Dunning Misunderstands the Need for Local Agencies to Maintain Reserves

The Vanguard has all but stopped responding to Bob Dunning columns from the Enterprise, but his column from Friday is so outrageous, irresponsible, and most importantly just plain ignorant it would be irresponsible not to respond.

The title of the column is "It's Time We Let Go of Our Reservations."

He writes:

"SURPLUS SPENDING - as the economy - locally, nationally, globally (take your pick) - continues to fall off the cliff, it was encouraging to me to intercept an e-mail from Councilman Steve Souza to a local resident bragging about how fat and sassy we are in the City of All Things Right and Relevant - noted Souza: 'Almost all of the cities around us would love to have our financial woes instead of their own. We have a 15.2 percent or $5.35 million reserve.' - wow, 5 million here and 5 million there and pretty soon you have a billion -

But, as nice as a reserve is - and I don't care if we're talking about the city of Davis or the local school district - when you start talking about laying people off instead of dipping into the reserve, your priorities are backward - if we're saving our reserve for a rainy day, I'd like to point out that today is that rainy day - it has arrived - anything we can do to preserve the jobs of city and district employees should be priority one - laying anyone off for fiscal reasons when we have a healthy reserve is contrary to what this town should stand for..."

The first question that comes to mind is whether Mr. Dunning ever does research on his columns, would he like talk to the finance directors from either the school district or the city and ask them about their reserves? Would he talk to Souza himself to ask him about his email?

Here's the best explanation of the city's reserve:

"The City maintains a “reserve” much like an individual or household would keep a savings account accessible for an emergency. The City Council has adopted a policy to have a General Fund reserve equal to 15% of the City’s General Fund revenues. This is a contingency reserve for general operations to help mitigate the effects of unanticipated situations such as recession, man-made or natural disasters, variances in financial forecasting, or costs imposed by other governmental agencies. The City does not use the reserve to fund ongoing services..."

Basically the way you maintain a reserve is you pretend like the money does not exist unless such an emergency situation arises. One reason for that is that city's in general cannot take on debt like the federal government can. So if an actual emergency came up, and the city spend its reserve on say employee salaries, then the city would be in deep trouble.

The city developed this reserve policy back in 2006. According to policy, the reserve acts as a "risk management" tool, it provides a buffer against revenue fluctuations inherent in economic cycles, and most importantly the policy prohibits the use of reserve funds for ongoing operating expenditures.

The key to remember is that the reserve is one-time money. Once you use it, the money is gone.

Dunning's column mentions the school district as well. School districts are required by Ed Code to maintain a fund balance reserve every year. That money cannot be touched at all without severe consequences. The district generally maintains its own reserve above and beyond that much the same way as the City does as a risk management tool and a protection against fluctuations and emergency situations.

In the late 1980s, an increasing number of school districts were facing fiscal insolvency. Laws were enacted that created budget standards and increased fiscal oversight for all local education agencies. One of these standards was that local school districts set aside a certain percentage of their budget as a reserve for economic uncertainties. This reserve provides a cushion against unanticipated fiscal needs that may arise and thus reduces the risk of fiscal insolvency and the associated need to borrow and increase district debt.

Failing to meet the reserve requirement does not have a mandated consequence, however, as we know from other discussions, the County Office of Education oversees the finances of all local school districts. If DJUSD were to eat into its required reserve it would increase the likelihood the county superintendent of education intervening into local school district affairs.

DJUSD carried the state-required 3 percent financial reserve, which is just over $2.1 million. However, they cannot touch that reserve. The district also carries its own one percent contingency reserve which comes to about $650,000.

Interestingly enough, the district discussed this very issue on Thursday and the Davis Enterprise covered it in this morning's paper.

Given the fiscal situation in the state, districts are being given greater flexibility with some of these reserves.

But a key point with these reserves is that they are one-time monies. They will get depleted rather quickly given the nature of the economic crisis. As Bruce Colby put it, last year was a crisis, this year is a crisis, 2010-11 will be a crisis, 2011-12 could be a crisis.

Moreover, in general one has to balance the three-year budget using ongoing revenues, not one-time monies.

As Tim Taylor put it:

"From my perspective, you would spend it in a situation where you have an emergency need, something that would not commit you to ongoing year-after-year obligations."

Bottom line here is that using reserves is not going to solve our fiscal problems, and it could make them worse as time goes on. Bob Dunning needs a better understanding of the fiscal policies, rules, regulations, and economic crisis before he makes such irresponsible statements.

Getting back to his column, there is another key point that needs to be addressed.

Here he quotes Councilmember Stephen Souza:

"Almost all of the cities around us would love to have our financial woes instead of their own. We have a 15.2 percent or $5.35 million reserve."

Davis is in better condition that a lot of other cities but it has very little to do with the reserve. I would and have argued that our fiscal policies are just as bad as many other cities--if not worse. And we are going to have to deal with that. Having that reserve just means we can weather an immediate crisis better than other cities. We still have an ongoing structural deficit. We still have an ongoing problem of unmet needs. We still need to fix our unfunded mandates. We still have to fix the pension system. We still have to reign in employee salaries at the top end of the scale.

However, the bottom line is the city of Davis has been hit less hard than other cities with the foreclosure crisis. It has been hit less hard than other cities because its property values have not plummeted as others have. We rely less on sales tax revenues than other cities as well, so while the declining economy is producing a tax revenue fall off, it is not to the point where cities like Roseville who are facing eight figure budget deficits.

The bottom line is that while we have a deficit for the next few years of at least 3 million and as much as five million (and notice if we used the reserves to fix that, they'd be gone after next year), we can probably survive short term by adjusting our spending and tightening our belts.

That is not to suggest that we do not have bigger issues. It is just to suggest at this point the economic crisis is not devastating us like it is many other cities or even Yolo County.

So yes, Councilmember Souza has good reason to express optimism, but it is not because of our reserves. Our reserves would be depleted very quickly in this crisis, if that was their intent.

Dunning has a large amount of influence in this community and his column is undoubtedly the most widely read feature in the Davis Enterprise. With that influence requires a degree of responsibility to research and understand the issues on which he has opined. In this regard, he has failed in his duties by suggesting the city or the school district are being irresponsible by maintaining fund reserves. In both cases, maintaining reserves is either required by law, required by city policy, and necessary and prudent for these entities to whether the uncertainty of such a downturn. It would be the height of irresponsibility for them to use these reserves in an effort to avoid making tough decisions in the coming year.

---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

Wood Burning Ban Discussion Turns Up the Heat

The headline reads:

"Smoke Police Begin Crackdown on Newly Illegal Chimney Fires"

The article goes on to say:

Burn a log, go to jail.

Not quite. But at noon Wednesday, it became illegal for residents of the nine Bay Area counties to start a fire in their fireplaces, wood stove or in pits outside their homes.

And those who flout the new law, which is in effect on pollution-heavy Spare the Air days, could be slapped with fines of thousands of dollars. The current ban will last at least until noon today, but about 20 Spare the Air days could be declared during the winter season, which runs from Nov. 1 through Feb. 28.

Teams of inspectors from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will be patrolling neighborhoods, on the lookout for chimney smoke and, perhaps, listening for the sounds of chestnuts roasting on an open fire.

"We take this very seriously,'' said district spokeswoman Kristine Roselius.

She said one in seven people in the Bay Area has respiratory problems that can be worsened by soot. "During smoky nights, it's difficult for them to breathe,'' she said.

The article obviously was not written in the Davis Enterprise but rather than the San Jose Mercury News on November 19, 2008.

The article continues:

"The Bay Area has 1.4 million fireplaces and wood stoves, so district officials are hoping most people will voluntarily comply with the new law, adopted by the district's board of directors in July. But residents who decide not to obey might soon regret it.

"We won't have inspectors knocking on doors,'' Roselius said. But first-time violators will be sent a warning in the mail and told they can expect steep fines if they continue to ignore the law.

Roselius said the district hasn't yet set up a penalty schedule for subsequent violations, but "the fines will range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars."

The Mercury News then asks a poll of its readers with a comments section as to whether they would report a neighbor violating a fireplace wood-burning ban. 77% or 464 of 602 votes said no. The responses get heated. People turned to insults. The comments could have been written on the Vanguard.

If you look at the letters to the editor section of the Enterprise, Bob Dunning, etc., people are acting like this is yet another Davis artifice. It is not. It is happening across the state and the agenda is being driven by the Air Quality Management District. In fact, it is not just a California thing, a number of citizens in other states are starting to push for various forms of limits, regulations, or even bans on wood burning. This is not just about Davis.

But Davis of course has to hang their hat on something. Davis' wood burning ban would of course be the strictest in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley.

The key difference is that Davis' regulations would use wind speed as a factor. Moreover, the NRC's proposal would prohibit the use of wood burning fireplaces and stoves somewhere around 60 days per season. Sacramento County's proposal would ban wood burning for 11 days. The City Staff's recommendation would be in that range.

Finally, Davis' NRC proposal would ban open hearth fire places completely and phase-in the EPA modified phase II.

Bob Dunning this morning argues that it's not clear the science is there to support this.

But even the commissioners had to admit they were shocked by one glaringly contradictory factoid that emerged from their studies.

'One surprising aspect of this modeling work,' they write, 'was that the predicted maximum concentrations of PM were less with an open hearth fireplace at a 2.5 mph wind speed' than with an EPA Phase II-Approved wood stove at the same wind speed.

In other words, at a lower wind speed - one that is quite common in our town - an open-hearth fireplace is actually better for the air than one of those fancy and very expensive EPA-certified stoves.

But, rather than embrace this finding, the commission decided to ignore it completely in its headlong rush to immediately ban all open-hearth fireplaces at all times, no matter what the atmospheric conditions.

When you've made up your mind, best not to let a pesky fact or two get in your way.

Mr. Dunning of course omits the explanation for the inconsistency and reasons why a two-tiered approach would be problematic. Here is the full explanation from the study:

This apparent inconsistency is due to the uplifting dispersion effects of the high exhaust velocity of the Open Hearth fireplace relative to the lower wind speeds seen in this particular combination of meteorological conditions. As the exhaust velocity to wind speed ratio drops by either using an EPA Phase II approved wood stove with reduced exhaust velocity or with increasing wind speeds, the resulting wood-smoke plume is forced downward so much higher PM2.5 concentrations are predicted with Open Hearth Fireplaces at either higher wind speeds or stagnant air conditions. Thus, it is not practical to suggest a small wind speed “window” to allow burning with open hearth fireplaces because that window is very small from a meteorological point of view - i.e. variable wind speeds would into and out of the “safe” wind speed window very quickly. This prevents effective practical enforcement of prohibited burning. Further, the degree of neighborhood pollution that otherwise results from burning in an open hearth fireplace when outside the “safe” wind speed “window” is so great that much would be risked to gain little if this wind speed window exemption was implemented for open hearth fireplaces. Thus, we strongly recommend against implementing a two-tiered approach to determination of “Allowable Burn Days” allowing for use of open hearth fire places during this very narrow wind speed “window”

Finally, it is important to note that this predicted net daily PM2.5 exposure calculations assumes only one upwind fireplace and ambient background PM of only 12 ug/m3. If the background PM concentration is higher than 12 ug/m3 as often occurs, then this degree of exposure relative to the recommended exposure threshold increases. If one or more additional fireplaces are also being used in close upwind proximity, this will also contribute additional PM to the plume and the degree of exposure to the exposed individual also increases.

Here is their key recommendation:

"For this reason, there will undoubtedly still be some exposure of some people to PM2.5 concentrations of such a duration that their exposure will exceed even the Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The extent of this exposure is subject to disagreement amongst knowledgeable practitioners, however. Thus, we strongly recommend that the UC Air Quality Research Center be contacted and further study be implemented and completed prior to a complete ban on all wood-burning."

Sounds reasonable. It is clear at this point that we do not have all of this science down. Just as we did not have all the science down a generation ago on the effects of second-hand smoke.

The more I read, the more I agree with a measured approach. I was concerned that this was pushed a bit too far initially. I think the NRC recommendations are where we ultimately need to go, I am not completely sure we are there yet. If we settle for the staff recommendation, I would like to see the council build in a time-table to get to a lot of the elements that the NRC has put forward.

There are a lot of questions that still need to be resolved on this issue. One question that is striking to me is that the language in the ordinance at least from the NRC (Natural Resources Commission) is that the police would police this ordinance. My question is why is the Air Quality Management District not doing the same thing in Davis that they are in the Bay Area? The enforcement mechanism is problematic at this time. I would like to see the city explore other possible models of enforcement other than relying on police resources.

I would also like to see a much more concerted educational campaign on the part of the city to show the public how this can be a very real and very serious health hazard, and not just to people with asthma and respiratory diseases, although that is probably sufficient to do the preliminary restrictions.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Soaking the Ratepayers on Water Already

I was just reading Bob Dunning's most recent column in the Davis Enterprise. He writes about a man named "Glen" who is having trouble absorbing his new city utility bill. We have covered this issue before, but it bears another examination. What the city did with a simple change of methodology is unconscionable.

The Vanguard discussed this issue back in September, but the human cost here is extraordinary. What has happened is that the city has gone to water usage as a means by which to gauge sewer rates. If one proceeds carefully and cautiously, that is probably a decent approximation of sewer usage. Even then there are some problems that develop from such a methodology. For instance, it will over-estimate sewer usage for people with large gardens who use a lot of water to water their plants--water that does not then go into the sewer.

The real problem was insufficient city notification to the public as to what was going to happen, how it was going to happen, and what that would mean.

Let me be clear, I understand the city sent out notices to the public on this. Notices do not work. We get too many notices. Notices blend in with everything else the city and everyone else decides to dump into our mailbox.

What would have worked is for a year to have an additional line on a person's sewer bill which basically read: "your bill under 2008 methodology." It should then have instructed an individual who thinks that bill is too high to contact the city. That would have gotten people's attention and it would have avoided this particular problem.

However, the city did not do that and people during one of the worst economic times in memory are having to deal with huge increases to their water bills until such time as they can bring it down. Where is the city's responsibility here to bridging that gap? Who is stepping up to make sure the public is not getting crippled at a time when the economy is in the tank? The answer is no one.

But in a lot of ways, the situation is worse than that. People who read this blog have a fairly good idea that worse is coming down the pike. But the general public does not know what is in store for them. The city is on the verge of approving two massive new projects involving our water--a new wastewater treatment plant and a new water supply diversion system.

The cost of these two projects unless something dramatically changes is going to be half a billion dollars. And really, I think that's just the tip of the iceberg. I think the cost is really going to be higher than the current estimates.

People with the change in methodology have gotten just a taste of what is really coming towards them. I have said this before, people wondered how I could support a $120 per year increase for Measure W. Frankly that's about $10 a month and the money goes for education. When these changes come down you are likely looking at no less than that increase PER MONTH to your water bill and the proceeds go to pay for city and private engineers to construct these two massive public works projects.

If you were worried about your finances with Measure W, that's nothing and it's a good investment into the future of our community. This is simply frightening.

What concerns me most is the lack of consideration of alternatives. Every time that a certain councilmember has raised these questions, it seems she is cut off.

Here is what we have been told:

1. The outflow water does not meet current standards.

Assuming that is true, what is the impact of a high selenium content on the environment and is that impact really worth the costs of a new wastewater treatment plant and a new water supply project.

2. The only solution is to find a new water source

Are there possible alternatives? Part of my concern here is that the same people who are advising the city and are experts on water are those who would stand to profit from a new water supply project.

3. If we do not act now on Sacramento River water, we will lose our place in line

This line has continually moved the project forward for the past decade with very little actual decision-making. We have basically created trajectory with no policy. But this is actually the crucial question.

Does the Sacramento River Water reduce the pollutant problem or does it merely shift it? Will the river be a reliable supply of water during drought years? Will we even get river water during the dry season of drought years?

There have been suggestions that they only open the spigot when the river is over a certain level and that the time of year when we are most likely to get water would be during winter months. Is this really the solution to our problems? Or are we kind of deluding ourselves?

We are going to invest a lot of money into this system, is it really going to give us water and is it water that we can afford? In other words, is this really the change that we need or should we not go to the drawing board and figure out possibly if there is another way?

I do not know the answers to these. What I would like to do though is to talk to people who are not financially invested in our decision. I do not think that is really too much to ask.

Do people like "Glen" know this is even under consideration? How would they respond? Are we going to end up pricing people right out of this city with the high utility bills and increasing tax burden, not to mention the cost of housing and everything else.

I hear people complain all the time about the cost of housing and attribute it to lack of growth in the last ten years, which is not necessarily borne out by data, but those same people seem unmoved by the potential 800-pound gorilla sitting in the back of the room. We need leadership and innovation on this issue. I don't want to hear industry buzzwords about "value engineering" and "cost reduction." I want to see real tough decision-making and thinking outside of the box that the consultants have already placed us into.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Mayor Flips on Measure N--Comes Out Against

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

She simply writes without explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Commentary: Going Negative Still Works... If you do it right

I was reading the Davis Enterprise post mortem on the Assembly campaign that they largely did not cover. I say that less as a means of boasting than true concern. It hit me on the Saturday before the election when the Yamada campaign was hosting a press conference in response to the "Latte Mailer" and the only press there was myself. Imagine being attacked, you do not have time to respond with your own mailer, and instead you have a press conference where the press does not show up. How do you get your message out?

As it turns out that slew of negative mailers did not help Ed Voice or Christopher Cabaldon. The public largely had either seen through it or tuned out by that point and Mariko Yamada won a narrow but surprising victory both in the pre-election absentee ballots and on election day itself.

Nevertheless, though we had no access to polls, it was easy to see that Cabaldon was comfortably ahead four weeks before the election. According to him that translated to a 14-point lead that felt to most of us like a 24-point lead.

And while Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning spends a good portion of his column yesterday complaining about the onslaught of ads in his mailbox--the ads by and large worked.

Did Cabaldon hit on too many mailers with help from the IEs? Probably. But as he pointed out to me, in Davis people were complaining about the quantity, in parts of Solano, they did not even know there was an election.

Most of the early Cabaldon pieces were positive ads, designed to sell the candidacy of Cabaldon. They were not primarily negative ads.

In the Enterprise article Cabaldon found the culprit by examining the polls.

"Cabaldon, on the other hand, said today he has reviewed polling that organizations did in the weeks leading up to the election and there is no doubt about what spoiled his lead: negative mailers."

It seems as soon as the negative ads came out, Cabaldon was thrown off-balance. Or at least his IEs were.

Bob Dunning makes a good point, the Farmer's Market ad was largely a good one, but there was one key mistake that people noted.

Dunning writes:

"Oh yeah, I forgot. Chris used the Farmers' Market as a backdrop for one of his TV ads where he tried to suggest to Davis voters that he was one of us with the closing words: 'But this is Davis and we're smarter than that.'

We? Does that suggest some sort of brotherhood between the citizens of Davis and candidate Cabaldon?"

Bob Dunning is correct here, anyone knows that Christopher Cabaldon is not from Davis and so when he says, "we're smarter than that," it rings hollow and sounds like pandering.

But the larger points that Bob Dunning makes are wrong. Was it nasty? Oh sure. But without the nasty Yamada IEs, she is not in the race. She does not win.

So here are the real lessons that you must learn from this race:

1. Too many positives mailers early by Cabaldon. It is nice that he was trumpeting himself, but you only need a handful, not multiple mailers each day.

2. Going negative works even when the issue is somewhat silly like the car boot. Or perhaps others were more offended by the car boot than I think.

3. Be the first one to go negative. Cabaldon was the second one in the fight and for some reason it always looks defensive when you respond.

4. Negative ads have to be simple. The Wal Mart ad was effective for the Yamada side because everyone understands the issue around Wal Mart. The Cabaldon response was too difficult to discuss. If you have to explain it, you lose. If someone says you take Wal Mart money and brought Wal Mart to West Sacramento, it is hard to response I actually was against it, but I voted for it due to legal issues, even though I have been bragging about redevelopment in West Sacramento and Wal Mart has come up as part of the redevelopment. Sorry, too long.

5. Negative ads can backfire. You cannot just make stuff up that sounds non-credible. Three of the attack ads by Ed Voice just made no sense--the pay raise, the Latte, and especially the Yolo County Housing Authority. As dumb as you think the electorate is, they seem to see through some of the ads.

Matt Rexroad was quoted in the article arguing that Mariko Yamada's personal precinct walking did not factor in. I tend to agree on that point. However, there is secondary point and that is that the unions had 250 people in the field on the weekend before and the day of the election. They did a better job of getting out their vote than Cabaldon who could only manage 100 people in the field during that time. And I think that does matter.

Bottom line folks, negative ads work but they are not a guarantee. They have to hit on vulnerabilities with the candidate. I just do not think that Yamada's vulnerabilities rested with her support of pay increases, spending on Latte program, or her handling of the Yolo County Housing Authority. Whereas Cabaldon did have apparent vulnerabilities with the perception that he seemed to think he was above the law and the perception that he was beholden to big developers and big box retail. Thus the Yamada IEs were more effective in the end, than Christopher Cabaldon's.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Political Facelift For Don Saylor

I was not going to write about this, but I was just reading one of Bob Dunning's columns this morning as I was waking up. Someone named Liz may or may not have written to Bob Dunning and he was responding. For those wondering, this column is not about Bob Dunning, but rather about this statement:

"'Yet someone like Don Saylor, who appears to be sane, thoughtful, pragmatic, courteous and fair, rarely gets mentioned. Is that because he is boring or you don't like him?'"

That led me to wonder when Don Saylor's perception became "sane, thoughtful, pragmatic, courteous and fair?"

This is a man whose reputation in this town was the exact opposite. It was nearly a year ago to the date that I first wrote the column: "Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse?"

I wonder has this man so thoroughly been able to re-write his image that in people's minds, he has become all of those above qualities? Gone now is the Don Saylor of old who was mean, nasty, and vindictive? Who would blow up at people on the street, berate people in that cool, measured voice? Do people really have no memories in political life or is it strictly a matter that no one is paying attention?

I am not going to regurgitate that whole column, but I do encourage people to read it, because it provides a lot of background into a variety of occurrences in Don Saylor's political life prior to him re-inventing himself as Mr. Civility in April of last year ahead of his reelection campaign.

Ask numerous people in this community including former elected officials and you will get a very different version of Don Saylor.

There are many examples I could go into, but most of them I have heard either off the record or second hand. However, there is one that stands out to me more than any other. It was May 23, 2006, the last city council campaign was wrapping up and Julie Saylor wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise. Now, far be it from me to attack an office holder's spouse, but let us just say there is no reasonable way that this letter was written by anyone other than Don Saylor. And even if it was, there is no way that Julie sent this without at least Don's permission or Don's knowledge but I suspect that he had far more involvement than that.

Anyway many of you who were around back then will undoubtedly remember this letter. It was vicious, it was unfair, and it was taken out of context. Anyone who knows Lamar Heystek knows that this young man has no misogynist bone in his body. And anyone who questions his maturity on the Davis City Council has not been watching--if anything he has been too mature. I reprint it in its entirety so that people might have the full effect and not accuse me of distorting the position of the Saylors.

"Shared values? I don't think so

Is it a brand-new sexist day in Davis? Stop reading Lamar Heystek 's campaign literature and read his own words in his weekly column in the UC Davis Aggie newspaper, www.californiaaggie.com (search: Lamar Heystek ).

Two choice quotes are: "Women like to be treated like dirt. The worse you treat them, the more they want you" (Jan. 24, 2006). And, " I'd enjoy a strategically placed hickey. Hell, I'd even settle for a cigarette burn near my groin. I'll take anything that could be construed as evidence of having 'been' with a girl" (Jan. 31, 2006).

Read his columns completely. These quotes are not more palatable in context and the entire body of work is short on wit and long on references to virginity and feminine products.

Lamar is a lecturer in linguistics at UC Davis. He should have a good grasp of the meaning and power of language, so don't let him spin his writing as "just kidding." Would you want to be taught and evaluated by a teacher who thought it was acceptable to write this in the student newspaper? I certainly don't want my son and daughter to think this is the behavior for a role model.

More important now for Davis voters, would you like a City Councilman who displays such lack of judgment and maturity? I have been bringing home the Tuesday edition of The Aggie for months, marveling each week that a council candidate is so foolish as to write this unacceptable misogynistic drivel week after week. But he does. And he does it even as he asks voters to elect him because of his commitment to social justice. This man running for council says "Trust me. We have shared values." I don't think so.

I recommend that Lamar Heystek get a decade or two distant from his Aggie column before anyone consider him a viable candidate for council. This is not a comment about chronological age. We need to choose candidates with the emotional maturity, balance, perspective and experience to serve our whole community.

Julie Saylor"

And if people want to argue that this happened during the heat of the battle, that's fine. You can make up your own mind about it or the people behind it. I'm just suggesting it is difficult for me to think of this man as "courteous" and "fair." There are several other examples that I enumerate in the other blog post from April 11, 2007, but this is the most graphic and the most blatant example.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: A Tale of Two Reconsiderations

Ordinarily in a given term you can count the number of reconsiderations on one hand. In fact, before Tuesday night, I can only remember one reconsideration the entire City Council term, that was a vote on a park survey, when Ruth Asmundson was absent and the vote would have been deadlocked on a $70,000 park survey until Councilmember Don Saylor strategically voted against it in order to be able to move for reconsideration. The parliamentary rule is that only a member who voted for the winning side can move for reconsideration.

However, on Tuesday night, the council voted not once but twice to reconsider votes--for very different reasons.

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

The first reconsideration was on the Sphere of Influence recommendation to LAFCO. As we reported on Tuesday, it became clear to us watching the meeting that the Davis City Council approach was indeed off. The City Council had voted to expand the Sphere of Influence (SOI) area mainly because they believed that the larger the area that they controlled, the better they would be able to prevent growth.

During the course of the LAFCO meeting it became obvious to all that expanding the size of the SOI would not grant Davis any added protection. Indeed Robert Ramming pointed out that the county's proposed study areas all occurred within the current SOI. At the same time, Supervisor Matt Rexroad pointed out that on the map these did not look like greenbelts and bike paths as Councilmember Souza hoped but rather like a development map.

From a legal standpoint the SOI is a map of urban usage and while Councilmember tried to argue that Greenbelts and bikepaths were urban usages for Davis, it was unconvincing. LAFCO has not operated as such. The SOI is an area for urban develop not a means to prevent growth traditionally.

The bottom line was and Councilmember Souza realized it during the course of the discussion on Monday, the ultimate impact of placement in the SOI might be the inclusion of a property in the general plan, that leads to speculative valuation of the property, and growth pressure. We may have no intention of growing today, five years from now, or even ten years from now, but we also have little control over the process down the line. In essence we may be starting a process that will actually lead to the opposite of what we intend.

As I spoke with members of the community and councilmembers after the Monday meeting, it was obvious to me that no one knew the consequences of placement in the SOI nor did they know exactly which way would offer more protection. Indeed I asked that very question at the LAFCO meeting and no one could answer it.

It became obvious that Davis' City Staff had done a poor job yet again of preparing the Davis City Council and it turned the process into almost a farce.

As Supervisor Matt Rexroad wrote on his blog following the meeting:

"The Davis City Council has requested to dramatically increase the area within their sphere of influence (SOI). They are doing this in an attempt to have greater control over development on their edge.

I actually want the City of Davis to have control of development on their urban edge. It makes sense to me. As a former Mayor I don't want (or need) the county telling me what I need to do. That is up to the City Council.

Here is the problem. If you increase the area within the SOI you are signaling that development is the desire for this area.

The reality os that Davis does not really want development in the area. They want to control any development in the area -- and probably kill development. That is their choice.

I want to let Davis have control of their boundary. I am just not sure that the request to LAFCO is sincere.

My deal is this -- If a city in Yolo County wants to annex land or increase their control of their edge I will work to make the deal happen. This request does not really appear to be that at all."

Throughout the meeting there were references to Davis doing things differently. For members of the Davis City Council, I believe that was a point of pride. For others it is a point of mockery. But at the end of the day it was former Davis Mayor Jerry Adler who made the essential point that Davis was trying to use the SOI as a growth-control device and it was never intended to be such. In fact, just the opposite. And while Davis can be Davis, from a legal standpoint, what Davis was hoping to do would not have worked.

Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza was correct to urge his colleagues to reconsider, he argued that point well, and they did by a 5-0 vote. It will come back for new consideration in early May right before the LAFCO meeting. I think that may be too long and it does not give them much room for error, but it was the right thing to do.

Davis Korean Church

I cannot say the same for the other move for reconsideration. This has to do with the remodel of the Korean Church in Davis. At a meeting just two weeks ago, the council had during the course of granting their conditional use permit, imposed a required of solar panels on the church--under the condition that if it was too burdensome to the church they could remove that imposition.

What followed was a political football that developed when a member of the church forwarded an email from the Mayor to Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning who picked up the football and ran with it as far as he could, fanning the flames on this issue and carrying the water of Councilmembers Souza and Saylor.

So Councilmember Don Saylor pulled the item off the consent calendar on Tuesday, moved to approve the second reading for remodel but at the same time moved for reconsideration on the solar panel requirement. The expressed reason was for clarification of what had been passed unanimously at the previous meeting.

As Councilmember Heystek pointed out, he knew full well what he was voting for at the time and saw no reason to reconsider it. Mayor Greenwald decried the fact that the council was reconsidering based on a newspaper columnist's opinion and also the fact that a councilmember had taken the issue to the newspaper columnist to begin with.

Indeed at the council meeting this Tuesday, Mayor Greenwald argued that the church had looked into the issue and the cost of the photovoltaics were less than the church members had originally feared. But the other point is that the cost consideration was actually placed into the original motion--and yet if you read the Bob Dunning columns, you would never have known that.

The observant reader would notice that in fact Bob Dunning had taken up the church's cause well before the meeting in mid-March--writing five columns about the church from mid-February up until the vote. Dunning's March 20, 2008 column tries to paint Sue Greenwald as the extremist and Don Saylor and Stephen Souza as the voices of reason.

But as Crilly Butler writes to the Davis Enterprise, Bob Dunning does not get all of his facts right nor does he paint a full and accurate picture in his March 20, 2008 column.

Writes Mr. Butler:

"First, considering the scope of this huge expansion project, the cost of solar panels will be tiny. The price he mentioned — $40,000 to $80,000 for 2 to 4 kW — is ridiculous. I'm considering a 3 kW installation for my own home and have been quoted about $17,000 after rebates.

And considering that the expansion was already going to be wired and framed for solar on its nicely pitched, unshaded, south-facing roof, it should be a slam dunk. Not to mention that the panels will pay for themselves within a few years, and after that, it'll be pure profit for the church ! Not bad for a modest investment in a green future, and certainly not the onerous "blindsided by city's solar experiment" that Dunning 's column suggests.

Secondly, Dunning implied that the church would be the city's "guinea pig" for solar requirements. The truth is, the City Council has included solar panels as a condition of several recent projects requiring zoning and General Plan amendments (just as in the case of the church project). I hope it will continue to do so in the future.

Thirdly, Greenwald mentioned that if the cost was impossible for the church to bear, she would be willing to consider modifying or even eliminating this requirement. Interesting that Dunning forgot to mention this.

If Greenwald's request was so inappropriate and unreasonable, why is it that her motion was passed unanimously by the entire council?"

Don Saylor suggests in Dunning's April 1, 2008 column:

"In short, I will need three votes to place this on a future agenda for discussion. I will make the case that it is a bad idea to impose this requirement at the last minute with no policy in place and no rational assessment of the need or benefit for this requirement for the specific project."

I am not opposed to having a universal requirement here, however, this is hardly the first time the council has made last minutes requirements for projects--it is within their power to do so, and there is a precedent for it with regards to solar panels. Both Mr. Saylor and Mr. Dunning would have a point here if the council had not placed into the requirement a provision that would allow reconsideration if the cost was prohibitive. The voice for reason angle is interesting but again distorts the fact that the original discussion and decision were not unreasonable.

I am sympathetic to the view that if costs are prohibitive to a non-profit such as a church, it should not be imposed on them--but then again, was that not already addressed in the original motion? The objection seemed to be that this was done last minute, but it was also clear that council not only had the right put this requirement in but had in fact done so in the past.

I do agree that the council needs to address the issue of energy efficiency and alternative energy sources overall. I think the model that Berkeley has set up--looking at subsidies for the use of solar--that could be paid off over time with energy savings is the way to go.

The city has set up a climate action team to look at such things, but we really do not need to reinvent as many wheels as we think we do. We ought to look at what is being done, adapt it to Davis and improve upon it first and then look toward new things.

Reconsideration in this case is a dangerous precedence and demonstrates how some of the avowed environmentalists can nevertheless be subject to heavy political pressure when an issue is taken up by political columnists.

At the original meeting, Councilmember Souza suggested that we ought not try to "out-green" each other, but at the same time, it seems clear that some members on this council will cave on issues under political pressure.

I see no reason that we needed to revisit this vote. The council had already put in a provision to reconsider if the photovoltaics proved to be too expensive. This was completely a political calculation rather than a policy move.

In the end, the council reconsidered two votes, the first one was a good move made by the council as a whole, the second one smacked of politics.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Vanguard Coverage of City Council Elections

When my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, announced last fall that she was considering a run for the Davis City Council, I believed that the only fair and reasonable course of action would be to not cover the Davis City Council race on the Vanguard. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that the Vanguard cannot afford to hire employees at this time and therefore finding good and reliable help has proven difficult.

As time has passed it has become clearer and clearer to me that the Vanguard needs to cover the Davis City Council race as an alternative voice to the Davis Enterprise. And while I might be biased and interested in the outcome of the City Council race—who isn’t? Who doesn’t have an agenda? I will simply lay mine on the line every time I discuss the council race and people can decide on their own whether what I have to say makes sense or whether it is political rhetoric.

But more than just that drives my concern. The policies set up by the Enterprise to cover this race—a highly important election that we face—are quite simply inadequate and unfair to the public who need to be able to make an informed decision come election time.

The Vanguard is planning to allow each of the candidates directly to submit one article per week to the Vanguard. This will allow the candidates to communicate directly with the public. It is the Vanguard’s hope that this will inspire community dialogue on a variety of topics. We are also working toward creating a reader-submitted questions for a candidates forum for later in the election.

Many in this community have become increasingly concerned with the tenor of the dialogue that has emerged in this city. They will point to the sometimes contentious city council meetings that at times erupt into personal and heated discord.

And yet in many ways, fueling that discord, indeed fanning it is Bob Dunning, a Davis Enterprise columnist. Bob Dunning has often made the claim that he has no politics and only desired good public people to target for ridicule. If that is true, then it is far more disturbing than if he simply had a political agenda. He fans the flames of discord, taking cheap shots when available. As one person told me, “The substance does not matter, only the neat-word fun you can make of people and get paid for it.”

Those who complain about civility in local politics ought to pay close attention to some of the current tactics employed by Bob Dunning.

The example of young candidate Sydney Vergis is a good one to illustrate the problem. It should be pointed out that Ms. Vergis is too closely affiliated with the developers for my taste, but that does not make the cheap shot, hit and run, and really uninformed rhetorical attack by Mr. Dunning any more appetizing.

Dunning writes:

“Vergis is just 25, younger than Lamar Heystek, but that hasn't stopped her from becoming a senior land use planner for Sutter County, which bumps into our esteemed county just as you hit rice country...

" Vergis said that in her job as a planner, she's working to preserve habitat in Sutter County," St. John's piece adds. "She also strives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through smart planning, she said, and would like to put her talent in action for Davis."

I presume she jogs to work in Sutter County, which is more than a few kilometers north as the crow flies. Or maybe she works from home.
...

" Vergis said she believes the Davis City Council should support alternative transportation such as bike rentals at automated kiosks near the Amtrak station."

Hey, maybe she can ride a rented bike to Sutter County.”

The gist of Mr. Dunning’s attack is that it would seem on the surface to be a bit hypocritical to be talking about reducing carbon footprints while commuting 45 miles each way to Sutter County. But as we have often noted with Bob Dunning, he never quite checks his facts. If he had, he would have found that Sydney Vergis actually carpools to work with others and therefore her individual contribution to the carbon emissions is greatly reduced.

More importantly, what purpose does this uninformed attack play in terms of public discourse? It does not give us additional insight into Sydney Vergis’ viewpoints. It is negative. It is an unnecessary potshot.

Again, I have no particular affinity with Sydney Vergis, but I also do not believe she deserves to be hung out on a rail over this issue by Bob Dunning.

This moves me to an additional point that I noted again in the last week. Much has been made of the Anonymous postings on the Vanguard. And yet in the past week, we have “Terry at pacbell.net,” “K.O. at yahoo.com,” “a church member named Sarah,” among others launching into attacks on various candidates. These are essentially anonymous attacks posted in the Davis Enterprise. Except of course, the individual targets do not have the opportunity to immediately respond as they would in the Vanguard. And if indeed, if they took the time to write in a 350 word response in the letters to the editor, that would be published a week later, they could be attacked again in a future Dunning column, with no opportunity to respond.

Again I ask does this aid in the public discourse? Does this help in changing the tone at City Hall? Or it is just fanning the flames and creating more attacks to which people cannot respond? Is there any benefit to the Davis Enterprise printing essentially private communications to their staff in their newspaper?

The Vanguard was created in July of 2006 because first of all I thought the progressive viewpoint did not get a fair hearing in the Davis Enterprise. But secondly, because I believe we as a community deserve better overall. We deserve to be able to hear all of the candidates perspectives on various issues. We deserve to be able to make up our own mind as to who serves our interests the best. We deserve to be able to have a public dialogue without the mudslinging from disinterested commentators who simply wish to fan the flames of resentment by pummeling easy targets. And when these targets are pummeled, they deserve the ability to be able to defend themselves in a reasonable manner.

This blog may be biased, this blog may criticize, this blog may investigate, but every single person who is the subject of this blog has the right to respond as they see fit.

There is a better way to do things, and the Vanguard wishes to lead the way.

The Vanguard wholeheartedly encourages all candidates to read all the material on the blog dealing with the race and to encourage them to comment as often as they see fit. This could lead to some pretty interesting political discussion for the community.

Let the candidates speak for themselves and the public can decide what they want to believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Densification Does Not Mean Ignoring Neighbors

It was an interesting experience on Thursday going to the last portion of the Housing Element Steering Committee meeting and listening to Chair Keven Wolf railing about the need for densification and demanding that the HESC include in its report language that instructs the council to ignore the pleas of neighbors for less densification and preserving neighborhood character.

Then I went home and read Bob Dunning who was whipping the neighbors of the Horse Ranch development proposal who live on Caravaggio, at least I think that's what we was doing, because suddenly almost in midstream he turned the whip on the City Council for packing the development like sardines.

Do we ignore the pleas of neighbors as shear NIMBYISM? Do we drive for denser and denser because that means we will be more compact and less sprawled? Or is there some middle ground here?

I understand and even appreciate some of the logic behind Kevin Wolf's densification drive. The idea here is that we protect the periphery of Davis, preserve the farmlands, and yet we still need to grow, at least in Kevin Wolf's world (which I don't mean derisively, just to say it's his world view, as opposed to say my own. On the other hand, I am about to use Mr. Wolf as a convenient foil here.).

The problem with Mr. Wolf's vision is that it is flawed and contradictory. He was a leading proponent of Covell Village. Covell Village was perhaps the antithesis of this vision. Whether or not we need to grow, and whether or not we need densification, Covell Village encroaches onto farm land, builds a large number of big homes, which means less density, and oh yeah, creates traffic problems at the corner of Poleline and Covell that leads to more, not less, emissions. In short, if carbon neutral is what you are going for, Covell is not the way to go.

But back to the densification issue at this point. I understand both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Dunning's concerns about density. I also understand their concern that the neighbors out of NIMBYISM are often going to oppose all new development on their own borders, adjacent to their neighborhood. That they will attempt to get the smallest and least dense project they can get for a variety of reasons.

At the same time, why the hell should they not? It is not like most of these people are wealthy people developing lots haphazardly. Most people who live in Davis have put their life's savings into buying their home, living in a nice community with a good quality of life. Why should they not fight to protect them?

And maybe we do not grant them veto power over projects, but the idea that they get no say, as Kevin Wolf suggests, that we instruct the City Council to ignore the pleas of neighbors, is shear arrogance on our part. They have the right to weigh in and be heard. The city council has the duty to take their views seriously as they are just as much a part of this city as anyone.

If we are concerned about the character of this city, don't they have the right to be concerned about the character of their neighborhood?

I do not see this as a Manichean struggle for good and evil. I do not think this needs to be a zero-sum game where someone wins and someone loses.

As someone else pointed out on Thursday, look we can have a dense project in a high rise but as long as we surround it with open space it is not going to be a problem.

That gets me to the next point. We need to talk about densification. We need to listen to the neighbors. But at the end of the day, there is no reason why we cannot build highly dense developments that maintain the nature and character of the adjacent neighborhood. At the end of the day, the neighborhood should fit like a zig saw puzzle, interlocking into the existing landscape, while at the same time looking to maximize both density, open space, greenbelts, etc.

And those are not antithetical views. They are not in contradiction to each other. The problem is that we have allowed our planning to become complacent and lazy. And we also need to understand that we do not fix densification issues by jamming people together into the new developments. That doesn't fix the issues of sprawl. If we do this, we will be looking like little Manhattan.

Finally the biggest question we need to answer is not how dense we are to become, it is not how dense we should make it, but rather how much we ought to grow and how fast. Everyone talks about fair share growth. A city of Davis' size should not be forced to become a city of 100,000 or 120,000 people. That's not fair share of growth, that's allowing certain interests to turn this city into something it is not. There many other cities with the infrastructure and the drive to take on more growth than we do.

However, that point aside, at the end of the day we cannot simply ignore the cries of neighbors. They have bought into a promise of this city. They invested in the fact that we have safe streets. They invested in the fact that we have good schools. They invested in the character and the quality of life in Davis. In fact, they overpaid -most likely- for those features. So if we are about to pull the rug out from under them and change the landscape of their investment, do we not at least owe it to them to hear them out?

When I hear it said that we ought to direct the council to ignore complaints of neighbors it makes me very nervous, because as soon as we become arrogant enough to ignore one group of people, we begin to ignore all. And then, we cease to be a democracy.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 3rd biggest story: Superintendent David Murphy gets fired.

On March 1, 2007, the Community Chambers was packed in anticipation of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force Report which was expected to recommend the closing of Valley Oak Elementary School. However, before this would happen, the very foundations of the community would be rocked by a very surprising announcement, with just a year to go on his contract Superintendent David Murphy announced he would be stepping down effective July and retiring.

In part of a statement to the board, he read:

“Since February 1, when I turned 60, my wife Robbie and I have been discussing what would be best for our family and with our life... It is now an appropriate time for me to conclude a wonderful era of 35 years of public service and spend more time with my family while we are all healthy and happy.”

At the time we would write:

"Longtime Superintendent David Murphy of the Davis Joint Unified School District stole the show last night with a surprise announcement that he was stepping down effective July. Citing family needs and personal changes, Superintendent Murphy said that the District would immediately appoint an acting Superintendent to aid in the transition and he would work with that individual as the Board sought a new full-time Superintendent.

While Murphy was heavily praised at this meeting, he has long been a source of great controversy both within the school district and in the community as a whole. It is no secret that the majority of school board members were not happy with his performance, however their hands were largely tied by an extension granted by a previous board on their way out."

Quickly it would become clear that this was no voluntary retirement. Voluntary retirements do not have large severance pay associated.

It was really former school board member Joan Sallee who spilled the beans when she told the Davis Enterprise:

“I was deeply saddened to hear of Murphy’s retirement. ... I am very sorry that the current school board did not see fit to retain his services. The district has suffered a grievous loss, at a time when we can least afford it.”

As the Vanguard speculated at the time:

"This has been a tumultuous year for the school district with a number of different financial scandals. In November of 2006, the board halted construction on a new King High School building. Allegations were made at that time by Board Member Jim Provenza that "shoddy practices in the business office have cost us" money on the project. He further said, "I'm happy we have a new chief budget officer (Colby) and (we're) cleaning up the mess we've had in the past.

Earlier this month the project was re-approved with money from redevelopment funds. Board member Tim Taylor cast the lone, "no" vote and he too made allegations about irregularities in board money use. "For me, the issue is some financially funky stuff that's gone on to get us to this point. It has absolutely nothing to do with King High."

Another scandal in the last year was the Total School Solutions scandal which led to the resignation of a number of administrators. Total Schools Solutions is a Fairfield-based firm run by Tahir Ahad, who served as deputy superintendent for business services for the Davis School District from 1999 through May. Employees who worked at Total School Solutions while at the same time working for the school district were perceived to have a conflict of interest and this led to new conflict of interest regulations within the school district requiring disclosure of other employers that school district employees work for. At one point, the employees at Total School Solutions were largely made up of administrators from Davis Joint Unified who were simultaneously on the both payrolls."

This is but the tip of the iceberg as we shall find out this coming year. However it was clear at the time that the current board was angry having been saddled with a three year last second contract extension by the previous board.

"The previous board was fiercely loyal to Superintendent Murphy and his staff. In fact, on their way out, one of their last actions before new members Gina Daleiden, Tim Taylor, and Sheila Allen took over was to extend Murphy's contract until July 31, 2008, which had for all intents and purposes tied the hands of the new school board. Something that deeply upset several of the members of the current board."

Within a week, the board would announce their interim replacement, Richard Whitmore. Controversy would arise due to the fact that David Murphy would be receiving severance pay at the same time the board was paying a new superintendent.

"The Davis Enterprise reported last night that "recently resigned" Superintendent David Murphy will continue to receive his salary until mid 2008 (when his contract would have expired). The district would pay Murphy approximately $225,000.

A week ago, Superintendent David Murphy surprised many in the community by announcing his retirement. Already the Davis Enterprise is calling it a "resignation."

This represents mounting evidence however that Murphy was in fact involuntarily terminated. One would not receive a settlement package for merely retiring or even resigning. This arrangement pretty much confirms our suggestion last Sunday that Murphy was in fact fired.

According to the Davis Enterprise:

"Over the coming three months, ending May 31, Murphy will “focus his efforts on mutually agreed-upon duties,” including completion of a reference manual outlining the superintendent’s duties and responsibilties (sic). Murphy also will use accrued vacation time."

A couple of points that need to clarified. First, the District is paying David Murphy $225,000 of taxpayer money not to work. That is a pretty strong statement there.

Second, we need to remind the public that it was the outgoing school board with BJ Kline, Joan Sallee, and Marty West that as one of their last acts, decided to extend the contract of David Murphy and made it extremely difficult for the incoming school board to terminate an employee that they believed was doing a poor job. Those members cost the Davis taxpayers and perhaps the students a tremendous amount."

This of course, in a city like Davis spawned controversy and letters to the editor.

George Warner writes:

Let's see if I have this straight. We're paying one school superintendent $168,000 for an $80,000 job and another $235,000 for sitting on his hands for a year or so.

Barbara Wochok writes:

Under a "complex settlement," nearly $300,000 in taxpayer dollars will support two superintendents during one year. One will be housed at the district office, one not.

Obviously, administrators matter more than students at Valley Oak. Taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars. Once again the money goes to the top, not to the classroom. How sad!

My perspective at time is that the school district had little choice but to do this, even if it meant biting a small financial bullet with a one-time severance payment.

As I wrote at the time:

What would be nice is if the local paper instead of writing editorials about how much we will miss David Murphy, actually reported the truth about what Murphy did and why he was likely fired. We have talked about the King High debacle here several times, but do these people understand that the district lost nearly $5 million in matching funds because it failed to meet deadlines? A fact that was buried in a paragraph near the end of the editorial on Sunday. Let's see five million versus $200,000. Hmmm.... Someone want to do the math here.

Mr. Whitmore earned high praise from Board President Jim Provenza and Former State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Delaine Eastin.

Board President Jim Provenza called Whitmore, “a leader who excels in managing both the education of children and business and financial operations that are so crucial to school districts.”

Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin speaks very highly of Mr. Whitmore. According to The Davis Enterprise:

During his years with the state, Whitmore worked closely with then-Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, a Davis resident who attended Monday night’s meeting of the Davis school board. Eastin called Whitmore “an inspired choice for interim superintendent” in Davis, and added, “I can think of no finer education leader.”

“His extraordinary intelligence, integrity and administrative skills will serve this great district very well indeed,” Eastin said. “Richard will work closely with his board and his staff, keeping them engaged and well-informed.”

Meanwhile the Davis Enterprise did not hesitate to lavish praise on the departed Superintendent.

Columnist Bob Dunning wrote that the "town owes Murphy a standing ovation."

"Like most superintendents, David Murphy had his supporters and his detractors … it comes with the territory … it would be impossible to be a superintendent of schools in Davis and make hard decisions without someone taking a shot at you, including the local daily columnist …"

"Yes, I've had a few disagreements with David Murphy during his tenure here, but none that made me question his integrity, his dedication or his desire to make the Davis district the best it could be "

Richard Whitmore would oversee a tumultuous time for the school board, one of his first meetings in fact was the decision to close Valley Oak.

On August 22, 2007, the school board announced the hiring of a new superintendent, James Hammond.

Board President Jim Provenza:

"The Board is pleased that Dr. Hammond has accepted the offer to lead our oustanding schools to new levels of excellence and achievement... Throughout his career as a teacher, coach, principal and superintendent Dr. Hammond has demonstrated intelligent and inspiring leadership, and a deep passion for well being and academic achievement of all students, including those who are struggling to succeed. He is a rising star in public school administration. We are lucky to have him."

This was one decision where all five members of the board enthusiastically backed:

"Davis Board member Gina Daleiden expressed confidence that Dr. Hammond is the right leader for the Davis schools.

"Our extensive conversations with Tukwila school, parent, and community leaders revealed that Dr. Hammond is widely regarded as an extraordinary leader. Colleagues describe him as courageous in his decisions, and have enormous respect for his superb communications and managerial skills.”

Board Member Sheila Allen, who later was downright giddy added:

“The Tukwila staff emphasized that Dr Hammond fosters a culture of collaboration and teamwork that brings out the best in people. His enthusiasm and energy are contagious!”

Board Member Tim Taylor:

“Dr. Hammond has the extensive experience and proven leadership qualities our board desired in a new superintendent. He also has a genuine affection for students, and in return has their trust and admiration. It’s a pleasure to welcome him to the Davis Joint Unified School District.”

Board Member Keltie Jones:

“I am delighted with Dr. Hammond’s appointment. He brings a fresh level of energy and creativity to our district.” "

The Vanguard caught up with the new superintendent that evening:

For his part, the new superintendent seems excited but a bit overwhelmed.

"Just a little sense of being overwhelmed but at the same time very excited. From my initial interactions, just an exciting dynamic community. People value the schools. People value the kids. The quality of education, so it's just an exciting time for me personally."

Overall, it was an extremely eventful year for the school district. For good measure, Dr. Hammond already had to step in defuse a brewing battle between the district and the supporters of the Valley Oak Charter School.

Furthermore it seems that supporters of David Murphy, particularly former board members Joan Sallee and Marty West went out of their way to dredge up past controversies. In an op-ed, they accused the current board of fiscal mismanagement. As most will see in the coming weeks, the problem rests not with the current board but with the past board and the superintendent. (See the Vanguard's follow up as well).

For all of this, the firing of David Murphy is the third biggest Vanguard story of 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sights and Thoughts from Election Night

A few thoughts about the school board race. Back when the slate of candidates were finalized, I handicapped this race in the exact order that it ended up finishing. What that tells me is that the campaigns had very little impact on the final outcome. Rather it was all based on networks, contacts, and prior perceptions. The candidate who won did little to harm themselves and those who finished third and fourth did not do nearly enough to change the dynamics of the race when they entered.

That's kind of the bottom line. When you have a low profile race, and you are likely entering as the underdog, you need to radically change the dynamics and neither Bob Schelen nor Joe Spector were able to do this.

Some suggested that this was some sort of repudiation of the progressives, I do not see it that way. I think the city council is the venue where progressives assert themselves. A repudiation of progressives would be a continuation of the current council. That is a story to be written in June of 2008 not November of 2007.

An interesting observation came from Davis Columnist Bob Dunning last night:

"BY THE NUMBERS … no matter what the above percentages say about the candidates and their respective levels of support, a more accurate picture forms when you run the raw numbers that show Lovenburg received 6,806 votes of the 11,518 cast, which comes out to a mandate-like 59.1 percent … she was the only one of the four to be mentioned on more than half the ballots …"

That is a good way of looking at it that some times gets overlooked when you have two votes in a given election. On the other hand you have to wonder what her mandate is (granted he said mandate-like). I am not certain I really know what she was elected to do in terms that we generally think of as a mandate.

Susan Lovenburg did send us a statement after her victory:

"I’m pleased to have experienced broad-based support throughout the Davis community. I look forward to serving with Richard Harris, and with continuing Trustees Sheila Allen, Gina Daleiden, and Tim Taylor.

I acknowledge the efforts of Bob Schelen and Joe Spector during the campaign, and thank them for their willingness to serve our District.

I’d also like to thank Interim Superintendent Richard Whitmore for his efforts on our behalf, and enthusiastically welcome new superintendent, James Hammond. Together with a community that actively supports children and their education, we will meet the challenges that lie ahead."

My hope is in the coming weeks to do full stories on Susan Lovenburg, Richard Harris, and James Hammond, the new superintendent who was sworn in last night.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Analysis: Clear Choices for Davis Voters on Valley Oak in School Board Election

Back on October 19, 2007, ironically the same day that the Davis Enterprise ran a front page story detailing envelope stuffing in the classroom, Bob Dunning in his column declared, "Valley Oak the biggest issue in schools race."

There is no doubt that this blog has devoted considerable time to covering Valley Oak. Indeed, if we look at the labels (along the side bar of the People's Vanguard of Davis blog) we notice that Valley Oak has 46 mentions. That is just more than the Yolo County General Plan (43) and just under Target (48).

Whether that makes it the most important issue overall in Davis facing the schools is debatable, but one thing about the issue of Valley Oak, is that it is one of the very few issues in which you can see clear and distinct lines between the candidates on the issue of Valley Oak. Listening to candidates debates, there was a sense that the differences between these candidates were simply in their real world experiences.

However, the Valley Oak issue, is different. The Valley Oak charter school process is moving on. They are currently circulating a petition to establish a starter school.

The school will be founded on three pillars:

• the maintenance of a successful neighborhood program

• a system of cooperative school governance that encourages innovation, effectiveness and efficiency

• the utilization of education technology for bridging the digital divide for students and their families

According to a recent release:

"We are asking parents who are 'meaningfully interested' in having their children attend the school described in the charter to sign the petition. If you are one of those parents, or know a parent who may be interested, petitions will be available to sign at a number of locations. "

"Petitions can also be found at tables at Valley Oak Elementary near the bike racks and MPR during the week of Monday, October 29th through Friday, November 2nd (Conference Week) from 8 to 9 a.m. and from 1:30 to 5 p.m."

The full charter is available here.

The Valley Oak Charter School is an issue that strongly divides the candidates.

Joe Spector who has extensively campaigned on keeping Valley Oak open, strongly supports the charter initiative.

He was recently quoted in the Davis Enterprise:

"The charter school is forward-looking in its development of a magnet school program for career/technology... The charter school provides educational opportunity for the neighborhood students. The school presents an attractive education alternative for parents who live nearby, or work in our community. So we are likely to bring new students to our district who can benefit from our programs and help create district enrollment growth... [The Valley Oak staff] is highly dedicated and successful in teaching and addressing all students' issues, including English language learners, GATE (Gifted And Talented Education), and special education."

Bob Schelen has said that keeping Valley Oak open was one of the reasons he got into the school board race to begin with.

Back in August, Mr. Schelen told the Vanguard:

"I think that the closing of Valley was a mistake. I think that it should have stayed open. It’s the only elementary school in the core area or the downtown area and it has a strong historical significance."

He added:

"I think the idea of a charter school is an excellent one and it’s very unique to have a teacher’s association anywhere in the state support the idea of charter schools. They’re very controversial and with good reason. However, in this case, the Davis Teacher’s Association is looking to put together the proposal for the charter school. When you have the teacher’s association saying this is what we want to do—then that idea excites me. And I would work as hard as I could to find a way that we could do the charter school..."

Richard Harris has expressed concerns about a Charter at Valley Oak. He stopped short in the recent Davis Enterprise of out right opposing it.

"The burden of proof is on the charter school proponents to show how the school district's budget and programs will not be negatively impacted by opening a charter school."

"I take very seriously the responsibility to look at the specific proposal and assess its fiscal and program impacts on the district as a whole... To do any less is an abdication of the fiduciary responsibility of a board of education trustee.

"The troubling factor is the charter school adoption process itself. The community is being forced into a discussion and decision on the creation of a new magnet school through the very narrow lens and timetable of this singular proposal driven by one small group of parents and teachers.

"As a board member, I'll always welcome the opportunity to discuss creation of magnet schools or innovative programs to serve varying student interests or educational goals, but this current process feels like a shotgun marriage."

Finally, Susan Lovenburg supported the decision to close Valley Oak made by the Best Uses of Schools Task Force.

She told us in August:

"I closely followed the work of the Best Uses of Schools Task Force and publicly supported their recommendation to close Valley Oak as a K-6 campus. Though I initially sought to maintain nine campuses, I came to believe that the decision to close best serves the students of Valley Oak and the District as a whole, not just financially but educationally. It was a heart-wrenching and difficult decision for me as an individual, for the Task Force, and for the Board - and I understand that it is one the families of Valley Oak find difficult to accept - but it has been made and it is time to look forward."

On the Charter issue she seems supportive of charter schools in general.

On the Valley Oak charter school, she told us in August:

"With regard to the proposed charter school, legislation requires that a well-written charter with a good educational plan, sound finances, and commitment from sufficient teachers and families with students to participate, must be approved by the Board. It is my hope that the planners of the charter school are looking carefully at new approaches and new strategies for addressing the needs of low socioeconomic income and English Language Learners, rather than simply trying to preserve the existing Valley Oak program."

She more recently told the Davis Enterprise:

"Organizers of the Valley Oak charter program are preparing a petition that must include a sound educational program, a plan for successful implementation which includes measurable student outcomes, and signatures from parents interested in having their students attend... This petition will be submitted to the district, and staff will evaluate its merits prior to submission to the school board for consideration. If approved, the district will have continuing oversight of the charter school."

"I will work with district staff and charter petitioners to understand the goals of the charter school and its potential relationship to the district, both programmatically and financially, and do my best to see that the charter school realizes its own potential by successfully serving our students."

From these statements there seems to be key differences between the candidates on the issue of Valley Oak and the continuing issue of whether it should stay open. The voters of Davis have a clear choice depending on where they stand on the issue of Valley Oak.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting