis Enterprise, they changed the issue from that of the police’s misconduct, to the conduct of the HRC itself. The HRC was portrayed as out of control and politicizing the issue of police misconduct. The battle culminated with the HRC being put on hiatus.

There is no such target in the case of the Senior Citizens Commission. The Senior Services Commission may remain more supportive of the move than the Senior Citizens Commission, but there this action poses no threat to them and thus they are largely a bystanders in this battle. This is simply a battle between Souza-Asmundson (with Saylor on the sidelines waiting to be third man in) and the Senior Citizens Commission and community.

Thus there is a situation where the Senior Citizens are mobilized but there is no group counter-mobilized to either go after the Senior Citizens Commission or defend the council. Moreover, this conflict is not about council policy in terms of a specific issue, rather it is a structural issue about the shape and scope of commissions. That gives the commission a bit more leeway in their battle.

Still, you would have to believe if the HRC was in the position of the Senior Citizens Commission, you would not have seen Asmundson and Souza falling over themselves to apologize for any misunderstanding.

The biggest difference in these two battles appears to be the influence of the constituencies that the two commissions represent at the polling booth. Seniors represent not only a sizable population group but also a potent voting bloc. First, seniors vote in high numbers, making their power disproportionate to their actual share of the population. Second, seniors are not necessarily natural opponents for the council majority. It is likely that a majority of seniors supported the council majority and particularly Ruth Asmundson. The council majority may rely on the senior vote as much as they rely on other constituencies. By alienating the senior vote, they would put their majority status in jeopardy.

The minority community of Davis, on the other hand, was very vulnerable. First, they are a small percentage of the population. Only two percent of Davis is African-American. Only nine percent is Latino. Second, their voting share is likely considerably smaller than the 11 percent of the population that they represent. Third, the council majority reasoned they were not going to get the vote of that demographic anyway and they were able to, through the police issue, mobilize a much larger base of people in defense of the police.

In the end, Elaine Musser Roberts was able to attack the council, specifically Souza and Asmundson with impunity. The HRC and Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald found themselves outnumbered and outmaneuvered by the efforts of the police chief to protect his turf.

Roberts was able to fight the council and win. In the process, she gained a number of admirers, tired of the council running roughshod over citizen commissions and concerned about an apparent power grab and consolidation of power and influence by council. While Roberts has won this battle, the war is still being waged. The Human Relations Commission is a shell of its former self and the council majority can simply lick its wounds and fight another day. Meanwhile, as we have seen, the rights of minorities in this community remain tenuous at best. Fortunately, the rights of seniors and the representation of the senior community remain intact. However, it is now incumbent upon the senior community to get the word out and remind their community who had their backs in this fight and who was ready to greatly diminish their influence.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Where is the local coverage by the Davis Enterprise?

As I closed down shop late last night, I remarked to friends about just how extraordinary this past week's Davis City Council Meeting had been. There were no less than five major stories during that meeting: proposed merger of the Senior and Social Services Commission; the city’s general plan update process; the failed police car camera system; the city’s EAP service contract; the city’s parks consulting contract; the duplicity & disingenuousness of both Don Saylor and Stephen Souza as well as Ruth Asmundson’s Surrogate moment. We covered them all; it took until late yesterday for the People's Vanguard of Davis to finish covering that City Council meeting.

The remarkable thing about it, is that the Davis Enterprise and their city reporter, Claire St. John, covered one single story from it--the discussion on the general plan update with a brief mention of the Senior Citizens Commission merger at the end. I looked at the paper this morning and one of the front-page stories is that John Edwards is going to run for President but not Even Bayh. It is two years before the Presidential election, one year before the first primary, and frankly neither of those guys are going to win. If I want to read about national politics, I'll go to the New York Times, the Washington Post or read the National Journal. But I read the Enterprise to get local coverage and they have failed to provide that with regards to this past meeting.

For example, not a lot of people will pay attention to that Employee Assistance Program (EAP) issue, but that is a major scam being perpetrated upon City Employees by Cigna and the "pennies wise, pound foolish" cost-cutting city staff. Read the article several times if you have to, there was a lot of work put into that article, but my reading of this situation is that the only way that Cigna will make money off that bid is if they cut service from 9% of employees down to 2 or 3 percent. And it's being sold as a way to save money while maintaining or even increasing service level.

I am left with but one conclusion--if you read the Davis Enterprise, you will get a very small and a very skewed picture of what is happening in Davis City government.

Of the five most crucial issues that came before the council, only two were covered. The Davis Enterprise did have substantial coverage of the Senior Citizens issue in the weeks leading up to the final vote on Tuesday. But even in this case, the reader would have missed a lot of important context.

Claire St. John of the Davis Enterprise writes:

A subcommittee of Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Councilman Stephen Souza recommended the merger and asked the two commissions to explore the idea, but the Senior Citizens Commission rejected the proposal immediately, collecting signatures and making strong statements against it. "It was an idea," Souza said. "I'm sorry if it was misunderstood."

What the article on Wednesday does not mention is that it was more than "an idea." On September 12, 2006 the merger appeared as a resolution in the agenda backed by a full recommendation for passage. And yet, the reader having no context for this issue would conclude that Souza and Asmundson had come up with an idea and then changed their mind.

The striking thing about this meeting is how blatantly duplicitous the major faction of the City Council was during this meeting. The very last item that they discussed sums it up--Councilmember Don Saylor misrepresented his motivations for voting to take no action on an RFP (request for proposal) item that would authorize the taking of bids for a park's consultant. Saylor voted with Heystek and Greenwald two weeks ago so that he could preserve his parliamentary option to bring up the item for reconsideration once Asmundson returned from her oversees trip. Souza then claimed this wasn't an acceptance of the consultant--which is true to an extent, but also misleading about the way this process works. And finally, the need for reconsideration came because Asmundson was absent during her travels. Greenwald had very generously put any item that Asmundson wanted to consider, off until Asmundson returned. Yet, this generosity and courtesy was not rewarded by the council majority on an item that Asmundson had not requested be postponed until her return.

Then there is the issue of the police cars. Here is a case where the city knew that there was a problem with the in-car digital recording equipment that cost the city over $140,000 to purchase and install. The city does not come forward with this information to inform the members of the city council, let alone the public. And to date, the Davis Enterprise has not covered it.

The biggest ally of the council majority is an uninformed electorate. Unfortunately, a lot of people who believe they are informed are not getting the full story or any story at all. That is one of the reasons why in late July I started this blog. And one of the reasons why I continue to put time and energy into researching the stories that I write about.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Souza and Asmundson Mislead on Seniors' Issue

When Elaine Roberts Musser, chair of the Senior Citzens Commission, came up before Council on Tuesday night, she delivered harsh and very pointed criticism in the direction of Councilmember Stephen Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson. Souza and Asmundson seemed very defensive in their reactions to these accusations yielded by Musser. And while they denied some of the charges and apologized for any misunderstanding, the fact remains that the accusations by Musser are accurate and frankly there was no misunderstanding—their intentions from the very beginning were very clear. A review of the public record reveals not only that Musser is correct, but that Souza and Asmundson have done a very hasty retreat on this issue since they brought it first before Council on September 12, 2006.

At City Council meeting in October 2006, Souza made the claim that he would later repeat in newspaper interviews that in fact all he and Asmundson wanted to do was "generate conversation." They were not necessarily recommending merger, but they wanted to consider it. After reviewing the public record, this claim seems dubious at best.

When the Council met on September 12, 2006, city staff, under the direction of the city council subcommittee of Asmundson and Souza, had placed on the agenda a number of recommendations on changes to be made regarding various city commissions—many of these were minor and had to do with changes in authorizing documents and size of membership.

One of the major changes was the recommendation to merge two commissions: Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission.

According to agenda item 9, "Recommendations of the staff liaisons that are recommended by the subcommittee have been incorporated in the proposed
resolutions."

The Senior Citizens Commission and Social Service Commission recommendation reads:

"There is a significant amount of overlap and to combine the two commissions would be beneficial to the members and the City Council. It is suggested that the name of the commission be Social Services and Senior Commission. The functions of the two commissions were reworded and combined into one set of functions and no functions of either commission removed."

Souza and Asmundson did not raise this issue to generate conversation. They proposed that the two commissions be merged at a public city council meeting before receiving any feedback from the two commissions affected by this proposal. They had placed on the September 12, 2006 council agenda both a full recommendation and a full resolution merging the two commissions. This was an action item and there is no doubt they wanted to take action to merge the two commissions that evening as they pressed their colleagues to do so.

Had they wanted to generate discussion, they would have broached the topic at the respective commission meetings first and gauged the support of the membership rather than bringing up a full resolution for a vote at the city council meeting. Only after questions were raised by Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald as well as from members of the public did they then go to the respective commissions for comment.

What happened here is that Souza and Asmundson made several critical errors in this process. They went forward with a full resolution and recommendation for merger without adequately soliciting the opinions of the involved commissions or the groups and citizens the commissions serve.

Upon resistance from the Senior Citizen's Commission they backtracked both in rhetoric and in policy, before finally at the most recent meeting on Tuesday, December 12 they were forced to abandon the idea after first proposing a two-year delay in consideration.

The most striking part of this entire experience is the blatant dishonesty by the Councilmember Souza and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson about their original intentions which were quite clear. They made serious errors about how they chose to approach this issue. It would have been a responsible thing to do to take a step back in September when these errors became apparent and put this process on a different trajectory. Instead, they tried to finesse around their mistakes and then deceive the public about their true intentions.

Please review our numerous articles on this issue and watch the comments first by Elaine Roberts Musser and then Souza's defensive response.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Tuesday Midday Briefs

Council continues backtracking on Senior Citizens Commission merge

It has been fascinating to watch the hasty retreat by Souza and Asmundson on the merging of the Social Services Commission with the Senior Citizens commissions. The plan was first introduced in mid-September. However, the Senior Citizens forcefully rejected idea of the merger.

Now staff is recommending that they delay a final decision for two years. Sue Greenwald is rightly suggesting that it be killed all together. But realistically, it is best to just fight other battles. In two years, if the council majority remains with Souza and Saylor, it probably would be brought back anyway. And if the Progressives take control, the proposal will die whether it is delayed or not. So we might as well move on. The Senior Citizens have won this battle.


Dixon Downs will likely go to the ballot

The Davis Enterprise reports today that the racetrack may have enough signatures to send the decision to the voters. The group has collected over double what they need to get the measures on the ballot. The measure would go to a special election in April if approved.

Meanwhile both the city of Davis and Campbell’s Soup Company have sued over traffic concerns.

Letter to the editor on the Junior High Incident

Hey, "Letters to the Editor" are always fair game. Especially if you write on one of my hot topics.

Kayla Birt writes the Davis Enterprise today:

"If the district were to lose $100,000, every student in the Davis School District would be affected."

I agree. All the more reason to put pressure on the school district to do their job and take care of these problems. This has been a consistent problem with the school district over the years. They are slow to respond. If it takes a $100,000 hit to the school district to wake up the community to what they are doing, then it's well worth it.

"But suing the district does absolutely nothing to solve the problem and harms about 7,000 innocent students along the way."

I disagree, first of all, money was only a very small part of the suit and most of the suit involves simply involves putting policies into place that will help the district stop this from happening in the future and at the same time help Zachary Fischer to go back to school.

Second, as I recall, some of the students are not innocent, so maybe the number should be 6,980.

Third, at $14 per student, perhaps this can prevent someone from going through this, then that's a small but worthwhile cost.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Senior Citizens Commission Continues to Strongly Oppose Plans for Merger

The Davis City Council continues to seek the merger of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission. The Senior Citizens Commission, as we have reported now several times, from the start, has opposed such a merger for a variety of reasons including the diminishing of their influence among the commissions and also the distinct duties between what those two commissions currently work on.

In an article last night in the Davis Enterprise, Souza is being fundamentally dishonest about his goals and motivations behind this move.

Councilman Souza has said the merger recommendation was meant to generate conversation, and the final decision will not be made until the council takes its vote.

This is simply untrue. The merger recommendation occurred in conjunction with a number of other proposed changes that were implemented. Back in September, Souza went to both commissions in order to gauge their desire to merge. The Social Services Commission, which was at the time filled with a number of strong allies of the current council majority including Kevin Kline, Michelle Reardon, and Donna Lott, consented to support the merger by a 6-1 vote.

However, the Senior Citizen Commission led by Elaine Roberts Musser, was very strongly opposed to such a meeting. As we reported back on September 26, 2006, when Souza did not immediately get his way, he spent over an hour attempted to browbeat the chair of the commission into agreement becoming at times belligerent and abusive (to a senior!).

When this merger idea was brought up in September, it was clearly not done merely to generate discussion, rather it was intended to make changes. Souza and Asmundson never anticipated such resistance to their plan. It was only after strong opposition from the seniors on the commission, and the seniors in the community (I am told they now have several hundred signatures), that Souza’s stated goals changed to generating discussion about the new roles of the commissions.

However, it was not until the October 24, 2006 (click here to see a video clip from that meeting) meeting that the notion of generating discussion even came up. There was absolutely no mention of this at the September meeting. The original idea was that they would approach both commissions to see what they thought about the idea. And this occurred after both Greenwald and Heystek were adamant about gauging the level of support for the merger by the two commissions.

Once again this week, the Senior Citizen commissioners clearly stated that they oppose any merger with the Social Services Commission. Musser argues that we have a council that has commissions to do things like bikes, trees, art. Given that, it makes little sense not to allow the seniors to have their own separate commission.

To this date, Souza has not articulated a strong reason to go ahead with this merger. The idea that the combination of the two commissions will make for a stronger voice is spurious at best and ad hoc in its origins.

Asmundson and Souza said the merger of the Senior Citizens and Social Services commissions would eliminate overlap and bring a greater voice to both concerns. The new commission would be called the Commission on Aging and Social Services, and would include a subcommittee of seniors to work on issues that affect the elderly only.

The degree of overlap between the duties of the commission is heavily disputed by members of the Senior Citizen commission who suggest, very credibly and convincingly, that they deal with very different issues. They believe that they have a full agenda and that they should take up those issues pertinent to seniors rather than work on the broader agenda that the Social Services Commission works on.

At this point, this seems like a power game pure and simple. The Council would be well advised to at their December 12, 2006 meeting let this matter drop. An alternative approach may be to create a special joint commission to deal with issues that both commission share while allowing them to function separately on those issues that are not in common. That would seem to accomplish the best of both worlds—enabling the Council to get part of what it wants while allowing the Senior Citizen Commission to remain independent and able to pursue issues of paramount importance to the Senior Citizen community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Divide and Conquer is a Risky Strategy for the Council

One of the first lessons that my political mentor taught me a long time ago when I first got involved in politics was to avoid too many polarizing issues. He drew it out for me on a chalkboard quite clearly. You may take the majority position on each issue, but you will anger a different constituency as well. You may win on each issue, but at the end of the day those constituencies may add up to over 50%.

When the council took on the HRC and the police issue, it seemed that a majority of people were on their side. But these were very contentious issues and they angered a number of constituents who may have been with them on growth and development issues. Likewise the Target issue did not just anger the progressives who normally oppose the Council majority, but also it angered small business owners, particularly in the downtown. So while they might have had the barest of majorities support Measure K, they may have mobilized a powerful new constituency against them who will join forces with the progressives to work to oust them in 2008.

That brings me to yet another constituency that may be in the process of being mobilized against the council. The issue of the merger of the Senior Citizen Commission has angered many seniors. We’ve covered this issue a few times as it has developed. Overall the community seems indifferent to the issue of the merger of the Senior Citizen Commission with the Social Services Commission. However, one group that is angry is a group that has not generally asserted itself in Davis nor have they generally sided with the progressives. The council may once again have the majority that can get this through the council, but they may in turn mobilize another group against them.

The chair of the Senior Citizens commission Elaine Roberts Musser writes:

If council members are concerned about the tone of the conversation in the community, it is comments such as those aforementioned that get seniors' blood boiling. They know full well when they are being had... A total of 138 outraged seniors want their commission to be left alone to do its business — advancing the interests of Davis seniors.

That may not seem like a large number, but it probably speaks for a larger group. Small numbers of voters who change their loyalties in an evenly divided town could be pivotal in swinging an election.

As we wrote a few weeks ago, we were unimpressed with the reasoning behind the move. Musser was not either.

Councilman Stephen Souza claims, "By combining the power of both bodies, you wind up with a more powerful body and focus ..." What you really end up with is shortchanging constituencies of both the Senior Citizens Commission and the Social Services Commission, focusing away from seniors in particular.

Further she takes exception to the notion of making the Senior Citizens a subcommittee, since many are not able to drive at night and would not be able to attend the new commissions meetings which occur after dark.

I was also very troubled by a comment Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson made at the Oct. 24 City Council meeting. There was an indication that if seniors were not able to meet in the evening, then they could join a standing subcommittee. Why should seniors be relegated to subcommittee status, just because they cannot drive at night?

The Council majority may once again have the support both on the council itself and in the community to prevail on this issue. But at some point they will have polarized so many people, that they may have polarized themselves right out of power.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Continues to Seek Merger of Senior Citizen's Commission

At Tuesday's City Council meeting the council continued their move towards a merger of the Senior Citizen's Commission with the Social Services Commission. This is a move strongly opposed by the Senior Citizen's Commission and supported by the Social Services Commission.

For the first time, we see the rationale behind this rather perplexing move. It remains completely unclear as to why Souza has continued to push this issue other than sheer vanity. Souza's argument is that by combining the two commissions, you make a more powerful one.

He certainly to date has not made any kind of argument for why that might be. In fact, there are several reasons to argue that combining the issue would actually dilute the influence of both commissions. There would not be a single member lost, however, that means you are looking at a 12-14 person commission charged with a very broad range of issues. It seems likely that a lot of the specific issues may not get addressed and much of the work would have to be performed in subcommittee anyway (which begs the question, why not just leave it as it is if you have to hav a lot of subcommittees).

Mayor Sue Greenwald makes two very good arguments against the merger. The first, is that it is not clear that these two commissions really have compatible jurisdictions. The mayor argues that the Social Service's commission primarily focuses on issues of disabilities and the poor. When informed that they may not primarily focus on those issues, she strongly argues that they should. The Senior Citizen's commission heavily focuses on issues pertaining directly to Seniors.

While there is clearly some overlap between the duties, the overall focus is very different and seems better to remain distict except at those times when the issues converge. Councilmember Heystek suggested that they might have either liaisons to each other or have joint committee meetings when their jurisdictions overlap.

The second issue that Greenwald raises is the time of meetings. A lot of seniors, as she points out, cannot drive at night and cannot be out late. The Senior Citizen's Commission meets during the day, however, staff suggested that the meetings for the new commission would be at night--a great inconvenience to the seniors not only on the commission but in the community as a whole who might like to attend meetings. Staff's suggestion was that they arrange for rides, but that seems to be almost insulting and greatly erodes the independence of the membership and likely will erode future interest in serving on this commission.

Under fire, the Council is now suggesting they have meetings and discussion until December and then will wait to make a decision. Several suggested that at that time they might decide to keep things at is.

That seems very unlikely. While a view of the meeting reveals Souza in an amiable mood talking about the power that the merger will bring to these commissions, it is in striking contrast to his previous behavior with regards to this issue where witnesses suggested that Souza browbeat and attempted to intimidate the chair of the commission to go along with his plans.

The Senior community has responded in kind and now the council majority is complaining about the tone of discussion in the community. This is a typical game played by Souza and Saylor--they have free reign to attempt to get their way, but when people call them on it, they complain about tone and tenor.

At the end of the day, there seems to be no reason for this merger other than perhaps the ego of Souza. He named nothing concrete that would be gained by this. The senior citizen commission continues to oppose it. I see no reason whatsoever for this to be brought back at the December meeting.

Seniors would be wise to remember this effort by the council and the extent of this effort to merge the commissions.

Please view segments of the debate from Tuesday night beginning with a long talk from Souza. This is about a nine minute video clip. (It may take a little while before the link is active, please be patient).



---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Chair of the Senior Citizens Commission Blasts Back

Yesterday I reported that Councilmember Stephen Souza publicly browbeat the chair of the Senior Citizens Commission. Well in last night’s Davis Enterprise Elaine Roberts Musser fired back.

She strongly opposes the proposed merger of the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission arguing that “based on my knowledge as a commissioner at the county level. Such a merger may have unintended consequences.”

Moreover she informs us that County Supervisor Mariko Yamada strongly opposes this merger and wrote a letter the members of the Davis City Council expressing that.

But the real fireworks come toward the end of the letter.

“In my opinion, if the Davis City Council doesn't think enough of its senior citizens to have a separate commission for the elderly, Davis may find itself in the unenviable position of not being represented at the county level. When matters with respect to the county come up for budgeting and projects, Davis seniors may discover themselves on the short end of the stick. Woodland and West Sacramento, who do have separate senior commissions, may garner a windfall with respect to county monies or projects, whereas Davis will be left out in the cold.”

Finally she delivers the electoral threat with the full-force of the Senior voters behind her. “I would also urge Davis seniors to keep in mind who on the City Council did not think their concerns were important enough to rate continuing the Senior Citizens Commission, the next time City Council members come up for re- election.”

I will be very interested to see how the Council responds to what I am guessing they will perceive as a threat. This is starting to bear a remarkable resemblance to the situation of the HRC, where the Chair, frustrated at the Council’s attempts to skirt the issue and undercut her finally threatened them with going to the voters. That was a huge mistake, but the Senior Citizen Commission is probably in much stronger position to press home this threat than the HRC ever was and that’s why it will be interesting to see if the Council ends up being as heavy-handed with the Senior Citizen Commission as they were with the HRC.

One thing is clear—the council in June tried to portray the situation with the HRC as unique—it was not. The difference is that the HRC was politically vulnerable enough to isolate. The Senior Citizen community is probably far too strong for those kind of tactics to work.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting…

Browbeating Seniors

My focus on the HRC and the Council’s reconstruction of the HRC is closest to my heart, but my single-minded focus has obscured some of the other controversial changes to the commission system proposed by Souza-Asmundson.

To most of us Stephen Souza is the mild-mannered councilmember, who looks like he’d be right at home smoking a bowl with his constituents and philosophizing about the meaning of life until the wee hours of the morning. Souza appears generally calm and reserved and often tries to play the role as moderating force to the cold and calculating Don Saylor. But there is a dark-side to Stephen Souza that few in the public have seen. He’s every bit as cold and calculating as Saylor, with an equal mean and vindictive side to him.

One of the proposed changes was merging the Social Services Commission with the Senior Commission. Now last week, Souza and Asmundson went to the Social Services Commission and asked them to support the merger, they did by a 6-1 vote. Now there is subtext to this vote, the next day, the Council was going to here on the issue of accessibility in new building projects, which is the most important issue to that commission. Would they vote against the wishes of the council majority knowing that their issue was going to be heard the next day? No. And they were not all that happy with the council’s decision anyway.

The sham comes when the Senior Commission meets late last week, and Souza and Asmundson show up again. Souza browbeats the chair of the Senior commission for over an hour. Apparently it was quite abusive from eyewitness accounts. They have not voted on the matter yet, but will at the next meeting.

To begin with, I do not understand the rationale of the merger. The two commissions do not deal with the same things. Even if the merger were to make some sense, I do not understand why Souza would have so much invested in the merger that he would feel the need to be abusive toward a senior (or anyone for that matter). The chair of the commission is furious and this is not the first time that Souza has done this to a chair. He may have been able to get away with this with the HRC, but seniors are a large percentage of our population and they vote. Word will get around about this. And I’m just left scratching my head.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting