What Lessons Do We Learn From Dixon Downs: Why are Some Development Projects Doomed to Failure?

We have not discussed Dixon Downs Race Track much here. For one thing, there have been more than enough Davis issues that have simply kept us occupied. For another, I sense the last thing that the good folks opposing the Dixon Downs Racetrack wanted was the sense that the liberal freaks in Davis were somehow pulling the strings.

That said, we must say something about this nice victory for the little guy over the big corporation. After all, the big back race track folks who angered just about everyone down in Dixon including other folks who are often big and bad in their own right like Campbell's Soup, spent over $500,000 to win the passage of the track. And let's face it, $500,000 in Dixon dollars is probably more like $2 million or more Davis dollars.

Let us not forget just how this started--a 4-1 vote by the City Council approved the race track. Not deterred, the grassroots folks down in Dixon started collecting signatures and forced the issue onto the ballot. And then they defeated it by a wide margin. This is Dixon's Covell Village vote. A great victory, as I said for the small guy.

At the end of the day, this gets me thinking about what all of this means exactly. Since November of 2005, we have seen three major votes on big development projects--two in Davis and one in Dixon. Target very narrowly passed and both Dixon Downs and Covell Village were handily defeated.

Why did Target pass and the other two get defeated? All three represented fundamental and large disruptions to life and we know it in their respective communities. The most interesting thing I have found is that even among those who supported Covell Village, there were concerns about size and infrastructure. Moreover, many of the people who opposed Covell Village were not what we might call knee-jerk zero growthers. Instead the fundamental belief is that that area could not support a massive influx of residents. Covell Blvd. had no easy access to the freeway and not easy way to expand to support another 6,000 residents and their accompanying traffic.

However, I think there is another factor at work in Covell Village, that helps us understand both the Target Vote and the Dixon Vote. The upside for Covell Village did not positively affect the average Davis resident. What does the average Davis resident gain from 2,000 or so housing units? If you live here, affordable housing is probably not a huge inducement. So for most who supported Covell Village there had to be some sort of business decision or philosophical decision that led to that support. There was no direct benefit to the average voter. So you had a calculation where most of the negatives of passing the development project--traffic congestion and other infrastructure problems outweighed any benefit.

Target passed by the skin of its teeth precisely because unlike Covell Village, a larger percentage of people could see an actual and direct benefit that could for enough of them offset the negatives. People wanted a large store where they could do a large amount of affordable shopping in town. People wanted a place (or at least enough) that they could purchase bulk amounts of cheap consumer goods. I am not saying that passage was inevitable, because I think Target could have been defeated under some circumstances, but Target at least presented a possibility of passage.

That leads us to Dixon Downs Racetrack. The people I have spoken to on this issue are of two minds. Some are strongly opposed to it because of environmental, traffic, noise, and congestion concerns (see the Covell Village arguments). Others (and these are primarily Davis people) simply do not really care. Either they moderately support it as a revenue generator or they do not care at all. I have not met a person who actually wants the track because they will attend horse races. And herein lies the point. The vast majority of people in Dixon were voting to approve or deny a project that provided a good that they would not consume and that many had no interest in consuming.

At the end of the day, the Dixon Downs vote came down to how much weight you gave economic development or how much you personally had to gain from such a project. For the average Dixon voter, like the average Covell Voter in Davis, the positives from this project without the personal appeal, just did not justify the disruption and the project failed. We are talking about a project failing in a town with many big box stores and no qualms about growth and development.

The lesson that we learn is that projects of this magnitude need to have a broader appeal to the residents other than--it is good for the economy. Because if that is all they have going for them, the measures will not pass. The easiest vote in politics is the status quo vote--embodied by a no vote on a referendum or initiative. You must convince voters to vote yes because their default is to vote no. To pass, they must entice voters with actual goods and services that the average person has a desire to consume. Dixon Downs failed much like Covell Village because the average person in Dixon probably had little desire to go to the race tracks.

The Woodland Daily Democrat is already suggesting Woodland as a location for the race track. Not sure that is as appealing a location to have it off of I-5 as it was on the I-80 corridor.

As they write:

Davis residents won't mind the horse-racing facility going to Woodland - even through they were opposed to Dixon - because Woodland is generally out of sight and out of mind to Davisites. The Davis City Council was worried about increased traffic on I-80. They most likely won't worry about more traffic on I-5, Highway 113, or even I-505, let alone Woodland's Main Street.

While they are probably correct, they had better hope that Woodland residents do not try to place the issue on the ballot, but we all know what would have then.

A few weeks ago I took issue with the suggestion that Measure J was not a growth inhibitor. The data clearly show that it is. One of the outcomes of Measure J is that they will need to design projects that do one of two things. Either they need to not draw criticism and strong opposition or they need to provide a good that the majority of residents of Davis think they want to consume at some point.

The former point requires that the project not threaten to displace existing business nor threaten to jam the local streets with traffic. In other words--no major disruption to the lives of the average resident. Neither Covell Village nor Target succeeded in this respect. Target however was able to pass by the skin of its teeth because it provided just enough people with the inducement of goods they might want to consume.

In the case of Target, that was just enough inducement to outweigh concerns about a whole variety of issues. For those thinking that this is license to try to bring in another big-box, I would think again. Target was in many ways a perfect storm in Davis--it filled a niche in the economy that did not exist and Target while to many of us was anti-progressive, it was also not Wal-Mart. I am not certain that another big-box fills quite that niche and so I would think it would be difficult to bring in another--unless the council simply does not bring it for a vote in the future.

In the end, Dixon Downs was doomed to fail because once again, the average person was not excited by the prospect of convenient horse racing. All those people could see was more traffic and more growth on their border and that was not worth the trade-off. Democracy prevailed in Dixon this week, it was a victory for the little guy over the big guy.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Power Vested Strongly in Unelected Public Officials Harms Democracy

Towards the beginning of Tuesday evening's Davis City Council meeting, Mayor Sue Greenwald made note that City Manager Bill Emlen had produced a long agenda and done so over her objections. It was another potentially explosive situation on the City Council however Bill Emlen diffused it somewhat by suggesting that he felt it was necessary to cover these items at this time and that he took full responsibility for any length of the meeting.

Whether the mayor or the city manager was correct in this exchange, one of the important things that this incident reveals is where the power resides--and it is not with an elected official such as the Mayor. Rather it is the unelected City Manager.

A few weeks ago, the issue arose where the question was asked who had the power to write the agenda. My understanding is that the procedure is generally for the city manager to write the agenda in consultation with the mayor. In practice however it seems that the city manager writes the agenda and anytime he and the mayor disagree, he says that this is what the council majority wants.

At times it is not even clear that the city manager was getting his direction from the council majority. For example there was a long range budget workshop. The mayor wanted this workshop televised, as it took place in the council chambers, and yet purportedly the city manager was insistent that the council majority had wanted no television. And yet, when I actually spoke to a number of members of the council majority, they had no idea that such a decision had been made.

So what happened? It is far from clear, but it seems possible that the city manager made the decision on his own and when confronted simply assumed that the council majority would disagree.

Worse yet is that there seems that the mayor has little recourse other than to bring the issues forward in public--and if the mayor does that, she would inevitably lose more often than not.

Formally however, it would appear the presiding officer under Rosenberg's Rules would have much greater latitude:

"The presiding officer is responsible for preparing the agenda and order of the meeting, conducting the meeting and maintaining order."

If the Council Ground Rules is the authorizing document, the presiding officer would be responsible for preparing the agenda. There may be a more fleshed out version however that more fully explains this power. But using this right now as the document, I do not think the city manager is in compliance.

In practice it seems that the mayor does not have the power to agendize items at her discretion. This is in part a function of the city manager model. It is also in part a function of this being a minority mayor. However, at least according to the ground rules, this is not a formal arrangement of power.

The question I pose though is who should really have such powers to determine the items on the agenda--the elected mayor and elected body of the city council or the unelected staff and city manager?

We see this issue arise time and time again. For example at this past meeting, there was a proclamation to award PG&E recognition for their generous $10,000 contribution to the Street Smarts program. The proclamation read signed by Mayor Sue Greenwald. And yet in actuality, it was written by a member of the staff who obtained an agreement with PG&E in order to secure their donation. Did council have a say in this matter? No.

At the recent swearing in ceremony of the new police Chief Landy Black, we saw the city manager rather than the Mayor conduct the ceremony. A number of people who witnessed this event asked why the city manager was doing this? It is a small issue to be sure, but it is illustrative of just who has the power. Generally ceremonial tasks such as these, even in a weak mayoral system, fall to elected officials rather than city staff. That's part of the few actual powers that the mayor ought to have in such a system. I've never seen a city manager perform such tasks.

As I have mentioned on this blog many times, I also think it is problematic that the city council does not have their own staff. This means they must rely on the guidance and counsel of staff that has no direct ties or loyalty to them. This too becomes very problematic at times, especially for members who are in the minority on council.

There have also been several points when city staff has failed to properly advise and council the mayor and city council on public matters. Two such incidents come to mind--again both of these in and of themselves are minor things, but they are illustrative of the broader issue and problem.

At the Police Chief Landy Black swearing-in ceremony, the Mayor made some introductions of elected officials--which is a traditional courtesy at such public events. However, the mayor herself had to walk around and figure out who was there. This was clearly a job that staff should have done. This should have fallen to deputy city manager Kelly Stachowicz who was in attendance. Moreover, there were six visiting police chiefs from other jurisdictions at this event and no one informed the mayor so that she could introduce them on behalf of the city. This is staff's job. The mayor was not properly staffed. An elected official cannot be responsible for figuring out who is in attendance, that is what staff is there for. The staff should have ensured that these dignitaries were properly recognized officially by the city.

On a related note at the recent city council meeting this past Tuesday evening, the new Police Chief Landy Black was in attendance for the first time, officially as the Police Chief. Yet, somehow staff did not think to let the Mayor know that she ought to formally introduce him to the community as Police Chief. Moreover, not one councilmember thought to introduce Chief Black to the community at the meeting.

These types of errors are minor, but they are a bit embarrassing for the city.

This leads me back to my concern about ability for councilmembers to place items on the agenda. Councilmembers can request items on the agenda. The council can actually prevent these items from coming on the agenda. Informally so too can the city manager. What this means is that those in the council minority do not have the full ability to agendize items with staff support and preparation. Often they have had to place items on as city councilmember items--which means they must prepare and staff themselves. A portion of the Davis community who voted for these members is essentially somewhat disenfranchised because their elected representatives lack the ability to place items on the agenda.

While I understand that cities the size of Davis invariably use a city manager model of government which is a very weak mayoral system. It seems that more power is vested with staff than most cities I have seen. It seems that the mayor has very little power to create an agenda and even under the council handbook listed on the city's webpage, the Mayor ought to have more power to do so. Unfortunately, as a member of the council minority, it seems that the Mayor has little recourse other than to make a statement in public acknowledging her dissatisfaction with the current arrangement.

My question remains who should have the power, the elected council or the unelected staff? My position remains that wherever possible, the elected council who must face the voters should retain the power and direct staff to achieve their ends. Perhaps this is what is happening, but if it is, it is not happening in the public light and that is where these decisions need to take place.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

In Tribute to Mel Trujillo

My friends, as many of you know, Davis lost a dear and treasured resident of its community last Friday, Mel Trujillo. Mel was not just a community leader but he was also a very cherished personal friend of myself and Cecilia. We did not always agree with Mel. There were times when he was decidedly on the other side of the fence, such as he was with the issue of Covell Village. But Mel was always a person of profound conviction and character.

In the past year I have grown to know Mel Trujillo very well. He became incensed at the handling of the police issue, the Buzayan case, and the Human Relations Commission. Many a day, he would call me up with his unique voice, "hello David, this is Mel Trujillo." He would proceed often to long and frustrated monologues about the state of things. Other times he would call me up and pump me for information and I would have to figure out what I wanted to leak to his other confidants he spoke.

I will very deeply miss his calls and our conversations. And I will deeply miss the sound of his voice.

I copy and paste a couple of other statements that I have seen in the paper. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments section.

From Bill Ritter (special to the Vanguard):

The passing of Mel Trujillo brings back a flood of memories. Mel was a champion of the underdog. Mel was a strong voice for civil rights, human rights and social justice always willing to come to the aid of those in our society who are victims of bigotry and racism in all its ugly forms. One of the most endearing traits Mel had was the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I will cherish the many wonderful conversations we shared over the years. I will miss my friend.

From Bob Dunning:

Mel Trujillo made our city a better place

AN INCREDIBLE LOSS . . . if you look up "passion" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Mel Trujillo . . . Mel, who worked tirelessly for Years on a variety of human rights issues in our town, died Friday after a brief illness at the age of 77 . . . while Mel worked hard for Concilio of Yolo County and dedicated long hours to the Martin Luther King Jr. dinner and awards ceremony, at any moment he was intimately involved in more issues in town than most of us care about in a lifetime.

Mel and I frequently agreed and just as frequently disagreed on the proper approach to a vareity of issues, and he generally called much later at night than I would have preferred, but I always knew the guy on the other end of the conversation had something meaningful to say. Mayor Sue Greenwald said Mel Trujillo's death is "an incredible loss for the town" and no one can disagree with her...

Thanks, Mel... you made this town a much better place for all of us... your legacy will live on in the many valuable projects you saw through to completion and in the many friends you leave behind.

Letter to the Editor from Reverend Tim Malone

Rest in peace, Mel Trujillo

Me1 Trujillo died today (Friday). He was the co-founder of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Scholarship Fund here in Davis. At this time, I am stunned into silence as I remember my friend and brother.

Mel was a man of action who always kept his word. He volunteered many hours, days and weeks to help deserving students to attend college. Mel was a brilliant man who worked hard to make this world a better place for everyone. He raised thousands of dollars to give to deserving students for scholarships.

For four years in a row, Me1 dedicated his life to make the MLK Dinner one of the best and most diverse positive events in Davis. The next MLK Award Dinner will be held on Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. We hope to see you there. We will honor our friend and brother, Me1 Trujillo.

Rest in peace, Mel.

The Rev. Timothy T. Malone

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis City Council Delays Proclamation to PG&E While Woodland "Studies" Public Power Issue

PG&E had a representative waiting in the audience to receive their award for donating $10,000 to the Davis Street Smarts program. But they will have to wait at least until the next meeting to receive it because Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek made a motion that would result in a delay in the proclamation presentation until a future meeting when the council could concurrently offer up a resolution similar to Woodland City Councilmember Art Pimentel's to support future efforts to develop public power.

The move began at the start of the Council Meeting Tuesday night. Mayor Sue Greenwald asked for the approval of the agenda. Councilmember Heystek instead introduced a motion to approve the agenda with the exception of the proclamation to recognize PG&E's contribution. Mayor Greenwald seconded the motion. And Heystek explained that he thought the council since Measures H and I passed overwhelmingly in Davis should join Pimentel's efforts by affirming their commitment to public power at the same time they award PG&E, the city's present provider who spent millions to defeat the public power initiative last fall.

Councilmember Don Saylor looked visibly shaken by the turn of events but eventually caught himself. When Ruth Asmundson spoke in support of Heystek's motion, it was all over and the motion passed without dissent. Coucilmembers Heystek and Stephen Souza will be submitting resolutions that dovetail on Pimentel's Woodland resolution and staff will iron out any differences. When the vote comes back to council, we can expect it to pass unanimously.

Unfortunately things did not go as smoothly last night up in Woodland. Instead of passing a rather simple resolution, the council has directed the formation of a subcommittee composed of Art Pimentel and Skip Davies. The passage of it will be tenuous as best as it is clear that neither Jeff Monroe nor Bill Marble will support public power again. Mayor Dave Florey may hold the swing vote there.

This is a rather disappointing turn of events, as just a few months ago, the Woodland City Council had been unanimous in their support of Measures H & I. However, the City of Woodland overwhelmingly voted down the measures on the November ballot. I am very disappointed with Jeff Monroe. Monroe is supposedly a Democrat, who has future ambitions for higher office--some have suggested possibly sheriff. Too often he is not reliable in supporting core Democratic principles. Supporting public power over the massive corporate entity of PG&E should be a no-brainer. But that might require Jeff Monroe to take a risk now that the Woodland voters so overwhelmingly opposed H & I in the wake of the disinformation campaign put on by PG&E to confuse the voters. Instead of fighting to educate his community, Monroe is playing it safe.

It may seem like a small victory, but the actions by the Davis City Council loom large as PG&E who had been pounding on the Woodland City Council and using the full force of their power and influence to prevent the passage of the resolution, were denied an honor the same night down in Davis. They will get their turn, but only as the Davis City Council renews their professed commitment to public power.

The PG&E representative, obviously caught off-guard by the actions on Tuesday, was forced to give a brief statement during public comment expressing support and commitment to safety issues.

It was not a perfect day for advocates of public power, but the Davis City Council stepped up and did the right thing. Now it will be interesting to see if PG&E wants to expend the same efforts to pound on the Davis City Council that they did to the Woodland City Council. I will go out on a limb and say they will not because they see the writing on the wall.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Why is the City of Davis Recognizing PG&E?

Last fall Measure H & I, a measure that was unanimously supported by the Davis City Council, was placed on the ballot. In a rare showing of unity, the councilmembers came out in support of public power as a mean not only save money but to produce cleaner energy not subject to windfall profits.

In response, PG&E waged an expensive, dirty, and misleading campaign.

As Stephen Souza co-wrote a letter to the editor in November with County Supervisor Mariko Yamada:

"Davis voters sent an unmistakable Election Day message about public power — we want it! The twin SMUD annexation Measures H and I passed here by a nearly 62 percent margin despite PG&E's unprecedented $11 million disinformation campaign to defeat us. Unfortunately, their efforts to frighten and confuse Sacramento SMUD ratepayers and West Sacramento and Woodland residents were too great to overcome — this time."

Because of these deceptive efforts, PG&E decided it needed to do damage control. After all there was a good deal of bitterness in this community and PG&E recognized that it had to mend the fences--otherwise it would only be a matter of time before the next Measure H & I was proposed.

After an $11 million campaign to keep their stake in Yolo, the company basically threw down some chump change to contribute to the development of the Davis City Street Smart public education program at the platinum level. Hey if they were willing to spend in the tens of millions, what is $10,000 to them.

Now the city of Davis has a contract with them to honor them in exchange for this contribution to the Street Smarts program. This is not something that the City Council wants it is being dictated to them by non-elected staff decisions. Who runs this town again?

Meanwhile as we have seen in the last few days, PG&E in response to a resolution before the Woodland City Council sponsored by Art Pimentel has set up a full-blown answering service to direct calls in the Woodland City Hall opposing the rather innocuous resolution.

The resolution declares,

"The City Council of the City of Woodland supports the continued assessment of power alternatives that would lead to less expensive, more reliable and more earth-friendly electric power for the citizens, businesses and property owners of Woodland and throughout the Yolo County region."

So tonight at the Davis City Council, PG&E will be honored for their community contribution. At the same time, at the Woodland City Council they will be intimidating and browbeating the Woodland City Council in opposition to a resolution supporting the concept of public power.

If PG&E wants to donate to Davis Street Smarts that is fine, but we do not need a proclamation honoring them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: School Board Makes It Right in Contrast to the City Council

As the issue of the Davis High School student gets resolved in a rapid and largely acceptable manner, it is easy to look back upon the arrest of 16-year-old Halema Buzayan in 2005 and wonder what if it had been resolved as quickly and amicably as this incident.

Few except those intimately involved in this situation realize that the chain of events that the Buzayan arrest on that June night now nearly two years ago was entirely avoidable. For Dr. Buzayan's first call was not to a lawyer, but rather to his elected representatives. His first move was to go before the Davis City Council and explain his situation. His first action was to file a formal complaint with the department. Somewhere between that point and now things went horribly wrong.

In retrospect it is easy to find faults in the manner in which this was handled by the police officer involved, the city, and the district attorney's office. No one quite understands the reason that Ms. Buzayan was arrested in her home for misdemeanor. No one quite understands the reason that Ms. Buzayan was taken to the police department rather than a probation officer at juvenile hall. No one quite understands the need to arrest anyone for alleged bumper damage to a car.

It was only when the process failed that Dr. Buzayan felt compelled to seek out legal counsel. It was only when his complaint was rejected that the Human Relations Commission felt compelled to create a civilian police review board. Had the process worked, none of these things would have happened.

Certainly no one understands why this situation was catastrophic enough to take down a City Manager, a Police Chief, and the City's Human Relations Commission. But just over a year later it had done exactly that.

And while publicly you still may hear some apologists for the department attempt to argue that things were handled correctly, no one when pressed in private is willing to do so.

Frankly, I have not spoken to a single police officer outside of the Davis Police Department who upon hearing about this case would have handled it as Officer Ly did. No one would have arrested the minor in her home. Some may have had her father bring her down to the police station. Most would have let it go after the damage was paid. Once the victim was made whole there was simply no compelling reason to pursue the case. That is the purpose of the law to begin with--to ensure that people own up to the responsibility of their actions. That was the judge's ruling as well.

I will not get into the further arguments here about the evidence that the vehicle the Buzayans drove did not strike the Wonhof vehicle (and if you saw the pictures, you would be very strongly convinced on this point). Nor will I get into the actions that occur after the decision to arrest Ms. Buzayan.

The bottom line here is that the decision was made by Officer Ly to arrest Ms. Buzayan and the decision was made by the Police Chief, City Council, and District Attorney's office to complicate matters by failing to hold the police officer responsible for his actions.

We flash forward now to an incident that we have been following involving the suspension of a Davis High School student that is very similar except it involves a teacher, the Vice Principal and the school district.

In my opinion, mistakes were made at several different levels in this case.

First, the teacher made the decision to pull down a Malcolm X poster. This is the teacher's prerogative and fully reasonable--even if we might quibble at this. However, the manner in which the teacher reportedly handled it was unacceptable. The correct action would be to inform the student that the teacher had concerns about the appropriateness of the poster in a math class. The course of action the teacher took was to publicly embarrass and berate a student and to proclaim their poster a "terrorist message."

Second, the student was asked to give a speech, the speech was approved, and then after the fact the Vice Principal determined that this student should be suspended for three days for giving the speech. The official text of this speech is available on this blog.

Now here is where history was changed. The school district's upper administration and school board were clearly not happy with the handling of this matter and likely did not believe the punishment was appropriate. So instead of digging in their heals and blindly backing the teacher and Vice Principal, they forced a resolution of the situation which resulted in the suspension being ended, the student going back to school and back to this class.

Additional efforts to rectify this situation may happen in the future, but the major point here is that the school board took a leadership role and resolved this situation likely without any legal action. Because of that there will be no lawsuit against the district. Furthermore, there will not be a slew of upper administrators who will lose their job--although this situation should be viewed as wake up call for the district to look at their on-site administrators and teachers and better structure how punishments should be doled out and for what reason.

Finally, this situation will likely fade away rapidly whereas the Buzayan case is going to federal court. Just yesterday, the federal court judge heard motions to dismiss the portion of the case that is against the Davis Enterprise. That judge will rule on that shortly. Judge refused to dismiss the portion of the case against the Davis Police Department or the District Attorney's Office. So that case will continue for at least another year or so, while the most recent case will soon be forgot.

The moral of this story is for public agencies to take responsibility early and it will avoid problems down the line. It is a lesson that the City Council needs to learn from the Davis Joint Unified School Board.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

DHS Student's Suspension Ends Early

Apparently Davis School district's upper administration and school board have stepped up in a large way to rectify the situation that began when a Davis High School student was suspended for three days after giving a speech before an assembly of students. The speech discussed an incident where his Malcolm X poster was removed by the teacher. On the poster, the words "by any means necessary" were prominently displayed. The teacher reportedly removed the poster because she felt it conveyed a "terrorist message."

According to reports, the student is now back in school. The student served only two days of the three day suspension before being reinstated this morning following a meeting with school administration.

Last week was spring break for the school, however, there was apparently a large amount of progress made as the school board and district personnel moved very strongly to put an end to this situation.

The teacher in question had asked that the student not return to class, however, that has also been overruled. The student will be able to attend their class and make up any work and time missed, including two days prior to the actual suspension that the student was kept out of class.

The one issue still remaining on the table is whether or not the district will rescind the entire suspension--a move that the family is pushing for and a move that could occur later this week.

One thing is clear, on this issue the school board moved clearly and decisively to force an end to this situation and probably prevent any legal action from being taken against the district. This is the type of leadership that should be commended and expected in this community.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Request Drew Ire of Best Uses of Schools Task Force Member

Following the closing of the Valley Oak Elementary School, the People's Vanguard of Davis made a formal request to the Davis Joint Unified School Board to obtain public records in the form of communications between Best Uses of School Task Force (BUSTF) members and the school board and school district. The public documents we received were very revealing in many ways. This article is the first of several that will appear in these spaces that will reveal some of the thinking behind those who served on the BUSTF.

On January 5, 2007 Davis OPEN member Baki Tezcan presented concern about a development project in the Valley Oak area and wanted to ascertain that none of the members of the had a financial stake in this development project.

He wrote:

"Now if you add on top of the available space the acreage that would become vacant once Valley Oak is closed, you get a much larger area to develop/infill, a very attractive investment opportunity. Hence my request for public conflict of interest disclosures. Both the Board and the Task Force include members who work with developers, so my neighbors in the Valley Oak area would sleep better if they knew no other interests got in to the choice of our school for closure than those of our kids."

Task force Vice Chair Jan Bridge, herself a former school board member and longtime community resident who should have been well-versed in conflict of interest disclosure requirements complained vehemently about such a requirement. She fired off an angry email to school board members, administrator Penny Pyle, and Baki Tezcan himself.

"I can only begin to tell you how completely and totally offended and insulted I am by the DEMAND that the members of the BUSTF be required to file conflict of interest disclosures.

As a 26 year resident of Davis, a school volunteer since 1983, and a retired Trustee, I find the implications of this letter to be completely with out merit. YOU can easily imagine where the adoption of such a requirement could lead in a District that has long depended on the goodwill and generous donation of time and talents of the many citizens of Davis.

Should the trustees adopt such a requirement, I will resign the task force in protest."

My reaction to reading this is the lady doth protest too much.

First, really some background. As many are aware, the city of Davis requires all commissioners to fill out and sign standard conflict of interest forms. In fact, right now they are approving updates to their conflict of interest rules. So rather being some type of extraordinary requirement, this is actually a standard disclosure. In fact, it is shocking that the district at this time did not require such disclosures on their own. There was a long debate on the city general plan housing element steering committee about the level of conflict of interest papers that should be required.

The City's ordinance reads:

"Pursuant to Government Code Section 87302, the code will designate employees and officials who must disclose certain investments, income, interests in real property and business positions, and who must disqualify themselves from making or participating in the making of governmental decisions affecting those interests."

Should not the school board whose members sit on a task force that might have just as much stake financially in their decisions be required to do no less? If indeed there are development projects impacted by the decision to close a school it seems to me perfectly legitimate that task force members who were highly influential in the decision to ultimately close the school fill out forms disclosing whether this was the case. For most of them, the answer would undoubtedly be, "no."

Second, the district has since passed new rules pertaining to conflicts of interest. And now they would require all members of any newly appointed task force to sign them.

So Bridge's comments seem totally out of line. First, the requirement should not have been taken as any sort of insult. It was not personally directed at her (or it should not have been). Second, if the task force was formed now, guess what, she and the other task force members would be forced to fill out conflict of interest forms.

So it appears from the stand point of policy that her complaint made very little sense. It certainly made little sense for her to take it as a personal slight.

But I think the most stunning thing was the level of her outrage for what appears to be such a minor issue.

She is "completely and totally offended and insulted" to the point where she would "resign the task force in protest." That response seems totally and completely out of line. The request itself was not only reasonable it should have been standard. Had I read this response by Ms. Bridge, my response would have been, what do you have to hide?

That might not have been fair, and perhaps this was just a principled objection, but to me it raises some red flags. Why don't you want to have to fill out a conflict of interest form? Do you have vast financial stakes in this property? We know that Ms. Bridge was one of the leaders in the Covell Village campaign. Her picture and quotes appear in numerous fliers and quotes supporting the project. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but does that mean she has development interests in the area that may be impacted by a school closing?

Sadly we will not know the answer to those questions. However, this public record seems rather revealing about the mindset of some of the commissioners, that she would be personally offended by the requested signing of a standard form is rather appalling.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Fight for Public Power Continues Post-Measure H and I

PG&E last fall spent over $11 million in Yolo County to turn back a several year movement to bring public power to Yolo County. They did so by overwhelming the more modest efforts of those supporting public power. They did so by turning back the rare united effort by Yolo County elected officials. And they did so by confusing the issues in the voter's minds making them believe or at least doubt the financial outcome of such a change. In Yolo County this lead to the barebones defeat of Measure I. In Sacramento County it led to the massive defeat of their companion measure that would have authorized expansion of SMUD.

However, the fight for public power was not a short-term battle by any means. Measures H and I were several years in the works and the result of hard fought efforts by a number of activists, public officials, and local efforts. Those efforts did not die at the ballot box last November. PG&E may have defeated that effort, but now they will have to defeat future efforts as well. And at some point, PG&E is going to be the one that ends up on the losing side.

This Tuesday, April 17, 2007, the Woodland City Council is taking a very modest step toward public power by sponsoring a resolution that basically demonstrates their commitment to public power.

The resolution declares,

"The City Council of the City of Woodland supports the continued assessment of power alternatives that would lead to less expensive, more reliable and more earth-friendly electric power for the citizens, businesses and property owners of Woodland and throughout the Yolo County region."

Art Pimentel, Woodland City Councilmember is one of the key supporters of this resolution.

"We need to look at all options and alternatives to PG&E and bring this issue back to Yolo County voters in the near future."

PG&E if you can believe this, has already hired a company to defeat the resolution--a resolution that is very basic and does not mention SMUD as the alternative to pursue. They have actually created a call center that will link callers directly with Woodland City Hall.

"The resolution was not even made public until this afternoon and already had around 50 calls into City Hall to oppose a Resolution "supporting SMUD" As you can see the resolution has nothing to do with SMUD, but looking at other alternatives/options to bring Public Power to Woodland and Yolo County."

As the Realist writes:

"This has nothing to do with bringing SMUD back on the table. It just says we should be vigilant and keep exploring other alternatives. A monopoly in my opinion is not the best alternative. The control is out of our hands. PG&E may in fact be our best solution to power, but it will hurt nothing to investigate it."

Supervisor Matt Rexroad lended important support to Councilmember Pimentel and the cause on the Woodland Journal Blog:

"I support Art in this effort. Look -- whatever you think about Art -- he is standing up for what he believes in. You have to respect that. It is really easy to just try to make everyone happy all the time. That is not leadership. Art is out making things happen proactively. He is not out there waiting for things to come his way. This resolution has nothing to do with SMUD. It has nothing to do with the guys in the blue trucks. It is about public power and exploring that option for Woodland."

Pimentel and other supporters hope that other communities will pass similar resolutions supporting public power.

"I hope, West Sacramento, Davis, Yolo County, and others can pass the same resolution and be committed to the cause."

To view the full resolution see The Woodland Journal.

From the comments on the Woodland Journal, Mr. Pimentel could use our help and hopefully the Davis City Council can look at a similar resolution. Davis helped to pass Measures H and I overwhelmingly, and we need to help communities like Woodland continue the fight.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Charlie Brown’s Son To Serve Fourth Rotation in Iraq

Guest Commentary by Bill Ritter

A few days ago I read Congressional Candidate Charlie Brown’s post on the nationally acclaimed progressive blog: The Daily Kos.

Charlie’s son, a USAF Captain, has been ordered to return for a fourth tour of duty in Iraq.

Once again for the Brown family this needless and unnecessary war in Iraq has been brought close to home. Please see Charlie Brown’s post below.

This follows the announcement by Bush/Cheney Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reported by the Associated Press & the Huffington Post:

“Stretched thin by four years of war, the Army is adding three months to the standard yearlong tour for all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, an extraordinary step aimed at maintaining the troop buildup in Baghdad.”

I had the honor of meeting Charlie Brown and his wife Jan during the fall election of 2006. Charlie was the Democratic Party nominee for Congress to represent the 4^th Congressional District of California. Charlie & Jan (both retired USAF officers and neither one a politician) were carrying forth their patriotic duty to oppose this war which they knew to be unjust, unnecessary and begun with false motives. In the true spirit of practicing one’s citizenship, they waged a valiant campaign seeking to remove from the Congress one of the biggest proponents of the Iraq War: John Doolittle.

Military veterans throughout the district joined them in their effort and some national war heroes such as Gen. Wesley Clark, former US Senator Max Cleland as well as former Congressman Pete McCloskey came to campaign for Charlie. All these men together with Charlie Brown (a war veteran too) know that you go to war only as a last resort and you had better be certain of the need to do so and how to win your objective. And your war must be a just one, a moral one to sustain the support of the American people, our allies and the good citizens of the world who share this planet with us.

The Bush/Cheney Iraq War is a disaster for our country in every way. We must work everyday in some way to remove these horrible politicians including Doolittle who continue to take this country down the path of disaster.

This past fall, together with friends and political allies, I organized two events in Davis to raise money for Charlie’s campaign to unseat the corrupt and pro-Iraq war Congressman John Doolittle. None of us could vote for Charlie, but we could walk precincts, work phone banks and raise money. Why would we do this? Because our country is in serious, serious trouble and just voting for our local Congressman Mike Thompson is not enough.

With the election of Speaker Nancy Pelosi the Congress has begun to change the direction of this country, but it is not fast enough for the Bush/Cheney Iraq War continues as Americans and other human beings continue to die and our country is going bankrupt both financially and morally.

We must strengthen the Congress with additional voices of reason and sound judgment as well as elect a president who will end this war. The Bush/Cheney Iraq War has made our nation less safe and more vulnerable not only to terrorism, but to fiscal mismanagement and the war profiteering corruption which will wreck havoc on our citizens for generations to come. This insanity must stop.

I urge everyone to enlist once again in supporting Charlie Brown for Congress. We came close to electing him in 2006 and with your help we can do it in 2008.

He can be contacted at:

Email: info@brown4congress.org

Phone: (916) 792-7696

Mail: P.O. Box 368, Roseville, CA 95661

CA04: MY SON IS OFF TO SERVE HIS 4th ROTATION IN IRAQ

by Charlie Brown for Congress

Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:30:44 AM PDT

Most Americans woke up this morning ready to read the morning paper, listen to the news, and check their computer to see what the day would bring.

Jan and I woke up knowing that today our son deployed for his fourth rotation in Iraq. We woke up knowing that for the next several months, the last thing we do at night and the first thing we do in the morning will be checking the internet for news out of a war zone...for word from our son.

We are in the minority: parents, spouses, and friends with a loved one in Iraq. Knowing from experience about the true cost of war, we questioned the justification and execution of this policy before it was popular. We learned first hand about the lack of proper equipment before others read about it in the newspaper. We checked prices for top quality body armor to send our son while the GOP led Congress fiddled. And long before the Walter Reed scandal broke, we followed the aftercare problems facing our troops, their families, and surviving dependents as our son talked about the injured and dead his unit flies out of Iraq.

• Charlie Brown for Congress's diary :: ::
• 
  

The truth doesn’t only set you free, it strengthens your resolve to fight for what’s right.

Like many other veterans and military parents, my wife (who served as an Air Force Nurse) and I have borne the burden of far more truth than is typically presented to the general public. We learned about contractor fraud from an auditor I used to fly helicopters with who monitors contracts in Iraq---about the slower than reported progress on Iraqi civil infrastructure projects from a Marine civil engineer who was stationed in Iraq---about our long since discredited intelligence on the war from people on the ground who I worked with during my own 26 year military career. And, as a longtime subscriber to ‘professional’ military publications, I learned years ago that the military has not been quiet about the problems it is facing--you just had to know where to look, and you had to be willing to listen to the experts on the ground.

Now that this information is more public, most Americans disapprove of U.S. policy in Iraq, and are justifiably outraged over the care given to our troops when they come home.

Welcome to our world.

We thank those of you reading this for caring, for working to spread the truth, and for helping to elect a new Congress in 2006 that is fighting for change. That’s what "supporting the troops" is all about, but it is only a beginning.

Representatives like my 2006 opponent John Doolittle are still voting to send people like my son into combat without proper equipment, training, or a plan for success. They are still refusing to make personal sacrifices to support our armed forces, or hold the administration and Iraqi politicians accountable for results instead of rhetoric.

I suppose that’s easy to do as long as it’s someone else’s child fighting and dying, but it is not the American way, and it is certainly not patriotism.

We need good people in the military, and we owe those who serve the benefit of competent civilian leadership, and seamless aftercare when they become veterans. Families like ours know this truth all to well. We know that resolving these issues at a human level is not about having all the answers---it’s about having the right priorities and the courage to ask the right questions.

We are proud of our son and the troops who protect our beloved country. They truly are our best and brightest.

And that’s why Jan and I are as determined as ever to ensure we have a government that cares as much as we do about the safety and success of our men and women in uniform.

Be safe son. And come home soon.

Charlie Brown, Lt. Col. USAF Ret.

---Bill Ritter reporting

Bill Ritter, a political consultant, is a community activist in Davis and Yolo County. He is a past Chair of the Yolo Democratic Party and a past President of the Davis Democratic Club. He is also a former Aide to Congressman Vic Fazio and a former Chair of the City of Davis Human Relations Commission.

Announcement: Radio Show TODAY at 5 PM

I will be on KDVS 90.3 FM TODAY at 5 pm on "Speaking in Tongues" with Ron Glick and Richard Estes. We'll be talking about a wide variety of local topics that are covered on the blog and people are welcome to call in and harass the blogger, er, I mean, give your comments.

People can call the show at (530) 752-2777.

You can also listen online: http://www.kdvs.org/streams.cfm

For archives: archives

Note: Today from 5 pm to 6 pm I was on KDVS with Ron Glick. Richard Estes was apparently at home with his new baby--so congratulations to Richard and Lisa on the birth of their son. If you would like to listen to archives log on here. We spoke on a wide variety of topics including Caesar Chavez Day, the human relations commission and the anti-discrimination ordinance, the school board, former Superintendent David Murphy, Don Saylor, Lamar Heystek, the Malcolm X controversy and a wide variety of other controversies.

Update on DHS Student Suspension

Last week we reported on a Davis High School Student who was purportedly suspended from high school after delivering a speech on an incident where his Malcolm X poster was removed by the teacher. On the poster, the words "by any means necessary" were prominently displayed. The teacher reportedly removed the poster because she felt it conveyed a "terrorist message."

One of the issues discussed on this blog has been whether this represents a first amendment issue. Some have suggested that there is no free speech rights of high school students.

However, according to conversations I had with a lawyer familiar with this case and the law in this respect, that is not true. I have since verified these claims with another lawyer who is also familiar with this aspect of law.

Basically high school students at assemblies have the same free speech rights as anyone else. The school is not required by any means to provide the forum for speech. But once they have created the forum and invited the student to speak they have no authority to censor what the student can or cannot say in front of the assembly.

There are of course limitations to that right, they are the same limitations that anyone else has, which is the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception and also the inciting a riot or posing a "clear and present danger" of causing an unsafe situation. The standard for that is basically if they gave a speech and no action results from said speech, they have not presented a clear and present danger. Also the speech cannot be obscene. However, these are not claims being made to substantiate the suspension.

The student was basically given three reasons for the suspension.

First, the claim was made that the student had deviated from the speech--that the student had essentially given an entirely different speech than the one submitted and that the student had self-censored in the submitted speech in order to engage in some sort of deception to get it approved. Given the law, it is not clear that the school even has the authority to take this step.

Second, the student was cited for basically publicly humiliating a teacher--this despite the fact that the student never mentioned the name of the teacher and the teacher essentially outed herself through her own behavior. The teacher left the assembly in tears and did not return.

The law here would dictate that the speech be actually slanderous and the speech, text of which we have, seems to fall well short of any slander.

Third, the student was cited for disrupting an assembly--this charge is completely inaccurate by any standard that would be used. There was no disruption that occurred.

What this means is that according to the law, the school did not have the authority to suspend this student for a speech he gave in front of the school. And we can construe the actions of the school as a violation of the student's right to free speech--a right that contrary to some claims, the student does have under the law.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Police Chief Landy Black Takes Over Police Department Facing Numerous Challenges

When Landy Black was sworn in as the tenth police chief in the history of the City of Davis, one was tempted to congratulate him on the one hand and apologize to him on the other hand. By most accounts, Black is a good and dedicated police officer, with good family and a strong support network. He also has vast experience running a very diverse precinct in a very diverse part of Seattle. He will need all of these assets to survive in Davis.

The problems faced by Black as he enters Davis will be both internal and external. By now people are well aware of the external situation. There have been long standing and credible complaints in this community about police misconduct. That has resulted both in numerous citizen complaints, lawsuits, and a general atmosphere of distrust in segments of the community.

The situation boiled over last year to the point where the animosity and distrust were mutual. He spoke specifically to this point both in February when I interviewed him and this week as he was sworn into office.

In February, when I spoke to him, he stressed the importance of communication. He believes that police departments are not doing service to the community if not communicating with critical people. But there is a dual responsibility. The community needs to inform them about where they can make improvements. They also want to know when they are doing the right thing and not just the wrong thing.

This week he spoke this this concept of communication and community involvement once again.

"It has been mentioned that there is a sense of a need for respect, a respect of people of all classes and all sense of diversity, and that is something that I am committed to... However it is important I understand that the community needs to be involved in the process of leading their police department and I am the conduit by which that information is conveyed to our officers. And I am committed to and will continue to always look for any opportunity for those who are allies and stakeholders in the concept of safe and livable cities to communicate with me about the manner in which we can go about obtaining that lofty end."

This was a theme picked up by former UC Davis Police Chief Calvin Handy in our interview last month:

"I am not an expert on the DPD at this point. [But,] I think that the DPD is in need of solid open community embracing leadership. If you look at the issues of the past 18 months and perhaps before, the DPD needs a good new police chief with good ideas and build ideas and build some trust, I’m not saying there is completely no trust, but there are areas where trust is lacking and this is where the new chief can made a bigger impact. The new chief needs to be open to community input. This is a good department but the number one need is a good leader who is open and accessible and approachable."

It is not merely the public however that needs a new commitment of leadership.

In the Ombudsman's report in February, Bob Aaronson spoke to "the need for quality leadership and clear supervision that uniformly holds people accountable."

"Without intending to disrespect the hard work of current and former supervisors and administrators, it does appear that the turnover in staff, and particularly in chiefs, has undermined the organization’s supervisory chain of command, its vision and its morale. By all reports, these problems pre-existed the Buzayan incident. There is no more critical decision to be made for the Department in the next twelve months than the selection of the next Chief of Police."

Mr. Aaronson's critique is exactly right in my view, and this has been a problem that has plagued the police department since the day that former Chief Jerry Gonzales was forced to step down as Police Chief.

Chief Landy Black will face immense challenges is within his own organization if he is to set about making changes to the supervisory structure.

I have some concerns about the willingness of some of the old guard leadership that still exists in this department to make the kind of concessions and changes that are needed to bring about both changes in the command structure that Mr. Aaronson refers to, that are necessary for a changed approach with the public that Chief Black clearly desires to take place. It is here that I sense in several conversations some reluctance of certain high ranking police officers in the Davis Police Department to make the necessary changes and even embrace the new leadership of Chief Landy Black.

I left the reception Monday on the one hand hopeful that Chief Black with his strong experience and solid support structure and upbringing could indeed be the person that this community needs to lead the police force. Everyone who I spoke to, who had any sense of history with Chief Black, affirmed his character and commitment. These attributes do not seem to be in doubt. One can tell the character of a person by their family and their associates, and from those alone, Chief Black seems to be a person of outstanding commitment and character.

However, I also left concerned about the enthusiasm and commitment of the old guard in the Davis Police Department. Some of the sergeants seemed very cold and distant when asked their feelings on the new police chief--some of them even evasive when asked about their feelings of the new chief. It is these people that either are going to need to fall into line or be removed if Chief Black is going to succeed. With the Chief be able to get rid of some of these officers who seem to so clearly have been a problem for the last decade if not longer? That is a tough task to ask a new chief, but that will be a very important and telling factor in whether or not Chief Black is to succeed where his predecessors have not.

As I say, I have nothing but support and respect for Chief Black but he is going to have a very tough task ahead of him. Congratulations and good luck.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Looking toward options for the future of Valley Oak

The Davis Joint Unified School Board by a 3-2 vote last month voted to close Valley Oak Elementary School. The school board led by board trustee Tim Taylor left open the possibility of placing a second parcel tax on the ballot that would enable Valley Oak Elementary to remain open. Bill Storm, a teacher at Valley Oak Elementary has posed an alternative suggestion of a Charter School.

I will examine both of these options and then offer up a third alternative that I think is better than these options both in terms of feasibility and in terms of effort.

PARCEL TAX

There are actually three suggested parcel tax options that have been offered.

The first is the motion passed by the school board which would place a second parcel tax on the ballot. It would require the primary parcel tax to be pass by a two-thirds vote and it would need to pass by a two-thirds vote. It would ask the voters to specifically approve a parcel tax of somewhere around $20 additional per property to open Valley Oak.

There are several drawbacks to this. (see Library Tax issues and Board Discussion on Parcel Tax) The County is likely to place a library parcel tax on the ballot as well, and that would mean that the voters would have three tax items on the ballot which may in the end doom all three. In addition, it would seem unlikely that voters would approve a tax for kids to go to a specific school.

Board President Jim Provenza and Sheila Allen suggested alternative wording for the second parcel tax which would be a "nine school option" or some derivation there of. That would give the parcel tax a better chance to pass given the wording, however, you would still have three parcel taxes on the ballot, which again, would be problematic.

A third alternative posed by the Davis OPEN folks is to combine the two parcel taxes. That would make the primary parcel tax a bit higher, but it would require only two tax measures on the ballot. The school board majority is however dead set against this option, which seems to be the best of the parcel tax options from the standpoint of keeping Valley Oak open.

Regardless a parcel tax would be a daunting endeavor requiring two-thirds of the vote to pass and under the most likely conditions it would require two two-thirds votes to pass it. That would necessitate a long and sustained grassroots campaign. The work required to pass this seems very high and the chances for passage at this point seem low. Therefore, other alternatives should be explored.

CHARTER SCHOOL

Bill Storm writes in his blog:

We need to have an extended conversation about the desirability of charter status for Valley Oak Elementary, as such status gives us the means not only to survive and sustain what works for our children, but to create a new vision to serve them even better.

Mr. Storm, a teacher at Valley Oak elementary school also presents a lengthy FAQ.

The Charter School option is one definitely worth exploring. However, there are several tricky factors one of which relates to the teachers and service time. Apparently however, they have support from the teachers or at least that is what my reading of the blog implies.

Support from the Teacher's Association would make this option a more feasible one, but problems still persist with the charter school alternative. Writing up a charter is a long and exhaustive work. It is highly technical and requires a long and concerted effort.

While I would not rule out a Charter School as a last resort option, I would recommend another more easily attainable approach.

ELECT NEW BOARD MEMBERS

This November, there will be two open seats on the Davis Joint Unified School Board. Jim Provenza, a strong proponent of keeping Valley Oak open is running for the County Board of Supervisors. Meanwhile Keltie Jones, a strong proponent of closing Valley Oak is retiring. That leaves two openings. With a 3-2 margin on the current board, the Davis OPEN folks would need to win two seats to be able to force a new vote and keep Valley Oak open in fall of 2008.

There are what I would consider two outstanding candidates that if convinced to run, would stand an excellent chance of winning.

First is Val Dolcini. Dolcini is a very prominent name in Davis. He comes from a family that are long time prominent Davis residents. He has an excellent resume in his own right as a community leader and a long time aide to former Congressman Vic Fazio. He was a member of the task force and in fact the one dissenting vote on the decision to recommend the closing of Valley Oak Elementary School. Not only did he have the fortitude to stand against his colleagues, he was a passionate advocate for his position and wrote a fine dissenting opinion.

The second outstanding choice would be Rick Gonzales, Jr. The late Rick Gonzales, Sr. was a legend in Yolo County. Gonzales brother, Jerry Gonzales was a respected Police Chief in Davis. Gonzales himself runs the Concilio of Yolo County which provides disadvantaged kids with scholarships and resources to go to college. He has been an educator for over 35 years.

These would be outstanding candidates for school board even without the issue of Valley Oak. The community would embrace these candidates and I believe they would win easily if they chose to run. If they did, they could then change the board policy and keep Valley Oak open.

I believe this is the best alternative for Davis students in general, and by far the best means by which to keep Valley Oak open.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Does the use of subcommittees stifle public debate and input on important topics

Last week one of the centerpieces of the city council battle was the issue of the use of subcommittees and whether debate on key issues should take place in full public view or be largely hashed out behind close doors.

And while the council specifically argued about the issue of the city charter, this issue of the use of subcommittees largely transcends any single topic. It goes to the very heart of our democratic values.

While I strongly value the issue of transparency in government, I do think this is at best a very nuanced and complex issue. Both sides of the debate offer strengths and weaknesses in their argument.

Having watched a long and painful discussion a few weeks back where the council basically hashed out a development agreement in public, I would suggest that there are some things that should be done by staff and subcommittee in private because they deal with small and fine details rather than broader principles and issues. It was painful to watch the council try to grapple with specific details in public and inappropriate in my opinion. That would have been a perfect issue to hand back to staff and have staff work it out with council and then bring it back as a consent item to be voted up or down. So I do have some appreciation for the use of bodies that can hammer out details outside of the public realm.

On the other hand, I think the council minority of Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek have important concerns about the use of subcommittee when it is used to bring forward full blown proposals that have the weight of staff recommendations behind them. In those cases, the issues are framed by those who hammered them out in private away from the public's eye. The public misses out on potentially important deliberation and alternative options. The process becomes largely fait accompli with the council majority then neatly and cleanly ratifying staff recommendation.

Now one way to avoid both of these pitfalls would be to have subcommittees instead of being charged with making specific recommendations, bring forward an array of options that the council would then have to deliberate upon. This way the fine details are worked out in private but the subcommittee is not coming forward with a final proposal that would strongly condition whatever action is taken by the council.

I have not figured out the statistics, but the vast majority of staff reports are approved with perhaps only small alterations. That gives an unelected staff tremendous ability to frame the debate and exert vast control over elected councilmembers. Similarly, a subcommittee that meets in private with staff would have tremendous ability to frame and direct a debate. There are occasions when subcommittee proposals have not been accepted--for instance--the subcommittee on commissions got almost all of their recommendations approved however, they did not get their proposed changes for the merger of the Senior Citizens Commission with the Social Services Commission.

The entire debate over the merger of those two commissions actually demonstrates the problem with the subcommittee system. The subcommittee came forward with a full blown resolution to merge the two commissions and they had done so on the consent agenda, meaning unless the item was pulled it would be approved with little discussion. The item was then pulled from consent, it was delayed a week, and only then did the commissions involved begin to realize what was going on and begin to take action. It was largely because the Senior Citizen Commission and its chair, Elaine Roberts Musser, began to raise a fuss and protest the merger that the merger was halted. And then it was primarily due to the strength or perceived strength of that community. In short, it took rather extraordinary conditions including a fair amount of fortune and luck for the subcommittees recommendation to be overruled.

The argument here is that a group of two are making decisions in private that will end up strongly directing whatever debate and public action takes place and the fear by the council minority is that by moving controversial issues from public to private deliberation, it makes it more difficult to raise controversial issues and more importantly strongly directs future council action. The force of subcommittee and staff recommendations provides political cover to what may be otherwise unpopular council actions.

The key debate facing council right now is whether there should be more or less public debate on items and where is the appropriate venue for these discussions. A subcommittee system could work under certain conditions.

First, the subcommittees should not come forward with specific recommendations. That was in my opinion, the biggest problem with the school district's task force on best uses of schools--they their recommendations, tailored their arguments and report toward those recommendations, and did not provide the elected officials with an array of options. They were thus forced to either overrule a volunteer committee who had spent considerable time working on it or accepting their findings. Statements made by the school board indicated that in fact, that line of thinking did factor into the process and a bare majority of 3-2 voted to ratify the recommendations of the task force.

Thus, subcommittees should be charged with studying issues and presenting a broad array of possible actions rather than focus on a single action. This would achieve the strength of subcommittees--hashing out fine details--while mitigating its weakness, structuring debate toward a single recommendation.

Second, all subcommittee reports should be agendized as full debate and discussion items. They should never be placed on the consent calendar for a non-debated up or down vote.

Third, all subcommittee deliberations should be made public record that can be scrutinized by the public and fellow council members. It would be even better if they could be videotaped and broadcast on the government channel.

Fourth, issues that are likely to be large and contentious should be heard by the full council first to allow for full council direction about philosophy. The subcommittee would then meet to study the issue and hash out the details. The issue could then come back to the full council for more debate and discussion. This would again achieve the best of both worlds.

Overall I do not oppose the use of subcommittees, but I do oppose their current usage and I fully understand the concerns of the minority that the majority can use these as a technique to neatly hash out controversial topics outside of the view of the public and then present them with a quick and neat argument.

It is important to note as we have in the past, that one of the big problems that the council as a whole faces and the council minority in particular faces is that none of them have individual staff working for them. That means issues that are complex and need the expertise of staff put the members of the minority at a huge disadvantage because staff often does not fully present both sides of the issue.

We saw this perhaps most prominently with the water issue, where most of the council members were completely at the mercy of trained experts. Members of the council minority did not have the luxury of allowing their own staffers or independent analysts to provide alternative findings. That strongly disadvantaged any dissenters because they could not bring forward an alternative perspective outside of those who were presenting their own preferred alternatives. This is the same problem that council members face with any topic whether it is the presentation by staff or a subcommittee. And it represents a major disadvantage for any group in any sort of permanent minority on an array of issues.

Now a good and strong staff would present both their recommendations and counter-recommendations, this staff does not seem to do that well. I will never forget the exchange when Councilmember Heystek asked a staffer to explain the weakness of their approach and they could not do so.

In the end, I understand at the times the need and desire for using subcommittees as a means to facilitate and expedite complex topics that require study and development outside of the normal council process. As I stated earlier, there are some activities that just should not take place in full public view at an open meeting. However, I think that the use of subcommittees also takes away from the deliberative and democratic process. So if the council is to continue to use subcommittees, they should restructure their purpose so as to not take away from this process.

In the end however, the minority is really at the mercy of the majority and their own defense is to raise issues in public and allow the public to know what is going on with their government. I favor any arrangements that will facilitate greater transparency in government actions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting