Why Do We Need a New General Plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line is costs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He then disparages the current General Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

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

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

As Councilmember Sue Greenwald wrote on the Vanguard last week:

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

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

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

According to the city staff report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District Administration Opposes Self-Qualifying Option for Budget

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

Ingrid Salim:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby's response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SSC Fiscal Report Budget Reports

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Research davis school distric selfqualification

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Davis Teachers Respond To DJUSD Budget Crisis

The Davis School District is facing a multiyear, multimillion dollar shortfall due to the state's economic and budget crisis. Complicating the already problematic nature of the state's economy is the political impasse that has gripped the state's budget process. That has meant not only are local districts facing budget cuts, they are dealing with large unknowns. The word leaking out of Sacramento is that the big five have reached a tentative agreement that could be announced today. Many are expected the results of that to be devastating to local governments and schools.

As a result of the uncertainty, the district is planning for the worst--budget cuts with zero flexibility. That means pink slips and pay cuts are on the table. Right now the proposal is for a 2.5% cut for teacher salaries.

On Wednesday of last week, the Vanguard interviewed DTA President Cathy Haskell and incoming DTA President Ingrid Salim. You can catch the entire interview here.

This is the first of a two part series. Tomorrow, we will have the district's response from Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby.

From the teacher's perspective one of the biggest concerns is to avoid a repeat of last year when there were 114 pink slip notices sent out to teachers.

Ingrid Salim:

"You may recall that despite all of the pink slips that did go out, those are the RIF notices or reduction in work force, that say that teachers might get laid off. They sent out 114 of them. They rescinded I think all of them. They ended up hiring teachers this year because some of them had already found other jobs. So we knew that they were taking a very conservative path last year."

The teachers hope that we learned something from last year however.

"We think they had learned something about the impact that had had on morale in this district this year, and at least these expectations now, even in the worst case scenario... the expectations are that RIF notices will be much much smaller. Superintendent Hammond was mentioning [Wednesday] twenty-something perhaps and that's anticipated to even go down or be rescinded after the March 15 date when they have to get out."

One of the questions that arises is if the district has and is using carryover or reserve money this year to plug some of the gaps, why didn't they use that money last year.

Igrid Salim likened it to a leaky roof situation and whether you use your savings account to fix the leaky roof or you hold onto in case there is a worse problem down the line.

"You have a savings account, do you fix the leaky roof now or do you keep the savings account because something worse might happen later and just live with the leaky roof? That's not a fair analogy here, but in the end it is the board who makes the decisions about how to use the money."

In the end she said, the board felt more comfortable in terms of the overall status of the budget, by sending out pink slip notices to quite a lot of teachers rather than eat into the reserves.

However both teachers felt that this had a hugely detrimental effect on the morale of teachers, the students, the parents, the community and even the board and administration.

"We did learn last year that if you lay people off, even if they’re rehired that it has an enormous price on morale, which in the end has a consequence in the classroom and for education overall. I certainly know that our chief financial officer Bruce Colby and our Superintendent Dr. James Hammond have been incredibly earnest about wanting to not lay off people. They have certainly learned that that was a horrible process to go through."

One of the key questions facing the district is how much flexibility the district will in dealing with the decreased amount of money.

Ingrid Salim:

"Things are going to be dire in terms the budget coming from the state which we don't have yet. We have a couple of proposals, the Democrats have one proposal, the Governor has a different one slightly. Each of them have a lot of different factors which will impact how much money we are not getting from the state, not how much we get, but how much they will take back."

However, regardless of the proposal, we could get something in the way of flexibility.

Cathy Haskell:

"We have looked at flexibility offered in the Governor's proposal and there's some in the Democrats' proposal, but where pretty sure we're going to get some flexibility."

The two biggest areas would be an ability to use more of the carryovers from the previous year than we normally would. That would be a chunk of money according to Ms. Haskell. The other chunk would come from class size reduction money, something that the teacher's would like to avoid even in Davis where that would simply mean going from 20 to 22 students per classroom.

Ingrid Salim explained how the categorical process works.

"Unlike our paycheck that we get every month that we can use however we want, budgets for school districts have little categories that you can only use for specific things, for example, buildings are called facilities money. You can't use those monies to pay teachers."

One item that might be cut would be money for new textbooks.

Ms. Salim explained that while the could use new Math and English textbooks, teachers are a much higher priority:

"We do have books, we could use new ones but we don't *need* them, we need teachers."

One of the big questions, and one of the things that the board and administration are asking teachers to do is to give up salary and possibly instructional days in order to balance the budget.

For both this seems to be the area of last resort, cutting salaries.

Ingrid Salim:

"We’ve talked long and hard about what we’d be willing to do. The short answer is this: there has been a suggestion that we give up a couple of days of salary, and the other union has been asked the same, and the administrators have been told that they will be expected to do that."

Cathy Haskell said that cutting two days from the instructional calendar would be approximately one percent pay cut. So a 2.5% pay cut would be the equivalent to five days of instructional time.

Ms. Haskell:

"There are some very interesting discussions about what does it mean to have one less day of school. Or does it mean that we still have that day of school, we just don’t get paid for it."

Ingrid Salim quickly followed up on that thought:

"So what she’s referring to is a voluntary cut in salary without a reduction in days. That’s another option on the table."

However, the teachers seem opposed to this option.

"We believe that there are measures that we can still take that on paper will of course balance the budget without us having to give up."

However, the district seems to feel otherwise and are now moving ahead with a plan to cut 2.5% from salaries. A plan that may not come to fruition depending on what the budget looks like as it announced today (if it announced today).

"Our reasoning is that it’s not just us giving up salaries, which absolutely we are affected by, but it certainly takes away from the educational process in this district. So if take away two days from instructional time, that’s two days students are not in class. If we take two work days from our time, that’s two days that we’re not preparing. We don’t feel that this serves education and we’re not willing to take the hit when there are other things that can be done."

She continued:

"Unfortunately it would impact real people who already make less than half of what our top administrators make. We don’t really want to point that out all the time, they do a tremendous job. But most of us are parents that have children that live and work in this city. We make the normal salary that teachers make, it’s not off the charts, it’s livable, but it would hurt us, we would feel that particular amount [of cuts]."

However, she said that as a last resort, and there is nothing else that can be done, they would be willing to enter into discussions on this. They simply believe that other options exist at this time.

Ms. Salim continued:

"If we felt we had to do that in order to put the district in a state where it had a balanced budget, I think we’d be willing to talk about that. We really do believe there are ways to begin addressing the budget deficit."

One of the biggest differences that is emerging between the board and the teachers is the issue of self-qualification. The district is required to show a balanced budget for a full three years. Under normal conditions that is a reasonable requirement. But when you do not actually have a budget, it gets tricky to try to budget for the third year.

As Ingrid Salim put it:

"It’s the absurdity of trying to balance the budget three years out without even a current to really work on. We’re talking about assumptions, putting numbers into a spreadsheet, plugging in equations, to figure out numbers for a budget that we don’t even have."

The district is moving toward more draconian cuts right now primarily because it is trying to have a positive assessment for 2010-11. The alternative is to balance the budget for this year and next year, and then address the problems with 2010-11 in the future when there is more certainty.

That is the approach the teachers favor.

Ingrid Salim:

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

She continued:

"We don’t want to cut salaries; we don’t to want to cut people. Let’s allow ourselves to be self-qualified. Let’s allow us to take our reserves down to the legal limit—it’s been hinted that we’d be allowed to drop them further than they are. That’s a little bit nerve wracking because it means you have less in your savings account. We advocate let’s do that first—yes, it’s less conservative, but we believe it’s a better policy to keep people and keep their salaries where they are and allow them to live, than it would be to do anything else."

The teachers feel respected in this process by administration.

"We’re feeling valued from them [the administrators]. We’re not completely sure that the board understands all of that. But then we acknowledge that none of them are fiscal experts. They are all people donating their time mostly to serve in this capacity. We really appreciate the amount of time and energy that they put in trying to wrap their minds around pretty big issues. It’s quite a lot for them to take in in small amounts."

Last year, the district tried like the plague to avoid self-qualifying. The fear was that the county would take over the school district and that would be a horrific outcome, we would lose out autonomy.

"Last year, don’t self-qualify… the county will come in… They heard this over and over. So they took action that was very conservative to prevent that. This year, they’re hearing the sky won’t fall in, it will be okay."

It is difficult to understand why that has changed now. However, according to the teachers, what has changed is the fiscal circumstance of the state.

Cathy Haskell was actually willing to take more of a chance last year rather than face the wrath of 114 layoff notices.

"I think it has to do with your level of risk that you have to take… 30% of the school districts last year ended up doing not a positive certifications. This year with the numbers the way they look it is for me not a surprise to hear that self-qualifying keeps you from doing some things that maybe you don’t want to do. I was actually ready last year to take more risk, but as a collection of people we couldn’t get there. I think we’re in a much different place this year, knowing that it’s not about this year, it’s not about next year, it’s about the second year out. Last year we were actually talking about the current year."

One of the things that has changed is that the process was horrible that no one wants a repeat of that scenario this year.

As Ingrid Salim explained, the entire point of self-qualifications is to prevent districts from mismanaging their money. During an economic crisis when the state is drastically cutting back its funding for local districts, counties are not going to immediately assume that districts are in the red in year three because of fiscal mismanagement. This is particularly true for districts that have a good track record.

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

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

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

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

Igrid Salim continued:

"Both from Bruce Colby’s understanding of what this means and the circumstances and the landscape changing, a self-qualification today isn’t going to mean the same thing that it meant a year ago."

Moreover, the hope is that seeing actual numbers will produce less drastic results.

"We want to wait and see how the budgets are going to really come in over the next year, and then we’ll accommodate that. We know that counties now are going to look at that and say okay, they’re thinking about that, they’re on top of it, they’re not losing it, they’re not going to be going bankrupt… So the reigns are a little bit more lax."

Ms. Salim also believes that because so many districts are facing these fiscal problems, that counties will be more reluctant to intervene, having not the resources to do so. In the worst case scenario, the county could hire an accountant to oversee the district's books. But she played down even this possibility.

“We don’t expect that to happen because there will be so many in this situation and because it’s a reasonable situation now. If we were flush with money, it wouldn’t be reasonable to be self-qualifying.”

One thing both agreed upon is that there is no way to cut our budget without deep cuts. The bad news is that we do not have a lot of pork and extra programs that can simply be cut. So any cut that the district makes will be painful.

Tomorrow we will see that the district does not agree with some of these assessments by the teachers, particularly with regards to self-qualification and also cuts to teacher salaries.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

And Still We Have No Budget

I rarely comment in this space about comments to other posts, but given that I am trying to bring together multiple threads into a single article, it actually works quite well.

The anonymous commenter said:

"I agree the State Legislature is bad and has been that way for more than a few years. The self serving Nunez and Perata are gone and that helps. I think Arnold has been trying to get everyone to see the light for a couple of years now. But they all have their special agenda's to follow."

Having covered the state government for over two months now as my "day job," I have to strongly disagree with the Mr. Anonymous here. The Governor is the problem--he does not lead, he issues fiats and then goes on extravagant trips.

Let us for a few moments throw out politics altogether and forget about whose side we agree with and whose side we disagree with. Let us also throw out the fact that California's two-thirds requirements are unworkable. On a side note, the Public Policy Institute of California's poll shows for the first time ever a majority (bare as it is) support for reducing the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget to 55%.

But back to the problem. Everyone talks about how they do not like politicians. Let's face it, they are unsavory. They are often cold, calculating, and bent on scoring political points over sound public policy. But there comes a time when you just need to get things done. And let's face it, we are long past that in California.

When there is a budget deal, and there will be at some point, no one is going to like it. The Republicans are going to have to accept the fact that taxes have to go up because you simply cannot make enough cuts to balance the budget without causing more problems than you solve. Democrats are going to have to accept the fact that we are spending too much money and have to cut and that unfortunately they are not going to be able to just cut programs that they don't like, they are going to have to cut into programs that they do like and from their perspective, do work.

Everyone is going to hate something about this budget.

So back to the Governor. The Governor cannot do this by fiat. The Governor cannot try to do this from afar. If he wants to portray the severity of the problem, then he needs to be traveling around explaining the problem to constituents. He needs to park himself in Sacramento and he needs to roll up his sleeves and work. Until he is willing to do that, this budget problem is not going to be solved.

Moreover, the Governor has one primary responsibility in this process, he must get enough of his own party on board with him to strike a deal. This is a complete and total failure on his part. If Arnold were merely having to work with the Democrats, there would have been a deal a long time ago. The Democrats for the most part have been willing to compromise far more than the Legislative Republicans. I am sorry, but in my book that is Arnold's failure. All he needs is three votes from the Republican party. He should be able to offer enough inducements to get three members of his party to sign on, but he has not been able to do this so far.

There is a ripple down effect here that is going to be tremendously devastating. First, the governor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of state workers right now. Folks, most of these guys aren't like the Davis Firefighters making $150K per year in total compensation. These are people who make maybe $30 to $40K. A ten percent cut in their salary means somewhere between $300 to $400 per month in cuts for people who are largely living paycheck to paycheck.

Budget cuts are preferred by many over tax increases. Sales tax may be regressive, but think about it this way, a 1% sales tax increase means, one additional cent per dollar, it means one dollar additional tax per $100, it means ten dollars additional tax per $1000. You are telling me that people who make a $1000 purchase are going to notice $10 additional in sales tax?

On the other hand, budget cuts mean people will get laid off. One proposal for example had Republicans suggesting $10 billion in education cuts. Let us not forget what that would actually do to education, probably the most important thing we spend our money on, that's probably 20,000 teachers laid off. What would that do to the economy. We've had to suspend construction projects to the tune of $660 million per month. For crying out loud, the stimulus plan that Obama is looking at is trying to create construction projects to stimulate the economy. And we are cutting those jobs?

A lot has been made about furloughing state workers. People seem anti-state worker until of course they can't get their unemployment check or go to the DMV, because it's closed on a Friday when they should be open to collected revenue for the state. Then suddenly they realize that they need state employees to run our state. They provide a service. They are "public servants." We actually need them. Of course you say, private sector is laying off their workers, local government is also furloughing their workers. But wait, there is one big difference, let's start at Yolo County by way of example.

Remember as I said earlier, Arnold likes to govern by fiat. There is a process by which furloughs should be considered. It is the collective bargaining process. If the County cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the school district cuts employee work days and salaries it occurs in negotiation. If the city of Davis cuts employee work days and salaries it will occur by negotiation. That is how the rights of workers are protected. Almost every agency has been willing to sacrifice so that employees are not laid off. For all the perception out there, that is an amazing thing.

However, Arnold wouldn't and won't do that. This despite public employees groups publicly suggesting that they would be willing to work with the state to make things work to avoid layoffs. This despite what Speaker Bass said on New Year's Eve that the Democrats would be fine with holidays and furloughs as long as it was part of the collective bargaining process.

Yolo County is in many ways in deep trouble. They will be $18 million in deficit. That is one-third of their operating budget. There was a good story Friday in the Sacramento Bee on the relative success of Yolo County in instituting voluntary furloughs since May. That's right, voluntary furloughs. That is how job losses have been avoided. But this occurred with the help and consent of the bargaining units as opposed to forcing furloughs upon them.

That, at least, has been the experience of Yolo County government workers – for whom unpaid time off has become the norm over the last seven months.

Beginning last spring, when county officials realized they had to cut costs, Yolo County employees either volunteered to take time off or eventually faced mandatory furloughs.

Many say their experience has been surprisingly positive, despite the pay cut.

The Governor does not operate that way. He issues demands and fiats and expects people to comply. What he discovered is that that type of approach produces resistance rather than cooperation.

Let us not kid ourselves, the situation would be dire no matter what given the nature of the economic crisis before us, but had Arnold agreed to a budget in December, California would be in far better shape.

For one thing, we would be working with real budget numbers rather than assumptions. People's lives have been torn apart based on these assumptions.

Look no further than the school district. They are going to have to put people on pink slip notice once again because they cannot assume budget flexibility. If we had a budget, they might not have to do this. They are going to have to ask teachers to take a 2.5% pay cut. This will be negotiated. It is not preferred, but it will be done if need be in order to prevent job losses right now.

I actually think Sheila Allen summed it up the best:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

I agree. I'm sorry anonymous, but from my standpoint, Arnold doesn't know how to negotiate. He doesn't know how to lead. The departed President found himself in a similar situation. Oh he had conviction to the point of stubbornness, but like George Bush, Arnold never learned the most valuable lesson of all, you aren't a leader if no one is following you. Until Arnold learns that lesson, these budgets will only get more difficult and more and more people's lives will be torn apart.

Come on Mr. Governor, it's time to step up and solve the budget crisis not by will, not by fiat, but by cooperation and in true spirit of negotiation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Drastic Measures and Grandiose Gestures by the School District

The headlines that came out of Thursday's school board meeting were dramatic with the Superintendent suggesting that the top four administrators would take double the pay cut that they were asking teachers to take in order to send the message that they were serious about the school budget crisis. Beneath those sensational headlines is a truth that is every bit as bleak but perhaps not quite as sexy.

The truth is somewhere in between here. The first factor that people need to understand is that in some ways what was discussed on Thursday night was the choice of the school board. They were presented options the previous week and could have chosen to self-qualify.

Self-qualification is a complicated process that was explained on the Vanguard radio show fairly well on Wednesday night. But in short, given the budget crisis, the district could have taken the latest assumptions from the governor's budget, said that they would deal with 2010-11 in due time, and cal it a budget.

The problem as Cathy Haskell current DTA President and Ingrid Salim, incoming DTA President explained on the radio show is that the board was told last year that self-qualification would be a red flag to the county that there were fiscal problems. That is because a large extent of the district's fiscal problems last year were in-house and local. That is not the case this year. There are estimates that 70% of the state will self-qualify. The reason for self-qualification is that the first two years of the budget would be balanced but the third year, 2010-11, would have an on-paper deficit that would need to be addressed. In a state budget crisis year, this is not the alarm bell that it would have been last year.

Nevertheless the board was not comfortable with self-qualification and instead are looking for the three year balanced budget. The result is additional pain of trying to anticipate three years out without even hard numbers for this year's budget. And they must do it by March 15.

As Sheila Allen put it on Thursday:

"It's just so frustrating that we have deadlines that we have to meet and other elected officials are not. So we're working with 'fiction' and we're messing with real people's lives when it's based on fiction, it's very frustrating."

In addition to the school board making the situation harder, Thursday's budget also assumed no flexibility. This is probably a wise decision at some level. The CTA has launched a veritable battle against any flexibility in CSR (Class Size Reduction) requirements. Moreover, they have opposed categorical flexibility as well. Still, it appears likely there would be some flexibility.

As we walk quickly through the numbers, all of this suggests that the grand gesture (largely symbolic) made by the top four might actually be a worst case scenario rather than the operating assumption that was suggested in the headlines on Friday.



The budget challenge as laid out by Bruce Colby is how we reduce the cost of delivering our programs without reduce the level of the programs we provide. Moreover, the district has a structural deficit, it is basically eating at least $1 million in reserve each year by these budget assumptions. It is doing that in order to both maintain our programs and avoid the painful layoffs that were proposed last year.



In short, what the district needs to do is to reduce on-going expenditures by $4.9 million or more over the next two years to maintain fiscal solvency. That is $3.3 million in 2009-10 and an additional $1.6 million in 2010-11. And 2010-11 is probably on the low side unless the economy and budget forecast improves. Even with that, the district will continue to have a structural deficit of $1 million which will need to be addressed by 2011-12.

As Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby said:

"At some point we will run out of reserves and we will have to close the gap for the last million dollars."

The district examined the salary breakdown for 2009-10 by bargaining unit. Their proposed cuts are roughly proportional cuts across the three classifications ranging from 3.68% among classified (support staff), 3.88% among certificated (teachers) and 4.15% among unrepresented (management and administrators).

Under this scenario they are taking out three counselors, they think they can find 200,000 by shifting around unused parcel tax money, but $910,000 is coming from increasing the student to teacher ratio for grades 4-12 which are not governed by CSR requirements. That means losing teachings, perhaps as many as 14. Some of that could be obtained through attrition--retirements and transfers.

However, and here is where the real painful decisions come in. Those cuts still leave the district one million dollars short.

So the bottom column on the grid shows the possibilities for accomplishing that savings. One is what was talked about last week, would be federal stimulus package dollars. It is possible the district will get $2.7 million, but we would have to look more closely at the Senate's version. There is also a possibility that the Davis Schools Foundation will be able to raise some of that money, but these days are a bit tougher for raising money than a year ago.

On the other side of the ledger are flexibilities that could be granted by the legislature. The adult education program has a $200,000 that is categorical money, which means that the district could be allowed to use it for general fund if they get flexibility on that. There is an additional $1.1 million in categorical money that could be used if granted by the legislature. And then there is about $1 million in CSR that could be used if they raise the ratio of students to teachers from 20 to 22. However, as mentioned that is going to be a political fight and the DTA seems to believe that there are other ways to get that money.

Now here is finally where we get to the sexy headlines which are not so sexy. If all else fails, one possibility is that the teachers and in fact all employees take a 2.5% pay reduction. That would free up $1.26 million that would cover that million hole.

It is here that we see the offer from the top four administrators coming into play.

Superintendent James Hammond:

"If there were to be any type of salary reduction for employees, that we would double whatever that salary reduction would be. So if we are looking at a 2.5% reduction to every employee in the district, then we the four of us would incur a 5% reduction for the 09-10 school year in order to contribute to our ability to prevent layoffs."

And let us not take away from this gesture. Because it is important to know that the administration is willing to share the pain, particularly after we have been so critical of Bruce Colby taking a pay increase of roughly 5% in these budget times. He is willing to give that back should it be needed.

As Board President told the Enterprise:

"They've being leaders."

But clearly this is the worst case scenario and the last resort. However, it does appear that the administration got the message from the community that has complained about administrative raises during a year when the district was contemplating layoffs and teachers were not getting raises.

The bottom line here is that while that gesture is appreciated a lot has to go wrong for it to be implemented.



However, we are not done. The cuts in 2010-11 under current assumptions amount to $1.65 million. Remember however those are on top of the cuts that would be implemented for 09-10.

At this point we are really getting into pure personnel unless the district gets stimulus money, gifts, or categorical flexibility. Because the district is looking for a three-year balanced budget, they are looking at 8 teacher layoffs for $520,000 in savings, 12 secretarial layoffs for another half million, and the loss of nearly three site administrators for $295,000. The latter represents a 6.26% cut in funding for the unrepresented bargaining unit, compared to 4.59% for classified, and 1.59% for certificated.

Those cuts however still leave the district nearly $300,000 short of balance.

In short, the district is making a lot of tough decisions right now that they really might not have to make depending on how the budget pans out. Much of this is due to the board's apprehension to do a self-qualification and work toward a balance for 2010-11 with more realistic assumptions.

There are going to be teacher's noticed. That is now unavoidable. It will not be the 100 or so that were noticed last year. But as the DTA representatives said on Wednesday, that took a huge emotional and psychological toll.

As Superintendent Hammond put it:

"There could be overnoticing going on but we do not know what the rules of flexibility are going to be."

As Board President Gina Daleiden put it:

"No one would do this unless we were at the very last resort."

I understand some of the rationale for doing it this way, but I'm not fully convinced it is the last resort. Given the state budget picture, a self-qualification does not seem to put the district in the kind of risk they would have been in last year, they need to trust their Superintendent and Chief Budget Officer who just last week recommended the self-qualification route to avoid these kinds of drastic cuts that may not have to be implemented. I understand the frustration that Board Member Sheila Allen expressed at the state budget process, the school districts are one of many victims of that inaction. But I am not convinced this was the only way to do this based on the other alternatives out there.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

General Plan Updating Process Begins

On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council will start take steps towards developing a plan of attack for the next General Plan Update. According to the staff report:

A General Plan update would potentially address all of the Council goal categories of: Infrastructure; Fiscal stability; Downtown Davis; Housing; Sustainability; Safety and Health; Organizational Strength; Civic Engagement; and Long-Term Visioning.

In particular, a General Plan update would address the Long-Term Visioning goal: “Prepare for the lasting success and well-being of the Davis community by engaging in long-term visioning.”

The city is looking at a process that would initiate an update through 2035 but could include a long range vision for Davis perhaps up until 2050. The recent housing element process has focused on housing strategies in isolation from other long range community issues.

Other issues that city staff wants to address include:

• Sustainability and AB 32 requirements.
• Economic and business related sustainability.
• Community and resident health.
• A general study of senior needs including housing, transportation, recreation and
social services.
• Ultimate urban growth and ag preservation boundaries.
• Open space / greenways system.
• Growth and balance of housing, employment, retail and services.
• Vision for the downtown and its development intensity.
• Multi-property planning on the edges of the City where coordinated planning would better address issues that may cross parcel boundaries.
• Fiscal impacts of alternatives.
• Planning for the January 2012 – June 2019 Housing Element planning period and
RHNA.
• Explore possible new locations for city and DJUSD corporation yards and the PG&E service center.

One of the challenges the city faces right now is the cost to the project including EIR costs. According to the staff report, costs range from $1 million to $4 million with a typical cost from between $1.5 million to $2.5 million. With a time frame ranging from two years to upwards of five years.

"Staff recommends that the Council determine what kind of a General Plan update is wanted / needed while being sensitive to the difficult budget conditions the City faces, as well as other priorities. After a “first cut” at deciding what kind of General Plan update, staff can return with more information and options for funding the update.

Concerns with City fiscal and budget conditions have evolved since the original Steering Committee recommendation and the Council direction to initiate a “truly comprehensive General Plan update…to address a long range community vision to year 2040 or 2050…with a broad community engagement program”."

The report also accesses the strengths and weaknesses of the current general plan.

The strengths include the fact that it is comprehensive, addresses and contains "smart growth principles," and was citizen based.

However, it also criticizes the previous report as long and unfocused.

"The lengthy document of almost 400 pages and 1,000 goals, policies and standards is difficult to use and focus on overall themes, key issues and trade-offs. The connections between the plan’s general visions and principles and more specific implementing actions are not always clear. Policies related to sustainability are not well coordinated."

Moreover,

"Not clear in its guidance of how the community should evolve in the long term, particularly in terms of residential and non-residential growth."

In particular,

"The 1% growth cap resolution is a helpful tool through January 2010, but does not a provide a quantitative basis for 20 to 25 years because the resolution was based on a housing needs analysis through year 2015 only. The plan provides the framework for promoting infill but does not address appropriate sites and the land use map..."

Furthermore:

"Does not provide for reliable projections for financial and infrastructure planning."

There are three other criticisms. First:

"Individual development proposals and policy. Preferably, individual projects would not drive policy.

Second:

"Coordination with UC Davis plans. The City and UC Davis continue to be challenged to proactively address short and long term mutual interests and needs."

Third:

"New State requirements for general plans. New legislative requirements in general plans for the topics of climate impacts, water supply, environmental justice, and tribal contacts should be checked and incorporated as necessary."

The staff report then elicits a number of comments from council in terms of goals, what the updated plan should contain, what the process should look like.

On thing that might be interesting is for citizens to use the comment section of this article to express some of their goals and concerns about what they would like to see included in the next general plan. Issues such as sustainability, climate change, senior needs, urban growth boundaries, and sustainable economy ought to be considered. One of the main issues that needs to be address is what this community should look like in 2035. How do you want to see Davis change? What would you like to see remain the same?

Finally there is the issue with Measure J. The council had deferred discussion of Measure J until after the election. However, it still really has not addressed it. Are there three votes to keep the measure as it is currently written when it goes before the voters? When will that be addressed?

The staff report contains some other thoughts on Measure J. For instance, whether the General Plan update to go to a Measure J vote if it involves Measure J sites. Whether the entire General Plan package should go to a Measure J vote.

"One option for the Measure J renewal is to do a limited extension until the update is ready for a Measure J vote, and amend Measure J so that if an urban land use is approved by the voters then a second Measure J vote is not necessary."

That would seem to be a rather dangerous proposition for both sides. On the one hand, it might make it difficult to pass the general plan if there are controversial projects contained within it. On the other hand, it might make it easier to pass controversial projects. And once the Measure J vote is passed for the general plan, what safeguards the project to ensure that it does not get altered significantly from passage as part of the general plan. I certain do not believe I would support such a provision.

What other issues need to be addressed here? This is the beginning of the general plan process, the citizens need to take a very proactive role in insuring that their needs, values, and goals are addressed within the framework of the general plan updating process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: The limits of Open Government and the Council's Right to Know

A few weeks the Davis City Council was trying to decide to what extent they had the right to demand to read the Ombudsman's Investigation into the Yolo County Grand Jury report. In a lot of ways it was a strange discussion. Let us forget for a moment about the content of that report and focus only on the process at hand.

City Attorney Harriet Steiner ruled two things. First, that the city manager had the right to determine whether or not the council could see something. Second, that if the council did view these personnel matters or a report deemed to cover a personnel matter, it could subject the city to liability. In essence, the city attorney deemed that in a city manager model, the council has no more right to view personnel records than members of the public.

Basically the city council hires the city manager. They are responsible for evaluating his performance. It was that evaluative process that led to the city manager's new contract that was approved last week in open session. However, as councilmember Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek asked, how is the council supposed to evaluate the city manager, if they cannot review his work product. If they are in the dark about certain reports deemed "personnel matters," how can they determine how well the city manager has done his job?

And there is more. Implicit in the assumption by the city attorney was that viewing these documents somehow exposed the council to liability. However, there appear to be no precedents to back that up. One pervasive belief is that if the city council were able to see the full report, the firefighters union would sue the city. This is only speculation, but it has been suggested from multiple sources.

This whole discussion leads to two interesting things to ponder. First, what would have happened had a majority of the council determined they had to see the full report? And second, can and should the council change the system?

It is the second point we briefly ponder today. City Attorney Harriet Steiner upon questioning from Councilmember Greenwald did concede that the city could alter its model. It does not appear that the majority of council is interested in doing so. As I mentioned previously, right now the city manager model suggests that the council hires only the city manager and the city manager hires, evaluates, fires, promotes the rest of city staff.

However, apparently that is not the only alternative. Indeed if we look at the school district, we see a much greater role for the school board than for the city council. The school board is privvy to personnel matters and makes some of those decisions.

Implicit under those assumptions is that the elected members are not merely agents of the public, with the same rights as the public, but actually governing agents. From the standpoint of public policy, it seems problematic that the elected and publicly accountable city council members would have to take a backseat in such discussions to unelected city managers.

As we have discussed previously, the city council has the power to hire and fire the city manager, that is all. What we do not know is the extent to which the city council could use its ability to fire as leverage in this situation. The reason for that is that a majority of the council did not wish to force the issue.

This too is somewhat problematic. For it suggests a few things. First, that the power of a councilmember is extremely limited. Indeed, it has often been suggested that as a member of the public, I have much greater rights than a member of the council does. The majority has almost complete power to thwart the will of the minority in council when it comes to these kinds of issues. To an extent that we do not see in other forms of government.

A member of the council therefore cannot make demands to see documents with the power to enforce that decision.

The question is whether this needs to be changed. Should the elected members of the Davis City Council have the right to by themselves demand to see documents in order to make better decisions? Do they have any recourse when denied other than to politic to pressure the majority of the council or sue for access?

These are all questions that were brought up two weeks ago. It is our hope for the sake of transparency and accountability that this issue is not allowed to die.

---David M. Greenwald

Vanguard Radio Tonight

Tonight at 6 pm Vanguard Radio on KDRT 95.7 FM will have two representatives from the Davis Teachers Association talking about education, the district, and the budget. Joining us will be current President Cathy Haskell and President-elect Ingrid Salim.

Call in at 530.792.1648

Log on for live stream: kdrt.org

Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement

Documentary Evidence Suggests University Failed to Adhere to Their Terms of Agreement

On Monday the Vanguard ran a story on the lawsuit filed by former UC Davis police Officer Calvin Chang. The story has since been covered in detail in the California Aggie and mentioned briefly on the Davis Enterprise website. At this point, one of the hang ups has been that the university has not been served and thus not officially notified with the complaint. So at this point they cannot respond.

The Vanguard spoke briefly to UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and Julia Ann Easley, Senior Public Information Representative at UC Davis News Service.

The Vanguard has now received a copy of the settlement agreement between Officer Chang and the university since in February of 2008. In that agreement, Officer Chang was to be paid by the Regents a sum of $240,000 of which $66,000 would go to his attorney.

"In exchange for the promises and warranties of CHANG as set forth below the REGENTS shall pay the total sum of $240,000 (two hundred forty thousand dollars). The $240,000 will be paid in two separate checks - one payable to Calvin Chang in the amount of $174,000 and the other check payable to James McGlamery in the amount of $66,000."

In addition to the monetary terms there were several key non-monetary provisions including the removal of identified negative documents from Calvin Chang's personnel file.

“To remove certain identified negative documents from CHANG's official personnel file and place them in a separate confidential file (''unsanitized file”) that will be maintained in the office of Campus Counsel, Steve Drown. CHANG, his attorney, and the attorney for the REGENTS will meet to cull through the official personnel file to determine which documents constitute such “negative” documents. A list of the documents that are removed from his personnel file and placed in the separate '''unsanitized file'' will be compile and attached hereto as Exhibit A.”

Moreover, for future employers, information would be limited to dates of his employment, title, and the fact that he has voluntarily resigned.

Specifically it authorizes that the regents will keep the "currently pending laundry-room Internal Affairs investigation open as "not completed." The University will expunge from Officer Chang's personnel file all letters or reprimand older than six months.

Here is the full listing of the items specifically agreed upon by both parties to be removed:




The complaint alleges a breach of contract stemming from the university not adhering to the terms of this agreement.

According to the complaint:

“A fundamental obligation of the settlement was to also preserve Plaintiff's peace officer career and coveted public safety retirement. As such, the settlement imposed a fundamental and material obligation on Regents as established by paragraph 2 of the settlement, that certain negative documents, that were the product of discrimination, be expunged or removed from his personnel file, and otherwise to comply with his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Govt. Code § 3300 et seq., hereinafter "POBR").”

It continues:

Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Spicuzza met with Plaintiff and counsel in open session, to review and agree on the removal of documents according to the obligations stated above as outlined in paragraph 2 and "Exhibit A" of the settlement. As a result of this obligation, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties generated "Exhibit A," that delineated the documents to be placed in or removed from Plaintiff's personnel files.

This allegedly did not happen.

“However, defendant Regents unlawfully placed into Plaintiff's personnel file, adverse documents that negated the purpose and effect of the terms of the agreement. These documents have irreparably harmed Plaintiff's ability to successfully obtain other employment as a peace officer and have effectively denied him the ability to continue in his career.”

Instead the complaint alleges that a number of items were placed into Mr. Chang’s personnel file.

“Regents placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file, a letter dated January 18, 2008, authored by Spicuzza that placed Plaintiff on "administrative leave."

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file two additional letters referring to and revealing the "Settlement" and to his "resignation."

Regents also placed over one hundred pages of negative documents into Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file located at the Office of Campus Counsel. Said documents consist of the most inflammatory and derogatory material, false allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaints against other peace officers, as contained in the full bound unredacted Seyfarth Shaw workplace investigation report.

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file, two versions of a Kilday & Kilduff report adverse to Plaintiff's interests - regarding internal affairs investigations that Regents launched against Plaintiff immediately after Plaintiff was reinstated in 2004. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said documents include, a yet to be fully disclosed, unwarranted internal affairs investigation against him by Regents in 2003 for alleged "insubordination" that consisted of "talking about his discrimination complaint."

According to the complaint, Officer Chang only became aware of these breaches after he was denied an employment position by several law enforcement agencies including the city of Davis. Recall that according to the settlement agreement, the university had very specific provisions about how requests for information were to be treated and what information they were to give out.



Instead according to the complaint:

“On July 22,2008, Campus Counsel Steve Drown told Plaintiff that REGENTS showed to the background investigator the above breaching documents, including the Seyfarth Shaw report as well as two versions of the Kilday Kilduff reports. Drown declined Plaintiff's request to read the documents, and declined to show Plaintiff the documents that were contained in his peace officer personnel file.

Plaintiff informed Drown that the documents were not to be in his personnel file, were in violation of the settlement, and that he requested to read them, that REGENTS must remove them, and allow him to provide a response to them after he has read them.”

According to the settlement agreement, the “laundry-room” investigation would be classified as open and “not completed.”



In fact, the complaint alleges that agreement was entered in based on fraudulent information and even then the defendants did not adhere to those provisions.

“As a direct and material obligation of the Settlement, Regents represented that the Laundry Room IA was still pending, had not been concluded, and would be maintained indefinitely as an "open investigation."

On or about February 4, 2008, in the presence of counsel for Regents, Spicuzza, a peace officer, verbally stated to Plaintiff that the Laundry Room IA had no finding, and further represented to Plaintiff that Regents would never disclose the existence or any information regarding the investigation to any party, including to any prospective employer - because it was an "open investigation." This obligation was material and conclusive in that the disclosure of the existence and the "open status" of an IA would substantially foreclose on the ability of a peace officer to obtain other police employment with a prospective employer.

In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the IA had no finding, and would remain open as pending, when in fact this was untrue, Regents and Spicuzza concealed this fact from Plaintiff, in order to further its fraud, duress, and misrepresentation to support constructively discharging Plaintiff's employment through a fraudulent settlement agreement.

Among other things, Plaintiff was induced by Defendants' misrepresentations to enter into the settlement agreement and release certain claims and his pending discrimination lawsuit, and would not have done so if the Defendants had not made false representations, or concealed and failed to disclose the material information alleged above. This further denied Plaintiff his statutory rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3300 et. seq.).”

Finally:

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Regents have disclosed to the news media that the IA was in fact closed as "sustained" against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff "resigned" as a result of the IA. Plaintiff discovered this fraud when he was contacted and questioned by the news media about what misconduct he had engaged in to be terminated from his position as a police officer.”

Brief Commentary:

Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settlement agreement. This is particularly damaging if true because the university would have interfered with his ability to receive new employment.

As originally mentioned, the university has not received a copy of the complaint and we have not heard their side of the story. The Vanguard will continue to follow this case as more developments occur.

UPDATE AT 4:30 PM WEDNESDAY

Julia Ann Easley, spokesperson for UC Davis emailed the Vanguard Wednesday afternoon with an official statement from the University:

Although the university has not been served, a lawyer representing the University has reviewed the complaint filed by Calvin Chang.

The university believes the case has no merit.

The university entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Chang in 2008 to resolve all of his employment-related claims and secure his resignation from the police department.

As a term of the settlement agreement, Mr. Chang agreed that anytime he signed a waiver authorizing a prospective employer to review his personnel file, the potential employer or its agent would be given access to Mr. Chang¹s entire personnel file. The university believes that it has complied with these and all other terms of the agreement.

Once the lawsuit is served on the university, the university will have 30 days to file a response with the court.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Read My Lips... No New Taxes?

City Needs To Solve Its Fiscal Problems First Before Going to the Taxpayers for a Renewal of Existing Taxes

At the risk of sounding somewhat well... Republican, there is something to this at least from the standpoint of local government. It is really not that I am opposed to new taxes, it is that there needs to be some incentive for the city to negotiate hard this with the various bargaining units. Let us back up a few steps first here.

The city is facing an interesting dilemma. There is a long term structural problem facing the city with the scope of city contracts and the nature of pensions. There is a shorter term problem with the city's budget that has less to do with the long term structural problem than it does a short-term revenue problem resulting primarily from the recession and the loss of tax revenue.

If done correctly, the city can use the short term problem to give them the leverage to fix the longer term problem. However, that remains one gigantic "if." The temptation is going to be for the bargaining units to attempt simply to hold off on the tough decisions until the economy improves. So many of them will likely push to simply extend the current contract. The city must fight hard against that urge.

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

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

In order to get the sales tax on the ballot for a vote in June of 2010, they would need to have it ready by January 2010. To me that gives the city nearly one year to get their house in order. Because if they do not get their house in order, for the first time in my life I will not only oppose a new tax (which I did previously with the Parks tax), but I will actively work against the tax. I will get a group of citizens together, we will walk precincts, we will raise money, and we will run a campaign opposing a new sales tax.

In other words, the city will have to run a tax against organized and financed opposition.

Honestly, I do not want to do this for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, despite rumors to the contrary, I simply have better things to do with my time. Moreover, I actually believe there are vital services that the city offers and will not be able to do if they do not have that tax revenue. Frankly the services I would least like to see cut will be the ones that go if the tax revenue disappears.

On the other hand, we need changes and we need to give the city leverage to make those changes. Right now the residents of the city of Davis, many of them do not realize the peril that their city is in. Although as I talk to more and more people at Farmer's Market, it becomes clear that many are aware of these problems.

The city needs to negotiate hard on behalf on the citizens to fix these structural problems that loom.

First, it needs to be made clear, city employees are not the targets of this. The real concern is the rise of top-end salaries. If you look at the list of 100K jobs for the city of Davis, most of them are public safety employees and most of those are in exactly one department--fire.

The city needs to hold the line on the top end salaries. City Manager Bill Emlen showed good faith by not taking a raise, we need a wage freeze across the board for top end employees.

Second, we need to change the way we finance our pensions. We get another opportunity here with the problems that PERS is facing and the fact that city's are going to need to cover a higher percentage of the yearly contributions because the fund is running a deficit due to drops in the Stock Market and some bad investments.

The city needs employees, especially those on the top end, particularly those getting 2.5% at 55 and 3% at 50 to contribute to their retirement pensions. If we do that, we do not need a two-tier system that most public employees and their unions deem unfair. And if we do that, the city will face much less risk in the future from the rising costs of these pensions.

Third, and this falls mainly on the fire department, we need to change the way we deliver these services. We are one of the few municipalities that uses four-men teams to fight fires. And we don't often fight fires. The vast majority of the calls are for medical emergencies. Why are we sending in four-men fire fighting teams for medical emergencies? If you ask the fire department, in part, it's because if they get another call, they need all of their equipment and manpower. But the result of this practice is inefficiencies and a waste of money.

I'm not going to try to come up with the answer. That is for the fire department and city staff to do. However, that is a lot of money for not as much service as we are led to believe.

In addition, there has long been a push for a fourth fire station. That is something that we can look into when we fix the staffing situation. I think an innovative approach here can save the city money and also enable the fire department to get the tools they think they need to be effective.

But in order to be effective these other things have to be solved first. We have a window of opportunity. Everyone is going to have to give this year. We have a chance to fix some of these problems because of the unfortunate situation with the economy.

If the city knows that the public will not support a tax measure without fixing our fiscal health, the city will have the leverage it needs to get a more favorable agreement from the various bargaining groups.

Once again, I want to reiterate this. People have used this opportunity to attack all city employees. The majority of city employees are making $60K or less--which is not a whole lot given the cost of living in this city. The problems are really on the top end. In better times, I would be absolutely supportive of the average city employee getting a pay raise. Unfortunately these are not good times. However, these employees are not part of the larger structural problem. They do not deserve to be attacked or disparaged in this process.

The bottom line again is that the city has the opportunity to hold the line and fix some of its longer term fiscal problems as it tries to deal with its shorter term budget deficit. Hopefully they will use this time wisely.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Officer Files Suit Against UC Davis Charging Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Former UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang has filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza alleging complaints of racial and sexual orientation discrimination, housing discrimination, and retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department.

Officer Chang was at the time of his hire the only Asian-American officer on the campus and the first openly gay officer. According to the complaint:

“During the relevant times, Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of harassment and discrimination because of his race and sexual orientation, including but not limited to the following: a racial slur broadcasted to Plaintiff over the police radio by his supervisor, superiors referred to Plaintiff as "Mr. Chang" instead of by his earned title of "Officer Chang," repeatedly referred to by the name of the agency's previous Asian-American officer, denied timely backup, subjected to a derogatory slur ("fag") by a probationary police officer (whom Regents passed on probation) in the presence of his supervisor, offensive homosexual innuendos from a supervisor, referred to as a "****ing fag" by his supervisor (whom Spicuzza promoted and assigned to the "professional standards unit" in command of internal affairs), subjected to numerous false internal affairs investigations.”

In July of 2003, Officer Chang was terminated from the UC Davis Police Department. By September 2003, he filed complaints of discrimination and harassment in connection with his termination.

“After Plaintiff's mistreatment and termination was reported in the news media beginning on or about October 29, 2003, Regents ordered Plaintiff summarily reinstated on October 31, 2003 and agreed with the DFEH [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] to provide all sworn staff with discrimination prevention training. As of Plaintiff's last termination in 2008, despite repeated reassurances, Regents have failed to provide agreed upon training.”

The suit alleges that the

“Defendants initiated, directed, encouraged, and subjecting Plaintiff to a malicious, severe, and unrelenting pattern of retaliation.”

These complaints included an alleged death threat. However according to a press release:

“UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza concluded she ‘could not identify’ which officer wrote the threat, even though the threat was written in the officer’s own handwriting.”

Moreover, Officer Chang alleges that in response to a complaint about discrimination, Chief Spicuzza stated to Officer Chang, “Why don’t you leave?”

The suit alleges a long list of various incidents of harassment and retaliations including a punitive transfer, failure to properly protect Officer Chang, and soliciting complaints against Officer Chang. Officer Chang claims that the Police Chief initiated several “malicious and false” internal affairs investigations against the Officer.

According to the press release by attorney Anthony Luti representing Officer Calvin Chang:

“These actions culminated in a lawsuit filed [today]… Chang alleges that in 2008, he was unlawfully terminated for the second time, after the UC Davis Police Department fabricated an internal affairs alleging that he “failed to have a backup officer” when he searched a laundry room at the Segundo Residence Hall. Chang’s lawsuit alleges that Spicuzza intentionally misrepresented that the internal affairs investigation had “no finding.” However, UC Davis concealed and intentionally misrepresented that it had sustained the allegation and then falsely and maliciously reported that he had resigned as a result of the internal affairs complaint.”

UC Davis has also attempted retaliation, according to the plaintiff, by

“unlawfully threatening [to] take his home of ten years—located in Aggie Village on the UC Davis campus. As a result of a complaint Chang filed with the CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the University agreed that it would cease any further actions, again choosing to explain its actions as based on “miscommunication.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff reports:

“In a letter responding to Chang’s complaint, [UC Davis Chancellor Larry] Vanderhoef described the University’s action as “a result of administrative error” and that there was no “evidence that these actions were intended to be retaliatory.”

Officer Calvin Chang is seeking a reinstatement of his position and general damages for the loss of his career and public safety pension valued at over $3 million. Moreover he is also seeking damages for emotional distress and punitive damages against Chief Spicuzza for failure to prevent harassment, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Vanguard at time of publication has not had an opportunity to speak to UC Davis, however, will follow up if when there is an official response.

In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management. As a result, the Vanguard has discovered reason to believe that Officer Chang’s complaint is not an isolated incident but rather part of a long and sustained pattern of alleged discrimination, retaliation, and abuse. The Vanguard will be following up on these allegations and will have a full report in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Analysis: Enterprise Obscures Where It Should Shine A Light

The vote on Tuesday night on the B Street project was admittedly a bit confusing in its conception. However, the Davis Enterprise article made it more so, not less so.

The title of the article was "Project will get another chance."

In a technical sense, that may be true. Council by a 3-1 vote passed a motion that would allow the applicant Marie Ogrydziak to bring her project back without having to pay additional fees. However, the motion directed her to work with the neighbors (who were overwhelmingly against the current project) and change her plans. Under those conditions, she would have to bring the project back through the HMRC (Historic Resources Management Commission) and Planning Commission. If they approved the design changes, the project would actually never come before council. The only reason the project came before council to begin with was that the Planning Commission by a 5-2 vote rejected the project as not meeting project guidelines.

The Enterprise continues:

"On Tuesday night, the City Council decided that Ogrydziak could resubmit her proposal and the council will consider it again, without Greenwald's participation."

Here again, it is more than a bit misleading. First, technically speaking, the project does not have to go back to council. But let us suppose it does, is Councilmember Greenwald conflicted out?

That is far from clear. She did not participate on Tuesday night. That much we know. But there are two possibilities for her participating. First, council at somepoint is going to revisit the issue of conflict of interest. Staff will look at the current rules. Second, Sue Greenwald could be ruled not to have a conflict by virtue of the fact that her property value would not be impacted by the project.

The applicant tried to argue that everyone in that neighborhood would be impacted one way or another by the project. But realistically speaking, given the distance which is 470 from property line to property line and an excess of 500 from house to house, given the fact that there is no direct sight line, given the fact that they are not on the street, or as Councilmember Greenwald put it, it's a design review rather than a project review, it is difficult to sustain the applicants point.

Nonetheless, none of this has been determined at this point.

The Enterprise's synopsis of the motion comes about halfway through the article:

"The council could have upheld its November decision if it so chose, but instead it said it would consider a resubmittal of the project if Ogrydziak worked with the neighbors and changed her plans."

The council basically did uphold their November decision. However, in the spirit of Former Mayor Maynard Skinner's olive branch, they worked it a bit more positively, rather than outright rejecting the project, they asked that it come back again. But functionally it is really the same effect. Under the November ruling it would be delayed a year and she would have to come back with a new proposal. Under this ruling, she has to come back with a new proposal. It may not exactly take a year, but realistically she is not going to redesign the project and get community buy-in all that much faster than she would have. So the only real victory she wins is a fee waiver.

All of this is of course clear as mud. What is interesting as well is that Councilmember Souza's motion "directs" the applicant to work with the neighborhood for changes within the design. However, as we know from City Attorney Harriet Steiner's legal interpretation, direct doesn't mean required by law.

As Ms. Steiner told Mayor Pro Tem Saylor in response to a question about giving direction, Ms. Steiner informed the council they cannot give "enforceable direction, but you can state your thought on the matter."

On that point the council was clear as was Councilmember Souza:

"I'm going to be straight out, I'm going to vote against the project if it comes back to us exactly as it was. So we're putting her through the process without any change in the outcome. So what I'm saying in my motion is that if you want to see me vote in the affirmative, you have to change the project. The project has to meet the guidelines as I see them in order for me to affirmatively vote for it. I think it is the best thing for this process to go through a process of neighborhood discussion."

He continued:

"I'll vote against bringing it back for a rehearing because I think it's a waste of time. I don't want our time to be wasted and I would prefer we give direction that's positive."

And that is really the final complaint with the Enterprise article, it did not capture adequately the tone of the decision by the council. The suggestion in the headline and parts of the article is that the applicant was successful. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the applicant did not leave Council Chambers with the belief that she had prevailed. If she believed she was going to be able to put forward the project as currently designed she was sorely mistaken.

However, that is not the impression that the article gives.

Part of the problem is that the Enterprise only gives the matter 415 words--which is itself a problem. A breakdown of word usage shows us why the tone is misleading however.

The first 121 words deals with background and Councilmember Greenwald's participation which was suggested to be inappropriate but not definitively determined as such during this meeting.

The next 57 words suggests that the council will reconsider it without Greenwald's participation and then that they could have upheld November's decision but chose not to.

It's only the next 105 words with actually deal with what Councilmember Souza, the drafter of the motion, said. This is the only portion that casts a negative light on the decision from the applicant's perspective.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor's procedural manuevering, which was rejected, gets almost as many words, 100, as Souza's motion which was adopted.

14 words go to:

"Ogrydziak's project is expected to be before the council again after she resubmits plans."

Which is actually not true as we've discussed.

And finally 18 words to:

"The council also agreed to discuss at a future meeting how other cities and organizations handle conflict-of-interest matters. "

Which is actually an important aspect of this in its own right because that's in part how Councilmember Greenwald's participation will be determines, IF the matter even comes back to council.

There are really two problems here. One is that this story is only assigned 415 words. You just cannot do an adequate job with that short a story on this complex an issue. That is certainly not the reporter's fault. One of the big advantages the Vanguard has is that there is no word limitation.

The second problem is that you need to adequately reflect the tone and functional outcome of the decision. In that sense this article fails. First with the headline which is technically accurate but completely misleading in tone. Second, with the construction of the article that buries in the middle and underrepresents the outcome. Basically 105 of the 415 words reflect the tone and tenor of the decision and it is placed in the middle and off the front page of the newspaper. That needs to go up front and needs to also be longer.

The bottom line is that a person reading only that article on this issue would not come away with an accurate sense of what actually happened on Tuesday night.

---David M. Greenwald reporting