Good News Bad News For Davis Schools

CTA Launches Campaign Against Class Size Reduction Flexibility

If you read through the numbers reported on Thursday, Davis Schools will likely given some measure of flexibility survive without major teacher layoffs at least through 2010-11. The district got some more good news perhaps when the House passed the stimulus plan that will contain for schools.

Davis will get roughly $2.7 million over the next two years. That includes money for construction and modernization, some for programs for low-income students, and nearly $1.8 million for special education programs. Woodland stands to get far more based on a higher percentage of lower-income students than Davis, but Woodland is also far worse off than Davis.

However, the Senate still needs to approve its own version of the stimulus in the coming week. When it does, there is expected to be considerably less money for the district in it and the reconciliation will mean that Davis will get something, but not what the House version would give it.

Meanwhile, if we go back and look at the budget projections for the district, one of the big caveats was whether or not the district would get Class Size Reduction Flexibility. Allowing the district to raise class size from 20 to 22 would allow it a saving of nearly $1 million per year, which means $2 million by 2010-11.

During his presentation on Tuesday, Bruce Colby suggested that of all the proposals in the Governor's budget, a change in class size reduction or CSR, was most problematic.

Based on a teleconference with CTA President David Sanchez on Friday, I would suggest that actually overstates the possibility of CSR changes being implemented. The CTA is going to war against flexibility in the use of CSR.

Mr. Sanchez said:

"What's most offensive is that eliminating class-size reduction won't save the state one dime. Districts will continue to receive that funding from the state, but won't have to spend that money on class-size reduction, or frankly, even in the classroom."

Let me make two caveats to what I am about to say. First, I am very familiar with the data from Davis' perspective but less so around the state. Everything I know about Davis is that the flexibility is what Davis needs to survive the next two years without cutting teachers or programs.

Second, in general I am supportive of the teachers unions, but I think in this case they are misguided.

Right now, district need flexibility in the money that they receive and we need to trust local districts to know how best to spend it rather than Sacramento.

Also at the press conference was Alicia Gaddis who is chairwoman of the Sacramento branch of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (you might be more familiar with their acronym, ACORN, they do more than just register voters however).

"I can assure you that the districts in poorer neighborhoods will be the first to increase classroom sizes, [which] means the achievement gap will widen."

I would like to see the analysis of how CSR funds would impact that. For Davis, 80% of the money the district spends goes directly to the classroom. The question is where in the classroom it needs to go.

One of the concerns expressed by the CTA and others is that CSR was a process that took years to create and build up. However, relaxing the requirements for a few years until this budget situation is not going to destroy the program.

The bottom line here is that if CSR is left in place, school district like Davis are going to have to eat into their reserves more and eventually they will have to cut their teachers. Across the state schools are cutting their teachers. The only question is whether they can have the flexibility to simply use attrition and retirement to balance their books or whether they will have to deeply cut into HS and other secondary programs to survive.

It's a tough call right now, but if given the choice, most school districts would prefer greater flexibility during challenging times and then they can prioritize their spending needs.

The CTA is unfortunately showing a general distrust for school districts to make these choices.

In the meantime, CSR flexibility is probably now DOA. The CTA this weekend is launching a major ad campaign urging Californians to call the Governor and their legislators to oppose the proposal. Legislators already were expected to remove the proposal from the budget, this is just the coup de grace on that.

For Davis, that means a couple of million in flexibility for the next few years that is gone. The federal stimulus if Davis ends up seeing any of it when the Senate finishes their work will mitigate some but not all of that.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City's Budget Hole Grows--Unmet Needs Will Go Unaddressed

A year ago the city basically identified around $13 million in what it called unmet needs. These were needed projects in a variety of departments that the city needed to undertake but lacked the available money to pay for them. As the Vanguard has mentioned previously, some of these are quite basic road repairs and other vital services.

Right now the city is projecting a growing budget deficit for the foreseeable future. It begins at close to $1.5 million for the current fiscal year and doubles to $3 million next year.



As Finance Director Paul Navazio stated on Tuesday night, the city is going to have to first address the structural and immediate budget problems. That means that these unmet needs will continue to be unmet needs into the foreseeable future.

From the staff report:

"While the growing list of unmet needs – both one-time and recurring – remains a significant concern, current economic and budgetary realities suggest that emphasis should be placed on securing existing revenues over seeking new revenue sources that could, potentially, jeopardize revenues relied upon to provide existing City services."

Right now the city is focusing on addressing existing revenues. They do not believe they will be able to in this climate get the voters to approve tax increases. Therefore the priority at this point is on renewing the existing tax measures--namely the parks tax and the half cent sales tax. One alternative would instead of the renewal of the parcel tax for the parks, combine the the parks measure with an additional quarter cent sales tax to produce the $1.5 million the parks tax is currently generating.

From the staff report:

"At this time, staff is suggesting that the highest priority related to future ballot measures should be the renewal of the ½ Sales Tax (Measure P), approved by the voters in June 2004, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure currently provides roughly $3 million in General Fund revenues to the City.

Secondly, priority should be given to options for renewing or replacing the Parks Maintenance Tax (Measure G), which was re-authorized by the voters in June 2006, with a 6-year sunset provision. This measure provides roughly $1.3 million in dedicated funding in support of park maintenance activities. In the past, some concerns have been expressed over the appropriateness of assessing this tax on the basis of a flat $49 tax on parcels within the City. Staff has previously been directed to explore alternative funding mechanisms, to the point where the text of Measure G provides that the measure would be repealed in the event that the City secures an alternative means of funding parks maintenance activities."

What is driving this is the basic reality of the situation for the city. The taxpayers in Davis have already been asked to pass two parcel taxes for the school district and one for the library. They will be asked to pass another parcel tax by the school district in either late 2011 or early 2012.

The city does not want to be competing against the school district for tax funds. Right now they are simply looking to renew what they have. That would mean a June 2010 ballot measure to renew the sales tax or possibly fold Measure G into the sales tax.

The problem here is obvious but unavoidable given the city's lack of addressing the unmet need problem previously. The assessment of Navazio and the city is exactly right--the public is not going to approve the slew of tax measures that it proposed a year ago.

In December of 2007, the city was considering a public safety tax placed on the ballot sometime in 2009. At that time, Councilmember Souza even pushed for it by November 2008.

Second, they suggested a new sales tax on the ballot in 2010 with a quarter-cent increase. At that time it would not have subsumed the park tax but rather would have paid for street and road maintenance.

Finally in he called for a replacement of the park tax with an increase in the municipal services taxes.

Now the dilemma. Many will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that these taxes are essentially off the table. However, the downside is twofold.

First, the city is going to have to find a way to cut millions from the budget over the next several years.



Second, the city while cutting millions from the budget over the next several years, needs to find a way to chew into what is now $8.74 million of one-time unmet needs (including nearly $6 million for the fire department which I assume still includes possibly a fourth fire station and a new engine) and $7.35 million in recurring unmet needs, that one is more spread across the board.

In December of 2007 Councilmember Don Saylor said:

"Today we really can look at the structural deficit as we refer to so often as something within our grasp. The numbers are so small that they will be taken care of by small increases in the economic development plans that are already underway."

Councilmember Saylor was wrong. He did not foresee the magnitude of course of the economic crisis bearing down upon us. But he did not recognize that our failure to appropriately deal with the unmet needs would become a crisis just over a year later. The problem was that everyone assumed or at least three councilmembers at time assumed that we could simply tax ourselves out of our hole. Now that is no longer a possibility.

In the meantime, no one dealt with the longer term structural problem namely unchecked employee salaries, and this is not a general statement about employees. There are specific areas that are particularly problematic.

It turns out in December of 2007, that then-Mayor Sue Greenwald was the one who was correct.

"We have a structural deficit, we haven't really done anything to improve it, we've just changed our accounting principals, made them less conservative. But that also means it's going to be more sensitive to downturns in the real estate market and other potentially recessionary phenomena."

She continued:

"We have not only not reduced it [structural deficit] but we've also made ourselves more vulnerable to our PERS contributions."

Mayor Greenwald turned out to be exactly correct and the current Mayor Pro Tem was overly optimistic.

The system has imploded. We have seen our vulnerability to the real estate market downturns and for the first time really to a major recession. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. The unmet needs are still unmet and now there is no immediate plans to meet them.

It will be interesting to watch the impact on this community when the city has to cutback on vital city services. We have already seen push back on the issue of parks and recreation--and frankly that was mere pennies compared to what awaits us.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

District's Budget Workshop Shows Huge Deficits for Next Two Years

The Davis School Board met last night for a budget workshop. Given the fiscal situation and uncertainties in some ways the district stands in a much more challenging landscape than they did last year at this time. The chief reason for that is that while they are working off the governor's budget assumptions, we do not really know what the budget is going to look like if and when it is passed by the legislature.

As a result, the key objectives for the district are to look for ways to build capacity. There is an additional challenge of finding where the district can build in cuts outside of the categorical funds.

The district's priority is to find ways to reduce spending and get by through 2010-11 without taking money from educational programs. That is a tricky endeavor.

If there is good news, it is that despite the uncertainty, despite how bad the economic times are, right now it looks like the district if given flexibility by the governor and the legislature, a big if at the time this is written, the district can escape through 2010-11 without massive layoffs.

In part that is due to the district putting itself in viable fiscal position the last few years, in part that is due to a stabilized enrollment, and in part that is due to the generosity of the people of this district who came through with one-time money through the Davis School Foundation last year and through the passage of Measure Q in 2007 and Measure W in 2008.

Again, because there is no state budget, the district due to laws and regulations still has to adhere to a March 15 deadline for having an interim budget for 2009-10. Right now they are working off the Governor's budget assumptions until and unless there are changes and a more certain path.



The Governor's budget builds in cuts in the range of $2.5 million this year (as in 2008-09), another $3.3 million reduction next year with no funding for COLA, and right now no cuts for 2010 but minimal funding for inflation (COLA) and no funding restoration.



The Governor's budget does provide flexibility. Some of the key flexibility is that it allows districts to transfer money from their fund balance for categorical programs. This means that money that is normally restricted in use can be used for the general fund. For a district like Davis, this is a huge advantage. There is however considerable question as to whether this will hold. Democrats are opposed in general to this kind of flexibility for a variety of reasons.



In addition the Governor's budget also allows the district to reduce its reserve requirement. In essence this is one-time money that will quickly get depleted, but it will allow some districts to survive for a couple of years.

Finally, the Governor's budget, and again, this is subject to legislative approval, calls for the reduction of the school year by up to 5 days. More on this shortly.

The good news for the school district is that ADA is up, meaning there is no the problem we faced last year with declining enrollment. The bad news however is that our cash investments are earning less. In fact, we expect negative interests for the rest of the year. In a normal year these interests would yield around $750,000. Right now, Bruce Colby has this budgeted as zero income, it could in fact end up in the negative somewhat by up to $200,000.



Bruce Colby then showed where we currently stand. We are pretty much operating in the red, living off our fund balance and our reserves with no changes this year. And then we would end up in the hole $2.5 million for next year and $7.7 million for 2010-11.

In order for that not to happen, we are going to have to make cuts. The first set of assumptions are based on the ability to alter the student to teacher ratio from 20-1 to 22-1. That would save us $700,000 just for the K-3 and another $300,000 for the 9th and 10th grades. However, as Mr. Colby stated during his presentation, this is not likely to hold. The legislature of all the cuts and changes is most likely to keep the ratio. As you will see shortly, that will alter these assumption by quite a bit as the district will have to find another million.



How is the district going to make cuts with minimum impacts on education programs?

Well they are going to cut from the district office and not fill vacancies for risk manager, fiscal services, account tech, and board secretary. In essence, Bruce Colby will serve as risk manager and the fiscal services director ends up requiring additional work for him as well. That cuts about $200,000 from 2009-10 and 10-11.

Other cuts will include to counseling services and classified staff reduction. Both of those are simply through attrition. They will simply not fill vacancies. It will not require layoffs.

They will have some spending reductions, we're talking about $100,000 there. They think there is some flexibility in unused parcel tax funds where they can shift around for $200,000.
Finally the issue of the reduction of the work calendar. Right now they are discussing two days which would be $500,000. Every day they do not work, it is $250,000. One of the questions is how much of that has to come from instructional days. The board seems willing to double that to four days given the amount of money this would save. Part of this depends on the legislature approving the reduction of school days.

Those cuts still only save about $2.3 million for 2009-10 and $1.8 million for 10-11. The remainder of the money will come this year from the transfer of categorical fund balance. The next two years they will transfer $1.1 million from categorical allocations. They think reductions in restricted funds can give them $400,000 and for this year there was a $200,000 Adult Education Fund Balance that the adult school director volunteered to give back to the district.



With those cuts, you can see that we remain in deficit spending but we remain in the black across this period in terms of ending fund balance. Notice that the reserve is gone though by 2010-11 which means we could be facing problems for 11-12 if the state budget situation does not improve and it is not expected to.

So if the district gets class size reduction flexibility, we are in decent shape.




Without that flexibility, we are still okay but we have $1 million less next year and $2 million less in 2010-11. That means that our fund balance will be almost gone by then and we will really face potential problems in 2010-11.



The bottom line is that we are most likely going to be okay through 2010-11 given current assumptions and hoping that the state budget picture does not get much worse.

From my perspective it is not clear that we will have that categorical flexibility that the governor has built into the budget. But we'll have to see what the legislature and governor eventually decide when they finally agree on a budget.

Of course all bets are off if the state actually starts running out of money has to default on payments to local schools.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

UC Service Workers Come To Contract Agreement

Take First Step Out of Poverty with Historic Contract

After more than seven months since a week of strikes press for new negotiations, over 8500 UC Services workers reached agreement with the University of California that union officials lauded as the first step to lift thousands of families out of poverty. The agreement includes significant wage increases, a pay system that rewards seniority and a first time ever statewide minimum wage for their job classifications.

According to a release from AFSCME 3299, here is a statement from Kathryn Lybarger, who is a Gardner at UC Berkeley:

“This has been a truly historic fight for all of us. For years, we have been struggling to make ends meet each month on UC’s low wages. Finally UC executives have recognized their moral responsibility to provide a wage increase that will start to lift us and our families out of poverty, and provide better jobs in our communities.”

Lakesha Harrison, President, AFSCME Local 3299:

“After a year and half of negotiations, this is truly a historic day. We have gone on strike, held informational pickets, lobbied, ran television commercials and many other things that were key to get UC executives to do the right thing and readjust their priorities from executives to the lowest paid workers at UC.”

“We appreciate the strong support of many of California’s leading elected officials and community organizations. Lt. Governor Garamendi, State Senator Leland Yee, Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, State Senator Gloria Romero, State Senator Gil Cedillo, Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, CLUE and other religious leaders, and many others helped convey the importance to the leadership of the University to get a fair and just contract for service workers. We appreciate their support for starting to end poverty wages at UC.”

This new agreement includes wages increases over five years of 4%, 3%, 3%, 3%, and 3%. For the first time, UC service workers will have a state wide minimum wage that reaches $14.00/hour by the end of the contract. In addition the contract includes the adoption of a fair pay system that gives employees credit for their service and dedication to the University. The agreement also includes stronger benefits protections.

Lt. Governor John Garamendi and a UC Regent released a statement:

“This is a good settlement. It will give some of the lowest paid workers at the greatest university system in the world enough of a salary to meet the minimum needs of their families. It should also be noted that only a small portion of the worker’s contract comes from the state budget.”

This is one of the key points. For those wondering why the lowest paid workers would get a raise during these budget times, the majority of funds do not come from the state budget as we have mentioned in the past. Instead they come from the proceeds from the quasi-private hospital profits.

Just a week and a half ago, about 60 workers went to the San Francisco office of UC Regent Richard Blum. The purpose of their visit was to try and talk to him directly regarding their contract. During their visit, the workers asked to meet and/or talk with Regent Blum in person or by telephone. When Regent Blum denied their request, 20 of these low wage service workers sat down and refused to leave.

At the time, President Yudof's response to the worker demands was to ask that these actions stop despite independent analysis that shows something like 96% of the 8500 UC Service workers receive low enough wages to qualify for some form of public assistance.

Despite the rhetoric from the President, the action seemed to push the process forward and resulted in an eventual contract for the workers.

State Senator Leland Yee has been a strong advocate for the workers from the start.

“I am pleased that the University finally reached an agreement with the service workers. These are tough economic times for everyone, but even more so for these low-wage workers and their families. This new contract is well-deserved and much-needed. While this contract brings the University one step closer to ending poverty wages for all workers, it is imperative that the UC also provides shared governance of the employee pension plan – a role every other public pension plan in the state provides workers.”

This contract seems to be a good start toward moving these workers toward more competitive living wages in the future. It has been a hard fought and long battle, but the workers and their representatives seem excited about the outcome.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Souza and the Council Put a Stop to a Rehearing on 233 B

As we reported on Saturday, the City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that she erred in her assessment that Councilmember Sue Greenwald was not conflicted out of a vote cast on November 4, 2008 against a redesign of the 233 B Street property. Therefore the city staff determined that the applicant could request a rehearing without going through the normal reconsideration process.

The council will meet at a later point to modify and correct conflict of interest policies. We have discussed this at length already.

Despite applicant Marie Ogrydziak and her chief advocate on the council, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor attempting to couch this in terms of procedural fairness, the vote really came down to whether or not a rehearing would change the outcome. Ms. Ogrydziak would argue that it would--that councilmember Sue Greenwald had a large affect on the vote and therefore it was only fair to rehear without prejudice.

Marie Ogrydziak read a statement before council. She explained the background of why she believed Councilmember Sue Greenwald's house was within 500 feet. She pointed out that the Councilmember had to recuse herself for a 2004 project at the same location.

"Sue Greenwald should have been recused from the November 4 votes for the 233 B St project. Her votes had two major effects. One was essential for the rejection of a motion to include green considerations in the project approval process. And the other was essential for the appeal of our planning commission vote."

She then snarkly suggested:

"Jokingly we considered plate tectonics as a possible explanation for why four years later Sue Greenwald's property was now more than 500 feet from the 233 B St property."

She then accused the city of engaging in a "creative approach" to "attempt to prove that no mistake was made because there is no conflict of interest."

She continued:

"We believe such an approach starts the city of Davis down a slippery slope."

Ms. Ogrydziak then suggests it might be possible to find a realtor who would finds no impact on Sue Greenwald's property value, but suggests that would be contrived.

Amazingly she then argues for recussal on the basis of Sue Greenwald disagreeing with her vision for B St and that neighborhood:

"For many years Sue Greenwald and a small group developed and advocated a vision for what she sees as her neighborhood including B St. Several of our proposals and our actions run counter to her vision. As a private citizen she spoke against our first project at the 2004 council meeting and twice against our current 233 B project at planning commission meetings this summer... We believe in many ways Sue Greenwald is too close to this project and that she should recuse herself as it seems impossible that she can be impartial on this matter."

She then appealed to the council on the basis of fairness:

"In reality this vote is not about the project but about fairness and support for sound city policy."

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor advocated for the staff recommendation:

"I think this is a procedural matter strictly, this is a matter of whether in due process and fairness the earlier hearing we had was proper."

Mayor Asmundson initially went along with the process believing that is what the council unanimously supported.

"To be fair we erred in terms of distance, regardless of whether there will be change, we need to rehear the item."

Don Saylor moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion with the friendly amendment that we "respectfully ask the applicant to work further with neighbors to further modify the design."

This was not acceptable to Mayor Pro Tem Saylor because "it prejudges the outcome of that conversation."

As a result Councilmember Heystek withdrew his second and Mayor Ruth Asmundson seconded the motion instead.

Katherine Hess suggested that if there was a different proposal submitted, it would be appropriate to send it back to the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission.

Councilmember Stephen Souza pushed for a substitute motion requesting the applicant work with the neighborhood for changes within the design that came forward and to take that through the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Management Commission. Councilmember Heystek seconded it.

Mayor Pro Tem Saylor then said he would vote against this on procedural issues and suggested that the

"applicant would have a course of action against the city if they didn't allow a resubmittal with no fees."

City Attorney Harriet Steiner shot that suggestion down:

"I do not believe that the applicant has a legal cause of action against the city by reason of what happened and Sue's participation at the last meeting."

The council danced around for a bit, it appeared that no motion would gain more than two votes. Finally, Councilmember Stephen Souza put his foot down.

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

He continued:

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

Councilmember Souza's plea was so strong he pulled Mayor Asmundson with him and the council voted 3-1 to reject the rehearing with Councilmember Saylor dissenting.

Commentary

I had a problem with the way in which this issue came about. Let us forget for a moment the procedural mess that city staff and the city attorney made of this issue and let us focus for a moment on the applicant.

I will start out by saying on a technical level, I understand her plea for procedural fairness. The issue of whether or not Sue Greenwald was actually conflicted out has not been resolved satisfactorily however from my standpoint and I think the council has taken a good step in getting clarification on this. Based on that uncertainty, I think the council should have deferred the decision if they were inclined to grant a rehearing on that basis.

But frankly Councilmember Souza was right here--and quite forceful about it. The fact is that the reason he voted to abstain and kill the project in November remains just as relevant today. Ms. Ogrydziak in her letter seemed to assume that Councilmember Souza would continue to abstain. That ignores statements he made both before and after his initial vote. Namely that he didn't think this project was appropriate for that site.

More appallingly to me is the fact that Ms. Ogrydziak seems far more concerned about procedural fairness towards her project rather than the feelings of her neighbors. At that November 4, 2008 meeting, former Mayor Maynard Skinner presented a letter signed by all but one of the neighbors in opposition to the project. Mr. Skinner generously came back last night to offer to meet with the applicant to produce a more suitable project but was essentially rebuffed.

To me this entire appeal was a slap in the face to Ms. Ogrydziak's neighbors. How does it further the process of reconciliation if she attempts to essentially do an end-run around the initial decision without addressing a single neighbor's concern? That does not seem like a good faith gesture to me. In fact just the opposite. She was far more concerned about getting her process a new hearing that dealing and mitigating the concerns of those most affected by her project.

Fortunately, thanks to Councilmember Heystek's persistence and Councilmember Souza's forceful and needed bluntness, Mayor Asmundson recognized that any effort to rehear without major revisions to the project would be a waste of the council's time.

Sadly Councilmember Saylor was dogged in his advocacy for Ms. Ogrydziak's project. While at one point he suggested to her that the council had made it clear that they wanted changes, nevertheless, he voted in the end to waste the council's time with a rehearing that would change nothing. Moreover since the city would have waived applicant fees, the city would be eating money in addition to the time to resolve this issue.

At one point, Mr. Saylor suggested irresponsibly that the city might face a cause of action if they did not grant a rehearing--why would he bring this up in open session? If this was truly his concern, why would he not have discussed it with the City Attorney in advance? In fact, the City Attorney had already written in the staff report that she did not think the city was obliged for a rehearing and she was forced to reiterate this point in open council. This was tantamount to a not-so-subtle threat that was made by Ms. Ogrydziak and carried by Mr. Saylor.

In the end, the council acted responsibly by suggesting yet again that Ms. Ogrydziak needs to go back to the drawing board, redesign the project, and for crying out loud, work with the neighbors.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Facing Budget Crisis, Cutback on Youth Programs and Award Honoring Slain Teen

In a letter from Mayor Ruth Asmundson pasted on the city's page for the Golden Heart Awards this year, it reads:

"As a result of the death of Andrew Mockus in April 1992, the City of Davis Recreation and Park Commission expanded its commitment to the youth of our community. Forums were held throughout the community to discuss the problems of youth and to brainstorm on how the community could do more to meet the needs of youth.

After careful consideration, the Commission suggested the City Council adopt several recommendations. One of the Commission recommendations was to develop the Golden Heart Award. The purpose of the Award is to recognize outstanding youth in the community. There are two different categories within the Award: the service award and the personal challenge award. The service award recognizes individuals who have given significant service to the community, their peers, and/or their school. The personal challenge award recognizes individuals who have overcome a significant challenge in their life."

However, due to budgetary problems this year, City Staff is recommending that the Golden Heart Award and our "commitment to the youth of our community" be canceled.

In February of last year, the Davis City Council honored nine students with Golden Heart Awards.

"The Golden Heart Awards, which began in 1994, represent the best of the community in honor of Andrew Mockus , a 14-year-old Davis student who was killed by a group of youths in 1992 — an act that represented the worst of the community.

Following his death, forums were held to discuss issues facing the community's youths and ways the city could do more to meet their needs. The city adopted seven recommendations, including the Golden Heart Awards to honor courageous and kind students in grades 7-12."

Recipients last year included:

"Brandon Kitchen, a 15-year-old student at Holmes Junior High School, received a Golden Heart Award for his ability to overcome serious challenges after a biking accident that resulted in eight major surgeries, many months in bed and almost a year in a wheelchair."

The award was created in 1994 following the brutal beating death of 14 year-old Andrew Mockus in 1992.

From a Davis Enterprise retrospective published April 24, 2002:

"Ten years ago today, Davis residents discovered that an unthinkable act of violence -- one they thought occurred only in other towns -- had, in fact, taken place in their own back yard.

On the night of April 24, 1992, 14-year-old Andrew Mockus was brutally beaten and robbed of $2 by three other teens, then pushed into the side of a moving freight train and killed. The incident occurred in a gully near UC Davis, a popular gathering place for youths at the time.

Two days after Andrew's death, Solano County authorities arrested Michael Johnson, 17, and Andrew Childs, 16, both Davis residents and students at King High School. A third boy, 14-year-old Joshua Bettencourt, also took part in the beating but was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony."

At the time of the article, not much was known of the fate of the culprits upon their release.

"Today, little is known about the whereabouts of Andrew's assailants. Childs would have been released from the CYA at age 20, and his public defender, Harvey Bender, said he has not heard from his former client. CYA officials declined to release either Johnson's or Child's release dates."

However one of the youths, would kill again.

"What is known is that Bettencourt's involvement in violence and death did not end on that night in 1992. In December 1995, Bettencourt was involved in a road-rage incident at a Carmichael intersection in which he shot another man four times and killed him. Claiming he shot in self-defense, Bettencourt pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and served five years in state prison before being paroled last October."

The story also quotes UC Davis Professor Larry Berman:

"That is to me the greatest injustice and the greatest miscarriage of our system, that they're walking on the streets and Andrew is dead," said Larry Berman, who was Andrew's baseball coach. He organized the planting of a memorial grove of redwood trees near the baseball field at Holmes Junior High, where Andrew was a student...

He remembers Andrew as a boy with great potential and a "wicked curve ball..."

"I walk by Holmes Junior High and look at the memorial grove," Berman said. "I remember the generosity of the community as they contributed funds to the grove and the bench that's there. The senselessness has been replaced by the great memories of Andrew."

Now however the community led by the city staff is on the verge of forgetting about not only Andrew Mockus but their commitment to youths.

In addition to staff proposals to eliminated the Golden Heart awards tomorrow evening, they are also talking about initiating "a $2.00 per drop-in rate for the High School Open Gym program."

In other words, they are going to charge youths $2 to play basketball. This is how the city is dealing with their budget problems.

The Recreation and Park Commission reviewed and discussed the various proposed fees for Recreation Activities in November 2008.

According to the staff report they agree with all of the proposed fee recommendations with one exception:

"the exception of the $2.00 High School Open Gym fee. The Commission also expressed their overall concern for the rate of fee increases associated with programs that are primarily targeted to the teen population. The Commission expressed their desire to have a more comprehensive discussion with the Council related to appropriate subsidy of these types of activities."

One councilmember is very concerned about these fee hikes and the loss of the Golden Heart Awards. Councilmember Lamar Heystek told the Vanguard, we should be looking elsewhere for balancing our budget.

"I find it disturbing that we are considering balancing our budget in all the wrong places. I cannot in good conscience vote to charge kids to play "open-gym" basketball. I cannot in good conscience cut the recreational scholarship fund for low-income families by $5,000. And I cannot in good conscience vote to eliminate the Golden Heart Awards, a program that was created in response to the brutal death of 14-year-old Andrew Mockus."

Of all of these, the Golden Heart Awards which honors the life of a fallen youth seem the most outrageous to cut.

It is not even clear there is a cost to the city associated with the awards. Regardless, this seems to be the wrong area to cutback funding. If the city is concerned about youth activities and youth getting into trouble with drugs and alcohol, cutbacks in these areas are the wrong way to go. As are cutbacks in the area of encouraging youth to give back their community. Given the enormous budget deficit, these programs amount to literally pennies. We need to start with the bigger cuts and hold off on these kind of cuts until we have a better sense for what is needed.

I would hope the city of Davis finds a way to continue to honor the memory of Andrew Mockus with the annual awards that encourage youth to give back to their community.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: City Manager Bill Emlen's New Contract

For those that like to criticize the Vanguard for picking favorites, something that indeed occurs, here is a deviant case. In general, the Vanguard has been supportive of the efforts of DJUSD Associate Superintendent and Chief Budget Officer Bruce Colby. He has helped cleaned up to a substantial degree the mess left behind by his corrupt predecessor Tahir Ahad.

The Vanguard to a large degree credits the efforts of Bruce Colby for keeping the district afloat last year financially and putting the district in position to be able to possibly ride out the next year and a half without a slew of pink slips. In fact, if you look at the article below, without the efforts of Mr. Colby, we would likely be telling a very different story.

On the other hand, the Vanguard has been in general, particularly critical of Davis City Manager Bill Emlen. We can look at his recent handling of the Grand Jury report investigation into the fire department as an example of clear mismanagement. The list can go on and on from there.

However, the Vanguard does indeed need to give Mr. Emlen relative praise compared to Mr. Colby in terms of the handling of their own contract extensions.

Bruce Colby has already drawn criticism from this blog for his taking what amounts to a 5% COLA increase on an ongoing basis during a time when his teachers will once again get zero cola, and during a time when the district will once again have to tighten its budget.

Moreover it seems that district felt that if they did not raise his salary, Mr. Colby would be looking elsewhere and the district may find itself doing a CBO search during these economic times. The district is already without a full budget office staff, to have to find a replacement CBO at this stage would be devastating.

So it seems we can support the job effort but not the approach of Mr. Colby. I write that as one who genuinely likes the guy and thinks he does a very good job.

The bottom line here is principle not the money itself. A 5% pay increase is not going to make or break the district's budget. But the principle of the matter is important as is the loss of flexibility. Essentially, Mr. Colby's raise requires his own office to operate unstaffed in order to accommodate increases in his salary. In short, he's doing more work for the additional pay, the question is whether the district will regret the loss of flexibility in the future.

On Tuesday night, by contrast, we have City Manager Bill Emlen taking the opposite approach. Mr. Emlen is basically saying what we believe Bruce Colby should have said, in light of the current fiscal crisis, Mr. Emlen is forgoing a cost of living adjustment and a merit increase. Mr. Emlen will receive the same base salary as he did last year.

Not that he is going to the poor house with his $158,000 salary. However, on a comparative level, Mr. Emlen is making considerably less than many of his counterparts and certainly than his counterpart with the school district, Dr. James Hammond (let alone Mr. Colby).

We do take some issue with the city council however. Mr. Emlen once again has had the time frame extended by which he would have to relocate to Davis from Vacaville. He now has until June 30, 2012 unless the city modifies the city code requirement for the city manager to reside within the City.

Mr. Emlen has now been city manager for two and a half years. The current claim is the drop in the price of the housing market and therefore the loss of money. However, that is of course a recent excuse. Frankly, this is not the people of Davis' problem.

It was suggested in the Davis Enterprise article that Davis has not suffered from a loss of service based on the fact that Mr. Emlen does not reside in the city. First of all, how was that study performed and quantified? Second and most importantly, this is a matter of principle and following the current laws on the book.

Nevertheless, this is largely a side issue. The city manager has set the tone at least for now, that he is not going to be asking for more money during tough economic times.

The larger question though goes well beyond the tens of thousands in dollars in the midst of a budget deficit that will extend into the millions that the city manager saved the city. The larger question is whether Mr. Emlen can deliver for the city good strong employee contracts that will lead to a sustainable budget into the future. The larger question is whether Mr. Emlen can do a better job of handling crises that arise such as the Fire Department Grand Jury investigation.

The bottom line here is that while we applaud one single aspect of Mr. Emlen's conduct, namely his professionalism with regards to his own contract, we have to question and somewhat harshly the overall job he has done.

At the same time we applaud the job that Mr. Colby has done, we question his priorities when it comes to his own contract situation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Policies Implemented Last Year and Passage of Measure W Put Davis in Good Position Relative to Neighbors

One of the constant refrains posted on the Vanguard for much of the last year, has been the consistent comparison between the Davis school situation and that of Woodland.

That refrain is typified by this question posted on September 22, 2008:

"Why were Woodland schools able to weather the storm, w[ith] no teacher layoffs, yet we were going to lay off nearly 100 teachers in Davis? That is a huge discrepancy that has not been answered satisfactorily for me."

The implication of the question was that the problems that Davis faced last spring and that necessitated Measure W were based on local problems rather than statewide revenue shortfalls.

The answer generally given to that question was that Woodland was able to survive in part on reserves and one-time money and that their problems were going to come in future years.

It is very unfortunate that those answers have largely been proven right. Davis stands in relatively good position to whether at least the first year and a half of the financial storm based in part on the passage of Measures Q and W, and a good job of managing its carryover funds.

Woodland, unfortunately, on the other hand, is facing what Davis faced last spring.

In article published on Saturday, entitled, "Deep cuts are near for WJUSD," Woodland Daily Democrat reported:

"With no solution in sight to the state's financial problems, Woodland Unified School District staff are bracing for future lost revenue by planning staff reductions and putting cost-saving measures in place."

Oh but there is more:

"But that's just one of the financial hurdles the district faces. Not only are they expecting close to $6 million in cuts in the next 18 months -- about $300 less per student -- but declining enrollment is producing a nearly $700,000 loss."

Wait a second, I could not have read this right. Did they say not only do they face, $6 million in cuts, but are facing $700,000 from declining enrollment. I thought Woodland had a lot of development recently and development helps ensure there is no declining enrollment? I thought Davis needed to develop more so that we did not suffer from declining enrollment. I am very confused.

The district must start making hard budgetary decisions even without a clear plan from the state, interim superintendent Carmella Franco said.

"The problem is that we have to have a plan to the board by February so we can't wait for the legislature," Franco said. "We know they're going to be horrible cuts but we can't wait."

Harsh cuts in personnel and teachers will need to be made by March 15 so that employees will know whether they will continue to work next year.

"We're operating with no guidance," Interim Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Paul Disario said.

Davis is in a similar situation in terms of not knowing what the budget is going to look like, but having been through this last year, Davis is now in far better shape to get by than Woodland.

Woodland is now looking to approve an Energy Saving Program--something DJUSD already has done. They are looking at an across the board reduction of all district department budgets, 10% reduction in discretionary budgets, and a 10 percent freeze in the school categorical funds. Finally they are talking about an early retirement incentive plan with about 120 eligible employees.

The bottom line is that these are tough times for education, the state is going to make deep cuts no matter whose budget plan we look at. Davis is in far better shape now as opposed to last year because of the steps already taken and because of public generosity.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

EPA Reluctantly Agrees to Further Testing of the Superfund Site

The city-county two by two met on Friday at the Davis County Offices for the Board of Supervisors. The two by two is comprised of two members of the Davis City Council, Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor, and two members of the County Board of Superivisors, the two Davis representatives, Helen Thomson and Jim Provenza.

One item that was discussed was the issue of the Frontier Chemical Superfund Site and the recent discovery of TCP that has been covered extensively not only on this blog but in this community.

The EPA had been reluctant to do more testing and take additional steps. According to Pam Nieberg, President of the Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group, the EPA official had not taken the latest discovery of TCP seriously. This contradicted what City Staffer Mike Webb told the group, that he was confident that the EPA was taking this matter seriously.

However, after community pressure, the EPA agreed to do more testing to determine the source and extent of the contamination.

In a January 15, 2009 letter to Congressman Mike Thompson, the EPA wrote:

"Our analysis of these data indicates the TCP is limited to a small area to the east of the Target building, and at concentrations which do not present a current health risk to the community or Target workers. Nonetheless, to address community concerns, EPA is adding additional sample locations to our current workplan to further investigate TCP in this area. Further, while EPA has been asked by several residents to delay the construction of the Target store while we complete out TCP investigation in this area, we believe the investigation can take place around the Taget development, as the proposed Target building footprint location does not have TCP groundwater or vapor contamination."

Supervisor Jim Provenza however, flatly disagreed with that assessment stating that he thought Target was taking a risk by building the store before the EPA completed its investigation.

While he said it does not presently appear that the TCP is an immediate threat to the public health, he was concerned that chemicals like TCP tend to move. If it migrates under the Target store or to nearby homes, it could vaporize inside the buildings and pose a cancer risk with prolonged exposure.

Jim Provenza further said it was vital that the county and city insure that EPA did not walk away from the site prematurely. Neither the city, county, or state have the resources to do toxic clean up.

Meanwhile the city and county played an interesting game of "hot potato" with the issue. Jeff Pinnow from Environmental Health basically blamed the city for failing to forward enough documents to the county. The city apparently suddenly expressed the desire to have a liaison to the FFSOG, something they had attended sporadically in the past.

Mike Webb told the group:

"We're satisfied the EPA is taking this seriously."

According to members of the FFSOG, Mr. Webb never spoke to their group about the matter, only the EPA.

Pam Nieberg disputed some of the contentions by the EPA in their letter to Mike Thompson.

First, the EPA suggested that the TCP was not a threat to the public's drinking water. According to Pam Nieberg, that was never the group's concern.

"We were never concerned that someone was going to drink that water or that the TCP could get into our wells but that it was an issue of the volatility and carcogenicity of TCP."

Furthermore, the EPA say that the detection levels of TCP were very low.

"Their own toxocologist did the calculations and confirmed that the levels put them into the cancer risk range for anyone exposed to the vapors to long periods of time--like in a home."

Despite the fact that the EPA was surprised by these findings and had no idea where the higher levels were coming from, the EPA was never going to do anything about this except for the consistent pressure from the public.

The city council will have a full report on this matter during the Tuesday City Council Meeting. It was placed on the agenda as a consent item and an informational item, however, it will apparently be pulled from consent and discussed.

Basically, the city is going to attend FFSOG meetings and get updates. The EPA has reluctantly agreed to do more testing.

Meanwhile Target has not poured the foundation as of yet. They are expected to do it next month according to a single-sentence in the Sacramento Bee Article.

"City planners said Friday that the store's concrete slab would be poured next month."

Remember in December, the response from Target was that if they did not pour the foundation by January 5, 2009, it was going to delay the opening. That was one of the reasons that Target could not do any testing. You can go back and look at the previous comments on the subject and all the Target supporters were up in arms about this.

Guess what folks, Target has not poured the foundation yet. It has nothing to do with this issue. They just have not poured the foundation yet. Anyone believe that the store opening will be delayed? I sure do not. It does not take that long to build a store once you are faced with a deadline. The argument was a canard. They could wait for the EPA to complete their tests. They just do not want to. The EPA could have been almost done with their tests by now had they started in November when they found out about this.

As I have said before, this really has nothing to do with Target other than the issue of the health and safety of their workers who might be exposed to fumes from the TCP over time. The bigger concern is determining where the TCP is and whether it represents a threat to those living in Mace Ranch.

It was refreshing to see how little communication goes on between different agencies, particularly the city of Davis, the EPA, and the Yolo County Health Department. Jeff Pinnow admitted they were out of the loop, so too did Mike Webb.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Councilmember Greenwald Conflicted Out Retroactively

Will Council have to revisit November Vote on B Street Project Based on FIVE Feet?

On November 5, the City Council heard an appeal of an application to develop four detached residences on the parcel at 233 B Street. The Planning Commission back in July denied the applications by a 5-2 vote based on inconsistencies with the Design Guidelines. All but one neighbor strongly opposed the design modification. Simply put it was a very innovative design and project that did not belong in the middle of an existing neighborhood.

The city council by a strange 2-2-1 vote where Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek opposed the appeal and Councilmember Stephen Souza abstained. That vote gave the applicant, Maria Ogrydziak one year to work with her neighbors to come up with a more suitable project for that location. Following abstention, Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy and provoked an angry exchange with his colleague and frequent ally on the council. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

That was clearly the intention of Mr. Souza's vote. What has now happened is that instead of working with her neighbors, Ms. Ogrydziak is working with Mayor Pro Tem Saylor to find a backdoor around the original vote.

Staff report attaches a January 4 letter from Ms. Ogrydziak to City Manager Bill Emlen.



In it she claims that they check and found that Councilmember Greenwald's property was 470 feet from the project and therefore she should be conflicted out.

"If Sue Greenwald had been recused, we would not have lost various votes (with Stephen's abstentions), and the project would still be alive. Therefore, I am requesting a re-consideration for the 233 B Street Project, without added City of Davis or Planning Department fees."

During that meeting, there was considerable question as to whether Councilmember Greenwald could vote on the project. As the staff report reads:

"ownership of property within 500 feet of a proposed development creates a rebuttal presumption of a conflict of interest for a public official."

In other words, anyone within 500 feet of a property is conflicted out from participating.

"Prior to the meeting, Councilmember Greenwald was advised that she did not own property within 500 feet of 233 B Street, and therefore did not have a conflict."

In fact, Councilmember Greenwald did not stop there, twice during the meeting prior to participation she specifically asked City Attorney Harriet Steiner if she had a conflict and was twice told that she did not. Based on that advice, she participated in the vote and discussion of this matter.

Now, nearly three months later, the city attorney is claiming there was an error and she is conflicted.

"This advice was incorrect, however, due to a drafting error in preparing the maps."

I am as concerned about process and conflicts of interest as anyone, perhaps more so. However, I have been told that she is 495 feet from the property. So somehow if she is 495 from the property she is conflicted out, but can vote if she is 500 feet or 501 feet. From a practical standpoint that does not make a lot of sense.

But just because she lives within 500 feet, does not necessarily mean she is conflicted out. She can show that she would not stand to benefit from the proposed development or lack thereof.

Here again we get into utter illogical advice from the City Attorney.

"It is possible that Councilmember Greenwald will seek a determination from a real estate professional, such as an appraiser or broker, that, notwithstanding the fact that her property is within 500 feet of the proposed development, the proposed development will have no impact on her property. If she obtains such an opinion, then she would not have a conflict on this matter. At this time, we do not know if Councilmember Greenwald will seek this further opinion."

This makes even less sense than ruling her conflicted out based on five feet. Councilmember Greenwald was basically told to hire a real estate agent to assess the impact of her property which is on Rice Lane, a side street nowhere in the vicinity of 233 B Street. The likelihood of an impact is extraordinarily remote. And yet, by asking her to obtain the opinion, you risk having an interested party making a ruling rather than the city hiring an expert who is impartial do the assessment. Talk about conflict of interest. Who would find such an expert's view compelling under those circumstances.

Apparently the mere fact of her participation does not negate the action taken by the Council in November.

"Councilmember Greenwald’s participation does not negate the action that was taken by the Council in November. The denial stands. The applicant has asked that the matter be reconsidered to allow a different vote on the applications.

Staff and the City Attorney agree that it is fair to provide the applicant with a new hearing."

Really fair to whom? To the neighbors? To the taxpayers of Davis? To the voters of Davis? To the process of democracy?

Fortunately, there is no guarantee that there will be three votes to have a new hearing. Mr. Souza specifically voted, albeit by abstention, to delay the project because he felt it ill-suited for the neighborhood. It seems unlikely he would change his mind, especially with this procedural nightmare.

To make matters worse, this item was place on CONSENT AGENDA, where it could have easily be hidden from the public and perhaps the council.

"Staff recommends the following approach:

- The applicant to re-submit applications for the project presented to the Council in
November;
- The City to waive processing fees;
- The applications to be scheduled before the Council expeditiously, with no further
Planning Commission review;
- Minimal additional staff work or analysis, but reliance on the previous staff report."

This entire situation is appalling. Ms. Ogrydziak's project was strongly and vociferously opposed by every neighbor except for one. The planning commission denied it. The city council by a strange vote denied it. And instead of coming back and working with her neighbors, she has tried an end-run around the process seizing on an error and a technicality to try to invalidate the vote of one of the councilmembers.

To make matters worse, the city attorney, city manager, and city staff have bought into this.

All of this based on 5 feet (or even 30 feet as the applicant claims)? There have been some baffling things I have seen this city do, this one may take the cake. She presumes Councilmember Souza will still abstain--I think that is rather presumptuous of her given his expressed desire at that meeting and his likely reaction to this kind of maneuver. The Vanguard certainly hopes Mr. Souza does the right thing here and we have faith that he will.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Needs to Press For Restructuring City Employee Contracts During Economic Crisis

Last night the Davis Enterprise had an interesting article on the status of city countrols for the department heads. The city has put on hold the new contract for department heads.

'We just decided to put it on hold while we deal with the budget issues,' said Human Resources Administrator Melissa Chaney. 'There's nothing pending right now.'

That means the seven people heading up the city's departments are operating under the old contract signed in 2005. Under that contract, the city budgets about $1,478,000 for salaries, health benefits, unemployment, workman's compensation and other items for the city's top employees.

'Right now, we're just trying to figure out where we are with the budget and what ramifications are with the current budget and the current fiscal situation,' Chaney said.

More interesting is that several of the bargaining units in Davis have to renegotiate their contracts this year. The city is facing a $1.5 million shortfall this year and up to $3 or $4 million for next year.

The retirement benefit issue has been a heavy topic of conversation on the Vanguard in recent months. The Enterprise article mentions Antioch has gone to a two-tier system which has dropped the formula from 2.7% at 55 for current employees to 2.5% at 55.

The other possibility is that the employees themselves are asked to contribute more to their retirement than they presently do. That is probably going to have to occur as the CalPers system which had been superfunded during the early part of this decade is now running in a deep hole with the struggles of the markets and other problems.

The two-tier system is generally strongly opposed to by public employee unions, so increased contributions for all might be the way to go.

One pressure that the current city management staff and the council are going to have to fight is going to be the pressure placed on them by the bargaining groups to simply extend the current contracts for a few years until fiscal times are better. That would enable employee groups to wait out the current economic downturn and essentially punt on the tough issues.

Instead the city needs to take advantage of this crisis to fix the structural problems with the compensation system--particularly retirement pensions.

The city is going to need to be tough in negotiations this time because there are not only current bargaining issues of a looming budget deficit for the city, but there are structural problems that will end up further stressing the city's fiscal condition.

As the Vanguard reported last summer, employee salaries rose 50% from 2000 to 2008. Total compensation to employees went from $27 million to $49 million over that period. However, retirement pensions fueled by the increase of the pensions to 3% at 50 for public safety have risen nearly six fold over that time. It is that factor that will further strain the city, especially as it has employees retire at 50 and 55 meaning the city may end up paying pensions for decades after retirement.

Is the city prepared to drag out these negotiations until they solve the problems in the contracts?

Looming ominously is a quote from HR Administrator Melissa Chaney:

"We haven't sat down with any of the bargaining groups. We would probably be looking at sitting down with them at this time of year, we just haven't done it yet."

One of the big questions is the extent to which the bargaining process can have transparency. Bargaining itself occurs behind closed doors. However, the city is looking into ways to make the process more transparent.

Under past conditions, the bargaining took place behind closed doors, a contract agreement was reached and the item was placed on the consent calendar for approval by the city council. That means that unless someone pulled the item off the consent calendar there would be no public discussion of the contract and the only time the council saw it would be at the end of the process.

Some possible changes include a status report to the council on the bargaining process given through out negotiations. Having a public presentation at some point along the way about the contract. Requiring the council to approve contracts like they do city ordinances--a full public hearing on the first reading and then a second reading.

One of the important ideas here is to sufficiently put public scrutiny into the process that both sides realize and recognize they have to defend the contract that they have arrived at. What has happened in the past is that the agreement is made behind closed doors and then the city staff become de facto advocates for the contract. That has produced some extraordinarily generous contracts over the last eight years and has allowed city employees to reap huge benefits at the expense of taxpayers and other projects.

The city in addition to the budget deficit in the general fund also is running about $13 million short on a variety of projects--often repairs and infrastructure upgrades--they have referred to these as unmet needs. Part of the reason for the unmet needs is an increasing portion of the general fund goes to city employees.

The city is facing very serious issues and it will be vital that the public be engaged in this process as they are really the only oversight the city has on contracts to public employees. The Vanguard will continue to press for ways to make this process more open and transparent in hopes that the interests of the taxpayers and citizens of Davis are represented in the process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: Don't We Need Three in Town?

If you are one of those who is easily offended at any hint of criticism, stop reading right now. There are a few things that need to be said. Tuesday was an historic day. For those who missed the Vanguard radio show last night, listen to it when the podcast is available. I spoke with Tansey Thomas, who everyone knows and with Wayne Lindsey, who no one has heard of. Wayne is a 21 year old UC Davis student. And yes he's African American. It was neat listening to someone born during the depression and someone born when I was in high school talking about what the election of Barack Obama means to them and for African-Americans.

But now it is time to get back to work, back to the real world. For my other job, I had the priviledge of sitting in a teleconference with Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass and Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg. They were flying back from the Inauguration. One of the reporters who wasn't me asked them if they thought the California voters were better served by them going to the Inauguration or given the budget crisis being back in Sacramento and trying to get a budget agreement.

It was a tough but fair question. They gave in my opinion a strong answer. The President is formulating his stimulus plan in the coming days. The California legislative leaders came to Washington basically to see that the President and his team put money into the stimulus plan to help the states. No one has money of course, but at least the feds have the ability to deficit spend.

I relay that story because of what I read later yesterday evening about our leaders from Davis who also went to the Inauguration. I do not want to begrudge them a trip to Washington to watch history. I watched on my couch on Tuesday morning with Cecilia, and we were both glad to be on our warm couch watching it on TV rather than standing in the cold without easy access to bathrooms watching it on a giant monitor. Anyone who knows me, knows crowds are not my thing.

But a few things struck me about the article in the Enterprise. First, unlike the state leaders, there was no official business involved in this trip for our three city leaders.

One line from the article in particular seemed to stick in my craw:

"Saylor chatted after the ceremony from bleachers across from the White House. He was playing a quiz game, and had just correctly named the eight U.S. states that begin with the letter M."

I guess I am glad he can name all eight states that begin with the letter M. I am pretty sure I could have done that in first grade, not that that means anything. I am not sure I would really be sharing that with anyone.

A couple of things that come to mind on all of this. Councilmember Lamar Heystek, if he had said that, would have been lampooned in the local press to no end. He was lampooned for being Max Headroom by Hudson Sangree of the Sacramento Bee after representing the city of Davis in Arkansas and still having the diligence to serve our community and attend the council meeting in a virtual way that was unfortunately a bit technologically challenged.

This was not meant as a shot at Councilmember Saylor. He didn't choose for the paper to actually print that, but I would hope he would be embarrassed that they did. He was probably just making small talk with the reporter. What disturbs me and apparently others a bit more is that the newspaper gave more coverage to this story than they did Davis' City MLK event the day before. 399 words for this story to the 107 word caption under the MLK day festivities.

More seriously, with three councilmembers out of town simultaneously, obviously the city manager runs the city on a day-to-day basis, but what if there were an emergency? Apparently I was told in an emergency we do not need a quorum. So let's say in the unlikely event of a riot, we could have Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald decide by themselves that we need a curfew. I can only imagine what else they can do.

You know for years traveling on the plane, passengers were greeted with the instructions, "in the unlikely event of a water landing you can use your seat cushion as a floatation device." I'm sure there are 155 passengers last week glad that that message was drilled into their heads. Fortunately they didn't have to jump into the very cold Hudson River.

Shouldn't we have some kind of rule in this town that precludes three councilmembers from leaving town at the same time? Should we not require there always to be three councilmembers in town so we never have a situation where two councilmembers are calling the shot in case of an emergency? It was just last year in January that we had massive power outages and a city that was not ready to respond.

While I am at it, also wanted to comment on a blurb from Bob Dunning in his column last night.

"FIREFIGHTER ABUSE - my friend Larry writes to say he read in this very newspaper that 'the firefighters had to sit and wait until midnight to hear the summary of the Grand Jury report because it was preceded by 70 speeches concerning a council resolution to end the violence in Gaza.'

That's what happened, Larry - 'Hey, if the Davis City Council is going to take over running America's foreign policy, couldn't it at least adopt Obama's new policy of 'no torture.' ' - well said, my friend -"

First of all, in retrospect, I think the city should have pushed back the discussion on the Grand Jury report given the late hour as they did with the two workshops including the budget workshop that ought to be a huge priority at this point in time.

But second, no one forced the firefighters to sit and wait until midnight. They were not required to be there. In fact only two of them spoke--the fire chief and the union President. They were there for effect and to remind certain councilmembers that they had worked to get them elected and suggest in a not so subtle way not to let them down.

There is more. This notion that the Davis City Council is running foreign policy is preposterous and irresponsible. They are doing no such thing. As Souza pointed out last week, the Davis City Council is the closest body to the citizens of Davis. They are our closest representatives in Government. They are not running foreign policy, they are acting as the voice of the citizens, representing our values to other bodies in government that do not meet in our town.

What we saw the other night is that this is a community that is divided on a key issue in our time. This is a value to the community and now the Human Relations Commission tonight will take up this item and see about creating the type of community forum that can help bring our community together and bridge the gap.

I literally spoke with hundreds of people on Tuesday throughout town at various parties and this was the most common topic of conversation. It is an issue that needed to be addressed. I agree with council's ultimate decision. The council cannot speak for a divided community and should not. And thus discovering the divisions as they did on Tuesday night, they pulled back and realized that a letter was not the appropriate solution at this time and on this issue. But that does not mean this is a topic they should not have discussed even if it meant the delay of vital city business until after three councilmembers came back from having their fun and frivolity in Washington, DC.

If that display of democracy meant this blogger had to be up until 2 am and get only three hours sleep, that's part of the duty. If the firefighters wanted to impact public policy and had to stay there until the wee hours of the morning, well poor them? Give me a break. These guys are getting paid big time by this city, they can wait for their meeting like the rest of us if they choose, keyword is CHOOSE, to attend.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Vanguard Radio

We'll be talking about the new Obama regime and what it means to people in this community and throughout the country. We have one confirmed guest so far, Tansey Thomas.

6 PM Tonight, KDRT 95.7 FM

call in: 530.792.1648

Live stream: kdrt.org

Attorneys For Brenda Cedarblade File Letter of Complaint with District Attorney, Yolo County Sheriff, and Woodland Chief of Police

Complaint Alleges "Non-Responsiveness" to Series of Violent Threats, Acts of Violence and an Overall Pattern of Harassment

On December 17, 2008, attorney Matt Gonzalez from the San Francisco based law firm of Gonzalez and Leigh, fired off a complaint addressed to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, Sheriff Ed Prieto, and Woodland Police Chief Carey Sullivan.

The complaint "expresses concern" with:

"the Yolo County Sheriff Department's and the Woodland Police Department's seeming non-responsiveness to a series of violent threats, acts of violence, burglaries, criminal trespasses, and an overall pattern of harassment (some of which are described below) directed at my clients, and all of which were reported to both the Yolo Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department."

The letter lays out four instances including shots fired onto property on May 25, 2008, multiple incidents of burglary and criminal trespass dating to April and May of 2008, threats, and the publication of private and confidential information on a web site.

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

On May 25, 2008 my clients reported three shots fired from a field North of their property at 41070 County Road 18C, Woodland, 95695. The shots were fired from a high powered rifle onto their property while Ted Wilson and several of his employees were working. Two of the bullets sailed over Mr. Wilson's head and hit the roof of the horse arena on my clients' property. After hearing the shots fired and the bullets land, Mr. Wilson located a white pick-up truck and four men in a field northwest of his property. Ms. Cedarblade immediately called the Yolo County Sheriff's Department for assistance.

Upon arriving, the Deputy Sheriff confronted four men in the same white pick-up truck located by Mr. Wilson. As relayed to my clients' from the deputy, the men possessed a high-powered long-range rifle, methamphetamine, and were all residing illegally in the United States. The men told the deputy they were using the gun to "shoot squirrels".

According to the complaint, the shooting constitutes several crimes including "assault with deadly weapon" and "discharge of firearm at occupied building."

However, authorities did not follow up on these complaints and made no arrest.

"Following the shooting Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade unequivocally told the deputy they wished to press all charges against the shooters. However, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Cedarblade understand that the Sheriff's Department made no arrest of the shooters, and conducted no further investigation..."

Mr. Gonzalez writes:

"Given the shooters' purported explanation, and the clear commission of several crimes, the failure to investigate or file charges raises serious questions about the Yolo County Sheriff Department's policies and procedures for investigating crimes, and their apparent disregard of serious violent conduct directed at my clients."

The next incident allegedly occurred in April of 2008.

"Ms. Cedarblade and Mr. Wilson arrived at home to find that unknown persons had entered their home, as well as the historic ranch on their property. The trespassers left green cards, $2000 in cash, drugs and drug paraphernalia. Ms. Cedarblade also discovered old family photos of her family scattered around her bedroom, as well as childhood drawings and report cards, all things that were not previously in her possession. They also found rat poison spread over their bed and kitchen counter. After notifying the Sheriff's Department, the deputy declined to conduct any investigation or collect any evidence, and told my clients to keep the green cards and the $2000 cash.

On May 22, 2208, my clients discovered photos and documents related to the former occupation of Ms. Cedarblade's father, a former navy defense contractor who worked on classified missile systems, inside their home. The photos and documents - which mayor may not be classified - were not previously in the possession of my clients, and appeared to be part of the personnel file of Ms. Cedarblade's father, including his security clearance."

According to Mr. Gonzalez, though this burglary was reported, no investigation was conducted by law enforcement.

The third incident involved a threatening phone call claiming that there was a hit out for Ms. Cedarblade who then reported this to the Sheriff's department.

"The Deputy told Ms. Cedarblade that a "hit" could mean a hit on a government records search, and did no further investigation - this despite providing the deputy with the name of the caller."

Furthermore private information was allegedly posted on a web site, however, there was never any investigation into this matter by the Woodland Police or the Sheriff's department.

Mr. Gonzalez concludes:

"My clients turned over all information concerning the above incidents, as well as other instances of harassment, to both the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and the Woodland Police Department. But, to their knowledge, neither Department conducted any serious investigation into any of the above incidents, or any other of the reported incidents, despite clear evidence of criminal activity. In fact, my clients expressly requested a criminal investigation to the Sheriff's Department and were told, through their previous attorney, that the District Attorney's office was too busy to do any investigation."

The Vanguard will be following up on this story in the coming days and will report upon any further development.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Obama Becomes 44th President; Davis Celebrates

The Speech

Those perhaps expecting Barack Obama to issue forth a speech on par with Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were likely disappointed. It was a good speech, it accomplished much of what he wanted to do, but it was not one of his great speeches. It was not on par with his speech after the New Hampshire Primary or even the Iowa Primary, it was not on par with his speech on race following Reverend Wright. Nor was it on par with his acceptance speech in Denver or his victory speech on November 4, 2008.

However despite this and despite the recognition of the tough times ahead it was a festive night in Davis last night as I made my way from party to party. Photos from those parties are below. Here I have a few thoughts on his speech.

While the speech lacks perhaps the elevation, it contains quite a bit of content.

Obama says:

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."

He's clearly calling for a new time where we put aside our petty partisan disputes.

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned."

Here again he calls for the nation to return to an early time and path, an earlier ethos where we are not expected to merely be handed things. He then hearkens back to those who came to this country and those who gave work and sweat to make for a better life.

"For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction."

He then calls on us to remember for those who doubt, that we can achieve big things and have grand ambitions:

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions; who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."

One of my favorite lines from his speech suggests that the times have changed, and old cynicism has been misplaced, old partisan complaints need to move on. This is somewhat his answer to Reagan who suggested government cannot solve our problems, it is the problem. And the answer to Clinton who suggested that the era of big government is over. This is a new day, when we ask and accept what works and changes what does not.

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our Government is too big or too small, but whether it works _ whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

Another great line suggests that while the free market is the engine of wealth, it cannot go unchecked. We must have market regulation in order to insure prosperity and also some sort of equity.

"Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control, and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous."

He attacks the notion that we must give up our liberties in order to be safe. Hearkening back to Franklin who suggests those who give up "essential liberty" for "temporary security" "deserve neither."

Obama says:

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expediency's sake."

At the same time, he calls for the end of the Bush doctrine and a return to a more humanitarian role of foreign policy, one that relies on our friends and alliances rather than goes it alone.

"And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

Finally he calls on us to all come together to make this a better place through generosity and a spirit of service.

Much of Davis Celebrates the New Presidency

The people in Davis understand that much tough work lays ahead. That times are very tough. But there is hope and happiness. Part of that is rooted in the end of eight long years of the Bush Presidency. For many the best moment tellingly came when Bush and Cheney got into the helicopter and departed from the White House.



Bush would arrive in Texas to cheering supporters, the last of the true believers it seems. But he looked like an older, weary, person even as he arrived to the hands of his supporters.

He left Washington in a very different scene where mixed crowds heavily leaning to the higher melanin populations chanted, booed, and serenaded him to the words of "nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye." I had mixed reactions to those responses. On the one hand, I too harbor my anger towards the man and his Presidency. On the other hand, yesterday should have been about the future and not the past. He served his country and Obama said this weekend, he is a decent man whom we happen to disagree with. Pay your respects and be glad that the long national nightmare is over.

For the people of Davis last night it was a mixture of emotions. For the people on the mall, there were tears of happiness. One of the reporters observed that they are used to see women and children in tears at such events, the sight of so many men eyes filled with tears really signalled to them the change.

For me it was a day of almost surrealism. It never felt real like this was really happening. Perhaps part of that is the reality of the enormity of the task that has set in. Perhaps there is more to it than just that.

I was not one of the earliest Obama supporters. I was also never one of the hardest core supporters either. I grew to respect the man for his temperance, his demeanor, and his intellect. I respect him for all of the things that he seems to possess that his predecessor lacked.

But be no mistake. There are many things that need to be done and quickly to undo the worst aspects of the Bush legacy. From that standpoint, going through his speech again, I have great hope because he addresses many of them.

For me the worst aspects of the Bush presidency are when he set aside our liberty for expediency, he weakened the constitutional protections for essential liberties and he did so often for no good reason. The threat of terrorism while real, was often overstated especially in the numerous plots that came up after 9/11. There is no reason that a good security agency could not do its job while allowing people to have the right to privacy. There is no reason that we cannot protect this country while continuing the right to a trial for the accuse, even those accused of being terrorists. Despite the claims to the contrary, it appears innocent people got caught in the net that was cast.

On the foreign policy front, it is possible to be safe, tough, and proactive while working with the other nations of the world. The loss of esteem and respect around the world was a travesty.

On the national front, it is possible to be prosperous while being environmentally sound. The stripping of the clean air act. The failure to develop alternative fuels. The failure to address climate change. The failure to understand that green technology can be an engine for both economic growth AND environmental change are huge failings of the Bush administration.

It is time to accept and embrace science again. Our previous President did not believe in science. No wonder we fall behind the rest of the world in science and math education.

Health care problems identified now 20 years ago and beyond still remain. The loss of productivity from health care is immense. The resources we pump into a broken system of providing health care, not the actual medical care itself, but the provision of it, is self-defeating. Providing affordable health care would make us more productive, more healthy, and it would help take a huge burden off of business.

And that does not even get to economic crisis, the housing crisis, the need to help states like California make ends meet. The challenges that we face are enormous. But we embrace them with hope and optimism. And now we see how the future lies.

---David M. Greenwald reporting